DescentBB

Goob wrote:What credit is it exactly that you think we should give Bush?

You can claim "dodge" all you please. Saying it does not make it so. Maybe Lothar will patiently explain the obvious to you in meticulous detail, but I will more likely expect you to see it for yourself. And if you can't see the obvious on your own, I reserve the right to ignore you. That doesn't mean I will, but I reserve the right to do so.


So let's go through the PAINFULLY obvious answer to your question.

What credit should you give Bush? You give him DUE credit. No more, no less.


Bush did not get credit where he made bipartisan moves or empowered moderates within his administration. Your own remarks show where you do not credit him. Powell an extreme conservative? That's ridiculous.

Since so many Dems prefer to cling to hysteria and demonization rather than giving the President credit that is due to him, it would be foolish for him to choose cabinet members JUST TO APPEASE THE LEFT.

Where he has selected minorities for powerful positions, you should recognize that he has gone further in that direction than the Democrats have ever gone. When he chooses a moderate conservative to be his chief diplomat, your side should stop with the "cowboy diplomacy" nonsense. Where he has proposed and led and brought about the largest aid package in US history to help fight AIDS in Africa, your side should stop accusing him of caring only about the wealthy and Halliburton.

There is an ENORMOUS amount of distortion, spin, and outright LIES about the President, which is bandied about in liberal echo chambers as if it were fact. Doing that shows you give him no credit. Stop doing it, or don't expect the right to give a d@mn about working with you.

If Democrats won't display a lick of bipartisanship, then they're the ones who are going to be the biggest losers. All they can do on their own from their current position is to obstruct. They can filibuster in the Senate and grind anything to a halt that they are willing to fight for. BUT BE CAREFUL. Too much of that, overriding the mandate given to the President by a clear majority of the electorate, and the Dems risk being swept ALL THE WAY OUT by an enraged electorate in 2006, the way it happened in 1994.


- Sirian

Those aren't the only two options

I realize the world is dynamic. However I think the possibile outcomes are somewhere on the spectrum between Bush following the conservative agenda he and you outline, and bush making effort to bridge the gap.

The president should pursue what he told us that he would pursue

OK, but the subject here is healing. If the president ran on his issues and now is just going to do what he exercised, you haven't done an ounce of "healing". Maybe you just don't understand what that would mean since you are in the Bush camp.

Most small businesses in America pay taxes via the same laws and rules that apply to individuals. These small business include sole proprietorships, partnerships, Subchapter S corporations, and more.
Small businesses create 70% of the new jobs in our economy today.

* Tax relief for "the rich" is also tax relief for hundreds of thousands of small businesses who pay taxes on the individual schedule. Easing their burdens allows them to expand their business, which means they add more jobs.

Yes, I know this. I am one and earn my livelyhood from my small business. Bush could still allocate the $$ better. This is the weak knee jerk no think conservative argument. Because Bush and my friends who agree with me say its true, it must be the best way. It is not. The best way to stimulate business growth is not income tax cuts. It is tax cuts in the arena of business. As a small business owner myself (and I expect to be in your 'tax cuts for the rich' segment in a few years like my parents are) the best incentives to expand business are reforms that directly effect business itself. Give me a few extra hundred dollars or thousand and that's nice and all, but it doesn't show me any long term way to make a higher margin for my business. If you cut the sales tax (I know this is a CA only tax, but we have other taxes businesses pay like SS) here my business in CA is going to do siginificantly better as an online company. My prices go up 8.25% compared to the next guy if the buyer is in CA. Or you could help a loans program, as I am going to have to take out a loan soon. But if you just give me a pile of money, it doesn't really help my business much.

However, from the consumer side if you DO give each citizen a pile of money, this can stimulate the economy and stimulate it fast. Look up the Keynsian multiplier effect and it mathmatically is quite clear to me that if you need a stimulus into the economy to help smooth the business cycle (Which is what bush was doing with the tax cut, and greenspan does with the interest rate--basic keynsian economics of smoothing the business cycle) it would be a much better idea to give an across the board fixed amount than a greater (but "fairer") portion to wealthier individuals. Rich have a much lower marginal propensity to consume (i.e. with 1 dollar extra given to you, how much is spent?). Since the poor have such a higher MPC (in some cases 100%) the multiplier effect will be much larger.

It's funny, trickle up economics has been the natural state of the economy for years. When you give a tax cut to the poor, it always helps the rich. Anywhere the poor are going to spend is usually owned by someone "rich."

Bush's cuts could have even been more effective (not saying they did nothing) using half the money he used, in terms of stimulus--we could have a smaller deficit and a more stimulated economy. Keep your eyes on the MPC if you need to boost demand. If you want to help business growth, change other areas besides income tax which is not very effective. Incentives do matter, but put the incentives directly related to the way the business functions.

If you want to read more about the Keynsian Multiplier in our history, I suggest reading the Cotton Thesis by Douglas North.

The tax and spend liberals are wrong

Apparently the new hip theme (under Bush Sr., Reagan, and bush Jr.) is to cut taxes and increase military spending causing a massive deficit. Apparently that's what the public prefers, however fiscally irresponsible it is.

What's next? Implying that the rubes in flyover country only voted for Bush out of bigotry and homophobia?

Well, it is quite clear to me that there are many Bush voters who are that way because of bigotry. Obviously nowhere near all or a majority, but many people are on the Gods Gays Guns bandwagon of the republican party. Lots of people right now are bigots who enjoy denying even "seperate but equal" rights. With gay rights we aren't near 1960 compared to civil rights. The polls showed it--moral values. Whatever that means. If you don't think gay marriage was a wedge issue playing on bigotry, you were asleep!

Sirian, it's pretty funny that you go on to agree with Will's point. Didn't take you for the paranoid liberal media conspiracy conservative, but guess if the shoe fits...

We need to patiently educate each other to find our middle ground. Malicious generalizations won't get us there.

OK, I am willing to work. Do you have any comprimises to propose? Or are we stuck with all of Bush's plan verbatim?

On the map of bush's support, that's really not a big deal. Bush supporters use it as a way to inflate his support, which although is a clear majority, is only so by 3 percent. Much of bush territory is empty or sparse land--trust me, I've driven through it. Kerry land is urban population centers so of course there is less blue. Remember, if Kerry had one Ohio or Florida, he would be president. That's not a huge territorial difference.

Those points represent a larger number of voters than even Reagans landslide victory. You have to remember that this election saw the largest voter turnout ever.

And also the largest number of people who voted against a president in history. Look at percentages, not totals.

I just read Sirian's latest post. Apparently is waiting for an apology from the Dems and to realize Bush's occasional stints of bipartisanship. Good luck on that nation healing

woodchip wrote:Make note to self:
Tattoo "Jim Beam" on my penii so Cops will have an excuse to suck up to me next time we "Meat".

this is why woodchip rocks.
not for his copy and paste opinions... but because ultimately, he has a sense of humor.

Sirian wrote:

TheCops wrote:why is that sirian guy going for the grammar attack anyways?

Quickest way to point out that the pot was calling the kettle black. Your remarks are incoherent and crass.

TheCops wrote:it's not going to change the fact that i don't know, or care to know, who he is.

n00b


- Sirian

i know who you are. i'm not totally dead. fusion rat.

... and i'm the easy target... because i type things and don't "research"... i react.

but seriously, i have a hard time communicating with the bush crowd. they don't have sex like rabbits. life is bill clintons money shot... and not GWB's coke up the nose and blatantly violent nature.

the truth is SIRE, i just come here to give the righties more ammunition for their criticisms. i'm a "wild and crazy guy".



p.s. looking for a reasonable debate in the wrong place man.

Though I don't wish to, I can live with four more years of Bush. I can live with Patriot Act II. I can live with more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. These things can all be reversed in time. The real story of this election is the Gay Marriage Ammendments.

I find it difficult to stomach the fact that the majority of my own countrymen would be so "conservative" that they would prefer the unity of church and state. They have gladly placed obstacles in the way of a minority to obtain equal rights. They are the ones that hate America.

It is a cryin-a$$ shame that so many people have decided they want equality only for those that share their elitist world view. If that's the kind of country they want to live in then they should do one of two things: move elsewhere, or amend our constitution to allow for a minorities rights to be obstructed, removed, etc. Segregation again and forever!

If ANY minority has its right to equality obstructed, then no minority is safe. the stage is set for all manner of abuses. this is not the government or Bush doing this. This is ignorant, bigoted Americans. Short sighted fools.

Americans are so proud to be anti-intellectual that any form of critical thinking about their country (read: agenda for the country) makes them nauseous. Being critical should give them pride. People want to believe that everything is black and white. it's not. Most Americans have supported Bush, the man who gives them a black and white view of the world. This doesn't make the world black and white. This makes such people delusional. Thinking critically makes them feel bad and they're tired of feeling bad.

Let me take it one step further. They should take that religious view of the world and shove it up their a$$...

As an aside, I've heard it said more than once, "I wouldn't want to live in a world without god." If this is you, just a suggestion...kill yourself. You have every right to delude yourself into believing that there is a God who loves you and will reunite you with your loved ones in a place called heaven after you die. who wouldn't want to believe that? However, some of us are interested in truth versus believing something emotionally satisfiying. But THAT is where we are. Americans don't want truth, they want what satisfies them emotionally, with no regard to reason whatsoever.

You have every right to delude yourself that God exists and cares about you. You have every right to delude yourself with the belief that all those other religions are wrong and yours is the one true religion, idiot. You have every right to your beliefs and to worship you God. You also have an obligation to either move to a fascist state or make one here in America before you go uniting the church and states and legislating a Christian elitist morality.

Gay marriage is eroding the fabric of our society? So lets ban gay marriage and then relaxe with a little "Wife Swap" on television, or perhaps some "Who wants to marry a dwarf"! "Married by America" is the greatest because we get to democratically decide how to utterly erode the institution of marriage and not have to think about two guys kissing.

Or better yet, let's address the rampant problem gay marriage causes all of us while hundreds of thousands of impoverished children are abused in their "good Christian" homes. And if they are "fortunate" enough to be removed, they are abused in foster care. Are you kidding? There's no time to care about small children being killed and raped when the fags are scheming to force everyone to marry someone of the same sex!

So let's ban gay marriage, but not only that. In eight of the 11 states that voted Tuesday, the constitutional amendments contain additional language that opponents said could also ban civil unions and other legal protections for gay and lesbian people. The states are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah.

Of course marriage is about procreation. Fags shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate. So why not ban marriage between people who are infertile or advanced in years beyond the ability procreate? Gay couples who love each other are unfit to raise children, but bitterly divorced heteros make good parents? F*ck this logic.

Bush wins and I say it's good for now, since that is what most American voters wanted. The worst thing that I could possibly wish on people so ignorant is that they get exactly what they wanted; themselves upon them themselves. Bush upon them! And woe to the rest of us.

At times like these I wish that the civil war had never happened. There should be two Americas. One for the people who want the government to be Christian and BIGOTED. And another for people who appreciate freedom and the threats to it. Instead, I'm now left with the hope that the North will rise again and burn the South once more.

The nice thing about all those pretty voter maps people posted is that that they show you where all the major centers of collegiate learning are located.

Palzon, how did we ever argue so much on the D3tl? Hugs without shirts for that one.

<3

You guys that think if not for the gay marriage issue Kerry would have won you are really missing the bigger picture.
Putting gay marriage on the ballot in some states surely brought a few more people to the polls in those states than otherwise would have showed up, it kept a few black voters from blindly supporting Kerry because some of those blacks are dead set against gay marriage but that is not how the democrats lost. That was just a tactic that swung a few votes in a few places. The Democrats have been bleeding to death for over a decade.

There is a larger, slower trend happening based on morality issues and the activist gays with their in your face demands are just a tiny piece of that puzzle. It's a cumulative thing, the democrats have been drifting slowly out of touch for some time.

Kerry said, during the primary I believe, that he could win without the south. Well he is buying into the stereotype, it's not just the south that he couldn't win it's the regular people he can't win and they are spreading across the map!

Take away the free rent and welfare lifers, the reparations seekers, the entitlement seekers, the labor unions, the tree huggers, the socialists, the communists, etc, etc. and show me what the map looks like. It would be all red! He doesn't understand who the bulk of his own constituency is. He's been swallowing the hype of his party saying they represent "working family's"...or the "middle class"...or "the average Joe". WRONG, they don't have a lock on those people at all.

It's not about how many people are scared of gays kissing, it's not about how many hate brown and black people, etc.
It's about protecting the fundamental way of life.... the normal, traditional, practical values. The democrats don't even pretend to try represent americans as a whole, they simply try to harvest votes where they can find them concentrated. When it comes to gathering a constituency the democrats are the strip miners...the clear cutters! They never stopped to think what would follow in the wake of their creation of voters. They built a class warfare machine. They are like Yassar Arafat, they don't want peace they need the strife to continue to fuel their constituency machine...they need their little suicide bombers/voters.

America is more intelligent than the democrat party gave them credit for. They said so in the polls. They acknowledge Bush was less than perfect, they saw he found no WMD's, they saw the economy go down, they saw all the bad things coming out of Iraq and they *still* voted for Bush. Why?
Because they knew that he was leading toward the proper solution to the security problems we now face post 9/11. Because the lies about the economy dropping under his watch were not the whole story and the economy was recovering.
Because he stood up and in simple terms told us what he believed and how he was going to do what needed to be done.
Because he represents something all americans seek, a path to a strong, safe, healthy nation, and opportunity to be self sufficient not a pity party for Jerry Springer Show rejects who can't get out of bed without the help of a government wetnurse.

I don't think Palzon was making the argument that Kerry lost on this issue.

I don't know how much weight Palzon puts on that issue but he certainly touched on what I was talking about and I'm hearing and reading a lot of democrat reaction in the last 24 hours that trys to put the blame on the bible belt or the dumb racist southerners etc.

It's right there in the internals of the polls. There were many voters who gave the democrats the lead on certain issues but based on a few major issues they went for Bush anyway because they see the big picture clearly.
The democrats actually ran on a campaign similar to a high school clique picking someone to hate to make themselves feel superior.
That may play for a few emotional dishrags but the regular people(red area voters) have real life concerns and aren't going to put a high school socialite in charge of the country just because he claims popularity and/or superiority.

the activist gays with their in your face demands

Yeah, you know those horrible demands on equal rights.

Continue the bigotry.

Well Bird, perhaps we should define what constitutes a legitimate minority. Is a minority to construe any group of like minded people who want to promote there particular beliefs?

If so than the Mormans have a right to multiple wives.

If so than NAMBLA has the right to have legal protection for any willing participant.

If so prostitutes should band togeather and become a "minority" to free themselves from the oppression of police harassment.

So where do you draw the line on minority rights?

you know Will, there was a time when you seemed to take an even-handed view of things. something changed about your posts as the election drew near. the closer the election came, the more I feared you might break your vagina with each new attempt to queefe out an "amen" to every woodchip post. I hoped you would come back to planet earth but i guess not

Still, you are a smart enough man that i agree with most of what you just said, until the last paragraph. Americans are more dumb, mean, and proud of being dumb and mean than they have ever been. they would pi$$ away their own rights without a second thought, or even realizing what they're doing. I don't fear fascism because Bush or the party wants it. I fear fascism because the American people have clearly voted for it, to some degree, in 11 states.

America is bigoted, fearful, and devoid of critical thinking. There is NO moral clairty in this move. But the people believe by making this choice they will declare moral clarity. They have put their own rights on the chopping block with this move. You are intelligent enough that this should not be lost on you.

You see, i think anyone who believes in God, especially the Christian God, is deluding themselves. I feel it is morally wrong to put our faith in something outside of our reason and morality that we accept uncritically. I think that people who believe in God are eschewing personal responsibility to be accountable for their own actions and spiritual growth.

I feel that religion is the cause of a majority of the worlds problems. And i feel that everyone who believes in the utter horse sh#t that is religion should stop believing it because they are f*cking up the planet. In this sense, I firmly believe that religion is morally harmful to this country.

That said...this is America. And i would defend the right of religious persons to chose their faith and worship their god even if we must pay a heavy price for the god-forsaken abomination that is religion.

See, in America as long as you don't kill someone, harm someone, destroy their property, or steal from them - you should be free to do what you want. Also, if two people who happen to be of the same sex love each other, they should have every right to marry afforded to two people of the opposite sex. It's a novel concept called equality. THAT is the America that the founders established.

Bush didn't win because he is the best man for the job. Bush didn't win because he has some vision to defeat terrorism that will actually work. He doesn't even have an effective plan to win the peace in Iraq.

Bush won because the American people, by majority, chose a leader they believe more closely adheres to their bigoted, small minded, anti-critcial view of America. Americans can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing that we are bringing democracy to country's like Iraq and Afghanistan so that they too can enjoy the freedom to persecute their fags.

I intend no sarchasm when I say that the American people have spoken. Bush won fair and square. Enjoy.

Laissez les bon temps roule! (or something like that)

So Palzy, your elitist reply infers you place yourself waaay above the great unwashed masses of the american electorate. How nice.

"American fascism will come in the form of patriotism"

Old quote, 2 cookies for anyone that can tell me who said it.

TheCops wrote:but seriously, i have a hard time communicating with the bush crowd. they don't have sex like rabbits.

Eh? You must have missed the study that proves Republicans have more sex than Democrats, overall. Why that is, I don't know. I only heard the headline and didn't get to see the details of the study. More married people on the GOP side? Average GOP voter has more money? :: Your guess is as good as mine.

So if you remember me, why pretend at first that you didn't? There's a lot of incoherence in your remarks. They may make sense to your friends, but they don't mean much to others.

Palzon wrote:America is bigoted, fearful, and devoid of critical thinking.

One thing's for sure. That claim is devoid of critical thinking.

Marriage is the foundation of all civilization. The homosexuals want to coopt the term for their relationships. President Bush supports the right of homosexuals to have the same legal rights as married couples. He just doesn't support defining their relationships as "marriage".

How is that bigotry?

From the American Heritage Dictorary:

BIGOT n. A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him.

Hmm. Intolerant of those who differ with him. Sounds like quite a few bigots on the Democratic side of things, lately, calling Bush a Nazi, discrediting him as "not a member of the human race", etc.

There are surely homophobes and bigots around on the right wing, but the President isn't one of them. He tolerates homosexuals. He has not denounced them or their behavior or relationships even once, that I have seen or heard about. He is simply trying to protect the institution of marriage.

Democrats who insist on calling that "bigotry" are not only wrong, but hurting their cause. All it does is insult and alienate those who believe that marriage is a sacred institution.


Look, Christians define a lot of things as "sin". A whole heck of a lot of things. Premarital sex is just as much defined as sin as is homosexual sex. Greed is a sin. Lying is a sin. Some claim that working on the sabbath is a sin.

Neither the President nor the Republican Party is in the business of imposing Christian values on the country, through laws or any other means. It is those who are wholly INTOLERANT of Christians, their views and beliefs who are on the attack.

I don't happen to be Christian. Old timers around here know that all too well. I'll argue with them as easily as anybody else. But truly, what is this NEED on the part of homosexuals to force the rest of us to call their relationships "marriage"? 80% of America is against that. It's not going to happen, and if the homosexuals press the issue, they're only going to inflame the silent majority and endure setbacks.

This is a civil rights issue ONLY UP TO A POINT. If homosexuals get the same rights of hospital visitation, retirement benefits transfers, spousal privileges of all shapes and sizes, then the issue stops there.

We don't call homosexuals "heterosexuals". Why not? Because heterosexual means HETEROsexual. It's in the very definition of the word. So with marriage.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

MARRIAGE n. 1) The state of being husband and wife; wedlock. 2) The legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

This is a losing issue for Democrats. The country is not behind you.


- Sirian

Palzon wrote: America is bigoted, fearful, and largely devoid of critical thinking.

fixed.

is there anything else that's actually in my post you would care to critique? something substantive perhaps that's not just a quibble about a generalization? i get the feeling you didn't even read my two posts.

And here I've been meaning to write a thread about metaphysics and government and bigotry and gay marriage and traditional marriage and culture and legistlating morality and stuff... for months. And goodness knows if I even got around to it, it would be a mess of meandering philosophy. And here you go making the point with simplicity and force. The old skool master deserves and old skool compliment for that post.

WORD BOOTY.

I've missed you, Sirian. Glad you're back around here.


To extend the point, I can see the view of people who believe marriage is just about recognizing sexual relationships, and excluding gays is bigotry. But I don't agree--and what's more, Sirian's right: the vast majority of the country doesn't agree.

A word of advice here for my ideological opponents: the way to go changing a moral landscape is not through legistlation. That only alienates people and brings rebellion. You can't legislate morality that isn't already enshrined in popular culture. You just can't. If you want to change things, the proper way is through popular culture. I've said it before and I'll say it again--if the gay rights people are going to succeed, they need a Martin Luther King, not a Roe v. Wade. (And if you can't convince others that your views are right, you just need to sit tight with the rest of us who have ideals culture doesn't buy. I can't convince everyone that premarital sex is wrong, you can't convince everyone that gay marriage is right; we both would be wise not to try to force those ideas on a culture that doesn't agree.)

Sirian wrote:Marriage is the foundation of all civilization.

how's this for coherence?

money is the foundation of civilization. marriage just gets you into many more dinner parties.

I find it embarrassing that America is even considering denying full and equal rights to homosexuals. A shameful step in exactly the wrong direction.

Homo's have just as many rights in America as anyone else. They can work, they pay their taxes, and they can marry a wife if they so choose. That's all the rest of us can do.

yet they can't get married because they're gay.

yay go discrimination based on orientation.

woodchip wrote:Well Bird, perhaps we should define what constitutes a legitimate minority. Is a minority to construe any group of like minded people who want to promote there particular beliefs?

If so than the Mormans have a right to multiple wives.

If so than NAMBLA has the right to have legal protection for any willing participant.

If so prostitutes should band togeather and become a "minority" to free themselves from the oppression of police harassment.

So where do you draw the line on minority rights?

Your attempt to stretch the argument to it's illogical conclusion has failed good sir. I agree on all those points.

(Except nambla of course. Minors can't give legal permission for that sort of thing.)

Sirian wrote:The homosexuals want to coopt the term for their relationships. President Bush supports the right of homosexuals to have the same legal rights as married couples. He just doesn't support defining their relationships as "marriage".

There's one problem with that. The Supreme Court has made one decision already that seperate was inheriently unequal. It's easy to see why people who are pro-gay-rights won't settle for anything less than no legal distinction between gay unions and traditional marriages.

The Supreme Court ruled against "separate but equal" in the case of skin color, which has absolutely no bearing on what was being separated -- school districts, waiting rooms, doors to get on the bus, etc. Homosexuality has a very real bearing on marriage, and civil unions are not equal to marriages.

Ferno wrote:yet they can't get married because they're gay.

yay go discrimination based on orientation.

No, its active self-denial on the part of gays.

They are only holding themselves back over symantecs, over the way a single word is defined.

They should really should start petitioning those who write dictionaries to change how the word Marrage is defined.

Till then, they should just focus on removing the word marrage from legal statues, and replace it with civil unions, removing another reglious artefact from government.

But no, they want to use government to bash relgions into accepting their worldview over the concerns of others, and quite rightly, people chose to express their distaste with their actions.

Should two men have a Catholic wedding? thats for the RCC to decide, and not the state.

the problem is, as stands, the state has a say in that. Thats what needs to be fixed, and neither side is hearing it.

DCrazy wrote:The Supreme Court ruled against "separate but equal" in the case of skin color, which has absolutely no bearing on what was being separated -- school districts, waiting rooms, doors to get on the bus, etc. Homosexuality has a very real bearing on marriage, and civil unions are not equal to marriages.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html

Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs ... are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There's no mention in this one about how skin color isn't a compelling reason to have seperate facilities (I forget the legalese and the court case that brought it on, but either way I'm sure it came much later than brown v board of education). My point is that unless gay unions and straight unions are treated exactly the same by the government, they will be unequal if only because third parties can choose to recognize one and not the other.

To me, removing marriage from government and make it simply a civil union, and leave marriages to the churches is an acceptable end result, but probably less likely to happen for pretty simple reasons: it puts a burden on existing facilities to change, and just from a rhetoric standpoint is not likely to garner any support.

Replace the words "skin color" with the word "race". It still has no bearing on education. Therefore my point still stands, as supported by the first line of the decision you linked to. The "separate but equal is unconstitutional" argument has been successfully applied to the other things I mentioned specifically because race is irrelevant to those issues.

The fact that you mentioned "unless they're treated equal they're unequal" makes you entire Brown v. Board of Ed. argument meaningless, becuase Plessy v. Ferguson dealt with "separate but equal", not "separate but unequal". Whether the facilities were actually equal is up for debate.

Another big reason that marriage won't go away from government is because a) marriage licenses cost money, and b) there are tax laws for married couples.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at (especially with bringing up Plessy v. Ferguson), and apparently you're misunderstanding my argument.

1) Brown says specifically that even though by any logstical accounts the two seperate facilities are equal, by nature of their seperation they are going to be unequal in non-tangible ways.

2) People aren't saying remove the goverment completely from marriages, they're saying remove the word marriage and replace it with civil unions. I.e. you get a civil union license, and have tax laws for couples with those licenses.

lol.
it's a dangling carrot, marriage.

at the very corporation i work at you can claim benefits for a "domestic partner", meaning really good insurance.

i lived with my brother for like over 5 years... i could never "claim" him because i didn't ★■◆● him (sexual activity = insurance)... my genetic brother. yet, if he was my personal cocksucker i met at The Saloon his teeth, his body, his mental health would be covered by my insurance. that's just wacked.

the gay marriage issue is about "money" not about civil rights. why do i have to buy people blenders to celebrate their friggin personal relationships anyways?

<-- coherence check

Tet: Ah, I see the confusion. That Brown v. Board of Ed. decision you linked to specifically mentions Plessy v. Ferguson in section (e) of the Syllabus.

My argument is that it is INTENDED, quite upfront, that homosexual relationships be defined as unequal to heterosexual relationships. Not calling civil unions equal to marriages in denial of the fact that they're not, but actually stating outright that the two institutions are unequal.

I think that people nowadays are unwilling to accept that not everything in this world is the same shade of gray.

TC: Was your brother dependent on you?

DCrazy wrote: TC: Was your brother dependent on you?

he had no insurance... but he had a steady supply of strippers on their "off time". he was a manager at rick's cabaret in minneapolis.


FOR THE RECORD: i believe this is a really good thread... and i feel like i'm interrupting it. you guys know i go to the wall to “whoop it up”... this time i'm removing myself.

good minds on the dbb... i just wish they would go out and be a whore so they could type from experience rather than theory.


listening to: "stuck inside of a mobile with the memphis blues again" - bob dylan

I don't think the dictionary writers passed legislation banning gay marraige.

Kufyit wrote:I find it embarrassing that America is even considering denying full and equal rights to homosexuals. A shameful step in exactly the wrong direction.

You've got it completely flipped around. Giving any validity to something as totally a**-backwards as homosexuality is a shameful step in a very destructive direction. This kind of thinking is the exception, it's not the way things are supposed to be.

Tetrad wrote:The Supreme Court has made one decision already that seperate was inheriently unequal.

Horse hockey. Please read This Page carefully.

In every place in this land, there are public restrooms divided into Men and Women. Separate. Does this mean men and women are not equals? No.

You do not get to claim that separate automatically means unequal. Clearly this is false.


Besides, you are abusing the word separate. Brown vs Board of Education was a watershed moment in American history. However, separate as defined in that case meant segregated.

Since there are no "homosexual schools", where the homosexuals are sequestered to keep them separate from the rest of the populace, then the analogy that you are attempting to draw fails on all levels.


This is a civil rights issue only up to a point, and that point is reached where discrimination and segregation are ended. Insisting on being called "married" is a bridge too far.


- Sirian

I'd like to comment on your mens and womens restrooms idea sirian, if I may.

There is no place in the constitutions stating that the law has to give equal protection to men and women on any issue other than voting. There is an equal protection between people of diofferent skin color, but not gender. Thats why the draft is legally only for men. If there was equal protection for men and women, the draft would have to take both in or it would be discriminatory. (That whole "Involuntary servitude thing is for another thrad someday).

Now, my whole solution for the gay marriage thing is this: the government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business entirely, and leave it up to the individuals and whatever devices they use to derive their morals. If a man and a woman wanna marry, fine. Let em find someone to perform a ceremony, be it priest, rabii, or Radio DJ. If a man and a man wanna marry, fine. Let em confess their love for eachother somewhere. If a man and 3 consenting women wanna enter a polygamous relationship, fine, let em do whatever they want. As long as its consenting adults, why should anyone need the governments endorsement on it? If youre religious, the only endorsement you should seek is that of a priest or equivalent. If youre not religious, then you dont even have to go that far. Put an ad in the paper and announce your marriage to the world for whatever reason you want, and to heck with a marriage "License".

The only reason anyone seeks a marriage license is that a legally binding marriage has obvious financial benifits. Tax breaks, insurance coverage, death benifits, divorce fraud, and the like. If you get married, youre likely going to get some kind of cash somewhere down the line. The solution is simple: either eliminate those perks or, preferrably, change the rules so you can get them some other way. Make it a law that medical insurance must extend to at least one designate person (presumeably your spouse) as well as offspring. Allow people to specify who should get benifits currently reserved for legal spouses if they die on the job. Im sure there are other things im missing, and im sure there are solutions to them which would allow them to be awarded if the government stopped awarding marriage licenses.

If anyone can please tell me another reason for getting a marriage license other than the financial perks, please tell me.

Im for small government. Or at least small enough that it doesnt need to have a place in my bedroom to spread out. Government endorsed merriage sucks.

" Make it a law that medical insurance must extend to at least one designate person (presumeably your spouse) as well as offspring."

Vader, on the one hand you say that govt. get out of the marriage business yet you want a law passed that defines mandating benifits. Any idea how this would bankrupt small business?
Hint: Health coverage for one person is 250.00/month
Health coverage for "family" is 800.00/month

Birdseye wrote:

the activist gays with their in your face demands

Yeah, you know those horrible demands on equal rights.

Continue the bigotry.

I can't find where I said that, I seem to remember saying it but where the hell is it I've searched all the recent threads...maybe someone has removed it?

Anyway, I'm not bigoted in my position, I think it's been pretty clear that I don't oppose gay marriage, I think the last thing I said in these forums on the subject was something like - if the government is the one who defines marriage then they must apply it equally to all humans. If the church is the authority on the definition of marriage then there is no need for government intervention.... the government needs to get out of the marriage business and if you can find a church to declare you married then so be it!

I was swayed from being blindly in favor of it, as the activists want it, by Lothar who illustrated the folly of my politically-correct knee jerk reaction and later by a speech by Allen Keyes on the subject and I'm grateful for the correction.

Recognition of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation upon which a family is built is an important part of our society. There is harm done to our society when you marginalize the importance of a 'whole' family, you know the stats on children from single parent homes and the chance of becoming a criminal or addicted to drugs etc. The corralation between children of divorce or children of single mothers and crime, poverty, suicide and drug abuse is not just a theory, it's well studied and verifiable.

On the other hand, there is no harm done by letting the church define marriage, the government remove marriage from it's control, rewrite the laws to protect *all* citiezens when a private entity tries to discriminate against them ie; insurance, death benifits, etc. etc.
I know this doesn't exactly satisfy Lothars view for instance but I think it's the correct way to go.

So that's where this 'Bigot' stands.

See my response to Palzon below to see how I see the issue of gay marriage in the recent election if you're curious.

*************************

Palzon wrote:you know Will, there was a time when you seemed to take an even-handed view of things. something changed about your posts as the election drew near. the closer the election came, the more I feared you might break your vagina with each new attempt to queefe out an "amen" to every woodchip post. I hoped you would come back to planet earth but i guess not

I think you may have not been paying attention as far as my reaction to Woodchips posts. I once gave him an "amen", literally, in a sarcastic dig at Zuruck who characterized him as preaching. Other than that I haven't really commented on Woodchips posts much, I guess you could say I'm biased because I don't fail to call BS on others and if I was consistant I wouldn't have let some of his outrageous stuff slip under my radar. Maybe so. I just don't have the time to keep up with him though, sometimes he does 3 or 4 anti-liberal-weenie post's in one afternoon *but* the most important difference is Woodchip post's his *opinion* which doesn't require a truthful interpretation from me, his opinion is just that, it's real and it's his own!
The type of posts I tend to go after are the ones that try to fool people into believing some democrat talking point as fact...you know like 90% of a Michael Moore movie, and leading up to the election there was a lot of that going on. That's what gets my panties in a wad.

Still, you are a smart enough man that i agree with most of what you just said, until the last paragraph. Americans are more dumb, mean, and proud of being dumb and mean than they have ever been. they would pi$$ away their own rights without a second thought, or even realizing what they're doing. I don't fear fascism because Bush or the party wants it. I fear fascism because the American people have clearly voted for it, to some degree, in 11 states.

I don't know the details of the legislation in all those states but just on the issue of gay marriage I stand by my assesment that as an issue on it's own it's *not* what turned the tide for Bush.
Gay marriage being slipped in by activist judges *combined* with all the other morality issues the lefty's have been pushing for, for decades, is one of the two big reasons that so many americans are turned off to the democrats. Abortion on demand for minors without parental notification....removing "under god" from the pledge...voting rights for illegal immigrants....teaching ebonics....quotas....removing keeping score in scholastic sports...etc. etc. etc. etc....they've been eroding the american spirit for decades...etc. etc.

...You see, i think anyone who believes in God, especially the Christian God, is deluding themselves. I feel it is morally wrong to put our faith in something outside of our reason and morality that we accept uncritically. I think that people who believe in God are eschewing personal responsibility to be accountable for their own actions and spiritual growth.

I feel that religion is the cause of a majority of the worlds problems. And i feel that everyone who believes in the utter horse sh#t that is religion should stop believing it because they are f*cking up the planet. In this sense, I firmly believe that religion is morally harmful to this country.

You really need to apply some of that critical thinking you espouse.
If your logic is correctly applied then surely I should feel that government is the cause of a majority of the worlds problems and I should reject it with the same venemous zeal that you use to rebuke christianity! I should become an anarchist and ridicule all you law abiding types who look to have the government protect your 'rights'. Perhaps you have 'eschewed personal responsibility to be accountable for your own actions and spiritual growth' and put your faith in the evil government!

You have perhaps got your own panties in a wad with this latest rant

I personally think that some religions are less harmful than others, or at least have evolved more than others to become quite benign. Christianity, which you single out as worse than others, is quite harmless unlike Islam for example. Just as western democracy is not nearly as harmful like Saddams dictatorship or Stalins communist state was.
It's the people's interpretation of the religion and the way they may inflict their interpretation of it's tennents on others that is the problem. Critical thinking is needed indeed.

I'd say that gay's who are in a civil union and are not really 'married' in the eyes of christians have not suffered much...at least relative to people who die because they still await the coming of the savior instead of facing east at prayer time to pray to allah.

I guess it's my long winded way of saying you protest too much and the fear of fascism you think they've embraced by voting for Bush is way overplayed.

Bush didn't win because he validates their bigotry, he won because he represents their hopes. He's not the best man for the job but he's the best they had to choose from that could defeat Kerry who was definitly the U.N.'s candidate...that U.N. endorsement alone is reason to be happy Kerry lost and that would be the theme of my victory party.

Avder wrote:If anyone can please tell me another reason for getting a marriage license other than the financial perks, please tell me.

I agree with some of what you say. In spirit, at least, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is fine with me, as long as nobody is getting hurt.

That's really the kicker, though. When people drive while drunk, other people get hurt and killed. When people destroy their minds and bodies with drugs, other people have to pick up the medical tab or the burial costs. Many addicts are driven to crime to support their expensive habits. When people visit prostitutes, they promote venereal diseases, break up families, and worse. Not all the time, mind you, but it happens.

How many people in this country are against voluntary euthenasia? Lots. Should a consenting adult be allowed to end his or her life? Well, nobody can really stop them if they do it themselves, but that is usually painful for them and shocking and ugly and horrifying for those around them. Should we allow others to assist with suicide? What are the potential harms? Will some people who lacked the guts to do it themselves end up dying because they have an easier way to do it? Likely. Yet those who would do it anyway are made to suffer less, and so are their loved ones. It's a TOUGH ISSUE, just like drug use is a tough issue. Other people DO get hurt.


Marriage is not just a religious item. I don't belong to any organized religions, and yet I hope to get married someday. Marriage involves a social status, an umbrella that will protect my children, allow them to fit in with others, and brings with it both legal and social protections. Marriage also formalizes the commitment to the spouse. Everything about the way people deal with you changes when you marry. You create a family unit that will be supported by a host of social traditions and structures.

These are all the same things that homosexuals are craving: legitimacy, acceptance, social and legal protections, social forms of support. And yet drug addicts want the law to get off their backs, too. It's a similar argument. Those on one side see the behavior as harmful both to individuals and society, and those on the other side disagree. Should we treat these issues the same? If so, why? If not, why not?

My problem lies with those who want it both ways. They want to be allowed to do any d@mn thing they please, yet they also want society to pay for it, to give them cradle to grave entitlements and absolute unquestioning tolerance, which they don't have to do anything to earn or deserve. I think that would be cultural suicide. I'm a believer in accountability.


The marriage license makes things easier. Homosexuals ought to be free from terroristic threats of various kinds: intimidation, violence, hatred, discrimination and more. Yet they don't get to insist that everyone approve of their lifestyle. Tolerance is one thing, validation is something else.

There are those who believe that calling monogamous homosexual relationships "marriage" is a kind of validation they are unwilling to give. When the homosexual community insists they are entitled to this validation, they tend to become militant, and that only further alienates those whose approval they are seeking.


- Sirian

I didn't see any reply to my economic content, so I am assuming you realized you now agree with me sirian

----

The marriage license makes things easier. Homosexuals ought to be free from terroristic threats of various kinds: intimidation, violence, hatred, discrimination and more. Yet they don't get to insist that everyone approve of their lifestyle. Tolerance is one thing, validation is something else.

Wow. What hateful speech. Homosexuals don't deserve validation. Do you know how horrible you sound? You can still continue to not validate their life and make them feel bad if they can legally marry, you know.

I see a lot of smart people in here making some silly rationalizations for a discriminiatory point of view. Marriage between a man and woman the foundation of society? Don't be gay and don't get married. Hell, even the president's VP can't fix his gay problem!

Treat them fairly. Let them marry. Don't worry, they'll still burn in your hell, but at least they weren't treated as second class citizens their whole life.

I know gay people who this issue is very hard on. They hate being gay. Some of the gay people I know sat and cried and cried and cried about the gay marriage amendments, especially the ones that barred civil unions. Questions like: "Why do they want to make me feel bad?" Came up. I didn't have any good answers. It all just seems so mean spirited and carpet sweeping. It is a denial that these people that make you uncomfortable are equally worthy beings with equally worthy love. What a tragedy.

Even if you hate the gay lifestyle, out of pure pity and compassion I implore you to let these people marry so they can be happy.

I really don't think you're going to win any converts with the whole *my vigil candle is bigger than yours'* line of attack. Seems the liberals make this an issue for purely vanity reasons. When the *enlightened* elitists come back from Mount Olympus and discuss the issue based on what are the potential benefits and detriments to society rather than *feel good about myself* emotional appeals (with an obvious hidden knife for anyone who disagrees), then maybe we can come to a consensus on same-sex marriage.