<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>. All this pure crap about "second rate citizens" really irks me a lot, or being against "equal" rights. It's just not true. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> If <b>the people</b> do not want marrige to be defined as differently, then they do not have to. I repeat; they do not have to.
I find it HILARIOUS that "civil unions" which is pretty much endorsed by enough republicans so it would pass through congress, is rejected by the democrats and **** right advocate say that "civil unions" are descriminatory. Will SOMEONE please tell me how "civil union" is any more discriminatory than "g4y marrige"? The word g4y is used as an insult. Civil union sounds like a nice comprimise that all of society could agree to.
The democrats have carried the "Holier than thou" attitude about g4y marrige in the campgaign, this hurt them a lot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really don't know a whole lot about this, but essentially I have been echoing this sentiment for a while. I see no reason why homosexual people can't enjoy the benifits of marriage without calling it marriage. Realisticly, most hetro sexual marriages are hardly such. The American government, or any other government for that matter, is being prosumptuos in assuming they have the authority to pronounce a marriage, in the end, if God cares, he can deal with the issue whenever he see's fit, if he doesn't then marriage is just a term. If I was a priest, I wouldn't marry homosexual couples in the sight of God, but if I were a politician, I couldn't care less what any couple was calling themself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The environment hardly needs the economy. If there was no economy at all the environment would be just as well off, if not better off. This statement is purly rehtoric, its like saying "the American government recieves small ammounts of money from the British government, thus we should protect the intrests of the British government over the American government." <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to know that the deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Deficits are not big problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That isn't a fact, a small deficit isn't a big problem, but a massive deficit is a VERY big problem. Quote some sourses that THIS deficit isn't a big problem if you want to prove something, but what you said is far from fact.
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Nov 4 2004, 11:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Nov 4 2004, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm a Democrat. My country is now a 1-2-3 punch in the hands of the Republican party, and I won't beat around the bush (no pun intended): it scares me.
Republicans (and any other applicable parties), this is your chance to tell me why you voted for George Bush. Why am I asking?
I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. I'd love to know that you didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. I want to hear you say that you love the environment, that you want the poor to have a chance to improve their lot in society. I want to know that the deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall. I want to hear you say that people are allowed to think and feel however they want about something, and that the government respects that right. And how the Republican party represents those.
I ask those questions, paraphrased from a friend of mine, because those are what I, as a Democrat, see as the scariest things about the Republican platform. I'm looking for some kind of reassurance that Bush and his friends really *do* have my best interests, and the best interests of the country, in mind. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. I didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. I love the environment. I want the poor to have a chance to improve their lot in society. The deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall. All people are allowed to think and feel however they want about something, and the government respects that right.
I didn't vote.
But I would of voted Bush.
Even if Kerry DID cut taxes for the Middle Class, it would have been tiny, and barely noticable. Where was he going to get money for all these social programs hes talking about? Our cheques, thats where. I used to live in Canada, and they would take 46% out of my mom and dad's paychecks. We shouldn't of been poor, but we were. Why? Because since their base salaries were above the poverty level, they didn't qualify for tax releive, but all that money we should of had was being taken away for social programs that WE weren't part of. We didn't qualify for Tax Releif, nor did we qualify for Welfare. And we sure as hell didn't use medicare, its not like I was breaking my face every day. Besides, canadian medicare sucks. I would've voted for Bush because my poor family rose out of the mud, into the middle class with hard work, and Bush helped. How you say? You know that "Unjustified" war thats so horrible? It's putting me through college, It is building up our piece of **** house, It is paying for our medical, it is paying for things that we were never able to enjoy in a socialistic "Paradise". Bush will learn from the mistakes he made, and I truely feel he will try and appeal to the democrats more in the next 4 years. I beleive he will get less..."religeous" on some of the moral issues like homosexual marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. His goals in iraq are realistic, and make loads of sense. There will be no draft, because we are training Iraqi's to do the job you guys think we will draft american's to do. (Doesn't matter anyways, I'm joining the Marines when I'm 19 or 20)
All in all, I would of voted Bush because he did a freaking great job of pulling us out of poverty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>. All this pure crap about "second rate citizens" really irks me a lot, or being against "equal" rights. It's just not true. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> If <b>the people</b> do not want marrige to be defined as differently, then they do not have to. I repeat; they do not have to.
I find it HILARIOUS that "civil unions" which is pretty much endorsed by enough republicans so it would pass through congress, is rejected by the democrats and **** right advocate say that "civil unions" are descriminatory. Will SOMEONE please tell me how "civil union" is any more discriminatory than "g4y marrige"? The word g4y is used as an insult. Civil union sounds like a nice comprimise that all of society could agree to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its not like they would go around saying "we're g@y married!". Duh. They mearly feel that if the law is going to be involved in this sort of thing (and IMO it shouldn't, being an entirely religious thing) then it should at least pretened not to be an entirely religious concept and let people of alternative sexual orientation get married too. Labeling it differently reminds them of the "separate but equal" schools and such for african americans in the past.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The democrats have carried the "Holier than thou" attitude about g4y marrige in the campgaign, this hurt them a lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How so? I mean, the demecratic candidate didn't even support homosexual marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um... what? Excuse me while I laugh....
---------------------- <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Correct me if im' wrong, but this doesn't seem correct...
A partial-birth abortion is, as far as i know, a full 9-month baby is is killed as being delivered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later.
[...]
3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: bullet The fetus is dead. bullet The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger. bullet The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her. bullet The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> --http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Nov 4 2004, 08:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Nov 4 2004, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Niteowl+Nov 4 2004, 12:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Niteowl @ Nov 4 2004, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> this is an excellent article, which i think explains much of the reason behind the republican victory. perhaps not all, but much.
<a href='http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just got the chance to look at this article and I remember seeing him speak on CSpan this past Summer. He's wrong.
Or, more appropriately, his premise is wrong. You see, throughout the article there is one underlying factor that he never openly states but assumes completely: Mr. Frank believes that these people and others like them need help from the government and the upper class. He simply cannot understand why they would turn their backs on those willing to dish out the food stamps and block cheese. These poor, meager, unknowing souls want nothing to do with Mr. Frank, or Mr. Bush, or anyone else who lives more than 20 miles from their home. They don't want their help, they don't want their money, and they sure as Hell don't want their pity. They just want to live their lives as they see fit. Get out of their way, leave them alone, and everyone is happy. The Republican party says they'll get out of the way and give people back their money. That's generally good enough.
Mr. Frank also thinks very highly of himself. And vanity isn't something to look up to in "fly-over country". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see how you got there from the article. His main point is that people vote for republicans believing them to be the morals-defending party of the solid American classes, and then that republicans get into office and cut taxes for the rich and do favors for big business. Which is pretty much true. Republicans DO do those things. And looking at the reasons people give for voting republican, morals is right up at the top of the list.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2004
Forlorn: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marriage may originaly be a religious term, but it's not anymore. It is also not something unique to Christianity. In this day and age, it is a legal contract on (among other things) the economical relationship between two persons. Denying this contract to a group of people may be discriminationg.
On the name of the contract: the term Marriage vs. Civil union might very much matter for religious homosexual people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is very untrue. Economical interests almost always precedes environmental interests. The best profit is made from exploiting the most out of the market and too keep the production efficient at a low cost. There is nothing for a corporation to gain by putting environmental issues above economiocal issues; there's no proffit to be made by it, and that is what the corporations exist for.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-BobTheJanitor+Nov 4 2004, 11:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BobTheJanitor @ Nov 4 2004, 11:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Nov 4 2004, 08:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Nov 4 2004, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Niteowl+Nov 4 2004, 12:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Niteowl @ Nov 4 2004, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> this is an excellent article, which i think explains much of the reason behind the republican victory. perhaps not all, but much.
<a href='http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just got the chance to look at this article and I remember seeing him speak on CSpan this past Summer. He's wrong.
Or, more appropriately, his premise is wrong. You see, throughout the article there is one underlying factor that he never openly states but assumes completely: Mr. Frank believes that these people and others like them need help from the government and the upper class. He simply cannot understand why they would turn their backs on those willing to dish out the food stamps and block cheese. These poor, meager, unknowing souls want nothing to do with Mr. Frank, or Mr. Bush, or anyone else who lives more than 20 miles from their home. They don't want their help, they don't want their money, and they sure as Hell don't want their pity. They just want to live their lives as they see fit. Get out of their way, leave them alone, and everyone is happy. The Republican party says they'll get out of the way and give people back their money. That's generally good enough.
Mr. Frank also thinks very highly of himself. And vanity isn't something to look up to in "fly-over country". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see how you got there from the article. His main point is that people vote for republicans believing them to be the morals-defending party of the solid American classes, and then that republicans get into office and cut taxes for the rich and do favors for big business. Which is pretty much true. Republicans DO do those things. And looking at the reasons people give for voting republican, morals is right up at the top of the list. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what he says, or more importantly what he believes they're thinking, but that's why he's wrong. The elites like to think they know what the uneducated and uncouth masses REALLY want but they're almost always wrong. He's built this entire voting theory based on a flawed premise.
Let's take an example. All through the presses right now the great pulsing brains are waving their exit polls and telling everyone that the Evangelicals are out to convert the Godless. They can justify this by looking at the States who have passed ballot proposals that define homosexual marriage. The Religious Right wants to stand in your bedroom and make sure you don't sin.
The real truth is, people (not just the Christians) don't want unelected judges rewriting legislature from the bench. They're tired of hearing about activist judges who subvert the rule of law and bypass voters and Congress. This is their message but I doubt those who matter will be listening.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 4 2004, 10:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 4 2004, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We don't all live in the economy, and the environment doesn't just belong to America.
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+Nov 4 2004, 10:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5 @ Nov 4 2004, 10:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Nov 4 2004, 09:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Nov 4 2004, 09:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I voted Bush for many reasons. The following is just one.
The pure hatred spewing from the left. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or I can turn that perfectly arround and as make an equally incorrect statement, it's a two way street buddy: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The pure hatred spewing from the right. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> See? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It is no doubt a two way street, but there's a major difference in philosophy going around. Conservatives say the phrase "stupid liberal" way less often than we hear "stupid conservative redneck" or some highly sophisticated version of it. Start checking out anti-Bush blogs vs anti-Kerry blogs or websites and you'll start to see what I mean.
We're all trying to get a message across to the Democratic party, and it's just not listening. Back in the 1960's the Democrats were taken over by the formerly small far left wing, who then began to guide the Official stance on things. They lost touch with the average citizen, and this last election just proves it. Overwhelmingly, most independent or moderate Kerry voters were actually voting *against* Bush instead of for Kerry. There's your first sign right there. The Democrats offered up one of the most active Liberals who struggled to make himself more acceptable to mainstream America and came somewhat close to succeeding.
Wake up guys! Clinton was a moderate Democrat who aligned himself more with the people than with the liberals, and he slew every Republican contender. Instead of learning from him, you just ignored his teachings and expected to be elected into office by a grateful and palitable group of people who need your help. It didn't happen. Hmmm...wonder why...
Maybe because they don't need and don't want your help because they can do it better than you?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 4 2004, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 4 2004, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Nov 4 2004, 09:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Nov 4 2004, 09:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. I believe John Kerry to be a man of weak moral fiber. a. He supports abortion rights. b. He supports **** marriage. c. He went against his own church and took communion - shows a complete disregard for religion, and a willingness to use the church to make political statements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> These are not good reasons to vote against a man. Hey I don't care who you vote for, but for the love of god, don't vote against someone because of a 2000 year old book.
And your problems with homosexuals are downright discriminatory, imo. There's no reason why they shouldn't get the same benefits as a married couple. Call it whatever you want (marriage, civil union, I don't care) but they should get the benefits. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a perfect example of what Dems shouldn't do. Basically, I get called "stupid" because my reasons are not valued by the Democratic party.
So now my faith and my religion looses value, and I get called a homophobe in the process.
Oh yes, now I want to vote democratic - after all, they have done so much for me in ridiculing my world view and trying to erode my foundations. Thank you so much for all the "open mindedness" and "freedom" you are promoting. Here, let me go punch a ballot for your fearless leader, Michael M... I mean, John Kerry. Heck, I need four years of having my faith belittled and group huggs around trees.
On a slightly different note, the common consensus around here seems to be that the President should be an Athest - just so no mix of "church" and "state" can happen. I pity our country when we get a godless president. Those without good foundations are frequently blown about by every wind that seems pleasing to them, as seen in the last election.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 4 2004, 10:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 4 2004, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>. All this pure crap about "second rate citizens" really irks me a lot, or being against "equal" rights. It's just not true. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> If <b>the people</b> do not want marrige to be defined as differently, then they do not have to. I repeat; they do not have to. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So should I not be allowed to legally get married because I'm not religious?
(David Gambell) I Voted for bush because of his strong links to saudi arabian oil dynasties as well as the fact that he upholds the fundamentals of christian morality.
(Edward) which makes him a fundamentalists. He should be a seperatist.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Nov 4 2004, 12:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Nov 4 2004, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> -**** marriage: I, as well as many others believe that institution should be defined as being between a man and woman; I hold it sacred. I see traditional marriage as a stabilizer of society and the best way to raise kids; it should be encouraged and clearly defined. We have tried polygamy and various other forms of domestic partnership; I believe traditional marriage is best out of all the alternatives. I’m open for the states to decide civil unions and allowing 2 people to share accounts, receive benefits etc. It is important to note that the law would not take sexual preference into account. I would not mind for example sisters living together to both receive the same amount rights married couples have. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've gathered from what you've written on the boards (and your name) that you deeply believe that individuals free to make their own decisions will produce a stable economy. It seems though that you feel government regulation is necessary in order for people to form stable relationships. What do you believe is the significant factor that makes this so?
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 5 2004, 09:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 5 2004, 09:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 4 2004, 10:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 4 2004, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>. All this pure crap about "second rate citizens" really irks me a lot, or being against "equal" rights. It's just not true. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> If <b>the people</b> do not want marrige to be defined as differently, then they do not have to. I repeat; they do not have to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So should I not be allowed to legally get married because I'm not religious? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not in the Catholic Church at least <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Marriage should have no place in law. There should be provisions for household relationships but not the relationships based on religious beliefs.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Nov 5 2004, 06:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Nov 5 2004, 06:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 4 2004, 10:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 4 2004, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We don't all live in the economy, and the environment doesn't just belong to America. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. Which is one of the reason I cannot support the Kyoto protocol.
There are chemicals in the air above California that do not meet our environmental regulations. However, no companies in California produce such compounds which is odd because there is no dipute of their existance in the Californian air.
They found out that these compounds were produced by Chinese factories and carried by the jetstream and tradewinds where they gather over California. Until the world can come up with a plan that does not disproportionatly punish the USA I cannot support such an environmental bill.
The US has some of the toughest environmental laws on the books to begin with.
How exactly does marriage work in America? I know from watching Judge Judy (;P) that it helps when it comes to breaking up; people who happen to be "living together" get squat from a break-up, but a divorcing couple get everything split up between them. Is a civil union equal to marriage in the eyes of the law?
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
I just want to add what Forlorn said about Marriage, it's doesnt originate from christianity, it goes way beyond it. I'm okay with *** doesnt get married in church but it should be state-sanctioned.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Nov 5 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Nov 5 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How exactly does marriage work in America? I know from watching Judge Judy (;P) that it helps when it comes to breaking up; people who happen to be "living together" get squat from a break-up, but a divorcing couple get everything split up between them. Is a civil union equal to marriage in the eyes of the law? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> varies from state to state.
Never get married in California. In the event of a divorce your spouse gets 1/2 regardless of the earner.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 11:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 11:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Nov 5 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Nov 5 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How exactly does marriage work in America? I know from watching Judge Judy (;P) that it helps when it comes to breaking up; people who happen to be "living together" get squat from a break-up, but a divorcing couple get everything split up between them. Is a civil union equal to marriage in the eyes of the law? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> varies from state to state. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is also why each State should be allowed to decide on how to handle homosexual marriages and/or civil unions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Nov 5 2004, 11:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Nov 5 2004, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 11:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 11:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Nov 5 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Nov 5 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How exactly does marriage work in America? I know from watching Judge Judy (;P) that it helps when it comes to breaking up; people who happen to be "living together" get squat from a break-up, but a divorcing couple get everything split up between them. Is a civil union equal to marriage in the eyes of the law? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> varies from state to state. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is also why each State should be allowed to decide on how to handle homosexual marriages and/or civil unions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That is what I keep telling people.
I can assure you that what works in Rhode Island isn't what works in Kentucky.
And you can be pretty sure that what people want in Kentucky is not the same thing as in California.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Nov 4 2004, 09:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Nov 4 2004, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, I understand that a president does *not* have a short term impact on the economy. The economic boom of the late 1990's was the result of an unstable phenomenon called the "dot com revolution." It started unravelling while Clinton was in office, and there was nothing that Clinton or Bush could do about it. The government doesn't own the economy; we do. Duh.
However, a president can have a long term impact through what sort of taxation his administration pushes. Bush gave everyone money back. I really dig that and support that. As our economy rises back up, the deficit will fall under control once more. Now, get social spending under control and we're all set. I believe Bush can accomplish some, if not all of those goals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Plenty of people will try to claim that presidents don't have short term effects on the economy. Most of them aren't economists.
People for some reason have the impression that the economy is huge and glacial and takes a long time to shift. This is simply not true. It has been found in statistical studies, that the average time to produce new capital is 1 quarter. This necessarily implies using standard macroeconomic growth models, that 1/4 of a year is enough time to witness the effects of economic policy on the economy. My economics professor last semester just won the nobel prize for using this fact along with changes in total factor productivity to effectively model the volatility of the national economy.
The economic boom of the 1990s had very little to do with the "dot coms." The boom in the stock market did, but the stock market isn't an effective economic indicator, as much as the press likes to think it is (economists don't). If you want real statistics, look at capital production, employment, GDB, etc. The dot coms were not employing a statistically significant number of people in most cases.
Taxation has little to do with long term economic growth if it is not accompanied by a decrease in spending. Classical macroeconomics predicts that a short term tax cut will have absolutely no effect on current consumption. To put this in perspective, Bush didn't stop spending your money. He stopped asking for it first.
Its generally agreed that deficit spending, particularly on this scale, can have a significant depressing effect on the economy. When the government has to borrow money, they are competing with private investment in the money market. This in turn drives up interest rates, slows investment, and in turn inhibits the production of new capital. I'd say the greatest achievement of the Clinton years was the his responsible fiscal policy, and we clearly reaped the rewards of that in economic prosperity.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 11:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 5 2004, 09:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 5 2004, 09:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So should I not be allowed to legally get married because I'm not religious? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not in the Catholic Church at least <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Marriage should have no place in law. There should be provisions for household relationships but not the relationships based on religious beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So then is your opposition to **** marriage just based on the terminology?
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 5 2004, 12:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 5 2004, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 11:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 5 2004, 09:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 5 2004, 09:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So should I not be allowed to legally get married because I'm not religious? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not in the Catholic Church at least <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Marriage should have no place in law. There should be provisions for household relationships but not the relationships based on religious beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So then is your opposition to **** marriage just based on the terminology? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never said I was against **** marriage. Don't assume that just because I debate you I am against what you are supporting. Think of it as a tempering of your words. You propose something, we counter, you change your attack and continue until I do not have a counter for your arguement. It makes your statements much stronger when you give them to someone whom you need to influence.
Back to the **** marriage issue: I don't feel that marriage should be a government institution at all. It is a religious and/or personal choice and decision and attempting to regulate it only brings about problems.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 12:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the **** marriage issue: I don't feel that marriage should be a government institution at all. It is a religious and/or personal choice and decision and attempting to regulate it only brings about problems.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry for making assumptions. We completely agree. I just assumed you were defending Forlorn's position.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Nov 5 2004, 06:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Nov 5 2004, 06:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is a perfect example of what Dems shouldn't do. Basically, I get called "stupid" because my reasons are not valued by the Democratic party.
So now my faith and my religion looses value, and I get called a homophobe in the process.
Oh yes, now I want to vote democratic - after all, they have done so much for me in ridiculing my world view and trying to erode my foundations. Thank you so much for all the "open mindedness" and "freedom" you are promoting. Here, let me go punch a ballot for your fearless leader, Michael M... I mean, John Kerry. Heck, I need four years of having my faith belittled and group huggs around trees.
On a slightly different note, the common consensus around here seems to be that the President should be an Athest - just so no mix of "church" and "state" can happen. I pity our country when we get a godless president. Those without good foundations are frequently blown about by every wind that seems pleasing to them, as seen in the last election. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry I'm not a democrat.
And yes, I think that it's stupid to vote for a president just because he is religious. You do realize that morals are independent of one's religion right? And that the bible says that slavery is ok! Should we use it as a moral guide?!
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And that the bible says that slavery is ok! Should we use it as a moral guide?! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please don't start that in here.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 5 2004, 12:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 5 2004, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry for making assumptions. We completely agree. I just assumed you were defending Forlorn's position. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I like to take on the position of the underdog in a debate. Specifically on this forum there are a lot of people on the 'left' when compared to a slightly smaller, though vocal community of those on the 'right'.
I suppose it just depends on which side of the bed I wake up on in the morning and how rabid the debate seems as to which position I will support. It is one of the reasons I am glad this election is over. I can get back to disliking Bush and not worrying if I would be giving my opponents fodder.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the **** marriage issue: I don't feel that marriage should be a government institution at all. It is a religious and/or personal choice and decision and attempting to regulate it only brings about problems.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this. My question is why 11 states voted to legally define "marriage" as a bond between one man and one woman. Why should the government legislate that?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Nov 5 2004, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Nov 5 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the **** marriage issue: I don't feel that marriage should be a government institution at all. It is a religious and/or personal choice and decision and attempting to regulate it only brings about problems.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this. My question is why 11 states voted to legally define "marriage" as a bond between one man and one woman. Why should the government legislate that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I covered that farther up for a different purpose but it will answer your question so I'll quote myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All through the presses right now the great pulsing brains are waving their exit polls and telling everyone that the Evangelicals are out to convert the Godless. They can justify this by looking at the States who have passed ballot proposals that define homosexual marriage. The Religious Right wants to stand in your bedroom and make sure you don't sin.
The real truth is, people (not just the Christians) don't want unelected judges rewriting legislature from the bench. They're tired of hearing about activist judges who subvert the rule of law and bypass voters and Congress. This is their message but I doubt those who matter will be listening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Nov 5 2004, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Nov 5 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the **** marriage issue: I don't feel that marriage should be a government institution at all. It is a religious and/or personal choice and decision and attempting to regulate it only brings about problems.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this. My question is why 11 states voted to legally define "marriage" as a bond between one man and one woman. Why should the government legislate that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It probably shouldn't. However they were not given that option. In their opinions voting against such a resolution is equivalent to voting FOR defining marriage as between a man/woman and man/women. Perhaps there should have been an option stating that religion, not the government, should define what marriage means?
I am not going to argue for or against their views on marriage as I cannot speak for them. Why did such a vote come up? I cannot say. However, I do not feel that its genesis was isolated. It seems to have been reactionary to what they saw as an attack on their belief systems and their cultures. The recent push for homosexual marriage likely spawned many fears in these states that such legislation/changes could happen in their area. The general speed at which these events were transpiring probably generated much more attention to the topic than would have been generated in the normal flow of events.
Right or wrong, I think that the homosexual community played their hand too soon. Many people are not ready for such a change at this time.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>. All this pure crap about "second rate citizens" really irks me a lot, or being against "equal" rights. It's just not true. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> If <b>the people</b> do not want marrige to be defined as differently, then they do not have to. I repeat; they do not have to.
I find it HILARIOUS that "civil unions" which is pretty much endorsed by enough republicans so it would pass through congress, is rejected by the democrats and **** right advocate say that "civil unions" are descriminatory. Will SOMEONE please tell me how "civil union" is any more discriminatory than "g4y marrige"? The word g4y is used as an insult. Civil union sounds like a nice comprimise that all of society could agree to.
The democrats have carried the "Holier than thou" attitude about g4y marrige in the campgaign, this hurt them a lot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't know a whole lot about this, but essentially I have been echoing this sentiment for a while. I see no reason why homosexual people can't enjoy the benifits of marriage without calling it marriage. Realisticly, most hetro sexual marriages are hardly such. The American government, or any other government for that matter, is being prosumptuos in assuming they have the authority to pronounce a marriage, in the end, if God cares, he can deal with the issue whenever he see's fit, if he doesn't then marriage is just a term. If I was a priest, I wouldn't marry homosexual couples in the sight of God, but if I were a politician, I couldn't care less what any couple was calling themself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The environment hardly needs the economy. If there was no economy at all the environment would be just as well off, if not better off. This statement is purly rehtoric, its like saying "the American government recieves small ammounts of money from the British government, thus we should protect the intrests of the British government over the American government."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to know that the deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Deficits are not big problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't a fact, a small deficit isn't a big problem, but a massive deficit is a VERY big problem. Quote some sourses that THIS deficit isn't a big problem if you want to prove something, but what you said is far from fact.
[edit]grammer
Republicans (and any other applicable parties), this is your chance to tell me why you voted for George Bush. Why am I asking?
I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. I'd love to know that you didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. I want to hear you say that you love the environment, that you want the poor to have a chance to improve their lot in society. I want to know that the deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall. I want to hear you say that people are allowed to think and feel however they want about something, and that the government respects that right. And how the Republican party represents those.
I ask those questions, paraphrased from a friend of mine, because those are what I, as a Democrat, see as the scariest things about the Republican platform. I'm looking for some kind of reassurance that Bush and his friends really *do* have my best interests, and the best interests of the country, in mind. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens. I didn't vote for imperialistic foreign policy. I love the environment. I want the poor to have a chance to improve their lot in society. The deficit isn't going to continue spiralling upward in an inverse free-fall. All people are allowed to think and feel however they want about something, and the government respects that right.
I didn't vote.
But I would of voted Bush.
Even if Kerry DID cut taxes for the Middle Class, it would have been tiny, and barely noticable. Where was he going to get money for all these social programs hes talking about? Our cheques, thats where. I used to live in Canada, and they would take 46% out of my mom and dad's paychecks. We shouldn't of been poor, but we were. Why? Because since their base salaries were above the poverty level, they didn't qualify for tax releive, but all that money we should of had was being taken away for social programs that WE weren't part of. We didn't qualify for Tax Releif, nor did we qualify for Welfare. And we sure as hell didn't use medicare, its not like I was breaking my face every day. Besides, canadian medicare sucks. I would've voted for Bush because my poor family rose out of the mud, into the middle class with hard work, and Bush helped. How you say? You know that "Unjustified" war thats so horrible? It's putting me through college, It is building up our piece of **** house, It is paying for our medical, it is paying for things that we were never able to enjoy in a socialistic "Paradise". Bush will learn from the mistakes he made, and I truely feel he will try and appeal to the democrats more in the next 4 years. I beleive he will get less..."religeous" on some of the moral issues like homosexual marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. His goals in iraq are realistic, and make loads of sense. There will be no draft, because we are training Iraqi's to do the job you guys think we will draft american's to do. (Doesn't matter anyways, I'm joining the Marines when I'm 19 or 20)
All in all, I would of voted Bush because he did a freaking great job of pulling us out of poverty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd like to hear you say you didn't vote for homosexuals to be considered second-class citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>. All this pure crap about "second rate citizens" really irks me a lot, or being against "equal" rights. It's just not true. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> If <b>the people</b> do not want marrige to be defined as differently, then they do not have to. I repeat; they do not have to.
I find it HILARIOUS that "civil unions" which is pretty much endorsed by enough republicans so it would pass through congress, is rejected by the democrats and **** right advocate say that "civil unions" are descriminatory. Will SOMEONE please tell me how "civil union" is any more discriminatory than "g4y marrige"? The word g4y is used as an insult. Civil union sounds like a nice comprimise that all of society could agree to.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not like they would go around saying "we're g@y married!". Duh. They mearly feel that if the law is going to be involved in this sort of thing (and IMO it shouldn't, being an entirely religious thing) then it should at least pretened not to be an entirely religious concept and let people of alternative sexual orientation get married too. Labeling it differently reminds them of the "separate but equal" schools and such for african americans in the past.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The democrats have carried the "Holier than thou" attitude about g4y marrige in the campgaign, this hurt them a lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How so? I mean, the demecratic candidate didn't even support homosexual marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to hear you say that you love the environment<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um... what? Excuse me while I laugh....
----------------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Correct me if im' wrong, but this doesn't seem correct...
A partial-birth abortion is, as far as i know, a full 9-month baby is is killed as being delivered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later.
[...]
3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
bullet The fetus is dead.
bullet The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
bullet The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
bullet The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm
You are wrong. You have been corrected.
<a href='http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just got the chance to look at this article and I remember seeing him speak on CSpan this past Summer. He's wrong.
Or, more appropriately, his premise is wrong. You see, throughout the article there is one underlying factor that he never openly states but assumes completely: Mr. Frank believes that these people and others like them need help from the government and the upper class.
He simply cannot understand why they would turn their backs on those willing to dish out the food stamps and block cheese. These poor, meager, unknowing souls want nothing to do with Mr. Frank, or Mr. Bush, or anyone else who lives more than 20 miles from their home. They don't want their help, they don't want their money, and they sure as Hell don't want their pity. They just want to live their lives as they see fit. Get out of their way, leave them alone, and everyone is happy. The Republican party says they'll get out of the way and give people back their money. That's generally good enough.
Mr. Frank also thinks very highly of himself. And vanity isn't something to look up to in "fly-over country". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how you got there from the article. His main point is that people vote for republicans believing them to be the morals-defending party of the solid American classes, and then that republicans get into office and cut taxes for the rich and do favors for big business. Which is pretty much true. Republicans DO do those things. And looking at the reasons people give for voting republican, morals is right up at the top of the list.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US in generally does not approve of **** marrige. Where do I stand? Marrige is a religious term. Let me say that again. <b>Marrige is a religious term.</b> It IMPLICITLY defines marrige as the union between a <b>MAN</b> and a <b>WOMAN</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marriage may originaly be a religious term, but it's not anymore. It is also not something unique to Christianity. In this day and age, it is a legal contract on (among other things) the economical relationship between two persons. Denying this contract to a group of people may be discriminationg.
On the name of the contract: the term Marriage vs. Civil union might very much matter for religious homosexual people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is very untrue. Economical interests almost always precedes environmental interests. The best profit is made from exploiting the most out of the market and too keep the production efficient at a low cost. There is nothing for a corporation to gain by putting environmental issues above economiocal issues; there's no proffit to be made by it, and that is what the corporations exist for.
<a href='http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just got the chance to look at this article and I remember seeing him speak on CSpan this past Summer. He's wrong.
Or, more appropriately, his premise is wrong. You see, throughout the article there is one underlying factor that he never openly states but assumes completely: Mr. Frank believes that these people and others like them need help from the government and the upper class.
He simply cannot understand why they would turn their backs on those willing to dish out the food stamps and block cheese. These poor, meager, unknowing souls want nothing to do with Mr. Frank, or Mr. Bush, or anyone else who lives more than 20 miles from their home. They don't want their help, they don't want their money, and they sure as Hell don't want their pity. They just want to live their lives as they see fit. Get out of their way, leave them alone, and everyone is happy. The Republican party says they'll get out of the way and give people back their money. That's generally good enough.
Mr. Frank also thinks very highly of himself. And vanity isn't something to look up to in "fly-over country". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how you got there from the article. His main point is that people vote for republicans believing them to be the morals-defending party of the solid American classes, and then that republicans get into office and cut taxes for the rich and do favors for big business. Which is pretty much true. Republicans DO do those things. And looking at the reasons people give for voting republican, morals is right up at the top of the list. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what he says, or more importantly what he believes they're thinking, but that's why he's wrong. The elites like to think they know what the uneducated and uncouth masses REALLY want but they're almost always wrong.
He's built this entire voting theory based on a flawed premise.
Let's take an example. All through the presses right now the great pulsing brains are waving their exit polls and telling everyone that the Evangelicals are out to convert the Godless. They can justify this by looking at the States who have passed ballot proposals that define homosexual marriage. The Religious Right wants to stand in your bedroom and make sure you don't sin.
The real truth is, people (not just the Christians) don't want unelected judges rewriting legislature from the bench. They're tired of hearing about activist judges who subvert the rule of law and bypass voters and Congress. This is their message but I doubt those who matter will be listening.
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't all live in the economy, and the environment doesn't just belong to America.
The pure hatred spewing from the left. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or I can turn that perfectly arround and as make an equally incorrect statement, it's a two way street buddy:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The pure hatred spewing from the right. Rather than trying to understand why people do not agree with them, they just break down in to calling them stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is no doubt a two way street, but there's a major difference in philosophy going around. Conservatives say the phrase "stupid liberal" way less often than we hear "stupid conservative redneck" or some highly sophisticated version of it. Start checking out anti-Bush blogs vs anti-Kerry blogs or websites and you'll start to see what I mean.
We're all trying to get a message across to the Democratic party, and it's just not listening. Back in the 1960's the Democrats were taken over by the formerly small far left wing, who then began to guide the Official stance on things. They lost touch with the average citizen, and this last election just proves it. Overwhelmingly, most independent or moderate Kerry voters were actually voting *against* Bush instead of for Kerry. There's your first sign right there. The Democrats offered up one of the most active Liberals who struggled to make himself more acceptable to mainstream America and came somewhat close to succeeding.
Wake up guys! Clinton was a moderate Democrat who aligned himself more with the people than with the liberals, and he slew every Republican contender. Instead of learning from him, you just ignored his teachings and expected to be elected into office by a grateful and palitable group of people who need your help. It didn't happen. Hmmm...wonder why...
Maybe because they don't need and don't want your help because they can do it better than you?
Yeah, that is probably it.
a. He supports abortion rights.
b. He supports **** marriage.
c. He went against his own church and took communion - shows a complete disregard for religion, and a willingness to use the church to make political statements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are not good reasons to vote against a man. Hey I don't care who you vote for, but for the love of god, don't vote against someone because of a 2000 year old book.
And your problems with homosexuals are downright discriminatory, imo. There's no reason why they shouldn't get the same benefits as a married couple. Call it whatever you want (marriage, civil union, I don't care) but they should get the benefits. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a perfect example of what Dems shouldn't do. Basically, I get called "stupid" because my reasons are not valued by the Democratic party.
So now my faith and my religion looses value, and I get called a homophobe in the process.
Oh yes, now I want to vote democratic - after all, they have done so much for me in ridiculing my world view and trying to erode my foundations. Thank you so much for all the "open mindedness" and "freedom" you are promoting. Here, let me go punch a ballot for your fearless leader, Michael M... I mean, John Kerry. Heck, I need four years of having my faith belittled and group huggs around trees.
On a slightly different note, the common consensus around here seems to be that the President should be an Athest - just so no mix of "church" and "state" can happen. I pity our country when we get a godless president. Those without good foundations are frequently blown about by every wind that seems pleasing to them, as seen in the last election.
But I just want to say one thing.
That article bob posted, it talks about a republican media bias?
What the hell is he smokin???
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=74861' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...showtopic=74861</a>
So should I not be allowed to legally get married because I'm not religious?
I Voted for bush because of his strong links to saudi arabian oil dynasties as well as the fact that he upholds the fundamentals of christian morality.
(Edward) which makes him a fundamentalists. He should be a seperatist.
I've gathered from what you've written on the boards (and your name) that you deeply believe that individuals free to make their own decisions will produce a stable economy. It seems though that you feel government regulation is necessary in order for people to form stable relationships. What do you believe is the significant factor that makes this so?
So should I not be allowed to legally get married because I'm not religious? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not in the Catholic Church at least <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Marriage should have no place in law. There should be provisions for household relationships but not the relationships based on religious beliefs.
The economy is what protects the enviroment, therefore the economy can come first. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't all live in the economy, and the environment doesn't just belong to America. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Which is one of the reason I cannot support the Kyoto protocol.
There are chemicals in the air above California that do not meet our environmental regulations. However, no companies in California produce such compounds which is odd because there is no dipute of their existance in the Californian air.
They found out that these compounds were produced by Chinese factories and carried by the jetstream and tradewinds where they gather over California. Until the world can come up with a plan that does not disproportionatly punish the USA I cannot support such an environmental bill.
The US has some of the toughest environmental laws on the books to begin with.
varies from state to state.
Never get married in California. In the event of a divorce your spouse gets 1/2 regardless of the earner.
varies from state to state.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is also why each State should be allowed to decide on how to handle homosexual marriages and/or civil unions.
varies from state to state.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is also why each State should be allowed to decide on how to handle homosexual marriages and/or civil unions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is what I keep telling people.
I can assure you that what works in Rhode Island isn't what works in Kentucky.
And you can be pretty sure that what people want in Kentucky is not the same thing as in California.
However, a president can have a long term impact through what sort of taxation his administration pushes. Bush gave everyone money back. I really dig that and support that. As our economy rises back up, the deficit will fall under control once more. Now, get social spending under control and we're all set. I believe Bush can accomplish some, if not all of those goals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plenty of people will try to claim that presidents don't have short term effects on the economy. Most of them aren't economists.
People for some reason have the impression that the economy is huge and glacial and takes a long time to shift. This is simply not true. It has been found in statistical studies, that the average time to produce new capital is 1 quarter. This necessarily implies using standard macroeconomic growth models, that 1/4 of a year is enough time to witness the effects of economic policy on the economy. My economics professor last semester just won the nobel prize for using this fact along with changes in total factor productivity to effectively model the volatility of the national economy.
The economic boom of the 1990s had very little to do with the "dot coms." The boom in the stock market did, but the stock market isn't an effective economic indicator, as much as the press likes to think it is (economists don't). If you want real statistics, look at capital production, employment, GDB, etc. The dot coms were not employing a statistically significant number of people in most cases.
Taxation has little to do with long term economic growth if it is not accompanied by a decrease in spending. Classical macroeconomics predicts that a short term tax cut will have absolutely no effect on current consumption. To put this in perspective, Bush didn't stop spending your money. He stopped asking for it first.
Its generally agreed that deficit spending, particularly on this scale, can have a significant depressing effect on the economy. When the government has to borrow money, they are competing with private investment in the money market. This in turn drives up interest rates, slows investment, and in turn inhibits the production of new capital. I'd say the greatest achievement of the Clinton years was the his responsible fiscal policy, and we clearly reaped the rewards of that in economic prosperity.
So should I not be allowed to legally get married because I'm not religious? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not in the Catholic Church at least <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Marriage should have no place in law. There should be provisions for household relationships but not the relationships based on religious beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So then is your opposition to **** marriage just based on the terminology?
So should I not be allowed to legally get married because I'm not religious? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not in the Catholic Church at least <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Marriage should have no place in law. There should be provisions for household relationships but not the relationships based on religious beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So then is your opposition to **** marriage just based on the terminology? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said I was against **** marriage. Don't assume that just because I debate you I am against what you are supporting. Think of it as a tempering of your words. You propose something, we counter, you change your attack and continue until I do not have a counter for your arguement. It makes your statements much stronger when you give them to someone whom you need to influence.
Back to the **** marriage issue: I don't feel that marriage should be a government institution at all. It is a religious and/or personal choice and decision and attempting to regulate it only brings about problems.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for making assumptions. We completely agree. I just assumed you were defending Forlorn's position.
So now my faith and my religion looses value, and I get called a homophobe in the process.
Oh yes, now I want to vote democratic - after all, they have done so much for me in ridiculing my world view and trying to erode my foundations. Thank you so much for all the "open mindedness" and "freedom" you are promoting. Here, let me go punch a ballot for your fearless leader, Michael M... I mean, John Kerry. Heck, I need four years of having my faith belittled and group huggs around trees.
On a slightly different note, the common consensus around here seems to be that the President should be an Athest - just so no mix of "church" and "state" can happen. I pity our country when we get a godless president. Those without good foundations are frequently blown about by every wind that seems pleasing to them, as seen in the last election. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry I'm not a democrat.
And yes, I think that it's stupid to vote for a president just because he is religious. You do realize that morals are independent of one's religion right? And that the bible says that slavery is ok! Should we use it as a moral guide?!
Please don't start that in here.
Sorry for making assumptions. We completely agree. I just assumed you were defending Forlorn's position. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like to take on the position of the underdog in a debate. Specifically on this forum there are a lot of people on the 'left' when compared to a slightly smaller, though vocal community of those on the 'right'.
I suppose it just depends on which side of the bed I wake up on in the morning and how rabid the debate seems as to which position I will support. It is one of the reasons I am glad this election is over. I can get back to disliking Bush and not worrying if I would be giving my opponents fodder.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this. My question is why 11 states voted to legally define "marriage" as a bond between one man and one woman. Why should the government legislate that?
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this. My question is why 11 states voted to legally define "marriage" as a bond between one man and one woman. Why should the government legislate that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I covered that farther up for a different purpose but it will answer your question so I'll quote myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All through the presses right now the great pulsing brains are waving their exit polls and telling everyone that the Evangelicals are out to convert the Godless. They can justify this by looking at the States who have passed ballot proposals that define homosexual marriage. The Religious Right wants to stand in your bedroom and make sure you don't sin.
The real truth is, people (not just the Christians) don't want unelected judges rewriting legislature from the bench. They're tired of hearing about activist judges who subvert the rule of law and bypass voters and Congress. This is their message but I doubt those who matter will be listening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this. My question is why 11 states voted to legally define "marriage" as a bond between one man and one woman. Why should the government legislate that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It probably shouldn't. However they were not given that option. In their opinions voting against such a resolution is equivalent to voting FOR defining marriage as between a man/woman and man/women. Perhaps there should have been an option stating that religion, not the government, should define what marriage means?
I am not going to argue for or against their views on marriage as I cannot speak for them. Why did such a vote come up? I cannot say. However, I do not feel that its genesis was isolated. It seems to have been reactionary to what they saw as an attack on their belief systems and their cultures. The recent push for homosexual marriage likely spawned many fears in these states that such legislation/changes could happen in their area. The general speed at which these events were transpiring probably generated much more attention to the topic than would have been generated in the normal flow of events.
Right or wrong, I think that the homosexual community played their hand too soon. Many people are not ready for such a change at this time.