Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on October 20, 2010, 11:50:31 AM
-
Frank J nails it and said all there needed to be said about the coming election:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/republicans-kind-of-suck-which-is-why-they-will-win-huge-in-november/?singlepage=true
So the Democrats sucked. But not just plain old, usual politician sucked, but epic levels of suck where it’s hard to find an analog in human history that conveys the same level of suckitude...
It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart.
The GOP will get another chance, looks like. Let us hope they don't blow it.
-
The GOP will get another chance, looks like. Let us hope they don't blow it.
[popcorn] Yeah ... .they'll get two years, and in '12 Obama will campaign against them when he runs for re election.
We'll see .... we'll see.
I have had enough of the "evil" party .... I want the stupid party!!!! [tinfoil] :lol: :lol:
-
I'd really love to be a Republican these days, but the crap coming from the party is just as bad as that coming from the Democrats.
While the Democrats lack any spine to do anything, the Republicans are scaring me.
Democrats, all in all, seem to be pretty smart, educated folks. They just do dumb things, like, this stupid health care law, and their lack of spine in even attempting to pass any tax cuts. I think most democrats know that the health care law is a loser, and that reform should have looked different, but they were too beholden to their masters, the trial lawyers and doctors to do anything better than what they did. I can't even begin to make sense of their lack of spine on tax cuts. Even tax cuts on people like me who make less than 250k is better than no tax cuts at all. At least make an effort. NO? Well geez.
I have no idea how smart the republicans running these days are. People like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnel have such extreme message discipline, it makes me wonder if they actually have any education at all. I was watching the O'Donnel debate with my dad in DE while visiting, and it really sucked to watch. her democratic opponent, whatever his name was, wiped the floor with her.
That really bothered me.
I *WANT* candidates that know the constitution, and want to follow it to the best of their ability. I *WANT* candidates that want to cut the defecit, and cut spending. I *WANT* a candidate to make a big stink if laws don't seem kosher under the constitution.
Unfortunately, I don't see most of these "tea party" candidates being the real deal. Christine O'Donnel doesn't seem to know wha the constitution says past talking points. Sharron Angle too.
I guess what I'm saying is, I want the real deal.
Having ranted, this is pretty much an intellectual excersise, as only my rep is up for election this cycle. I'll probably vote straight republican except for the creationist school board candidates.
-
The GOP will get another chance, looks like. Let us hope they don't blow it.
You know they will.
-
You know they will.
Yup.
We (the sheeple, in order to form a more perfect meadow) will swing Congress in their favor. They will spend the "political capital" we give them in a pursuit of either graft, increases in power, decreases in opponent power, or bull-shyte topics like gays in the military, gay marriage, federal funding for stem cell research, or abortion.
Given the scope of the TRUE threats facing our country... it just isn't responsible to look into any of those above topics right now.
I expect:
-A repeal of Obamacare that really only repeals about 10% of it, without eliminating any of the entitlement syndrome present in it.
-A big old fisticuffs about something gay. Mabs will like it, but it will take at least a month of our time in the Capitol building away from more pressing matters.
-A "concession" topic given away by the Repubs while they're in power but don't have the Exec branch. Probably Amnesty. They are the Stupid PartyTM, after all.
-
. . . -A "concession" topic given away by the Repubs while they're in power but don't have the Exec branch. Probably Amnesty. They are the Stupid PartyTM, after all.
I hope I'm wrong, but after being sorely disappointed repeatedly by the GOP, I fully expect The Stupid PartyTM to pretend they're engaged in a "statesmanlike bipartisan compromise" while getting nothing - nothing!! - in return. :facepalm:
Also agree they'll waste time on gay topics, flag topics, abortion, and posturing about earmarks. They'll flit about and issue pompous pronouncements about illegal aliens while carefully avoiding action.
It's my hope that when Obama casts a budget veto and blames the GOP for "shutting down the government" the GOP doesn't just hide their heads in the sand and contemplate their navels the way they did when Billy Jeff pulled that cr@p . . . I'd like to see them come right back and call BHO the bleeping liar he is.
-
It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart.
=D
-
It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart.
That's so great!
-
I'd really love to be a Republican these days, but the crap coming from the party is just as bad as that coming from the Democrats.
While the Democrats lack any spine to do anything, the Republicans are scaring me.
Democrats, all in all, seem to be pretty smart, educated folks. They just do dumb things....
Good grief. If they were so "smart" they WOULDN'T have stuffed down the health care bill, which is universally unpopular.
They KNEW it was, too.
They drink their own kool aid.
If they were smart they wouldn't have done that; look at the problem the pollsters are predicting for them.
Not that the Repubs are brilliant. The sc#e#ed the ***** from 2001 on.....
And BTW, the Teaparty candidates, for the most part, are actually pretty decent. I don't think debates give candidates the best opportunity to represent themselves these days but I think the media has dumbed them down a lot.
Ms. O'Donnel has made some mistakes for sure, but she's better than her opponent, for sure. Unfortunatly, given the state sh is running in and the political reality there, the "bearded Marxist" will win :mad:
-
Yea, they will win quite a few seats in Nov. Problem is, not enough of them are true conservatives. So, they won't change much n the next 2 years.
-
I'd really love to be a Republican these days, but the crap coming from the party is just as bad as that coming from the Democrats.
While the Democrats lack any spine to do anything, the Republicans are scaring me.
Democrats, all in all, seem to be pretty smart, educated folks. They just do dumb things, like, this stupid health care law, and their lack of spine in even attempting to pass any tax cuts. I think most democrats know that the health care law is a loser, and that reform should have looked different, but they were too beholden to their masters, the trial lawyers and doctors to do anything better than what they did. I can't even begin to make sense of their lack of spine on tax cuts. Even tax cuts on people like me who make less than 250k is better than no tax cuts at all. At least make an effort. NO? Well geez.
I have no idea how smart the republicans running these days are. People like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnel have such extreme message discipline, it makes me wonder if they actually have any education at all. I was watching the O'Donnel debate with my dad in DE while visiting, and it really sucked to watch. her democratic opponent, whatever his name was, wiped the floor with her.
That really bothered me.
I *WANT* candidates that know the constitution, and want to follow it to the best of their ability. I *WANT* candidates that want to cut the defecit, and cut spending. I *WANT* a candidate to make a big stink if laws don't seem kosher under the constitution.
Unfortunately, I don't see most of these "tea party" candidates being the real deal. Christine O'Donnel doesn't seem to know wha the constitution says past talking points. Sharron Angle too.
I guess what I'm saying is, I want the real deal.
Having ranted, this is pretty much an intellectual excersise, as only my rep is up for election this cycle. I'll probably vote straight republican except for the creationist school board candidates.
1. What do you mean by Smart? They were so determined to pass universal health, they voted for a bill they hadn't read yet, and they knew the bill was full of useless crap that would make medical care in this country worse (they already planned to pass a "fix"). Add to that they knew that the bill was wildly unpopular. Then they did it all again with the banking regulation bill.
I personally would say they are not smart for sticking to this plan of spending more and more money and racking up more debt to HELP the economy. Emotional perhaps, but not smart.
2. I think you need to evaluate what you want in a politician. If all you want is an Ivy league educated smooth talking con man, you are getting it. If you want "normal" people to run for office, you need to realize they won't be so polished. In addition, most of those current politicians are not nearly so polished as the media and others would lead you to believe. If they got the same media attention as Angle and O'Donnell, they wouldn't look so good. If they didn't have armies of staff, advisers, image consultants, and others working for them, they definitely wouldn't look so good.
3. On the constitution, I would like them to know it also, but do you really expect them to quote it verbatim in a debate on national TV? How many of the current Democrats or Republicans in Congress could do that? I bet very few of them could.
Also, my impression of the O'Donnell stuff was that she knew the Bill of Rights as well as anyone, but wasn't quite clear enough in her speaking and left herself open to being misinterpreted by the a media that is looking for anything negative they can get. That is a landmine that is difficult to avoid.
-
I posted a reply to Harrison Bergeron last evening, then deleted it, as I wanted to think my reply through a bit more.
Democrats, all in all, seem to be pretty smart, educated folks. They just do dumb things, like, this stupid health care law, and their lack of spine in even attempting to pass any tax cuts. I think most democrats know that the health care law is a loser, and that reform should have looked different, but they were too beholden to their masters, the trial lawyers and doctors to do anything better than what they did. I can't even begin to make sense of their lack of spine on tax cuts. Even tax cuts on people like me who make less than 250k is better than no tax cuts at all. At least make an effort. NO? Well geez.
As MechAg94 says, the Dem's running the show right now aren't smart. There's a big difference between book smarts and real world smarts. What we have in the White House now are a bunch of academics who want to implement policies that sound good in theory but have been disproved in practice over the last 100+ years. If they had some people with experience in the business world, they'd be much better off. They're following the FDR playbook without realizing that FDR made the Depression the Great Depression through those same policies.
I sat up until after 2 am last night watching the entire O'Donnel/Coon debate just to see how much it "sucked". While O'Donnel obviously didn't have the debate experience that Coon did, nor the policy wonkishness, it was pretty clear where she is coming from philosophically.
Coon, Blitzer, the other moderator, and the audience got the whole First Amendment issue wrong. O'Donnel didn't clarify her remarks well enough, but Coon idea of a separation of church and state is at odds with the text of the First Amendment, while O'Donnel's is not. (For those interested, the first SC opinion to cite a separation of church and state was written in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. Do some research on the guy, as he's a real piece of work. Former KKK member, etc).
Coon got away with lying on a number of points, but did get called on a couple. When O'Donnel accused him of raising taxes, he tried to skate around it and deny it. When Blitzer finally pressed him on it, well, Coon had to admit that he did raise taxes. He had his reasons, but he had to change his answer first.
He also tried to lie his way out of O'Donnel's charge that he stood to gain financially from Cap and Tax. I thought O'Donnel did a pretty good job of explaining his ties to the family business, and how he would personally benefit from the bill. When Blitzer finally pressed him on the issue, Coon had to admit that he did stand to gain.
It was clear early on that Coon's strategy was to reply with remarks intended to imply that O'Donnel wasn't making sense (even when she was) or was stupid, rather than answer questions. It was a somewhat subtle way of attacking her while evading the subject.
I didn't have time to watch the Angle/Reid debate, but accounts I've read have said that Reid did a terrible job, and didn't seem ready for the debate, or even interested.
Now, with the discussion of these two radical conservative women out of the way, let's look at the tax issue. Am I to understand that you'd rather the Republicans give you your tax credit now, rather than try to act on principle and extend the tax cuts for all? That the Republicans should give you yours, but go ahead and gouge the people who create the jobs? That seems awfully short-sighted, and not a good idea with the economy as it is now. The Republican's firm stance is already getting some Democrats to talk about a "temporary" extension of credits to all taxpayers.
I get the impression that you read and watch news from the mainstream media. Just a guess, and no slight is intended, but it does sound like you've perhaps inadvertently ingested some of the media talking points.
-
1. What do you mean by Smart? They were so determined to pass universal health, they voted for a bill they hadn't read yet, and they knew the bill was full of useless crap that would make medical care in this country worse (they already planned to pass a "fix"). Add to that they knew that the bill was wildly unpopular. Then they did it all again with the banking regulation bill.
I personally would say they are not smart for sticking to this plan of spending more and more money and racking up more debt to HELP the economy. Emotional perhaps, but not smart.
2. I think you need to evaluate what you want in a politician. If all you want is an Ivy league educated smooth talking con man, you are getting it. If you want "normal" people to run for office, you need to realize they won't be so polished. In addition, most of those current politicians are not nearly so polished as the media and others would lead you to believe. If they got the same media attention as Angle and O'Donnell, they wouldn't look so good. If they didn't have armies of staff, advisers, image consultants, and others working for them, they definitely wouldn't look so good.
3. On the constitution, I would like them to know it also, but do you really expect them to quote it verbatim in a debate on national TV? How many of the current Democrats or Republicans in Congress could do that? I bet very few of them could.
Also, my impression of the O'Donnell stuff was that she knew the Bill of Rights as well as anyone, but wasn't quite clear enough in her speaking and left herself open to being misinterpreted by the a media that is looking for anything negative they can get. That is a landmine that is difficult to avoid.
What do I mean by smart? Primarily, I mean that they have an education. They understand at least college level English, science, economics, civics, and math. I want someone that can understand, and speak proper english. I did not know much english until I moved here, and I learned it. Being born here, you should speak it perfectly. I want someone who understands the scientific method, and doesn't put up with bad science. I want someone who has a good understanding of the constitution, and the law. I want someone who knows that 2+2=4, so they can put together a budget.
Christine O'Donnell scary to me. She has gotten really good at parroting talking points. That's all i ever see any politician do these days; parrot talking points. Christine O'Donnell obviously doesn't understand that the supreme court has ruled that the first amendment effectively says there is a seperation of church and state. I can name 10 decisions from the supreme court since 1948 that say just that, offhand. (I'll post those decisions below.) Sure, that phrase is not in the constitution. The 1st amendment, as interpreted by the supreme court since 1948 says that. It's not as clear cut as "That phrase isn't in the constitution".
A bit of background from me, here. My parents escaped Iran with me in 1989, for America specifically because of America's "melting pot" attitude, and secular legal system. (Secular, meaning not "christian" or not "Muslim")
I have seen and have stories of what a theocracy can do, and the idea that my home country could even bend that way scares me a whole lot.
Please don't think that I am a fan of the Democrats more so than the Republicans, I am not. To better clarify my previous statement, I think they are smart, learned people too afraid to do what they feel is right (wether or not i agree with them is irrelevant to this.) 2 good examples of this would be Obama's refusal to end the gay ban on the military, and the Democratic majority in congress refusing to even try and vote on the tax cuts until after the election.
I would generally call myself a Republican, except that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above. I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible) as well as ideas for equality for gays and the like.
The name I use on this forum comes from a Kurt Vonnegut story I read years ago. It is about a future America where the government enforces equality by knocking the exceptional down to an average level. My views on government are somewhat like this; being that government cannot enforce equality on people. I do not think the government should "make" people equal, but I do think they should help, when the investment is a good one, in helping people be better. They should not make it harder, only make it easier, if it makes economic sense. In this sense, I agree with the republican party. I am probably socially a Democrat, and economically a Republican; so my politics are strange I think.
As far as mainstream media, I am also not a fan. My father says cable and TV news reminds him too much of the propaganda he used to see in Iran; far too little real news, and far too much puff and crud meant to entertain rather than inform. I try and read from as many different sources as I can.
I am answering multiple replies to my post here, I hope I did not miss anything.
----
Court cases:
McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) (religious instruction in public schools violates establishment clause)
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) (State cannot force people to swear to the existence of God to hold public office)
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) (bible reading over school PA violates establishment clause)
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) (banning evolution violates establishment clause)
Stone v. Graham (1981) (posting 10 commandments unconstitutional)
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) (moment of silence unconstitutional - read this one, its more complicated than it sounds)
Edwards v. Aquillard (1987) (creation science teaching, with religious motivation unconstitutional)
Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989) (nativity scene inside govt building)
Lee v. Weisman (1992) (school district cannot provide religious instruction at school graduation)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah (1994)
-
What do I mean by smart? Primarily, I mean that they have an education. They understand at least college level English, science, economics, civics, and math. I want someone that can understand, and speak proper english. I did not know much english until I moved here, and I learned it. Being born here, you should speak it perfectly. I want someone who understands the scientific method, and doesn't put up with bad science. I want someone who has a good understanding of the constitution, and the law. I want someone who knows that 2+2=4, so they can put together a budget.
Good luck with that. Tell us when you find one & we'll have a party(1).
FTR, most policritters are lawyers and have the following characteristics (among others):
1. Scientific buffoons and innumerate
2. May understand the COTUS, but do not adhere to it
Christine O'Donnell scary to me.
You sure do scare easy.
I'd suggest less Christophobia.
And try to understand that however many other folks have come to America, its founders were of English & N European extract. That includes Christianity, even if only honored in a muddled fashion by the many irreligious folks in America, who get their values system in a second-hand/picked up in a back alley sort of way. (IOW, rubbed off via the shared culture, shorn of the religious aspects.)
(1) One requirement: they have held elective office.
-
Sure, that phrase is not in the constitution. The 1st amendment, as interpreted by the supreme court since 1948 says that. It's not as clear cut as "That phrase isn't in the constitution".
It actually is pretty clear cut. That phrase isn't in the 1st Amendment. That was her point. However, I don't think her or anyone else fails to realize that court precedent is a major part of how we apply that amendment.
-
The "separation of church and state' argument is a fairly recent one, and has been used primarily by atheists and secularists to ban religious displays (nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments, etc) on public property.
We are in no danger of becoming a theocracy, which is in part what the religious portion of the First Amendment was designed to protect us from. The "separation of church and state" crowd wants religion--or, more specifically, Christianity--out of the public arena entirely.
They can cry "precedent" as loud as they like, but the SC precedents go back only to Hugo Black. If we want to use other SC decisions as precedent, why not Dredd Scott, or other outrageous rulings? Or are we only to cherry-pick the precedents that reinforce our arguments?
Harrison, if you were to pay closer attention to the Tea Party movement, I think you might be surprised to see that it's composed primarily of people whose issue is economic. People in the movement have views on social issues that are all over the map, but they're coming together to oppose the enormous spending and waste of taxpayer dollars. It's not the extreme right wing movement that it's been painted to be.
-
...Please don't think that I am a fan of the Democrats more so than the Republicans, I am not. To better clarify my previous statement, I think they are smart, learned people too afraid to do what they feel is right (wether or not i agree with them is irrelevant to this.) 2 good examples of this would be Obama's refusal to end the gay ban on the military, and the Democratic majority in congress refusing to even try and vote on the tax cuts until after the election.
I'm sorry, but I find the idea that they are "too afraid to do what they feel is right" is ludicrous. Why else do they pass a HORRIBLE health care bill that the plurality of the people were against, and whom now want repealed? The problem is they share the same foolish courage General Custer showed at the Little Bighorn.
I would generally call myself a Republican, except that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above. I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible) as well as ideas for equality for gays and the like.
Every once in a while, a republican says something on the topic of religion I don't think is particularly smart, but for the most part they seem more interested in religious liberty than not -- an idea I find sadly lacking in the ranks of the democrats.
We can quote court cases about a "wall of separation between church & state" all day long, but the fact remains the purpose of the 1st amendment's religion claus was intended to protect the church from the state. The first amendment starts out; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Notice it says "CONGRESS shall ...", it doesn't say anything at all about any other political or geographical or legal entity. Notice, also, the clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It seems to me many of the court cases have actually infringed on that clause in particular ... and especially those in which it was NOT congress placing a icon of the ten commandments in some building, or a religious icon of some sort in a court building in Flyover County, USA.
The name I use on this forum comes from a Kurt Vonnegut story I read years ago. It is about a future America where the government enforces equality by knocking the exceptional down to an average level. My views on government are somewhat like this; being that government cannot enforce equality on people. I do not think the government should "make" people equal, but I do think they should help, when the investment is a good one, in helping people be better. They should not make it harder, only make it easier, if it makes economic sense. In this sense, I agree with the republican party. I am probably socially a Democrat, and economically a Republican; so my politics are strange I think.
"Socially" a democrat and "economically" a republican is indeed a odd mixture. If the dimwit repubs hadn't spent the last decade spending like drunk sailors I would inquire how one can rationalize the spending spree and the taxation the demos have traditionally engaged in in pursuing their leftist social agenda while approving of the (supposedly) frugal, minimalist government the repubs (at one time) espoused. This may become a valid argument again one day, since Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, seem so hell-bent on doubling down on big government entitlements.
As far as mainstream media, I am also not a fan. My father says cable and TV news reminds him too much of the propaganda he used to see in Iran; far too little real news, and far too much puff and crud meant to entertain rather than inform. I try and read from as many different sources as I can.....
To a large extent I agree with this. :O Broadcast TV is obnoxious and the agenda is blatant. Some cable as well. MSNBC is bad .... CNN (IMHO) is ok but used to be worse. Fox News is probably the best .... but they aren't perfect and I occasionally feel a desire to throw some inanimate object at a talking head.... restraining myself heroically when I think how much $$ I paid out for that nice LCD panel TV [tinfoil] [tinfoil] =D =D
-
I would generally call myself a Republican, except that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above. I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible) as well as ideas for equality for gays and the like.
A few disparate things to explode here, so they must be broken up.
I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like health care (but the law they passed is terrible)
Which is it?
I think the Democrats have the right idea on some things like...equality for gays and the like.
The Republicans also have the right idea on equality for gays, they just keep passing terrible laws, right? ;) No, seriously, the Republicans favor equality for homosexuals. Where did you get the idea they didn't?
that party's propensity to favor the religious is a non starter for me, for reasons I explained above.
No, really you didn't. How do they favor the religious, and how is that a problem for anyone?
-
No, seriously, the Republicans favor equality for homosexuals. Where did you get the idea they didn't?
Mainly from all the notable republicans who advocate for constitutional amendments to prevent same sex couples from being granted legal protections that other couples are eligible for, or argue that they should be kept out of the military.
-
...from being granted legal protections that other couples are eligible for...
There are other ways for gays to achieve the legal protections they want without redefining marriage. It's changing the meaning of marriage that has drawn opposition, and not just because it's gays who want to redefine it. If marriage can be redefined to include a man and a man, then there's no way that states can prohibit polygamy or perhaps even set minimum ages for marriage.
-
Are you argunig that marriage must never be redefined?
-
Mainly from all the notable republicans who advocate for constitutional amendments to prevent same sex couples from being granted legal protections that other couples are eligible for, or argue that they should be kept out of the military.
On the first issue, homosexuals have always had perfect equality in the realm of marriage. I have never heard of any jurisdiction denying a marriage license based on the applicant's sexual proclivities, or of any amendment that promotes such. Please explain what you mean.
On the second issue, the military allows homosexuality so long as it is kept quiet. Meanwhile, membership in a secret society like the Ku Klux Klan is not allowed, even if hidden. So if barring open homosexuality is unequal treatment, then I guess the ban on hate group membership is also unequal treatment. Sometimes, one's behavior has consequences. Or in other words, equal opportunity is not a guarantee of equal success.
-
"They can cry "precedent" as loud as they like, but the SC precedents go back only to Hugo Black. If we want to use other SC decisions as precedent, why not Dredd Scott, or other outrageous rulings? Or are we only to cherry-pick the precedents that reinforce our arguments?"
Monkeyleg for the win. ;)
Harrison, by now you might think you've stepped into the lions den. =D Our APS denizens are a group of folks that generally will discuss and argue about anything. Please don't take any offense for having your remarks critiqued. We folks are generally quite intelligent, well spoken, check our facts and do not usually put our foot in our mouth. We tend to defend freedom and liberty. Your beliefs and opinions will be scrutinized and you may have to defend your position from time to time. But, I assure you, that you will not be attacked or insulted personally, only your stand on subjects.
Cordially,
grampster
Grand High Poobah and most excellent of all the excellent.
-
I want someone that can understand, and speak proper english. I did not know much english until I moved here, and I learned it. Being born here, you should speak it perfectly. I want someone who understands the scientific method, and doesn't put up with bad science. I want someone who has a good understanding of the constitution, and the law. I want someone who knows that 2+2=4, so they can put together a budget.
Preach on, Professor Higgins! Seriously, most people in politics today are absolutely atrocious public speakers.
You sure do scare easy.
Nah. It's just your lack of appropriately bad experiences.
I'd suggest less Christophobia.
Oooh. Nice. Except it really isn't about Christianity, but rather some branches of it. I was for a time a member of a church council, so you can't really accuse me of being phobic. I am, however, bothered by the way religion gets brought up in politics today. Perhaps this is because I do not belong to one of the more widespread in US denominations. I think it makes little difference whether I get in the crosshairs for being too Christian or not Christian enough.
There are other ways for gays to achieve the legal protections they want without redefining marriage.
Unless these ways are just as easy to get as a marriage license there is an inequality. There are ways to get a FA gun, but you wouldn't say that they are equally available as autoloaders.
If marriage can be redefined to include a man and a man, then there's no way that states can prohibit polygamy or perhaps even set minimum ages for marriage.
What's wrong with polygamy? It's traditional, mentioned in the Bible (a lot). :) Seriously, I see a few practical reasons for me personally to avoid it, such as the difficulty of finding another woman to put up with me (I won't even try, finding one was hard enough) and perhaps the necessity of rewriting divorce statutes. My church doesn't support it, but that's no reason to prevent anyone else from doing it. Otherwise, what's the objection?
Minimum ages are a different story. Age is a condition of being able to enter into contracts, gender is not.
-
Minimum ages are a different story. Age is a condition of being able to enter into contracts, gender is not.
Why is minimum age a different story? If it's a matter of entering into a contract, just change the age for contracts.
If other cultures can have 40 year-old men marry 12 year-old girls, why not ours? As long as we're going to redefine marriage, let's let everyone in so we can have true diversity.
Maybe I can talk my wife into letting me have an 18 year-old as wife #2. ;)
Unless these ways are just as easy to get as a marriage license there is an inequality.
I suppose it depends upon what things we're talking about gay couples getting. Care to elaborate?
-
Why is minimum age a different story?
There are recognized and somewhat measurable differences in decision making ability at different ages. These differences are currently accepted by us and codified in law. There are no such differences with regard to gender. Were we to accept that we might have to disallow women voting and I don't want to be anywhere near that can of worms. I don't really see a link between gays and the age of consent, so I'm not really sure why this is a question.
If other cultures can have 40 year-old men marry 12 year-old girls, why not ours? As long as we're going to redefine marriage, let's let everyone in so we can have true diversity.
See above. We accept that decision making ability differs with age and does not differ with gender. This is not a change and has nothing to do with definition of marriage. Marriage is between consenting parties and neither the gays nor anyone else is out to change that. This, incidentally, rules out the "marrying a dog" junk as well.
Maybe I can talk my wife into letting me have an 18 year-old as wife #2. ;)
Now, talking that 18 year old into it might take some doing... :)
Given the current economic climate having two working adults to one running the household is starting to look pretty good, though... :)
I suppose it depends upon what things we're talking about gay couples getting. Care to elaborate?
Not being a gay couple my knowledge of those things is somewhat superficial, mostly hearsay from acquaintances. Off the top of my head, the biggies are hospital visitation rights and medical decision making, inheritance, and property division on separation. Heterosexuals get these taken care of with a single stroke of a pen (more or less) and nobody questions it much. Homosexuals have to do a lot more paperwork and then run into hospitals that might refuse to let them in to see a partner anyway because they aren't kin.
-
My wife's uncle is really close to us, and is/was active in the gay rights movement. He's explained many of the issues he feels are important, such as the surviving partner having the same right to Social Security benefits, life insurance, probate issues, and other financial matters. He went through this 15 or so years ago when he lost his partner of 20 years. I understand and appreciate very well his concerns, and think they can be addressed without changing the definition of marriage. We're not talking about just words when it comes to redefining marriage, but changing a major component of western culture.
There are recognized and somewhat measurable differences in decision making ability at different ages. These differences are currently accepted by us and codified in law. There are no such differences with regard to gender. Were we to accept that we might have to disallow women voting and I don't want to be anywhere near that can of worms. I don't really see a link between gays and the age of consent, so I'm not really sure why this is a question.
Generally speaking, yes there are recognized differences. Practically speaking, there are millions of people over 18 who make horrible life-changing decisions every day, and millions of minors who make responsible decisions.
We accept an arbitrary number (18) and codify it in law because we have to start somewhere. The number could just as easily be 17 or 19. We do it and stick to it because that's part of our cultural norms.
Other cultures have other norms. Muslims have as a norm the acceptance of marriage between a man and a child. Is their culture wrong? If not, then why can't we adapt some of their norms, as long as we're changing ours to accomplish with gay marriage what could easily be done through changes in financial law?
-
I have never heard of any jurisdiction denying a marriage license based on the applicant's sexual proclivities, or of any amendment that promotes such. Please explain what you mean.
On this argument, I am entirely not discriminated in the realm of marriage even though the state of Israel prohibits me to marry non-Jews. I can of course always marry a nice Jewish girl!
-
Generally speaking, yes there are recognized differences. Practically speaking, there are millions of people over 18 who make horrible life-changing decisions every day, and millions of minors who make responsible decisions.
I would agree. Still, the important thing here is that age limits are recognized and gender limits are not.
Other cultures have other norms. Muslims have as a norm the acceptance of marriage between a man and a child. Is their culture wrong? If not, then why can't we adapt some of their norms, as long as we're changing ours to accomplish with gay marriage what could easily be done through changes in financial law?
So what? You keep talking about adapting something from other cultures, but there is no logical connection here. The argument for gay marriage is not at all based on it being acceptable in other cultures. It is actually based on our own existing norms. It's about an internal inconsistency, not about bringing something in form the outside.
-
So what? You keep talking about adapting something from other cultures, but there is no logical connection here. The argument for gay marriage is not at all based on it being acceptable in other cultures. It is actually based on our own existing norms. It's about an internal inconsistency, not about bringing something in form the outside.
There are a few million Muslims in the United States right now, and I would imagine that within a decade, their numbers will surpass the number of people who identify themselves as GLTB. Muslim culture is part of our culture whether you like it or not. So, by that standard, wouldn't a child marriage be on the same level of legitimacy as a gay marriage?
-
Back on topic. The Republicans suck. Their leadership is a bunch of gutless rinos-they need to be relieved of their offices as well. I have a lot of hope in some of the candidates who are challenging establishment dems and rinos in this election- they aren't career politicians with law degrees who give lipservice to their electorate, they are people who are fed up with the system to the point where they stepped up and put their own fortunes and time on the line to run for these offices. The O'donnells and Angles aren't the problem in this country, its the people who make political hay over some of their small gaffes that are the problem.
-
I would agree. Still, the important thing here is that age limits are recognized and gender limits are not.
Yes, we recognize age limits. We've also recognized gender limits by not allowing same-sex marriage. That's the norm that some want to change.
So what? You keep talking about adapting something from other cultures, but there is no logical connection here. The argument for gay marriage is not at all based on it being acceptable in other cultures. It is actually based on our own existing norms. It's about an internal inconsistency, not about bringing something in form the outside.
Precisely. It is based on our own existing norms, and those norms have dictated that gay marriage is not acceptable. Over two-thirds of the population agree with that statement, which I would argue makes the heterosexual-marriage-only position the norm.
I keep talking about adapting something from other cultures because the gay rights movement is trying to adapt something from a culture other than ours (although from where, I don't know. Certainly not from Islamic culture). I'm throwing out examples of acceptable norms from other cultures because I'd like you or someone else to say why those are bad but gay marriage is good. If we can't say why doing X is not an acceptable change, but gay marriage is an acceptable change, then I can see no reason not to adapt X if we're going to accept gay marriage. If we're going to have significant societal change, get it over with all at once, because we'll be revisiting all of this within a decade or two as other groups use the legal establishment of gay marriage as precedent for what those groups want (more than likely Muslims, since their populations in western countries are growing rapidly).
There is no internal inconsistency unless you begin with the premise that gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are equal institutions, and it is only our existing law that is inconsistent. However, we have hundreds or even thousands of years of western norms saying that gay marriage is not acceptable, so there is no inconsistency.
There is nothing to stop gay couples from having marriage ceremonies, and little to stop gays from getting changes in law recognizing partners' rights in financial matters. Gay marriage advocates want something quite more than that, and for reasons that go beyond ceremony or finance.
-
I have never heard of any jurisdiction denying a marriage license based on the applicant's sexual proclivities, or of any amendment that promotes such. Please explain what you mean.
On this argument, I am entirely not discriminated in the realm of marriage even though the state of Israel prohibits me to marry non-Jews. I can of course always marry a nice Jewish girl!
So Israeli law asks whether you and your fiancee are Jewish. American law doesn't ask whether either partner is Jewish, homosexual, or fond of bid whist. Your point?
-
Off the top of my head, the biggies are hospital visitation rights and medical decision making, inheritance, and property division on separation. Heterosexuals get these taken care of with a single stroke of a pen (more or less) and nobody questions it much. Homosexuals have to do a lot more paperwork and then run into hospitals that might refuse to let them in to see a partner anyway because they aren't kin.
That is factually incorrect. Homosexuals have every opportunity to get married. They've been marrying for millennia, and their marriages have always received equal recognition and treatment with every other marriage.
-
What's wrong with polygamy? It's traditional, mentioned in the Bible (a lot). Smiley Seriously, I see a few practical reasons for me personally to avoid it, such as the difficulty of finding another woman to put up with me (I won't even try, finding one was hard enough) and perhaps the necessity of rewriting divorce statutes. My church doesn't support it, but that's no reason to prevent anyone else from doing it. Otherwise, what's the objection?
Sorry to dredge this from the last page, but I will anyway. :)
In general, I could care less if two women in their right mind decide to shack up with some guy. However, in most cases where I hear of polygamy happening, it is always tied with underage girls (allegedly), closed communities where little outside influences are found, and/or cases where parents decide who the girl will marry. Not all those are bad things by themselves, but it always looks like the girls have little choice in the matter or don't know any other way. Of course, I only hear about this from a distance myself.
-
On the gay marriage thing, it is not a wholely religious issue to me at all. As a pastor I heard speak said, heterosexuals have been disrespecting the institution of marriage for many years. They should be surprised if homosexuals have little respect for it. My only religious concern is that the 14th amendment or discrimination laws would be used to force pastors/priests to marry homosexual couples. If you don't think that is possible, recall the case in Arizona where a photographer declined to photograph a homosexual couple and was sued.
One of the radio guys from over on the West Coast (Hugh Hewitt?) mentioned that when the vote went against gays on that proposition, a big majority of blacks and hispanics voted against gay marriage. It isn't just a bunch of conservative white people who oppose this.
-
On this argument, I am entirely not discriminated in the realm of marriage even though the state of Israel prohibits me to marry non-Jews. I can of course always marry a nice Jewish girl!
So Israeli law asks whether you and your fiancee are Jewish. American law doesn't ask whether either partner is Jewish, homosexual, or fond of bid whist. Your point?
Under your argument, what is the difference?
-
We're not talking about just words when it comes to redefining marriage, but changing a major component of western culture.
So why shouldn't we redefine marriage? You've not answered that question quite yet.
Very well, we agreed that the current norm consists of: "Marriage of pne male/one female, prefer of the same age, but never above 18."
The fact it is the norm is not in and of itself a defense of this institution.
-
Under your argument, what is the difference?
I'm not making an argument. I'm stating facts. You brought up some discriminatory laws in Israel. I assumed you found a similarity to the American laws we're discussing. What is the similarity?
-
I'm not making an argument. I'm stating facts. You brought up some discriminatory laws in Israel. I assumed you found a similarity to the American laws we're discussing. What is the similarity?
Your argument is that since homosexuals can marry people they don't want to marry, it is not discriminatory to prohibit them from marrying people they do want to marry.
On the same principle then, since I'm still free to marry someone, I am not discriminated against.
On the same principle, a total ban on CCW is not a violation of your 2A rights since you're free to carry openly.
-
The fact it is the norm is not in and of itself a defense of this institution.
Social norms that have lasted for centuries usually have some practical basis. Up until not that long ago, a young woman becoming pregnant before marriage was something that was kept private, not something to celebrate. The change in that norm--along with several other factors--contributed to an increase in out-of-wedlock births, which in turn leads to all sorts of social problems. It's in society's interest for children to have two parents.
It's also in society's interest --until proven otherwise--that the two parents be of the opposite sex. I can't recall having read of any culture where homosexual marriage is commonplace, which leads me to believe that other cultures past and present have decided the same thing.
We've been playing with changing all sorts of social norms over the past 50 years, and the results haven't always worked well. Keith Richards notwithstanding, junkies tend to not live very long, and thus heroin use isn't celebrated (except for a few years in the late 60's and early 70's). The whole hippie counterculture was an example of turning cultural norms on their heads to see what would happen. It's like a big switch with "do not touch" stamped in red on it, and some stoned freak yelling, "hey, man, watch this!"
-
Your argument is that since homosexuals can marry people they don't want to marry, it is not discriminatory to prohibit them from marrying people they do want to marry.
On the same principle then, since I'm still free to marry someone, I am not discriminated against.
On the same principle, a total ban on CCW is not a violation of your 2A rights since you're free to carry openly.
Again, I haven't advanced an argument. Homosexuals are perfectly free to marry, and do exercise the right to marriage in exactly the same way that heterosexuals do, with no additional restrictions.
Recognizing what is, or is not, marriage is not discrimination; any more than the Dept. of Motor Vehicles recognizing what is or is not an actual motor vehicle. I don't want to live in a country where the govt. is required to recognize ping pong balls as motor vehicles, and I don't want to live in a country where the govt. is required to recognize a homosexual relationship as a marriage. That would be a country where reason is "intolerant." I like reason.
-
Yes, we recognize age limits. We've also recognized gender limits by not allowing same-sex marriage. That's the norm that some want to change.
Age limitations are base on practical limitations. While there are exceptions that you brought up, the majority of teenagers really is not capable of making rational decisions. The real practical underpinning here is to protect them. We can demonstrate that absence of this limitations will result in harm to someone.
What is the hard practical reason behind the non-acceptance of homosexuals marrying? Who and how is harmed?
Precisely. It is based on our own existing norms, and those norms have dictated that gay marriage is not acceptable. Over two-thirds of the population agree with that statement, which I would argue makes the heterosexual-marriage-only position the norm.
This is not a very good argument for anything. Large portions of the populace at one time agreed on stuff that was later found to be wrong: flat Earth, slavery, miscegenation.
I keep talking about adapting something from other cultures because the gay rights movement is trying to adapt something from a culture other than ours
That's an interesting point of view, but it really is your invention. What basis do you have for this?
I'm throwing out examples of acceptable norms from other cultures because I'd like you or someone else to say why those are bad but gay marriage is good. If we can't say why doing X is not an acceptable change, but gay marriage is an acceptable change, then I can see no reason not to adapt X if we're going to accept gay marriage. If we're going to have significant societal change, get it over with all at once, because we'll be revisiting all of this within a decade or two as other groups use the legal establishment of gay marriage as precedent for what those groups want (more than likely Muslims, since their populations in western countries are growing rapidly).
Well, your clever plan ain't gonna work. :) I'm not going to say anything of the sort, mostly because I think that your initial premise that this is something from outside of our culture is wrong.
There is no internal inconsistency unless you begin with the premise that gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are equal institutions, and it is only our existing law that is inconsistent. However, we have hundreds or even thousands of years of western norms saying that gay marriage is not acceptable, so there is no inconsistency.
I think you have to start one step before that. I think that the premise that marriage is an institution is, at this point in time, incorrect. For evidence, just look around. Marriage today appears to be a legal construct, a special type of contract registered and enforced by the state, in essence, a service. Various religious groups apply their own significance to it, but this does not cross the boundaries of the group and there is no reason why other people should be forced to attach the same significance to it that you do. The inconsistency is that the state provides this service to some citizens of legal age and not to others.
There is nothing to stop gay couples from having marriage ceremonies, and little to stop gays from getting changes in law recognizing partners' rights in financial matters. Gay marriage advocates want something quite more than that, and for reasons that go beyond ceremony or finance.
What would that be? Sounds real ominous.
Social norms that have lasted for centuries usually have some practical basis. Up until not that long ago, a young woman becoming pregnant before marriage was something that was kept private, not something to celebrate. The change in that norm--along with several other factors--contributed to an increase in out-of-wedlock births, which in turn leads to all sorts of social problems. It's in society's interest for children to have two parents.
It's also in society's interest --until proven otherwise--that the two parents be of the opposite sex. I can't recall having read of any culture where homosexual marriage is commonplace, which leads me to believe that other cultures past and present have decided the same thing.
Considering that these days marriage is not reserved solely for raising children this is also not much of an argument. How is a gay couple different from an infertile or consciously "childfree" couple in this respect?
We've been playing with changing all sorts of social norms over the past 50 years, and the results haven't always worked well. Keith Richards notwithstanding, junkies tend to not live very long, and thus heroin use isn't celebrated
This isn't really comparable for the reason I mentioned above. There is clear demonstrable harm in heroin use that is absent in the gay marriage.
-
You have the right not not-celebrate whatever you like. I ask what is the basis for using the force of the state to enforce the specific social norms.
Heroin may be unhealthy, but I oppose the War on Drugs nonetheless. Tobacco is unhealthy, and yet we do not prohibit it.
-
Sorry to dredge this from the last page, but I will anyway. :)
In general, I could care less if two women in their right mind decide to shack up with some guy. However, in most cases where I hear of polygamy happening, it is always tied with underage girls (allegedly), closed communities where little outside influences are found, and/or cases where parents decide who the girl will marry. Not all those are bad things by themselves, but it always looks like the girls have little choice in the matter or don't know any other way. Of course, I only hear about this from a distance myself.
There is no hard tie there. In the same way, child abuse is often perpetrated by traditionally married people, but being married does not automatically make one an abuser.
On the gay marriage thing, it is not a wholely religious issue to me at all. As a pastor I heard speak said, heterosexuals have been disrespecting the institution of marriage for many years. They should be surprised if homosexuals have little respect for it.
I'd say that it's a little late to talk about redefining marriage - it has already been redefined by popular opinion into something much less that this hallowed institution some folks talk about.
My only religious concern is that the 14th amendment or discrimination laws would be used to force pastors/priests to marry homosexual couples. If you don't think that is possible, recall the case in Arizona where a photographer declined to photograph a homosexual couple and was sued.
Can, say, a Catholic priest be forced to perform a wedding for a Rastafarian couple?
One of the radio guys from over on the West Coast (Hugh Hewitt?) mentioned that when the vote went against gays on that proposition, a big majority of blacks and hispanics voted against gay marriage. It isn't just a bunch of conservative white people who oppose this.
Well, there are a couple of communities where marriage is kept sacred... Ever heard the term "babydaddy"?
-
You have the right not not-celebrate whatever you like. I ask what is the basis for using the force of the state to enforce the specific social norms.
Heroin may be unhealthy, but I oppose the War on Drugs nonetheless. Tobacco is unhealthy, and yet we do not prohibit it.
We don't prohibit homosexual weddings or cohabitations either, do we?
-
I'm tired of arguing.
-
We don't prohibit homosexual weddings or cohabitations either, do we?
Wasn't it posted here on this forum that at least one state actually does that? Or am I missing something?
-
I'm tired of arguing.
Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.
-
Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.
Oh, I can argue forever, and have in the past. In reviewing the time spent in those arguments, I realized that I wasted significant amounts of my life with nothing to show.
I'm not going to change your mind, and you'll likely not change mine. I've worked very hard today, and don't feel up to it.
If it will make you feel better, I'll even say you won. How's that?
-
Talk about thread drift...we were talking about how how stupid the GOP leadership is and how they'll probably screw up the landslide they're about to be given. How do we rid ourselves of the "Republican Leadership"?
TC
-
Oh, I can argue forever, and have in the past. In reviewing the time spent in those arguments, I realized that I wasted significant amounts of my life with nothing to show.
Weren't you even entertained?
I'm not going to change your mind, and you'll likely not change mine. I've worked very hard today, and don't feel up to it.
If it will make you feel better, I'll even say you won. How's that?
Meh. Still disappointing. What makes you think I was looking to "win" or to change your mind? What I really wanted was to see if I could come up with some coherent answers to these questions I have.
-
Oh, I can argue forever, and have in the past. In reviewing the time spent in those arguments, I realized that I wasted significant amounts of my life with nothing to show.
I'm not going to change your mind, and you'll likely not change mine. I've worked very hard today, and don't feel up to it.
If it will make you feel better, I'll even say you won. How's that?
lol.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=3c523f50141bd6146835af46974e72f60d9a1f01)
Talk about thread drift...we were talking about how how stupid the GOP leadership is and how they'll probably screw up the landslide they're about to be given. How do we rid ourselves of the "Republican Leadership"?
TC
Indeed. I'm waiting for HTG to specifically tell us how we can decapitate the GOP good old boy network from the inside.
-
Weren't you even entertained?
Sure. Was it good for you? ;)
-
*sigh*
I can solve the "gay marriage issue" real quick.
The government no longer issues "marriage licenses". From this point forward, they're "civil unions", which confer all the same rights and privledges of marriage as currently accepted to any two or more consenting adults, as signed and notarized on the document.
"Marriage", as a legal term, no longer applies.
There, all fixed.
As for the Republican leadership: I see no quick fix...
-
Sure. Was it good for you? ;)
Hmmm... What would Mabs do? =D
As for the Republican leadership: I see no quick fix...
Detcord?
-
*sigh*
I can solve the "gay marriage issue" real quick.
The government no longer issues "marriage licenses". From this point forward, they're "civil unions", which confer all the same rights and privledges of marriage as currently accepted to any two or more consenting adults, as signed and notarized on the document.
"Marriage", as a legal term, no longer applies.
There, all fixed.
I'm on the same page with you on this one.
Get government out of the marriage business.
Do we really need a bureaucrats permission to become "man and wife"?
-
The legitimate issue i can see is the granting of certain legal protections to gay (or what have you) relationships as are enjoyed by heterosexual "man and woman" unions.
Where it gets illegitimate is when we start arguing that we want "same sex marriage". That is a very specific word, with very specific connotations.
For the legal benefits (inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decisions, etc), EVERY "family*" should have to get a civil union contract, via the government. It is kinda a government function.
Want to be "married"? That's up to the church you belong to. If they don't accept the relationship you're in, tough for you. But wy would you be part of a church that doesn't accept you sexual choices?
*"family" here defined (for contract terms) as "any 2 or more consenting adults". Which eliminates the question of folks entering civil unions with children, animals, or inanimate objects...
-
"family" here defined (for contract terms) as "any 2 or more consenting adults". Which eliminates the question of folks entering civil unions with children, animals...
Blast it all. I was so looking forward to marrying my horse.
-
Hey, did anyone hear? Republicans suck! But not, like, as bad as Democrats.
Or something.
Personally, I have retrenched over time from mild pro-"civil union" position to opposing ceding even that much space.
Nowadays, I would insist that we pass legislation that those wishing to be same-sex-married(1) be broken on the wheel(2) and their bodies quartered after death to be displayed in public as an example to all worthless PITA keening trouble makers.
Heck, if I'm going to be accused of violating human rights or some such nonsense, I might as well get some satisfaction and advocate for some real human rights violations. :P
(1) While maintaining a live & let live policy for even the flamiest and outrageous homosexuals who have no intention of partaking in same sex marriage. The "Homer Simpson Doctrine."
(2) I think I may have read too many books on medieval and renaissance history, lately. Every other chapter someone is being flayed to death, burned at the stake, having red-hot crowns nailed to their heads, and such. The lucky ones merely have their eyes gouged out with hot pokers and sent to live out the remainder of their days in a monastery. And that whiny Clinton lawyer called Washington politics "blood sport."
Blast it all. I was so looking forward to marrying my horse.
Of course, of course.
-
Get government out of the marriage business.
Do we really need a bureaucrats permission to become "man and wife"?
That's "solving" a problem that doesn't exist. As someone (White Horseradish, I think) said earlier, legally-recognized marriage simplifies a lot of things. Why make things harder for married people?
The actual problem is that leftist nonsense, as usual, is hurting the people it claims to help. If those concerned about homosexual couples really wanted to make things easier for them, they should have suggested legislation to make things easier for all people (not just homosexuals) who live together, or depend on close friends, rather than family members. If you want non-family to have hospital visitation rights, or you want to leave your stuff to someone who's not related to you by blood or marriage, fine with me. But make that available to everyone with a non-traditional family, not just homosexuals. That would make more sense, and be more inclusive and less divisive.
-
Did Fistful just give a synopsis of what I was describing?
And, Gawds forbid, is he being TOLERANT?
Ok bub... who are you and what did you do with our forum scapegoat?!?
>:D
-
In a probably lame attempt to get back on topic...
I predict voter fraud/election irregularities on a scale that would make Castro blush.
That will be coordinated with legal challenges that will make Florida 2000 look like a minor tiff between friends.
Variou state races will be tied up in the courts till well into 2011 giving the lameduck congress plenty of time to really screw things up.
I am not optomistic.
-
So effectively extend the same legal privileges available to married couples to all of those groups of people, and let people call 'marriage' what they think is 'marriage'? That's actually the best idea in the whole thread.
But I sort of always viewed gay marriage as a walk-before-you-run step towards that, just like how CCW permits are supposed to be a step towards repealing the NFA.
-
Did Fistful just give a synopsis of what I was describing?
I don't think so. This is something I've said before. I'll try to break it down a bit.
1. Leave marriage laws alone. "Getting government out of marriage" is a radical "solution" that will cause more problems than the alleged problem it seeks to solve.
2. If those in non-traditional arrangements (people living together, or depending on one another, regardless of any sexual relationship) need special arrangements from hospitals or governments, let them lobby for the appropriate legislation. Not because homosexual relationships need government recognition, but because everybody hates red tape, even non-doing-it heterosexuals who live together for whatever reason.
3. If item 2 had been pursued by homosexuals and their sympathizers, on behalf of everyone, they could have gotten much further on this agenda by now. (Dare I call it an agenda? :lol: )
Obviously, those who argue that homosexual couples have to be treated exactly like heterosexual couples won't be satisfied with this.
-
2. If those in non-traditional arrangements (people living together, or depending on one another, regardless of any sexual relationship) need special arrangements from hospitals or governments, let them lobby for the appropriate legislation. Not because homosexual relationships need government recognition, but because everybody hates red tape, even non-doing-it heterosexuals who live together for whatever reason.
This.
In fact, I'd narrow it even further. Let them lobby in the private sector for what they want, leave legislative force out of it.
I have an old friend form college, Kathy, a lesbian, who I used to debate this with endlessly. She said that it wasn't fair that I could marry a woman and my wife would be covered by my insurance and similar suchlike, but she couldn't marry a woman and confer the same benefits to her partner. She thought it was appropriate to use the power of government to force these private companies to behave in the way she wanted, whereas I thought that forcing priivate businesses to offer specific products or services wasn't right at all.
A coupla years ago I was filling out beneficiary paperwork for some insurance. Alongside the checkbox for naming a spouse as a beneficiary, there was now a new "Life Partner" option for specifying a non-married, non-family member as beneficiary. It seems that the insurance company wanted business from unmarried couples and now was willing to offer that coverage.
This is the way Kathy and the gay community should have handled such things. Rather than use force of government to compel companies to provide you their services on your unilateral terms, choose to do business with those willing to offer the services you want voluntarily, and avoid those who don't. It won't take long for companies to adapt to the marketplace.