This is weakest of all reasoning to discriminate and enact ‘bans’ on gay marriage.
Recently, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, in an attempt to explain why same sex marriages should not be allowed in the United States to “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, resorted to reiterating “the traditional definition” point repeatedly. Jon was very keen to the failure of this argumentation and attempted to illustrate for the governor how the definition of marriage has already changed over time, from a strictly financial agreement between families in the Bronze Age and prior to the current ‘definition’ Mr. Huckabee is trying to defend.
Truth of the matter is, if a statute defines marriage as, “between a man and woman”, it only does so because it is the narrow and discriminatory language the gay marriage opponents have chosen to apply. Marriage could also be defined as “a union of two consenting adults who chose to legally share benefits and assets, in a what amounts to a legal contract”. This definition would no longer allow religious institutions to falsely claim that it is only with their blessing the union is sanctified, as civil marriages have been recognized by the state since the inception of the confederacy. It has never been a contract that is only confirmed and approved through church permission.
Essentially, gay marriage as recognized by the secular state does not pose a threat to religions and will not impact their practice or adherence. Those who argue that allowing two consenting adults to engage in same sex marriage will lead to a slippery slope where humans are marrying animals or numerous spouses, this is simply not true. There is nothing in affording two adults equal rights regardless of sexual orientation that then must be extended to practices that are ‘illegal’ under current law.
The argument of ‘traditional’ definition is a failure and there has yet to be a valid argument made against gay marriage that is not a reflection of religious bias and it is not the position of the state to enforce one citizen’s religious views upon another.
“Your kindness for weakness I never mistook
I worried you often,yet you understood
That life is so fleeting,these troubles won’t last
Forever”
Huckabee dodged the correlation to slavery by saying that marriage is a privilege, not a right. But he is only partially right. It is a privilege to marry in a religious setting with the consent of the leader of whatever religious sect one chooses, but as long as the federal government is authorizing special deductions and other considerations to those they deem married, it is a right.
Huckabee dodged the correlation to slavery by saying that marriage is a privilege, not a right. But he is only partially right. It is a privilege to marry in a religious setting with the consent of the leader of whatever religious sect one chooses, but as long as the federal government is authorizing special deductions and other considerations to those they deem married, it is a right.
I happen to consider homosexuality to be a sinful behavior. Then again, I also think you’re absolutely, positively correct about gay marriage and secular civil unions and about how the issue should be handled.
I happen to consider homosexuality to be a sinful behavior. Then again, I also think you’re absolutely, positively correct about gay marriage and secular civil unions and about how the issue should be handled.
Huckabee is wrong. Marriage is a right. It is part of the body of rights included in “the pursuit of happiness.” The Supreme Court of the United States of America has said so, in Griswold v. Connecticut and Griswold v. Connecticut. Huckabee should do his research before opening his mouth.
Oops, my bad. Griswold v. Connecticut AND Loving v. Virginia. Sorry.
The best part of that interview is when Jon Stewart shushes Huckabee. It says, “you are making a tired argument and I will not wait for you to finish. Let’s move on to the next point of contention where I will completely refute your argument, leaving you with no logical platform to stand on.”
Why have any morals at all? Through them all out!!
I think Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. However, if homosexuals want to have a civil union (or some other synonym), that has all the same rights, privileges, and perks as marriage, who am I to stop them being just as miserable as heterosexuals. just don’t use the word marriage for it.
I think Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. However, if homosexuals want to have a civil union (or some other synonym), that has all the same rights, privileges, and perks as marriage, who am I to stop them being just as miserable as heterosexuals. just don’t use the word marriage for it.
matt, the phrase ’separate but equal’ comes to mind. and i’m sure you know how that ended up.
matt, the phrase ’separate but equal’ comes to mind. and i’m sure you know how that ended up.
What is the point in this Matt? “You can’t call it marriage because you’re different”, is what you’re saying. That’s discrimination.
What is the point in this Matt? “You can’t call it marriage because you’re different”, is what you’re saying. That’s discrimination.
Matt, why would a homosexual couple using the word “marriage” belittle or demean or threaten your current definition of “marriage”? What makes a homosexual union any different at all from a heterosexual union, except that *you* are uncomfortable with it?
Matt, why would a homosexual couple using the word “marriage” belittle or demean or threaten your current definition of “marriage”? What makes a homosexual union any different at all from a heterosexual union, except that *you* are uncomfortable with it?
Only thing is this time we are talking about religious preference. And separate but equal was in effect after years of blacks being refused basic human rights and dignity like attending school and the right to vote and own land. Homosexuality may be looked down upon but the basic rights of the individual are not impugned in any other way.
When people start making gay people go to different schools and drink out of different drinking fountains, talk to me then. The only difference between marriage and a public union would be whether you had a member of the clergy or a public official do the dang ceremony.
Only thing is this time we are talking about religious preference. And separate but equal was in effect after years of blacks being refused basic human rights and dignity like attending school and the right to vote and own land. Homosexuality may be looked down upon but the basic rights of the individual are not impugned in any other way.
When people start making gay people go to different schools and drink out of different drinking fountains, talk to me then. The only difference between marriage and a public union would be whether you had a member of the clergy or a public official do the dang ceremony.
I support gay marriage and I have no problem with it being called “marriage”. But I do see how some, in fact many, very religious people might see gay marriage as somehow damaging their sacrament. Marriage is, in fact, a civil union blessed by a religion.
I have several gay friends and they argue this point with me about how the term marriage is perceived as though they can win the argument. They need to get over it. They can’t change perceptions. If I am right and some people oppose gay marriage because they perceive it as an affront to their religion, then that’s the way they see it and I’ve learned long ago that arguing religion will never get anyone anywhere. Even if only 20% of the voters oppose gay marriage for this reason, this is enough to cause gay marriage to be defeated at the polls. On the other hand, I hope gay marriage is eventually approved and gays rub the victory in the face of the conservative christian bigots because at least here in Florida all that the gays asked for initially was a civil union and this group set out to ban even civil unions, something churches have no standing to object to. Do you see my point? Religions own marriage and the civil government owns civil unions.
I think that both sides of this issue see this about winning as much as they do about marriage or civil rights.
I am not a christian nor am I a believer in god as most people perceive god. (I do believe in the existence of some form of creator but in a form I cannot comprehend). Thus, I do not believe in marriage as a religious sacrament. To me, every marriage is simply a civil union blessed by their religion in some way. If that blessing somehow comforts people, good for them, but it is just a concept.
What this means is that gays should be working to win elections that establish civil unions for gays. Then, they need to work within their church to convince the church to bless their union as a marriage. I am married in the Lutheran church (many years ago before I figured this religion thing out)but what I really have is a civil union with a person I love and want to spend my life and share my assets with. My marriage is not any stronger just because on one day in time some preacher declared me married and blessed the marriage with a prayer. And my partner and I would not love each other any more or less with or without that blessing.
I would be just as happy to have been married before a justice of the peace as before a priest. So should gays.
I support gay marriage and I have no problem with it being called “marriage”. But I do see how some, in fact many, very religious people might see gay marriage as somehow damaging their sacrament. Marriage is, in fact, a civil union blessed by a religion.
I have several gay friends and they argue this point with me about how the term marriage is perceived as though they can win the argument. They need to get over it. They can’t change perceptions. If I am right and some people oppose gay marriage because they perceive it as an affront to their religion, then that’s the way they see it and I’ve learned long ago that arguing religion will never get anyone anywhere. Even if only 20% of the voters oppose gay marriage for this reason, this is enough to cause gay marriage to be defeated at the polls. On the other hand, I hope gay marriage is eventually approved and gays rub the victory in the face of the conservative christian bigots because at least here in Florida all that the gays asked for initially was a civil union and this group set out to ban even civil unions, something churches have no standing to object to. Do you see my point? Religions own marriage and the civil government owns civil unions.
I think that both sides of this issue see this about winning as much as they do about marriage or civil rights.
I am not a christian nor am I a believer in god as most people perceive god. (I do believe in the existence of some form of creator but in a form I cannot comprehend). Thus, I do not believe in marriage as a religious sacrament. To me, every marriage is simply a civil union blessed by their religion in some way. If that blessing somehow comforts people, good for them, but it is just a concept.
What this means is that gays should be working to win elections that establish civil unions for gays. Then, they need to work within their church to convince the church to bless their union as a marriage. I am married in the Lutheran church (many years ago before I figured this religion thing out)but what I really have is a civil union with a person I love and want to spend my life and share my assets with. My marriage is not any stronger just because on one day in time some preacher declared me married and blessed the marriage with a prayer. And my partner and I would not love each other any more or less with or without that blessing.
I would be just as happy to have been married before a justice of the peace as before a priest. So should gays.
If marriage is supposed to be so religious, why can Atheists get married? And if it’s solely Christian, why can Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Hindu, Buddhist, ANYONE be married? Marriage isn’t about religion. It’s about love. It’s about the shared rights that married couples get. Anyone should be able to be married. Separation of church and state, too.
If marriage is supposed to be so religious, why can Atheists get married? And if it’s solely Christian, why can Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Hindu, Buddhist, ANYONE be married? Marriage isn’t about religion. It’s about love. It’s about the shared rights that married couples get. Anyone should be able to be married. Separation of church and state, too.
The following is a good description of what a Biblical marriage really is.
The following is a good description of what a Biblical marriage really is.
Best reason ever, because when I see some guy talking about being married and I make a joke about being married I don’t want to use the wrong pronoun. Glad I could solve this for you. Give them the word margage(ie lets get margaged, we’re going to margage eachother); BAM, problem solved.
Best reason ever, because when I see some guy talking about being married and I make a joke about being married I don’t want to use the wrong pronoun. Glad I could solve this for you. Give them the word margage(ie lets get margaged, we’re going to margage eachother); BAM, problem solved.
Kelly, your argument is off-kilter right from the get go. Marriage is not simply a civil union blessed by a religion. I was married by a judge. I have a marriage certificate from the State of New York. I am recognized by the entire country as being married. Without a religious blessing.
Matt, you ended your statement with “Homosexuality may be looked down upon but the basic rights of the individual are not impugned in any other way.” If homosexuals are not allowed the right to be married, along with every other right that exists for heterosexuals, based solely on sexual preference, that is the very meaning of discrimination, plain and simple.
If you talk about religious preference, put it in a perspective such as churches not accepting blacks into the congregation. This would be met today with outrage and would be labeled discrimination. If I started a church and wouldn’t allow Puerto Ricans to marry? Discrimination.
To say that a homosexual marriage could have any bearing or affect any other marriage is philosophically, morally and logically irrational. Not to mention ignorant and downright stupid.
Religions are not the end-all to what a marriage is. And, once again, let’s keep religion out of law.
Kelly, your argument is off-kilter right from the get go. Marriage is not simply a civil union blessed by a religion. I was married by a judge. I have a marriage certificate from the State of New York. I am recognized by the entire country as being married. Without a religious blessing.
Matt, you ended your statement with “Homosexuality may be looked down upon but the basic rights of the individual are not impugned in any other way.” If homosexuals are not allowed the right to be married, along with every other right that exists for heterosexuals, based solely on sexual preference, that is the very meaning of discrimination, plain and simple.
If you talk about religious preference, put it in a perspective such as churches not accepting blacks into the congregation. This would be met today with outrage and would be labeled discrimination. If I started a church and wouldn’t allow Puerto Ricans to marry? Discrimination.
To say that a homosexual marriage could have any bearing or affect any other marriage is philosophically, morally and logically irrational. Not to mention ignorant and downright stupid.
Religions are not the end-all to what a marriage is. And, once again, let’s keep religion out of law.
I think part of the problem is how they would force certain religious leaders to marry Gay people. If they want to allow gay people to be married, fine. But don’t take away a religions right to not perform the ceremony. All religions are private institutions, and just like a business “reserves the right to refuse business to anyone”, or an individual can kick someone out of their private home, a religion should be able to choose whether or not they want to marry two people. You can’t take away one right from one group to give it to another.
Why does no one ever talk about the tax implication that many churches would have faced if prop 8 would not have passed in California?
I think part of the problem is how they would force certain religious leaders to marry Gay people. If they want to allow gay people to be married, fine. But don’t take away a religions right to not perform the ceremony. All religions are private institutions, and just like a business “reserves the right to refuse business to anyone”, or an individual can kick someone out of their private home, a religion should be able to choose whether or not they want to marry two people. You can’t take away one right from one group to give it to another.
Why does no one ever talk about the tax implication that many churches would have faced if prop 8 would not have passed in California?
BGH – awsome post. That’s a perfect definition of a civil marriage, and absolutely a religious marriage can be defined as the religion sees fit. My religion does not discriminate against same-sex marriage, others do. That’s their freedom. But in a civil world all americans must be equal.
Matt, separate but equal is inherently unequal. Americans have been down that road before, we should learn from our mistakes….
BGH – awsome post. That’s a perfect definition of a civil marriage, and absolutely a religious marriage can be defined as the religion sees fit. My religion does not discriminate against same-sex marriage, others do. That’s their freedom. But in a civil world all americans must be equal.
Matt, separate but equal is inherently unequal. Americans have been down that road before, we should learn from our mistakes….
Why define marriage at all? Just define a legal status written in a language that is sexual orientation neutral. Essentially you’ll have a business-like contract between two consenting adults – who friggin’ cares about the reason for entering into it? Let the church have marriage – who cares about a word?
Why define marriage at all? Just define a legal status written in a language that is sexual orientation neutral. Essentially you’ll have a business-like contract between two consenting adults – who friggin’ cares about the reason for entering into it? Let the church have marriage – who cares about a word?
you know what the real reason they object to gay marriage is,its the fact that then the insurance companies will have to dole out money to those couples its the big companies who stand to lose money that pay the people with a little power to say that its wrong it has nothing to do with religion it all comes down to the money! think about it
you know what the real reason they object to gay marriage is,its the fact that then the insurance companies will have to dole out money to those couples its the big companies who stand to lose money that pay the people with a little power to say that its wrong it has nothing to do with religion it all comes down to the money! think about it
As was stated above, religious people tend to frown on the use of the term marriage to describe a homosexual bond. As part of separating religion from law, I think the simplest solution is to not use the term marriage at all in law. Let marriage be the religious side of the equation, to be handled, applied, and recognized according to individual belief. Let civil union be the secular side of the equation, a right of agreement between individuals under the law. If people wish to tie marriage to civil union then so be it.
As was stated above, religious people tend to frown on the use of the term marriage to describe a homosexual bond. As part of separating religion from law, I think the simplest solution is to not use the term marriage at all in law. Let marriage be the religious side of the equation, to be handled, applied, and recognized according to individual belief. Let civil union be the secular side of the equation, a right of agreement between individuals under the law. If people wish to tie marriage to civil union then so be it.
It’s already the case that you cannot force anyone to perform a marriage. In certain Catholic churches, they won’t marry you if you’ve been divorced.
That was a specious argument.
It’s already the case that you cannot force anyone to perform a marriage. In certain Catholic churches, they won’t marry you if you’ve been divorced.
That was a specious argument.
As the previous poster has already said, no one would force churches to marry people. For instance, you think you would be allowed to have a Catholic ceremony in a Synagogue, or a Jewish ceremony in a Mosque? The argument is simply a late attempt at fear mongering.
As the previous poster has already said, no one would force churches to marry people. For instance, you think you would be allowed to have a Catholic ceremony in a Synagogue, or a Jewish ceremony in a Mosque? The argument is simply a late attempt at fear mongering.
@Matt:
“The only difference between marriage and a public union would be whether you had a member of the clergy or a public official do the dang ceremony.”
Actually, I got married in Colorado this year in a self-solemnized ceremony (meaning that my wife and I signed a paper and–ta-da!–we were legally married). Clergy or public officials were both omitted from the equation entirely, which I think makes perfect sense. The two of us, after all, were the folks getting married.
So why can’t my gay friends do the same thing? In my state, marriage clearly has nothing to do with religion to being with, so that argument holds no water.
You can claim that homosexuals in our country aren’t persecuted the way blacks were pre-Civil Rights movement and you’d be right; however, just because they weren’t egregiously treated poorly doesn’t mean many aren’t treated poorly. Separate but equal doesn’t actually work, as history has borne out, and it is only a matter of time before this great country of ours allows two consenting adults to marry one another, regardless of sexual preference.
Anyone who thinks homosexuals will muck up a supposedly sacred vow should take a long look in the mirror and see how well heterosexuals have fared at preserving the sanctity of marriage.
@Matt:
“The only difference between marriage and a public union would be whether you had a member of the clergy or a public official do the dang ceremony.”
Actually, I got married in Colorado this year in a self-solemnized ceremony (meaning that my wife and I signed a paper and–ta-da!–we were legally married). Clergy or public officials were both omitted from the equation entirely, which I think makes perfect sense. The two of us, after all, were the folks getting married.
So why can’t my gay friends do the same thing? In my state, marriage clearly has nothing to do with religion to being with, so that argument holds no water.
You can claim that homosexuals in our country aren’t persecuted the way blacks were pre-Civil Rights movement and you’d be right; however, just because they weren’t egregiously treated poorly doesn’t mean many aren’t treated poorly. Separate but equal doesn’t actually work, as history has borne out, and it is only a matter of time before this great country of ours allows two consenting adults to marry one another, regardless of sexual preference.
Anyone who thinks homosexuals will muck up a supposedly sacred vow should take a long look in the mirror and see how well heterosexuals have fared at preserving the sanctity of marriage.
Actually, marriage or “civil union” (simply a civic way of saying “marriage” or the union of two or more people) IS a right if you, first, equate it to both freedom of speech and freedom of religion – right of self-determination or of personal choice being fundamental to both and to all freedoms, or equate it to the 1st amendment “right of peaceful assembly” which is another way of saying one has the right to associate with whomever one chooses in a peaceful manner, i.e., to form relationships with whomever one wants to which, I would interpret to include more formal unions such as marriage. We could also consider the 9th amendment as implying protection of the right to marry or join with whom one chooses because the constitution is not to be “construed to deny or disparage others [rights] retained by the people.” The 10th amendment seems to reinforce this intent in that any rights not specifically addressed in the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people themselves (read: “individual rights”). It seems clear the spirit or intent of those forming the nation in the beginning was a very specific focus on guaranteeing maximum personal liberty from unjust government intrusion, either federal, state or local, into an individual’s private life. In a government allegedly “of the people, for the people, by the people” I would interpret their strong intent also that individuals ought to be restrained from interfering unjustly in the private lives of other individuals. Intrusion into one’s right to associate with whomever one chooses – to include formal unions with those persons – would seem a clear and particularly harmful violation of the spirit of the Constitution if not its specific wording in the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments.
Actually, marriage or “civil union” (simply a civic way of saying “marriage” or the union of two or more people) IS a right if you, first, equate it to both freedom of speech and freedom of religion – right of self-determination or of personal choice being fundamental to both and to all freedoms, or equate it to the 1st amendment “right of peaceful assembly” which is another way of saying one has the right to associate with whomever one chooses in a peaceful manner, i.e., to form relationships with whomever one wants to which, I would interpret to include more formal unions such as marriage. We could also consider the 9th amendment as implying protection of the right to marry or join with whom one chooses because the constitution is not to be “construed to deny or disparage others [rights] retained by the people.” The 10th amendment seems to reinforce this intent in that any rights not specifically addressed in the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people themselves (read: “individual rights”). It seems clear the spirit or intent of those forming the nation in the beginning was a very specific focus on guaranteeing maximum personal liberty from unjust government intrusion, either federal, state or local, into an individual’s private life. In a government allegedly “of the people, for the people, by the people” I would interpret their strong intent also that individuals ought to be restrained from interfering unjustly in the private lives of other individuals. Intrusion into one’s right to associate with whomever one chooses – to include formal unions with those persons – would seem a clear and particularly harmful violation of the spirit of the Constitution if not its specific wording in the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments.
Saying that your marriage is somehow lessened because a gay couple is also married is like saying that your Bentley is less of a car because I drive an 81 Mercury Lynx. STUPID.
Saying that your marriage is somehow lessened because a gay couple is also married is like saying that your Bentley is less of a car because I drive an 81 Mercury Lynx. STUPID.
I am dead set against the government allowing gay marriage…However, I’m also against the government being involved in straight marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, the legal and financial aspects of it should be allowed to all, gay or straight and should be called something else, call it civil union or call it gobledeegook for all i care. but the religious ceremony of marriage should be left for religions to decide, and the legal issues involving a long term partnership with shared allocation of resources should be left to the government and allowed to all and should not have anything to do with religion, sexual orientation, or even love for that matter.
I am dead set against the government allowing gay marriage…However, I’m also against the government being involved in straight marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, the legal and financial aspects of it should be allowed to all, gay or straight and should be called something else, call it civil union or call it gobledeegook for all i care. but the religious ceremony of marriage should be left for religions to decide, and the legal issues involving a long term partnership with shared allocation of resources should be left to the government and allowed to all and should not have anything to do with religion, sexual orientation, or even love for that matter.
The popular religions of the world got that way because they promoted procreation. If you have your followers going forth and multiplying, then you’re going to have a lot more followers by the next generation, and a lot more than that in the subsequent generation. That’s really all there is to it. We don’t have an issue of “morality” we have an issue of “is it good for making more babies”
Masterbation – bad because you could be using that time, effort, and desire to have kids instead.
Condoms – bad because it prevents children from getting conceived.
Gay Marriage – bad because instead of letting two people who love each other build an adopted family…. instead of forcing those gay people into contrived “straight unions” which could potentially create more followers.
Gay Marriage isn’t WRONG, it doesn’t hurt anyone and in my opinion it creates more love and stronger families (because the spouses actually care about one another, instead of resenting their partner… I know as a straight male, I would hate it if society forced me to marry another male and refused to recognize a family built with a woman I loved).
Gay Marriage just doesn’t PRODUCE more children.
There are some good messages in the Bible, but if you take it all literally, you’re living an ancient lifestyle that was more focused on familial quantity than quality.
As we reach unsustainable population levels, perhaps we should think about ways to fill our world with more love, instead simply more children.
If you read the Bible, you’ll notice that Jesus was a whole lot more concerned with making the world a better place than he was with following rules. If you ask yourself what Jesus would do today, I think it’s obvious he would want love, happiness, and kindness to reign over rigid intolerance and blind authority.
If you’re straight, let me assure you that gay marriage will not harm you in any way shape or form.
If it’s not going to hurt you, then for the love of God, love your neighbor enough to let them build a happy, non-artificial, family.
The popular religions of the world got that way because they promoted procreation. If you have your followers going forth and multiplying, then you’re going to have a lot more followers by the next generation, and a lot more than that in the subsequent generation. That’s really all there is to it. We don’t have an issue of “morality” we have an issue of “is it good for making more babies”
Masterbation – bad because you could be using that time, effort, and desire to have kids instead.
Condoms – bad because it prevents children from getting conceived.
Gay Marriage – bad because instead of letting two people who love each other build an adopted family…. instead of forcing those gay people into contrived “straight unions” which could potentially create more followers.
Gay Marriage isn’t WRONG, it doesn’t hurt anyone and in my opinion it creates more love and stronger families (because the spouses actually care about one another, instead of resenting their partner… I know as a straight male, I would hate it if society forced me to marry another male and refused to recognize a family built with a woman I loved).
Gay Marriage just doesn’t PRODUCE more children.
There are some good messages in the Bible, but if you take it all literally, you’re living an ancient lifestyle that was more focused on familial quantity than quality.
As we reach unsustainable population levels, perhaps we should think about ways to fill our world with more love, instead simply more children.
If you read the Bible, you’ll notice that Jesus was a whole lot more concerned with making the world a better place than he was with following rules. If you ask yourself what Jesus would do today, I think it’s obvious he would want love, happiness, and kindness to reign over rigid intolerance and blind authority.
If you’re straight, let me assure you that gay marriage will not harm you in any way shape or form.
If it’s not going to hurt you, then for the love of God, love your neighbor enough to let them build a happy, non-artificial, family.
Gay marriage … Then Polygamy … Then Incest … Then Bestiality … Then we can marry Rocks! Freedom from the man!
Gay marriage … Then Polygamy … Then Incest … Then Bestiality … Then we can marry Rocks! Freedom from the man!
Tech,Are you seriously that retarded? The slippery slope argument has already been addressed and it fails on so many levels. Rocks and animals cannot enter into legal binding contracts, bestiality is already on the books as against the law, even bestiality porn is illegal in the U.S., incest is against the law and polygamy is against the law. Those separate issues have been addressed by the legislatures across the nation.There is no slippery slope with allowing consenting adults to marry. From the process of your argumentation you could say that allowing ANY marriage is a slippery slope and once Christians are allowed to marry, then it will be Hindus, Muslims, divorcees, blacks, Jews, apes, rocks, animals… etc. so all marriage should be outlawed.You truly are a dufus.
Tech,Are you seriously that retarded? The slippery slope argument has already been addressed and it fails on so many levels. Rocks and animals cannot enter into legal binding contracts, bestiality is already on the books as against the law, even bestiality porn is illegal in the U.S., incest is against the law and polygamy is against the law. Those separate issues have been addressed by the legislatures across the nation.There is no slippery slope with allowing consenting adults to marry. From the process of your argumentation you could say that allowing ANY marriage is a slippery slope and once Christians are allowed to marry, then it will be Hindus, Muslims, divorcees, blacks, Jews, apes, rocks, animals… etc. so all marriage should be outlawed.You truly are a dufus.
Religion is all lies anyway, why would we trust its judgment in something like this?
i wanna marry a rock, at least then it doesn’t spend money.
I am totally in the group that says let gay people have marriage, its a outdated concept that most straight people can’t follow.
Marriage isn’t something that most people can handle. It takes a whole lot to be able to deal with another person for any amount of time. To call it a marriage dooms it to a failure rate that continues to climb.
Government has no business being involved in personal choices. This is the same reason we have a war on drugs which continues to put law abiding citizens in jail for marijuana. Dictated choice is good for no one. Maybe its time to tax religions until the cows come home. At least then they wouldn’t have as much money to put toward discrimination and intolerance. Did anyone aside from me notice it was a lot of the mega churches funding prop 8? They are making money at the expense of the people, with no direct benefits going back to all people. Religious organizations’ intolerance should not continue to be thrust upon this nation. Our people are hurting and we have a taxable base that could help everyone. Hopefully it would cut into the makeup budgets because i know i for one am sick of seeing these over-painted women on tv trying to tell me how i should act. Oh and someone should send them to a public school occasionally to learn about the real world and to actually earn those grades by actual intellectual study. Maybe then they wouldn’t keep thinking they are smart when they are only compared with other clueless idiots.
Plain and simple, if you are having a real problem dealing with same sex marriage…you aren’t secure in your sexuality.
Ok, I don’t want a ‘civil union’ or a legal gay marriage ban. And you know what? Florida *asked* me if I did…..I said no. Game over.
Here’s why. You know the ‘rights’ that gay people have. The *right* to have a gay pride parade. To dress in leather, whip each other’s ass and play tonsil hockey in front of my 5 year old? Yeah….those are rights. What bugs me about that isn’t necessarily the behavior itself….it’s that more gay men and women don’t find it offensive and tell them to stop it.
The prevalent, ‘don’t judge me and I won’t judge you’ attitude has to stop. At some point, you’re crossing the lines of societies norms and mores. The gay pride parade crosses the line for me. I don’t want to have to explain to my 5 year old why grown men dress like Tinkerbell and kiss each other. I just don’t.
And you want me to say ‘It’s OK for your crowd to have more rights’? I say no, sir and ma’am. Until you, as a societal group can mature and act your age, you can’t have it. Not when the state asks me.
Angoth – you are aware that you do not have to dress up and participate in the gay pride parade, right? Neither does your 5 year old. In fact, you can stay home or do any one of a thousand other things during the parade. As far as I know, no one is forced to attend those parades. If you happen to live in a predominantly gay community then I would suggest to you what has been suggested to every other minority group – move. Oh! Wait a minute! You want the freedom to live your life as you choose? Yeah, well so do other people.
Angoth, that is a completely ridiculous statement. At some point in your child’s life, she is going to come into contact with a homosexual person, and you will have to explain that lifestyle to your child regardless. Actually, I’m not sure that I’d want you teaching your child anything about the homosexual community, out of fear that you’d propagate the cycle of hate-mongering against homosexuals rather than allowing your child to make an informed, intelligent decision.
If gay pride parades are a problem for you, perhaps we should do away with parades celebrating other groups of people–veterans, persons of Irish nationality, and, what the hell, Americans!
My point is about the lack of maturity in the group. No, I don’t go to see the Pride Parade. Why aren’t more gays/lesbians outraged at that behavior? Beats me. Last time I went to a heterosexual pride parade, the Easter Bunny and Santa showed up. I remember a lot of cartoon balloons, too. No Tinkerbell dressed Freddie Mercury sado queens.
I have the right to live my life as I choose. But, you forget about the process for change in this country. We ask the populace or our elected representatives. Sure, Keith Olberman makes an empassioned plea about why it matters to me. That one was a real tear-jerker and I truly believe Keith felt it genuinely. But, it does matter….to me. And according to the process of change in this country, 3 states’ populace were asked. They said no. I was among those voters.
I will not move. That’s discriminatory and the exact thing that you’re saying is unfair to you. It’s perfectly fair. You can live together and be just as happy. What is it about the institution of marriage that would make it ‘less discriminatory’? Nothing. It’s just that you can’t and you have free time, so I see it on the news. We were asked. We said no.
See you next voter cycle. You see, even a State Supreme Court can’t override ammendments to the state constitution when the voters say it’s acceptable. Protest all you want. You seemed to be happy when the system worked in your favor….accept this one.
Angoth, here’s what you tell your child…
They are proud of who they are and that is how they choose to celebrate.
And who the heck are you to determine what is “normal” for society. I hate to tell you this, but homosexuality has been a part of society since the dawn of man. Some of history’s greatest citizens were and are homosexuals. How is it not “normal for society”? Two people in a same-sex loving relationship harms you in no way whatsoever, so stop acting as if it does.
And another thing, Angoth, I am judging you. You are prejudiced and I hate that in a person.
As for the poster concerned about those men playing tonsil-hockey (which I’m defining as a long, generous display, not a loving peck on the lips) in public — my wife and I feel the same way about heterosexual couples. But we’re not telling them they should be second-class citizens or shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Normal has already been defined in a society. It’s been studied and it’s a science all to itself. It’s called Sociology. I didn’t define it, they did.
Let me be clear. I don’t care *at all* that you say you’re gay. Gratz! But, you want to get married to a person of the same gender? Um, no. That’s just not a marriage, sorry. It’s my opinion and I voted that way.
It’s not about harm to me, it’s my opinion.
And, yes. I totally agree with you about a heterosexual couple with the same behavior. That’s called a norm or a more in Sociology. It’s just not done. No one wrote a rule about it, it’s just isn’t done.
And thank you, but, I’ll raise my child the way I choose and I’ll tell her what I want to. But, thanks for the input.
Well, Angoth, ya got with the voting stuff. You are exactly right in exercising your right to vote. The problem lies in the fact that if the voters had been asked about civil rights or women’s right to vote or slavery or any other minority oppression issue, they would have voted for status quo. This is why the Supreme Court (not state, federal) needs to step in and legally define marriage in this country.
Vote all you want – at some point the issue will be taken out of your hands. As long as the “populace” continues to show that they are ignorant, bigoted jackasses such as yourself we will continue to require a government to make decisions for you.
Yeah, and about your bullshit comments regarding ‘normal’ – take a sociology class before deciding to talk out of your ass. There was a time in society when pedophilia was considered a ‘norm’ but we, as a culture, have reviewed the psychological damage this causes children and do not practice it anymore. Homosexuality does no psychological damage to children – whether they witness it third party or are part of a homosexual family. That is science.
Sorry, Angoth, what is normal for you may not be normal for another. Ask a liberal person what’s normal and you won’t get the same answer from a neo-con. And yet they co-exist in the same society. Religion may define norms and mores but sociology does not because sociology studies and reports, it does not judge. “Norms” are typically averages, it does not judge morality, which is how you are defining it.
Yes, you have every right to raise your child the way you choose. Sadly, I feel sorry for your child, to be raised with such a narrow, prejudiced point of view.
Look, making me the bad guy here might soothe your conscience, but, it doesn’t address the facts. Fact, I know more about Sociology than you do, apparently. What I stated was the scientific sociological point of view. There are norms and mores in a society. They change over time as the people who make them change, but, they still exist.
Fact, I don’t like the idea of two same sex people getting married. More than half of the people asked in 3 states agreed with me in the first week of November, 2008.
Fact, I’m not ignorant, nor bigoted, nor a jackass. I dove in with my beliefs and opinions and they don’t seem to jive with your view of how the world ’should’ be. Fine. I’m ok with that. You, however seem to keep drinking poison hoping that I’ll feel the effects. My beliefs may differ from yours, but, I am still entitled to them and I see no valid reason to change them. Your articulate argument seems more about your feeling of “Awwww” than anything else. If that’s how you make decisions, fine.
Fact, sociology doesn’t attach any good or bad to their study of the subject matter. Yes, pedophilia was an accepted practice *long* ago. Studying it requires an objective look at why it’s acceptable to the population through the lens of the specific culture having such a norm. Documenting why it changed and how it is today is their science. Your attempt to discredit my argument by attaching the moniker of ‘pedophilia’ to your side of the conversation is lame, at best. I never said it didn’t exist or that it was a good thing.
But, back to the matter at hand. If the gay community wishes to get married, they’ll have to do a lot more than just demonstrating that it’s ‘unfair’. How can you get the American people to accept that it’s ok? I don’t know. I don’t see how your could get *this* American to accept it.
today, angoth, you can rest easy knowing that you voted with the majority. one day you will be proved wrong, and you’ll be bitter about it. i look forward to that day.
Angoth – Fact: Even if homosexuals marry, you get to keep your beliefs. That is the part I do not understand and will never accept. You are more than entitled to your beliefs but you are not necessarily entitled to force your beliefs on everyone else.
There will come a day when homosexuals are granted the right to marry and it will do absolutely nothing to your faith or beliefs.
…..except violate my definition of marriage. Yes, after the gay community can marry, I can still believe that it’s not marriage. I get it. Really, I get it.
Here’s the thing. They can’t marry right now and you get to believe just as fervently that it’s wrong. I’ll be the bad guy if you want me to be. I’m not, but, I can play him on the Internet if it will give you piece of mind that you bashed a conservative today for his backwards-ass Southern redneck views. Fire away. It won’t change how I feel or what I believe.
We’re dancing around the central issue….
Is it ok?
I say no. You say yes.
Can we call it a draw?
"I don't want to have to explain to my 5 year old why grown men dress like Tinkerbell and kiss each other. I just don't." <–stomps feet, face all red.
99.9…9% of gays don't dress in Tutu's or kiss each other in front of your 5 year old. You seem awfully focused on their behavior and their parade. Jealous of their freedom to express themselves or closet homosexual(watch American Beauty)?. Straight men dress in woman's clothes too, and engage in all kinds of deviant behavior, just watch the news with an open mind, if that's possible for you. I'm guessing your kid will sense your repressed homosexuality and end up experimenting with his own sexuality. And the more you try to repress him the more likely it will be that he turns out gay. And you will be so jealous of his ability to live his life the way he wants, unlike youself.
This is not a religious argument it's a legal issue, the conservatives just fire up their church machine when they need votes to further their agenda. It should never have gone to vote, that's why it was overturned before. They tried many times before to get it to a vote and it was turned down over and over as having no merit.
It's like saying sure we have freedom of religion here but your tax bracket is affected by your religion. "You're X-ian?….Oooo 5% deduction!" "Buddhist?….ummmm, don't see it here, sorry, no deduction."
Angoth, you are bigoted because you are judging people and awarding rights based on their sexual orientation. That is discrimination, that is prejudice, that is being a bigot.
You can soothe your conscience all you want. Nobody wants to tell you how you should worship God, nobody wants to tell you where to live, nobody wants to tell you which gender to find attractive. All they ask is that you do the same.
As for norms and mores — norms are standard behavior for a group of people. Your group may not include another group. If you are going to clump all of America, then the majority of people are not homosexual, yes. But that is not saying that their sexual preference makes them criminal nor immoral. So how should that take away from their rights?
Mores, more defined, are customs and conventions that change over time, typically the more (no pun intended) they are witnessed as a part of society. Your vote, in my estimates, will be moot in a short period of time. The question is, once the law changes, will your prejudices?
Angoth, you’re not the “bad guy” you’re the conservative fool afraid of losing something you feel defines you. You look at someone you don’t like and need to feel superior to them. But you’re completely missing the point in trying to make this a sociology issue. This isn’t about what is ‘normal’ it’s about what is legal. Like slavery, owning a gun, owning property of women voting. Lets examine your marriage and your ability to raise a child and decide if it matches the ‘norm’. Because what society has decided upon (by voting!) as ‘normal’ must be forced upon everyone. We must not change or it’s right down that slippery slope to decadence. Or to progress and a culture maturing beyond past prejudices. You are definitely a bigot, please admit that to yourself. It’s the first step to feeling like you belong in this country and deserve it’s freedoms.
“…..except violate my definition of marriage.” wow, pathetic, you’re really reaching now. You are losing a definition? A definition of a f’n word?? You fearful conservatives are violating my definition of “pursuit of happiness” of “freedom” of “common sense” of “American”.
The central issue is not “is it ok?” This is the slippery slope to government deciding what freedoms you should have based not upon whether or not those freedoms infringe upon another’s rights but simply on what a majority think is ‘normal’. Normal never got anyone or any society anywhere, no progress, no improvement, no freedom. You go live in your little conservative world in FL and be bitter and hateful to your fellow man, the world matures around you and you’ll have few people to talk to soon.
Here’s my thing. I believe how I do and I get castrated on the Internet as if there’s something wrong with me. I didn’t ask if it was ok. I told you what I thought.
The gay marriage community needs to drop its artillery if they want to win people over to their point of view. You’ve all got some serious issues if a single opinion, held by many, many others, voiced on the Internet gets this much crossfire.
Yes, it’s a legal issue. And the rules for determining its legality were that it was put up for a vote. It was defeated. I’m not bitter about issues that were defeated that I cared strongly about, I went on about my way.
With the advocates of gay marriage, not so much. Just re-read your comments. I presented my opinion and thoughts and you all thought it was in your best interest to polarize the issue and blast me, en masse. That’s the best way to get me to ’see the error of my ways and change my mind’?
Nice.
angoth is not a homosexual. angoth is not a bigot. angoth is not judging. angoth’s child will probably not turn out to be homosexual.
angoth has simply put forth an argument which stalemates the rest of you into debasing your argument into something like….”well i cant wait till gays can get married, so we can rub it in your face” or “your going to repress your son so much that hes going to probably going to turn out gay”.
sounds like “fear mongering”. You people form such weak arguments based on opinions. Try basing them on facts. Like this one. According to “This Country”….It voted against gay marriage. Why?
becuase you cant make a child with two weiners.
“This Country” didn’t vote against gay marriage because “you can’t make a child with two weiners”. You idiot!
Married people are not forced to have children and nowhere does it say marriage is solely for two people to procreate. I have to say it again… You idiot!
And, yes, Angoth is judging and Angoth is a bigot. A bigot is uncompromising, exhibiting blind devotion and implies intolerance, especially with regard to religious doctrine.
And your definition of “fear mongering” is the opposite of what you are saying. Fear mongering is influencing people towards a point of view by telling them that if events occur we will all suffer or die. And that is what anti-gay marriage advocates do. They are the fear-mongers.
The whole problem stems from there being two types of marriages: legal, and religious.
Religious people, since you’re the one that’s upset about this, stop trying to change others. Instead, turn the other cheek.
Instead of calling a religious marriage “marriage”, call it “holy matrimony”. Not only will this be easier on everyone, including the legal system, corporations that consider marriages, etc., but you can feel better about yourself that was as well, knowing you have a “premium” version of marriage. There will be no legal difference, but it’s something to help differentiate you from homosexual marriages, which seems to be your goal here.
Mike Huckabee is no longer the governor of Arkansas.
Debased arguments? The guy with 1st grade grammar and a fact like “you cant make a child with two weiners” says we have weak arguments.
A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class (see bigotry)
Yes Angoth is a bigot. Yes Angoth is judging. (Probably a homosexual too)
Yes Angoth does deserve all the abuse he gets for his hateful opinions. If your ‘opinion’ takes a legal right away from someone else it’s not actually an ‘opinion’ it’s oppression. This is a legal issue.
I didn’t take a legal right away from someone else. They didn’t have it in the first place and I voted to keep it that way. Oppression? Yeah, I’m the man keeping the homos down.
Why don’t you just go get married regardless of the law? Rosa Parks didn’t get a petition going. She violated a law that she saw as unjust (maybe she was just tired…I don’t know). Go get married. Do you need my permission? Do you need the state’s permission? No. Find a preacher who will perform the ceremony and get hitched.
Will it be recognized? That wasn’t your argument. It’s been said that you can’t. You very much can. Do you want marriage or legally recognized marriage with all it’s benefits and detriments?
‘We want to be just like anyone else’ is what I hear. You are just like anyone else. You have choices and those choices have consequences. Determine the risk for yourself and choose carefully. Does your attraction to the same sex make you a deviant? Who the hell am I to say yes or no? Who am I to care?
It’s the behavior that I have a problem with. Behave as if you’re an adult and I’ll treat you accordingly. Few who’ve responded to my posts have passed that test, so far. Go get married. Go bungie jump. Go have sex with multiple anonymous partners without protection. Go live your life. Drink too much coffee and watch Nickelodeon. Stay up too late and learn French.
You didn’t ask me if it was ok so far. Why do you care about my opinion now?
Shit! Go get married already. To hell with the state and federal recognition. Make it up as you go along and let everyone else deal with it.
“We’re here, we’re married, get used to it.”
Arkansas’ governor is Mike Beebe–not Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is a former governor.
Gay people do have a right to get married, just to the opposite sex. So their rights aren’t being impeded.
I love that marrying animals stupidity. Did allowing women to vote mean that animals were allowed to vote? Did allowing blacks civil rights give civil rights to animals? Christians say the dumbest things.
Some of you wonder why do we make such a fuss? My partner and I (of 15 years, mind you), don't have the same rights as you do, period. In so many areas of law such as taxes, hospital visitations, inheritance, property ownership, military/pension/social security benefits, insurance, adoptions & parenting rights, banking, and on and on, we are treated differently. It's in the biggest things, as well as the smallest. I can't have her under my work's health insurance policy. If she's incapacitated in the hospital, I have to prove to the hospital's lawyer that I have the right to visit her with legal documents. We can't even bury a deceased partner without a legal team behind us. Heck, we can't even buy a AAA family membership, like any other hetero couple can, not to mention that our auto insurance can't be combined into a family policy. This is not petty. It is not funny. This is a matter of equal protection under the law. Get off your high horse, talk to us & try to understand our shared humanity. All we want is equality.
It seems like a simple civil rights issue to me. Every argument against gay marriage breaks down under any kind of scrutiny.
“They can’t reproduce” — it is not illegal for infertile people to marry. Not even the Catholic church would disallow an infertile couple to wed.
“Homosexuality is a sin according to religion X” — people of any religion are allowed to be married in our country.
“homosexuals make me uncomfortable” — If every other person in the USA is personally offended by you, you STILL have the right to be married. The government should not decide who is allowed to marry whom. That would demean us all.
“it’s a slippery slope, next are children, relatives, animals, rocks, etc” — this is about the right of 2 unmarried consenting adults to marry. Whether or not we want to exclude family members from marrying each other is a question that would affect heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.
“marriage is a religious ritual, it belongs to my religion” — marriage affects how you file taxes, whether you can make choices for each other in the hospital, etc. We’ve made marriage a legal matter, so it cannot be controlled by any religion. If we undid all of the legal benefits of marriage, perhaps then we could consider it a religious ritual, subject to the rules of religion.
@Angoth – you are the (wo)man. Thanks for your comments. It appears you have many enemies here, but many have also read and appreciated your taking time to reiterate what they also know to be right. I am one of them. Good to know you are out there.
I think we are headed towards civil unions as a solution. California – absent dictatorial decree – pushed us in that direction. I am not worried about separate but equal. If you have two schools each with X square feet, Y teachers, and Z operating budget they will not be the same because of so many things that make a school that cannot be controlled. But if line 12.A5b1 says “a married person can ride with their spouse in an ambulance” and 12.A5b2 says “a civil unioned person can ride with their partner in an ambulance” then its pretty hard to argue both do not benefit from equal treatment under the law for that matter. Separate lines but equal benefit.
@BGH you said “bestiality is already on the books as against the law, even bestiality porn is illegal in the U.S., incest is against the law and polygamy is against the law.” Sodomy was also on the books at one time, but we took a step down “the slope” and took it off the books. As long I am on the topic of slopes, I think there is the slope described by [tech]; I do not think it is slippery, but only because societal norms have been successful discouraging them (back to Angoth’s points on sociology) – less so because they are illegal. I think a lot of this debate around gay marriage is about folks deciding to exert those social forces.
I am more opposed to homosexuality than I am gay marriage as a government issue. So I use the gay marriage issue to express societal concern. Its imperfect, more of a question of priority I suppose. But I know homosexuality is immoral, and I oppose it out of concern for those who feel they are homosexual. At the end of the day we will see that it went against the natural order of life and had negative effects. Homosexuals I associate with will ask me, “why didn’t you tell me if you knew?” As soon as I come with a good answer for that question, I will drop the issue.
I hypothesize that homosexuality is choice driven. Even if it isn’t, it really doesn’t change my view. I am “genetically” heterosexual and have never felt obligated to act out my heterosexual “tendencies.” I have chosen to do so, and for an appropriate time I chose not to. It worked out.
I haven’t come across the scientist that says “give me a genome and I will tell you if the person is homosexual or not”. I have read articles with interesting correlations and associations, but the scientists – preserving their credibility in front of peers – are modest in their claims. The media interpreting those articles, not so much. I have also read a lot of “its complicated mix of many factors” I have to agree with them there. Can someone help me here? Happy to read. But I suspect if it exists in any conclusive form then that bibliographical reference would be on every picket sign rather than “gays want to be miserable too” that has become so popular.
I am not as worried about the conclusion as I am about how I behave during the conversation – this is the case with so many political issues. So thanks for having me in your conversation.
Jack
Angoth: “I didn’t take a legal right away from someone else. They didn’t have it in the first place and I voted to keep it that way.”
Just because the current society does not currently recognize a human right does not mean it does not exist regardless. Blacks had the right to “be free” even before slavery laws were abolished. It was just backward degenerates (such as yourself) that held it back.
You make me sick.
1. Compromise and don’t ask for gay marriage to be called ‘marriage.’ Use ‘civil union’ or whatever.
2. Once that is passed, call it a marriage anyways.
Are you going to be arrested for saying ‘we’re married?’ No. Get the substance first. The technicality in syntax can be overthrown with simple majority use, like how ‘google it’ means ’search for it on the internet’ or how “ain’t” is now a word.
Anon-
Just because a judicial bench declares something to exist or be does not mean that it does.
If the Supreme Court were to declare that “In God We Trust” includes the atheist god too, I imagine people would be upset.
There are definitional issues at hand (just like in gay marriage), but the definition is more inclusive (just like gay marriage) and there is also “no harm” since muslim or anglican would not be harmed by the redefinition any more than the atheist would (apparently like gay marriage).
So a Supreme court ruling, a more inclusive definition, or lack of harm don’t necessarily make the situation right.
Jack
Jack -
This should not be a political issue. This should be a human issue. Two consenting adults, who harm no one else, should be able carry on a loving relationship. That is not immoral. Immoral is a husband who beats his wife. Immoral is a man or woman who abuses his/her kids.
Homosexuals marrying has absolutely no affect on anyone else – plain and simple. And for those who voice an opinion and attempt to restrict their human rights for no other reason than to say it is immoral, are actually the ones being immoral.
I’m so fucking tired of this argument. Listen. The state *asked* me if I thought it would be ok. I said no. Those are the rules for change in this country. Every other argument is a moot point akin to ‘God kills a kitten’. Please!!! Think of the kittens!!!!
It’s not about winning, it’s not about being right. It’s about my opinion. There were several other issues on the ballot, but, you aren’t bashing me for keeping state revenue from someone because I voted a tax increase down. That’s another opinion of mine. One that you don’t particularly give a shit about.
Now…..me depriving you of rights that you never had….I’m the asshole? No, sir or ma’am. I didn’t take them away, I think it’s wrong to grant them to a couple that I don’t think is married.
Tax benefits? Hospital visitation? Inheritance? Property ownership? Military/pension/social security benefits? Insurance? Adoptions? Parenting rights? Banking? You aren’t married. Tell me that you haven’t solved those problems yet. Really?
You never enjoyed those rights because you aren’t married. Sorry to break it to you sister. Guess your friends and family feel like you are, but, you aren’t. And the state asked me if you should be allowed to.
I said no.
Guess what I’ll say next time. No…go ahead and guess.
Angoth – yes, you are an asshole.
My favorite part of this whole discussion is that YOU came here to post your differing opinion and then YOU are surprised and upset when people disagree with you as though we were all supposed to say “Oh. Okay, well I guess that is one person’s opinion and we should all respect it.” But you have no respect for any other opinion that differs from yours.
No one particularly gives a shit how you voted. You wrote that purely to be antagonistic and now you want to cry about how we are all being so mean to you. Who cares? Okay, you voted. Good for you. Guess what? Next time around the vote might not be left up to you and believe me, we will fight very hard to ensure that happens.
Preventing homosexuals from having legally recognized marriages is discrimination and sooner or later the Supreme Court will recognize that and rule accordingly.
You’ll have to change the constitution first. Good luck with that.
And… you’re not getting it Angoth.If legislation is found to be in violation of the U.S. constitution a court can overrule ‘majority opinion’ that is the essence of this battle. Just because a bunch of people voted to treat a minority like third class citizens does not mean it is constitutional or non-discriminatory. There are basic rights afforded to citizens of this country in the ‘Bill Of Rights’, one of these is the right to the pursuit of happiness without being discriminated against based on creed or color. You have the right to join in a heterosexual marriage with another consenting adult and enjoy all of the legal benefits entailed therein. The request of the homosexual community is to be afforded the same rights. Your church need not recognize the marriage, only the state. If the state does not it is in violation of the federal document describing the liberties granted to citizens of this nation.I could give a shit less how many of your fellow discriminatory bigots voted for the banning of gay marriage, it is still unconstitutional and should be overturned.
Jack: “If the Supreme Court were to declare that “In God We Trust” includes the atheist god too, I imagine people would be upset.”
Well the whole “In God we Trust” shouldn’t be there in the first place, but that is a whole other argument entirely.
Your argument against being “inclusive” which really equates to EQUALITY FOR ALL, is that equality may upset some people? Yes, it might upset bigoted douches like Angoth, but that does not a satisfactory argument make to being discriminatory.
Angoth: “Guess your friends and family feel like you are, but, you aren’t.”
This was perhaps the most depressing insight into your rather vile character in that whole egotistical post… That… that not only do you revel in your bigotry at gay people like some foul swine bathing in it’s own shit and proud of it, but you also smugly want to elevate yourself, not just over the gay people you have so proudly put down, but also their family and friends like you can spin your authority over them also.
I wouldn’t call you an “arsehole”, you are just a pathetic bigot plain and simple, and no.. I am happy to say the argument is going to go away, we are going to be in your face forever.
Angoth: “You’ll have to change the Constitution first. Good luck with that.”
Your smugness reveals your true bigotry. This is a fight of yours against a group of people. You wish to continue discriminatory practices.
Well, I hate to be the one to inform you (actually, I love to be the one to inform you) but, (A) The Constitution has changed many times in the last 232 years. (B) It doesn’t need to in this case. At some point the Supreme Court will guarantee the rights under the Constitution. That is what the federal judiciary branch does when the States discriminate and don’t abide by the US Constitution.
See, this is called progress. Like when the slaves were freed and when women were awarded the right to vote. Most of the people in this forum are progressive. People like you are not. You’re stuck in your medieval ways. Your thinking is stunted.
What is that word that is opposite of progressive? Oh yeah! Retarded.
Agnoth: Don’t have to change the constitution. I’m not homosexual, but my religion allows for homosexuals to marry and have been performing these ceremonies for 30 years. The first amendment already affords me the right to practice my religion without fear of being persecuted or having laws establish one religion over another (i.e. accepting one religion’s definition of marriage over mine). Denying the right for Gays to marry violates my first amendment rights.
And for those of you interested in what religion I’m talking about, it’s Universal Unitarian.
I used to agree with Matt that gays should throw the christians a bone and let them keep their ‘marriage’ word sacred, so long as they have equal rights under the law, who cares what you call it.
When you you think about it though you realise that you can’t lump all gays together as the gay community and there will always be those who disagree.
As another comment says, you can’t change everyone’s opinion. If a christian believes a gay marriage to not really be marriage where as the gay couple belive it is then there’s nothing either can do to affect the other’s opinion and the only solution to the problem is for them both to get over it!
The constitution has to be changed to do what you’re proposing, though. What I hear is that this enlightened legislative branch will rally to your cause, eventually. Only problem is that the Supreme Court is a judiciary branch.
The legislative branch is Congress. Start there. If you get legislation to pass, it’s federal and the states must obey. It’s at that point that the Supreme Court can step in and say, “Um….no.” They don’t make legislation themselves. At no time in their history have they initiated legislation.
Sure, the Supreme Court can and frequently has said that State laws violate provisions in the Constitution. But, they have never said a State’s constitution has to be changed.
The slaves were freed by Presidential order and later ratified into an amendment to the constitution.
Maybe I’m the only one who’s actually read it. So, as I said, good luck with that.
>>> "This should not be a political issue. This should be a human issue. Two consenting adults, who harm no one else, should be able carry on a loving relationship." <<<
I don't see the government prohibiting consenting adults from carrying on a loving relationship.
Jack
Jack: “I don’t see the government prohibiting consenting adults from carrying on a loving relationship.”
Strawman.
He never said anything about the government “prohibiting” consenting adults from having a relationship. He just said consenting adults should be free to carry on a loving relationship, which would include:
1) Freedom from the government trying to define or restrict what their relationship should be, and
2) Freedom from other people trying to define or restrict what their relationship should be.
You wouldn’t like it if somebody else tried to tell you who you could or could not marry (whether that was the government or some biggoted douch like Angoth) so please show these people the same respect you expect of them.
Jack: “I don’t see the government prohibiting consenting adults from carrying on a loving relationship.”
Strawman.
He never said anything about the government “prohibiting” consenting adults from having a relationship. He just said consenting adults should be free to carry on a loving relationship, which would include:
1) Freedom from the government trying to define or restrict what their relationship should be, and
2) Freedom from other people trying to define or restrict what their relationship should be.
You wouldn’t like it if somebody else tried to tell you who you could or could not marry (whether that was the government or some biggoted douch like Angoth) so please show these people the same respect you expect of them.
Ok, look. The government isn’t telling *anyone* who they can and can’t marry. If you’re a man, you can marry any woman you want. If you’re a woman, you can marry any man you want.
Anything else (repeat it with me) isn’t marriage.
It may be loving, it may be a dedicated relationship, it may be a lot of things. But, it isn’t marriage.
I *am* showing the the same respect that I expect from them. I expect that they’ll be happy when I decided to get married. You know, to a someone of the opposite sex, because that’s marriage.
Is that what this is all about? Damn! This is easy to solve. Go get married, everyone. I just thought the lesbians wanted to marry other women and gay men other gay men.
My bad. Sorry for the confusion. Problem fixed.
Ok, look. The government isn’t telling *anyone* who they can and can’t marry. If you’re a man, you can marry any woman you want. If you’re a woman, you can marry any man you want.
Anything else (repeat it with me) isn’t marriage.
It may be loving, it may be a dedicated relationship, it may be a lot of things. But, it isn’t marriage.
I *am* showing the the same respect that I expect from them. I expect that they’ll be happy when I decided to get married. You know, to a someone of the opposite sex, because that’s marriage.
Is that what this is all about? Damn! This is easy to solve. Go get married, everyone. I just thought the lesbians wanted to marry other women and gay men other gay men.
My bad. Sorry for the confusion. Problem fixed.
“The government isn’t telling *anyone* who they can and can’t marry.”
If the government is telling people they have to marry a person of a specific gender despite their inherit wishes then YES, they are telling them who they can and can not marry.
It’s not up to you or the government to tell people who they can or can not marry.
“I *am* showing the the same respect that I expect from them”
Putting emphasis around words does not make them true despite the evidence to the contrary, or change yourself from being a smug, bigoted little troll that does anything but respect her other human beings.
“The government isn’t telling *anyone* who they can and can’t marry.”
If the government is telling people they have to marry a person of a specific gender despite their inherit wishes then YES, they are telling them who they can and can not marry.
It’s not up to you or the government to tell people who they can or can not marry.
“I *am* showing the the same respect that I expect from them”
Putting emphasis around words does not make them true despite the evidence to the contrary, or change yourself from being a smug, bigoted little troll that does anything but respect her other human beings.
“Anything else (repeat it with me) isn’t marriage.”
Oh, and I know personal freedom is a difficult, difficult concept for you to grasp, but don’t try tell me what to do or to say.
I happen to like living in a free country, although it seems freedom is harder and harder to defend these days with douches like you running around.
“Anything else (repeat it with me) isn’t marriage.”
Oh, and I know personal freedom is a difficult, difficult concept for you to grasp, but don’t try tell me what to do or to say.
I happen to like living in a free country, although it seems freedom is harder and harder to defend these days with douches like you running around.
Angoth, what was said was that the Constitution can be changed as it has in the past, but that in this type of case, state laws will initiate the Supreme Court knocking out bans voted on by the states saying that they are unconstitutional. This is where changing the US constitution will not be necessary. Laws against discrimination are already in there.
Federal laws are above state laws. If the state laws are found to be unconstitutional under federal law, they will be overturned.
And you’re wrong. Governments are trying to tell people who they can legally marry thanks to bigots and narrow-minded idiots like you. In one breath you say they don’t and in the next it’s “as long as it’s one man and one woman”. Well, you’ve just pointed out the hypocrisy right there.
Angoth, what was said was that the Constitution can be changed as it has in the past, but that in this type of case, state laws will initiate the Supreme Court knocking out bans voted on by the states saying that they are unconstitutional. This is where changing the US constitution will not be necessary. Laws against discrimination are already in there.
Federal laws are above state laws. If the state laws are found to be unconstitutional under federal law, they will be overturned.
And you’re wrong. Governments are trying to tell people who they can legally marry thanks to bigots and narrow-minded idiots like you. In one breath you say they don’t and in the next it’s “as long as it’s one man and one woman”. Well, you’ve just pointed out the hypocrisy right there.
Overturned, yes. As I said, this has happened with regularity. But, it’s up to the state to make another law if it so chooses. Overturning a law doesn’t make it’s mirror image law.
In the history of the Supreme Court versus Congress or the States, there are numerous examples of laws being overturned and then the State/Congress tweaks it a little bit. Then that law takes its chance in Court, again.
Here’s my problem. With the crowd that is so passionate against my point of view….. Why do you resort to name calling and attacks? Is that the best way to change the minds of those like me?
I mean, really. I said, ‘homos’ in one of my posts to make an ironic point. I didn’t resort to calling anyone names or attacking them on a personal basis. I presented my viewpoint, knowing what would happen. I didn’t budge off my opinion. I appreciated the discussion. But, the other side thought it was in their best interest to call me a bigot, idiot, smug, troll, douche, etc.
Good luck winning this issue when you personify the behavior that I mentioned earlier. If you’d grow up and stop making it personal, maybe, just maybe you’d make some ground.
Overturned, yes. As I said, this has happened with regularity. But, it’s up to the state to make another law if it so chooses. Overturning a law doesn’t make it’s mirror image law.
In the history of the Supreme Court versus Congress or the States, there are numerous examples of laws being overturned and then the State/Congress tweaks it a little bit. Then that law takes its chance in Court, again.
Here’s my problem. With the crowd that is so passionate against my point of view….. Why do you resort to name calling and attacks? Is that the best way to change the minds of those like me?
I mean, really. I said, ‘homos’ in one of my posts to make an ironic point. I didn’t resort to calling anyone names or attacking them on a personal basis. I presented my viewpoint, knowing what would happen. I didn’t budge off my opinion. I appreciated the discussion. But, the other side thought it was in their best interest to call me a bigot, idiot, smug, troll, douche, etc.
Good luck winning this issue when you personify the behavior that I mentioned earlier. If you’d grow up and stop making it personal, maybe, just maybe you’d make some ground.
“Overturning a law doesn’t make it’s mirror image law.”
It doesn’t need to. I really fail to see why a dullard such as yourself can’t seem to grasp that the anti-discriminatory elements of the constitution already exist that should (if there is any freedom left in the world) defeat this no matter how many times you try “tweak” your discriminatory laws.
“Why do you resort to name calling and attacks? Is that the best way to change the minds of those like me?”
You call people “homos” a word up there with “niggers”, then try to cowardly frame it as “irony” and then you have the gall to complain that people call you a “bigot”.
You fail to grasp the simple process by which these discriminatory laws are going to be challenged, it has to be explained to you over and over and then you have the gall to whine at being called an “idiot”.
You proudly gloat about knocking back things like hospital visitation rights for gay people, well that well earns you labels like “smug”, “douche” and “troll”. I mean really… You try tell everyone you do treat gay people how you would like to be treated and then you come out with crap like that… add nauseatingly dishonest to the adjective list that describes your rather repulsive personality.
Really, I would think an Anne Colter wannabee such as yourself would have more stamina than to start crying like a baby after being so offensive to everyone here, and no we don’t need to change your mind if the constitution does its’ job.
“Good luck winning this issue when you personify the behavior that I mentioned earlier. If you’d grow up and stop making it personal, maybe, just maybe you’d make some ground.”
Oh, could you be any more disingenuous if you tried? Sorry, when you are being attacked by bigots such as yourself it is personal. Don’t worry, the gay community has woken up, we’ve been awake for years and made real progress (with the help of our friends and family) towards defending our basic human rights in just decades. We aren’t going to just go away and you can sook and cry about that all you like.
“Overturning a law doesn’t make it’s mirror image law.”
It doesn’t need to. I really fail to see why a dullard such as yourself can’t seem to grasp that the anti-discriminatory elements of the constitution already exist that should (if there is any freedom left in the world) defeat this no matter how many times you try “tweak” your discriminatory laws.
“Why do you resort to name calling and attacks? Is that the best way to change the minds of those like me?”
You call people “homos” a word up there with “niggers”, then try to cowardly frame it as “irony” and then you have the gall to complain that people call you a “bigot”.
You fail to grasp the simple process by which these discriminatory laws are going to be challenged, it has to be explained to you over and over and then you have the gall to whine at being called an “idiot”.
You proudly gloat about knocking back things like hospital visitation rights for gay people, well that well earns you labels like “smug”, “douche” and “troll”. I mean really… You try tell everyone you do treat gay people how you would like to be treated and then you come out with crap like that… add nauseatingly dishonest to the adjective list that describes your rather repulsive personality.
Really, I would think an Anne Colter wannabee such as yourself would have more stamina than to start crying like a baby after being so offensive to everyone here, and no we don’t need to change your mind if the constitution does its’ job.
“Good luck winning this issue when you personify the behavior that I mentioned earlier. If you’d grow up and stop making it personal, maybe, just maybe you’d make some ground.”
Oh, could you be any more disingenuous if you tried? Sorry, when you are being attacked by bigots such as yourself it is personal. Don’t worry, the gay community has woken up, we’ve been awake for years and made real progress (with the help of our friends and family) towards defending our basic human rights in just decades. We aren’t going to just go away and you can sook and cry about that all you like.
Angoth, I don’t think anyone is looking to be nice to you to change your mind. Prejudice is ingrained over time and is nearly impossible to change in a person. I doubt calling you intelligent in your thinking will do anything and, quite frankly, I’d be fibbing.
You may have intelligence, but it’s masked by bigotry. Just imagine yourself in a world where whatever nationality you are, whatever sexual orientation you may be, whatever religion you may follow, you are told you aren’t normal and can’t have the same rights as others. I’m sure you’d feel persecuted too.
Unfortunately, people like you don’t have that kind of imagination. You think your way is the only way.
Angoth, I don’t think anyone is looking to be nice to you to change your mind. Prejudice is ingrained over time and is nearly impossible to change in a person. I doubt calling you intelligent in your thinking will do anything and, quite frankly, I’d be fibbing.
You may have intelligence, but it’s masked by bigotry. Just imagine yourself in a world where whatever nationality you are, whatever sexual orientation you may be, whatever religion you may follow, you are told you aren’t normal and can’t have the same rights as others. I’m sure you’d feel persecuted too.
Unfortunately, people like you don’t have that kind of imagination. You think your way is the only way.
Dear God, this has been almost painful to read. People need to realize that there is almost no hope in changing someone’s beliefs. NONE. So arguing really is getting us no where. Please understand that I am a member of the GLBTQ community and I am a passionate believer in homosexual marriage. But, if we are going to make any progress with conservatives, such as Angoth, we need to learn to compromise. Then slowly their state of minds will change and they will become more tolerant. All of this name calling, which is radiating from BOTH sides, either makes you look like a bigot or completely irrational. No one party here is the enemy. If we homosexuals want full rights, we must approach this as Martin Luther King, Jr. did. He did not attack the ‘enemies’ state of mind, he tried to create allies and friendships, not polarize ethnicites (or anything else that might be polarized in such an instance). So we must focus on joining together and battling misinformation, not each other.
Sorry, just my 2 cents. Don’t mean to sound preachy (actually, yea I do.) Hope everyone has a Happy Chunnukah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, New Years, or whatever else there is to celebrate.
)
Dear God, this has been almost painful to read. People need to realize that there is almost no hope in changing someone’s beliefs. NONE. So arguing really is getting us no where. Please understand that I am a member of the GLBTQ community and I am a passionate believer in homosexual marriage. But, if we are going to make any progress with conservatives, such as Angoth, we need to learn to compromise. Then slowly their state of minds will change and they will become more tolerant. All of this name calling, which is radiating from BOTH sides, either makes you look like a bigot or completely irrational. No one party here is the enemy. If we homosexuals want full rights, we must approach this as Martin Luther King, Jr. did. He did not attack the ‘enemies’ state of mind, he tried to create allies and friendships, not polarize ethnicites (or anything else that might be polarized in such an instance). So we must focus on joining together and battling misinformation, not each other.
Sorry, just my 2 cents. Don’t mean to sound preachy (actually, yea I do.) Hope everyone has a Happy Chunnukah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, New Years, or whatever else there is to celebrate.
)
I think when someone is being bigoted it needs to be pointed out, especially for those reading these forums. Too often people don’t see themselves as being bigoted. They speak freely under the guise of their religion, no matter how much they’ve twisted the preachings.
Pointing out the prejudice in the words here is how you “battle” misinformation. You’ll never ever change Angoth’s thinking. You just won’t. But if enough voices are heard that drown out Angoth’s bigotry, that’s important.
And a Happy Whatever to you too! ;}
I think when someone is being bigoted it needs to be pointed out, especially for those reading these forums. Too often people don’t see themselves as being bigoted. They speak freely under the guise of their religion, no matter how much they’ve twisted the preachings.
Pointing out the prejudice in the words here is how you “battle” misinformation. You’ll never ever change Angoth’s thinking. You just won’t. But if enough voices are heard that drown out Angoth’s bigotry, that’s important.
And a Happy Whatever to you too! ;}
MIchelle – in theory I agree with you and if there was a chance that Angoth was a reasonable, rational-thinking person, your method would work. However, that is not the case. Often these arguments are not intended to change the mind of the opponent but to present information to the reading audience. Angoth has outed him/herself as a bigot and had been fairly clear about it. We, in turn, reveal his/her poor reasoning for what it is and allow the readers to gain a bit more insight into just how discriminatory these bans are.
I am not a member of the GLBTQ community and thanks to the efforts of individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr. I am aware of the stultifying effects non-rational thinking can have on the progression of society. I do not need to deny someone equal rights out of fear that they are different from me. As someone else pointed out, I too am different from them and if the roles were reversed you can bet I would be fighting for my rights. This is no different. In fact, I could sit here and do quite the opposite of Angoth and boast about how ‘open-minded’ I am because I support gay marriage or have a gay cousin or whatever other condescending remarks everyone has heard, but the truth is this is about rights and while I may not have a vested or personal interest in the GLBTQ community it does not take too many brain cells to see the injustice and I feel we can treat people much, much better than that. It would not matter to me if this issue were about gay marriage or inter-faith marriage or inter-race marriage. The results are the same – one group’s rights are getting trampled due to the ignorance of a larger group and I will speak out against it.
Angoth has but one vote and one opinion and eventually that vote will be taken out of the public’s hands because the public does not have a history of making good decisions regarding these issues. There may be some growing pains for people such as Angoth but I assure you it will be no where near the growing pains this country has endured in the past. It is time we, The United States, steps up to the front of the world stage and sends a clear message about progression and tolerance. It is time to change the global opinion of the US and there is only one way to do that – action. Not just with this issue but with many others.
My political leanings tend to follow reason and it is my holiday wish that we all turn our minds toward reason to begin the journey toward the future.
Happy Holidays to you all!
MIchelle – in theory I agree with you and if there was a chance that Angoth was a reasonable, rational-thinking person, your method would work. However, that is not the case. Often these arguments are not intended to change the mind of the opponent but to present information to the reading audience. Angoth has outed him/herself as a bigot and had been fairly clear about it. We, in turn, reveal his/her poor reasoning for what it is and allow the readers to gain a bit more insight into just how discriminatory these bans are.
I am not a member of the GLBTQ community and thanks to the efforts of individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr. I am aware of the stultifying effects non-rational thinking can have on the progression of society. I do not need to deny someone equal rights out of fear that they are different from me. As someone else pointed out, I too am different from them and if the roles were reversed you can bet I would be fighting for my rights. This is no different. In fact, I could sit here and do quite the opposite of Angoth and boast about how ‘open-minded’ I am because I support gay marriage or have a gay cousin or whatever other condescending remarks everyone has heard, but the truth is this is about rights and while I may not have a vested or personal interest in the GLBTQ community it does not take too many brain cells to see the injustice and I feel we can treat people much, much better than that. It would not matter to me if this issue were about gay marriage or inter-faith marriage or inter-race marriage. The results are the same – one group’s rights are getting trampled due to the ignorance of a larger group and I will speak out against it.
Angoth has but one vote and one opinion and eventually that vote will be taken out of the public’s hands because the public does not have a history of making good decisions regarding these issues. There may be some growing pains for people such as Angoth but I assure you it will be no where near the growing pains this country has endured in the past. It is time we, The United States, steps up to the front of the world stage and sends a clear message about progression and tolerance. It is time to change the global opinion of the US and there is only one way to do that – action. Not just with this issue but with many others.
My political leanings tend to follow reason and it is my holiday wish that we all turn our minds toward reason to begin the journey toward the future.
Happy Holidays to you all!
JCE…
Extremely well said! Speak to anyone from another developed nation and they scoff at our puritan hypocrisy. We are not leaders when it comes to progressive thought unless there is money involved.
And I love how Americans are eager to throw around the word “freedom” as if European nations aren’t free. We will be a free country when we decide that being #19 in education is not enough. When being #37 in healthcare is not enough. When people are put before money. When simple liberties are available to ALL people.
JCE…
Extremely well said! Speak to anyone from another developed nation and they scoff at our puritan hypocrisy. We are not leaders when it comes to progressive thought unless there is money involved.
And I love how Americans are eager to throw around the word “freedom” as if European nations aren’t free. We will be a free country when we decide that being #19 in education is not enough. When being #37 in healthcare is not enough. When people are put before money. When simple liberties are available to ALL people.
OMFG!
Too many responses……slow Angoth, slow….take them one at a time.
I read a bumper sticker once that kinda exemplifies the sentiment you’re advocating, “Imagine a world where schools get everything they need and the military has to hold a bake sale to build an aircraft carrier.” That sounds great. Except when someone takes your schools by force. That’s reason. That’s accepting human nature at its fundamental level and knowing that you must protect what you have.
We do live in a free country. Free isn’t defined by your ranking in the world in certain stats. Holy catfish! Education is the responsibility of the parents, not the state. Healthcare is your responsibility to obtain, not the state to grant to you. If you are leading this issue with reason, you accept the world as it is and you act accordingly. If you don’t, you lead with your feelings of how things should be and you aren’t following reason.
The world as it is. Sure, you can see things that you disagree with and change them. But, you have to have rules for change. I think I’ve been clear on what those rules are and they are written in the constitution. Follow them and change things. I really wish you luck, whether it’s gay marriage or changing a local ordinance that you disagree with. I think that the writers of our constitution were men who were touched by God. It’s simplicity and beauty are a masterpiece unequaled in this world. But, those are the rules for change.
We have and continue to set an example for the rest of the world. We don’t need to ’step up’, we are front and center and the rest of the world watches what we do. Just because a majority disagrees with you is no reason to fervently hope for the Supreme Court to right wrongs that you see.
See, the majority of the Supreme Court is conservative. They are elected for life and they get to choose when they will retire. If I was a conservative Justice, would I retire when, in my opinion, there was a President who would nominate a liberal/centrist justice or would I wait for a president who would nominate a justice that is more in line with my political leanings? You’re going to have a long wait, people.
Everyone leads with their hearts in this forum, but, that only gets you so far. Usually that’s until your nose gets bloodied by someone. Look at India’s response to the recent Mumbai horrors. While you watch that play out, ask yourself if that’s 1) any different from the US’s response to 9/11, 2) Spains response to their bloodied nose or 3) Britian’s response to theirs.
Feelings are great, but, for you to lead with reason, you have to accept that life has rules and that they can be changed. That change has rules and if you follow them, you might be successful. Don’t just wish, get up and act.
You won’t convince me and it’s not about keeping my thumb on a segment of society because I hate them. I don’t. I don’t see them as married, if it were allowed.
I just don’t believe the varied responses that get dragged into this simple argument. It’s about opinion. This will never be taken out of my hands, because I have a voice and a vote. I get to choose who I want for federal, state and local government. So do you. But, the majority of us feel a certain way on any particular issue. For this to be a federally mandated discrimination, you have to define marriage at the National level. Or you’d have to re-define the phrasing of discrimination at the National level. Both of those would require an amendment to the constitution. That requires ratification of 2/3rds of the states.
As I said before and continue to say…..I wish you luck with that.
OMFG!
Too many responses……slow Angoth, slow….take them one at a time.
I read a bumper sticker once that kinda exemplifies the sentiment you’re advocating, “Imagine a world where schools get everything they need and the military has to hold a bake sale to build an aircraft carrier.” That sounds great. Except when someone takes your schools by force. That’s reason. That’s accepting human nature at its fundamental level and knowing that you must protect what you have.
We do live in a free country. Free isn’t defined by your ranking in the world in certain stats. Holy catfish! Education is the responsibility of the parents, not the state. Healthcare is your responsibility to obtain, not the state to grant to you. If you are leading this issue with reason, you accept the world as it is and you act accordingly. If you don’t, you lead with your feelings of how things should be and you aren’t following reason.
The world as it is. Sure, you can see things that you disagree with and change them. But, you have to have rules for change. I think I’ve been clear on what those rules are and they are written in the constitution. Follow them and change things. I really wish you luck, whether it’s gay marriage or changing a local ordinance that you disagree with. I think that the writers of our constitution were men who were touched by God. It’s simplicity and beauty are a masterpiece unequaled in this world. But, those are the rules for change.
We have and continue to set an example for the rest of the world. We don’t need to ’step up’, we are front and center and the rest of the world watches what we do. Just because a majority disagrees with you is no reason to fervently hope for the Supreme Court to right wrongs that you see.
See, the majority of the Supreme Court is conservative. They are elected for life and they get to choose when they will retire. If I was a conservative Justice, would I retire when, in my opinion, there was a President who would nominate a liberal/centrist justice or would I wait for a president who would nominate a justice that is more in line with my political leanings? You’re going to have a long wait, people.
Everyone leads with their hearts in this forum, but, that only gets you so far. Usually that’s until your nose gets bloodied by someone. Look at India’s response to the recent Mumbai horrors. While you watch that play out, ask yourself if that’s 1) any different from the US’s response to 9/11, 2) Spains response to their bloodied nose or 3) Britian’s response to theirs.
Feelings are great, but, for you to lead with reason, you have to accept that life has rules and that they can be changed. That change has rules and if you follow them, you might be successful. Don’t just wish, get up and act.
You won’t convince me and it’s not about keeping my thumb on a segment of society because I hate them. I don’t. I don’t see them as married, if it were allowed.
I just don’t believe the varied responses that get dragged into this simple argument. It’s about opinion. This will never be taken out of my hands, because I have a voice and a vote. I get to choose who I want for federal, state and local government. So do you. But, the majority of us feel a certain way on any particular issue. For this to be a federally mandated discrimination, you have to define marriage at the National level. Or you’d have to re-define the phrasing of discrimination at the National level. Both of those would require an amendment to the constitution. That requires ratification of 2/3rds of the states.
As I said before and continue to say…..I wish you luck with that.
I gotta add something here that I wish I’d have included above.
Why the hell are you looking for external validation? I mean, the US, why should we care about European views about our laws and practices? Why do you care about where we stand in a ranking? What is it about external validation of your/our practices and the world’s opinion of what we do that you need? It seems contradictory to me.
You say that the government shouldn’t have a say in what happens in your house, but, you very much care about how the US stands in an opinion poll? Your house is your house, our country is our country. Shouldn’t they stand by themselves?
External validation, in any form is a trap. It’s keeping up with the Joneses. Who are the Joneses and why do they get to set the standard?
I, personally, don’t need external validation for my beliefs and convictions. Why do you?
I gotta add something here that I wish I’d have included above.
Why the hell are you looking for external validation? I mean, the US, why should we care about European views about our laws and practices? Why do you care about where we stand in a ranking? What is it about external validation of your/our practices and the world’s opinion of what we do that you need? It seems contradictory to me.
You say that the government shouldn’t have a say in what happens in your house, but, you very much care about how the US stands in an opinion poll? Your house is your house, our country is our country. Shouldn’t they stand by themselves?
External validation, in any form is a trap. It’s keeping up with the Joneses. Who are the Joneses and why do they get to set the standard?
I, personally, don’t need external validation for my beliefs and convictions. Why do you?
Angoth — Who is talking about external validation? In independent studies on social issues like education and healthcare (and marriage is a social issue), the US ranks lower than most developed nations. That’s not seeking validation, it’s just a fact.
We should care about European laws and practices and views if they work. If we can’t learn and improve as a society then what are we?
So stop with your flag-waving “we’re #1″ attitude, to hell with anybody else if they’re not American nonsense. It’s that kind of self-importance that leads to trouble.
And you make no sense about how “your house is your house” — if we are going to be a country, a society, a community, when we make sure that everyone in our country has access to food, education, shelter, healthcare, then we will be whole.
Education is not just the responsibility of the parents, which is why we have schools. Parents need to be informed and involved, but we educate as a society. And I’m glad that you have no problem letting people suffer or, worse, die because they can’t afford to pay for care.
Yes, some of us lead with the heart. Without heart and empathy and logic, we are merely animals.
Angoth — Who is talking about external validation? In independent studies on social issues like education and healthcare (and marriage is a social issue), the US ranks lower than most developed nations. That’s not seeking validation, it’s just a fact.
We should care about European laws and practices and views if they work. If we can’t learn and improve as a society then what are we?
So stop with your flag-waving “we’re #1″ attitude, to hell with anybody else if they’re not American nonsense. It’s that kind of self-importance that leads to trouble.
And you make no sense about how “your house is your house” — if we are going to be a country, a society, a community, when we make sure that everyone in our country has access to food, education, shelter, healthcare, then we will be whole.
Education is not just the responsibility of the parents, which is why we have schools. Parents need to be informed and involved, but we educate as a society. And I’m glad that you have no problem letting people suffer or, worse, die because they can’t afford to pay for care.
Yes, some of us lead with the heart. Without heart and empathy and logic, we are merely animals.
Anonymous,
It’s the implication that I detest. We rank lower than most developed nations….implying that we have to catch up. You say that I’m the one with the flag-waving “we’re #1″ attitude? Wow, are you completely bereft of the understanding of the English language? I asked if it’s necessary to look for external validation. That sounds suspiciously to me like I don’t need to be #1.
And, no. “If we are going to be a country, a society, a community, when we make sure that everyone in our country has access to food, education, shelter, healthcare, then we will be whole.” It doesn’t work for me. Your access to those necessities is your problem. My access to them is mine. If food wasn’t available where I live, would it be in my best interest to whine about it or go get it.
Have you read, “Who moved my cheese?”
Government’s responsibility ends just before the equality of outcome philosophy. No one said that you deserved everything in life. It’s up to you to grab it, if that’s your wish. Your outcome is your responsibility.
It’s about choice. I choose to acquire healthcare for my family. I choose to believe that same-sex marriage isn’t marriage.
You can choose, too. But, please, stop whining about everything. If there’s something that you want, go get it. Just go get it. Nothing worth having is ever given.
I’ll debate every single point of contention I have with your posts if you want to. I do have the next 2 weeks off of work.
But, if you’d like to return to the matter at hand, I’d be glad to oblige.
Anonymous,
It’s the implication that I detest. We rank lower than most developed nations….implying that we have to catch up. You say that I’m the one with the flag-waving “we’re #1″ attitude? Wow, are you completely bereft of the understanding of the English language? I asked if it’s necessary to look for external validation. That sounds suspiciously to me like I don’t need to be #1.
And, no. “If we are going to be a country, a society, a community, when we make sure that everyone in our country has access to food, education, shelter, healthcare, then we will be whole.” It doesn’t work for me. Your access to those necessities is your problem. My access to them is mine. If food wasn’t available where I live, would it be in my best interest to whine about it or go get it.
Have you read, “Who moved my cheese?”
Government’s responsibility ends just before the equality of outcome philosophy. No one said that you deserved everything in life. It’s up to you to grab it, if that’s your wish. Your outcome is your responsibility.
It’s about choice. I choose to acquire healthcare for my family. I choose to believe that same-sex marriage isn’t marriage.
You can choose, too. But, please, stop whining about everything. If there’s something that you want, go get it. Just go get it. Nothing worth having is ever given.
I’ll debate every single point of contention I have with your posts if you want to. I do have the next 2 weeks off of work.
But, if you’d like to return to the matter at hand, I’d be glad to oblige.
Angoth… It sounds to me like you care about no one but yourself and possibly those within your immediate family, if they’re willing to have you.
I think you are bereft of the understanding of the English language. Seeking validation and seeking to better oneself and/or any situation are two completely separate ideas. I do not seek to better my situation because I’m seeking validation. You sure know how to twist things. Must come from watching all that Bill O’Reilly…
You think we have no reason to better ourselves or learn from others? How do other countries allow for healthcare for all their citizens and still rank ahead of us? But you think there is nothing to be culled from that?
I work. I do very well. I also believe it is the responsibility of everyone to participate and contribute to society in some way. I don’t whine about earning pay or supporting my family or paying taxes. And no where have a said I expect a handout. It’s so easy to call people whiners when they don’t agree with you, isn’t it?
You “choose” to acquire healthcare? Guess what — there are millions who are unable to make that “choice”. They simply can not afford it. But you can’t empathize with that. You simply do not care. Bully for you!
Government’s responsibility is to regulate, something that hasn’t happened as of late which why we are in the mess we are in now. They work for ALL the people, not just those who can afford it.
Thing is, you can’t understand anyone who is not EXACTLY like you. You can not think beyond yourself. You truly are a cretin. I’m glad I don’t know you.
Angoth… It sounds to me like you care about no one but yourself and possibly those within your immediate family, if they’re willing to have you.
I think you are bereft of the understanding of the English language. Seeking validation and seeking to better oneself and/or any situation are two completely separate ideas. I do not seek to better my situation because I’m seeking validation. You sure know how to twist things. Must come from watching all that Bill O’Reilly…
You think we have no reason to better ourselves or learn from others? How do other countries allow for healthcare for all their citizens and still rank ahead of us? But you think there is nothing to be culled from that?
I work. I do very well. I also believe it is the responsibility of everyone to participate and contribute to society in some way. I don’t whine about earning pay or supporting my family or paying taxes. And no where have a said I expect a handout. It’s so easy to call people whiners when they don’t agree with you, isn’t it?
You “choose” to acquire healthcare? Guess what — there are millions who are unable to make that “choice”. They simply can not afford it. But you can’t empathize with that. You simply do not care. Bully for you!
Government’s responsibility is to regulate, something that hasn’t happened as of late which why we are in the mess we are in now. They work for ALL the people, not just those who can afford it.
Thing is, you can’t understand anyone who is not EXACTLY like you. You can not think beyond yourself. You truly are a cretin. I’m glad I don’t know you.
I’m tired of dancing with the left, so I’ll just let it all out and listen for a while.
You piss me off. The fundamental philosophy is one of using my money to buy votes. Yes, universal healthcare is the exact point that I fight against because it’s my money that you are spending on people who don’t deserve it. Yes, deserve. They don’t have it because of their choices in life. I don’t feel it necessary to give them anything that they don’t get for themselves. Access is one thing…providing for them is another.
And yes, “progress” in a social context is the same thing. I don’t care that same-sex couples can’t visit each other in the hospital without some legal documentation. Revising the definition of marriage to allow that is patently wrong to me. It’s putting the cart before the horse. You aren’t married. Hence, there are things that don’t apply to your situation. Health coverage, hospital visitation, etc. It’s not that I don’t feel for them, but, let’s address the central problem rather than the “Awwww”s of the situation. It’s the cause, not the effect that needs to be looked at and whether that is right or wrong. I happen to think that it’s correct right now.
Before you get all uppity and level the cannons in my direction, let me be clear…there’s portion of our society that CAN’T provide for themselves. I feel as if it’s our responsibility as a society to do so in their stead. Where we place the line between can’t and don’t is a fine one and I trust that measures to detect and prevent fraud are in place and working.
Get over your fear of the world being a scary place. No, you didn’t say it, but, you imply that we need government to tell us what to do. We don’t. We need them to provide a level playing field and let game take its own form. Don’t direct it. We can take care of ourselves. It’s not about the scary millionaires rolling their mustaches and counting their money. It’s not always about money, sometimes it’s about personal responsibility. Direct your life as if you’re the one able to reap the rewards and take the lumps. It’s called maturity not reliance on someone else.
Jesus, can’t you see that? It’s not twisting things. It’s getting up in the morning and deciding what’s best for you in your situation. If you need health care, go get it. I don’t buy the argument that for some, “It’s just not an option.” Change your life and get it. When you stop looking external to yourself and know, without a shadow of a doubt, that you can take care of your own needs and for those that you’ve accepted the responsibility for, then you’ve gone a long way towards freedom for yourself.
The left’s philosophy is one of giving. While this is a laudable goal, the question is where did you get what you’re handing out? If it were free money, then by all means, hand it out. But, it’s not. It’s mine, it’s yours, it’s everyone’s individual share. Don’t take from me and give to someone else, unless they can’t do for themselves.
The liberal left wants me to swallow their agenda. I say no. I will not budge on any tax increase until we learn to control spending. I will not allow you to move my ’social’ agenda forward unless it is one I happen to agree with. In this case, I don’t.
You really piss me off. Bigotry or the certainty of my beliefs? You say bigorty. Fine. I’ll wear the label. I’m not, I just know what I believe and act accordingly.
I believe in the power of those to earn for themselves and that anything handed out cheapens those that receive it.
It’s these things that I believe. I will determine my course in this life, I will determine my own outcome.
Yes, this is a tired chiche that I’m about to say, but, really. If you want recognized marriage, you can go get it. It just doesn’t happen to exist in the United States right now.
Jesus, you people are dense. Yes, I lean politically to the right. Yes, I believe in the power of humans to provide for themselves. Yes, I think that it’s a good thing. Yes, I understand that I have an obligation to society to provide for infrastructure, defense, taking care of those that can’t, etc.
But, you can’t have my money for your healthcare. And you can’t subvert marriage so you can have a few ‘benefits’. It’s not marriage.
Angoth, you’re the one that is dense and you’re the one that pisses me off. You are so ignorant, not just about same-sex marriage, but you buy into the right’s conservative agenda of “less spending”, “less government” — and that is a bunch of BS. It is a lie that you buy into because all you believe is “mine, mine, mine”. You don’t give a crap about anyone.
The fraud you so worry about that comes from people taking advantage of social programs doesn’t even comes close to the fraud perpetrated by those “men in moustaches” and the criminal behavior of those at the top.
The right spends BILLIONS on military and defense contracts. They have no problem dishing out incentives to corporations. And the bailouts? You know what? That’s my money too! And I’d rather spend it on education and healthcare and taking care of Americans! You’d rather believe that it all works and less taxes seem fine to you because, hey, if it doesn’t affect you what do you care, right?
You probably have no problem paying for this criminal war that’s spilled our soldier’s blood and has cost billions, but god forbid any money goes to sick people. Let’s kill people, not help people. No, let’s not take any of your dear money for that.
I’ve got news for you — your type of leader has been in office for eight years now and we have seen this kind of extreme change in your favor. You know what we have? A healthcare system that doesn’t work, people losing their homes, a recession, thousands dead in Iraq and a polarized nation. Keep leaving smug comments, moron.
Government can only level the playing field with regulations. And history has shown when deregulation happens, when Wall Street is allowed to act however they want, it has led to recession and depression and has hurt the entire country. Once again, you can’t just act without a conscience and consider yourself a part of society.
Oh, and by the way — it is marriage. And I hope gay couples move in on both sides of you and each year they throw giant anniversary parties that keep you awake at night until your ears bleed. And then hopefully your insurance company won’t pay for the treatment.
You have really got to be the biggest, uncaring jackass I’ve ever heard.
“And yes, ‘progress’ in a social context is the same thing. I don’t care that same-sex couples can’t visit each other in the hospital without some legal documentation. Revising the definition of marriage to allow that is patently wrong to me. “
LOL. Of course you don’t care, you are a bigot. Why would you care that somebody can’t visit their dying partner in hospital without a stupid legal paper? Of course you are incapable to even begin to comprehend how mind-blowingly stupid what you suggest is… it doesn’t concern you of course, because it’s not you, and you really can’t slap a couple of neurons together to think about anyone but yourself.
Now…
The supposed “definition” of marriage (like there is one) has changed countless times over the millennia. It’s no longer a contract to flog your daughter off for a few goats… it’s now ok to remarry after divorce despite what the Bible says. It just sickens me that dishonest cretins such as yourself pretend to “forget” the above to push your stupid bigoted agenda. Yes you heard me, it’s you that’s pushing your stupid-beyond-belief agenda on everyone else… let’s not forget you are the one here that cast the vote to change the definition, not us.
And the dumb-ass labels… where do I start with dullards such as yourself wanting to label everyone into an Us Vs Them scenario. The banally simplistic terms you see the world in just highlights your own banality. Sorry I don’t fit into the “liberal left” category, I just believe in personal freedom and will do anything I can to preserve it.
It’s YOU that needs to learn to live with everyone else, and stop trying to push want YOU want on to them. It’s anti-freedom.
Only two comments? I’m disappointed.
I’ll address the lucid points that were brought up, though:
1. “but you buy into the right’s conservative agenda of “less spending”, “less government” — and that is a bunch of BS.” Wow. A bunch of BS? I don’t think so. It’s the cornerstone of the conservative agenda. It’s at the heart of what we believe, as a group. We understand, that you, not the government know best how to spend your money and handle your own affairs. Anonymous, if you’d care to discuss the issue, we can, at great length, but, please develop a vocabulary.
2. “The right spends BILLIONS on military and defense contracts.” No. Congress is in charge of appropriations and budgeting.
3. “And the bailouts?” I agree with you. I think, like you, that any business who takes too much risk and it doesn’t pay off should fail.
4. “You probably have no problem paying for this criminal war”. Ugh. The war isn’t ‘criminal’. The use of military force was authorized by Congress. Both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The President carried out that authority as delegated to him in the Constitution.
5. “A healthcare system that doesn’t work”. It’s working fine, thank you.
6. “people losing their homes”. Due to Democratic pressure on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to get more people into their own homes. It’s a matter of record. They, under threat of firing the leadership of those orginazations, pushed them to underwrite loans for more and more people. The Bush Administration and the Republican members of Congress pushed for oversight and regulation of the risk, but, were overridden by the 2006 legislature.
7. “a recession”. See point 6. The chickens have to come home to roost sometime.
8. “thousands dead in Iraq”. Doing their jobs. I know what that phrase means. I served in the Navy on submarines for 8 years. Don’t tell me about thousands dead. You think for a second that any one in a leadership position didn’t try their DAMNDEST to keep it from happening then I call shenanigans. And that, sir or ma’am, is putting it lightly.
9. “Government can only level the playing field with regulations.” We (Republicans) tried. The Democrats knew better. Welcome to change. It’s all that’s left in your pockets.
10. “And history has shown when deregulation happens,”. Which one? The telecommunications companies? The cable industry? The auto industry (except the safety requirements for autos)? Wall Street wasn’t ‘deregulated’. It simply didn’t have enough oversight and regulation to begin with. Again, we tried.
Next caller………
11. “Why would you care that somebody can’t visit their dying partner in hospital without a stupid legal paper?” Why do you try to change marriage instead of a class-action lawsuit against the hospital? I mean, choose the right fight here. If you get the hospital to change their policy, seems to me everyone is happy. Which do you think would be the softer target? Hospital policy or bigots like me?
12. “The supposed “definition” of marriage (like there is one) has changed countless times over the millennia.” Yes. No one said it didn’t. But, what it is right now is the concern. You think one way, I think the other and I’m a moron. Devisive?
13. “banality” — Trite or obvious comments? I don’t see how that fits into the context of your insult to me.
Until next time……
Angoth…
Your views are so slanted and full of untruths. To all your comments that were filled with zero facts and complete lies:
1. An “agenda” is not what actually happens. The point was that you are being told that this is what they want to do and then they don’t do it. Less spending doesn’t actually occur. Time and again the Republicans take the money from social programs, like education, and spend even more on defense. Since you are obviously biased, being a military man, you will never see the truth in that. My father-in-law was served on a submarine as well. Thankfully he didn’t end up being brain-washed like you. He understand the necessity of armed forces for defense, but not to invade.
2. If you truly believe that the money spent on the Iraq war (also read: Invasion) wasn’t due to the propaganda of the Bush administration and the CRIMINAL and treasonous lying to the American people, you are not just delusional, you’re insane. Am I happy that a democratic congress went along with it? Of course not. I am not an apologist to a party simply on blind faith. So if you’re saying the Democrats got our military into this mess… wow!
3. Just because Congress authorizes a war, doesn’t mean it is not criminal. Bush/Cheney lied about WMDs and sold it to Congress and the country. (Now they are spinning it that the CIA got it wrong when it is well documented that they informed the administration that weapons were not found). You can talk all you want about Saddam Hussein not being in power and how that is better for the world, but it does not excuse the fact that this war was based on lies from the start. And that is criminal.
I believe that the primary goal should have been get Osama bin Laden, but that no longer seems to be a worthwhile agenda (Bush even said as much.)
4. Ask any doctor or nurse if our healthcare system works. They will tell you it doesn’t and they feel their hands are tied. Through my job, I have firsthand knowledge on how pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies do business. I have insurance through work that every single one of my doctors has dropped because they don’t get paid. You just saying the system isn’t broken doesn’t make it so.
5. Your views on which party believes in deregulation and oversight is…pathetic to say the least. The Republican party believes in pure capitalism — the market will fix itself. Obviously you watch Fox news and get your misinformation from them.
6. You can be offended by my statement about thousands of soldiers dead, but I am outraged that you can take it so lightly as to say “doing their jobs.” I feel for those soldiers and their families and am outraged that military people such as yourself don’t speak out about holding the Bush administration accountable for putting them in harms way unnecessarily. Keep spouting off about the democrats, but they aren’t the ones who push for war, war, and more war.
Your last points about Republicans trying for regulation — you’re a hypocrite to say the least. You believe in less government — remember? Regulation is more government. Get your damn facts straight. Idiot!
And I love how you attack my vocabulary. Typical playground bully mentality. Attack personally to hide what is truly being said.
So let’s sum up…
1. You’re a bigot.
2. You buy into the lies of the Republican party because you will follow blindly, rationalizing with baseless arguments because you only care about yourself and how much money is left in your pocket.
3. You are willing to sacrifice the lives of others instead of admitting you back a criminal administration. (Plame, torture, invasion, etc.)
Are you old? Because I can only hope you won’t be with us soon…
You don’t even know the correct definition of legality for your own arguments. Lies and selling something to the American people aren’t criminal.
I’ll support your argument for a moment. The legality of the war is determined by International Law which states, in part, “Article 2 – “… All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. …”
No such resolution authorizing military force was issued by the United Nations. An entire slew of resolutions were unanimously passed condemning Iraq’s failure to comply with their own concessions for ending the 1991 war.
So, it comes down to this….the Bush doctrine. That the United Nations is responsible for the safety of Americans and that we are bound by that as a sovereign nation. In his view, no.
Illegal? Yes. But, please. Do your own research in the future. Don’t just read it off some website and decide that you agree ‘criminal’ fits and procede from there.
So, there was no UN resolution authorizing the use of military force. There was in 1991. The US passed its own authorization for the use of military force in 2002 and signed into law.
And that’s the real question isn’t it? Should our President be tied down until the UN acts? I’m not sure how I fall on that side of things. I really don’t know. I do know one thing. Mr. Bush knows how he feels and acted accordingly after Congress untied his hands.
I asked you to develop a vocabulary instead of lumping things into ‘BS’. It wasn’t an attack, it was a request.
But, I really do tire of this exchange. You attack me, while I simply dictate what I believe and the facts. If you don’t believe them, fine. If you disagree, fine. Please discuss the issues.
To wit:
“So if you’re saying the Democrats got our military into this mess… wow!” This I never even hinted at. Thanks for the insinuation.
“Your views on which party believes in deregulation and oversight is…pathetic to say the least.” I didn’t even hint at either party believing more strongly than the other in deregulation. I said that the Republican party and the Bush administration asked for more oversight and regulation of risk in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and were overridden. A statement you seemed to have skipped over.
“Your last points about Republicans trying for regulation — you’re a hypocrite to say the least. You believe in less government — remember? Regulation is more government. Get your damn facts straight. Idiot!” I have the facts straight. You seem to have skipped over them. I didn’t say that the Republicans were the ones who wanted less regulation in this case. In fact, my argument several posts back says that it’s government’s job to level the playing field. Equality of opportunity is government’s job. Regulation is the tool used to support this.
Please, if you’re going to say the war was illegal, at least know what you’re talking about. And if you’re going to say the recession is in full swing, at least know who to place the full measure of blame.
“Illegal? Yes.” Angoth, you come right out and say it. And tell me what the line is between illegal and criminal?
Our country declared war on Iraq — it was an act of aggression based on false claims by our president. Here’s some text from the UN charter you didn’t bother listing:
“A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.
In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.”
Notice the word “crime”.
“In fact, my argument several posts back says that it’s the government’s job to level the playing field.” No, those were my words — go back and take a look. And it is the Republicans who want less regulation. That is their platform — a completely free market. Less government. That’s what you vote for.
People like you always seem to think that the democrats agenda means nothing more than handouts. It doesn’t. It’s about foresight in seeing how important it is to educate, to protect the environment, to try and care for its citizens as best it can. You believe that health is a luxury. A luxury is a Mercedes, a boat, an inanimate object. People aren’t objects.
Your philosophy is full of contradictions. You want regulations, but you want less government. You want the government to spend less, but you are okay with spending even more on an illegal war. You’re for America’s freedoms and all about the Constitution, but you have no problem discriminating.
And you don’t see where your thinking is a little “off”?
There isn’t a line between illegal and criminal. However, you failed to mention that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of International Law, specifically, the UN Charter. Instead, you said that it was criminal for the Bush administration to sell it to the people and Congress. I busted you on that second part because it, in fact, wasn’t illegal for them to do so. It wasn’t until after I brought up the correct reference that you even mentioned the UN Charter. You continually skip over the factual parts of my posts.
Here’s where we come to semantics and you’re going to gripe (if my feelings about you are right). There was no declaration of war on Iraq. It was Congress who passed an Authorized Use of Military Force bill, signed into law by President Bush. Even that wasn’t illegal because of the wording of the UN charter. It became a violation of International Law when we used force to violate the borders of another state without UN consent.
The question I proposed was one of US sovereignty. Should the President wait for the UN to authorize his actions? He doesn’t think so. It’s called the Bush Doctrine and the subject of much debate.
And now we’re arguing about where crime is mentioned in the UN charter? Really? I conceded that the Iraq invasion was a violation of UN and International law. Not, in fact, US law which as I asked was the conundrum before President Bush before the invasion. The definition of illegal is a UN definition, not a US definition and as such, I’ve conceded that it was.
So, my question to you is whether we, as a nation, should wait until they, the rest of the world approves our actions?
So, let’s summarize.
The current financial meltdown….you don’t bring up after I bash you with facts.
The Republican platform of less government means that in every case, we’ll vote for it and ergo, I must be for letting anarchy reign. That’s a nice logic knot you’ve tied there from the few threads that I’ve given you regarding what I believe. You’ve conveniently boxed me into a corner and I have to come out and defend what I’ve never said.
‘You believe that health is a luxury.’ No. Health is your responsibility to keep and/or obtain. It isn’t for the government to give to you. Your attempt to equate my philosophy of personal responsibility to a boat or a Mercedes is just plain funny. People aren’t objects, but, they can make bad decisions. And as such, they have the responsibility to live by them. Fine, don’t get an education. Fine, don’t make yourself marketable in today’s economy. Fine, get yourself into debt that you can’t afford. Fine, make terrible decisions. Fine, live with those decisions and their consequences. Rescuing someone from that is a hand out. And it makes two things absolutely true. 1. They become reliant on it. and 2. They will vote against anyone who threatens it.
That’s the Democratic platform. If you really believe that the government can care for its citizens, then you are really deluded. You really believe that the government knows better how to handle your life than you do?
I promise you. When you earn your education, when you provide for your own needs and wants, when you stop accepting help and reject the philosophy that you need help to get what you need and want, you’ll want to keep what you have worked so hard to obtain. And, I promise you again, when you get there… you’ll see others who don’t want to earn it and expect you to help them when they don’t deserve it. That’s the Democratic party’s bread and butter. The ones that believe with everything in them that it’s about government help not personal choice and responsibility.
The environment? Well, that’s the government’s job to take care of because private industry won’t care. You win on that one.
Angoth:
“Why do you try to change marriage instead of a class-action lawsuit against the hospital?”
I’m not trying to change marriage. As I already mentioned, it is the other camp that is trying to change the definition of marriage in California. That is what Prop 8 was all about (restricting the definition to a man and woman) which you seemed to have not quite grasped no matter how many times we have tried to explain it to you.
Are you up to speed now, or do we have to try explain it to you again?
Re: Definition of Marriage Changing
“Yes. No one said it didn’t. But, what it is right now is the concern. You think one way, I think the other and I’m a moron. Devisive?”
Yes, right now is the concern as the definition has been changed from one that was inclusive to one that is exclusive. This is exactly the danger of that. Say tomorrow a bunch of bigots (such as your fine self) get together and say black and white people can’t marry each other because you find it distasteful etc. I think your liquid definition based upon mob rule is poisonous to a healthy society. A definition that is enshrined in equality and justice for all is clearly the American way and hopefully protected by the constitution.
BTW…
I didn’t call you a moron when discussing the above , I said you were a bigot who is pushing one’s stupid, freedom-limiting agenda onto everyone else. Divisive? I certainly hope so!
Re: Your banality
“I don’t see how that fits into the context of your insult to me.”
Of course you can’t. You are one of the bluntest instruments I’ve ever met in my life, and I’m trying to say that nicely.
I mean idiots like you who try frame everything into a Conservative vs Liberal scenario like there can’t be any middle ground. I find you to be a completely banal individual. Depressingly shallow. I mean, look at how you have behaved here. You march in here and dump all your bigoted crap on everyone, whine when people stand up to you like a little sissy. Then when that doesn’t work and you make a fool of yourself, you panic and just go into your pre-programmed little brain-dump of the typical right-wing agenda points.
I really find you to be the most pathetic person.
I’m carrying on two different conversations here, so pardon me if I mix them up when they are both tagged ‘Anonymous’.
Regarding marriage. It’s simple and it’s been said before. You feel one way, I feel another.
Bigoted? Anti-freedom? Whine? Sissy? Dullard? Blunt? Cretin? I am neither panicked nor making a fool of myself. I jumped in on a pro-gay marriage blog and posted what I thought on the matter. I knew going in how it would probably be received. One conversation took a left turn (pardon the pun) and I went with it. But, I’ve made points that just don’t seem to be addressed so far.
1. The process for change in this country. What’s the game plan here for getting legal marriage for same sex couples after the passage of the measures in 3 states? I mean, specifically.
2. Why, other than our fundamental disagreement, do you feel it necessary to resort to name calling as if that will win the argument by sheer volume?
3. Why do you make your decisions based on empathy? And if that’s so, why can’t I *not* do that? Are both equally valid points of view?
Angoth says…
“Regarding marriage. It’s simple and it’s been said before. You feel one way, I feel another.”
Which completely ignores where we had got up to. The point I made was that it is the pro-8 group that changed the definition of marriage in the state, which is adverse to the false position you keep trying to take that it is the non-8 group who have redefined marriage.
Either debate that point and try convince everyone that it was actually the “liberal left” (or whichever other boogeyman that keeps you brain-dead conservabots awake at night) that snuck in some legislation to change the definition, or cede it.
Running back to the “You feel one way, I feel another way” diatribe is just wasting everyone’s time and not contributing much useful. It just makes you seem panicked and to be frank, you are making a bit of a fool of yourself…
“I am neither panicked nor making a fool of myself.”
Ouch…
“But, I’ve made points that just don’t seem to be addressed so far.
1. …What’s the game plan here for getting legal marriage for same sex couples after the passage of the measures in 3 states?”
1. Are you for real? This has already been covered. Again, it is just amazingly frustrating that you can’t seem to follow what everyone has said. Either go back and have another read through, or do the research yourself (there’s plenty of places on the net to follow what legal action is being taken) and stop wasting everyone’s time.
2. Again with the whining… I don’t know… why do you feel it necessary to call people “homo’s” and then cowardly try frame it as irony? Do you think that will win the argument by sheer hypocrisy?
3. Empathy is a factor sure, but because I am not depressingly shallow individual who’s just in it for me, Me, ME… I can say it is not the only factor. That you think it is like some sort of flip-sided coin again speaks volumes at how shallow and blinkered you as an individual are.
Angoth, you can say you “bashed with facts” but you supply nothing other than statements that are philosophically unstable.
I proposed the text of the UN charter only because that’s what you were using. In the US Constitution and by law, the President can be held accountable, impeached, and imprisoned for a lot of what Bush has done. Articles of Impeachment have been entered into Congress against Bush. If our leaders had the cajones to actually pursue what they should, then Bush and Cheney and Rove could be tried for a number of crimes. Not just Iraq, but Valerie Plame, Don Siegelman, the election process in Ohio and Florida, etc.
As far as the health care issue, you are dead wrong. If other countries can supply a universal system that is ranked far, far higher than our own, how is our system better? I make a very nice living (in the six-figures), yet I find it difficult to pay the $1000 monthly premium for my family (that’s without co-pays and prescriptions). Health insurance has become a retail business in which you are lucky if services are rendered. How you can possibly fit curing disease and mending bones, etc. into the argument of people being lazy and having things handed to them is beyond comprehension. It goes right in with your apathetic views. You just don’t care about anyone but yourself and money.
Nowhere do I say healthcare is about government stepping in and making decisions for my life. I’m talking about taking the ridiculous notion of HMOs and for-profit insurance companies playing middleman in deciding my healthcare. They have decided which doctors I can see. They have decided which prescription drugs they will pay for. They make fantastic marketing claims that they are putting the decisions in patients’ hands, but this one of the biggest lies perpetrated by an American industry. Somehow, people like you believe it.
Don’t tell me how to view the world. I have fended for myself for decades. I take care of my family. But I am smart enough to know that hard work and opportunity does not always lead to six-figure incomes. People work blue-collar jobs because they don’t have the capacity to be in white-collar jobs. It doesn’t make them lazy. People also believe in doing a job that is fulfilling in more than a monetary way. They are necessary and they work hard as well. Do they deserve to suffer as well? Does Congress deserve to have better healthcare than the people of the nation, especially considering that politicians are supposed to be employees of its citizens?
People also lose their businesses, mom-and-pop shops to the Walmarts and Home Depots of the country. They fall under unfortunate circumstances. Do they not deserve some kind of help?
And I also know that this country puts way too much emphasis on making money. When we have fallen into accepting two-income families as the norm, when children are being raised in daycare rather than by a parent just so they are trying to keep their homes and healthcare, then something is seriously wrong with the mindset of this nation.
And you know what? I had to collect unemployment insurance once. I didn’t become reliant on a handout. That is simply a bogus right-wing attitude from the “mine-is-mine, you can’t have it” selfish mentality. You just don’t care about people or truly being a part of a community. If they’re not wired like you, you don’t care.
On this, I refer back to something I posted on this long ago — there are just as many rich people who take advantage of the system as there are poor people. And the rich people are doing it in the billions of dollars while the poor in the thousands.
Again, you have no problem pumping billions of dollars into a criminal war (there! I said it again!). And that’s the difference between you and me. I’d rather think progressively and solve real problems, you’d rather support bloodshed and keep everything just the way it is regardless of how wrong it is.