US President [Archive] - Legion of Lions

Rooster

04-09-2004, 10:30 PM

Extremist? lol... you been taught that haven't ya.

It's what the MAJORITY of the people want. I'm tired of the majority of this country being told what they can or can't think by the minority (I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution the right to NOT be offended - it's free speech, deal with it). It's not minority rule here folks. It's a representative republic. He's supporting what he believes is right.

Luis Farrakan is an extremist. Osama Bin Laden is an extremist. Ralph Nader is an extremist... but Bush is not. At least TRY to be intellectually honest here.

You're claiming he lied. That's a pretty big statement considering it's pretty much been proven it's a false statement that the left is preaching just to have a platform to run on. When you make a decision based on the facts at hand, and it's later proven the facts weren't completely accurate - IT IS NOT LYING.

So, once you realize the error of your thinking... we can discuss it, but until then, lay off the libel.

Popo

04-09-2004, 11:22 PM

So, once you realize the error of your thinking... we can discuss it, but until then, lay off the libel.

(I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution the right to NOT be offended - it's free speech, deal with it)

quit owning yourself.

Rooster

04-09-2004, 11:29 PM

Libel & free speech are 2 TOTALLY different things.

Lying is wrong. Hurting someone's feelings isn't -- it's just not nice.

Airr

04-10-2004, 12:12 AM

I still don't see my "spoiled ballot" option... ;)

Noleader

04-10-2004, 01:36 AM

So banning gay mariages is not extreme? He is allowing his religon to dictate law yet you find nothing wrong with this.

All the people you listed as extremist basicly do the same thing :)

Rooster

04-10-2004, 02:07 AM

Macs

04-10-2004, 03:56 AM

Consider all your votes null and void. I live in Florida and I just voted "other"...thus ruining your election. It doesnt matter who you voted for or what you want...me and all my age 80+ year old retiree's in palm beach and our secret weapon of mass confusion called "the chad" will PWN J00 ALL!!!!!!!!!!11111

:hump:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Noleader

04-10-2004, 05:53 AM

HIS religion? Oh yeah, we're so wacky!! Damn Christians persecuting everyone! This isn't the freaking Spanish Inquisition. We're not China, persecuting Christians. We're not Militant Islamics vowing to KILL everyone not of our religion. Give me a FREAKING break.
WTF do you call making gays second class citizens? Oh what nm I guess you would not consider that persecuting because there is no blood no foul huh?

How about this, Lets not allow people that come of middle eastern background to get married. I mean it is risky because they could become terriost at some point.

Or what about those Italians... Risk of mob there.. Hell no..

How about Irish. To many drunks... Hell no on them also...

How about...

Get my Drift. You classified a group of ppl now it becomes seemingly easier to reduce their rights because it is only <Group of Ppl> that we are talking about.

You seem to forget, or not want to realize, that THAT is already the law in the majority of the states.
I do know that. Does it make it right? NO!
Almost all the southern states refused to grant equal rights to black people even though they were directed to by the feds. Based off your statment above I say we send them back to the cotton fields!

Word of advice... Do not use the statment above to support your point. It does nothing to support it just shows how you are reaching for an authority to support your cause.

Now, personally, Federal Government has NO right to interfere. That's a state right. But his view is NOT extreme.
Agreed about the states right.

It is extreme - He wants to write discrimination into the constitution because something does not agree with his beleif in what marrage is.

Using a broad sword to handle a small issue is extreme. It shows the mans mind set better then any other actions he could or has already done.

We've been over this. Marriage = lawful joining of a man and a woman.
Umm no.
Marriage in church = joining of a man and woman
Marriage by law = two people acting as one or as a single group.

Though I might not agree with people being gay I must concede that by not allowing them equal protection under the law we are no better then Hitler and his boys.

Oh hell why not.. I got a great idea! just because you do not agree with their life style lets put them in camps and work them to death. If that does not work we can shoot or gas them!

You want to redifine the word? You don't just get to pick and choose definitions of words to suit your fancy.
Those who ignore their history are doomed to repeat it.

Before you bust out the pro bush rant please consider the facts of history into it. You decided to pick and choose how far you wanted to explore the results of your statments. Next time put more thought into what comes next and not just now.

I'm ALL for giving equal RIGHTS to gay couples that choose to be monogamous; to be able to have the same civic legal repurcussions, taxes, medical decisions, wills... etc.. But that is not marriage.
Sounds like marriage, so it is marriage... As long as I can get married to a female, the gay people should beable to get married to the same sex.

This also sounds a lot like the old separate but equal laws we all know failed.

But if you REALLY want to continue on this topic (gay marriage), there's another thread all for it.This is not about gay marriage. It is just a good issue to show how extreme bush is and a lot of us are.

Read back though your post and you will see in a lot of places you got worked up. Being extreme on your beliefs is not wrong, but being able to supress them when you are in control of so many things is importent. Sadly to say Bush does not do that. He is and will remain a dangerous man.

Noleader

04-10-2004, 06:00 AM

Noleader

04-10-2004, 06:06 AM

I hope so. What I'm worried about is this "instant gratification" school of thought going on. That wasn't the way it was back in WW I & WW II. We knew doing things the right way took time.
Other point to bring up is our military is trained to blow shit up and break things. They are not for policing, as of now they are in Iraq policing. Mission was finished, we went in blew shit up and killed people. Our HQ is in the capital city, if we are not going to take the land then we need to get the hell out and let that group of people sort shit out, or let the UN do whatever it does.

Rooster

04-10-2004, 10:34 AM

Wrong.

A considerable amount of our military is trained in POLICE action.

As well, a considerable amount of our military is trained in BUILDING things.

You assume a lot, in this post, and your previous posts. The others, honestly, are not even worth replying to they're so laughable in their intellectual honesty and logic. Sorry man. You're already convinced of the lies you've been told.

Canidae

04-10-2004, 10:36 AM

Other point to bring up is our military is trained to blow shit up and break things. They are not for policing, as of now they are in Iraq policing. Mission was finished, we went in blew shit up and killed people. Our HQ is in the capital city, if we are not going to take the land then we need to get the hell out and let that group of people sort shit out, or let the UN do whatever it does.
Umm... LOL. Yeah, some of them are taught how to blow shit up. There are also ones trained in policing, healing, repairing, building, leadership, economics, ...Shall I go on listing???

I am a Military brat. I have been around military bases and personel most of my life. You have a seriously jaded view on what our military can do if you believe all they are capable of is destruction.

Elvtin

04-10-2004, 11:48 AM

Ross Paro baby!@!@# Even though i can't spell his name right.. that man could fly with his own ears!

Hammer

04-10-2004, 02:27 PM

Bush, I see no alternative that looks better for me. Kerry's the democrat who didn't implode. Look a little deeper at Kerrys plan and it falls apart. Gonna create 10 million new jobs buy increasing taxes. Gonna cut government waste :) How many times have we heard that one. BTW, gay marriage is not something the president can ban, that takes an act of congress. He's just letting supporters know where he stands on that issue. I disagree but it's not a deal breaker for me.

Here's what really galls me. We have had the 9/11 commision grilling the current administration for not taking premptive action against a threat. It's a year after Iraq and we are still debating whether or not it was the right thing to do?!? (Thanks for pointing that out Condi) Bush seems to be one of the few that actually learned a lesson from 9/11. You can not wait until you are attacked to react. You have to find them and kill them now and make life as miserable for them as possible. Anyone who is not with you is against you and should be treated as such. I have no doubt that Kerry will cut and run the first chance he gets.

Rooster

04-10-2004, 03:29 PM

Roger that Hammer.

Sparky

04-10-2004, 03:30 PM

Yeah, and in doing so Bush has taken a piss on our international relations. I'm hoping to find someone that will make a good effort to the damage that Bush has done. We NEED international trade, we NEED other countries to like us. We lost our corner on the manufacturing market in the 70s, we're losing our Technological and services market now...

spyder913

04-10-2004, 05:00 PM

Sounds like marriage, so it is marriage... As long as I can get married to a female, the gay people should beable to get married to the same sex.

This also sounds a lot like the old separate but equal laws we all know failed.
As much as NL went crazy in his posts, I have to agree with this part.

Noleader

04-10-2004, 06:09 PM

Umm... LOL. Yeah, some of them are taught how to blow shit up. There are also ones trained in policing, healing, repairing, building, leadership, economics, ...Shall I go on listing???

I am a Military brat. I have been around military bases and personel most of my life. You have a seriously jaded view on what our military can do if you believe all they are capable of is destruction.
I work with a man that served for 20 years. We talked about this shit quite a bit and he seems to have the same idea as me about use of the military. Strange huh.

Noleader

04-10-2004, 06:28 PM

You assume a lot, in this post, and your previous posts. The others, honestly, are not even worth replying to they're so laughable in their intellectual honesty and logic. Sorry man. You're already convinced of the lies you've been told.
So false... While you all read things in news papers and see things on the news networks I actully lived though this shit.

My father lived in this country for 34 years as a Permanent Resident from Italy. I was born in American along with my brother and sister, My mother (and his wife) was also born here. After 34 years of being here and yea he did break a few laws (No viloent cirmes) over his years here. While come 2 years ago he was picked up by US marshalls and held in prison pending deportation. We spent 20K on lawyers fighting it but the new head of the justice department has made it so the judges that decide the deportation hearings outcome has no say if the person has been convicted of 1 felony. So after 2 years and 20K my father is sitting in a jail 300 miles from my home waiting to be deported.

This is just one more extreme bush has taken on issues and this one hit me hard. So before you assume everyone is misinformed you should really consider their background.

It is pretty bad when the judge that oversaw his case told him and us that she was sorry and had not choice but to deport him because of the DoJ. While she was telling us this she was in tears and offered to help anyother way she could.

Then to top if off he waved his right to appeal so his deportation could be sped up. Well now going on 8 months since he was ordered deported he still sits in a jail cell waiting for INS to get their shit together.

Next time you see your Father or have a chance to talk to him face to face just remember that Bushs policy (And yes it is Bushs) has broken up an American family with no regaurd to the people involved, and I am just one of many.

Rooster

04-10-2004, 06:29 PM

And I was IN the military. So was my father, my uncles, my father-in-law...

Your ONE guy does not represent the majority.

Separate but equal doesn't work eh? Mens & ladies rooms... why have 2? If sex doesn't matter (ala gay marriage) then we should only have 1 type of bathroom.

And please dont equate sexuality to race/color/creed. Homosexuality (in any species) is a dead-end road. A state has every right to ensure it's citizenry is taken care of. That includes ensuring 20 to 50 years down the road things are stable. Now, if the state encourages couples to marry and have kids (which really is kinda the whole point of marriage.. otherwise, there's no harm in just living together), the state can further that by condoning and supporting marriage (of a man and a woman). This furthers procreation. Condoning gay marriage does NOT support procreation and therefore not in the best interest of the state.

Rooster

04-10-2004, 06:34 PM

If it were up to me, and no offense to you and your family, the INS would have their act together and it wouldn't take months. They should be an efficiently run operation. I'm still not clear how you can blame Bush for INS policies that have been in place for decades.

Hell, I just googled this:

In 1996, the United States Congress passed some very harsh immigration laws that made it easy for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the U.S. government agency that enforces U.S. the immigration laws, known as the "INS") to detain and deport legal immigrants that commit crimes.

That's Bill Clinton's timeframe and the democratically controlled congress, not George "blame it all on me" Bush.

These INS issues are CONGRESSIONAL duties, not presidential. The President doesn't make laws. Congress does. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll realize you're barking up the wrong tree.

Broke up and American family? If your Dad is being deported, how does that make it an American family? Would you rather see him in jail for his crimes, or sent back home to Italy?

If you're gonna come to this country and commit crimes, don't bitch about the government.

Noleader

04-10-2004, 07:09 PM

In 1996, the United States Congress passed some very harsh immigration laws that made it easy for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the U.S. government agency that enforces U.S. the immigration laws, known as the "INS") to detain and deport legal immigrants that commit crimes.
That Law made it harder to request the deportation be set aside. It still left the desison with the judge. INS is directed by the DoJ.

That's Bill Clinton's timeframe and the democratically controlled congress, not George "blame it all on me" Bush.
Speak to any immagration lawyer Roo before you talk out of your ass. Again reading things on the net and living them are 2 DIFFERENT things. I have talked to 4 lawyers and all have told me that had he been picked up before bush he would have been allowed to stay. These lawyers are all well respected in their fields and most judges know them by first name.

These INS issues are CONGRESSIONAL duties, not presidential. The President doesn't make laws. Congress does. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll realize you're barking up the wrong tree.
DoJ handles the day to day operation of it. The DoJ is headed by the person BUSH appoints.

Broke up and American family? If your Dad is being deported, how does that make it an American family? Would you rather see him in jail for his crimes, or sent back home to Italy?
This shows how uninfomred you are on the issue at hand. ALL people that get deported FIRST serve their sentence in jail for the crimes they do. Please roo stop buying into all the shit you are told.

If you're gonna come to this country and commit crimes, don't bitch about the government.I can bitch about the government all I want. You people live in your blissful ignorance when it comes to a lot of the matters dealing with our government. Roo you stun the fuck out of me, on this issue you seem to be just as much of a sheep has the rest of the people out there.

Please compile some real facts before coming to the table again. Like I said you see it in the news (and thus get that spin of it), I have lived it first hand.

If it were up to me, and no offense to you and your family, the INS would have their act together and it wouldn't take months.
That is what we been asking for since he was ordered deported and they can't even get that right. About 2 months back INS was gutted because of a lot of internal corruption.

Roo please keep in mind that if I do seem to attack you it is not at you. It is because of my frustration with the issue. I wish I could give everyone a chance to see it though my eyes. I still love the US but I am disenchanted with the treatment my Father and other immagrants receive within this country.

Noleader

04-10-2004, 07:13 PM

On a side note Roo every family in this country is an American Family. Unless you are native american you came over on a boat or plane at some point.

Canidae

04-10-2004, 07:59 PM

On a side note Roo every family in this country is an American Family. Unless you are native american you came over on a boat or plane at some point.

Okay first of all no. All families that live here are not American families. Unless your family has been here since the birth of this nation, its required that you become a US citizen.

I am sorry about your father, really I am, but why did he never apply for citizenship? You and your siblings are safe from deportation because you were born here, but anyone that comes from a foreign country and doesn't become a US citizen is not.

I hope this works out for you guys. Maybe after he does get deported, he can come back and apply.

Canidae

04-10-2004, 08:05 PM

I work with a man that served for 20 years. We talked about this shit quite a bit and he seems to have the same idea as me about use of the military. Strange huh.

My father served for 20+ years in the Air Force. My brother served in the Marines. My Grandfather and GreatGrandfather both served in the Air Force.

It is rather strange that your friend would serve you a load of crap about the military.

For instance, my Father was an SP. For those that don't know what that is its Security Police. Guess what, they didn't go around destroying things. They are normally the ones that go around keeping the peace and responding to things similiar to police officers.

My brother had a DESK job in the Marines. Hmmm.... doesn't sound like blowing shit up to me.

One man that you have TALKED to does not the military make.

I have seen it first hand. I have heard multiply miltary men and women talk about their jobs. I have heard stories of war from my Father, his friends, My Grandfather and other older relatives.

Don't presume to know the military just because you have talked to ONE single person.

Rooster

04-10-2004, 09:47 PM

Sparky

04-10-2004, 09:56 PM

Separate but equal doesn't work eh? Mens & ladies rooms... why have 2? If sex doesn't matter (ala gay marriage) then we should only have 1 type of bathroom.

And please dont equate sexuality to race/color/creed. Homosexuality (in any species) is a dead-end road. A state has every right to ensure it's citizenry is taken care of. That includes ensuring 20 to 50 years down the road things are stable. Now, if the state encourages couples to marry and have kids (which really is kinda the whole point of marriage.. otherwise, there's no harm in just living together), the state can further that by condoning and supporting marriage (of a man and a woman). This furthers procreation. Condoning gay marriage does NOT support procreation and therefore not in the best interest of the state.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/053453578X/qid=1081644233/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-7476489-2401663?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Noleader

04-11-2004, 04:33 AM

"DoJ handles the day to day operation of it. The DoJ is headed by the person BUSH appoints."

But is ultimately a separate branch (Judicial) and not under Bush's authority. So stop blaming Bush. And you (and they) think it would be different under Clinton? Stop kidding yourselves 2 words: Elian Gonzales. Who better to be lenient with than an innocent boy where his mother DIED trying to give him a better life. But no.....
Ummm... Dude the DoJ is not Judicial... It is part of the Executive Branch. The DoJ acts as the leason to the courts and administrats the US lvl policing forces. Bush has complete control over it by directing one of his Cabinet Members (Head of the DoJ) to do whatever he thinks needs to be done. The only thing that falls under the Judicial Branch is the courts themselves. For more information about the Government Branchs I would advice you to read "Approaching Democracy". It is a great book and will explain some of the finer points in more deal. Link to were you can pick up the book is at the bottom of the post.

Elian Gonzales - That was one over done case. There was a lot of politics behind the seen that you did not read in a newspaper. Plus it also has to do with the shaky standing we have with Cuba.

At this point you are completly talking out of your ass. Really dude get your facts together before trying to support your factless pro-bush stance. Everyone has there opinions on these topics but there is no reason to skue the facts to try and support your argument.

As always when you think you got a leg to stand on I will be happy to refute your factless statments.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0131102516/102-2238890-6684107?v=glance

Noleader

04-11-2004, 04:54 AM

Okay first of all no. All families that live here are not American families. Unless your family has been here since the birth of this nation, its required that you become a US citizen.

I am sorry about your father, really I am, but why did he never apply for citizenship? You and your siblings are safe from deportation because you were born here, but anyone that comes from a foreign country and doesn't become a US citizen is not.

I hope this works out for you guys. Maybe after he does get deported, he can come back and apply.I can not beleive someone that has had so many family members serve you would have that stance. EVERYONE that comes to this country to seek a better life is an American. You people get so caught up in the details you fail to see the big picture.

I will be the first one to bitch him out for not getting his citizenship but it still does not excuse the fact that my elected official willingly and knowingly broke up my family, put my mother under exceptional stress. Left my bother, sister, and I without a father. This is the harsh reality I live in and it is thanks to my Government. Yes my father made his mistakes like millions of other americans do and he also served his time like most of the others do. He has paid his debt to the people yet our current administration seeks blood.

You have the luxury to have opinions because it does not hit home. Why should 4 Americans suffer because one man sitting behind a desk as it out for Immigrants.

They serve their time, get picked up, thrown back in jail, have no rights to a speedy trial, no rights to bail or bond, kept in overcrowded cells, and moved to locations far outside the reach of their family. You should be proud of our government.

You know what... They are just Immigrants... Kinda like they are just Gays... Easy to dismiss a small group huh? There is one good thing though. Our great leader Bush thinks we should allow Mexicans that cross illegally to become citizens.

With a leader like this who needs Iraq's of the world?

Tammarion

04-11-2004, 05:08 AM

Re: Elian

Complicated my ass.

Mother takes kid to U.S.
Mother dies, Dad didn't do it.
Custody of kid goes to Dad.
Dad lives in Cuba.
Kid goes to Cuba.
End of Discussion.

Noleader

04-11-2004, 05:10 AM

Separate but equal doesn't work eh? Mens & ladies rooms... why have 2? If sex doesn't matter (ala gay marriage) then we should only have 1 type of bathroom.
First off Sex is handled differently the other groupings (Race, Age, Sexual Orientation, etc...). The idea that you would try to salvage your stance with restrooms is sad. You have lost all the ground you had and now are reaching for straws.

There are unisex restrooms btw.

And please dont equate sexuality to race/color/creed. Homosexuality (in any species) is a dead-end road. A state has every right to ensure it's citizenry is taken care of. That includes ensuring 20 to 50 years down the road things are stable. Now, if the state encourages couples to marry and have kids (which really is kinda the whole point of marriage.. otherwise, there's no harm in just living together), the state can further that by condoning and supporting marriage (of a man and a woman). This furthers procreation. Condoning gay marriage does NOT support procreation and therefore not in the best interest of the state.
The state has the right to "ensure it's citizenry is taken care of", but it can not when it is at the expense of other citizens.

Sparks Sig says it best. "~ Your Freedoms end where my Rights begin. ~"

Noleader

04-11-2004, 05:13 AM

Re: Elian

Complicated my ass.

Mother takes kid to U.S.
Mother dies, Dad didn't do it.
Custody of kid goes to Dad.
Dad lives in Cuba.
Kid goes to Cuba.
End of Discussion.
The fact that you know the case and his name tells me there is much more to it then you are saying. If you are going to give your opinion please put more thought into it or offer more then a half ass response.

Tammarion

04-11-2004, 05:28 AM

Explain the logic behind that conclusion - I know the case and the name because it was plastered all over the news. That doesn't make the case more complicated than that. You sound like one of the guys insisting that there was a big dark conspiricy behind anything that makes its way into a history book or newspaper. Maybe it was the Jews. /sarcasm

But if you insist on getting both barrels, then here we go.

Complicating the issue:

Relatives that think that because we happen to dislike another nation - that international law doesn't apply to that nation. Libya could have used that arguement when it blew up airliners over scotland. Flies about as well.

A "wet-foot dry-foot" policy that basically says that good and lucky swimmers from Cuba are politically oppressed, and peeps from Haiti are seeking to leach off of the U.S. (as opposed to running away from the general anarchy of the place)

And a electoral college system that concentrates presidential electoral votes in a few large states, and as a result, has had presidents for the last 50 years kissing Cuba exile ass.

spyder913

04-11-2004, 06:47 AM

And please dont equate sexuality to race/color/creed. Homosexuality (in any species) is a dead-end road. A state has every right to ensure it's citizenry is taken care of. That includes ensuring 20 to 50 years down the road things are stable. Now, if the state encourages couples to marry and have kids (which really is kinda the whole point of marriage.. otherwise, there's no harm in just living together), the state can further that by condoning and supporting marriage (of a man and a woman). This furthers procreation. Condoning gay marriage does NOT support procreation and therefore not in the best interest of the state.
With the current rate of population growth, states should not be promoting procreation much. How the state views homosexual couples (married or not) has little bearing on their reproductive actions.

Condoning gay marriages does not support procreation? You make it sound like every gay marriage would take away breeding stock.

Canidae

04-11-2004, 10:10 AM

I can not beleive someone that has had so many family members serve you would have that stance. EVERYONE that comes to this country to seek a better life is an American. You people get so caught up in the details you fail to see the big picture.
Why do I have that stance? Because I have had so many people in my family fight for this countries beliefs and LAWS. That's right LAWS. Laws that include making people from other countries swear an oath to the United States to become citizens, ie Americans. You can't just cross over to any country and go, "Hey I am a German, Englishman, Israli, etc." Same goes for here. Just because someone comes over and wants a better life doesn't automatically make them an American.

I will be the first one to bitch him out for not getting his citizenship but it still does not excuse the fact that my elected official willingly and knowingly broke up my family, put my mother under exceptional stress. Left my bother, sister, and I without a father. This is the harsh reality I live in and it is thanks to my Government. Yes my father made his mistakes like millions of other americans do and he also served his time like most of the others do. He has paid his debt to the people yet our current administration seeks blood.
This happens to lots of families like yours. You have every right to be upset, but you need to face the facts that your father not only was living here illegaly due to the fact that he didn't bother to become a citizen, but that he also more than likely drew this attention on himself because of his criminal record.

They serve their time, get picked up, thrown back in jail, have no rights to a speedy trial, no rights to bail or bond, kept in overcrowded cells, and moved to locations far outside the reach of their family. You should be proud of our government.
Not everything in life can be fair and pretty. Due to the fact that he didn't get his citizenship, he is not exactly due those rights that others would have in the court system.

And I never said the government was perfect. I am proud of it for many many reasons, yet would like to see things like this be resolved in a much better fashion. I wish there was a way that you guys could just get him his citizenship while he is still here and get him home.

You know what... They are just Immigrants... Kinda like they are just Gays... Easy to dismiss a small group huh? There is one good thing though. Our great leader Bush thinks we should allow Mexicans that cross illegally to become citizens.

I don't agree with the whole Mexican thing. I just don't know who we could make immigration fair to us and then nice to the immigrants. We can't take everyone that wants to come over in. We just don't have the jobs, and frankly I don't want to see my taxes go up to support them.

As for comparing immigrants to gays, well, I can see what your are trying to say, but it still all boils down to laws.

Have you tried getting in contact with your repersentatives of your state? Not sure if that would help or not, but hey, its worth a try. Oh, and check out what you could do with petitions. Hell, if you can start a petition along the lines of allowing him to test for citizenship or something, I would sign it.

I am not saying your dad doesn't belong here. And I really do hope it works out for you guys.

With a leader like this who needs Iraq's of the world?
This is the only part that I have serios issues with. I can't believe, even in anger, that you would compare Bush to someone like Saddam. Even if you don't agree with Bush's polcies, I have a hard time swallowing a comparision of him and a man that was brutulizing his people for the hell of it.

Canidae

04-11-2004, 10:24 AM

You have the luxury to have opinions because it does not hit home. Why should 4 Americans suffer because one man sitting behind a desk as it out for Immigrants.
No, your problem doesn't "hit home" because all of my family are US citizens.

But don't presume to think that I have not had or seen problems with the laws/government that has directly effected my family. But instead of bitching about them here on this board, I just deal with them every day.

Yes, EVERY DAY.

My Grandmother was almost put into debt when my Grandfather got deathly ill and had to spend time in the hospital.(and died) The man was a vetran of WW2 and got zero benifits because the Democrats had taken them all away.

My father is a vetran of Vietnam and gets zero benifits because the Democrats took them away.

I have watched and listened to friends in the military bitch about lack of funding for repairs and other things because the Democrats took funding away from the military for one of their pet projects.

I have a 6 year old that can't get help in school because of the way the laws are set up governing how long it takes to get her tested. Now, I have to explain to her why she doesn't get to go on to 2nd grade. I have to struggle with her every day to help her try and retain reading skills and writing skills.

I have an 8 year old that is forced to deal with her biological father whenever he decides to show up because the laws stated that he only be charged with a misdemeanor and therefore got to retain joint custody. HE WAS STRANGLING HER!

Don't you dare presume that you are the only one with problems and then try and tell me that I am sitting back in my nice life while only you suffer.

Badger

04-11-2004, 09:20 PM

Vote for Kerry and you vote for UN control of the USA, Kerry has no economic plan other than taxing the shite out of us.

Look at Kerry's record on his votes, if thats the kind of government you like, please move to Canada or the EU contries.

Bush is not perfect, he is however a politician, and you all who accuse him of being a liar....well no shit hes a politician, show me one who doesnt lie.

I would vote Bush over Kerry any day of the week. If you want a Secular government run to France, they have State mandated religous discrimination, just like the left wants here. Kerry has no balls, hes a damn Commie (literally) and has no platform other than "Bush sucks".

Bush has a plan with immigratoin which supports all the idiots who want Social Welfare (AKA Social Security and Medicare)....tax the illegals for working here, yet give them no benefits, then prop up the bloated SS program which is bankrupt.

War with Islam is WW3 guys, get used to it, they want us dead or subjugated, we cant let that happen. Iraq is a major part of it, think of the politics involved, we move out of Saudi to Iraq which will be a friendly country for us to use as a base to take down the radical Islamists that control half the world. Pulling out of there will not make us fail in that war, but it will make it harder. Mark my words, this is truth.

Also I venture Kerry wont be tough on Terror and more attacks will happen, sorry but i would rather a cowboy be in office than a pansy ass waffler like Kerry for that aspect.

Rooster

04-11-2004, 10:41 PM

I concur (on most parts). :)

Noleader

04-12-2004, 01:23 AM

Explain the logic behind that conclusion - I know the case and the name because it was plastered all over the news.
The fact that it was pastered on the news is the sole reason the kid was forced out. When parents kidnap their childern and cross borders the US expects other nations to return them. So in this case the world was watching and the US had no choice but to react in that form.

Noleader

04-12-2004, 01:29 AM

No, your problem doesn't "hit home" because all of my family are US citizens.

But don't presume to think that I have not had or seen problems with the laws/government that has directly effected my family. But instead of bitching about them here on this board, I just deal with them every day.

Yes, EVERY DAY.

My Grandmother was almost put into debt when my Grandfather got deathly ill and had to spend time in the hospital.(and died) The man was a vetran of WW2 and got zero benifits because the Democrats had taken them all away.

My father is a vetran of Vietnam and gets zero benifits because the Democrats took them away.

I have watched and listened to friends in the military bitch about lack of funding for repairs and other things because the Democrats took funding away from the military for one of their pet projects.

I have a 6 year old that can't get help in school because of the way the laws are set up governing how long it takes to get her tested. Now, I have to explain to her why she doesn't get to go on to 2nd grade. I have to struggle with her every day to help her try and retain reading skills and writing skills.

I have an 8 year old that is forced to deal with her biological father whenever he decides to show up because the laws stated that he only be charged with a misdemeanor and therefore got to retain joint custody. HE WAS STRANGLING HER!

Don't you dare presume that you are the only one with problems and then try and tell me that I am sitting back in my nice life while only you suffer.

I never assumed I was the only one with problems, But I will not debate points with you that you have lived though because I know you are better qualified to speak to them. All I was saying is when you try to debate points with me that you have not been though you only know a small part of the full puzzle. Sometimes it is better to respect the fact that some people are better versed in area of life then yourself.

We can end this on a friendly note. Sometimes we all think we know everything (including myself) but the fact of the matter is there will always be someone out there that knows more. Respect the fact that I am better qualified to speak reguarding immigration matters as you are about civil matters.

Noleader

04-12-2004, 01:33 AM

Badger,

I must say you make some good points. I do not disagree with the way bush handles war. I have a big issue with the way he handles matters at home. His answer to protecting us form terror is to strip are rights away. We allow him to do that and the terrorist win.

I would rather have inaction over action in the wrong direction.

Noleader

04-12-2004, 01:39 AM

This happens to lots of families like yours. You have every right to be upset, but you need to face the facts that your father not only was living here illegaly due to the fact that he didn't bother to become a citizen, but that he also more than likely drew this attention on himself because of his criminal record.
This is why it happens everyday to people. No one understands the immigation system yet everyone is a expert on it. There is not just a citizen and illegal. There is also something called a Permanent Resident (Which my dad was). He had a SS#, Paid taxes, etc.. Everything you or I do. Please take the time to learn how the process works. You would be stunned in the way our country treats people from other nations.

Swifty_Johnson

04-12-2004, 11:29 AM

Tammarion

04-12-2004, 11:42 AM

The fact that it was pastered on the news is the sole reason the kid was forced out. When parents kidnap their childern and cross borders the US expects other nations to return them. So in this case the world was watching and the US had no choice but to react in that form.

Normally, I'd disagree with you, but here I have no idea of what you're saying.

The US has shown that it will freely kick world opinion and the world court in the nuts if it feels that its national interests are at stake. This is called moral courage, or "I don't care if the rest of the world THINKS I'm wrong, I think I'm right until you can PROVE me wrong".

Fidel can hold all the "Red Rover, Red Rover, please send Elian Over" parties he likes, but if you think it made a lick of difference as to the decision in Washington, you have another think coming.

Nations sign treaties and make international law with the expectation that they will be respected without having to make a big stink. It doesn't always turn out that way - "law" turning out to be more like the rules in a hockey game - sometimes you just have to risk that time out in the penalty box. But one does have to think that it would be obeyed most of the time without having to throw a temper tantrum, or what was the point in the 1st place.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 12:04 PM

There are more polygamists in this country than gays, why should their rights to multiple spouses be ignored.Where do you get those numbers from?

Tammarion

04-12-2004, 12:18 PM

Sparky

04-12-2004, 12:39 PM

Also, marriage isn't a right, and Bush's admendmant would make it a right.

There are only 3 rights guaranteed in the U.S. (Marriage will never be one of them)

Life (The interval of time between birth and death)
Liberty (Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control)
the Pursuit of Happiness (Enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy)

The argument against Civil Unions is that seperate is NEVER equal, even if civil unions acted exactly the same as marriages in every sense they would still be different and therefore unequal to marriage.

There are more polygamists in this country than gays, why should their rights to multiple spouses be ignored.

Bullshit. ~5-10% of this country is gay. 5-10% of this country is not married to multiple spouses.

Boom

04-12-2004, 01:01 PM

"Kerry has no balls, hes a damn Commie (literally) and has no platform other than "Bush sucks".

That's just ridiculous.

A. No balls. He was in Vietnam getting shot at while GWB was bumped to the top of the list to get a national guard deferment because of his connections. How about a little respect for a veteran? No balls? How many purple hearts does GWB have? Also, once his Tour of Duty was over he had the Courage to protest a war that he thought was wrong. That took big fat juicy balls. Btw, nothing against the national guard. These days the national guard fights just as hard as anyone and are put in the line of danger, but in the Vietnam era the national guard was a way for rich politicians to get their kids out of Vietnam.

B. Communist. Just because he is a democrat? Please. You are just mudslinging based on nothing.

C. No platform. Have you listened to any of his speeches or anything, or are you just spouting hate? The fact is, he spends more time promoting his policies then bush-bashing. The Republicans are the ones who are conducting the campaign by focusing on their opponent (when they aren't exploiting 9-11). Currently their main strategy is titled "Defining Kerry." Yes, the Bush Campaign is now focused on a strategy called "Defining Kerry." Does that sound like they are trying to tell America what great things Bush will do for us in the next 4 years, or are they just mudslinging?

By the way, you contradict yourself when you say his platform is nothing other than "Bush sucks" and you say that he is a communist. If all he does is criticize Bush, then he isn't promoting any communist (or other) platform or strategy. If he his platform is promoting communist ideals and strategies, then he is doing more than saying "Bush sucks."

And gay marriage is in the best interest of the state. We have a major overpopulation problem. Gay marriages do not have accidental pregnancies, any children they have will be due to careful planning and deliberation.

]LoL[Harm

04-12-2004, 02:29 PM

My father is a vetran of Vietnam and gets zero benifits because the Democrats took them away.
mmmm, bipartisan mudslinging ;)

Here are some bills introduced by the EVIL Democrats, not sure if they have been passed or not; as a note, there are just as many bills trying to increase and protect Veterans Benefits coming from the EVIL Republicans:

In 2003 s.50 Sponsered by Tim Johnson D-SD, and co-sponsored by 27 Democrats, 1 Indy and 2 Republicans. Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act of 2003
-Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to: (1) make available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for programs, functions, and activities of the Veterans Health Administration for FY 2005 120 percent of the amount obligated during FY 2002; and (2) adjust the amount provided after FY 2005 based on the number of enrolled veterans and the number of others eligible for and provided care and the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index.
Repeals provisions which: (1) prohibit the appropriation, obligation, or use of funds for any Department of Veterans Affairs major medical facility project or lease unless such funds have been specifically authorized by law; (2) require the Secretary to submit to specified congressional committees a prospectus of a proposed medical facility involving an expenditure of more than $4 million or facility lease with an average annual rental of more than $600,000; and (3) require the Secretary to give Congress notice before obligating an amount of funds for a major medical facility project that would cause the total amount obligated to exceed the amount specified in the law for that project by more than 10 percent, and when proposing that funds be used for a purpose other than the purpose for which such funds were appropriated.

In 2003 s.55 Sponsored by Tim Johnson D-SD, and co-sponsored by 7 Demorcrats and 1 Republican. Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2003
- Amends Federal veterans' benefits provisions to change the amount of monthly veterans' educational assistance allowance under the Montgomery GI Bill from a fixed amount adjusted for inflation to an amount equal to the average monthly costs of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees (75 percent of such amount for veterans whose initial obligated period of active duty is two years). Requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to determine such average monthly costs each year and to publish such amounts in the Federal Register.

In 2003 H. R. 843 Sponsored by Silvestre Reyes D-TX and co-sponsored by 4 Democrats. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide full service-connected disability benefits for persons disabled by treatment or vocational rehabilitation provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and for survivors of persons dying from such treatment

In 2003 S. 517 sponsored by Patty Murray D-WA. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide improved benefits for veterans who are former prisoners of war

A quick search Under Bill Clintons Rule:

In 2000 S 2494 A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide compensation and benefits to children of female Vietnam veterans who were born with certain birth defects, and for other purposes. Sponsored by Senator John D. Rockefeller D-WV

In 1999 H. R. 2116; 106 H. R. 2116 , 106th CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS ENROLLED , H. R. 2116 , An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance programs providing health care, education, memorial, and other benefits for veterans, to authorize major medical facility projects for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

From personal experience, my father (a vietnam vet) works as a psychologist for the VA where he counsels and aids disabled veterans find jobs and training to do those jobs. He has a Masters Degree and has over 15 years of experience as a psychologist and over 35 years of Federal Government work, he makes nothing close to what he is worth. His department has been underpaid and understaffed for over a decade. I don't think its a "Democrat or Republican Thing", I think it's a "Budgeting and Administration Thing".

Airr

04-12-2004, 02:44 PM

Airr

04-12-2004, 02:51 PM

And btw NL.... HUGS ;)

We know what you're going thru, hang tough...

Noleader

04-12-2004, 02:51 PM

Thank you airr. Finally get to see someone else has been though this shit.

Noleader

04-12-2004, 02:53 PM

On the topic of Gay marriage,

Marriage is defined between a man and a women, stick with the Civil Unions that are comming up, as they are defined to cover that. Why?

If you break down the current legal defination of marriage, than you open the doors to other types of marriage that are currently not accepted. There are more polygamists in this country than gays, why should their rights to multiple spouses be ignored.

Also, marriage isn't a right, and Bush's admendmant would make it a right.

It would make it a right for a select group of people. This is unacceptable. We are a nation of freedoms, Please check your religion at the door.

I'm sorry to hear about your father Noleader, but after 34 years and several kids while living in this country one should become a U.S. citizen. It sucks, but the fault isn't with the U.S. goverment, it's with your father.

It is part my fathers fault. The government did not need to break up a family but they did with no second thoughts to the rights of the family members.

My government has blocked my ability to see my father. When your government does the same to you only then do you have a right to have a opinion on the matter.

Eiru

04-12-2004, 02:58 PM

And please dont equate sexuality to race/color/creed. Homosexuality (in any species) is a dead-end road. A state has every right to ensure it's citizenry is taken care of. That includes ensuring 20 to 50 years down the road things are stable. Now, if the state encourages couples to marry and have kids (which really is kinda the whole point of marriage.. otherwise, there's no harm in just living together), the state can further that by condoning and supporting marriage (of a man and a woman). This furthers procreation. Condoning gay marriage does NOT support procreation and therefore not in the best interest of the state.

Wrong, Roo. We've been through this before. There are two ways to contribute to the success of our species: genetically and culturally. If ya can't contribute genetically (ie. an infirtile couple), you can still contribute culturally (ie. addoption). I'm afraid that argument runs along the same lines as mixing bloodlines. Please note: I am not saying it is the same, I am saying it's the same type of argument. And that argument is patently false.

Canidae

04-12-2004, 03:13 PM

From experience, I will stand up and say that Vetrans and the military have suffered more when Democrates control the government then when Republicans control it. If you don't like the statement then to damn bad. I spent my entire life around military personel and have heard and seen first hand how piss poor things get when the Democrates start pulling funding to put money towards their pet projects like Welfare.

While my father was still active duty, we lost the right to be seen by the freaking dentist. Only active duty would be seen, and getting an appointment from a medical doctor and not a doctors assistant became virtually impossible.

Yeah, training was so good around there that when I had gall stones and was in excruciating pain, the poorly-trained medical staff there (due largely to lack of FUNDING) mis-diagnosed me as having back spasm.

Do you know that doctors from a neighboring city was known to volunteer their time to help around there, especially int he ER because of lack of properly trained personel?

After he retired, my father actually volunteered his services to help train SP's because funding was so poor, they couldn't get proper training equipment.

Canidae

04-12-2004, 03:16 PM

5-10% of this country is not married to multiple spouses.
That's because its ILLEGAL. You make it legal and watch how fast that percentage rises.

Airr

04-12-2004, 03:18 PM

It is part my fathers fault. The government did not need to break up a family but they did with no second thoughts to the rights of the family members.I'm still reeling by Swift's "Your father shoulda woulda coulda become a US Citizen" comment. My gawd.
We'll all have a nod that the actions of NL's Dad brought him to this situation - HOWEVER, we're attempting to have you note that the US government is unable to seperate the "situations" amongst immigrants.
You want to catch all the terrorists...so instead of applying realistic "rules", let's plug up the system with every suspicious immigrant (and yes, this is happening). If I move and I don't get in my address change to INS within 10 days - I can be deported. (Edit - yes this is happening, there are folks in jail right now waiting to get deporting to that crazy land of Canada because of address changes)

When was the last time you moved to another state and changed your driver's license within the required 10 days? Rhetorical question - I really don't want a response at all.

And NL - we do know - hang tough...the only advice I can give is patience 9and wow do I know that's a tough one, but you can do it...the papers eventually has to hit the right pile) and take the names of every single person you speak with (even if it's for the directions to the geddem loo). I'm always surprised how accountability changes the rythm of the beat...

Brey

04-12-2004, 03:29 PM

"Other" - Ross Perot

Canidae

04-12-2004, 03:32 PM

Oh! NL! Have you tried taking your story to the media? I mean, at least get your story out there. Getting the public involved can sometimes help.

Just a suggestion.

Noleader

04-12-2004, 03:37 PM

Oh! NL! Have you tried taking your story to the media? I mean, at least get your story out there. Getting the public involved can sometimes help.

Just a suggestion.
Tried :( Problem is post-9/11 no one cares...

Eiru

04-12-2004, 03:39 PM

Eiru

04-12-2004, 03:41 PM

I think I'd really be scared if someone was out there counting the number of polygamists and gays...

I do agree with Swifty though, that whats at stake is the ability of the State to say that certain types of "Marriage" are well, not marriage. Instead of going out and getting the legislature to say that gay marriage is okay, they've gotten the courts to basically say that you can marry a ham and cheese sandwich if you damn well please.

Tamm, please see my post above replying to Swifty. Are you of the opinion that there are more sick, twisted people in the United States than in Canada? Further more, are you of the opinion that judges in the courts of the United States are so far gone that they will rule in favour of these individuals?

Airr

04-12-2004, 03:48 PM

Yet Canada has not decended into a vile pit of sin
Well, it has, but it had nothing to do with this - it had more to do with the fact that we're all pot smoking, tree hugging, hippy liberals, I think ;)

But I digress....

Noleader

04-12-2004, 03:51 PM

That's because its ILLEGAL. You make it legal and watch how fast that percentage rises.
Taking religion out of this, I see no problem with it. I could see this remaining illegal for a long time though just do to the issues assocaited with extremely large familys.

Swifty_Johnson

04-12-2004, 03:56 PM

Bullshit. ~5-10% of this country is gay. 5-10% of this country is not married to multiple spouses.

1-2% of this country is gay, not 5-10%.

I'm still reeling by Swift's "Your father shoulda woulda coulda become a US Citizen" comment. My gawd.

I'm sorry, if you are in a country for 34 YEARS, it's time to realise that is the country you want to be in and become a citizen. Really, after 34 years what ties are left to the old country?

Yes the goverment is over-reacting, but a few thousand dead people and 2 massive sky scrapers destroyed in New York tend would tend to lead to that, don't ya think?
And if Kerry is elected president what will change? NOTHING! The policy will remain the same.

It would make it a right for a select group of people. This is unacceptable. We are a nation of freedoms, Please check your religion at the door.

We are a nation of laws, and the law states that marraige is between a man and a women. We are also a nation of majority rules, please check your imposing-of-the-will-of-the-minority-on-the-majority at the door. Again, marraige isn't a right, this is not an issue of rights.

There is one really simple solution to health care for our veterns. Get rid of the health care system for congress and make them use the V.A. hosiptals. I guarentee there never will be a shortage of funds again.

Swifty

Eiru

04-12-2004, 04:01 PM

That's because its ILLEGAL. You make it legal and watch how fast that percentage rises.

One word, Canidae: Canada.

Canidae

04-12-2004, 04:01 PM

Eiru

04-12-2004, 04:03 PM

spyder913

04-12-2004, 04:04 PM

That's because its ILLEGAL. You make it legal and watch how fast that percentage rises.
How many people do you know that are homosexual and seriously date members of the same gender?

How many people do you know that seriously date multiple people (and not as a player, but as in obviously).

I would be willing to be a lot of money that there are plenty more people who are in the first group than the second group for almost everyone on this forum. It might be because the second is even less culturally accepted, but I think it's because usually the desire to marry more than one person is more of a power/aquisition thing (it tends to be in most cultures) than a thing of love.

Beyond that, we've already been over the slippery slope argument. If everyone's so worried about slippery slopes, why are alcohol and tobacco legal? Aren't cocaine and LSD bound to become legal because of the slippery slope our nation is on?

Swifty_Johnson

04-12-2004, 04:06 PM

Interratial marriage was against the law.

Where and when?

Swifty

Eiru

04-12-2004, 04:10 PM

Here. Probably back before you were born.

Need links to policy that you can poo-poo?

Airr

04-12-2004, 04:16 PM

I'm sorry, if you are in a country for 34 YEARS, it's time to realise that is the country you want to be in and become a citizen. Really, after 34 years what ties are left to the old country?

Yes the goverment is over-reacting, but a few thousand dead people and 2 massive sky scrapers destroyed in New York tend would tend to lead to that, don't ya think?Swifty
People make choices Swift. I'm not asking why Mr. NL isnt a US citizen, just like if you were ever in our house, I won't ask you if you know how to use the loo. I'm assuming you know how to use it...let's assume Mr. NL knows what he's doing and has his reasons
All I'm saying is don't tell immigrants that they "should" become citizens. I've been her almost 5 years. I have the right to walk into any INS office, raise my right hand and become a citizen, instantaneously. But I'm not going to. My choice, actually, our choice, Eiru and I.

As for your "a few thousand dead people" comment - can you swing your pendulum any further? I think you shoulda woulda coulda read all the words in my posts and maybe you'll read that I never even touched the reasons these changes in the laws exist...

Eiru

04-12-2004, 04:16 PM

The date all laws banning interratial marriage were struck down: http://www.iht.com/articles/510680.html

A quick overview of the South's legal development: http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/03/23/p2s2.htm

Sweet Home Alabama: http://www.majorcox.com/columns/interracial_marriage.htm

Eiru

04-12-2004, 04:20 PM

From the supreme court ruling:

And an older Supreme Court case, which the Massachusetts court consulted, offered even clearer guidance. In 1967, in the aptly named Loving vs. Virginia, the court struck down laws banning interracial marriage, saying people should be allowed to choose their marriage partner free from the moral qualms of others. As the court put it, "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides within the individual and cannot be infringed by the state."

as documented in http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/Ideas/justwhat.html

Eiru

04-12-2004, 04:23 PM

On just how "right" the majority can be:
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002111.html

Noleader

04-12-2004, 04:26 PM

We are a nation of laws, and the law states that marraige is between a man and a women. We are also a nation of majority rules, please check your imposing-of-the-will-of-the-minority-on-the-majority at the door. Again, marraige isn't a right, this is not an issue of rights.

No we are a nation of freedoms... People do not come to the US looking for oppresion they come here for the freedoms. I agree with majority rules but you need checks to make sure it does not become mob rules... This is where the government is to step in. By promoting mob rules nothing good can come.

Brey

04-12-2004, 04:30 PM

Just be careful you don't abuse the word freedom.

As I understand it, I am not free to shit on my neighbor's stoop. :D

/em runs away quickly.....

Eiru

04-12-2004, 04:31 PM

Haha! Brey, you're free to shit on the neighbour's stoop. Your neighbour is free to charge you with a crime if you do.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 04:37 PM

Haha! Brey, you're free to shit on the neighbour's stoop. Your neighbour is free to charge you with a crime if you do.
not exactly... shitting on his stoop infringes on his right to be happy about the cleanliness of his stoop.

Your rights only extend to the next person, but this doesn't mean that if your neighbor hates stoop shitting that he can keep you from owning pictures and stories of people doing it. Nor does it you from being able to do it to your own house (assuming the smell ain't too bad ;)

Brey

04-12-2004, 04:40 PM

<---shit doesn't stink :)

Sparky

04-12-2004, 05:09 PM

1-2% of this country is gay, not 5-10%.

Where are you getting your numbers? And where did you get the numbers you apparently have for polygamy?

Swifty_Johnson

04-12-2004, 05:10 PM

Now Eiru, do you know why interracial marriage ban laws were struck down?

That's because marraige was defined as a union of a man and a woman. Not a white man with white women and black man with a black women, ect. As long as a man and a woman can be married, you cannot use race as a method of descrimanation. This has nothing to do with gay marraige.

All I'm saying is don't tell immigrants that they "should" become citizens. I've been her almost 5 years. I have the right to walk into any INS office, raise my right hand and become a citizen, instantaneously. But I'm not going to. My choice, actually, our choice, Eiru and I.

As long as you refuse to become a citizan, than you are at the mercy of INS. But, IMHO, if you are living here for 5 years, why not become a U.S. citizen, if this country is good enough to live in for 5 years, it's good enough to become a citizen of.

As for your "a few thousand dead people" comment - can you swing your pendulum any further? I think you shoulda woulda coulda read all the words in my posts and maybe you'll read that I never even touched the reasons these changes in the laws exist...

That wasn't directing it at you, but people seem to forget 9/11. All the crackdowns are directly the cause of 9/11 and the overreaction to it. These have very little to do with Bush, and more to do with the climate we are in now. Blaming Bush for the crackdowns is incorrect.

No we are a nation of freedoms... People do not come to the US looking for oppresion they come here for the freedoms.

Sorry, incorrect. They come here becasue they think they can survive and thrive in the country. The look forward to the freedoms our LAWS and constitution provide, but we are a nation of laws and they do govern what we can and cannot do. Holland has more freedoms than the U.S.A. because their laws allow for more, you don't see people flocking to Holland becasue of it do you?

Swifty

Sparky

04-12-2004, 05:17 PM

Sorry, incorrect. They come here becasue they think they can survive and thrive in the country. The look forward to the freedoms our LAWS and constitution provide, but we are a nation of laws and they do govern what we can and cannot do. Holland has more freedoms than the U.S.A. because their laws allow for more, you don't see people flocking to Holland becasue of it do you?

No, they come here because they have the freedoms TO thrive and survive here.

Swifty_Johnson

04-12-2004, 05:40 PM

What grants you your freedoms?

Swifty

Noleader

04-12-2004, 05:45 PM

No, they come here because they have the freedoms TO thrive and survive here.
WOOT :)

Swifty you define marriage a union between a man and a woman... Back then they defined marriage a union between same race man and woman.

Also you did not completely quote me. No response to the mob rules?

Eiru

04-12-2004, 05:45 PM

Haha! Swifty, once again splitting hairs and taking names. Can you honestly tell me that was the reasoning of the Supreme Court? Pretty shabby ciruclar reasoning if it was. I, a white man, can marry a black woman so it shouldn't be illegal because it's a man and a woman? Let's take a look at what the deciding judge in Virginia had to say about white men and black women:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." (from http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm)

Period.

What did the Supreme Court respond with? If we can trust the same article, the reasoning had nothing to do with gender but with equality. Violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of our constitution: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not a single word about man and woman. Only citizens of this great and changing country.

EDIT: Whoops! Me and my big mouth.

The Supremes also said:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

So, what does this mean? The article referenced above indicates the first sentence in this decision is referenced to another court case, Skinner v. State of Oklahoma. And what was that case about? God bless About.com. If we can still trust this site, then we can discern what this other decision was about. That case was about the state of Oklahoma forcibly sterilizing people it thought weren't intelligent enough to reproduce.

That decision is quote above basically verbatim. Marriage and procreation are fundamental rights. How is marriage defined? Doesn't say. Is marriage inextricably linked to procreation? Doesn't say. Can we assume that marriage and procreation were defined in the minds of the justices on the bench? I say we safely can. My question is: if at one point we can say that the state of Oklahoma can sterilize people and then at another point say that it is wrong; if at one point we can say catagorically that people of different "races" cannot marry and then decide that they can; why can we not say that marriage itself be any less changable as an institution.

People have been hooking up in weird and wonderful ways ever since they walked out of Africa. Multiple wives seems to be the generic 'normal' variation, but there's also marriage betwee two brothers and the same woman practiced in Tibet. There are certain marriages that can only occurr between related people in the world. In Navaho culture, (if what I read is to be believed) if a man decided he was more comfortable dressing up in women's clothes, he was allowed to do that. If another man took an interest in him, they were allowed to live together and considered a couple.

Has the rest of humanity 'not been married' if they didn't get married in a church or if they weren't one man and one wife? Such a trivial question hasn't stopped us from living our lives for over 10,000 years. Why should it do so now?

Boom

04-12-2004, 05:47 PM

Noleader

04-12-2004, 05:48 PM

What grants you your freedoms?

Swifty
Limitations placed on the government by our founding fathers and reaffirmed by a number of court rulings.

Laws do not grant freedom from government, they can change laws at any time. The masses ensure freedoms if they exercise them. We are a nation of freedoms not laws.

Eiru

04-12-2004, 06:34 PM

PS. Sorry if it wasn't clear in my last post. Skinner v. the State of Oklahoma basically enshrined marriage as a right.

I'm sure THAT ruling will change over time. :)

]LoL[Harm

04-12-2004, 06:52 PM

There is one really simple solution to health care for our veterns. Get rid of the health care system for congress and make them use the V.A. hosiptals. I guarentee there never will be a shortage of funds again.

AMEN

I agree, also considering we have $536 Billion* (which constitutes over 28% of our tax dollars) going towards military expenditures (this doesn't include what was appropriated for the Iraq war) you'd think we could use some of that money in some fashion to improve Veterans health benefits. Sadly they only get around $28 million a year for health benefits, in fact the entire VA only gets $62 million. If they just took .01% of the current military expenditures they could add another $53.6 million to the VA.

*Here's a breakdown of the above number: Military Personnel $109B, Operation and Maintenance $164B, Procurement $67B, Research and Development $66B, Construction $6B, Family Housing $4B, Retired Pay $44B, DoE Nuclear Weapons $17B, 50% NASA $8B, International Security $8B, 50% Homeland Security $16B, Ex. Off. Pres. $10B, misc. $6B

Canidae

04-12-2004, 07:03 PM

And why not take money from somewhere much less important.. like.. oh.. Welfare and give it to Vetran affairs? Why should we take even more from the military?

Why? Because people think its our responsibility to support people that aren't out there supporting themselves. I have no problem with charity, but it should be on an idividual basis, not shoved down the throats of every single person.

Sorry ya'll, but I find it ten times more important to take care of the military, who help protect the nation, and the Vets, who already served their time protecting the nation, then to give over our taxes to some Joe Blow who wants to sit on his/her ass all day and have someone else take care of them.

Noleader

04-12-2004, 07:21 PM

Sorry ya'll, but I find it ten times more important to take care of the military, who help protect the nation, and the Vets, who already served their time protecting the nation, then to give over our taxes to some Joe Blow who wants to sit on his/her ass all day and have someone else take care of them.
I agree with you there :)

Only issue I do have is I hate to see kids get the shaft because they have shitty parents.

Canidae

04-12-2004, 07:21 PM

How many people do you know that are homosexual and seriously date members of the same gender?

How many people do you know that seriously date multiple people (and not as a player, but as in obviously).

Let me see... I know about two people that I am absolutely positive they are gay. Of them, I have no clue if either one is dating seriously, but it didn't sound like it.

Now, I personally know one man that has a wife and 1-2 live in girlfriends.

But hell, lets take things further shall we. The mind set you are saying is that gays have every right to marry whom ever they want. Right?

Then of course, why shouldn't the poligamist be allowed to do the same. I mean, we all deserve the same civil liberities.

But don't forget now those people out there that see nothing wrong with marrying young girls or boys. I mean really, if its okay with their parents, why should the law stop them?

Once you open up the definition of marriage, you are going to open up a world of "civial rights" being demanded by every group that thinks there should be nothing morally or legally wrong with their beliefs.

There has to been some lines that just aren't crossed, like changing the deffinition of a word to please everyone.

Give them a civil union, legal under the law, but leave the deffinition of marriage out of it.

Canidae

04-12-2004, 07:23 PM

Only issue I do have is I hate to see kids get the shaft because they have shitty parents.
Given the opurtunity to help, most people I know would in a heartbeat. The way things are now though, many people don't have the ability (money wise) or the urge to help out when they are being bleed dry by taxes.

If you force an issue down someone's throat, they are less likely to act on their own to better the issue. Its resentment.

Noleader

04-12-2004, 07:30 PM

Damn, if you read that link Eiru posted, the people who were trying to get an anti-mixracemarriage amendment to the constitution sound a lot like the people trying to get an anti-gaymarriage amendment. Its scary.Yes it does... Bush knows he will lose in the court room fighting gay marriages, so he decided the only way to tackle the issue is amending the constitution so the high court has no choice but to uphold the governments stance.

The real question is would the high court strike down an admendment, or could they? This would be all new so there is no were to form opinions from. One thing is no matter what happens in the high court it will help define what powers they actully weild being the constitution does not really set true limits on their oversight of the other branchs.

Eiru

04-12-2004, 07:38 PM

Canidae, I'll ask you the same question I've been asking all along. Sodomy decriminalized in Canada in '68. More to the point, the Supremes of Canada have ruled that gay marriage be allowed. Yet Canada is not a den of iniquity. How does that stack against your slippery slope argument?

Noleader

04-12-2004, 07:44 PM

Let me see... I know about two people that I am absolutely positive they are gay. Of them, I have no clue if either one is dating seriously, but it didn't sound like it.

Now, I personally know one man that has a wife and 1-2 live in girlfriends.

But hell, lets take things further shall we. The mind set you are saying is that gays have every right to marry whom ever they want. Right?

Then of course, why shouldn't the poligamist be allowed to do the same. I mean, we all deserve the same civil liberities.
Yep. If one person is given that right all should. Who am I to tell someone how to live their life?

But don't forget now those people out there that see nothing wrong with marrying young girls or boys. I mean really, if its okay with their parents, why should the law stop them?
It is legal in some states :) Though in most the person in question has to be 16 to have sex with their partner.

Once you open up the definition of marriage, you are going to open up a world of "civial rights" being demanded by every group that thinks there should be nothing morally or legally wrong with their beliefs.
We all define marriage different. You define it based off your upbring and religious background (atleast I think you do). Some other folks that do not have the same background as you define it different. So the base question is who is right? I think anyone that uses religion to define something legal is wrong. Marriage was created long before most modern nations were defined. It like most of the basic laws has its roots in religion, but this does not mean we should look to religion to define it.

One rule within the US is seperation of state and church. Because of this I can not accept any religious defining of marriage and feel it should be granted to anyone who seeks to join in a union with one or more other partners.

There has to been some lines that just aren't crossed, like changing the deffinition of a word to please everyone.

Give them a civil union, legal under the law, but leave the deffinition of marriage out of it.I am not changing my definition of marriage nor is anyone else in this forum. I am fighting to protect the equality rights of my fellow americans.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 07:44 PM

Let me see... I know about two people that I am absolutely positive they are gay. Of them, I have no clue if either one is dating seriously, but it didn't sound like it.

Now, I personally know one man that has a wife and 1-2 live in girlfriends.I personally know of 7-10 gay people and zero people with multiple spousal equivalents

But hell, lets take things further shall we. The mind set you are saying is that gays have every right to marry whom ever they want. Right?yeah, why not?

Then of course, why shouldn't the poligamist be allowed to do the same. I mean, we all deserve the same civil liberities.fine by me.. unless you can come up with some reason how his love life infringes on my rights (there would be issues with shared benefits here that would have to be hammered out)

But don't forget now those people out there that see nothing wrong with marrying young girls or boys. I mean really, if its okay with their parents, why should the law stop them?This one is different because they are infringing on the rights of the young boy or girl, who is not mature enough to make those kind of decisions. The parents granting permission does not make it appropriate.

Once you open up the definition of marriage, you are going to open up a world of "civial rights" being demanded by every group that thinks there should be nothing morally or legally wrong with their beliefs.the first two are only morally wrong to some people. I think poligamy/poliandry is not a good idea personally, but if some girls and a guy are down with it, hey why should I stand in the way of THEIR LIVES.

There has to been some lines that just aren't crossed, like changing the deffinition of a word to please everyone.

Give them a civil union, legal under the law, but leave the deffinition of marriage out of it.IF A = B, then it doesn't matter what you call it, they're the same thing.

Kegg OBeer

04-12-2004, 07:52 PM

How about Irish. To many drunks... Hell no on them also...

The Irish HAVE to get married... It's one more excuse to get drunk!
:stupid:

Being gay is not a disease, it's not genetic, it's not anything other than a life choice. Given that these people made that choice first, then expected the rest of us to redefine or sense of marraige based around them is ludicrous.

Personally I have nothing against gays, and I get sorta turned on by lesbians... ;) But the problem at hand has more to do with the fact that nobody in this country feels they should have to suffer the consequnces of their own decisions.

Being Irish, German, Italian, Black, etc is a genetic heritage. You don't choose your heritage. You do however choose your sexual orientation. If what you choose has some drawbacks, too bad. Live with it...

spyder913

04-12-2004, 07:55 PM

Being gay is not a disease, it's not genetic, it's not anything other than a life choice. Given that these people made that choice first, then expected the rest of us to redefine or sense of marraige based around them is ludicrous.
... You do however choose your sexual orientation. If what you choose has some drawbacks, too bad. Live with it...

Not according to research.

Noleader

04-12-2004, 08:09 PM

The Irish HAVE to get married... It's one more excuse to get drunk!
:stupid:

Yea that is true :)

Being gay is not a disease, it's not genetic, it's not anything other than a life choice. Given that these people made that choice first, then expected the rest of us to redefine or sense of marraige based around them is ludicrous.

The issue is not redefining it.
No matter the outcome The Church will still only view marriage a union between a man and woman.

The issue is how the law defines marriage.

Personally I have nothing against gays, and I get sorta turned on by lesbians... ;) But the problem at hand has more to do with the fact that nobody in this country feels they should have to suffer the consequnces of their own decisions.

Actully I completely deagree with their lifestyles but it does not mean I want them to be punished for living their life as they see fit.

Being Irish, German, Italian, Black, etc is a genetic heritage. You don't choose your heritage. You do however choose your sexual orientation. If what you choose has some drawbacks, too bad. Live with it...
I disagree here. Yes, being Irish, German, etc... is genetic it does not mean they are some how different. The process is as follows:

Define a group of people
Target bad trait in group
Publicly denounce group
Restrict their rights
Let 20-XX years pass.
Give them equal rights
Seek forgiveness for screawing them in the first place

The key to all this happening is first targetting the groups. The only thing that makes this different from all the other times is we are decuessing something that has roots in religion.

I am still waiting for one person to define marriage without any religious backing.

Sparky

04-12-2004, 08:25 PM

It's NOT a choice.

Kegg OBeer

04-12-2004, 09:54 PM

1: Who you sleep with is your choice. (Excluding rape, that's a whole different subject.) Be it someone of the same or opposite sex, it's still your choice.

Saying it's not is like saying that my choosing one brand of beer over another is not a conscious choice because I'm "naturally attracted" to one brand. No, I "prefer" one brand because I like the way it tastes. If there were concequences for drinking that type of beer I would either have to drink a different beer or live with the concequences of drinking that beer. Either way it's a decision I have to make for myself. Thus, it is a choice...

2: The problem is not our defining people into groups. The problem is that they have definened THEMSELVES into a group and blame us for recognizing it. It is not my fault they chose to define themselves as gay. It's also not my responsibility to change laws to accomodate the group they have chosen to become. They are not being enslaved, physically beaten, or otherwise threatened. They are simply being expected to adapt their lifestyle to the same definition everyone else has. This in effect is the defining problem in the country...

Instead of everyone adapting to the culture that currently exists, they expect everyone else to change to suit their own private needs.

The majority of the people in the US frown on gay marraige. Ok, sorry, but isn't majority supposed to rule here? If the gays don't like it, nobody's forcing them to live here. Go live in Europe. I understand it's more gay-friendly over there...

Eiru

04-12-2004, 09:58 PM

The majority of the people in the US frown on gay marraige. Ok, sorry, but isn't majority supposed to rule here? If the gays don't like it, nobody's forcing them to live here. Go live in Europe. I understand it's more gay-friendly over there...

Kegg, see my link on the ammendment to ban interracial marriages for another view of majority rules.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 10:00 PM

1: Who you sleep with is your choice. (Excluding rape, that's a whole different subject.) Be it someone of the same or opposite sex, it's still your choice.Sure. But who you are attracted to is not. Think about that before you assume being gay is a choice that people make for some reason.

Rooster

04-12-2004, 10:12 PM

What Kegg is saying is: We may have the urge to steal, but we don't because we know it's wrong. The choice is still yours.

But no one is saying that being gay is illegal. We played D&D for 3 years with a gay guy. The guy that got me the job at Applied Systems (for 4+ years) is gay. I don't have anything against them.

Canada... it may not be a pit of moral depravity, but I sure as hell don't wanna live there (no offense to you Canadians). I'll take my freedoms and political flavoring of the US, with all it's drawbacks.

Kegg OBeer

04-12-2004, 10:17 PM

Ok, so if I'm attracted to a married woman, it's ok for me to sleep with her. By that definition it's ok. Or if I have an attraction to underage children, by that definition it would be ok.

Either way I'm still making a conscious choice to act on those desires or attractions.

We put people who rape women in jail. We even put people who so much as have photographs of naked children in jail. We do this because those people have sexual appetites that exceed the public norm. How is choosing to sleep with a member of the same sex different? They have a sexual appetite that exceeds the public norm as well. If it were normal, the heterosexuals would be the minority, right? Why do we punish one group of people for being different and not the other? In light of this, perhaps gays and lesbians have it easy. After all, we don't put them in jail for it anymore... It all depends on the perspective you look at it from.

As for your link Eiru, I read it and it talks about racial discrimination. What I said above is that you can NOT choose your race. Things such as religion, sexual orientation, etc are actual choices you make. Persecuting someone for something they can't control is unfair. Persecuting them for the choices they make is a different thing entirely...

spyder913

04-12-2004, 10:18 PM

And why is stealing wrong? Because it's depriving others of their belongings. Being gay, no matter how much choice goes into it, is not comparable.

I think any "choice" that can cause such mental anguish that some people have committed suicide because of their desires is not much of a choice at all.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 10:23 PM

Ok, so if I'm attracted to a married woman, it's ok for me to sleep with her. By that definition it's ok. Or if I have an attraction to underage children, by that definition it would be ok.
No I didn't say sleeping with whoever you are attracted to is right. I said it's not a choice as to who you are attracted to.

Either way I'm still making a conscious choice to act on those desires or attractions.So people who are attracted to the same sex should be celibate because if they were to act on it they'd be making a bad choice?

We put people who rape women in jail. We even put people who so much as have photographs of naked children in jail. We do this because those people have sexual appetites that exceed the public norm. How is choosing to sleep with a member of the same sex different? They have a sexual appetite that exceeds the public norm as well. If it were normal, the heterosexuals would be the minority, right? Why do we punish one group of people for being different and not the other? In light of this, perhaps gays and lesbians have it easy. After all, we don't put them in jail for it anymore... It all depends on the perspective you look at it from.The difference is one is a mutual thing and rape/child pornography is NOT. This is not a small distinction, and it is not debateable.

Eiru

04-12-2004, 10:31 PM

Canada... it may not be a pit of moral depravity, but I sure as hell don't wanna live there (no offense to you Canadians). I'll take my freedoms and political flavoring of the US, with all it's drawbacks.

Wow. I hate to say this, but I'm going to. Roo, I didn't think I had to spell it out for you but here it is in plain language. Respond to my question: how valid is the slippery slope argument when we have a perfect example of how that does not occur. As I mentioned before, defending the slippery slope argument against a known rebuttal means taking one of two sides: either Canada WILL slip into that pit eventually and you will be standing there, watching and shaking your head; OR people in the United States are inherently more depraved than those in Canada and need to be constantly monitored to ensure their moral compliance.

Which one is it?

Kegg OBeer

04-12-2004, 10:37 PM

Even suicide is a choice... The fact is that there's "always" a choice. You may not like the concequences of making them, and they might not always be right, but you still have to actually make the choice to act on an impulse. Having the impulse isn't what's wrong. Acting on it is where you take the chances.

A good example is a Catholic priest. Be they hetero or homosexual, they "choose" to abstain from any kind of sex at all. Do you think they're immune to attractions? Of course not. They have self-control and self-discipline and apply it to their lives.

And seriously, if you think about it.... people don't commit suicide because they're gay. They commit suicide because they're unhappy with their life. Peosonally I know lots of people that are unhappy about their life but CHOOSE to deal with it and not take the easy way out. Any moron can take their own life. It takes an adult to deal with their problems and overcome them.

Rooster

04-12-2004, 10:43 PM

Slipperly slope doesn't take 10 years Eiru. Give it 50 or 75.

Again, we're dealing with "I want it NOW!" gen-X/Y'ers.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 10:45 PM

A good example is a Catholic priest. Be they hetero or homosexual, they "choose" to abstain from any kind of sex at all. Do you think they're immune to attractions? Of course not. They have self-control and self-discipline and apply it to their lives.What about gay priests? Or are they not gay till they get it on?

And seriously, if you think about it.... people don't commit suicide because they're gay. They commit suicide because they're unhappy with their life. Peosonally I know lots of people that are unhappy about their life but CHOOSE to deal with it and not take the easy way out. Any moron can take their own life. It takes an adult to deal with their problems and overcome them.No but there are people who had nothing wrong with their lives other than the attraction to the same sex that they couldn't deal with because they thought it was wrong.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 10:47 PM

Again, we're dealing with "I want it NOW!" gen-X/Y'ers.Yeah those 60's kids were all total straight shooters.

Kegg OBeer

04-12-2004, 10:51 PM

No I didn't say sleeping with whoever you are attracted to is right. I said it's not a choice as to who you are attracted to.

But it is a choice to act on that attraction.

So people who are attracted to the same sex should be celibate because if they were to act on it they'd be making a bad choice?

I never said it was a bad choice. Perhaps in my eyes it is, that's not the issue though. The issue is that they can't live with the concequences of "making" that choice and they want the rest of society to change to accomodate it.

The difference is one is a mutual thing and rape/child pornography is NOT. This is not a small distinction, and it is not debateable.

Sleeping with a married woman can be a mutual thing. Does that make it "right"? Right and wrong are solely based on perception, and in the USA the perception of the majority rules. And no, it is not a small distinction. I made it much more exaggerated to make the point.

The fact of the matter is, gay marraige is considered wrong by the majority, so is child pornography. Some people want the pledge of allegience modified to suit their own personal views. The majority of us think that's wrong also. The whole point here is that we can't allow minorities to outweigh the majority. That defeats the purpose behind democracy.

There are many decisions made by majorities that I disagree with. That doesn't make me wrong, it simply makes me in that minority. The entire purpose of voting is to go with whatever a majority decides. Cast your vote and hope you win. If you lose, either move somewhere you like it better, or live with it. THOSE are the choices we all make. Some people thinhk they're above having to make those decisions, and that's what I don't agree with.

You're free to disagree all you want, but in this issue I believe I happen to be on the side of the majority. If you want to be in the majority, recruit more people to your cause...

Airr

04-12-2004, 10:51 PM

As long as you refuse to become a citizan, than you are at the mercy of INS. But, IMHO, if you are living here for 5 years, why not become a U.S. citizen, if this country is good enough to live in for 5 years, it's good enough to become a citizen of.

That wasn't directing it at you, but people seem to forget 9/11. All the crackdowns are directly the cause of 9/11 and the overreaction to it. These have very little to do with Bush, and more to do with the climate we are in now. Blaming Bush for the crackdowns is incorrect.
Well, we've now officially turned this thread into a typical 4 concurrent discussions...;)

Firstly, I dont think we ever said we were pissy about being at the mercy of the INS. I'm pretty sure we know that since we are the ones who signed all those legal looking documents. However, since 9/11, we're actually at the mercy of "sweep" rules. That's where Joe Schmo who forgot to send in his change of address is in the same jail cell as Sam Schmo who tried to bring the good pot into the US. What we're talking about is differentiating between your post 9/11 "threats".

Now I'd like to perform an experiment with Swifty. I'd like you to imagine for a moment, maybe even two, that you've fallen in love with a lovely Italian woman (or man). An immigrant here in the US. Fall in love with her/him (again, I'm asking for imagination here - since I am fully unaware of your current RL status ;)) and live with her many years here in the US of A - blissful in your happiness. OHOH, her parents back home are really sick. Go with her. You two should be in Italy for her parents!! (I guess you're independently wealthy too... ;0) Go!! Be there for several years...You've been there almost 5 years. It "is good enough to live in for 5 years, it's good enough to become a citizen of".

And thank you for finally pointing it out...That all this "crackdown" isnt because of Bush...it's because of the climate! WOOT, so it's official. Bush isnt in charge. Phew, I was getting worried there. So it's the people he put in charge that are responsible for the new "terrorist watch" rules? Well, no, can't be them, since Bush put them there and we just confirmed that Bush isnt in charge...Who's the Oz behind the State of Emergency curtain then?

Again, rhetorical question :)

Oh, and one more thing just because it makes me giggle -
Why are we talking about defining marriage? Hey, until the US actually implements a seperation between state and church...we aint gonna get anywhere on that topic ;)

Eiru

04-12-2004, 10:54 PM

Slipperly slope doesn't take 10 years Eiru. Give it 50 or 75.

Again, we're dealing with "I want it NOW!" gen-X/Y'ers.

Answer my question, Roo.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 10:57 PM

But it is a choice to act on that attraction.But they're gay before they act on the attraction. - So being gay is not a choice.

Sleeping with a married woman can be a mutual thing. Does that make it "right"? Right and wrong are solely based on perception, and in the USA the perception of the majority rules. And no, it is not a small distinction. I made it much more exaggerated to make the point.
Sleeping with a married woman could be right or wrong - does the husband care? are there children involved? if no one is being harmed by the act, then what's the problem?

The fact of the matter is, gay marraige is considered wrong by the majority, so is child pornography.Just because the majority likes or dislikes something doesn't mean that it's good or bad. The majority of people don't like paying taxes, but we still need them to pay for the government.

There are many decisions made by majorities that I disagree with. That doesn't make me wrong, it simply makes me in that minority. The entire purpose of voting is to go with whatever a majority decides. Cast your vote and hope you win. If you lose, either move somewhere you like it better, or live with it. THOSE are the choices we all make. Some people thinhk they're above having to make those decisions, and that's what I don't agree with.

You're free to disagree all you want, but in this issue I believe I happen to be on the side of the majority. If you want to be in the majority, recruit more people to your cause...
That's what this kind of debate is supposed to do. It may not 'recruit' you but hopefully others will see some useful discussion.

Canidae

04-12-2004, 11:01 PM

Me turn. Heh

I agree with Sparky, in its not a choice. I have a very close friend that I have known since grade school that struggled with this for years. He choose not to go with his feelings because he was scared. After High school, he decided to stop figthing it.

It has been shown in research that there is a difference in the functions of a hetrosexual brain and a homosexual brain.

http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/00newsreleases/nr_200007/nr_brain000712.html

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html

Now, on to other points.

First, you can't compare gay's to child molesters and rapists because the later two are an issue of force. The later two take away the victims right to choose, while two gay couples being together does not infringe on either person's rights.

And, someone mentioned having sex with married people as a comparision. Well, this one you can use. Especially since the law stating that its illegal to have extra-marital sex is one also steaming from religious beliefs.

So, technically, you could say, that if its okay for gay civil unions to be classified as marriages under law, then you should have the law making extra-marital sex illegal removed as well. Since everyones big issue here is the fact that the marriage issue stems from religion.

I personally have no issue with gay couples living their lives the way they want and recieving the same benifts legally as me and Roo do. I do not believe necessarily that the lifestyle is right, but that stems from my religious views.

And before I am hung here, I am still and will always be good friends with my friend from school. Just like I was/am (lost touch after moving) good friends with the man Roo referred to that we played D&D with.

Kegg OBeer

04-12-2004, 11:01 PM

Gay priests don't have to get it on to be gay. They have to get it on for people to criticize them for making a bad choice. Until then they are simply catholic priests just like the other catholic priests.

As far as people committing suicide because they couldn't deal with being gay. People also commit suicide because they can't deal with their drug habits. People commit suicide for lots of other reasons too, that doesn't justify anything, it just makes them dead.

spyder913

04-12-2004, 11:03 PM

I personally have no issue with gay couples living their lives the way they want and recieving the same benifts legally as me and Roo do. I do not believe necessarily that the lifestyle is right, but that stems from my religious views.And I believe that's all that most homosexual people would want. =)

Eiru

04-12-2004, 11:03 PM

We put people who rape women in jail. We even put people who so much as have photographs of naked children in jail. We do this because those people have sexual appetites that exceed the public norm. How is choosing to sleep with a member of the same sex different? They have a sexual appetite that exceeds the public norm as well. If it were normal, the heterosexuals would be the minority, right? Why do we punish one group of people for being different and not the other? In light of this, perhaps gays and lesbians have it easy. After all, we don't put them in jail for it anymore... It all depends on the perspective you look at it from.

Kegg, there are those people out there that agree with you. These are the people out there that will beat a young man near death and leaving him hanging cruicified on a fence in the middle of nowhere to die because he's a "deviant" homosexual. Those kind of people have the same hate in them as the judge whom I quoted regarding the separation of the races.

You may be in the majority. The majority of the country once believed that blacks had no place alongside whites. Maybe I'm different. Maybe I'm not in the right. But I certainly want nothing to do with this majority.

Airr

04-12-2004, 11:07 PM

Brey, can we go for ice cream now?

]LoL[Harm

04-12-2004, 11:17 PM

Most developmental psychologist and studies they have done note that sexual orientation is developed very young in life, often in early childhood. Sexual drive and such comes later but your sexual identity is defined very early, far too early to be a logically or emotionally driven.

Why? Because people think its our responsibility to support people that aren't out there supporting themselves. I have no problem with charity, but it should be on an idividual basis, not shoved down the throats of every single person.

The knowledge that even a few families benefit from Welfare make it worthwhile to me. The knowledge that my tax dollars go to bombs and munitions that kill innocent people from time to time wiegh heavily. All things lack perfection. I do agree that both the Welfare system and our system of killing our enemies both need work. I however would be more willing to give money to Welfare that attempts to ease pain then to give money to the military that often creates it.

Rooster

04-12-2004, 11:57 PM

"The majority of the country once believed that blacks had no place alongside whites. "

Wrong.

Just like pro-abortion, the vocal minority get to make the rules sometimes.

Canidae

04-12-2004, 11:57 PM

The welfare system completely and totally sucks. My dad has many times had to deal with families that intentionally have kids to stay on it. The adults sit back and by better houses and cars than average working class people do, and you want to give it more money???

As for the military killing innocents. Unfortunaly that happens accidently in wars, but would you rather we sit back and let our enemies do whatever they wish to us and all we do is go , "You really shouldn't do that."

Sorry, but keep dreaming. Peace can not be accomplished by asking people that hate us to please stop it. Its naive to believe so.

Rooster

04-13-2004, 12:07 AM

Oh, the innocents that die when our military crushes the enemy that threatens our friends and has taken our citizen's lives?

Too freaking bad. They should have thought about the possible repurcussions when they carried out attacks on us. It's called collateral damage, and it sucks. But I don't see ANY other nation as advanced as we are at MINIMIZING that collateral damage.

Our military does more RIGHT than Welfare on any day of the week. Welfare, in it's current form only promotes laziness and dependency on others. It enforces a vitcim-mindset.

Our military is the greatest in the world. It's soldiers are some of the best (Israeli's are probably better). The PEOPLE in the military are some of the best people you will meet. They have honor, integrity and character above the average Joe. Yeah, there's a few bad apples now and then, but overall, in far fewer percentages than the public.

It's the politicians that you have an issue with -- they're the ones waving our big ass "gun" (aka military).

A strong and capable military, fully funded, can NEVER be considered a negative. The same cannot be said about the wealth-redistribution programs that many politicians participate in.

So, for every dollar I'd take from a federal gov't welfare program and put 50¢ into the defense budget. Give the other 50¢ back to the tax payers that actually PAID the taxes.

]LoL[Harm

04-13-2004, 12:27 AM

Please reread my posting Canidae, nothing you state contridicts my statement. Perhaps then we agree? Never did I state that war is not necessary in this world, never did I state that the welfare system is great. Please note the correlations between "As for the military killing innocents. Unfortunaly that happens accidently in wars", and apply the same to the welfare system. "As for the lazy son's of bitches that leech the system. Unfortunately that happens in a society built on freedom."

There will always be those that go around the system and leech, just as there will always be innocents dying for causes that are not their own. That's why you have to focus on the good that does come from the actions we take. The money in welfare DOES help some people, just as war does.

*EDIT:And Rooster, I never stated taking money away from the defense budget, I merely stated we needed to reallocate our priorities. Noteably to take care of those that have already paid for our freedoms since there is MORE than ample amounts of money in the budget to do so. Unless you feel $500 Billion is shortchanging our military?

Kegg OBeer

04-13-2004, 12:44 AM

Eiru.... again you cokmpare gay marraige to a racial issue. As I've already said at least twice, a race issue and a sexual orientation are completely different matters. One cannot choose their race.

No matter what it boils down to this:
Race, gender, heritage = no choice
Anytyhing you do that consists of taking some form of action = choice

Having thoughts of sleeping with someone of the same sex do not make you gay. Actually sleeping with people of the same sex makes you gay. It's a lifestyle and thus it is a choice one makes in their life.
I totally agree that homosexual and heterosexual minds do work differently, but I subscribe to Harm's theory that these things are developed early in life. This is the direct result of living in a society where people are led to believe that there are no reprecussions for one's actions. This is why we have issues like welfare, gay marraige, abortion and all the rest of the things people do because they feel it is their right and everyone else should change to accomodate them in their chosen lifestyle.

No, I do not think that people should have disadvantages based on their race, gender, age, etc. I do believe that people should understand the choices they make and live with whatever the concequences of that lifestyle may be if the majority feels that it's wrong. I should not be forced to adapt my own views to suit them.

How is an urge to have sex with someone any different than any other urge? An urge to kill or rape? An urge to spend all my money, quit my job or go on welfare? An urge to rob a bank? An urge to eat 2 gallons of ice cream? An urge to paint my car? Anything... Be it harmless or not is the direct result of satisfying an urge to do something. It's the choices we make in life that define who we are, not the urges we have.

If someone wants to be gay, more power to them. It's not my choice, but hey... knock your socks off. I could care less if someone is gay or not as long as they don't stuff it down my throat. If they have a problem with the concequences of being gay, then perhaps they should have thought of that before committing to that lifestyle.

You can't argue with this fact. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If someone chooses a gay lifestyle, they are also choosing the disadvantages that come with it. Now they don't think those disadvantages are fair. Boo hoo. Live with it.

Rooster

04-13-2004, 12:50 AM

I've heard quite a few black friends take issue with the gay community trying to compare their "plight" with that of the black segragation. They're quite offended because it is NOTHING like it.

Kegg OBeer

04-13-2004, 12:57 AM

No the gay community wants it both ways... they want their own high schools and they want to have their own parades and section of town to live in, but they want to have the same rights as everyone else. Apparently with none of the downsides...

spyder913

04-13-2004, 01:06 AM

Eiru.... again you cokmpare gay marraige to a racial issue. As I've already said at least twice, a race issue and a sexual orientation are completely different matters. One cannot choose their race.
Most non-heterosexuals would argue that you cannot choose your sexual orientation. Fortunately for you, you happened to pick the 'right' one.

This is the direct result of living in a society where people are led to believe that there are no reprecussions for one's actions. This is why we have issues like welfare, gay marraige, abortion and all the rest of the things people do because they feel it is their right and everyone else should change to accomodate them in their chosen lifestyle.
There have been gay people for all of recorded history, it's not a new thing. What kind of accomodating do they need? Just accept that they're out there and tolerate their actions, because it's never going to change.

If someone wants to be gay, more power to them. It's not my choice, but hey... knock your socks off. I could care less if someone is gay or not as long as they don't stuff it down my throat. If they have a problem with the concequences of being gay, then perhaps they should have thought of that before committing to that lifestyle.You're not getting it.. many would not be gay given the choice, because of all the shit they have to put up with.

If someone chooses a gay lifestyle, they are also choosing the disadvantages that come with it. Now they don't think those disadvantages are fair. Boo hoo. Live with it.

You've also now said that people are gay before and not before they have sex. I'm inclined to believe you think it's the latter, but I don't think that's how most people would define themselves. I was straight before I had sex for the first time. I didn't say 'should I be straight or should I be gay?' I just knew it.

Eiru

04-13-2004, 02:02 AM

Kegg, I see what you are saying. Your point seems to be that the nature of the beast is that gays are bad and deserve what's coming to them. If they wake up tomorrow and decide to stop being gay, everything will be alright for them again. Let me perhaps rephrase my point. My point is that hate is hate.

Do the consequences of one's lifestyle choice include being beaten to death by people who never met you but feel you are sub-human anyway? It is always the hate, not the object of that hatred, that is definitive.

And I must admit, I am put off by your reduction of the human condition to urges. Is the urge to kill of the same quality as the urge to create? Is the urge to commit theft of the same quality as the urge to write a book? Is the urge to eat two gallons of ice cream of the same quality as the urge to hug your child? Life may be full of choices and urges, but I submit that these choices and urges are of vastly different qualities. I know I try to use my best judgement to balance my urges and choices. I hope it reflects in the way I lead my life. I also lead my life hoping those around me are doing the best they can, and for the most part, I am not let down. I am, however, an optimist.

I am not saying you shouldn't believe what you believe. I am saying the quality of the people who share your belief gives me pause.

Noleader

04-13-2004, 02:15 AM

Ok I will assume it is a choice. Please give me one good reason why they should not beable to get married.

By good reason I mean not that GW Bush: Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Give me a reason how it would effect you or subject your rights to any danager.

I think the big issue with this whole thing is our side just can not understand why you guys are fighting to stop it (without using religion). I am sure if you could come up with one soild point we would start to shift to your side.

Noleader

04-13-2004, 02:24 AM

I've heard quite a few black friends take issue with the gay community trying to compare their "plight" with that of the black segragation. They're quite offended because it is NOTHING like it.
They are not alike when it comes to where both movements started but the fact that BOTH groups were/are subjected to a lesser quality of life just because IS COMPLETE BS.

Also if they are your friends and you being a military guy I can only assume that:

You met them in the service
You and they share viewpoints on some issues
So even if they were white they would still be gay bashing.

Noleader

04-13-2004, 02:26 AM

"The majority of the country once believed that blacks had no place alongside whites. "

Wrong.

Just like pro-abortion, the vocal minority get to make the rules sometimes.Actully Rooster did you know that it was worse in the Northen states then most of the southern states (baring the super extreme states)

Eiru is collect on this issue.

Rooster you assume they are the minority... I personally never saw data but I though think it is close to 50/50 in support and fighting it.

This is going to sound more harsh then it is intended.

You told me this at the start of the thread and now I must direct it at you.

You assume a lot, in this post, and your previous posts. The others, honestly, are not even worth replying to they're so laughable in their intellectual honesty and logic. Sorry man. You're already convinced of the lies you've been told.

You should heed your own advice from time to time.

Sparky

04-13-2004, 05:49 AM

If someone chooses a gay lifestyle, they are also choosing the disadvantages that come with it. Now they don't think those disadvantages are fair. Boo hoo. Live with it.

Where the hell do you get off telling me it is a choice? Nobody chooses persecution. Nobody chooses torture. Nobody chooses to live in fear. Nobody wants to walk down the street wondering if at that moment a drunk asshole will decide to take out his rage and frustration on the only visible target. Nobody chooses to be beaten to fucking death and tied to a fence. Unless you'd like to 'choose' to be gay for the rest of your life you have no right to claim that it is 'optional.'

Rationality is what separates humanity from all other known forms of life. Rational beings do not make choices that will lead them to harm. Rational beings make choices that will benefit them within their available paths. It's not a choice; it's a factor in our lives. You're fucking lucky if you're straight. You have no idea what it is like to live in fear of being cut off from your parents, your family. You have no idea what it is like hiding within a dry exterior as to not offend anyone at your office. You NEVER WILL.

Choice, my ass! I 'chose' to be straight for 7 years, it damn near killed me. I was borderline bipolar because of the massive amounts of stress I created for myself with denial. I drove my car and looked at the trees flying past on the side of the road wondering why I was in such pain, what was worth living for and how much it would hurt if I just aimed a little off the road. I suffered panic attacks in college, not because of stress of tests, or papers, or work but because I didn't know what to do. In high school whenever I had a 'deviant' thought I would immediately clear my mind. Try and figure out what that does to your psychological health and development.

Fuck off, you bigoted prick, there was no choice, nor will there ever be.

]LoL[Harm

04-13-2004, 08:37 AM

Yeah, what Sparky said.

Rooster

04-13-2004, 09:25 AM

It's not like white people don't get the shit beat out of them for being white... and in the wrong place.

Same with anyone. There's always people out there that take things to extremes. Doesn't mean that everyone feels that's what should happen.

Eiru

04-13-2004, 10:17 AM

Roo, isn't enshrining bigotry in the constitution a bit extreme?

Canidae

04-13-2004, 11:05 AM

Okay, I am gonna step up and defend Sparky here before Kegg gets to post:

Kegg, I want you to imagine for a time, that in our society its considered wrong for you to sleep with a woman. If you do so, you might be dis-owned by your family. You will be ridiculed, poked fun at, possibly serverly beaten or killed by people that don't agree with your lifestyle.

Now, you say that its a choice. SO choose not to sleep with women. How long do you think you could live the lie before you snapped?

I bet you, you didn't choose to be hetrosexual. You had urges towards women and you followed through with them. You were straight long before you had sex with a girl, so why do you think its any different for gays?

For whatever reason, their are pulled to the same sex. And frankly its not our place to judge them.

"Let he who has no sin, throw the first stone."

Most people that have an issue with gay marriage are based on religion. I admit that I believe (unless you can prove me wrong with the Bible) that it is wrong according to religion. However, many people seem to forget that God doesn't want us to judge our fellow humans.

So, give them the rights, but don't force churches to preform the ceremony if they don't agree with it.

Canidae

04-13-2004, 11:11 AM

Ahhh... but Harm, the problems with the Welfare system is not due to accidents. most Welfare workers are well and fully aware of what those people are doing and how they use the money and the do nothing about it.

For a time, I had to go on WIC (Women, Infant, Children) to help with getting formula for my baby. I heard more often than not, the welfare worker purposly rearranging a person's income so that they would qualify.

Comparing that blantunt mis-use of the welfare system to a accidental innocent death caused by the military when we are at war is just not a very good comparision.

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 11:18 AM

An immigrant here in the US. Fall in love with her/him (again, I'm asking for imagination here - since I am fully unaware of your current RL status ) and live with her many years here in the US of A - blissful in your happiness. OHOH, her parents back home are really sick. Go with her. You two should be in Italy for her parents!! (I guess you're independently wealthy too... ;0) Go!! Be there for several years...You've been there almost 5 years. It "is good enough to live in for 5 years, it's good enough to become a citizen of".

My current GF is from the Dominican Republic. If her parents are sick in DR, I guarentee I won't be there for 5 years. :)

Good question, but I wouldn't be living there for 5 years. I'd make trips, but what of my family in the U.S.A.? I desert mine for 5 years? Sorry, no.

And thank you for finally pointing it out...That all this "crackdown" isnt because of Bush...it's because of the climate! WOOT, so it's official. Bush isnt in charge. Phew, I was getting worried there. So it's the people he put in charge that are responsible for the new "terrorist watch" rules? Well, no, can't be them, since Bush put them there and we just confirmed that Bush isnt in charge...Who's the Oz behind the State of Emergency curtain then?

You have any idea how the U.S. goverment works? There are long term Federal employees who remain in the goverment no matter who's president. While the people at the top change, the people in the middle and lower levels remain. It's these people that determin how the upper level policy gets carried out.

As to the policy, the climate of the country determins how it is set. The President was dead set aginst airport screeners becomming federal employees (ya, airport security with all the effeciancy of the post office!) guess what, congress overroad his wish and they are now federal employees. The President isn't a king. He doesn't make demands and all the federal employees scurry around and do his bidding. If Noleader was able to get the President's ear and inform him of his fathers plight, there is a good chance he is unaware something like that is happening.

Swifty

Noleader

04-13-2004, 11:24 AM

So, give them the rights, but don't force churches to preform the ceremony if they don't agree with it.
They never could and I would not want them to try to. Church and state have no right mixing. The church is governed my its own sets of laws along with the states.

My fight has been about the state allowing marriage not the church. Anything else is between the couple, God, and their pastor.

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 11:30 AM

Noleader

04-13-2004, 11:35 AM

As to the policy, the climate of the country determins how it is set. The President was dead set aginst airport screeners becomming federal employees (ya, airport security with all the effeciancy of the post office!) guess what, congress overroad his wish and they are now federal employees. The President isn't a king. He doesn't make demands and all the federal employees scurry around and do his bidding. If Noleader was able to get the President's ear and inform him of his fathers plight, there is a good chance he is unaware something like that is happening.
Swifty this is partly true. You need to keep in mind that we are not talking about the mail room person or the guy that answers the phones... The people that the cases go infront of are judges. The Judges are just as entrenched in the poltics as the rest of the people.

Personally I would like to think that bush would do something but I highly doubt it. He has taken a hardline stance on the issue at the fear of looking soft to the voters.

My dad got caught up in this mess because of 3 things:
1. 9/11
2. Current politics (lots of re-elections coming)
3. Local DA is being investagated by FBI
a. Can't get the old conviction dropped till FBI leaves
b. Will not do anything in fear of FBI thinking it was a favor.

Don't get me wrong. Bush is not the devil or anything. If I had the chance to vote for him 4 years ago again I would still have voted Bush. I just do not think he is what the country needs now. We have been through 2 wars (both still going), we need a leader that is looking to unite as a country not just blow up everyone else.

Noleader

04-13-2004, 11:42 AM

It's actually simple, Marraige is the term to mean the union of a man and a women. Civil Unions will become the term to mean the union of man and man, women and women and man and women who aren't too keen on the "marraige" term for their person reasons.

Civil Unions can be defind to have the same rights as the term Marraige. In this case you cannot bring up the arguments about serperate not being equal. We are not making special schools, bathrooms, drinking fountains, ect. We are using two terms to define the same set of rights, so in this case seperate can mean equal.

I am all in favor of a Constitutional admendment for Marraige, as long as it also defines Civil Unions with the same rights, which is what they are going for.

SwiftyAgain like I said before if it sounds like marriage it is.

I do not agree with that swifty.
State Marriage - Between man and man or woman and woman or man and woman.
Church Marriage - Between a man and women.

If you would allow them civil unions all it is telling me is two things. First you are using religion to define marriage. Second you do not understand that church and state are never to cross lines in this counrty. There is no gray area in this. You would allow marriages by the state or not. Giving them 'equal rights' by creating a Gay Marriage ruleset is unacceptable.

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 11:46 AM

Kerry isn't looking to unite hte country, I fear if Kerry is president we will have U.S. Civil war #2, and we are not that far off. Current politics is starting to tear the country apart, and something has to give.

As to our rights, these are our rights.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights.html

That's it, Marraige isn't a right, eventhough a Supream Court said it was, another one can easily reverse it. Our forfathers were extreamly brite, they made the constitution a living breathing document that IS supposed to change over time. They knew damn well that what they wrote in 1776 would not be able to cover 1876, let alone 2004. I don't want my rights to be held hostage by judges and the laws they pass, I want them in writing.

That's why we need the constution admendend and marraige/civil unions made into a right. Than we cannot be denied it ever, unless the constitution is admended.

Remember, it took an admendment to abolish slavery, and freedom is one of the basic human rights.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 11:51 AM

First you are using religion to define marriage. Second you do not understand that church and state are never to cross lines in this counrty.

I think it's you who do not understand that the state should not dictate to churchs what they do. Of couse you are using religion to define Marraige, as it is a religious union.

It's YOU who are breaking down the serperation of Church and State by interjecting the state into the Church.

Marraige - done by Church
Civil Union - done by state.

What is wrong with that?

Swifty

Rooster

04-13-2004, 12:05 PM

I was going to point that out too Swifty.

Marriage = Religious joining

Civil union = Secular joining

Noleader

04-13-2004, 12:13 PM

That's it, Marraige isn't a right, eventhough a Supream Court said it was, another one can easily reverse it. Our forfathers were extreamly brite, they made the constitution a living breathing document that IS supposed to change over time. They knew damn well that what they wrote in 1776 would not be able to cover 1876, let alone 2004. I don't want my rights to be held hostage by judges and the laws they pass, I want them in writing.

I don't want my rights to be held hostage by judges and the laws they pass, I want them in writing.

Ok no more Bush T.V. for you.

Swifty do you know that up until the mid-1800's you were not protected by the bill or rights when it came to state government. It was a landmark case of the high court that forced the states to see your rights the feds granted you. Not bad for those hostage taking judges huh?

You are right it was written to allow it to grow, but your religious views of marriage like everyone elses has no right in that document.

Did you know that 50% if not more of you rights are implied? They are rights because the courts smack congress' hand anytime they try to walk on them.

There is a reason why the founding fathers developed 3 branchs of government. Just because you do not like the way the judges are voting does not mean you should try to go around them.

In the Madison notes he often talked about the courts. He saw them more as the final balance within the government and the one branch that would protect the people from the government. By working around them like you want to do you are serving no one other then congress. Lets not travel down the wrong path because I fear what would be at the end of it.

Noleader

04-13-2004, 12:15 PM

I think it's you who do not understand that the state should not dictate to churchs what they do. Of couse you are using religion to define Marraige, as it is a religious union.

It's YOU who are breaking down the serperation of Church and State by interjecting the state into the Church.

Marraige - done by Church
Civil Union - done by state.

What is wrong with that?

SwiftyState officals can marry a couple. If the state quits issuing marriage licenses for everyone then I have no problem with it. If they continue to issue marriage licenses to strait couples then we still have a issue.
Edit: For you it is a religious union... QUIT FORCING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON ME!!!!!

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 12:20 PM

QUIT FORCING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON ME!!!!!

Actually, that's my line. It's you who are forcing me to accept your believes into my system, not vice verse.

Swifty

Sparky

04-13-2004, 12:20 PM

As to our rights, these are our rights.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights.html

Don't get those confused with rights, it's misleading because of the name of the document, but those are our freedoms, not rights. Rights are undeniable. Freedoms can be removed in certain circumstances.

Read the sig!

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 12:23 PM

Did you know that 50% if not more of you rights are implied? They are rights because the courts smack congress' hand anytime they try to walk on them.

Therein lies the problem. The courts can change. What if the courts radically change and are take over by Nazi's overnight (extream but I am making a point) your "rights" are now in the hands of Nazis. They are NOT rights until they are in the Bill of Rights. Once in there, there is NOTHING congress can do about it, until than we are at the Mercy of the courts.

No thanks, put my rights into the Bill of Rights where they belong.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 12:25 PM

Rights are undeniable

What's in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is undeniable, everything else is up for grabs.

Swifty

Sparky

04-13-2004, 12:26 PM

The Bill of Rights is not ironclad. There ARE circumstances that the freedoms written in them can be removed, ex: Freedom of Speech can be removed or limited in times of war.

Like I said earlier, you're rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These are theoretically the same for ALL people, in EVERY country.

Noleader

04-13-2004, 12:54 PM

Therein lies the problem. The courts can change. What if the courts radically change and are take over by Nazi's overnight (extream but I am making a point) your "rights" are now in the hands of Nazis. They are NOT rights until they are in the Bill of Rights. Once in there, there is NOTHING congress can do about it, until than we are at the Mercy of the courts.

No thanks, put my rights into the Bill of Rights where they belong.

Swifty
Umm.... no...

Swifty sorry to say this but damn man... I thought Roo was far but you have the be the biggest extremist on these boards.

Your answer to every problem is to go around the courts and write everything YOU want into the governing document of our nation. I swear if the founding fathers are rolling in their graves. You are misusing the document to get around one of the branchs of government that the founding fathers created to be a balance.

The fact that you would support such a tactic sickens me. I think this is one of the few times I am ashamed of my fellow americans. Swifty without the courts protecting the underdogs and standing up for you or others this country is no better then the old USSR.

Have none of us learned from history?!?!

Airr

04-13-2004, 01:10 PM

My current GF is from the Dominican Republic. If her parents are sick in DR, I guarentee I won't be there for 5 years. :)

Good question, but I wouldn't be living there for 5 years. I'd make trips, but what of my family in the U.S.A.? I desert mine for 5 years? Sorry, no
You mean everyone's situation is different? Let's recognize that and not tell people what they shoulda woulda coulda about citizenship then, shall we?
And I'm not even going to touch the possible idea that you believe I may have deserted my family. And before you find some split hair to lick, let me put it this way, away for 5 years? Impossible for you, it would feel like deserting your family. Maybe it's the same for other immigrants...but they need to be where they are for that moment. So, I'm going to assume you're just not that offensive.

You have any idea how the U.S. goverment works? Oh wait, it appears you are that offensive.

spyder913

04-13-2004, 01:19 PM

]LoL[Harm

04-13-2004, 02:09 PM

Comparing that blantunt mis-use of the welfare system to a accidental innocent death caused by the military when we are at war is just not a very good comparision. You're right one takes money, the other takes life. As far as I am concerned, and as far as Jesus and Allah and all the other divine beings are concerned, life is greater than money. Therefore it is a bad comparison, military actions are far more damaging then the welfare systems abuse. And if the welfare system is in such shambles that it's own employee's are creating fraudulant cases then it is an issue that needs to be brought up by the politicians in power. Luckily the welfare system can be improved through legislation and regulation, sadly innocents dying at the hands of our troops cannot. And I am aware of the current bills in congress many republican lead.

I do not want "Marriage" to be a Right. Civil Unions can be, but marriage has and will continue to have religious undertones. Many historians believe the ritual of marriage was birthed in religion. Pairing with a mate is as old as mankind and the family unit but marriage is a traditional act held mostly in religious places or by religious representatives for the past thousands of years. It wasn't until recently that we have been softening these undertones. I say Civil Unions for all, marriage for those that seek tradition. I do not want a primarily religious act to be sanctioned by the government, that is not separation of Chruch and State. I do find it odd that homosexuals who are condemned by the majority of religions are even seeking to be married within its traditions. I personally, if I were homosexual, would have no part and would not allow those who condemn me to whatever hell they believe in to then sanction a joining of me and my mate. But that's just me I guess.

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 02:40 PM

The Bill of Rights is not ironclad. There ARE circumstances that the freedoms written in them can be removed, ex: Freedom of Speech can be removed or limited in times of war.

The Bill of Rights is ironclad. There is a pecking order. In the time of war, the Soldiers right to life is greater than your right to Free Speech, therefore Free Speech is limited so military intelligance can be protected.

Your answer to every problem is to go around the courts and write everything YOU want into the governing document of our nation. I swear if the founding fathers are rolling in their graves. You are misusing the document to get around one of the branchs of government that the founding fathers created to be a balance.

I'm sorry Noleader, you are way off base. the founding fathers are rolling in their graves because people no longer stand how this country is supposed to work. The court's job in this country is to INTERPRET laws, not WRITE laws. The legasiative branch is supposed to write the laws, and if there is a dispute the courts than settle the dispute. You really have no idea how the constitution is admended? It takes 2/3rd of the states to ratify the constitution, it doesn't matter what I want as an admendment, it matters what 2/3rd of the Americans want. That is the process.

The fact that you would support such a tactic sickens me. I think this is one of the few times I am ashamed of my fellow americans. Swifty without the courts protecting the underdogs and standing up for you or others this country is no better then the old USSR.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ONE THING THAT I WROTE? HAVE *YOU* NOT LEARNED FROM HISTORY?

Courts change, unless a "right" is in the bill of rights, you are at the mercy of the courts. IF something happens and there is a radical shift in the courts, those "rights" you enjoy will be GONE. You cannot leave it up to the courts to determin your rights, they must be in the bill of rights or it's not a right.

I'm not an "extreamist", so don't lable me with that. I'm sorry you lack an understanding of how this country was founded and how it's supposed to be run.

Swifty

Noleader

04-13-2004, 02:41 PM

Actually, that's my line. It's you who are forcing me to accept your believes into my system, not vice verse.

Swifty
Nope, I am speaking from a non-religious standpoint. The only beleif I am forcing is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 02:44 PM

And I'm not even going to touch the possible idea that you believe I may have deserted my family. And before you find some split hair to lick, let me put it this way, away for 5 years? Impossible for you, it would feel like deserting your family. Maybe it's the same for other immigrants...but they need to be where they are for that moment. So, I'm going to assume you're just not that offensive.

So you posed a scenario to me, I answered it, and now you are saying I am offensive? WTF? If you don't want to me to answer a scenario truthfully don't pose one to me. I wasn't aware you were looking for a "right" answer, I answered on how I would treat the problem.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 02:46 PM

Nope, I am speaking from a non-religious standpoint. The only beleif I am forcing is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW

Nope, not even close, you are forcing a religious instituton to accept your defination of Marraige not theirs. You can have equal protection with Civil Unions.

Swifty

Sparky

04-13-2004, 02:49 PM

The Bill of Rights is ironclad. There is a pecking order. In the time of war, the Soldiers right to life is greater than your right to Free Speech, therefore Free Speech is limited so military intelligance can be protected.
You're contradicting yourself. You can't say the Bill of Rights is ironclad and then list a reason that it isn't.

The Bill of Rights is a list of Freedoms. Freedom of Speech is a Freedom. therefore it may be limited when it conflicts with the Right of Life.

Let's summarize, maybe it will make things a little more clear:

Life: Right. Can never be limited
Speech: Freedom. Can be limited when it challenges the three Rights every human is entitled to.

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 02:49 PM

So if we're not forcing churches to marry people (which isn't done now, any many churches turn down couples because they don't feel they should be married), and we are defining marriage as a religous joining - what happens when 2 people are married in a church that DOES allow them? Are they still just civil unionized?

To get married, you need a Marriage license for the state to acknowledge it. You can get Married in a Church, have that Church acknowledge that marraige, and be married in the eyes of your god, and the state doens't have to acknowledge that marriage if it is not legal under state laws.

Swifty

Sparky

04-13-2004, 02:50 PM

Nope, not even close, you are forcing a religious instituton to accept your defination of Marraige not theirs. You can have equal protection with Civil Unions.
Nobody is forcing the churches to do anything. I could care less if churches accept gay marriage. I want the government to accept it and give me the same rights every other couple has out there.

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 02:52 PM

You're contradicting yourself. You can't say the Bill of Rights is ironclad and then list a reason that it isn't.

Not a contradiction at all, there is always conflict in rights. If someone comes at me with a knife, I can kill them and my right to life being greater than their right to life.

You have a right to Free Speech, but in certain places that doens't apply. You cannot go into a crowded theater and start sceaming FIRE!!!!! As the resulting panic can kill people, so their right to life is greater than your right to free speech.

Swifty

Sparky

04-13-2004, 02:56 PM

I don't understand your argument. You're just reinforcing my point but contesting my definition of right?

Noleader

04-13-2004, 03:04 PM

The Bill of Rights is ironclad. There is a pecking order. In the time of war, the Soldiers right to life is greater than your right to Free Speech, therefore Free Speech is limited so military intelligance can be protected.

I'm sorry Noleader, you are way off base. the founding fathers are rolling in their graves because people no longer stand how this country is supposed to work. The court's job in this country is to INTERPRET laws, not WRITE laws. The legasiative branch is supposed to write the laws, and if there is a dispute the courts than settle the dispute. You really have no idea how the constitution is admended? It takes 2/3rd of the states to ratify the constitution, it doesn't matter what I want as an admendment, it matters what 2/3rd of the Americans want. That is the process.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ONE THING THAT I WROTE? HAVE *YOU* NOT LEARNED FROM HISTORY?

Courts change, unless a "right" is in the bill of rights, you are at the mercy of the courts. IF something happens and there is a radical shift in the courts, those "rights" you enjoy will be GONE. You cannot leave it up to the courts to determin your rights, they must be in the bill of rights or it's not a right.

I'm not an "extreamist", so don't lable me with that. I'm sorry you lack an understanding of how this country was founded and how it's supposed to be run.

Swifty
First War powers act and marshall law make most of your rights go bye bye.

Second do you know why we have a congress? If we just put everything in the bill of rights why vote? Just because a large amount of people want something it does not make it right. We tried this broad sword approuch before with liquor and we all know the outcome. Also back in the day lots of people wanted slavery lots of people wanted to split the union. Swifty you need to really support this with more then "well he wants it too" type of shit.

Courts tend to reflect the masses as a whole. The courts are the living part of the constitution. You fear them and I embrace them. I trust the courts more then anyother branch of government. The funny thing is swifty the founding fathers also did... You should read the Madison Notes some time and get a little insight.

You want to change the way our government works yet it is not extreme?

Please

Sparky

04-13-2004, 03:12 PM

Not a contradiction at all, there is always conflict in rights. If someone comes at me with a knife, I can kill them and my right to life being greater than their right to life.
That's not exactly how it works, btw, your right to life is never greater then anyone elses, you have the right to defend yourself from attack. You shouldn't be trying to kill them though, but if it is the only option then it is understandable.

My argument right now is that there is a difference between a Right and a Freedom. A Right is guaranteed to everyone. A Freedom is granted to you. Freedoms can be removed or limited, Rights cannot. The only Rights in our constitution were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Everything listed in the Bill of Rights is a Freedom.

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 03:13 PM

Second do you know why we have a congress? If we just put everything in the bill of rights why vote?

Appearently I do and you don't. Congress passes laws, the President either approves or rejects them (and congress has the ability to override the veto) and the courts make shure they stay within the limit of the constitution. Congress all has other functions besides passing laws. Not all laws have to do with Rights.

The courts are the living part of the constitution.

No, they are not.

I trust the courts more then anyother branch of government. The funny thing is swifty the founding fathers also did...

No they didn't, there is a system of checks and balances that keep all three branchs in line, not two.

You want to change the way our government works yet it is not extreme?

Nope, I want the goverment to work as it was intended by the founding fathers. It's people like you that are willing to piss all over the constitution and destroy this country that upset me.

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 03:13 PM

So you posed a scenario to me, I answered it, and now you are saying I am offensive? WTF? If you don't want to me to answer a scenario truthfully don't pose one to me. I wasn't aware you were looking for a "right" answer, I answered on how I would treat the problem.

Swifty

Whoa whoa whoa, Swifty. She wasn't saying you were offensive because you responded to her question. If you go back and read her post, you will see that she responds to your answer with an answer of her own. That answer proved that you were willing to consider issues on a case-by-case basis. This was not offensive.

The offensive part came when you attacked her intelligence. Ad hominim attacks are always offensive.

Sparky

04-13-2004, 03:18 PM

No, they are not.
When was the last time you studied our government? The courts exist to determine the constitutionality of laws brought before them. If that's not an embodiment of the constitution I don't know what is...

Noleader

04-13-2004, 03:19 PM

Swifty please quote everything... you are only answering part of questions...

Madison wrote about the founding fathers having more trust in the courts.. Please tell me were you get your data... I am starting to think you just making this shit up

Eiru

04-13-2004, 03:21 PM

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 03:48 PM

Boom

04-13-2004, 03:49 PM

Ok, how about this idea.

The Government no longer recognizes Marriages. Marriages are a religious ceremony performed by churches, temples, mosques, whatever. Each religion can make its own rules for Marriage and the government has NO SAY in those rules. As far as tax forms and all that, there is no more such thing as Marriage.

The Government ONLY performs Civil Unions. A Civil Union is a legal entity comprised of two people who live together and want certain rights/benefits of co-habitation. All the current legal benefits of "Marriage" will be transfered to the new Civil Union. This is where it gets cool. I am a heterosexual male. Lets say I live with my best friend Kevin, who is also a heterosexual male. But we share a house and stuff. We can get a Civil Union and have all the benefits of anyone else who co-habitates and shares expenses. If I get in an accident he will have the right to make medical decisions for me as my Civil Union partner. If I die without a will he gets all my stuff. Why shouldn't me and Kevin have these rights? Just because we don't have sex with each other? That's not fair. He is my best friend and my life partner (in this hypothet) and I want him to have the right to make my medical decisions if I am unable and I want him to get my stuff if my will is lost. And since we live together and share expenses we should have the associated tax benefits of co-habitation.

I don't think Kevin and I should be allowed to get married unless our religion (whatever it may be) allows it. Marriage should be the sole domain of the Church (or temple or whatever) and the government should have no say in it whatsoever. But, a marriage conducted by the church should have no effects upon governmental benefits. A married couple will need to also have a Civil Union which should be a very simple and cheap process. But as far as government benefits are concerned we should have the same rights as any other couple.

Basically what I'm talking about here is applying seperation of church and state to this issue in a complete and total way. Church handles marriage as it sees fit, and state handles civil unions.

Sparky

04-13-2004, 03:52 PM

<3 Boom

I'd go for that but I'm certain a large portion of the country wouldn't.

Rooster

04-13-2004, 03:53 PM

LoL[Harm']
I do not want "Marriage" to be a Right. Civil Unions can be, but marriage has and will continue to have religious undertones. Many historians believe the ritual of marriage was birthed in religion. Pairing with a mate is as old as mankind and the family unit but marriage is a traditional act held mostly in religious places or by religious representatives for the past thousands of years. It wasn't until recently that we have been softening these undertones. I say Civil Unions for all, marriage for those that seek tradition. I do not want a primarily religious act to be sanctioned by the government, that is not separation of Chruch and State. I do find it odd that homosexuals who are condemned by the majority of religions are even seeking to be married within its traditions. I personally, if I were homosexual, would have no part and would not allow those who condemn me to whatever hell they believe in to then sanction a joining of me and my mate. But that's just me I guess.I agree completely (with this section quoted above).

]LoL[Harm

04-13-2004, 03:54 PM

Let me ask this: Do we now have civil unions presently? I ask because Swifty and Roo seem to be ok with civil unions for homosexuals. If you get the same rights and responsibilities in civil unions as marriages, then I don't see where we have a problem. So, do we have such a thing as civil unions yet? I ask because Swifty also said you have to get a marriage license before anyone can marry you. Now Airr and I were "married" in a "civil" ceremony. No religion involved. Just us two and a Justice of the Peace performing a ceremony vetted by the province we were joined in. Were we married or were we joined in a civil ceremony?
Depends on who you ask, those who are into the tradition of marriage as it is known in most Christian based areas you will not be married, you will be joined under a civil union. Marriage is a ceremony of union most often held in a religious setting or led by a religious leader. Civil unions are usually held in a civic building and led by a civil servant. The only thing that matters for rights under the government concerning married couples is the civil union and a license, termed often a marriage license by even the states, though no Church approval or ceremony is required. Currently however, many states do not allow either path for same-sex marriages.

Noleader

04-13-2004, 03:55 PM

I agree with booms

]LoL[Harm

04-13-2004, 03:57 PM

I'm with that Boom guy.

Rooster

04-13-2004, 04:01 PM

Harm's statement and Boom's statement compliment each other and I agree with both.

"Courts tend to reflect the masses as a whole." - Negative.

4 words for you: "In God We Trust".

3 words that prove you wrong: "9th Circuit Court".

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:05 PM

When was the last time you studied our government? The courts exist to determine the constitutionality of laws brought before them. If that's not an embodiment of the constitution I don't know what is...

When was the last time you studied our goverment?

Yes, the courts determine the constitutionality of laws bought before them by looking at what?

The Constitution.

Who makes changes to the constitution?

(hint, it's not the courts.)

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:08 PM

The offensive part came when you attacked her intelligence. Ad hominim attacks are always offensive.

Never attacked her intelligence, where did that come from?

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 04:08 PM

Well, that's part of why I'm asking. We have a "marriage" certificate, but we were joined in a completely "civil" ceremony. So are we married or joined in civil ceremony?

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:14 PM

Madison wrote about the founding fathers having more trust in the courts..

You need to look at more than Madison's writings. You also need to realise that the courts of our founding fathers are not the courts of today.

It wasn't until modern times that the courts overstepped their Constitutional bounds and started to WRITE defacto constitutional admendments vs their tradiontal role of just interpretation.

Our founding fathers were a bit paranoid, that's why we have checks and balances on all three branches, unfortuantly the judical branch have been grossly overstepping their bounds for 40 years.

You guys remember Richard Bork?

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:16 PM

Well, that's part of why I'm asking. We have a "marriage" certificate, but we were joined in a completely "civil" ceremony.

You are married.

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 04:18 PM

You are married.

Swifty

But our marriage had nothing to do with religion. If we were not joined in a religious ceremony, are we truely married?

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:20 PM

The Government no longer recognizes Marriages. Marriages are a religious ceremony performed by churches, temples, mosques, whatever. Each religion can make its own rules for Marriage and the government has NO SAY in those rules. As far as tax forms and all that, there is no more such thing as Marriage.

This will never fly, you need to make a compromise.

That's why you have Marriages and Civil Unions.

You define marraige and civil unions the same, with the same rights and you make the relgious people happy as marraige is safe, and you extend those same rights to non-religous people with Civil Unions so they get the same benifates. You will NEVER be able to remove Marriage out of our goverment at this point without causing a full scale civil war.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:21 PM

But our marriage had nothing to do with religion. If we were not joined in a religious ceremony, are we truely married?

In the eyes of the states, yes. In the eyes of organized religion, no.

I'm thinking you care more about the former than the latter right?

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 04:27 PM

So I'm married, but in a civil ceremony?

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:35 PM

Yes, Civil Unions are new. You could get married at the court house and that marraige was legal in the eyes of the state.

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 04:38 PM

Didn't answer my question, Swifty. I'm married but in a civil ceremony, right?

Noleader

04-13-2004, 04:39 PM

You need to look at more than Madison's writings. You also need to realise that the courts of our founding fathers are not the courts of today.

It wasn't until modern times that the courts overstepped their Constitutional bounds and started to WRITE defacto constitutional admendments vs their tradiontal role of just interpretation.

Our founding fathers were a bit paranoid, that's why we have checks and balances on all three branches, unfortuantly the judical branch have been grossly overstepping their bounds for 40 years.

You guys remember Richard Bork?

SwiftyPlease tell me one 'admendment' they have wrote.

On a side note the Madison writings are some of the only items that were drafted and saved from that group of founding fathers.

Also for more proof that they trusted the courts more you should like look at the constitution once. All other branchs are described and bound by line after line of rules. The courts were basicly created in one paragraph

spyder913

04-13-2004, 04:43 PM

In the eyes of the states, yes. In the eyes of organized religion, no.

I'm thinking you care more about the former than the latter right?

Swifty
I would think he might also care how others view it.
'organized religion' is a wide range of people, and the majority may not see it as 'married' but I'm sure that's not true of the entirety. Just like the majority would not perform marriage services for gay couples, that doesn't mean there won't be some kinds of religion who would marry them.

I'm able to perform marriages, I would marry a gay couple if it were legal. It could be a religious service.

My point here is that if the only difference would be marriage = religious and civil union = non religious, then there would be no tangible difference. If someone wanted a religious service, they could have one (though choices may be limited).

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:50 PM

Didn't answer my question, Swifty. I'm married but in a civil ceremony, right?

Correct.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:51 PM

Please tell me one 'admendment' they have wrote.

Roe vs Wade. The made abortion a right, and it isn't.

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 04:51 PM

What would make it a strictly civil ceremony? Replace the marriage certificate with a certificate of civil union?

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:52 PM

Also for more proof that they trusted the courts more you should like look at the constitution once. All other branchs are described and bound by line after line of rules. The courts were basicly created in one paragraph

And it also states what their job is, something they have greatly overstepped the bounds of.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 04:58 PM

What would make it a strictly civil ceremony? Replace the marriage certificate with a certificate of civil union?

Yours was a civil ceremony, Churchs didn't object to marriage between men and women weither they be pagens, athiests, ect. as long as it was man and women. Marriage imparts certain rights to the couple, and these rights given to religous men and women had to be extended to non-religous men and women.

Now, churchs want Marriage to remain between a man and a woman, they pretty much don't care about the rights.

So yes, all this bickering is over the term Marriage. Which is why Civil Unions were suggested. The Churchs gets Marriage, and everyone else gets Civil Unions.

How it will happen in the future is hazy. I don't know if all same-sex unions will be called Civil Unions while Marriage remains between men and women, or if all Civil joinings will be retermed Civil Unions. It depends on how the laws are written.

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 05:00 PM

But what would make the union civil?

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 05:02 PM

But what would make the union civil?

That depends on how you treat eachother. :)

I edited my message above, see the last paragraph.

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 05:04 PM

How would you define a civil union?

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 05:21 PM

I would define a Civil Union as a "marriage" done by the state, vs a church.

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 05:29 PM

Then Airr and I ARE in a civil union, right?

Swifty_Johnson

04-13-2004, 05:55 PM

No, you are in a marriage. When, or if, Civil Unions are granted than you and Airr will be grandfathered in as Married, it will only apply to all unions after the start date.

You have to understand, as of this date, depending on where you live, there are no Civil Unions, just marriages. When the time comes, and depending on how the laws are written, will determin who get's Married and who gets a Civil Union.

Now if you are asking what I personally think you and Airr are (married vs Civil Union) I'll respond, it doesn't matter to me. As long as you both love eachother you can be married or joined in Civil Union, does the term really matter?

Swifty

Eiru

04-13-2004, 06:00 PM

Then what is the difference between a marriage and a civil union?

Eiru

04-13-2004, 06:35 PM

I mean, if a civil union is a marriage performed by the state, then Airr and I are in a civil union. If we are in a marriage, then there is some fundamental difference between marriage and civil union. Now, if we can nail down the specific difference between marriage and civil union, then we might be getting somewhere. But if the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is state vs. religious institution, then I and Airr already are joined in a civil union.

Now, if that is the case, the question then becomes, why don't homosexuals have access to the civil unions we already have?

Right?

So let's buckle down and see if we can agree on what exactly separates "civil union" from "marriage". Sparky himself said it doesn't matter what you call it as long as we're in love, and I commend him for his honesty. The problem is that what you call it DOES matter from all the posts I've read here.

So my question is: what separates a civil union from a marriage.

Eiru

04-13-2004, 06:43 PM

I would like to add that our definition should allow for consenting heterosexual couples like Airr and myself, who have no religious affiliation to participate in this civil union.

]LoL[Harm

04-13-2004, 06:54 PM

As in mine and booms post, Civil Unions would be defined as bonding two individuals in a committed relationship in a civic building by a civil servant. They would get all rights that current married couples do when it comes to matters of taxes and benefits granted by states and the fed. Marriage is the same thing, but performed in a religious ceremony by a religious figure, the Church in question would dictate if it would wed same-sex, however the civil union would have no preference.

Eiru

04-13-2004, 06:56 PM

Well, then, Harm, clearly Airr and I are in a civil union. If that is the case, the question becomes: why aren't homosexuals allowed to engage in that practice which we all seem to agree is the best way to deal with the problem and for which we already have procedures in place?

spyder913

04-13-2004, 06:59 PM

Allison

04-13-2004, 07:08 PM

Gay marriages are good for the economy. Just think of all the money they'll spend on their fabulous wedding receptions! ;)

(I think I'm glad I was out of town and missed this thread.)

Eiru

04-13-2004, 07:10 PM

]LoL[Harm

04-13-2004, 08:55 PM

Exactly. So the question REALLY becomes: why is the solution proposed by the President of the United States of America specifically in his address to the nation regarding the definition of marriage already illegal for those people who want a civil union?
That is one reason I find the President an incompetant leader in this area. Instead of working to find an acceptable solution and to attempt to calm and settle the situation he goes off on some odd tangent of protecting the sanctity of an action that is not under attack by the majority of homosexuals. He isn't looking at the problem and is throwing a solution at percieved threats. The problem is that homosexuals who have been together for years and that have children they've raised/raising can't leave their possessions to one another without a lot of legal bullshit, and they can't excersise other rights that come with the a life-long commitment two married people have. That is the problem. The sanctity of marriage is not.

Airr

04-13-2004, 09:23 PM

(I think I'm glad I was out of town and missed this thread.)Bawhahahahahaha ;)

Sparky

04-13-2004, 10:18 PM

In my mind he's attempting to create common enemies to focus on and rally support for re-election. Of course, before everyone attacks me on this, my opinion is extremely biased against him.

Noleader

04-13-2004, 10:19 PM

Roe vs Wade. The made abortion a right, and it isn't.

Swifty
It did not make it a right... If it was a right you would not see congress passing laws to restrict it. You confuse court rules, laws, and rights. They are completely different things.

Have you ever seen a criminal trial? Well one that is not from the jury box (they only see 1/8 of the trial).

Rooster

04-13-2004, 10:31 PM

In my mind he's attempting to create common enemies to focus on and rally support for re-election. Of course, before everyone attacks me on this, my opinion is extremely biased against him.No one, not even Clinton is that machiavelian, as much as talk show hosts (on both sides) would like us to believe. It takes entirely too much energy and Bush is, whether you agree with him or not, the most sincere person in politics I've ever seen.

Rooster

04-13-2004, 10:33 PM

It did not make it a right... If it was a right you would not see congress passing laws to restrict it. You confuse court rules, laws, and rights. They are completely different things.
Wrong.

Constitution: 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms.
Noleader: If it was a right you would not see congress passing laws to restrict it.

Oops.

Allison

04-13-2004, 10:57 PM

You can have as many arms as you want, Roo. Most people just have two. But if you need more, that's OK.

]LoL[Harm

04-13-2004, 11:56 PM

I just got a third one sewn on to my left butt cheek, so far it can only scratch itches I have on my right butt cheek but I hope some physical therapy will enhance its uses.

Rooster

04-14-2004, 12:25 AM

Personally, I think it was better in the original draft.

The Right to Arm Bears and the Happiness of Pusuit.

Allison

04-14-2004, 01:03 AM

OMg .... I'm laughing so hard I'm about to pee my pants!

... so far it can only scratch itches on my right butt cheek :rolly:

... right to arm bears :rolly:

I'm dyin here...

Noleader

04-14-2004, 10:27 AM

Wrong.

Constitution: 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms.
Noleader: If it was a right you would not see congress passing laws to restrict it.

Oops.
That admendment refers to a well regulated militia not the private person. Through laws and court rules it wsa extended.

You guys want to talk about this stuff or just make shit up to try to prove your points out?

Rooster

04-14-2004, 10:35 AM

You assume it was referring to an armed militia. Who do you think a militia is made up of? Average, every day citizens. It's called BYoG. Bring your own gun. It would be retarded to have some "organized" holding place for the "militia arms" - because all it would take is 1 turncoat to let the Gov't know where the stash is, and it's all over.

The RIGHT is detailed in the 2nd amendment. You don't EXTEND that right through courts. Courts are supposed MAINTAIN that right against congressional efforts to RESTRICT that right.

So don't go making stuff up yourself.

The right to bear arms is plain as day. You're the one that provided a completely wrong argument to a situation. My right to own a firearm in no way intrudes on ANYONE else's right to anything. But you DO see congress trying to limit that RIGHT.

I expected a better rebuttal NL (especially since yours was shut down pretty harsh)... come'on .. I know you can do better than that :)

Swifty_Johnson

04-14-2004, 10:52 AM

That is one reason I find the President an incompetant leader in this area. Instead of working to find an acceptable solution and to attempt to calm and settle the situation he goes off on some odd tangent of protecting the sanctity of an action that is not under attack by the majority of homosexuals.

If you looked at the admendment that was proposed, it makes provisions for Civil Unions, so he is covering all bases. The press on the other hand always leaves that part out, wounder why?

Eiru,

Civil Unions are new. You and Air were married. When the laws change, (and depending on how they are written) it may or may not be called a Civil Union. So right now you are married, eventhough it was preformed by a Civil Servant.

I know this is all confusing, hopefully we'll see some solid legislation soon that will explain it all.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-14-2004, 10:58 AM

It did not make it a right... If it was a right you would not see congress passing laws to restrict it. You confuse court rules, laws, and rights. They are completely different things.

Read the decision. Roe vs Wade makes it a defacto right. (until the court changes to a more normal balance than RvW will get overturned.)

RvW is a perfect example of what I am talking about. A majority of the justices in RvW decided that abortion was a right, so instead of following the well defined rules for admending the constitution, they just "interpreted" the constitution and said "It's in there!"

That is not the way it's done.

Swifty

Rooster

04-14-2004, 11:01 AM

Honestly, better to make like Ragu and say "It's in there!", than say, "no, it doesn't SPELL out your right to XYZ" and deny everyone that right.

Keep in mind I'm a former pro-choice (aka pro-baby murder) turned pro-life.

Swifty_Johnson

04-14-2004, 11:08 AM

That admendment refers to a well regulated militia not the private person. Through laws and court rules it wsa extended.

You guys want to talk about this stuff or just make shit up to try to prove your points out?
So you disagree with us and charge us with making shit up? Classy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
A little lesson here.

A well regulated Militia,
In the terms of the time whe this was written, this mean well trained.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
A well trained Militia is needed to provide security for the county. Until after WWII, (with wartime exceptions) the U.S. did not have a large standing professional army. Until than, before the civil war it was dependant on local militias, after the draft for men.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
There it is, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.

That's right, the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia. Why, becasue the people were the militia. In early U.S. history when the militia formed, everyone bought their own guns. It wasn't until the civil war that the large scale recruitment and arming of civilians took place.

So the 2nd Admendment applies to the people.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

04-14-2004, 11:10 AM

Keep in mind I'm a former pro-choice (aka pro-baby murder) turned pro-life.

So is the women behind RvW, she has pleaded with the court to get it overturned.

Swifty

Rooster

04-14-2004, 11:21 AM

If we wish to continue the pro-choice/pro-life debate, lets start another thread. I only brought it up as "rights" issue.

(I was about to reply detailing a logical explanation for why abortion should be illegal, but instead posted the above sentence)

Eiru

04-14-2004, 11:26 AM

Arm bears! ARM BEARS!

Eiru

04-14-2004, 11:31 AM

Eiru,

Civil Unions are new. You and Air were married. When the laws change, (and depending on how they are written) it may or may not be called a Civil Union. So right now you are married, eventhough it was preformed by a Civil Servant.

I know this is all confusing, hopefully we'll see some solid legislation soon that will explain it all.

Swifty

Thank you for reassuring me that my confusion will soon be answered.

My main question is still: what is the difference between marriage and civil unions? We have spoken at great length about "separate but equal". Well, is the difference in what you register for? Will someone have to register for a civil union instead of a marriage? Is the difference only in who performs the ceremony? Will I, as a heterosexual, be able to register for a civil union? If I can, will I be married or joined in a civil union? If I can't register for a civil union, is that true equality? What is the difference?

We may not be law makers, but we are reasonable adults with reasonable intelligence. Surely, we can reason together on how this might work out.