…I respected the hëll out of George W. Bush.
Really. No kidding. When he stated in an interview “I don’t think we can win” the war on terror, I was staggered. Because he was right, and because he was honest, and because he was making a reasoned evaluation of something that anyone with two licks of sense could have told him.
The “let’s declare war on something” mentality reduces complex issues to stark black and white terms that can’t begin to encompass the reality of the situation. And when Bush fessed up that the war on terror was, in essence, no more “winnable” than the war on drugs or the war on poverty, I thought, Wow. Okay. Maybe he’s really learning. Maybe he really is capable of growth in a way that his fixed “stay the course” mentality would make you think he’s not.
And the Democrats went to town comparing terrorism to the Soviet Union which, by the way, self-destructed, and the fall of Communism which, last I checked, is still around. And I thought, “That’s just stupid. This is another of those embarrassed-to-be-a-Democrat moments. How can they pounce on him when he’s so indisputably RIGHT?”
So what happened? Bush flip flopped. Suddenly the war on terrorism IS winnable, yes siree, don’t you believe anything else.
Oh well. Back to status quo.
PAD
• 
I am simply pointing out that my sister procreated, sso she should, by your argument, be allowed to marry.
My argument included the point that to marry, the parties involved must be one of both genders. I never said that procreation alone was a reason to allow one to marry. I don’t even think that of heterosexual couples.
Forcing someone to enter into a relationship by your standards, be they religious or otherwise is not the American way.
We force people to prove they can drive a car before we give them a license. We force them to get insurance. Don’t tell me it’s not the American way.
>Most experts say that is the ideal situation for a child for one thing, and I favor putting as many children in that situation as possible.
Ah, yes; “most experts” does an awful lot of talking.
>And childless heterosexual couples would most likely opt for natural means if they could.
I’m sure many homosexual couples wish they didn’t have to use surrogates or cut through red tape.
>My bad. I wrongfully assumed that you had simply misspelled “ascent”, which is why it threw me.
Oh, ok. Sorry for the confusion.
>Another technicality. You can agree to something and not know what it is you’re agreeing to. UNDER THE LAW, the question is will you be held accountable?
I would hope not. What does this have to do with the current discussion?
>So the law is only good if you agree with it?
Well, yeah; I think the long history of bad laws in the world makes that obvious. Well, not just “if I agree with it,” but if it serves a valid purpose based on my philosophy.
This does not mean that I encourage the breaking of laws, but the tradition of civil disobedience is a long one.
>Without repeating myself, (besides which I’m getting tired) I think I’ve answered most of your questions.
If you want to stop, just say so; having this discussion isn’t live-or-die for me. Besides, classes start tomorrow, and I really should sleep. 🙂
>Now why don’t you enumerate your reasons for allowing gay marriage and or adoption?
I believe that “marriage,” as modern society understands it, is more an expression of love and commitment than a means to the end of child-rearing.
Consequently, it should be open to allow who desire it, regardless of whether they can bear children, or want to do so.
As for adoption, I believe that any two (or one, or three) individuals who wish to adopt a child, and can prove themselves emotionally and financially able to do so, ought to have that right. I don’t mind giving preference to married couples, but in my (liberal dreamworld) scenario, couples might be gay or straight.
>>Forcing someone to enter into a relationship by your standards, be they religious or otherwise is not the American way.
>We force people to prove they can drive a car before we give them a license. We force them to get insurance. Don’t tell me it’s not the American way.
Because otherwise, they represent a serious danger to themselves and to others. Is that true here?
Jerome,
Yes, that Bill Mulligan and I agree on something is strange. But it also proves that no party can be all things to all people. I wish they would stop trying. I would love instant run-off so we could all really vote for the person we really want to win. Maybe someday…
Social changes may be slow, but inevitable. At one point in time no politician would come out for equal rights for African Americans. And the only way to get change is to “overreach”.
I like Bill CLinton, but was against many of the things he signed into law. I’ve said that before and will likely say it again. The bill you cited, NAFTA, welfare reform, dropping healthcare… well, he certainly wasn’t perfect.
EClark,
(Me)Forcing someone to enter into a relationship by your standards, be they religious or otherwise is not the American way.
(You)We force people to prove they can drive a car before we give them a license. We force them to get insurance. Don’t tell me it’s not the American way.
ME We do not force people to drive. If they choose to drive, there are laws in place to make sure they do not harm others by learning to drive. There are also laws in place to take care of people and property (insurance) in case of an accident.
Are you seriously comparing love between two people to driving a car?
There isn’t enough love in this world. If two people wish to commit to each other, it should be no ones business but their own. Laws are in place to prevent harm to others, whether physical, mental, or financial. This is an unneccessary attempt to legislate something that harms no one.
eclark:
>>>But what makes you think I don’t like gay people? What because I think it’s a sin? Big deal. I know lots of people who sin, I don’t hate them either. Heck, I’m sure I’m doing SOMETHING that can be considered a sin. My deal on sins is this, I only have to take responsibility for my own. Unless what you’re doing affects me somehow, I really don’t care. But you don’t get around a sin by making it legal. You can steal and kill legally, but it doesn’t make it right.
>>Which is exactly why there is supposed to be separation of church and state. What you call sin is subjective, infringes on your rights in no way, and “sin” should not be a consideration when looking at legislature. Stealing and killing takes away from others and so the fact that they are a sin per say, is really a moot point.
>Fred, you’re assuming things about my argument. My argument has never been about the fact that I consider homosexuality to be a sin. My argument has been solely about the purpose of marriage. That I also consider it to be a sin is irrelevant to my argument. But I admit it makes a nice distraction because if people say that it is the core of my argument enough times, no matter how many times I deny it people will start believing it.
I made no assumptions as I responded directly to your statement. Comparing it to stealing and killing may have thrown a few of us off. It certainly was a nice distraction for me. *Not unlike that shiny icicles that mom used to hang on the Christmas tree.* 🙂
“Come on, Peter. While synonymus, a “right” is not interchangeable with a “privilege” . A “right ” is something due to you by tradition or law. A “privilege” is something that’s allowed or earned through merit or eligibility. Neither of which fits the gay marriage debate without some “friendly” persuasion.”
I didn’t say they were interchangeable. I said a right is something to which you are entitled. What makes it a privilege is if someone can take it away from you because you’ve abused it. If gays are willing to make the exact same promises, take the same vows, as heteros, then they are de facto not abusing the right of marriage and therefore cannot and should not be denied it. As opposed to, say, a driver’s license, which you have a right to possess but can be revoked if you abuse it.
But privileges can be revoked only because of actions a person takes, not because of what the person is.
“Marriage also has rules that say people must meet certain criteria to be eligible to enter into this particular type of contract.”
Rules are made by humans. Rules can and should change. And marriage has been a constantly changing institution since its inception. Unless you think that the rules of marriage indicating that women became their husband’s property and that blacks couldn’t marry whites should still be in force.
“You postulate the equivalent of a rape situation and try to argue that it’s analogous when it’s not.
Uh-huh. When the hëll did I postulate that?”
When you put forward the theory that if marriage was a right, then no one could refuse it. They were obligated to marry someone whether they wanted to or not.
“Nice try, but as I already pointed out , you don’t have to do anything to have a right. Most of them are spelled out for us somewhere in the law or Constitution. Privileges are generally earned through merit or eligibility. Since marriage isn’t “merit-based”, and gays don’t meet the eligibilty requirements, I.e. one of each gender, it’s hard to call it disenfrachisement or discrimination. After all, it’s not that they can’t abide by the requirements, they just don’t want to.”
You don’t have to do anything to earn a right? I cannot believe you said something so easily blown to hëll and gone. Blacks needed to do nothing to earn civil rights? Women needed to do nothing to get the right to vote? These rights have always been around and were just automatically accorded? You do, however, underscore your fundamental lack of comprehension about homosexuality. “They just don’t want to.” You refuse to believe that people are gay because of their genetic wiring. They just decided to be gay. Your attitude appears to be that since they made this “decision” that’s out of line with your belief of what marriage should be, they shouldn’t be rewarded for making the decision. Instead, if they want to get married, they should find a nice person of the opposite sex, just as if they want to own a house, they should find something affordable.
You’re wrong.
“Because they’re gay, that’s why. It’s prejudice and discrimination, pure and simple. Worried about the institution of marriage crumbling? Divorce is doing far more to damage marriage than gays. Let’s outlaw divorce.
That’s just as stupid as saying let’s legalize everything and we’ll get rid of all crime.”
Bingo. Yes. Exactly. It is stupid. And I said it to underscore the stupidity of those who claim that gay marriage is going to ruin matrimony in this country.
“So you’re saying there should be NO requirements to marriage, including age, mental condition or ability, relationship, or even numbers?”
No, but I’m willing to say that you have zero comprehension of contract law. Either that or you’re just providing deliberately obtuse arguments. Contracts must be agreed to by parties who have reached the legal age of consent or else it’s not binding. So age is a factor. Parties agreeing to a contract must possess the faculties to understand the contract they’re entering into. So mental condition or ability to understand what’s going on is a factor. Number? Contracts are generally between two parties. If it could be made to work for multiple partners, sure, I guess. Why not? As for relationships…sure, you’d have to allow it. After all, if first cousins couldn’t marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?
Heh.
PAD
Karen,
I think “instant runoff” is NOT the way to go. A true movement to create a new party that truly challenges the duopoly we have now takes time and commitment. As Michael Moore says in “Stupid White Men”, the Democrats have essentially been D.O.A. for a long time. But as long as the mentality exists that, “Well, know my candidate is full of šhìŧ and is basically going to screw me, but the other guy is worse, and I don’t want to waste my vote” nothing will change.
For example, a huge reason conservatives were angry at Bush the Father was because they felt he lied to them, not only about taxes but on abortion. he did the whole “I believe in a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion” thng in front of pro-life crowds, and then, when he got in, he did not appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Many pro-lifers stayed home in ’92 as a result, or decided to vote for Perot in protest. Combine that with breakng his “no new taxes” pledge and not doing anything about entitlements, he really left an openng for someone like Perot to sound fiscaly conservative in comparison and entice conservatives by stressing the need to balance the budget and reduce the national deficit. As a result, 2/3 of Perot’s impressive (19%) vote total were people who would normally vote Republican. As a result of that realization that beng too “moderate” had cost them, and having Perot put the deficit issue in the spotlight, Republicans went back to their roots and ran on the Contract With America in 1994 and won the House for the first time in 40 years, something thought would never happen
What I’m saying, is that by votng for third-party candidates, if you really believe in them, you will help bring about change, and it may happen sooner than you think. If Nader were to get 10% of the vote, which definitely won’t happen this time, then the democrats would be forced to go back to their liberal roots a bit. With IROs, chances are the second choice would be Democrats, so they wouldn’t really give a dámņ because they would win anyway.
Vote FOR somebody Karen. I am.
Very nice dig. I’m sure you’ll catch hëll for it, but I was highly amused…
My last comment was directed toward PAD.
Jerome,
I AM voting for someone. I believe in Kerry and want very much for him to win. I also think the 2 parties have a stranglehold on the elections and many voices are drowned out with all the money that gets thrown at the Dems and Reps. Don’t assume that because I think we need to shake up the system that my vote is for the lesser of two evils. I saw John Kerry speak in person in Everett, WA. My daughter got to shake his hand. For the record, KERRY FOR PRESIDENT!
Oh yes, dámņ, took me a bit to get back to this. It was snotrag Karen, I got so hepped up about people messing with PAD’s family. I don’t agree with his politics but when I found out I was going to see him at Dreamcon back in June (jeez, was it that long ago?!), I had to cull all my stuff, I originally put together a huge Tupperware storage tub (the size you could wash a good-sized dog in) and 2 short boxes of comics to get signed. So, instead, I got my King Arthur, my fave Hulk comics and most of my Treks signed. Forget Bush, Kerry, vote for Peter David and buy more books! : D
“As for relationships…sure, you’d have to allow it. After all, if first cousins couldn’t marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?”
See, THIS is why your mom and I don’t want you hanging out with that Ellison boy…
Bill:
>>”As for relationships…sure, you’d have to allow it. After all, if first cousins couldn’t marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?”
>See, THIS is why your mom and I don’t want you hanging out with that Ellison boy…
Ellison’s parents are first cousins?!?!?!
“After all, if first cousins couldn’t marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?”
See, you beg for sympathy from all of the attacks you get and then you go and make attacks on those who disagree with you.
To suggest that those of us who vote for Bush are in-bred is harshly insulting.
And let’s be honest, those into in-breeding are going to vote for the left because the left is all for not ‘regulating the bedroom.’
Oh thanks Fred, sic harlan on me. Watch me wake up in bed with the severed head of me.
Bill>
>Oh thanks Fred, sic harlan on me. Watch me wake up in bed with the severed head of me.
Well Bill, as I originally hail from Vermont, I had to do something to distract from my own lineage. 😉
“After all, if first cousins couldn’t marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?”
So you’re saying we have the West Virginia vote locked up? Booyah!
You don’t have to do anything to earn a right? I cannot believe you said something so easily blown to hëll and gone. Blacks needed to do nothing to earn civil rights? Women needed to do nothing to get the right to vote? These rights have always been around and were just automatically accorded?
That’s a bogus argument. By your argument, most of the people in this country who haven’t either served in the army, or immigrated to this country have done nothing to earn the rights they have. Sure, Blacks and women had to fight ro have their rights honored, but those rights were due to them by the Constitution. But yes, they were being denied those rights.
You do, however, underscore your fundamental lack of comprehension about homosexuality. “They just don’t want to.” You refuse to believe that people are gay because of their genetic wiring. They just decided to be gay.
I never said they made a decision of any kind. I merely said that gay people don’t want to marry someone of of the opposite gender. I would think that would be pretty much obvious. How you make the leap from that statement to “fundamental lack of homosexuality” is a feat the Hulk would envy.
Your attitude appears to be that since they made this “decision” that’s out of line with your belief of what marriage should be, they shouldn’t be rewarded for making the decision. Instead, if they want to get married, they should find a nice person of the opposite sex, just as if they want to own a house, they should find something affordable.
Come on PAD, stop making stuff up. I know you’re a good writer, but geez man! What was that a post or two back you said? Oh yeah, “I respect people who don’t fabricate positions for me and attack them… I suggest you follow your own advice.
No, but I’m willing to say that you have zero comprehension of contract law.
And as usual, when you make assumptions about me, you’re wrong.
Either that or you’re just providing deliberately obtuse arguments.
People are asking me for MY opinion and what I believe and what I would like to happen, If you don’t want to know don’t ask me. If you want to know what the law says, you can pose a direct question and I’ll answer it to the best of my ability, or I know where I can find the answer.
Hëll, if my opinon shaped reality, the human race would be about one year from extinction right now. I think God made a mistake letting Noah in on his plans.
Contracts must be agreed to by parties who have reached the legal age of consent or else it’s not binding. So age is a factor.
Overall, maybe, but individual maturity would be less arbitrary. Even so, you’re still going to disenfranchise someone or discriminate against someone. Just because you agree with the reason it’s done weakens your whole argument. of “we shouldn’t discriminate”.
To be honest, I find the whole pro -gay marriage side hypocritical. On one hand you’re saying the goverment shouldn’t tell you who to marry and should stay out of your bedroom, but then you run TO the government to try and get the government to INCLUDE you.
To be consistent the argument should be government should get out of the marriage business all together.
I still believe that it’s just a matter of time before gay marriage is allowed. Most people will just tire of the argument and agree to allow gay marriage just to stop the debate.
I also predict that immediately after that, probably within the first year, you WILL see a lawsuit against a church or religious organization based on discrimination. The argument will be that when ministers perform weddings they are essentially acting as agents of the government and so marriage should be recognized as a secular event and not religious. They will argue seperation of church and state and either ask that churches and ministers no longer be allowed to perform marriages OR that churches MUST perform marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests the service.
As for relationships…sure, you’d have to allow it. After all, if first cousins couldn’t marry and produce kids, where would little George Bush voters come from?”
Democrats who’ve gain the ability to think for themselves?
Karen,
Re: PAD’s “dig”. I actually chuckled. His little “heh” definitely meant he was joking, and not everyone here has lost their sense of humor:)
I also predict that immediately after that, probably within the first year, you WILL see a lawsuit against a church or religious organization based on discrimination. The argument will be that when ministers perform weddings they are essentially acting as agents of the government and so marriage should be recognized as a secular event and not religious. They will argue seperation of church and state and either ask that churches and ministers no longer be allowed to perform marriages OR that churches MUST perform marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests the service.
I predict that such a lawsuit would be about as successful as a non-Catholic heterosexual couple suing the Catholic church for refusing to marry them. There is whole truckload of caselaw on the side of churches giving them the right to set whatever standards of belief they choose and the right to exclude (yes, discriminate) those who do not share their beliefs from participating in their religious rites.
The fact is, the law today already recognizes unions that are not recognized by certain religious orders. The Catholic Church does not recognized any marriages that are not performed by a priest, but ministers, rabbis, and justices of the peace perform marriages every day that are legally valid. The idea that legalizing gay marriage will open a flood gate of lawsuites against churches that don’t want to perform them is bogus on his face.
I predict that such a lawsuit would be about as successful as a non-Catholic heterosexual couple suing the Catholic church for refusing to marry them. There is whole truckload of caselaw on the side of churches giving them the right to set whatever standards of belief they choose and the right to exclude (yes, discriminate) those who do not share their beliefs from participating in their religious rites.
Yes, the Boy Scouts won that case, but look at what’s happening to them now. They have problems reserving park sites on public grounds and school rooms for meeting in.
In the fast-growing suburb I live in, several churches temporarily meet at area schools until they get enough money/land to start building. If these churches were to start getting the “Boy Scout treatment” for refusing to allow gay clergy, refusing gay marriage (in accordance with their own beliefs), then many of them might not get off the ground.
The legal challenges to gay marriage will go on for years even after its legalized.
And hopefully, like the Boy Scouts, churches won’t buckle under that unfair treatment and will remain true to their beliefs and doctrines.
Yes, the Boy Scouts won that case, but look at what’s happening to them now. They have problems reserving park sites on public grounds and school rooms for meeting in.
You’ll have to show me where in the Constitution the boy scouts have the right to free meeting space on public land and in public buildings. The boy scouts have the right to require a conformity of belief for their members and people who don’t agree with them have the right to refuse to associate with them.
What’s that called again? Oh yeah, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Ain’t America great?
In the fast-growing suburb I live in, several churches temporarily meet at area schools until they get enough money/land to start building. If these churches were to start getting the “Boy Scout treatment” for refusing to allow gay clergy, refusing gay marriage (in accordance with their own beliefs), then many of them might not get off the ground.
Doubtful. I’ve seen many new churches getting their start by meeting in the basement of existing church buildings or even rent a conference room in a hotel. If the members of the church are sincere in creating a new building, then pass the collection plate! Or maybe we should just have government subsidies for new churches. Yeah! Let’s put our taxes to work supporting churches that promote certain values. Oh wait, that’s why my ancestors left Europe.
Nevermind.
You’ll have to show me where in the Constitution the boy scouts have the right to free meeting space on public land and in public buildings. The boy scouts have the right to require a conformity of belief for their members and people who don’t agree with them have the right to refuse to associate with them.
Agreed, but when cities issue leases and permits to other religious and non-profits, but refuse them for the scouts, then they are guilty of violation their own non-discrimination rules.
For those of you who missed it, here is an example John Kerry’s shining moment where he was right the first time. This article by Bill Kristol says it all:
Kerry vs. Kerry
What does “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” mean?
by William Kristol
09/07/2004 12:20:00 PM
JOHN KERRY said yesterday that Iraq was “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Translation: We would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power.
Not an unheard of point of view. Indeed, as President Bush pointed out today, it was Howard Dean’s position during the primary season. On December 15, 2003, in a speech at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, Dean said that “the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer.” Dean also said, “The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion.”
But who challenged Dean immediately? John Kerry. On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that “those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.”
Kerry was right then.
Man, I sure would hate to be running Kerry’s camgaign right now. But then again, I doubt ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN will even mention how Kerry has contradicted himself. There is no (sane) way to reconcile his two statements. He has clearly flip flopped yet again.
Jim in Iowa.
^
Believing that the world is better and safer without Saddam Hussein and believing we should not have gone to war as we did are not mutually exclusive.
It’s how I feel, actually.
The Boy Scouts declared themselves in court to be a religious organization, in justifying the expulsion of an athiest Scoutmaster. Thus, they are no more entitled to preferential treatment in the use of public property than, say, the Episcopalian Church. Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand, but…
Incidentally, the Worldwide Church of the Creator, federally recognized as a religious institution, will not acknowledge my marriage, as they regard my wife as a subhuman “mud person”. According to their rules, our marriage is an offense against God, for which we shall spend eternity in Hëll. Does that mean I can sue them for discrimination?
(For those who have trouble with the concept of rhetorical questions, the answer is “no”. Religious organizations have a pretty firmly established legal authority to discriminate against anybody they want – that’s why the infamous Dr. Laura had to convert to Judaism in order to get married in a synagogue.)
Rulan,
I understand your last post. Really, I do. But how do you defend Kerry stating he “would have voted exactly the same way” – when the war is going well – for the use of force against Iraq, and now reversing his position on THAT.
How do you explain his telling a Jewish group that their “wall” is necessary for security, and then reversing his position in front of Palestinians.
The man has no core, and it is reflected and exemplified not by different positions he has from what he might have said/done 30 years ago (though he really shot himself in the foot with that as well, which I relish), but that he cannot and has not given a consistent position on Iraq in the past SEVEN MONTHS.
He believes in nothing, except that he wants to be President.
Just out of curiosity, now that we’ve all had time to more fully digest what Kerry is like and how he’s been (so far) relating to the people, how many of the Democrats here still prefer him being the Democratic candidate over Dean?
Agreed, but when cities issue leases and permits to other religious and non-profits, but refuse them for the scouts, then they are guilty of violation their own non-discrimination rules.
But allowing a group that openly discriminates against gays and atheists to use their facilities may also violate their non-discrimination rules. Some people in this forum love to tell PAD that freedom of speech has consequences, but so does freedom of association. If the boy scouts want to separate themselves from one segment of society, then they’ll have to just accept that it will put them at odds with people who disagree with them.
Some people in this forum love to tell PAD that freedom of speech has consequences, but so does freedom of association. If the boy scouts want to separate themselves from one segment of society, then they’ll have to just accept that it will put them at odds with people who disagree with them.
Again, I think that’s a given, and I don’t think the scouts have a problem with it – until Catholic/Jewish organizations (who are religious and discriminatory) and the Girl Scouts continue to get preferential treatment from city councils and school boards. How can a city be violating anti-discrimination policy for the Boy Scouts but not be doing so for the Catholic Church?
The real answer is to stop such preferential treatment and allow equal access to public facilities to all groups.
Gorginfoogle:
>Just out of curiosity, now that we’ve all had time to more fully digest what Kerry is like and how he’s been (so far) relating to the people, how many of the Democrats here still prefer him being the Democratic candidate over Dean?
I was living in Vermont during a portion of his time as governor and appreciated the way in which he handled crtics. The man has always come across to me as a man who honestly believes in what he says and is willing to stand up and open dialogue with those who argue against his thoughts, policies, etc.
It was an amazing experience to see the role he played throughout the civil union implementation and fallout from it.
I would have loved to see him up as the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.
Fred
Translation: We would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power.
Wow. Talk about twisting somebody’s words to suit your own purposes.
“Just out of curiosity, now that we’ve all had time to more fully digest what Kerry is like and how he’s been (so far) relating to the people, how many of the Democrats here still prefer him being the Democratic candidate over Dean?”
If–and it’s still very much an if–kerry goes down to defeat, I hope that at least some Democrats will recognize that passing over Dean, the guy who clearly had energized the base, for Kerry, whose best quality was his supposed “electability”, was a foolish and cynical choice.
I remind me of the posters taht started popping up during the nomination votes– “Dated Dean, Married Kerry”. To which someone added “Woke up with Bush”.
At the very least, let’s agree that these front loaded primaries, which are designed to get a nominee in as short a time as possible, are fraught with pril. The problems that kerry is facing now should have come out much much earlier. he would have either answered them and emerged stronger or flopped and dropped out, allowing a stronger candidate to emerge.
The one thing that does trouble me (among other things )is that Bush at least appears to have a
set plan on how to do things and is dedicated to it while at times Kerry seems not to and this may be a deciding for undecided voters.While I disagree with Bush’s policies on several issues
I would like Kerry to come out and give a definitive plan for what he wants and to be more aggressive in his tactics.I forget who it was but someone once stated “republicans no matter how wrong or misguided have an opinion and stick with it”Too often the Democrats appear wimpy in their philosophy.Before everyone reacts ,I dont like Bush ,(though i find his misuse of the english language hysterical)and Ðìçk Cheney scares the hëll out of me,I dont want to vote for Kerry cause just cause hes not Bush.
I truly wish there was viable third option somewhwere.
As for Bush and the english language his latest statement about Doctors being being able to practice their love of women was godawful embarrasing.
RE Jerome :Okay i picked up issue 3 of Identity Crisis.This was a lot better than the previous issues ,and it did feature one of my favorites Slade Wilson.I think because Sue Dibny was a very likable character was why i was so disgusted with the first two.Dont like that Hawkman and GA ‘s history all comes down to the mind wiping incidents.I have my own theories on who the killer may be so I guess i gotta read now to find out if i am correct.Unlike posters elsewhere the “rewrite “of history doesnt bother me as much as the graphic nature of the deaths so far.Which I guess is good cause if murder and rape ever stops bothering me something is wrong.
If–and it’s still very much an if–kerry goes down to defeat, I hope that at least some Democrats will recognize that passing over Dean, the guy who clearly had energized the base, for Kerry, whose best quality was his supposed “electability”, was a foolish and cynical choice.
This particular Democrat recognized that from the moment the Iowa caucuses ended. I support Kerry, I gave money to Kerry, I’ll vote for Kerry — but he’s not got my passion and isn’t likely to any time soon.
TWL
realizing that keeping fingers crossed for two months isn’t good for the circulation, but doing it anyway
>TWL
realizing that keeping fingers crossed for two months isn’t good for the circulation, but doing it anyway
This is one of the best sign-offs I’ve seen here in some time. Thanks for the smile!
“To be honest, I find the whole pro -gay marriage side hypocritical. On one hand you’re saying the goverment shouldn’t tell you who to marry and should stay out of your bedroom, but then you run TO the government to try and get the government to INCLUDE you.”
I believe the term is “seeking redress of grievances,” it’s a fundamental aspect of Democracy, and further, that’s not what gays are doing. They’re not running to the government and saying they should be included. They’re going to the government that has singled them out and said they should not be EXcluded.
PAD
>I understand your last post. Really, I do. But how do you defend Kerry stating he “would have voted exactly the same way” – when the war is going well – for the use of force against Iraq, and now reversing his position on THAT.
What Kerry has been saying is that he did, and still would, give the President the authority to go to war, but would not have gone to war in that manner himself. It’s not about whether Kerry wanted to go to war, but about whether any President should have such authority.
And besides, as a general rule, it’s possible he supported the war then, but came to believe that President Bush misled us.
>How do you explain his telling a Jewish group that their “wall” is necessary for security, and then reversing his position in front of Palestinians.
I can’t, yet; let me look for coverage of it and return later with my impressions.
How do you explain President Bush saying that “by far the vast majority [of his tax cuts] go to the people at the bottom” when the bottom 60% of the population got something like 17% of the cuts?
PAD wrote: “I believe the term is “seeking redress of grievances,” it’s a fundamental aspect of Democracy, and further, that’s not what gays are doing. They’re not running to the government and saying they should be included. They’re going to the government that has singled them out and said they should not be EXcluded.”
I have one question: When and where in at least 5,000 years of human history has “gay marriage” been accepted as equivalent to marriage between a man a woman? Unlike slavery, apartheid, etc., there has either been a universal exclusion of “gay marriage,” or in my opinion, a universal understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is only in the last 100 years that there has been any change in this feeling, and as the vote in Misourri (sp?) shows, it is still a very small minority.
Bottom line, there is no conspiracy to exclude gays from the “benefits” of marriage. Whether there was a legal recognition of marriage or benefits associated, marriage is a concept that has been defined for thousands of years as a man and a woman, and for good reason.
Does that mean we have to “persecute” gay people? No. But neither does that mean we have to fundamentally change the definition and purpose of marriage to accomodate the whims of a few. It is not hateful to say marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Jim in Iowa
On the “Kerry and the wall brouhaha:
“Asked about the seeming contradiction between the statements made to the Arab-American and Jewish groups, Mr. Kerry
>I have one question: When and where in at least 5,000 years of human history has “gay marriage” been accepted as equivalent to marriage between a man a woman?
Well, among some American Indian groups, men could marry other men and essentially be recognized as their wives, and I’m sure there are other examples from throughout history.
And the lack of precedent is not an argument; unprecedentedness is value-neutral.
>marriage is a concept that has been defined for thousands of years as a man and a woman, and for good reason.
What good reasons?
>But neither does that mean we have to fundamentally change the definition and purpose of marriage to accomodate the whims of a few
Whims, huh? Britney Spears aside, how often do people get married on a whim?
I have one question: When and where in at least 5,000 years of human history has “gay marriage” been accepted as equivalent to marriage between a man a woman?
100 years ago, couldn’t the exact same question have been asked about interracial marriage?
Wasn’t right then. Doesn’t make it right now.
I’d like to think that several generations down the line, people will be looking back at this and asking just what the hëll the big fuss was about. Perhaps that’s overly optimistic.
TWL
>Well, among some American Indian groups, men >could marry other men and essentially be >recognized as their wives, and I’m sure there >are other examples from throughout history.
It is true that homosexual behavior has been tolerated at times, but it has never been made equivalent. When you look at how universal marriage between a man and a woman is, this is not a “religious” or “governmental” construct. This is a human activty from the beginning of human history.
>And the lack of precedent is not an argument; >unprecedentedness is value-neutral.
Why is it not an argument? Those for gay marriage say their rights are being denied. If true, they have been denied in virtually universally for thousands of years. If true, where is the historical outrage?
I fully admit this does not prove marriage should be between a man and a woman. But that is not my point. My point here is that if there is a fundamental human right, it has been hidden and unrecognized for virually all of recorded human history. I would suggest that means it is not a fundamental right (which is a different point than whether it is wrong to do so).
>>marriage is a concept that has been defined >>for thousands of years as a man and a woman, >>and for good reason.
>What good reasons?
I will give you the most important reason: the stability of the family. Hundreds of studies have all shown that a father and a mother provide the best atmosphere to raise a healthy child. There are few things that are so overwhelmingly attested to by the research.
Can a gay couple raise a healthy child? Of course. But the studies show that they would be fighting the odds, just as a divorced couple or single parent would as well.
More fundamentally, marriage is not about benefits. It is not about satisfying my need to have sex. It is about the continuation of the human race through having children. This selfish focus undermines the true value of the family.
We no longer have laws against gáÿ šëx (nor against adultery). I believe anyone who physically harms a gay person should be punished to the full extent of the law. But saying marriage should only be between a man and a woman does not harm a gay person. It is preserving the fundamental reason for marriage in the first place.
You doubt this? Go look at the studies of Scandanavian countries where gay marriages are in basically in effect. Marriages in general have declined drastically. There is no point to them anymore.
>>But neither does that mean we have to >>fundamentally change the definition and >>purpose of marriage to accomodate the whims of >>a few
>Whims, huh? Britney Spears aside, how often do >people get married on a whim?
Give me a break. I am not talking about getting married on a whim. I am talking about changing the fundamental definition of marriage based on the objections of a few. Whether intentional or not (and I believe it is the intention), the result is that marriage loses its purpose.
Marriage is NOT a contract. Marriage is not simply an acknowledgment of the love between two people. It is more than just a commitment to each other. Marriage, as defined by thousands of years of practice, is a COVENANT. It is a dedication between two people that provides the stability that is needed to raise a healthy family.
I am also tired of all of the absurd argments about divorce and how gay marriages provide an alternative to this problem. First, many of the same arguing for gay marriages were for no fault divorce. History clearly shows the acceleration of divorce and broken families following the adoption of no fault laws. Second, gay marriages do nothing to correct the fundamental problem that happens in a divorce: the foundation of unconditional love from a mother and a father. A child needs both. A gay couple can be very loving (and I believe most are), but by definition they are of one gender. And there is a fundamental difference in the genders, even if a male of female is gay.
I also believe gay marriages will be no more stable than heterosexual marriages. That is not to say all will fail, but there is absolutely no reason why they will not fail in at least as equal a number as heterosexual marriages. There is NOTHING about a gay relationship that makes it superior to a heterosexual marriage (and some things that might make it more prone to failure — but that is another matter).
Bottom line, to return to my original point: There is no fundamental human right for gay marriage. None. You can argue that there is no harm in it, you can argue that we should allow it, but when you argue it is a fundamental right, you need to prove that to be the case. You cannot do so.
Jim in Iowa
>>I have one question: When and where in at >>least 5,000 years of human history has “gay >>marriage” been accepted as equivalent to >>marriage between a man a woman?
>>100 years ago, couldn’t the exact same >>question have been asked about interracial >>marriage?
Nice try, but actually no, it cannot. You can find an overwhelming number of examples throughout human history of interracial marriage. Yes, some many have opposed it, often to protect the integrity of their race. But it comes no where near to the universal of marriage being a man and a woman.
If gay marriage does become the norm, I think people will look back at it as a pivotal moment in history (either for good or bad). It will fundamentally change the nature of marriage. It will change to focus solely on the “benefits” and “happiness” of two people rather than on the good of society. (My opinion, but I think based on good facts.)
I am not surprised, but the press has said very little about the landslide defeat of gay marriage in Missouri. Take out the 4 largest Republican counties and it was still defeated by over 60% of the voters. They had an enourmous turnout to vote against gay marriage. The average american does not want to see a gay person murdered or even made fun of, but they understand that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. They may tolerate gays (as they should), but that does not mean they have to embrace the gay lifestyle as healthy or equal to marriage. This issue is no where near to being accepted by the average person, and I suspect it never will be overwhelmingly embraced. Time will tell.
Jim in Iowa
Sorry for the obvious typos and errors. I should have proofread it better before posting.
Jim in Iowa
>marriage is a concept that has been defined for thousands of years as a man and a woman, and for good reason.
What good reasons?
I’ve restrained from weighing in, but I will. I’m very torn on this topic – and I’m sure I’ll get people attacking me on it, but keep in mind that I’m not really set one way or the other.
On the one hand, I am hesitant to have government define marriage and who can/can’t. It’s a precedent of control that disturbs the “keep-the-government-out” person in me. The more control the government has over decisions, the more potential there is they I don’t get to make them.
On the other hand, there’s a societal issue: that of recognizing that continuuing the species is important. If you have a man and a woman of child-bearing years together in a marriage, then you will have kids probably 90% of the time (I know there are exceptions, but they are that – exceptions). If you have male/male or female/female of child-nbearing years the probability is 0%. So, the question is, do we want to make a homosexual marriage – which is a long-term dead-end relationship for a society – given the same rights/priveleges/etc?
I think this is what many people struggle with. They want independence from government for themselves, but there’s just a gut-level reaction of “Maybe this just isn’t the best idea”.
Now, as far as government control/incentives go, the government dictates a lot of behavior through various means. The tax code being an example. We give tax breaks for charitable donations and home mortgage interest. The first is to encourage free giving, the latter to encourage property ownership. Marriage is an incentive program as well: the legal protection of not testifying against a spouse, of insurance, of default legal status in wills, etc. are all built into a marriage so that society encourages it. So, is it in the government’s greater interest to encourage heterosexual marriage over other relationships? Since one is a societal dead-end, there’s an argument for government to “incent” it.
I see good and bad to both sides. One person’s incentive is another person’s penalty (that’s the semantic difference of PAD’s “should include” vs. “should not exclude” – legally the same, but different in appearance). Look at the “marriage penalty”. A married couple typically has fewer household expenses than a single person because they share the burden, so there was a good argument for having a higher tax on marriage, but the counter argument was why “penalize” married couples?
Is heterosexual marriage an incentive for society or a penalty against homsexual individuals? That’s the question to answer – and I don’t have a good one.
So, if you read my entire ramble on this, thanks. I hope it doesn’t offend anyone – I’m trying to muddle through this like a lot of people these days.
The idea that society perceives marriage as about continuation of the species is, to be blunt, just stupid. It’s not why people get married.
You may think it is, and believe it should be, but unless you’re willing to deny rights to couples who don’t want to have children, your position is inconsistent.
And “Where’s the historical outrage?”
Homosexuality has not been tolerated at all until relatively recently. There was no way to broadcast outrage over “We can’t get married” when the dominant concern was “They’ll put us in prison or kill us.”
Besides, I think anyone will agree that lots of outrageous things went on in the sweep of history with little or no expression of remorse.
And by the way, while survival of the species is a broad prerogative for humanity, encouraging it is not the province of a government.
>My point here is that if there is a fundamental human right, it has been hidden and unrecognized for virually all of recorded human history. I would suggest that means it is not a fundamental right
I am willing to accept the argument that marriage is not a fundamental right if and only if a consistent explanation of how one gets the right is offered and applied.
>You doubt this? Go look at the studies of Scandanavian countries where gay marriages are in basically in effect. Marriages in general have declined drastically. There is no point to them anymore.
>Cohabitation and marriage among young adults in Sweden: Attitudes, expectations and plans
Eva M. Bernhardt
Department of Sociology, Stockholm University
Non-marital coresidential relationships are more widespread in Sweden than in almost all other countries. More than half of all births are extra-marital. Yet, people do continue to get married. Lifelong cohabitation, especially in the presence of children, probably remains a relatively rare phenomenon. Young adults in Sweden overwhelmingly approve of childbearing and childrearing within cohabiting unions. Nevertheless, a majority of those currently living with a partner expect to marry within the next five years. Sending a signal to others that the relationship is a seriously committed one seems to be the most important aspect of getting married. Thus, despite the existence of widespread and widely accepted non-marital cohabitation among young adults in Sweden, there is no indication that marriage will disappear as a social institution. The motivations for marriage may have changed, but the future of marriage does not seem to be in danger.
Reference: In Carling, J., ed. (2002) Nordic demography: Trends and differentials. Scandinavian Population Studies, Vol. 13. Oslo: Unipub forlag / Nordic Demographic Society.
A link on the “gay parents don’t do as well” issue:
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2097048
And a further one on the Scandinavian issues:
http://www.iglss.org/media/files/briefing.pdf
And by the way, while survival of the species is a broad prerogative for humanity, encouraging it is not the province of a government.
A government shouldn’t be interested in the survival of the species and its citizens? I guess we should cancel all of the social welfare programs then. After all, if the government is not interested in having their citizens “be” then they certainly shouldn’t be interested in having their citizens “be healthy”, “be educated”, “be fed”, or “be productive”.
A government by its nature must be interested in such things, so by extension, must be interested in the long term survivability of its citizens.
^^
It does sound absurd. I may expand on what I mean at some point, but for now I retract that so it doesn’t become a flashpoint.
Instead, focus on the fact that child-bearing and marriage need not be and are not related, and that our species is not in real danger of dying out.