Quote:
As a citizen of another country, I'm a little pissed off at the US political system

Quote:
I'm a little pissed off at the US political system

Quit bashing us!

Quote:
when I see senseless ramblings and what looks like real *hatred*

Quote:
I had to avoid this board years ago because of all the anti-american rhetoric that was being spouted

Quote:
Flame away...I won't be here to hear it.

Quote:
But the Right/Left-bashing is really sad and pathetic.

Quote:
As a citizen of another country, I'm a little pissed off at the US political system, specifically that the rest of the world has no say in who becomes the US president. I mean, the US is so open to controlling the political atmosphere in other countries, at the very least, and moving specific people in and out of power at the other end... It's only fair other countries get a say on who the world's supreme commander is, right?

I've been watching ABC for the past few hours. The electoral voting is a bizarre practice. But even more bizarre is Bush leading the popular vote. Wow. Campaigning to ban Gay marriage has sure paid off. Or perhaps it was promoting Cousin and Sibling marriage? It's a close call all around, and to me that just paints a bleaker picture of the US and (obviously) close to half its residents.

In the end I suppose it's all about picking one puppet over another. It's just that Kerry's ventriloquist is so much better.

Bruno

Quote:
I’m also glad the term marriage is being tightly defined and not…

Marrage – A union between a person or persons or anything(s) person(s) can screw.

Let’s call the above definition a Civil Union and all move on.

Quote:

(source)

The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage, specifying that it should be limited to unions of one man and one woman. The measures in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well.

The Ohio measure [is] considered the broadest of the 11 because it barred any legal status that "intends to approximate marriage,"

Quote:
I think that perhaps you are confusing forthright, entertaining debate with animosity. Nobody here is expecting to change anybody's opinions on these matters of religion and politics. But we're sure going to have a hell of a lot of fun trying, and that's really the point of the whole thing.

Agreed. I hardly ever feel that people on this BBS are "bashed", though ideas are certainly thrashed about quite a bit. Sometimes I get tired of reading the "Bush is evil" stuff from time to time, so I don't. Yes, there are times I skip over long posts on political topics because I'm just tired, but that's a choice I have. Most of the time I at least take pleasure in reading perspectives I don't hear often, and certainly not from sources that are credible. There is a lot here that simply doesn't make sense to me and I still struggle to figure out why people believe some of the things they do (and I know many say the same about me), but this is a unique place in which we can put flesh-and-blood people behind some of the ideas we've only ever heard through one filtered medium or another. It is very difficult for me to demonize the "other side" knowing that there are intelligent people who I respect holding tightly to those ideas.

Where this is all so invaluable to me is that I think we all want the same things, but we disagree at a fundamental level how to get there. I believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the key to true hope and peace, that the government should leave much of its social programs to the people, and that due to the fallen world we live in, sometimes violence is required to prevent more violence. But I also know people here who believe that religion is not necessary for hope and peace (and possibly even an agent against such pursuits), that the government should increase its role in meeting the needs of its people, and that violence is never necessary if you truly try to live at peace with your fellow man. It’s neat to be able to listen to other people talk about how they think we ought to get something accomplished, because it seems none of us has it exactly right.

In short, I don’t agree with or embrace much of the things said here, but I am glad to know the people behind the words- perhaps by understanding each other better we can make better sense of how to get those things we all want. Ok, now let’s join hands and sing . . .

Quote:
I think that the state should be concerned only with civil union or equivalent aspects of marriage, that is, support, inheritance, taxes etc; religious aspects of marriage (if there are those in a particular case) should be exclusively between those married and their church/religious community/whatever - their God(s), after all; the state has no business regulating those

Quote:
Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Quote:
Flame away...I won't be here to hear it.

Quote:
Yes, Civil Union <> Marriage.

Quote:
that the government should leave much of its social programs to the people

Quote:
The problem is that the above examples are all voluntary and rely on the personal decision of the giver. When the government taxes its people to fund social programs, you’re saying "you don’t care about people enough to help them out, so I'm going to make you." To me, the root of the problem is that people don't care enough to help their fellow man, and that's what really needs to be addressed more than anything else. We need to strive to heighten personal responsibility for our fellow man and move away from simply taking the money needed to do it.

Quote:
I have been enormously impressed with the rationality, civility, intelligence, and lack of personal attack expressed in these posts that you characterize as "bashing".

Quote:
I had to avoid this board years ago because of all the anti-american rhetoric that was being spouted, and now I'm going to avoid it again

Quote:
While the heat of the debates are often palpable, the general lack of personal animus is really remarkable, and a tribute to the general level of civility on the board.

Quote:
That's fair. But I, at least, don't really care to hear that he's not reading. Maybe if he'd ever made a reasoned political post before in the Off Topic section I might.

Quote:
But there is a subtle distinction between civil debate and flamethrowing

Quote:

Quote:
That's fair. But I, at least, don't really care to hear that he's not reading. Maybe if he'd ever made a reasoned political post before in the Off Topic section I might.

What Bitt said. If we can have titles like "Grammar Police", it should be feasible to add one like "Seagull".

Quote:
This would be more impressive if the people actually did the work.

Now, the flipside is I won't tell you the government is the answer either. But look around a city and see how many homeless people you see. There's not a chance they all "want" to be homeless. We have shelters, but when the weather is extreme, they fill, and people are turned away. It's not the same as a home, either.

Now, you could get me to believe that many of them have mental problems. I've seen precious little from the non-government sectors to help there. But even the government wasn't really able to do anything; With advances in rights for the mentally ill, asylums were closed.

Quote:

After a long(not-quite-completed) career in the mental health trenchs, I can tell you that the mentally ill landed in the streets as a RESULT of the government, much as schools are now failing to an even greater degree because of the No Child Left Behind Act: it instituted something that sounded good, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, which was to set up adequate community-based facilities, and never since has adequately funded them, though they used the concept as the rationale for emptying the psychiatric hospitals, just as they will now use the NCLB Act to further eviscerate public schooling, especially in the poorest, most vulnerable areas. Special education law is yet a third example; currently, the Feds fund approximatley 12% of the costs of THEIR mandates, leaving states and districts to pick up the other 88% according to their varying resources. I happen to be one of those reviled liberals who think our social ills are too great to be adequately addressed by any entity but a federal government, as indeed most of the civilized countries do. Our government, however, in keeping with our general hypocrisy, (just witness all the concern about the sanctity of marriage in a country whose failure rate is nearly 50%) promulgates generous-sounding proposals and then doesn't fund them. the US Government has specialized for years in *saying* but not *doing* the right thing (various treaties and the Alaska Statehood Act come to mind). Under our "compassionate conservatives", the above is unlikley to improve. I guess it's evident that I'm feeling a bit disgruntled this morning...

Quote:
The government making the situation with regards to the mentally ill worse doesn't negate my point about the lack of help forthcoming from the private sector; I'm basically on the same side as you are though, so we're not really going to solve anything here.

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, Civil Union <> Marriage.

How would you define the difference (apart from religious or ritual elements, which I dont' think, as I said, should be in the domain of government regulation, unless the state in question is a theocracy) ?

Quote:
What are you talking about?

Quote:
Ok, so to get hypothetical with you guys (because this certainly isn’t my viewpoint), if there are people who absolutely believe that they hold no responsibility toward their fellow man and don’t want the money they make to fund social programs (see Ayn Rand), is it right for the government to take money from them and use it for social programs? Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?

Quote:
Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?

Quote:
To be political correct to me in many cases ignores the facts or truth in order to keep from possibly hurting someone’s feelings.

Quote:
In my head Civil Union should be defined as a bond between two of the same sex or even expanded to cover two of the opposite sex that want to have no religious connotations attached.

Quote:
That does not make one better or worse just by definition different.

Quote:

Quote:
Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?

I think it's important for the infrastructure of a nation to make sure that all of its citizens are as well kept as possible. I don't think it's morality at all, any more than punishing someone for committing murder.

Quote:
In my head Civil Union should be defined as a bond between two of the same sex or even expanded to cover two of them.
Marriage already exists as a solely legal definition. No religious connotations need be made in order to go to the Justice of the Peace.

Quote:
I think it's important for the infrastructure of a nation to make sure that all of its citizens are as well kept as possible. I don't think it's morality at all, any more than punishing someone for committing murder.

Quote:

Marriage already exists as a solely legal definition. No religious connotations need be made in order to go to the Justice of the Peace. I understand that you might wish for the term "marriage" to be given to religious institutions and left alone by the government, but that's ship's already sailed. I'm sure that this is the argument you use when defending the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance and the references to God in other US papers, including monies. (And let's not point out the other definitions of "marry" that have nothing to do with the union of people.)

Quote:
if you'd also remove clerics' legal rights to sanctify civil unions, too.

Quote:
Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth and reading my mind. You better get you psychic abilities checked.

Quote:
states wouldn’t be passing these laws if gays would have backed off the “Marriage” tag.

Quote:
And that they get that power simply by being a cleric in a recognized church. (Maybe there's some simple paperwork or something,.....

Quote:
I’m white, calling me black isn’t worse is it?

Quote:
Anybody who posts here is a dick

Can I be a dick too even if I don't have one

Quote:
CommOri,

I'm sorry that some people here are being very rude to you. You are basically asking "can't we all just get along?" and some people are throwing it back in your face. It's quite sad. In the good ol' days, owning an empeg was good enough to make you "part of the community" but now, some people would rather you leave than voice an opinion they disagree with.

Quote:
Can I be a dick too even if I don't have one

Quote:
but that kind of kook has other words for us.....

Quote:
You are basically asking "can't we all just get along?" and some people are throwing it back in your face.

Quote:
Ya know, I *hate* both parties...but I will say this:

The liberals on this board seem to have a BUNCH of free time to type a LOT of stuff without backing it up at all (a la Michael Moore; much conjecture and shark jumping, much emotion, LONG, LONG, LOOOONG lines to connect the imaginary dots).

Quote:
You are basically asking "can't we all just get along?"

Quote:
Off topic, but dude, can you chill on the italics?

On topic: I'm a dick.

Quote:
I'm a newbie, so if I need correction it requires specificity. If you mean the earlier posts on this topic, it took me awhile to get the syntax right, but I think I have it in the last couple...the quote *is* italicized, isn't it?

Quote:
On Topic: I'm NOT a dick, therefore not a dude---maybe dudette?

Quote:
...as a new poster,...

Quote:
One possible reason for mass apparent civility here (apart from Bitt keeping our grammer honest), is that many of us have met each other in the flesh (face to face, that is), at one or more of the various meets.

Somehow, that always seems to help the atmosphere, though it doesn't explain Paul, or lots of others here. Maybe we're all just human, and realize it.

Cheers

Paul guessed how scary we really are, and cleverly avoids us

Quote:
When someone's actions or "morals" are to the detriment of other people's well-being, then society is justified in enforcing a change in that person's behavior.

tanstaafl.

Quote:
Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!

Quote:
...other people's well-being...

Quote:
many of us have met each other in the flesh (face to face, that is), at one or more of the various meets.

Quote:
I'll fix it. Hope no one thinks I'm trying to edit out what she's saying.

Quote:
you are totally out of your element. I mean, this aggression will stand, man.

I'm assuming that's deliberate provocation here,man...how can I resist?! Nothin' like a little gender confusion.... "Man" in the biblical sense I won't do any feminist quibbling about, but where is it written that "dude" isn't gender-specific? Thanks to you and Bitt for your help BTW.

Quote:
Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!

Quote:
DUDE
No, look. I do mind. The Dude minds.
This will not stand, ya know, this
will not stand, man. I mean, if
your wife owes--

Quote:
Does it have to be more complicated than the Golden Rule?

Quote:
I am merely a figment of someone's deranged imagination.

Quote:
That exercise is left to the reader...

Quote:
Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!

When someone's actions or "morals" are to the detriment of other people's well-being, then society is justified in enforcing a change in that person's behavior.

Quote:
But there is a subtle distinction between civil debate and flamethrowing

Quote:
That goes back to what I mean about the Golden Rule (which is an ideal we can only aspire to, not achieve), and its converse. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one; just don't abridge others' rights in the name of some abstract, self-defined higher morality. I never wanted an abortion, any more than I want a gay marriage, so I made damn' sure I never needed one, but I helped others who did because of *my* belief that the higher good there is that no child should be born that isn't wanted. Again, those against it (either abortion or gay marrige) are surely entitled to their beliefs, and some respect for those beliefs; just don't inflict them on me.

And again we see the disconnect. I bet he believes the aborted baby is a life and the mother is forcing her beliefs on it

None of these debates bother me in the slightest, oddly, because regardless of whether I agree I can see where the other side comes from with perfect clarity. It's the necessity of the Iraq invasion which no one has yet explained to me in a way I can understand so simply as this, for instance. There are others, but let's pick that one.

Quote:
as long as they don't try to impose their views on others

Quote:
If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one; just don't abridge others' rights in the name of some abstract, self-defined higher morality.

Quote:
The "right" wants to prevent a couple from being married.

Quote:
This strikes me as being an "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" proposition

Quote:
Now ultimately I believe that homosexual marriages are detrimental to our national well-being.

Quote:
I don't think of them any lesser than myself.

Quote:
In fact, I would offer to fly down to San Antonio and buy you dinner so you could explain to me, face to face, how my relationship is detrimental to the national well-being.

I suggest all hungry college students reading offer a similar affront

Quote:
But that's my whole point: that the law is the imposition of one person's views on another.

Quote:
I have a hard time reconciling these two statements.

Quote:
And I'd absolutely be willing to talk face to face about all of this if we had occasion to meet, though I wouldn’t allow you to pay for the plane ticket.

I think Dan's offer is probably the most remarkable thing I have every seen on this BBS.

Don't diminish it. Let him pay

Quote:
I admit mine comes from faith, but is that any more "abstract" than someone who comes to a belief by reasoning apart from faith? Ultimately all of our morality comes back to something we just accept is true, whether that be from internal, self examination or adherence to an external code. Who can objectively say which is more valid?

Quote:
What I'm advocating is that we allow each other to live by our own belief systems and with our own consciences, as long as they don't actively infringe on each other. That, to me, is the essence of civil society.

Quote:
I think it is absolutely terrible, though, that anti-abortion legilation (such as dealing with partial birth abortions) has not make exceptions for the health of the mother. I can say, without a doubt, if it were my wife's life on the line or our unborn child, I'd choose her and feel it was the right thing to do since you're talking about one life verseus another.

Quote:
I don't believe that the government should be defining it at all, but if it does I'm not in favor of a definition different from mine

Quote:
I might be more inclined to agree with that sentiment if the government did indeed offer protection to that innocent life.

But denying abortion to a woman who requests it is almost certainly going to be to the detriment of all concerned, particularly the "innocent life" itself. Receiving poor or more likely no pre-natal care, it may well be be born with fetal alcohol syndrome or crack addiction, or physical or neurological deformities. Should it survive at all, there is a very high likelihood of it being "raised" (if you can call it that) in a life of pure misery and hell.

Jeff, there are worse things that can happen to an "innocent life" than never being borntanstaafl.!

Quote:
Don't diminish it. Let him pay

Well, since you insist for him, OK! But I'll buy dinner.

Honestly Dan, if you'd really like to get together and discuss my views, I'm very open to that and would welcome the conversation.

Quote:
And then you're saying that any opinion but your own is wrong, and it's wrong of the government to support any opinion but that that is congruent to your own. Yes?

Quote:
And forcing your opinions onto others has always been the territory of tyrants.

Quote:
I'd be more tolerant, if I were you.

Quote:
What I strive for is to treat everyone with civility, even when our opinions differ. To me, that is the defining of tolerance.

And I agree with your definition of tolerance. Unfortunately, there are people who don't.

Quote:
Could you tell your gay brother that his happiness in a long-term relationship is not worthy of the same recognition as your own? Can you look into someone's eyes and tell them their relationship is not worthy of recognition and respect under the law?

Well, obviously those of us who are married now know better and are trying to stop others from making a horrible mistake

Quote:
it seems to me that the discussion of gay marriage often gets a bit abstract or theoretical (or theological?), and I want to remind you that beyond the abstract of "defending marriage", the place this issue hits home is in my home, and perhaps the homes of friends or family members of your own.

Quote:
Could you tell your gay brother that his happiness in a long-term relationship is not worthy of the same recognition as your own?

Quote:
Can you look into someone's eyes and tell them their relationship is not worthy of recognition and respect under the law?

Quote:
Assuming that we can't be eliminated from the planet

Quote:
what standard of behavior would you like gay men and lesbians to aspire to? Is it in society's best interest for us to be coupled, or not? Should we encourage fidelity, and stability in these relationships? If not, what's the alternative?

Quote:
I honestly don’t have family members who are homosexuals, but I do have family members who have done other things that I consider to be sinful. An example is my sister who was living with her boyfriend. I consider this as much a sin as homosexual behavior. She knew that, recognized that we had different stands on the issue, and we moved on. She and her boyfriend were always welcome in our home and I never treated them differently because of my beliefs. When she became pregnant, I was one of the people she turned to for support when many in my family made life very difficult for her. We have a mature enough relationship that we can disagree with each other's choices on moral grounds and still be great friends.

Quote:
Would you support a change in your state's Constitution that would ban 'living in sin'? What about a change in the US Constitution? If a presidential candidate campaigned on such a platform would it make you more likely to vote for him?

Quote:
What about a constitutional change to enforce marriage where pregnancy is concerned? After all, it would prevent further sin. Would you support a candidate who espoused this position?

Quote:
I Also, please show me where in the Bible it is condemned;

The cities Sodom and Gomorra were both destroyed because of men lying with one another (God really put the hurt on them). Like the spilling of seed reference the bible does not use the term homosexual sex, but if you read about good O’L Lot and his two incestuous daughters you’ll get the picture. And it’s just as juicy as a Jerry Springer show.

Yes, these threads sure mutate. I think this one covered about everything. Except maybe government vs private healthcare. But we all know government healthcare is just of the devil right?

Quote:
please show me where in the Bible it is condemned

Quote:
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Quote:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." -- and 20:13 -- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- are pretty clear about it.

Quote:
That is just perfectly brilliant; I love it! I can often do that, start a backfire with the biblical references I was raised with, but never half so well! One of the best monlogues ever...!

Quote:
Obligatory West Wing quote...

Quote:
Nice, I'm going to have to start watching that show.

Quote:
I unabashedly rank The West Wing as not only the best show on network television today, but the best show that has ever been on network TV.

tanstaafl.