Not sure I've ever seen anything like this...

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Bush supporters will retract all support for gay marriage bans, if Kerry supporters will just shut the heck up and accept the fact that people can think differently from them without being "wrong" (or "ignorant" or "stupid" or "foolish")? The first time a Kerry supporter insults a Bush supporter for their stance, the bans go back on the books. Will that be enough to bring peace to this country?

Sounds like fun, but you make a dangerous assumption that everyone had to support either Bush or Kerry. I wouldn't give my vote to either.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Sounds like fun, but you make a dangerous assumption that everyone had to support either Bush or Kerry. I wouldn't give my vote to either.

As long as your not calling Bush supporters names, that's doesn't mess anything up

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

As long as your not calling Bush supporters names, that's doesn't mess anything up

People can think differently than me AND be wrong, and sometimes right...and sometimes we will both be wrong. You should edit your request. It's unreasonable that Bush supporters can never be wrong. Bush himself is wrong from time to time, so it stands to reason that his supporters are at least the same.

Bush supporters will retract all support for gay marriage bans, if Kerry supporters will just shut the heck up and accept the fact that people can think differently from them without being "wrong" (or "ignorant" or "stupid" or "foolish")?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Didn't that Titor guy predict a civil war in 2004 or 2006 or something?

Yep. And from the looks of it he is right...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

People can think differently than me AND be wrong, and sometimes right...and sometimes we will both be wrong. You should edit your request. It's unreasonable that Bush supporters can never be wrong. Bush himself is wrong from time to time, so it stands to reason that his supporters are at least the same.

It's not about right and wrong. It's the flat-out insults coming from the Kerry camp towards people that don't agree with them that I'm attacking here.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's not about right and wrong. It's the flat-out insults coming from the Kerry camp towards people that don't agree with them that I'm attacking here.

If you look at my quote, you said Kerry supporters could not tell Bush supporters they are "wrong." That was what I was referring to.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Arlie, there is no ban on people praying in school- it simply cannot be from some official platform, like an announcer at a football game. Prayer at school is limited to when a teacher leads them- and reasonably so. No one is opposed to the rights of people praying privately or even in a selected student led group - its simply as a large gathering or a school assembly where it is an issue.

If "no one" includes the ACLU, then I agree. They have repeatedly taken cases to court involving after school programs and lunchtime prayers.

As for the civil union/marriage thing- I still havent heard one arguement other than the government is changing religious people's definition of marriage - which is ridiculous. Marriage as defined by the government is NOT a religious thing- why do you insist on saying Gay Couples should not be entited to the same title from their secular government ? Its asking for equality, not "seperate but equal" - which is an accurate representation.

The problem I have with the civil rights argument involving gay marriage is that gay marriage involves a lifestyle choice, not a discrimination. Descrimination is defined as prejudging someone based on their race, age, sex or religion. It has never been applied to someone's actions. If I see someone apply for a job and he has had 15 divorces and I don't want to hire him because of it, I am not discriminating. Marriage is currently defined as the union between a man and a woman. So, a homosexual man has the same rights to marry a woman as a heterosexual man from a government standpoint.

The problem is that some want to redefine marriage as a union between two "people", and most of the country does not want to do that.

Besides, as I've said earlier in this thread- I think the government shouldnt be in marriage at all- call everything a civil union, and then let every group call whatever it wants marriage. I'd be curious as to your take on that.

On marriage, I see no problem with the government using the tax code and government benefits to encourage a solid family unit. The tax code/benefit system is essentially created to try and dictate our actions to better society from the "government's" perspective. Be it encouraging us to buy a house, get married, invest in a 401K, have a child, put a child through college, ... The entire tax code is setup to try and direct our behavior.

Now, I don't think the government should be providing state funding for embryonic stem cell research, but a ballot initiative passed in California that allows that. Part of living in the US is that our wishes are sometimes overruled by the majority. And, when it comes to gay marriage, I don't see any civil right violations or descrimination occuring just because the majority of the US doesn't want to redefine the term of marriage.

Again, I personally have no problem with allowing gay marriage, but if a majority of the voters don't want that to happen, I don't see it as violating anyone's rights.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think JIMG is totally right here for the most part. I have a few friends who are conservative. I am still good friends with all of them, but we don't discuss politics. Ever. I really only tend to talk politics with friends of mine who share the same views. Not because I need to hear my views parroted back to me, but arguing politics with friends is rarely a good way to spend your time. Case in point, my father. He voted for Bush. Hell, he has a signed picture of the bastard in our house, he also got some sort of pin for being a "wrangler" or something like that (some fundraising thing). I don't see my dad often (as he lives in Mich.), but we have a simple rule: we don't talk about politics. Ever. Life's too short to argue with your dad or good friends about that kind of stuff.

I dunno, I get along really well with a friend of mine who was lambasted on a message board he frequents in a political thread as: "In all actuality, you'll not find a less caring or empathetic person on the planet. Considering that he'd be okay with enslaving all mexicans and forcing them to bag groceries so he can get hoagies for a nickel cheaper, I don't think he'd care if every one was marched at gunpoint into a gigantic meat grinder at age 18, let alone drafted." We love to pick each other's minds about what the other side is thinking, but we're both f'ing elitists who try to be above the fray most of the time and look at it from a political perspective.

But there are many times, particularly at holidays (since, being a thousand miles apart or so, there's just not enough time at any other time) where we get into the "I'm right, you're wrong" discussions. You *CAN* do it. Just most people can't be bothered to. And on an internet message boards, it's downright impossible because all you have to judge people and categorize people by are their beliefs. If I met this guy based just on his political beliefs, I'd feel the same way as the poster on his message board, but there's just no way to do that online.

SI

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem I have with the civil rights argument involving gay marriage is that gay marriage involves a lifestyle choice, not a discrimination. Descrimination is defined as prejudging someone based on their race, age, sex or religion. It has never been applied to someone's actions.

There are so many things wrong with this section, I really don't know where to begin. Assuming being gay is a choice (something that goes against the best available evidence), how is it different than religion? I like how being gay is a choice, so you can discriminate, but it would be wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

There are so many things wrong with this section, I really don't know where to begin. Assuming being gay is a choice (something that goes against the best available evidence), how is it different than religion? I like how being gay is a choice, so you can discriminate, but it would be wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion.

I think this is a very good point, and I think my wording was pretty suspect and not what I was getting at. It would just as wrong as not hiring someone that is gay as it would be to not hire someone that is catholic. My point was that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. So, from that standpoint, a homosexual man can marry a woman in the same manner that a heterosexual man can.

The difficult legal argument is that we should define marriage between "two people" even though that goes against what is currently in the constitution. So, a judge would have to say the constitution is "unconstitutional". I would think that you would need to pass an amendment changing the definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "2 people" before any of that can happen. But, again, I'm not the legal scholar that many others are. And, as I've said before, the liberatarian in me has a hard time with the idea of not allowing people of the same sex to be married as they wish.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Noop

Yep. And from the looks of it he is right...

Quit being dramatic.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by duckman

Quit being dramatic.

You felt like only commenting on my post? *Alot of cuss words*

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Noop

Bitch fuck you.

Nice.

[duckman]

Dola

Believe it or not, the world is not going to end with Bush in office, Noop. People are just getting overdramatic about this election. You were just the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Suicane75]

I've always wondered, how much straw would it take to break a camels back. I mean, I know they can hold a 90 pound child pretty easily.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by duckman

Dola

Believe it or not, the world is not going to end with Bush in office, Noop. People are just getting overdramatic about this election. You were just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Your *bad word* dumb... why not say something to the person I was replying too? Feast on these *berrys*...

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Noop

Your fuckin dumb... why not say something to the person I was replying too? Feast on these nuts...

I might be dumb, but you're a whiner.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

I've always wondered, how much straw would it take to break a camels back. I mean, I know they can hold a 90 pound child pretty easily.

That was absolutely hilarious!

[Noop]

Originally Posted by duckman

I might be dumb, but you're a whiner.

Really? I know you have a bunch of steers in Oklahoma go chew on that beef...

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Noop

Really? I know you have a bunch of steers in Oklahoma go chew on that beef...

You know I love you, Noop.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by duckman

You know I love you, Noop.

Then why dont you show it more!!!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think this is a very good point, and I think my wording was pretty suspect and not what I was getting at. It would just as wrong as not hiring someone that is gay as it would be to not hire someone that is catholic. My point was that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. So, from that standpoint, a homosexual man can marry a woman in the same manner that a heterosexual man can.

The difficult legal argument is that we should define marriage between "two people" even though that goes against what is currently in the constitution. So, a judge would have to say the constitution is "unconstitutional". I would think that you would need to pass an amendment changing the definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "2 people" before any of that can happen. But, again, I'm not the legal scholar that many others are. And, as I've said before, the liberatarian in me has a hard time with the idea of not allowing people of the same sex to be married as they wish.

In other words, your argument hurt your cause so you abandoned it. Yet, you never explain why (even if gay is being a choice), it is somehow different than religion. If a law required catholics to only marry jews (but not other catholics), would you find that ok since it treats everyone the same?

The rest of your new argument is utter nonsense - the Constitution does NOT say marriage is between a man and a woman and no judge would have to say the constitution is unconstitutional.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

the Constitution does NOT say marriage is between a man and a woman and no judge would have to say the constitution is unconstitutional.

I sincerely hope it stays that way. The fact that an constitutional amendment was one of if not the first plank in the Republican platform at the convention was nearly enough to drive me away from voting for Bush. It is enough to make me rethink changing my registration from Democrat to Republican. I don't want the government treating individuals differently based on their sexual behavior. I think the government should remain blind toward individuals, and regard each citizen equally.