Originally posted by Dekron It's not a fallacy when it has already happened in other parts of the world. That doesn't apply to this argument. Nice try.
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
Not from legalizing gay marriage, but that are allowable. Norway has, however, legalized polygamy after they legalized gay marriage. Polygamy is allowable in numerous countries, it is allowable to marry an animal in India and Sudan, for example, and many countries in the Middle East allow pedophilia.
I think those laws all passed once divorce was legalized. So, the only thing you have to blame those laws on is straight people.
Race and Marriage are two separate items. Marriage is based on religion which is shared by many races.
Once again, for every one of you that believe this - "which religion?"
Simple question. If marriage is religious, which religion?
Oh yes, the question of the double-bladed sword answer. Sorry to disappoint, but the answer is a triple-edge blade. When one form of religion must be chosen, then the default one is used, that being based on the founding tradition.
To say that no religions can be used, promotes the religious belief of Atheism.
To say that all forms of religions can be used, then promotes polygamy and other less desirable forms of marriages; even marrying Cows.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
To the people who say Prop 8 is a religious issue, I say you're full of it.
I live in San Diego and went to a No on Prop 8 rally. There were counter protestors there. I went with my husband and 3 children. My husband got called a faggot by someone who didn't realize that he was standing there with his wife and 3 kids!!! I was asked why I would raise children as a lesbian by someone else just as blind. And there were insults being slung at us as a group left and right. I guess this loving crowd of religious folks just let the hate shine through. I also guess they can't understand that some straight people support equal rights as well.
This is an issue of hatred, plain and simple. If you were there with me you could not help but agree. There were a few people that were telling the ones saying these mean things to quiet it down, but they were the minority of the counter protestors.
My husband and I took our kids home because we got scared being there.
============================= It all seems so stupid It makes me want to give up But why should I give up When it all seems so stupid
Originally posted by Sharajat Also, you cite Norway. But marriage to a second wife or husband is ILLEGAL in Norway.
I concede on that point. My source was obviously incorrect. I was wrong.
Not quite wrong, the Netherlands does accept Polygamy.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Here is a silly thought: How about you look at the nations that have already allowed gay marriage. To they people to marry children? Not really. Why should the line be drawn before gay marriage? Does it hurt anyone? Not really.
"Not really" implies, that such a condition does exist and is not absolute.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Here is a silly thought: How about you look at the nations that have already allowed gay marriage. To they people to marry children? Not really. Why should the line be drawn before gay marriage? Does it hurt anyone? Not really.
"Not really" implies, that such a condition does exist and is not absolute.
That's the best argument you could come up with?
Even if it were to hurt someone, the benefits of allowing gay marriage FAR outweigh the costs. Why do you think so many huge companies support it?
============================= It all seems so stupid It makes me want to give up But why should I give up When it all seems so stupid
Republicans often say that courts should apply the law, not create it. It was really quite a stretch for the California Supreme Court to say that the Constitution of California already contains a right for same-sex marriage, when the Constitution doesn't say a word about it. The truth is: It's a new issue. To those who say the Court got it wrong, I say: I agree. It's for us to decide. Now, let's make the right decision. And that right decision, in my view, is to allow same-sex marriage in California.
Republicans believe deeply that government should be limited. Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives. That's why, as a Californian and a Republican who has held elective office at the federal and state levels, I will be voting No on Proposition 8.
Same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Californians in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. Californians come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's made our state great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for California. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.
We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law.
Republicans also care about jobs; and as a business proposition, it makes no sense to support Prop. 8. Discrimination at any level is bad for business. California has always made itself stronger by welcoming, not excluding, people who want to work hard and build better futures for themselves and their communities. What kind of a message does it send to workers, of any background, that we are willing to codify discrimination into our state constitution?
Gay couples are asking for a chance to play by the rules. We can give them that chance. For those of us who are proud of our party's and our state's reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8.
Tom Campbell is a Republican and former five-term U.S. Congressman from Silicon Valley, State Senator, and Director of Finance for the State of California. He served in the Reagan Administration and clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court
============================= It all seems so stupid It makes me want to give up But why should I give up When it all seems so stupid
Like I said, impossible to say who is right or wrong when both believe to be right.
"So, the truth of the matter is, polygamy was okay first. Just like it was in the Bible."
Ah so now you want to use religion. But what you are citing is the Old Testament, not the New and you are assuming that I am a strong follower of Christianity.
And with your reasoning underage marriages are to be acceptable. And the marriage with sacred animals such as Cows, are acceptable as well.
"And you can talk about the "majority matters" b.s. all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you lived in a democracy you'd hate it. "
Rant on
"So I would watch what you're saying about our representative republic. We are not a democracy that runs on mob rules mentality."
More rant
" We are a nation that promises equal justice and rights to ALL, regardles of whether you are a minority or majority."
Continued ranting...
Correction, to non-religious practices.
"You would be wise to respect that protection or it might rear its ugly head against you someday."
Rant with a threat.
How amusing.
"And I don't give a damn about your empire building games."
An, "I don't know Rant"
Thanks for admitting defeat. Care to try again?
" I could give a shit about the economy or whatever is going on, but when someone starts f*cking with the founding documents of this country I get a little pissed off."
Translation: I ran out of things to say, I'm emotional, I'm tired of you opposing me, so I'll rant and use vulgar language for emphasis this time.
/unimpressed handclap
"The same way I get pissed off when I see someone messing with the rights and freedoms of another American, whether I agree with them or not, I still feel they have the right to live free from an oppressive government and self-rightous majority!"
And from the looks of your posting, seems you never did read about the California Domestic Partnership that I asked for you to read up.
How about you try again this time without the ranting. You'll do better and I'll take it seriously this time.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"That's the best argument you could come up with?"
Review the California Marriage thread.
"Even if it were to hurt someone, the benefits of allowing gay marriage FAR outweigh the costs. Why do you think so many huge companies support it?"
Review California Domestic Partnerships and read this entire thread.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Originally posted by kimmar Here's what a REAL conservative has to say about the issue... ... Republican's Against Prop 8 commercial. There are still some old school conservatives out there. The ones that believe in smaller government and keeping it out of our daily lives.
Thank you for stereo-typing Conservatives with Republicans.
Have you ever heard of Conservative Democrats or Independents?
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
To the people who say Prop 8 is a religious issue, I say you're full of it. ... My husband and I took our kids home because we got scared being there.
Well I'm sorry you had such an experience.
But the truth is there is hatred on both sides.
There are reports of battery going on with both. To say one side is of violent people and the other is not, is not being true. I care not to post such things, because that is of the mob effect; much of showing the crowds of supporters of Obama and McCain.
Edit:
And unfortunately, there are 'plants'. Some of those people, may have been supporters of "No to Prop 8" to attempt to discredit. No way to know for certain, and unfortunately it happens. That is one of the reasons videos of "stupid supporters" cannot be trusted. Consider it Psi Ops or Social Engineering.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Last time I checked, Palin isn't running for President. McCain is. McCain is opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage and thinks its up to the states. This is the stance I agree with. I don't want someone from Vermont or Alaska legislating whats best here in California.
ROFL.
And what exactly are you going to do when some crazed liberal assassinates McCain and that ridiculous excuse for a vice president becomes our president? (Actually, it's a lot more likely we'd end up with a crazed conservative doing something like that to a government official, as they tend to be more the delusional, rich, religious fanatic-types, in my opinion, but I digress.)
You never EVER vote for a presidential candidate without also doing some research on their running mate. That's just downright foolish. The vice president (as we've seen with Bush) has a LOT of input in to every aspect of the governing administration, probably much more than they even SHOULD. Apart from the fact, that they very well COULD end up as president, if unforeseen circumstances arise, or even ACTING in the office, should the president have health issues or anything of the sort that would prevent him/her from fulfilling their active role as president for a short period of time. I don't EVER want to take even the remotest CHANCE of Palin having any amount of control over ANYTHING.
Palin is a nightmare. I should hope that most people, with at least two functioning brain cells, will be able to see that.
On a side note: Why on earth would any adult agree to allowing the government to control your sex life and/or relationships? We're talking adult/adult consensual relationships here. How is that the government's business in any way, shape, or form? People keep allowing the government control over areas that they should have absolutely NO control over, and eventually......we will have ZERO freedoms, and yet we will have given each one up willingly. We must stop ALLOWING them to eat away at our freedoms one by one, regardless of how large or SEEMINGLY small.
It's stated both in international laws and (I think), the american law (I dunno what it's actually called),)
that everyone are to be equal and everything's supposed to be fair and square.
As such, people should be allowed to do what they want when it come to who they are sharing their life with (or whatever the heck to call it.(The sharing part, not the life part.)
It's as simple as that.
It's stated, it'd be fair, noone'd get hurt by it, and we're done.
Oh, and by the way, a bit back in this thread I read sometihng about people marrying sacred animals or whatever:
As marriages, unions, sharings of life, and such is dual sided, if you can prove that the cow (or whatever else kinda animal, it was the first one who sprang to my head) is consent with the marriage, go ahead.
Also read something about people not going to choose to marry: If they choose not to, does it even matter that they can? The thing is that they have the possibility if they want.
Last time I checked, Palin isn't running for President. McCain is. McCain is opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage and thinks its up to the states. This is the stance I agree with. I don't want someone from Vermont or Alaska legislating whats best here in California.
ROFL.
And what exactly are you going to do when some crazed liberal assassinates McCain and that ridiculous excuse for a vice president becomes our president? (Actually, it's a lot more likely we'd end up with a crazed conservative doing something like that to a government official, as they tend to be more the delusional, rich, religious fanatic-types, in my opinion, but I digress.)
You never EVER vote for a presidential candidate without also doing some research on their running mate. That's just downright foolish. The vice president (as we've seen with Bush) has a LOT of input in to every aspect of the governing administration, probably much more than they even SHOULD. Apart from the fact, that they very well COULD end up as president, if unforeseen circumstances arise, or even ACTING in the office, should the president have health issues or anything of the sort that would prevent him/her from fulfilling their active role as president for a short period of time. I don't EVER want to take even the remotest CHANCE of Palin having any amount of control over ANYTHING.
Palin is a nightmare. I should hope that most people, with at least two functioning brain cells, will be able to see that.
On a side note: Why on earth would any adult agree to allowing the government to control your sex life and/or relationships? We're talking adult/adult consensual relationships here. How is that the government's business in any way, shape, or form? People keep allowing the government control over areas that they should have absolutely NO control over, and eventually......we will have ZERO freedoms, and yet we will have given each one up willingly. We must stop ALLOWING them to eat away at our freedoms one by one, regardless of how large or SEEMINGLY small.
Palin, for all her flaws, is more qualified, and head and shoulders above Obama. Obama will take away far more freedom than any Republican who ever ran for the White House. Just his support of the fairness doctrine alone should disqualify him for anyone who even remotely believes is freedom (he has been careful to deny that he supports it, but he will not veto it if a democrat congress passes it.
Obama is against the first amendendment, the second amendment, and economic liberty. It doesn't get much worse than that.
Palin, for all her flaws, is more qualified, and head and shoulders above Obama. Obama will take away far more freedom than any Republican who ever ran for the White House Obama is against the first amendendment, the second amendment, and economic liberty.
Fishermage, do you honestly believe this? Do you, and I mean, honestly, believe this? I know we are on MMORPG and having fun with our posting.
But do you honestly believe:
Palin is more qualified, "head and shoulders above," Obama?
Obama will "take-away" freedom?
Obama is "against" the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and "economic liberty?"
Edit: What is "economic liberty?"
If so:
How is Palin "head and shoulders above" Obama more qualified?
How will Obama "take-away" freedom?
How is Obama "against" the 1st, 2nd Amendments and "economic liberty?"
Palin, for all her flaws, is more qualified, and head and shoulders above Obama. Obama will take away far more freedom than any Republican who ever ran for the White House Obama is against the first amendendment, the second amendment, and economic liberty.
Fishermage, do you honestly believe this? Do you, and I mean, honestly, believe this? I know we are on MMORPG and having fun with our posting.
But do you honestly believe:
Palin is more qualified, "head and shoulders above," Obama?
Obama will "take-away" freedom?
Obama is "against" the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and "economic liberty?"
Edit: What is "economic liberty?"
If so:
How is Palin "head and shoulders above" Obama more qualified?
How will Obama "take-away" freedom?
How is Obama "against" the 1st, 2nd Amendments and "economic liberty?"
1. She has more experience than him as an executive. he has ZERO experience qualifying him to be president, she has some.
I said AND head and shoulders, I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and create a false meaning of what I wrote. She is head and shoulders BECAUSE she believes in free enterprise rather than socialism, as he does,
2. Obama will take away medical freedom with medical socialism; he will take away the freedom to do what we wish to with our money by raising our taxes, he will take away educational freedom by incereasing socialism in education, if fact, I can't think of any area on economics that he has mentioned that doesn't involve more government, and by definition, less freedom.
3. He will allow the congress to pass the fairness doctrine. He is in favor of gun control (more than palin, which is our context here), and by being in favor of redistribution of wealth, and more government in all aread of our economic lives, he is against economic liberty (vs Palin).
At any rate, for MORE discussion of this, I suggest you do your own research rather than play the "make the guy repeat himself" game which you love to play.
You ay now return to your usual namecalling and other assorted personal attacks
Palin, for all her flaws, is more qualified, and head and shoulders above Obama. Obama will take away far more freedom than any Republican who ever ran for the White House Obama is against the first amendendment, the second amendment, and economic liberty.
Fishermage, do you honestly believe this? Do you, and I mean, honestly, believe this? I know we are on MMORPG and having fun with our posting.
But do you honestly believe:
Palin is more qualified, "head and shoulders above," Obama?
Obama will "take-away" freedom?
Obama is "against" the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and "economic liberty?"
Edit: What is "economic liberty?"
If so:
How is Palin "head and shoulders above" Obama more qualified?
How will Obama "take-away" freedom?
How is Obama "against" the 1st, 2nd Amendments and "economic liberty?"
1. She has more experience than him as an executive. he has ZERO experience qualifying him to be president, she has some.
I said AND head and shoulders, I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and create a false meaning of what I wrote. She is head and shoulders BECAUSE she believes in free enterprise rather than socialism, as he does,
2. Obama will take away medical freedom with medical socialism; he will take away the freedom to do what we wish to with our money by raising our taxes, he will take away educational freedom by incereasing socialism in education, if fact, I can't think of any area on economics that he has mentioned that doesn't involve more government, and by definition, less freedom.
3. He will allow the congress to pass the fairness doctrine. He is in favor of gun control (more than palin, which is our context here), and by being in favor of redistribution of wealth, and more government in all aread of our economic lives, he is against economic liberty (vs Palin).
At any rate, for MORE discussion of this, I suggest you do your own research rather than play the "make the guy repeat himself" game which you love to play.
You ay now return to your usual namecalling and other assorted personal attacks
"I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and crate a false meaning." You really, and I mean really, think that I tried to "create a false meaning?" LMFAO.
I am not sure if I can take you seriously if you honestly believe that.
Palin, for all her flaws, is more qualified, and head and shoulders above Obama. Obama will take away far more freedom than any Republican who ever ran for the White House Obama is against the first amendendment, the second amendment, and economic liberty.
Fishermage, do you honestly believe this? Do you, and I mean, honestly, believe this? I know we are on MMORPG and having fun with our posting.
But do you honestly believe:
Palin is more qualified, "head and shoulders above," Obama?
Obama will "take-away" freedom?
Obama is "against" the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and "economic liberty?"
Edit: What is "economic liberty?"
If so:
How is Palin "head and shoulders above" Obama more qualified?
How will Obama "take-away" freedom?
How is Obama "against" the 1st, 2nd Amendments and "economic liberty?"
1. She has more experience than him as an executive. he has ZERO experience qualifying him to be president, she has some.
I said AND head and shoulders, I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and create a false meaning of what I wrote. She is head and shoulders BECAUSE she believes in free enterprise rather than socialism, as he does,
2. Obama will take away medical freedom with medical socialism; he will take away the freedom to do what we wish to with our money by raising our taxes, he will take away educational freedom by incereasing socialism in education, if fact, I can't think of any area on economics that he has mentioned that doesn't involve more government, and by definition, less freedom.
3. He will allow the congress to pass the fairness doctrine. He is in favor of gun control (more than palin, which is our context here), and by being in favor of redistribution of wealth, and more government in all aread of our economic lives, he is against economic liberty (vs Palin).
At any rate, for MORE discussion of this, I suggest you do your own research rather than play the "make the guy repeat himself" game which you love to play.
You ay now return to your usual namecalling and other assorted personal attacks
"I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and crate a false meaning." You really, and I mean really, think that I tried to "create a false meaning?" LMFAO.
I am not sure if I can take you seriously if you honestly believe that.
There you go again...thanks for proving my final point. NIcely done.
If the amendment fails in Cali this will all be over and the feds will not get involved,if it passes then the feds will get involved to stop one state from forcing another state from having to except it.
Where is Ted Nugent when you need him.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
I see a public whose market had not one but two crashes. It dropped 40%, last time it did that so quickly was during the Great Depression.
I see at least three wars that are being lost.
Afghanistan
Iraq
"terrorism"
North Korea (still only a cease-fire)
and Russia's invasion of Georgia
I see a banker bail-out bill that will, long-term, cost the general public, these anti-gay people, trillions of dollars they do not have.
But Where Do They Direct This Anxiety?
Gay People!
It is increasingly difficult to take these people seriously. Just tax 'em. Take away their social security.
Screw their schools. Screw their infrastructure.
Who cares anymore, as they do not seem to really care or have a clue.
This is red-level crisis, and there are people more worried about two loving individuals forming a legal partnership than anything else.
Where is the Amendment for single moms, tax breaks for veterans/retirees, health care for our wounded troops, or anything to help those (ONE IN SIX F-ING HOUSEHOLDS) in foreclosure?
EDIT
And California is one of the BIGGEST foreclosure states.
The loan to value ratios and the amount of fraud is INCREDIBLE!
When are those, the victims of fraud, getting their Amendment?
Loan terms were upside down
If people missed a payment, the rates were beyond usury
Banks refusing to enter forbearance or modification (to accumulate bad debts for bail-out cash)
No one is helping these people.
This Amendment is not to advance liberty, pursue Justice, or serve any noble public purpose.
It is just to say that gay people do not have rights.
Like I said, impossible to say who is right or wrong when both believe to be right.
"So, the truth of the matter is, polygamy was okay first. Just like it was in the Bible."
Ah so now you want to use religion. But what you are citing is the Old Testament, not the New and you are assuming that I am a strong follower of Christianity.
And with your reasoning underage marriages are to be acceptable. And the marriage with sacred animals such as Cows, are acceptable as well.
"And you can talk about the "majority matters" b.s. all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you lived in a democracy you'd hate it. "
Rant on
"So I would watch what you're saying about our representative republic. We are not a democracy that runs on mob rules mentality."
More rant
" We are a nation that promises equal justice and rights to ALL, regardles of whether you are a minority or majority."
Continued ranting...
Correction, to non-religious practices.
"You would be wise to respect that protection or it might rear its ugly head against you someday."
Rant with a threat.
How amusing.
"And I don't give a damn about your empire building games."
An, "I don't know Rant"
Thanks for admitting defeat. Care to try again?
" I could give a shit about the economy or whatever is going on, but when someone starts f*cking with the founding documents of this country I get a little pissed off."
Translation: I ran out of things to say, I'm emotional, I'm tired of you opposing me, so I'll rant and use vulgar language for emphasis this time.
/unimpressed handclap
"The same way I get pissed off when I see someone messing with the rights and freedoms of another American, whether I agree with them or not, I still feel they have the right to live free from an oppressive government and self-rightous majority!"
And from the looks of your posting, seems you never did read about the California Domestic Partnership that I asked for you to read up.
How about you try again this time without the ranting. You'll do better and I'll take it seriously this time.
You seem to have lost that argument. You didn't address any of the issues he brought up. You're not a worthy debate opponent if you can't even address the freedom promised by this countries founding documents with nothing more than "rant" as a rebuttle. I don't consider the Constitution and Bill of Rights a rant.
To the people who say Prop 8 is a religious issue, I say you're full of it. ... My husband and I took our kids home because we got scared being there.
Well I'm sorry you had such an experience.
But the truth is there is hatred on both sides.
There are reports of battery going on with both. To say one side is of violent people and the other is not, is not being true. I care not to post such things, because that is of the mob effect; much of showing the crowds of supporters of Obama and McCain.
Edit:
And unfortunately, there are 'plants'. Some of those people, may have been supporters of "No to Prop 8" to attempt to discredit. No way to know for certain, and unfortunately it happens. That is one of the reasons videos of "stupid supporters" cannot be trusted. Consider it Psi Ops or Social Engineering.
What?!?!?!? Are you serious. You think there is violence on both sides of this issue?
Show me 5 articles of gay on straight violence. Go ahead, find me 5 articles anywhere in history where there was a case of violence categorized as "straight bashing" that is equivelant to the violence we gays are careful and cautious of everywhere we go.
You're not going to find them. You can say that it's because of the media or whatever, but I'm sure that some media source somewhere would have picked up on those cases. There are plenty of right wing blogs and online news sources out there on the Internet. So, I challenge you to find only 5 of those cases.
I on the other hand can find you plenty of those articles taking place every day. I can tell you of 4 of my close friends who have been the victim of violence after being attacked by "fag bashers" simply for being. I saw a friend of mine teetering on the edge of dying in the hospital because of how badly he was beaten outside a gay club walking to his car. All he heard were comments of "die faggot" while he was kicked and beaten while on the ground in a fetal position. He didn't even try to fight back hoping the people would give up and leave, but they didn't. It went on until a group of people saw what was happening and chased them off.
That is vitreol hate. A hate that I hope you never experience.
You're either very ignorant about what is going on in this country and the world, or you're just plain deceptive and scary.
"Civil servants, particularly in the major cities, register dozens of bigamous or polygamous marriages annually. These marriages are banned and criminal in the Netherlands."
Comments
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
Not from legalizing gay marriage, but that are allowable. Norway has, however, legalized polygamy after they legalized gay marriage. Polygamy is allowable in numerous countries, it is allowable to marry an animal in India and Sudan, for example, and many countries in the Middle East allow pedophilia.
I think those laws all passed once divorce was legalized. So, the only thing you have to blame those laws on is straight people.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
Once again, for every one of you that believe this - "which religion?"
Simple question. If marriage is religious, which religion?
Oh yes, the question of the double-bladed sword answer. Sorry to disappoint, but the answer is a triple-edge blade. When one form of religion must be chosen, then the default one is used, that being based on the founding tradition.
To say that no religions can be used, promotes the religious belief of Atheism.
To say that all forms of religions can be used, then promotes polygamy and other less desirable forms of marriages; even marrying Cows.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
To the people who say Prop 8 is a religious issue, I say you're full of it.
I live in San Diego and went to a No on Prop 8 rally. There were counter protestors there. I went with my husband and 3 children. My husband got called a faggot by someone who didn't realize that he was standing there with his wife and 3 kids!!! I was asked why I would raise children as a lesbian by someone else just as blind. And there were insults being slung at us as a group left and right. I guess this loving crowd of religious folks just let the hate shine through. I also guess they can't understand that some straight people support equal rights as well.
This is an issue of hatred, plain and simple. If you were there with me you could not help but agree. There were a few people that were telling the ones saying these mean things to quiet it down, but they were the minority of the counter protestors.
My husband and I took our kids home because we got scared being there.
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
I concede on that point. My source was obviously incorrect. I was wrong.
Not quite wrong, the Netherlands does accept Polygamy.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"Not really" implies, that such a condition does exist and is not absolute.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"Not really" implies, that such a condition does exist and is not absolute.
That's the best argument you could come up with?
Even if it were to hurt someone, the benefits of allowing gay marriage FAR outweigh the costs. Why do you think so many huge companies support it?
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
Here's what a REAL conservative has to say about the issue...
Ending Marriage Discrimination in California
Why Republicans should vote no on Prop 8
Tom Campbell | October 24, 2008
Republicans often say that courts should apply the law, not create it. It was really quite a stretch for the California Supreme Court to say that the Constitution of California already contains a right for same-sex marriage, when the Constitution doesn't say a word about it. The truth is: It's a new issue. To those who say the Court got it wrong, I say: I agree. It's for us to decide. Now, let's make the right decision. And that right decision, in my view, is to allow same-sex marriage in California.
Republicans believe deeply that government should be limited. Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives. That's why, as a Californian and a Republican who has held elective office at the federal and state levels, I will be voting No on Proposition 8.
Same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Californians in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. Californians come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's made our state great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for California. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.
We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law.
Republicans also care about jobs; and as a business proposition, it makes no sense to support Prop. 8. Discrimination at any level is bad for business. California has always made itself stronger by welcoming, not excluding, people who want to work hard and build better futures for themselves and their communities. What kind of a message does it send to workers, of any background, that we are willing to codify discrimination into our state constitution?
Gay couples are asking for a chance to play by the rules. We can give them that chance. For those of us who are proud of our party's and our state's reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8.
Tom Campbell is a Republican and former five-term U.S. Congressman from Silicon Valley, State Senator, and Director of Finance for the State of California. He served in the Reagan Administration and clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LJt1U1HK8Uw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LJt1U1HK8Uw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">Republican's Against Prop 8 commercial. There are still some old school conservatives out there. The ones that believe in smaller government and keeping it out of our daily lives.
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
"Actually, you see the progression wrong."
Like I said, impossible to say who is right or wrong when both believe to be right.
"So, the truth of the matter is, polygamy was okay first. Just like it was in the Bible."
Ah so now you want to use religion. But what you are citing is the Old Testament, not the New and you are assuming that I am a strong follower of Christianity.
And with your reasoning underage marriages are to be acceptable. And the marriage with sacred animals such as Cows, are acceptable as well.
"And you can talk about the "majority matters" b.s. all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you lived in a democracy you'd hate it. "
Rant on
"So I would watch what you're saying about our representative republic. We are not a democracy that runs on mob rules mentality."
More rant
" We are a nation that promises equal justice and rights to ALL, regardles of whether you are a minority or majority."
Continued ranting...
Correction, to non-religious practices.
"You would be wise to respect that protection or it might rear its ugly head against you someday."
Rant with a threat.
How amusing.
"And I don't give a damn about your empire building games."
An, "I don't know Rant"
Thanks for admitting defeat. Care to try again?
" I could give a shit about the economy or whatever is going on, but when someone starts f*cking with the founding documents of this country I get a little pissed off."
Translation: I ran out of things to say, I'm emotional, I'm tired of you opposing me, so I'll rant and use vulgar language for emphasis this time.
/unimpressed handclap
"The same way I get pissed off when I see someone messing with the rights and freedoms of another American, whether I agree with them or not, I still feel they have the right to live free from an oppressive government and self-rightous majority!"
And from the looks of your posting, seems you never did read about the California Domestic Partnership that I asked for you to read up.
How about you try again this time without the ranting. You'll do better and I'll take it seriously this time.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"That's the best argument you could come up with?"
Review the California Marriage thread.
"Even if it were to hurt someone, the benefits of allowing gay marriage FAR outweigh the costs. Why do you think so many huge companies support it?"
Review California Domestic Partnerships and read this entire thread.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Thank you for stereo-typing Conservatives with Republicans.
Have you ever heard of Conservative Democrats or Independents?
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Well I'm sorry you had such an experience.
But the truth is there is hatred on both sides.
There are reports of battery going on with both. To say one side is of violent people and the other is not, is not being true. I care not to post such things, because that is of the mob effect; much of showing the crowds of supporters of Obama and McCain.
Edit:
And unfortunately, there are 'plants'. Some of those people, may have been supporters of "No to Prop 8" to attempt to discredit. No way to know for certain, and unfortunately it happens. That is one of the reasons videos of "stupid supporters" cannot be trusted. Consider it Psi Ops or Social Engineering.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
That's funny, but not for the reason you thought.
lol.. ya I thought the same thing
lol...that's just wrong.
Also, I don't think any women could screw up as bad as Bush.
ROFL.
And what exactly are you going to do when some crazed liberal assassinates McCain and that ridiculous excuse for a vice president becomes our president? (Actually, it's a lot more likely we'd end up with a crazed conservative doing something like that to a government official, as they tend to be more the delusional, rich, religious fanatic-types, in my opinion, but I digress.)
You never EVER vote for a presidential candidate without also doing some research on their running mate. That's just downright foolish. The vice president (as we've seen with Bush) has a LOT of input in to every aspect of the governing administration, probably much more than they even SHOULD. Apart from the fact, that they very well COULD end up as president, if unforeseen circumstances arise, or even ACTING in the office, should the president have health issues or anything of the sort that would prevent him/her from fulfilling their active role as president for a short period of time. I don't EVER want to take even the remotest CHANCE of Palin having any amount of control over ANYTHING.
Palin is a nightmare. I should hope that most people, with at least two functioning brain cells, will be able to see that.
On a side note: Why on earth would any adult agree to allowing the government to control your sex life and/or relationships? We're talking adult/adult consensual relationships here. How is that the government's business in any way, shape, or form? People keep allowing the government control over areas that they should have absolutely NO control over, and eventually......we will have ZERO freedoms, and yet we will have given each one up willingly. We must stop ALLOWING them to eat away at our freedoms one by one, regardless of how large or SEEMINGLY small.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Reading it all'd take to long.
It's stated both in international laws and (I think), the american law (I dunno what it's actually called),)
that everyone are to be equal and everything's supposed to be fair and square.
As such, people should be allowed to do what they want when it come to who they are sharing their life with (or whatever the heck to call it.(The sharing part, not the life part.)
It's as simple as that.
It's stated, it'd be fair, noone'd get hurt by it, and we're done.
Oh, and by the way, a bit back in this thread I read sometihng about people marrying sacred animals or whatever:
As marriages, unions, sharings of life, and such is dual sided, if you can prove that the cow (or whatever else kinda animal, it was the first one who sprang to my head) is consent with the marriage, go ahead.
Also read something about people not going to choose to marry: If they choose not to, does it even matter that they can? The thing is that they have the possibility if they want.
Did I miss something?
ROFL.
And what exactly are you going to do when some crazed liberal assassinates McCain and that ridiculous excuse for a vice president becomes our president? (Actually, it's a lot more likely we'd end up with a crazed conservative doing something like that to a government official, as they tend to be more the delusional, rich, religious fanatic-types, in my opinion, but I digress.)
You never EVER vote for a presidential candidate without also doing some research on their running mate. That's just downright foolish. The vice president (as we've seen with Bush) has a LOT of input in to every aspect of the governing administration, probably much more than they even SHOULD. Apart from the fact, that they very well COULD end up as president, if unforeseen circumstances arise, or even ACTING in the office, should the president have health issues or anything of the sort that would prevent him/her from fulfilling their active role as president for a short period of time. I don't EVER want to take even the remotest CHANCE of Palin having any amount of control over ANYTHING.
Palin is a nightmare. I should hope that most people, with at least two functioning brain cells, will be able to see that.
On a side note: Why on earth would any adult agree to allowing the government to control your sex life and/or relationships? We're talking adult/adult consensual relationships here. How is that the government's business in any way, shape, or form? People keep allowing the government control over areas that they should have absolutely NO control over, and eventually......we will have ZERO freedoms, and yet we will have given each one up willingly. We must stop ALLOWING them to eat away at our freedoms one by one, regardless of how large or SEEMINGLY small.
Palin, for all her flaws, is more qualified, and head and shoulders above Obama. Obama will take away far more freedom than any Republican who ever ran for the White House. Just his support of the fairness doctrine alone should disqualify him for anyone who even remotely believes is freedom (he has been careful to deny that he supports it, but he will not veto it if a democrat congress passes it.
Obama is against the first amendendment, the second amendment, and economic liberty. It doesn't get much worse than that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Fishermage, do you honestly believe this? Do you, and I mean, honestly, believe this? I know we are on MMORPG and having fun with our posting.
But do you honestly believe:
Edit: What is "economic liberty?"
If so:
Fishermage, do you honestly believe this? Do you, and I mean, honestly, believe this? I know we are on MMORPG and having fun with our posting.
But do you honestly believe:
Edit: What is "economic liberty?"
If so:
1. She has more experience than him as an executive. he has ZERO experience qualifying him to be president, she has some.
I said AND head and shoulders, I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and create a false meaning of what I wrote. She is head and shoulders BECAUSE she believes in free enterprise rather than socialism, as he does,
2. Obama will take away medical freedom with medical socialism; he will take away the freedom to do what we wish to with our money by raising our taxes, he will take away educational freedom by incereasing socialism in education, if fact, I can't think of any area on economics that he has mentioned that doesn't involve more government, and by definition, less freedom.
3. He will allow the congress to pass the fairness doctrine. He is in favor of gun control (more than palin, which is our context here), and by being in favor of redistribution of wealth, and more government in all aread of our economic lives, he is against economic liberty (vs Palin).
At any rate, for MORE discussion of this, I suggest you do your own research rather than play the "make the guy repeat himself" game which you love to play.
You ay now return to your usual namecalling and other assorted personal attacks
fishermage.blogspot.com
Fishermage, do you honestly believe this? Do you, and I mean, honestly, believe this? I know we are on MMORPG and having fun with our posting.
But do you honestly believe:
Edit: What is "economic liberty?"
If so:
1. She has more experience than him as an executive. he has ZERO experience qualifying him to be president, she has some.
I said AND head and shoulders, I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and create a false meaning of what I wrote. She is head and shoulders BECAUSE she believes in free enterprise rather than socialism, as he does,
2. Obama will take away medical freedom with medical socialism; he will take away the freedom to do what we wish to with our money by raising our taxes, he will take away educational freedom by incereasing socialism in education, if fact, I can't think of any area on economics that he has mentioned that doesn't involve more government, and by definition, less freedom.
3. He will allow the congress to pass the fairness doctrine. He is in favor of gun control (more than palin, which is our context here), and by being in favor of redistribution of wealth, and more government in all aread of our economic lives, he is against economic liberty (vs Palin).
At any rate, for MORE discussion of this, I suggest you do your own research rather than play the "make the guy repeat himself" game which you love to play.
You ay now return to your usual namecalling and other assorted personal attacks
"I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and crate a false meaning." You really, and I mean really, think that I tried to "create a false meaning?" LMFAO.
I am not sure if I can take you seriously if you honestly believe that.
Fishermage, do you honestly believe this? Do you, and I mean, honestly, believe this? I know we are on MMORPG and having fun with our posting.
But do you honestly believe:
Edit: What is "economic liberty?"
If so:
1. She has more experience than him as an executive. he has ZERO experience qualifying him to be president, she has some.
I said AND head and shoulders, I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and create a false meaning of what I wrote. She is head and shoulders BECAUSE she believes in free enterprise rather than socialism, as he does,
2. Obama will take away medical freedom with medical socialism; he will take away the freedom to do what we wish to with our money by raising our taxes, he will take away educational freedom by incereasing socialism in education, if fact, I can't think of any area on economics that he has mentioned that doesn't involve more government, and by definition, less freedom.
3. He will allow the congress to pass the fairness doctrine. He is in favor of gun control (more than palin, which is our context here), and by being in favor of redistribution of wealth, and more government in all aread of our economic lives, he is against economic liberty (vs Palin).
At any rate, for MORE discussion of this, I suggest you do your own research rather than play the "make the guy repeat himself" game which you love to play.
You ay now return to your usual namecalling and other assorted personal attacks
"I did not separate them with a comma, as you did, to try and crate a false meaning." You really, and I mean really, think that I tried to "create a false meaning?" LMFAO.
I am not sure if I can take you seriously if you honestly believe that.
There you go again...thanks for proving my final point. NIcely done.
fishermage.blogspot.com
If the amendment fails in Cali this will all be over and the feds will not get involved,if it passes then the feds will get involved to stop one state from forcing another state from having to except it.
Where is Ted Nugent when you need him.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
I see a public whose market had not one but two crashes. It dropped 40%, last time it did that so quickly was during the Great Depression.
I see at least three wars that are being lost.
I see a banker bail-out bill that will, long-term, cost the general public, these anti-gay people, trillions of dollars they do not have.
But Where Do They Direct This Anxiety?
Gay People!
It is increasingly difficult to take these people seriously. Just tax 'em. Take away their social security.
Screw their schools. Screw their infrastructure.
Who cares anymore, as they do not seem to really care or have a clue.
This is red-level crisis, and there are people more worried about two loving individuals forming a legal partnership than anything else.
Where is the Amendment for single moms, tax breaks for veterans/retirees, health care for our wounded troops, or anything to help those (ONE IN SIX F-ING HOUSEHOLDS) in foreclosure?
EDIT
And California is one of the BIGGEST foreclosure states.
The loan to value ratios and the amount of fraud is INCREDIBLE!
When are those, the victims of fraud, getting their Amendment?
No one is helping these people.
This Amendment is not to advance liberty, pursue Justice, or serve any noble public purpose.
It is just to say that gay people do not have rights.
"Actually, you see the progression wrong."
Like I said, impossible to say who is right or wrong when both believe to be right.
"So, the truth of the matter is, polygamy was okay first. Just like it was in the Bible."
Ah so now you want to use religion. But what you are citing is the Old Testament, not the New and you are assuming that I am a strong follower of Christianity.
And with your reasoning underage marriages are to be acceptable. And the marriage with sacred animals such as Cows, are acceptable as well.
"And you can talk about the "majority matters" b.s. all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you lived in a democracy you'd hate it. "
Rant on
"So I would watch what you're saying about our representative republic. We are not a democracy that runs on mob rules mentality."
More rant
" We are a nation that promises equal justice and rights to ALL, regardles of whether you are a minority or majority."
Continued ranting...
Correction, to non-religious practices.
"You would be wise to respect that protection or it might rear its ugly head against you someday."
Rant with a threat.
How amusing.
"And I don't give a damn about your empire building games."
An, "I don't know Rant"
Thanks for admitting defeat. Care to try again?
" I could give a shit about the economy or whatever is going on, but when someone starts f*cking with the founding documents of this country I get a little pissed off."
Translation: I ran out of things to say, I'm emotional, I'm tired of you opposing me, so I'll rant and use vulgar language for emphasis this time.
/unimpressed handclap
"The same way I get pissed off when I see someone messing with the rights and freedoms of another American, whether I agree with them or not, I still feel they have the right to live free from an oppressive government and self-rightous majority!"
And from the looks of your posting, seems you never did read about the California Domestic Partnership that I asked for you to read up.
How about you try again this time without the ranting. You'll do better and I'll take it seriously this time.
You seem to have lost that argument. You didn't address any of the issues he brought up. You're not a worthy debate opponent if you can't even address the freedom promised by this countries founding documents with nothing more than "rant" as a rebuttle. I don't consider the Constitution and Bill of Rights a rant.
--------------------------------------
Well I'm sorry you had such an experience.
But the truth is there is hatred on both sides.
There are reports of battery going on with both. To say one side is of violent people and the other is not, is not being true. I care not to post such things, because that is of the mob effect; much of showing the crowds of supporters of Obama and McCain.
Edit:
And unfortunately, there are 'plants'. Some of those people, may have been supporters of "No to Prop 8" to attempt to discredit. No way to know for certain, and unfortunately it happens. That is one of the reasons videos of "stupid supporters" cannot be trusted. Consider it Psi Ops or Social Engineering.
What?!?!?!? Are you serious. You think there is violence on both sides of this issue?
Show me 5 articles of gay on straight violence. Go ahead, find me 5 articles anywhere in history where there was a case of violence categorized as "straight bashing" that is equivelant to the violence we gays are careful and cautious of everywhere we go.
You're not going to find them. You can say that it's because of the media or whatever, but I'm sure that some media source somewhere would have picked up on those cases. There are plenty of right wing blogs and online news sources out there on the Internet. So, I challenge you to find only 5 of those cases.
I on the other hand can find you plenty of those articles taking place every day. I can tell you of 4 of my close friends who have been the victim of violence after being attacked by "fag bashers" simply for being. I saw a friend of mine teetering on the edge of dying in the hospital because of how badly he was beaten outside a gay club walking to his car. All he heard were comments of "die faggot" while he was kicked and beaten while on the ground in a fetal position. He didn't even try to fight back hoping the people would give up and leave, but they didn't. It went on until a group of people saw what was happening and chased them off.
That is vitreol hate. A hate that I hope you never experience.
You're either very ignorant about what is going on in this country and the world, or you're just plain deceptive and scary.
--------------------------------------
I concede on that point. My source was obviously incorrect. I was wrong.
Not quite wrong, the Netherlands does accept Polygamy.
Your post is very misleading.
islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/08/netherlands-statistics-netherlands-to.html
"Civil servants, particularly in the major cities, register dozens of bigamous or polygamous marriages annually. These marriages are banned and criminal in the Netherlands."