The W
Views: 100023021
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 0249
The W - Current Events & Politics - All major networks declare Barack Obama president-elect (Page 5)
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.84
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5
(288 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (93 total)
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#81 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by El Nastio

    Also, to gain insights as to why people are fighting this strongly about this. People donít approve of the lifestyle of a same-ex couple. The government then says ďitís perfectly acceptableĒ and legalizes it. These people will take this as the government condoning that kind of behavior, and in turn making them feel threatened that they need to condone that behavior in turn. And although the government may make assurances, that doesnít stop people from being worried. For example, here in Canada an MP made a private memberís build to have it so that when a pregnant woman gets assaulted, the criminal can be charged for an injury/death to the baby inside. Despite REPEATED assurances that this would not affect the current status of abortion in Canada, people were still concerned that it would lead to abortion being made illegal.


There were lots of people who felt threatened and worried when blacks and women were given equal rights too. Should we not have done that?

I know it's cheap, but what's the difference? Right now some states are discriminating against same sex couples. If they legalize marriage for them, who is then being discriminated against? No one.

It shouldn't be about making religious people feel comfortable, it should be about equal rights for all.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#82 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.76
(Let me preface by saying, I'm completely indifferent on the whole issue.)

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    There were lots of people who felt threatened and worried when blacks and women were given equal rights too. Should we not have done that?

    I know it's cheap, but what's the difference?


Well, if you allow the "slippery slope" thought on one side of the argument, then you have to allow it on the other side.

When they passed the amendment allowing women to vote, I'm sure there were plenty of people saying "What? It's not like we're allowing black people to vote."

When the Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional, I'm sure there were plenty of people saying "What? It's not like we're allowing gay marriage."

I know it's cheap, but....
KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#83 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Let me show you something.
    Originally posted by El Nastio
    Also, to gain insights as to why people are fighting this strongly about this. People donít approve of the lifestyle of a mixed-race couple. The government then says ďitís perfectly acceptableĒ and legalizes it. These people will take this as the government condoning that kind of behavior, and in turn making them feel threatened that they need to condone that behavior in turn.
Sometimes, making some people feel uncomfortable is simply the right thing to do.



JK: LJ, S&H, KMA, FB
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
ICQ:  
#84 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.80
    Originally posted by KJames199
    Let me show you something.
      Originally posted by El Nastio
      Also, to gain insights as to why people are fighting this strongly about this. People donít approve of the lifestyle of a mixed-race couple. The government then says ďitís perfectly acceptableĒ and legalizes it. These people will take this as the government condoning that kind of behavior, and in turn making them feel threatened that they need to condone that behavior in turn.
    Sometimes, making some people feel uncomfortable is simply the right thing to do.




KJames, while youíre at it, letís insert several other statements in that paragraph. Allow me:

- People donít approve of the lifestyle of a pedosexual couple.
- People donít approve of the lifestyle of a polygamist couple(s).
- People donít approve of the lifestyle of a swinger couple.
- People donít approve of the lifestyle of a mixed-age couple.

Homosexuals can vote, they are considered people, and are/should be entitled to all the same *government* benefits that others are. Letís be realistic here; if ďcommon-law partnersĒ (which we wonít get into because that will likely cause even more issues) get government benefits, homosexual partners should too. Iím not arguing that whatsoever. The issue I have is about marriage and how it is defined.

Iíd like to mention at this time Iím well aware of heterosexuals assaulting the dignity of Marriage as well I alluded to as much earlier in this post). I have several strong/vocal views about those things as well. I usually donít post them on message boards in general because:

1) No matter how rational and intellectual I come across, Iím always accused of being an unreasonable dinosaur/bigot who is aligned with a religion designed to enslave and entrap the masses (no lie, thatís what people say). Oh, and all we want to do is take away peopleís civil rights.

2) Trolls.

3) I simply donít have the energy to repeatedly type out long-winded posts, especially because Iíll likely be responding to several people.

I posted in this thread because for some reason I felt the need to voice my opinion that I felt there was a double-standard towards religious folks as it pertains to voicing their opinion, and that others can voice their opinions about religious folks as much as they want and get away fairly unscathed. Seeing how I donít want the thread locked (because the original meaning of the thread was to discuss the merits of the First Black President of the United States of America) thisíll be my last post (in this thread).

(/derailed).




You know, I really don't know what to put here. Close your eyes and thank of something funny!
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 421 days
Last activity: 43 days
#85 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.77
Ok, I've deleted this post and re-written it 4 or 5 times now trying to address all of your points.

I think that all mutually consenting adults should be able to seek legal recognition of their relationship, and to seek all of the legal rights and responsibilities that come with that legally binding relationship.

In states where common-law couples are not recognized, or are not given the same rights as married couples, the only solution is for all couples seeking these rights to be married couples. Specifically the phrase "common-law" actually has legal meaning, and it is not the same thing as "married". I do think that the word "marriage" is a very charged word and if I had a time machine I would do everything in my power to make sure that the government never used it in reference to the legal status between couples. I don't have a time machine, (well, it isn't in the museum catalog anyway) so I'm afraid we're stuck with it.

I think it is great that you are posting your thoughts. We all have very deeply held beliefs on subjects like this, and I really hope that you feel this is a civil discussion as well. Believe me, neither CRZ or Aaron could get me to shut up about this one short of turning off my posting ability. I don't think you are a horrible person or a dinosaur or anything. I just think that this is one issue where it can't be another way, because it just isn't going to work given the legal system.

/edit Also my last post, please feel free to PST me, I will talk about it more if you would like to.

(edited by Lise on 6.11.08 1525)
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 8 days
#86 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.93
    Originally posted by El Nastio

    - People donít approve of the lifestyle of a pedosexual couple.
    - People donít approve of the lifestyle of a polygamist couple(s).
    - People donít approve of the lifestyle of a swinger couple.
    - People donít approve of the lifestyle of a mixed-age couple.


You do realize that the only people who bring this into the argument are those AGAINST gay marriage. No one I know has ANY interest in seeing any of the above legalized. It's absolutely absurd and a total non-sequitar that is in no way germane to the debate at hand. Seriously, it's ridiculous.

BTW - I find the "pedosexual" reference completely inappropriate.

    Originally posted by El Nastio
    I posted in this thread because for some reason I felt the need to voice my opinion that I felt there was a double-standard towards religious folks as it pertains to voicing their opinion, and that others can voice their opinions about religious folks as much as they want and get away fairly unscathed.


For the umpteenth time, no one is trying to legalize having an opinion or belief about something. Think same-couple marriages are wrong all you want. Stand by your religious notions about the sanctity and sacredness of marriage. Go for it. Hell, as much as I disagree, I'd fight to stop anyone from infringing on YOUR RIGHT to BELIEVE in those issues.

Just keep your religious definitions out of my state constitution. That's all I am asking.




NonDescript
Tue @ 9a PDT

NonDescript Podcast

Homepage
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 73 days
Last activity: 32 days
#87 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.96
    Originally posted by El Nastio

    - People donít approve of the lifestyle of a mixed-age couple.


Really? I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have some kind of age difference in their marriage.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Teapot
Kishke








Since: 1.8.02
From: Louisville KY

Since last post: 166 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#88 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.89
    Originally posted by El Nastio
    Those beliefs shaped much of the law and values at the time, which is why several laws and other items have somewhat of religious flavor (God Save the Queen, In God we trust, God keep our Land, glorious and free, misc. etc).


I can't speak for Canada, but everything I've ever read leads me to believe that most of the Founding Fathers were either Deists or didn't care much for religion (or, at least, didn't care for Christianity). (Deists basically believe in a 'watchmaker God' - he set the whole thing up, got it running, and has been hands-off from there.) I believe John Adams when he said that "[t]he Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion."

"In God We Trust" didn't appear on American money until the Civil War, and didn't become the official motto of the US until the 1950s, around the same time that "under God" got added to the Pledge of Allegiance due to the Red Scare.

I'm not saying that some of the guiding principles don't also appear in the Bible, but "don't kill people" and "don't take other people's stuff" are kind of no-brainers and I would hope the Founders could have come up with those independently.



blackdragon
Bauerwurst








Since: 8.12.06
From: Georgia

Since last post: 876 days
Last activity: 875 days
#89 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.21
Just wanted to make a few comments

First, I did vote for Obama and though I don't believe he will keep all his promises (no politician can) I do believe he was the better choice and until he proves otherwise, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will make a concerted effort to fulfill some of them. I really would love to see those government subsidies for alternative fuels. For all this talk about him being a socialist, if he can pull this off, he'd be facilitating job growth here at home which is always a good thing in my book.

It sets a historic precedent when our president is half black (another thing he has in common with my favorite wrestler of all the times) but regardless of how far we may have come as a country, he's going to be scrutinized harder than most. A few people for his skin color (wish I could be a fly on the wall of some racist parent that has to explain to his child why our president is black even though blacks are inferior) but most (the only rational reason) because he is taking over after an eight year period that has left us with record debts, job loss, one and a half wars, and other issues caused by the incumbent administration.


Now as far as gay marriage is concerned, I'm not gay, nor do I really care if the woman that decides I'm the least horrible choice for a mate refers to us as married, so the word holds little meaning to me. I get it has meaning, I just don't care about it. As long as I'm happy with my woman I don't care if it's call civil union, marriage, playing house, or committment.

As others have pointed out more eloquently that I can, I wish there was a way to ammend things where marriage was a "personal" way to describe a legal union. Anything not dealing with church, societal norms, or community traditions should be labeled something different and all encompassing in the government's eyes.

There's no need for the government to make any of this personal. They should simply recognize legal unions between TWO consenting adults and distribute benefits thusly (visitation rights, inheritances, tax status, whatever) and fairly.

Slippery slope of course has its place because as our esteemed Reverend Shaft (who I've heard was a bad mutha shut yo mouth) points out, there will always always be people that think in terms of "if we let A happen, then we're not too far from letting D happen" or "Okay, we'll let B happen because no way in hell we'd let E happen."

As Teapot pointed out, I would like to think your average pesron is rational enough to believe not killing or causing undue harm to another wouldn't need of the caveat "or you'll burn in hell."

Personally, I run the gauntlet of being ambivalent to or detesting relgion depending on my mood. When it's good and hopeful, I smile and hope for the best. When it tries to tell me I'm a godless commie because I like to have sex outside of marriage and because I don't think gay marriage will doom civilization, then it pisses me off. My biggest gripe with religion is that the three major religions all essentially say the same things and utilize a similiar foundation (Old Testament, Torah, the firs suras of the Quaran are nearly identical) but are drastically different from one another. Islam believes in a profit, Christianity in a God made flesh and Judaism is still waiting for somebody to show up and set things right. I've always had a problem with bibles because English isn't an ancient language yet the same people that are quick to dismiss something said to their face, have no problem believing the words of men thousands of years dead, spoken and written in a different language. Oh did I mention MEN, wrote the Bible? You know, people that did bad things regardless of seeing Angels and Miracles and all that fun stuff we pray for on a daily basis? How can anyone just assume that even if these men wrote verbatim what they though God was saying that another set of men revising it a century later kept it exactly as it was? Or the century after that plus in another language? I just don't think it's fair to subject a "land of the free" to the restraints of an old tome written before we knew that you could leave the earth's atmosphere without dying and ascending to heaven. Okay rant over.

I've always been of the mind that if it doesn't directly and adversely affect anyone, you have the right to pursue it. Hell, I find cigarrette smoke offensive, but I'm not picketting Tobacco companies or yelling obscenities at smokers because I don't care for their lifestyle. And cigarrette smoke doesn't adversely affect my breathing. If I can deal with that, why is it so terrible that two gay guys want to be a legalize couple? Now if they wind up having hot sweaty man love on your front lawn, then I can't defend that action.

We need some sort of government mandate that states TWO and only two, consenting, non blood related adults that are committed to one another are entitled to this set of benefits under the law. Of course slippery slope will rear it's ugly head and we need to address that as it comes not try to predict how people may try to ask "why not three wives? why not my sister?"

Make the word "marriage" obsolete as far as government approved unions are concerned.

This is much longer than I anticpated it would be. That's what happens when you post like once every quarter year I suppose.

Give Obama a chance and let's work towards making the next four years better than the last eight.



Cena can't be beat because he's some unholy genetic recombinate of superstars past. I mean, you might as well call him John "Realest of the Real, Sargent Rock - Cold - A - Mania" Cena.
SchippeWreck
Banger








Since: 26.3.03
From: Glendale, CA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#90 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.71
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    And now that Missouri has finally been called for McCain, I would like to be the first to congratulate Freeway for being the only person to get the electoral prediction thread exactly right.

Nebraska just ruined Freeway's party.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441



"It's magic! We don't need to explain it!"
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 336 days
Last activity: 329 days
#91 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.02

    Originally posted by Lise

    I think that all mutually consenting adults should be able to seek legal recognition of their relationship, and to seek all of the legal rights and responsibilities that come with that legally binding relationship.

    In states where common-law couples are not recognized, or are not given the same rights as married couples, the only solution is for all couples seeking these rights to be married couples. Specifically the phrase "common-law" actually has legal meaning, and it is not the same thing as "married". I do think that the word "marriage" is a very charged word and if I had a time machine I would do everything in my power to make sure that the government never used it in reference to the legal status between couples. I don't have a time machine, (well, it isn't in the museum catalog anyway) so I'm afraid we're stuck with it.


Excellent. Wish I'd have written it.




As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005
As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight"
As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds
As of 10/31/07: Still 217 down!
As of 5/18/08: Still 217 down!
Now announcing for the NBWA!
*2008 NBWA Personality of the Year*
www.IlliniHQ.com home of DWS Sportsnight PODCASTS, the E-Files and downstate radio home of thecubsfan!
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 136 days
Last activity: 30 days
#92 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.56
    Originally posted by El Nastio
    People of several faiths and religions believe that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. This is not bigotry towards homosexuals themselves, rather it is the belief of how marriage should be defined. The same outrage would (and should IMHO) take place if people want to change the definition of marriage to ďone man and multiple womenĒ.

    This belief is something that has been professed for hundreds (in some cases thousands) of years. It should come as no surprise that several faiths (Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Mormons among others) oppose this. To tell people of these faiths that they are wrong, and that they must conform and change their ways to a more ďacceptableĒ and ďmodernĒ style of thinkingÖ.youíre forcing these people to change their beliefs...

The issue of how marriage should be defined is certainly a challenging one, as indeed is any issue that addresses beliefs that are common across many faiths; beliefs that have been professed for multiple centuries. But I do not believe that recognizing same-sex marriage as a fundamental right is tantamount to telling people of faith that they are wrong, or that their beliefs are wrong; nor do I think that having the state define marriage in terms other than that as a union between a man and a woman equates to forcing people of faith (or any people, for that matter) to change their beliefs.

In my opinion, the issue debated in California's Proposition 8 (and similar ballot initiatives and court decisions throughout the United States) is best understood by way of analogy to another fundamental human right; that being, the right of the individual to worship as they choose. Freedom of religion is a right guaranteed to all United States citizens under the Constitution. Part and parcel with religious freedom in the United States is what I would term "religious equality"; that is, all religions must receive equal treatment in the eyes of the law, in all areas of the law. Saying that all are free to worship as they choose but denying equal protection under the law to any worship group(s) makes a mockery of said freedom. For example, the U.S. Government cannot discriminate on the basis of beliefs against any organization claiming exemption from federal income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, regardless of whether an organization is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Scientologist or what-have-you; all have equal standing before the IRS. Indeed they must, if individuals in this country are to be truly free to worship as they choose.

Now, does the fact that all religious groups receive equal treatment under the law equate to telling any one religious group that their beliefs are wrong? To stay with our example, is granting equal tax status to religious group A tantamount to telling individuals who belong to religious group B that they must profess those things that group A professes, and that members of both group A and group B must conform to the creed confessed by religious group C? No; of course not.

And so it is with the issue of same-sex marriage. Having the Government of the United States recognize same-sex marriage as a fundamental right does not preclude any individual from believing that same-sex marriage is morally wrong, or any organization from preaching that same-sex marriage is morally wrong, anymore than recognizing the right of the individual to worship as a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Wiccan, Scientologist, what-have-you precludes any other individual from believing that any or all of those belief systems are wrong, or any organization from preaching the same.

It is therefore my opinion that the California electorate acted unwisely in passing Proposition 8.


(edited by Downtown Bookie on 9.11.08 1924)


http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#93 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.40
Two points:

1) http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/

2) It would be highly ironic if the voters of California just set in motion a series of events which will cause all heterosexual couples to lose the special privileges granted to married couples. There can be no wiggle room now that it is constitutionally declared that homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals - so the only issue to discuss would be the constitutionality of granting special rights to only one group and not to others.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Thread rated: 4.84
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Thread ahead: Obama win triggers new racist incidents
Next thread: Bone marrow transplant cures AIDS!
Previous thread: Blame Sarah Palin?
(288 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Yes, it is, and he was charged with that as well according to the linked article. Getting a first-offense speeding ticket knocked down to a moderate fine isn't all that difficult -- I'm sure many of us know people who've had that happen.
The W - Current Events & Politics - All major networks declare Barack Obama president-elect (Page 5)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.123 seconds.