Bush Proposes New Amendment to Congress

[punks united]

Okay....George Bush proposed an ammendment today to add to the U.S. Constituion, making same sex maririages illegal or uncostitutional.


My thought on this is I agree, but I know many other people won't...so what are your opinion?


XOXO Nikki

[busybeeburns]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)

[el_scorcho]

I don't agree but I don't live in the U.S. anyway so it doesn't matter to me.

[rf_ucsd]

I couldn't agree less.

I don't see the harm in letting same sex couples wed. It doesn't make the partnershpi of a man and a woman mean less. It doesn't harm a heterosexual couple in any way if homosexuals are allowed to wed.

I thought today was a very sad day for the country. I think years from now we'll look back on this day as a day similar to Gov. Wallace standing in front of the classrooms at the University of Alabama, attempting to keep black students out.

[Professor Peedston]

i think that same sex marriages should be, in the eyes of the government, the same as marriages between a man and a woman. as long as there are government benefits attached to marriage, it's just as unconstitutional to deny same sex couples of that right as it is to deny, say, blacks or hispanics that right.

and don't give me this "civil union" crap either, remember "blacks only" water fountains and restaurants? basically the same thing. seperate but equal = unconstitutional

[Professor Peedston]

and once again richard beat me to the punch. :lol:

[punks united]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

[punks united]

I couldn't agree less.

I don't see the harm in letting same sex couples wed. It doesn't make the partnershpi of a man and a woman mean less. It doesn't harm a heterosexual couple in any way if homosexuals are allowed to wed.

I thought today was a very sad day for the country. I think years from now we'll look back on this day as a day similar to Gov. Wallace standing in front of the classrooms at the University of Alabama, attempting to keep black students out.


but see the country and constitution have roots in christianity and same sex marriages aren't okay in the religion so technically it's going against the principles

[rf_ucsd]

I couldn't agree less.

I don't see the harm in letting same sex couples wed. It doesn't make the partnershpi of a man and a woman mean less. It doesn't harm a heterosexual couple in any way if homosexuals are allowed to wed.

I thought today was a very sad day for the country. I think years from now we'll look back on this day as a day similar to Gov. Wallace standing in front of the classrooms at the University of Alabama, attempting to keep black students out.


but see the country and constitution have roots in christianity and same sex marriages aren't okay in the religion so technically it's going against the principles

so maybe 200 years ago the amendment would have been a good idea.

the constitution has explicit language about government not endorsing religion, so the religion argument doesn't really work.

[Professor Peedston]

yeah, that's another thing that always bugs me.

[rf_ucsd]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)

Bush is trying to force his opposition's hand on this issue (in addition to appease a conservative base). He's trying to force Kerry to jump off the fence he's been sitting on. It will be interesting to see Kerry try and stay on that fence.

[punks united]

Well the way i see it the U.S. is primarily Christian and the fact of the matter is no matter how many other religions are here ...the majority rules just like in India they would look primarily to Hinduism.....i know the religion argument may not seem like enough to back it up with...

[busybeeburns]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

[punks united]

yeah, that's another thing that always bugs me.

religion??

[rf_ucsd]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

Thus numbers are wrong.

[Jewel]

Intolerant is the only word that comes to my mind. :rolleyes:

[rf_ucsd]

From msnbc.com:

"A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role. "

Here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4360783/

[busybeeburns]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

Thus numbers are wrong.

how so?

[Valleyboy]

Ah, I'm not a big fan of this "people from the same sex getting together" idea but... i think it is soo wrong to prohibit em from doing it. Like, if you're a man and you like another man, that's your problem. people are free to do whatever they want... well... that's what i think.


"Bring down, the government... they don't.. they don't speak for us."

[rf_ucsd]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

Thus numbers are wrong.

how so?

64% of people don't agree with gay marriage.

That's not the same as supporting amendeding the Constitution.

Above you see that less than 50% of the public even wants the federal government to handle it. I imagine less than 100% of those people want the government to do something.

I couldn't find a source for this, but I saw on CNN today that they did a poll where 39% of people support amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

[punks united]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

Why do people think that stuff that people or politicians do that sometimes don't favor the majority is propaganda????? Please let me know..... :embarrased:

[Professor Peedston]

yeah, that's another thing that always bugs me.

religion??

no, the idea that religion somehow has a place in politics.

i'm not accusing anybody here of doing this, but this whole thing reminds me of how people i know will look at arabic countries and talk about how the islamic religion is too closely integrated with the government, then five minutes later reject same sex marriages on the basis that it offends their christian ideals.

as for the whole "majority rules" thing, should the majority still rule if the majority supports something that's essentially unconstitutional? "marriage" may be a religious concept, but the fact remains that it's also a government institution, and if the government will let married people have benefits like tax breaks and insurance breaks, etc etc, it is WRONG to deny that to ANYBODY.

[rf_ucsd]

yeah, that's another thing that always bugs me.

religion??

I think Tom was alluding to officals evoking religion when the Constitution is pretty clear about it.

[rf_ucsd]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...


I don't admire people with these principles being acted upon. I respect his view, as a person, that gay marriage is wrong. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with him thinking government should outlaw this.

[';']

Okay....George Bush proposed an ammendment today to add to the U.S. Constituion, making same sex maririages illegal or uncostitutional.


My thought on this is I agree, but I know many other people won't...so what are your opinion?


XOXO Nikki
i agree

and it has nothing to do with religion.

[busybeeburns]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

Why do people think that stuff that people or politicians do that sometimes don't favor the majority is propaganda????? Please let me know..... :embarrased:

how can it not be propaganda with it occurring so close to a presidential election!!

[Jewel]

yeah, that's another thing that always bugs me.

religion??

no, the idea that religion somehow has a place in politics.

i'm not accusing anybody here of doing this, but this whole thing reminds me of how people i know will look at arabic countries and talk about how the islamic religion is too closely integrated with the government, then five minutes later reject same sex marriages on the basis that it offends their christian ideals.

as for the whole "majority rules" thing, should the majority still rule if the majority supports something that's essentially unconstitutional? "marriage" may be a religious concept, but the fact remains that it's also a government institution, and if the government will let married people have benefits like tax breaks and insurance breaks, etc etc, it is WRONG to deny that to ANYBODY.

*agrees*

[rf_ucsd]

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)



but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

Why do people think that stuff that people or politicians do that sometimes don't favor the majority is propaganda????? Please let me know..... :embarrased:

how can it not be propoganda with it occurring so close to a presidential election!!

I agree with you Ian, that Bush is being too populist here, but let me give the opposing argument:

In California and Massachusetts there are somewhat major movements to make "gay marriage" legal. Actually, in Massachusetts it is now legal. Bush could be said to be responding to this turn of events, a turn that has just recently presented itself.

[punks united]

thank u ginger....


And just to let u guys know...CNN is a liberal news station so of course they are going to be biast in one way....i just think that this thing should not be allowed

[busybeeburns]

this is what I don't understand about America, all the states seem 'independent' of one another. For example, its legal to gamble in Las Vegas but the bordering state deems it illegal. Have I got that right? :o

[Jewel]

I don't wanna criticize/attack anyone here, but what would be so bad about homosexual couples being married? I don't really see what negative effect that would have.

[rf_ucsd]

thank u ginger....


And just to let u guys know...CNN is a liberal news station so of course they are going to be biast in one way....i just think that this thing should not be allowed

Just because you think CNN is a "liberal news station" doesn't mean their poll data should be discredited.

Evoking arguments like "liberal news station" is a little too judgemental, a little to prejudicial, a little too Rush Limbaugh.

[rf_ucsd]

I don't wanna criticize/attack anyone here, but what would be so bad about homosexual couples being married? I don't really see what negative effect that would have.

People are arguing that it undermines the sanctity of marriage.

I obviously disagree, but they're saying "marriage" has a set definition.

[rf_ucsd]

this is what I don't understand about America, all the states seem 'independent' of one another. For example, its legal to gamble in Las Vegas but the bordering state deems it illegal. Have I got that right? :o

You have that right.

The Constitution of the United States is a very small document governing a relatively small number of issues. The 13th "rule" states that the individual states have domain over all other things.

And those other things encompass a lot, the gambling example included.

Bush wants to add to this ovearching Constitution.

[Jewel]

I don't wanna criticize/attack anyone here, but what would be so bad about homosexual couples being married? I don't really see what negative effect that would have.

People are arguing that it undermines the sanctity of marriage.

I obviously disagree, but they're saying "marriage" has a set definition.

That (the sanctity thing) sounds so medieval. :stunned: It reminds me of the times when red-haired women were considered witches. :-/

[punks united]

Thanks cuz i really like being compared to Rush Libaugh..... :/


But anyways Jewel....it's not that it will hurt anyone...it's just that well morally it is wrong to Bush and to a lot of other people.....

[punks united]

this is what I don't understand about America, all the states seem 'independent' of one another. For example, its legal to gamble in Las Vegas but the bordering state deems it illegal. Have I got that right? :o


In the states, each state each has it's own rights sepearate from the Federal Government, so it can make it's own laws which are proposed to legislation, so Nevada can deem gambling legal while a bordering state can deem it illegal.

[rf_ucsd]

Thanks cuz i really like being compared to Rush Libaugh..... :/


But anyways Jewel....it's not that it will hurt anyone...it's just that well morally it is wrong to Bush and to a lot of other people.....


I didn't mean to compare you to Rush ... just automatically called CNN liberal or Fox conservative doesn't seem to be a clear, let alone stipulated, concept.

Yeah, a lot of people do believe it is morally wrong. But is it right for those people to legislate that?

[Jewel]

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times, long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:

[mycdplayerisbroke]

i agree with bush

[rf_ucsd]

I don't wanna criticize/attack anyone here, but what would be so bad about homosexual couples being married? I don't really see what negative effect that would have.

People are arguing that it undermines the sanctity of marriage.

I obviously disagree, but they're saying "marriage" has a set definition.

That (the sanctity thing) sounds so medieval. :stunned: It reminds me of the times when red-haired women were considered witches. :-/


That's really what it comes down to. Basically, Christians in this country strongly feel that marriage is a certain thing, and allowing homosexuals to be "married" destroys that concept.

[punks united]

Well we have to look at who has the "real" power here...and this would be congress and Bush...Bush has the right to propose an ammendment not having to ask the people what they think...


and as far as labeling the news stations....CNN is conservative a lot of the time they are showing one side of the issue like the war in Iraq the only focused on the bad side of the war and all but Fox just told it like it was...didn't give an opinion either way

[rf_ucsd]

Well we have to look at who has the "real" power here...and this would be congress and Bush...Bush has the right to propose an ammendment not having to ask the people what they think...


and as far as labeling the news stations....CNN is conservative a lot of the time they are showing one side of the issue like the war in Iraq the only focused on the bad side of the war and all but Fox just told it like it was...didn't give an opinion either way

So Fox is objective and CNN is now?
OK. That's your opinion.
I would suggest worrying more about the content of the news and less on how it's being delivered. It really sounds like you're towing a party line.

[punks united]

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times, long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:


yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???

[mycdplayerisbroke]

cnn is so not conservative

[rf_ucsd]

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times, long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:


yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???


What does it have to do with now?
Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people.

And it's wrong.

[punks united]

Well we have to look at who has the "real" power here...and this would be congress and Bush...Bush has the right to propose an ammendment not having to ask the people what they think...


and as far as labeling the news stations....CNN is conservative a lot of the time they are showing one side of the issue like the war in Iraq the only focused on the bad side of the war and all but Fox just told it like it was...didn't give an opinion either way

So Fox is objective and CNN is now?
OK. That's your opinion.
I would suggest worrying more about the content of the news and less on how it's being delivered. It really sounds like you're towing a party line.


Towing a Party Line??

[rf_ucsd]

cnn is so not conservative

People are always throwing around conservative, liberal, etc ... I don't see much of a difference between CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the networks ... I don't know. It just seems like this big blame game to start labeling them.

[Jewel]

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times, long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:


yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???


What does it have to do with now?
Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people.

And it's wrong.

what you said :)

Btw, I think it's really good that we can talk about this without ending up in arguments. *thumbs up*

[rf_ucsd]

Well we have to look at who has the "real" power here...and this would be congress and Bush...Bush has the right to propose an ammendment not having to ask the people what they think...


and as far as labeling the news stations....CNN is conservative a lot of the time they are showing one side of the issue like the war in Iraq the only focused on the bad side of the war and all but Fox just told it like it was...didn't give an opinion either way

So Fox is objective and CNN is now?
OK. That's your opinion.
I would suggest worrying more about the content of the news and less on how it's being delivered. It really sounds like you're towing a party line.


Towing a Party Line??

Yes.

I'm not suggesting that's a bad or a good thing.

[rf_ucsd]

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times, long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:


yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???


What does it have to do with now?
Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people.

And it's wrong.

what you said :)

Btw, I think it's really good that we can talk about this without ending up in arguments. *thumbs up*

I agree. And I totally see punk's point of view.

I hope we can maintain civility moving forward.

[punks united]

what do u mean by it??

[mycdplayerisbroke]

cnn is communist as far as im concerned
haha
i usually watch fox and the orielly factor
(effects of being raised in a republican household)

[punks united]

Same here Eric......but the funny thing is my aunt is democratic borderline liberal so we have some interesting debates :)


and i don't know about Cnn being communist...that's just a little harsh to say

[rf_ucsd]

cnn is communist as far as im concerned
haha
i usually watch fox and the orielly factor
(effects of being raised in a republican household)

I watch Fox sometimes.
I watch CNN sometimes.
I watch Chris Matthews.
I watch Tim Russert.
I watch George Stephanopolous.
I watch Jim Lehrer.

I think that's about it. Probably my favorite political pundit right now is Peggy Noonan.

[punks united]

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times, long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:


yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???


What does it have to do with now?
Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people.

And it's wrong.

what you said :)

Btw, I think it's really good that we can talk about this without ending up in arguments. *thumbs up*

I agree. And I totally see punk's point of view.

I hope we can maintain civility moving forward.


i think we can....and u can call me nikki if u want :)

[rf_ucsd]

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times, long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:


yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???


What does it have to do with now?
Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people.

And it's wrong.

what you said :)

Btw, I think it's really good that we can talk about this without ending up in arguments. *thumbs up*

I agree. And I totally see punk's point of view.

I hope we can maintain civility moving forward.


i think we can....and u can call me nikki if u want :)

Cool! That's good to know. I'm Richard.

[punks united]

coolness....okay...


Back to the issue at hand

[mycdplayerisbroke]

if i want material i'll watch fox but if i want headliner things like little tidbits at the bottom of the screen then its CNN

[punks united]

right :)

But I guess what the real issue seems to be here is if religion should be used to support ammendments...right?

[musiclover]

I don't like where Bush is going with this...he is being maniacal by bringing his own personal religious beliefs into government.

I don't accept this proposal, and I will vote him out of office come November! :angry:

[mycdplayerisbroke]

bah!
polls say a large majority dont like the idea of gay marriages

are you gay musiclover?

[rf_ucsd]

bah!
polls say a large majority dont like the idea of gay marriages

are you gay musiclover?

That's true, but the poll MSNBC is reporting on says while 63% are opposed to gay marraige only 36% support a Constitutional Amendment.

It seems that people like the idea of it being handled on a state-by-state basis.

[mycdplayerisbroke]

yeah
well for my state arizona,
there would be mad gay marriages
seeing as the govenor is a lesbian...

[mycdplayerisbroke]

im not even kidding
openly lesbian

[musiclover]

bah!
polls say a large majority dont like the idea of gay marriages

are you gay musiclover?


no, I'm not gay, Eric. All the same, just because I am liberal in my thinking and I support gay rights doesn't make me out to be a gay, not that there's anything wrong with being one...but i'm not!


as to your reasoning about majority supporting 'defense of marriage' or are against gay marriage....the point is, laws can't be made based upon what some arbitrary majority thinks. In 1800s, I'm sure a majority of people in America totally supported slavery....so does that make it okay?
Laws should be made that are equitable to all humans....based on the principle that a secular government should not care what you do in your private home, which includes: whom you sleep with, whom you pray to, etc.

[mycdplayerisbroke]

if i was in lived in the south i wouldve supported slavery too
not all slave owners were horrible people
when the lincoln pass the slave law or whatever many wanted to stay with their owners
and that was their way of live (slave owners) that was their manual labor.
they need slaves to do the crop things
you cant really compare marriage with slaves

[musiclover]

what Bush has done is moralize on marriage when he has no right to be doing so...as I'm sure many people know, Bush was an alcoholic and not a great husband in his early married life.

Instead of giving surmons on marriage, Bush should busy himself and his underlings with real issues facing America, such as the actual fight on terror, the jobless economy, the devastation of our natural resources, etc.
:rolleyes:

[mycdplayerisbroke]

k lets not sidetrack from slavery...

[t170ceo]

There's a reason that gay marriage, abortion, and other issues like this are so hard: It's whether government should set basic moral values for the people of America, or if we're going to be truly "free", and let people do whatever they please (within reason).

Personally, I guess I'm against it. Gays marrying...weird...where? Las Vegas? :idea2: But what I'm also against is discriminating against gays/lesbians in any way. I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

How Bush got into Harvard is beyond me. Of course, if I was president, people would be wondering that about my preschool.

[musiclover]

if i was in lived in the south i wouldve supported slavery too
not all slave owners were horrible people
when the lincoln pass the slave law or whatever many wanted to stay with their owners
and that was their way of live (slave owners) that was their manual labor.
they need slaves to do the crop things
you cant really compare marriage with slaves


Eric...where did you read this? :stunned: :o I went to a southern university for my degree, and the history i was taught, even there, was that nobody in their right mind can now say that slaves willingly stayed on to be slaves even after they were proclaimed free. To say that not all slave owners were bad, or that slaves actually enjoyed their slavery is to perpetuate a myth that has no moorings in reality.

In fact, the most famous and inglorious example of a slave owner was our 'great' Thomas Jefferson himself. This guy not only denied freedom to his slaves, but, when one revolted against him, Jefferson sold the slave for pennies to a slave-trader and demanded that this wretched man be sold to a sugar plantation in Jamaica...then, a renowned place for "hell on earth" for slaves.



Now coming to your argument that slavery can't be compared to gay marriage:

I am looking at this from purely legal perspective. Not moral or religious, but legal. Remember, the 'kind' slave owners you're talking of also held up the Bible as their saving grace to own slaves (Bible allows slavery!). Thus, just like a majority of voters in 1800s America supported slavery (voters then were of course only white males!), a majority of voters in 21st century America might support outlawing gay marriage.
But that doesn't make it right or equitable.

If you want a country based on Bible laws, you might want to start looking into how Saudi Arabia is faring nowadays...a country strictly following the Koran...

laws in the name of some religious edits are all pretty much bigoted...against some group or another....and so, it's best to leave out religion when making laws.

Otherwise, you would also have to start allowing Muslims to have 4 wives like they're allowed under the Koran...and also allow Mormon men to marry their underage neices 'cuz their religion allows it!

[mycdplayerisbroke]

and also allow Mormon men to marry their underage neices 'cuz their religion allows it!

wow you're completely wrong on that
im mormon and that was done with more than a century ago
mormon's dont practice piligamy now :idea2:

[mycdplayerisbroke]

btw mormon is a slang term but i dont expect you to know that :idea2:

[punks united]

How is it a slang term Eric??


And Music Clover...check the definiton of marriage...The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


so does this include two men or two women no...so if they were to allow gay marriage they would have to allow for a man and a little boy to get married, a person and an animal...they would have to change the whole idea for everyone...so logically it makes sense.

[mycdplayerisbroke]

im a member i think i would know if it's slang or not....

[punks united]

sorry dude...i didn't know that there was a different name....what is the proper term Eric??

just so i can be politically correct

[mycdplayerisbroke]

haha i dont really mind
we call ourselves mormons
but LDS is the politcally correct term
dont worry about it _____, i forget your name

[punks united]

Nikki


and yeah i remember now isn't Latter Day Saints...they show those commercials promoting those videos and the book of mormon....

and is that the i'm guessing the drummer Fab of the strokes??on ur av??

[Professor Peedston]

How is it a slang term Eric??


And Music Clover...check the definiton of marriage...The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


so does this include two men or two women no...so if they were to allow gay marriage they would have to allow for a man and a little boy to get married, a person and an animal...they would have to change the whole idea for everyone...so logically it makes sense.

back when only white men could vote, you had to be white and a man to vote. if they somehow managed to change it so that blacks, women, etc., could also vote without allowing children and animals or whatever else to vote, you don't think they could do the same for marriage?

[Professor Peedston]

and yes i know it's different because there's no religious connotation to voting, but i think a big problem is that people can't seem to separate the religious practice of marriage from being legally married in the eyes of the government.

[soleil]

i used to be against same sex marriage. somehow it seems contrary to the whole survival of the fittest/species theory... if that makes any sense. now i known someone who is gay, and that makes me think.. but i think i am still somehow against it.

[punks united]

well the definiton of voting applies to everyone and the dfiniton of marriage applies to specifically a man and a woman so no it isn't the same...

[Professor Peedston]

did you read what i said? the definition of voting, IN THE EYES OF THE GOVERNMENT, DID NOT always apply to everyone.

it's only that way now because the constitution was changed.

[Professor Peedston]

and if you look at the US constitution right now, there is nothing specifying a marriage as between a man and a woman, which is what Bush is proposing right now (he wouldn't have to propose it if it already said it, right?)

[mycdplayerisbroke]

and is that the i'm guessing the drummer Fab of the strokes??on ur av??

close but its albert from the strokes :cool:

[punks united]

right but the i DID READ what u said but all government issues put asside....the TRUE definiton of marriage is between a man and a woman....

[Professor Peedston]

but this thread was started to talk about government issues. in my mind, what you or i or anybody else perceives as the "true" definition of marriage is completely irrelevent. you may not believe in same sex marriages, but that doesn't give anybody the right to discriminate against gays.

(besides, a TRUE marriage also lasts "until death do us part," right?)

[punks united]

okay what does till death do us part have to do with anything??


besides this is about the government....and I do not discriminate against gays...i merely don't agree with it....and besides the definiton of marriageis not what i percieve it as well it is but u can look it up in the dictionary....

[Professor Peedston]

the till death do us part thing has to do with the fact that i think you're interpreting it too literally. if a marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's what the dictionary or the bible or whatever says, then what's to say that we can't interpret the "till death do us part" thing literally and make divorces illegal too? obviously, that's a ridiculous idea, and that's been outdated for centuries, but at one point, that's how it was. and i think that gay marriages will ultimately be the same way.

and yes, if you look up "marriage" in a dictionary right now, you will see "a union between husband and wife," but i think the dictionary is outdated, and that if you look it up in 100 years, you won't see that distinction. (and i still think that the dictionary definition is something completely separate and distinct from the government definition, so it doesn't matter)

[mycdplayerisbroke]

did you know the spartan soldiers were gay?

[Sternly]

the till death do us part thing has to do with the fact that i think you're interpreting it too literally. if a marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's what the dictionary or the bible or whatever says, then what's to say that we can't interpret the "till death do us part" thing literally and make divorces illegal too? obviously, that's a ridiculous idea, and that's been outdated for centuries, but at one point, that's how it was. and i think that gay marriages will ultimately be the same way.

I know this has nothing to do with the issue about gays, but Divorce is ilegall here, and our lives go just like everyone's else life :D .

[rf_ucsd]

bah!
polls say a large majority dont like the idea of gay marriages

are you gay musiclover?


no, I'm not gay, Eric. All the same, just because I am liberal in my thinking and I support gay rights doesn't make me out to be a gay, not that there's anything wrong with being one...but i'm not!


as to your reasoning about majority supporting 'defense of marriage' or are against gay marriage....the point is, laws can't be made based upon what some arbitrary majority thinks. In 1800s, I'm sure a majority of people in America totally supported slavery....so does that make it okay?
Laws should be made that are equitable to all humans....based on the principle that a secular government should not care what you do in your private home, which includes: whom you sleep with, whom you pray to, etc.

Time has a strange way of tell us what is right and what is wrong. Some people thing that the "principle that a secular government should not care" is "what some arbitrary majority [or minority] thinks." Both sides of the argument seem to think that there is an underlying truth: that God's law is truth or civil liberty should be treated as truth.

Truth is nothing more than acceptance of an event. If something is universally accepted it becomes truth or fact. Is God true? Who knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can know. So why do we try to act as if there is a right or a wrong beyond what we, as a society, agree to be governed by? Possible because we feel better when we live in a world where we can have certain "rights," but as it concerns government that just may not be possible.

[rf_ucsd]

How is it a slang term Eric??


And Music Clover...check the definiton of marriage...The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


so does this include two men or two women no...so if they were to allow gay marriage they would have to allow for a man and a little boy to get married, a person and an animal...they would have to change the whole idea for everyone...so logically it makes sense.

Clearly that is not the only definition of marriage, thus the debate.

The argument that allowing a man to marry a man would lead to man/boy or man/animal is a little insulting. There are many accepted laws in the society which distinguish a person who is of age from a person who is now, let alone laws which govern treatment of animals. I don't use the word insulting flippantly there: How do you expect to carry on a real dialogue as long as you bring up weird scenarios like that?

Logically, to me, it makes sense to allow consenting adults to engage in behaviours which they feel better their life provided they do not pose a potential risk to mine. This is a basic idea behind liberty. If there is anything this country was supposed to start for, it is this. The first Europeans to colonize this region of the continent came over to avoid religious persecution. But this policy infringes upon liberties: there's no way around that.

The debate seems to be whether that infringement is worth it.

[rf_ucsd]

okay what does till death do us part have to do with anything??


besides this is about the government....and I do not discriminate against gays...i merely don't agree with it....and besides the definiton of marriageis not what i percieve it as well it is but u can look it up in the dictionary....

Nikki: Words evolve. Clearly the idea of marriage can be applied to more than just a man and a woman. Whether that's ethical or moral is another debate.

[rf_ucsd]

the till death do us part thing has to do with the fact that i think you're interpreting it too literally. if a marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's what the dictionary or the bible or whatever says, then what's to say that we can't interpret the "till death do us part" thing literally and make divorces illegal too? obviously, that's a ridiculous idea, and that's been outdated for centuries, but at one point, that's how it was. and i think that gay marriages will ultimately be the same way.

I know this has nothing to do with the issue about gays, but Divorce is ilegall here, and our lives go just like everyone's else life :D .

I'm not so sure those people who would benefit by a divorce would agree with you. I can only image what inhibiting divorces does for rate of births out of wedlock, domestic violence and homocide, not to mention an overall inhibition on the quality of life for those people who would like the liberty being denied.

[musiclover]

ahh...i was waiting for someone to spring that man-dog relationship idea..how novel! :rolleyes:

Eric, sorry, I didn't mean to use 'mormon' as a hurtful way or in a derogatory manner. I do know that properly, they're called The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints, but really, I thought it was just as well to use 'Mormon' and not mean harm. Sorry!

As far as polygamy, I do realize that LDS outlawed it in late 1800s in order to conform with the common civil code of the U.S. However, there still are many cases of such polygamous relationships in Utah and it's border areas. One glaring example was showcased by ABC's 20/20 (or was it CBS ?) a few months ago, where even the government prosecutor agreed that people were turning a blind eye to such relationships unless a battered child came to the police...
i'm sure it's a rare occurance though. and again, it is outlawed by the LDS. but my point in bring it up was to point out that even religion doesn't have one coherent idea of what a marriage is supposed to be.

As to other issues brought up, I think Richard and Mr. Peed did a wonderful job of answering those! :-) wish I were here when this went down...could have contributed.

and yes, actually, divorce was outlawed as late as 1990 in courtries like Chile; Argentina allowed legal divorce about that time as well. China too doesn't allow divorce to this day, AFAIK.

so you see, you can't quote just one piece of bible and say gay marriages can't be allowed when the fact is 50% of all marriages in America end in divorce...


not to mention that the 'marriage' we're talking about is a secular marriage, something in the eyes of government. it is so that health benefits, legal rites, succession, etc., can be carried on by those who wish to be gay couples. It is completely separate from any idea of 'marriage' in religious terms. Also, if you bring up religion in this matter, then why only talk of the bible? What about Koran, Bhagvad Gita, Dhammapada, etc? I'm sure all these other sacred books talk of how to live a righteous life! :idea2: Since when are we trying to push certain christian ideas down peoples throats? :rolleyes:

[musiclover]

remember, if you want to talk of u.s. government actions in terms of religion, then:
religion DOES NOT EQUAL christianity
religion = christianity, hinduism, buddhism, islam, atheism/humanism, jainism, sikhism, vodoo, zen, shinto, tao, judaism, etc...

are u willing to come up with an idea of marriage that's the same in the eyes of all these religions? i bet you won't be able to. in which case, the only other option is, to talk of marriage in secular terms, as far as government is concerned. nobody is forcing you to marry another guy... (or girl) as the case may be...

[bart]

agrees with bush on this one, but he has a agendga

[musiclover]

i used to be against same sex marriage. somehow it seems contrary to the whole survival of the fittest/species theory... if that makes any sense. now i known someone who is gay, and that makes me think.. but i think i am still somehow against it.


ummm...the last time i checked, humanity was not in any danger of getting extinct due to lack of reproduction. :/ :rolleyes:

and, there are certain historical documents that relate to the theory (i don't know if it's indeed a fact) that about 10% of human population has always been gay.

i wonder if this survival of fittest/species theory would be talked about when every other month some state education board threatens to redact the Darvinian theory and replace it with christian creationism... :rolleyes:

lastly, if you do think only in scientific terms, then you would agree that to this point, there has been no other species on Earth to challenge the humans' superiority.

[musiclover]

and yep, Eric, the Spartan soldiers were indeed gay, as was the high society of Athens. In fact, Spartan male children were forced to separate from their mothers and family home and instead were reared in some kind of soldier barracks, always getting prepared to fight in the city Phalanx. There was a wonderful PBS show on this 2 Sundays ago...at least in our region...

but, these same men were never allowed to continue their gay relationships. The society of that time allowed gay relationships, but also demanded marriage with women in order to have procreation... 'cuz afterall, Athens was a city-state...didn't have a big population...it also had slaves who couldn't vote and were always feared for possible rebellion...so needed free men...

but societies change.

[Jewel]

What do those who are against homosexual marriages (as related to the religious aspect) think about official marriage-like relationships between homosexual partners that allow them to be in a different tax class or enjoy other benefits a married heterosexual couple might get?

[musiclover]

actually, the Massachusetts state supreme court rejected this idea of having a separate piece of paper giving homosexual couples 'civil unions', on the basis that it is not equal to a 'marriage.' and in the eyes of the law, all u.s. citizens are equal.

i'm not gay, so i don't know how gays would react to such a possibility. i don't care for it either way...

[Jewel]

So they reject this because it is not equal to marriage, but when it comes to marriage they're just excluded? :huh:

[rf_ucsd]

What do those who are against homosexual marriages (as related to the religious aspect) think about official marriage-like relationships between homosexual partners that allow them to be in a different tax class or enjoy other benefits a married heterosexual couple might get?

They tend to be divided. This solution does appease some of the critics; however, others are just against the idea of homosexuality and thus don't want to give same-sex couples any rights. In that sense, many people don't think Bush has gone far enough for his amendment still leaves a legally recognized union betweeen people of the same sex that is not called marriage.

[musiclover]

nooo...well, mass. supreme court just made this decision like last week...and they can't also write a new law. that now has to be done by mass. legislature, and they would have to. that's why there were so many protests in boston last week.

and then last week, san francisco city government started giving out marriage licenses to gay couples....so that's why now everyone is talking about this topic.

i hope some equitable means are found to accomodate everyone. :/

[Jewel]

I just don't think it's fair to treat homosexual people like this, it's like some kind of punishment. "So you want those benefits? Well, only if you become hetero." :confused:

I'm no lesbian, obviously (see sig :P ), but my half sister is, and if she or any other homosexual people wanted to marry or be in a similar official relationship, I'd want them to be happy and to make it possible.

[musiclover]

oh..i didn't know your half-sis was lesbian. steph?

[musiclover]

and yep, i agree with you...she should be able to live life just as anyone else. nothing specially more or less.

[CityandColour]

Okay....George Bush proposed an ammendment today to add to the U.S. Constituion, making same sex maririages illegal or uncostitutional.


My thought on this is I agree, but I know many other people won't...so what are your opinion?


XOXO Nikki

I think it is good if he is going to do it. I'm not agains't same sex couples, but they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Marriage is something between a man and a woman. Period.

That's my opinion so don't go trying to change it.

[musiclover]

don't go trying to change your opinion? okay..i won't! :) :D

but, it is only an opinion, afterall :cool:

[CityandColour]

:rolleyes:

[musiclover]

:D :P

i like the new twix ads, btw... "mix it up!" :lol: have you seen those?

[CityandColour]

Yes... their my adds. Their advertising me. :P :wink3: :sneaky: :shocked:

[musiclover]

:D :P
i like your new crunchier avatar! :sneaky: :lol: :lol:

[t170ceo]

The Spartan soliders were gay? I knew it! I KNEW IT! Mwahahaha. Now that's just funny, considering how much of our society is based on ancient Greek culture. I love finding things out that your elementary school history teachers never told you. I probably didn't even know what gay was back then.

[mycdplayerisbroke]

yeah my elemantary school history teacher was gay too.. for real
but seriously
the spartan trainers would fondle the young kids and they'd just grow up to do it to the other trainees

[t170ceo]

Hey, a question for everyone. Gays: Do you think they're born with it, or is it a choice? My sister and I agree that it's a choice, although I've heard otherwise (this, unlike drug addictions, is arguable). :D

[mycdplayerisbroke]

its a choice
who would choice to be gay though
that is the question :huh:

[t170ceo]

Where do you find this stuff out? Hilarious...Yeah, at our elementary schools, we had lunch aides that would also supervise recess. And there was only one guy, and everybody looked up to him (although he yelled at me once for wandering off of the grounds with my friends, but that's beside the point), but now that I think about it, he was as gay as it gets. And my one friend, who went to a different elementary school, had a fifth grade teacher that would sing "one banana, two banana, three banana, four...I saw a big banana walkin' through the door"...and would dance on his desk. No wonder my friends are so messed up. What was I saying? Oh yeah, the Spartans. I always thought it was weird how the two genders would spend so much time separately.

[punks united]

i
yeah my elemantary school history teacher was gay too.. for real
but seriously
the spartan trainers would fondle the young kids and they'd just grow up to do it to the other trainees


yeah we learned that in my world history class that when the spartan boys would go to train for the army they would be assigned a mentor and a lot of the time the mentors became much more...yuck
agree too


there is a true story where this guy was said by his family to have the qualities of a homosexual even when he was a littlt toddler, but when he was an adult, he got into a car crash and lost all memory of being homosexual...so see u aren't born that way.

[mycdplayerisbroke]

yeah but they were the strongest army in the world
maybe the US military needs to be gay?
:cool: :huh:

[t170ceo]

its a choice
who would choice to be gay though
that is the question


I agree, I've never understood it. I had a gay kid hit on me this year, and in gym class too. *shudder* :/

[punks united]

yeah....that would be kinda weird...but see they aren't evil psycho people.....but the choices they make i don't agree with

[t170ceo]

yeah we learned that in my world history class that when the spartan boys would go to train for the army they would be assigned a mentor and a lot of the time the mentors became much more...yuck
agree too


yeah but they were the strongest army in the world
maybe the US military needs to be gay?


Haha. With all of the rape cases and "don't ask, don't tell" junk, our military is just exploding.

[t170ceo]

I think I've only met about two or three openly gay people in my life, and two are in my grade at school. The one dude's cool, but the other's just annoying, thinks everybody is either gay or lesbian, has a messed up fantasy world.

Don't take it the wrong way...I have nothing against them, I'm just really not comfortable around a lot of gay people.

[musiclover]

ummm...an intervention here! :idea2: :lol:

i never took psychology ever in all my studies...but i've browsed thru such books, and actually, whether you believe it or not, trans-sexuals and homosexuals may be born with 'it', and some end up hiding it and even get married and have kids 'cuz they don't have to face up to their sexual reality.

i don't really know whether it is a choice or it's in-born. and even if it is a choice, then whether it is hardly a choice at all or more like the hard-wiring of their brains to be attracted to fellow men (or fellow women)...

i dunno :/

[CityandColour]

:D :P
i like your new crunchier avatar! :sneaky: :lol: :lol:

uh, thanks.... but, um... crunchier?

[musiclover]

yeah...'avatar' in general sense means 'new life' 'reincarnation of oneself'...of the new twix bar with crunchier cookie is pretty cool! :cool:

[mycdplayerisbroke]

i have to play this crappy song by something leif
you had him in your avatar the first time i got on here twix
or light foot
thats it
carefree highway

[t170ceo]

ummm...an intervention here!

i never took psychology ever in all my studies...but i've browsed thru such books, and actually, whether you believe it or not, trans-sexuals and homosexuals may be born with 'it', and some end up hiding it and even get married and have kids 'cuz they don't have to face up to their sexual reality.

i don't really know whether it is a choice or it's in-born. and even if it is a choice, then whether it is hardly a choice at all or more like the hard-wiring of their brains to be attracted to fellow men (or fellow women)...

i dunno


Yeah, my dad had a friend like that, and he finally realized it and went through a state of depression and got divorced, but still sees his kids a lot and talks to his wife. Poor guy.

[rf_ucsd]

I tend to think whether there is a biological basis for homosexuality doesn't matter. If somebody choses to be a homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual it doesn't affect my life. Since it doesn't affect my life attempts on my part to hinder their ability to execute their choice seems inappropriate. If they were coming into my church demanding to be wed that's one thing. The church could bar them. But the country isn't a church.

[soleil]

Yes, I know that my statement had nothing to do with the intent of this thread. I was just giving my opinion in general.
But seeing that some people get married just to have a greencard, I can see that it shouldn't matter if homosexuals get married in court.

Oh, no Richard's going to ream me now..

[rf_ucsd]

Why do you think I'm going to ream you? :(
Gaby hurts Richard. :(

:D

[soleil]

:(
...
not really.

You like to argue. :D

[rf_ucsd]

But I agree with you.
Oh, Gaby ... you know which buttons to hit. :P

[soleil]

:cool: That's good. ;)
Still have to figure out what other buttons you have....

[rf_ucsd]

You'll find out eventually. Don't worry.
I'll probably end up telling you in time.
I don't really see you being able to find any.

[soleil]

Not being able to find any? You don't get angry/hurt much?

[rf_ucsd]

Not really, but what I was hinting at the fact that you're personality is such that I think you're too nice and kind to really push my buttons.

[soleil]

Ahhh.. okay, then you just wait and see. ;)

[rf_ucsd]

No, Gaby! Don't try!

Please :embarrased:

[soleil]

Whatever to the :embarrased:
You're such a good faker. :confused:

[rf_ucsd]

No, I'm serious.
I don't like the idea of you trying to press my buttons.

[soleil]

:cool:

Why? Less control?
:P :sneaky:
Or it'll ruin my nice image?

[rf_ucsd]

More the latter, but that doesn't quite hit on it because I know you wouldn't be approaching it with the intent to hurt me. I guess I don't like the idea of me potentially having a reason to think anybody but the best of you.

Boy ... that's a pressure-filled statement, huh? Well, it's not as lofty as it sounds, but if you started playing with me trying to press my buttons I'd probably be disappointed.

[soleil]

Well, I guess I don't know many of them yet, so you don't have to worry. :P
And I'm not into trying to get you pissed off anyways. I'm not into trying to get anyone on this board pissed off.

Thanks for the high expectations.

[rf_ucsd]

Those high expectations are your fault.

We were talking about weaknesses - That's another one of mine: I tend to think too highly or people and expect to much of them. This leads to me being hard on them when they feel to live up to high expectations.

Oh, boy. I should delete that.

[soleil]

I don't think you should delete it. :cool:
I pretty much have no expectations of people. That way I'll never be dissapointed. That can be a bad thing too I think.

[rf_ucsd]

Yeah ... that's probably why you tolerate me.

But I guess, ideally, people's expectation levels would be somewhere between yours and mine.

[mycdplayerisbroke]

where is mine?

[soleil]

Yes, that would be ideal.

I no. I don't just "tolerate" you. :dozey:
I don't think anyone just "tolerates" you. I think you can see that.

[rf_ucsd]

Eric: I have pretty high expectations for you because I see some potential there.

Gaby: I know you don't just tolerate me, though I don't know other people's views well enough to say if I'm tolerated, appreciated, despised or something else. I imagine if varies a little. As long as you and a few others are cool with me, I'm doing OK.

[soleil]

I didn't even see Eric's post. Whoops. :stunned:
Yes, I have high expectations for him too. He definitely has potential. Bit time.

I really don't think anyone despises you. Well, I can think of one person who you could probably guess. And I think how people respond to you should show you whether or not they just tolerate you.

[rf_ucsd]

Yeah .... I have some friends on this board, and it's super cool :) I also have some enemies on this board, but those enemies were cultivated through good intentions gone bad.

[soleil]

Good intentions gone bad.. I think I may leave that one alone.

[rf_ucsd]

What were you thinking?

[soleil]

Maybe I shouldn't get into that here.... Plus I'm sure there are situations that you had that I don't know about..

[rf_ucsd]

PM me about it then. I'm curious.

[soleil]

Hmm...

[rf_ucsd]

Cheater!
BTW, nice use of the "Hmm ..."
I wonder where you picked that up :D

[soleil]

Hey I've always used Hmmm.. Haven't I??

Yes, I have. :/ :confused:

[rf_ucsd]

Survey says:


BUZZER!


Ooooooh ... sorry Gaby.

[soleil]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I know I have before dammit. :angry: :lol:

[rf_ucsd]

Hey ... don't get profane with me, Ms. Varg. Geez! Such language I've never heard from you!

[musiclover]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20040226/cm_usatoday/amendmentiswrongwaytoresolvesocialcontroversy

Amendment is wrong way to resolve social controversy

(a USA Today op-ed piece)

[punks united]

I don't know if this has been said yet, but if people are really born gay, then why aren't they able to reproduce with eachother....

[rf_ucsd]

Because they're gay.

[punks united]

no duh...that's the point!

they aren't made that way....they choose to be....meaning if they can't reproduce together it is logical to say they are not born that way

[rf_ucsd]

What do you mean by "made that way"?
Your bias here is that you feel procedation is a necessary condition for marriage.
It seems like marriage and reproducing are not necessarily intertwined.
There is a lot of scientific evidence to support the "born that way" point. There is more scientific evidence for that then there is the existence of God. You don't need faith to see that there is a physiological set of conditions which are consistent with those who identify themselves as homosexuals. It doesn't require faith.

Quite frankly, if people are willing to believe you in your claims there is a God, you should believe them in there claims that they're gay. Both conclusions require a certain level of trust in the way the other person sees the world.

[punks united]

ur not getting it...it has nothing to do with God...what i am saying is in nature to keep the species alive u must reproduce...and that only happens btw a male and a female....so if say everyone said they were gay..then the human race would completely die out...do u see what i am saying?

[musiclover]

ummm...you don't know how the complex human biology and psychology works, okay!
and what is your point anyways? even if it's their choice, what do you have against it?

and actually...do you have any choice as to who you feel attracted to?? :rolleyes: i can tell you that for me, i can't tell my mind to feel attracted to only a certain subset of girls...no matter what my society has to say about that! :embarrased: :(

you don't know what all these people go through in their lives for having a mind that gets them attracted to fellow men or fellow women, on top of the fact that society tries to snub them....

just think about it...u get peer pressure even for how u are supposed to dress and look. imagine what these people must be going thru when their mind tells them they feel attracted to a guy (or a girl) while the whole society around them tells them to feel attracted to the opposite sex.

it can't be fun!

just try to think from their viewpoint...and have some empathy instead of mouthing out some rubbish written down 2000 years ago....

[punks united]

okay....first off i am christian so obviously i don't see being gay as okay and second of all everybody has those feelings where they are confused and all....but it is a matter of acting on those attractions that u choose to do...i don't believe that God made people gay..i think it is a chosen lifestyle...and u can sit here and say that i am mouthing out some rubbish but is simply what i believe..nothing more

[rf_ucsd]

ur not getting it...it has nothing to do with God...what i am saying is in nature to keep the species alive u must reproduce...and that only happens btw a male and a female....so if say everyone said they were gay..then the human race would completely die out...do u see what i am saying?

I see what you're saying.

Two things:

1) You view isn't really a good argument as to why homosexuality is a choice or doesn't exist. All you're saying is that homosexuality is inconsistent with reproduction. I think we can all agree to that.

2) The argument that "if we were all gay" is another huge, inappropriate, red herring. From an evolutionary prespective, that would explaing why homosexuals make up such a small portion of the population. If you think of homosexuality as being akin to the expression of an allele, those number make complete sense. Just a certain small percentage of the world is prone to sickle cell anemia or albnoism, a certain small percentage could be prone to a sexual preference. All three of the conditions mentioned in that sentence are consistent with a "made that way" approach.

[rf_ucsd]

okay....first off i am christian so obviously i don't see being gay as okay and second of all everybody has those feelings where they are confused and all....but it is a matter of acting on those attractions that u choose to do...i don't believe that God made people gay..i think it is a chosen lifestyle...and u can sit here and say that i am mouthing out some rubbish but is simply what i believe..nothing more

i hope nobody thinks what you're saying is rubbish. i don't.
i just don't agree.

[musiclover]

okay....first off i am christian so obviously i don't see being gay as okay and second of all everybody has those feelings where they are confused and all....but it is a matter of acting on those attractions that u choose to do...i don't believe that God made people gay..i think it is a chosen lifestyle...and u can sit here and say that i am mouthing out some rubbish but is simply what i believe..nothing more


this is what is wrong with today's evangelical/born-again christians. they want to foist their worldview upon everyone else.

i'm a fundamentalist Hindu, but I don't go tell others what God supposedly wants or doesn't want.

if you're christian, then just order your life around your ideas of perfection...but that shouldn't allow you to drive a whole country's government business on your personal religious views, should it?

if bush feels so nice about being a christian, he should do so in his personal life, not when he's running the White House...that's all i'm saying. I'm not gay, I don't have any friends that are gay, nor any family members. But I still feel empathy for them, and if the U.S. says that it is the land of the free and land of equality, then all its laws should be equal to everyone.

[punks united]

no that was music clover

[rf_ucsd]

no that was music clover

yeah, i knew you were refering to musiclover, but i wanted to make sure you knew that your views are respected.

[musiclover]

i think it's 'rubbish' to bring one's personal religious beliefs to one's place of work, specially when one is running the entire country's business. i'm not saying anything bad about christianity or christian teachings.

sorry for the confusion.

[punks united]

well....i think that it is okay since ...well the U.S. is christian and is founded that way...yeah it may seem unprofessional but....

[rf_ucsd]

Nikki: There is explicit language in the Constituion regarding religion. How do you reconcile that with your view of the U.S. being "christain"?

[punks united]

well..it is who founded the first colonies ??

that would be the puritans...i know u have freedom of religion but the u.s. was founded on christian priciples...

[musiclover]

U.S. is not "based" on Christian values, just as India is not "based" on Hindu values, even though the population of believers in each country is approximately the same. but both these countries are multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and secular, "secular" being the driving word!

you can say U.S. has a Christian ethos, and obviously it does.

but it's not a christian land...in fact, the ways some other religions are spreading in here, i doubt it will remain christian in 50 more years.... :/ :confused:

[rf_ucsd]

well..it is who founded the first colonies ??

that would be the puritans...i know u have freedom of religion but the u.s. was founded on christian priciples...

That didn't answer my question.
If the country is so Christian, how do you explain the Constitution restricting the influence of any religion on government?

[rf_ucsd]

U.S. is not "based" on Christian values, just as India is not "based" on Hindu values, even though the population of believers in each country is approximately the same. but both these countries are multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and secular, "secular" being the driving word!

you can say U.S. has a Christian ethos, and obviously it does.

but it's not a christian land...in fact, the ways some other religions are spreading in here, i doubt it will remain christian in 50 more years.... :/ :confused:

The U.S. was founded on Christian values. This is true.
The U.S. is even based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. This is also true.

The founders, though, seemed pretty concern about government endorsement of religion after the Church of England was forced up their ancestors. The language of the constitution seems to be a pretty clear indication that they felt that church should be separate from religion.

I'm not sure, however, that this even matters now.

[musiclover]

i doubt you would want to live the way the first colonials lived! :lol: and in fact, i doubt you would want to live in a country strictly run by christian principles....it would be quite boring, to say the least! :dozey: :D

but that's side-tracking a bit.

what matters is what is in the constitution. and there, it's clear that the founders wanted a total separation of church/state.

[punks united]

because everybody has equal rights

but it does not say that same sex marriage is legal which is the whole point of this thread

[musiclover]

The U.S. was founded on Christian values. This is true.
The U.S. is even based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. This is also true.


i've heard many people say this. could you enlighten me on this issue, for i don't know of any single example that can illustrate such a 'christian values' founding. as of now, i am more of the opinion that if at all, this country was founded by people who were deeply religious...i will accept that. but what's so special about a judeo-christian ethic that's not the same in some other religions? i can learn something here :)

[musiclover]

because everybody has equal rights

but it does not say that same sex marriage is legal which is the whole point of this thread


nope, it's not explicit about it...that's why the debate :D
it all depends on one's viewpoint and one's interpretation of the founding values, and whether in fact such founding values can/should change over time.

afterall, it doesn't say there that slavery is illegal or legal...it just says all men are equal in the eyes of the law...it was men of that time who construed that blacks were not humans! or if they were, then they were only 3/5ths human (a slave man counted for 3/5ths of a vote...).

[punks united]

but does it specifically say that marriage is between two men or two women or a man and a women?

no but there are laws that do...

and moreover the whole point of Bush proposing the amendment is that so that he can clear that up that marriage can only be between men and women..

[rf_ucsd]

The U.S. was founded on Christian values. This is true.
The U.S. is even based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. This is also true.


i've heard many people say this. could you enlighten me on this issue, for i don't know of any single example that can illustrate such a 'christian values' founding. as of now, i am more of the opinion that if at all, this country was founded by people who were deeply religious...i will accept that. but what's so special about a judeo-christian ethic that's not the same in some other religions? i can learn something here :)

Our money, our national anthem, our pledge of allegiance all evoke God.
The oath you take in the stand in court evokes God.
These are all constructs accepted at the birth of our nation.
It's important to note that these not only illustrate the importance of God in the lives of the founder but that they are also not in the Constitution as law.

[punks united]

here is something i found:
"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity."

[punks united]

"Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

[rf_ucsd]

That's great.

Of course, that ignores the fact that if they really felt that way they would have had adopted language in the governing document that said as much.

[rf_ucsd]

I want my room to be painted white. I then paint it blue.

What are you to infer?

[musiclover]

well, 'God' isn't a copyrighted word of Jews and Christians.
Nor is 'God' an invention belonging only to Jews and Christians.

'God' belongs to all religions.

the pledge of allegiance is not even 100 years old, and the same goes for the money. these things were added during the McCathy anti-communism era, if i'm not mistaken. and they certainly aren't in the Constitution, as you say.

now you can say that for the founders at least, 'God' meant a Judeo-Christian god, but still, as you say, they were wise enough to not stamp their personal religious views on the constitution. thus, the constitution can't be said to have a judeo-christian basis.

[punks united]

well u really don't know...u could only use incuctive reasoning....as to why painted ur room blue



and with religion not being in the constitution it said that it would be too contriversial an issue so they stayed away from it

[rf_ucsd]

The simple fact is that we have a blue room. You're suggesting the room is white because that's what we wanted. Fact is we painted it blue, so discussing as if it's white isn't really productive.

[punks united]

what???

does that have to do with what we are talking about?

[musiclover]

see..that's why the confederation didn't last long! :D

and yep, religion is indeed controversial...even now.

and now at least, not insignificant numbers of citizens are against the government having to do anything with religion...so...

[rf_ucsd]

We painted the room blue = we created a constituion w/o religious governence

You're suggesting the room is white = You think we go have a religious government

Fact is we painted it blue = We can see that we go not have a religous government

so discussing as if it's white isn't really productive. = you're talking about something that doesn't exist

[punks united]

but with bush as pres now...we kinda do

[musiclover]

Indian democracy long-standing but flawed: US

Press Trust of India

Washington, February 26: The US has said that the democracy in India is long-standing but flawed with allegations of corruption influencing court decisions, violence in some elections and restrictions on religious and academic freedom.

The US state department, in its annual report released on Wednesday, said tension between Hindus on the one hand and Muslims and Christians on the other remained a challenge to India's secular formation.

The leading party in the government coalition, the report noted, is the BJP, a Hindu nationalist political party with links to Hindu extremist groups that were implicated in violent acts against Christians and Muslims.

However, it added, the BJP is an independent political party and the degree of RSS influence over its policy-making was not clear.

Among India's shortcomings, the report listed violence in some of the elections; allegations that corruption influenced court decisions; police atrocities; atrocities by both government forces and militants, including foreign militants, in Kashmir and elsewhere and restrictions on religious and academic freedom.

In 71 closely typed pages, the report alleged that it was reported that members of the BJP, the RSS and other affiliated organisations "harassed and at times threatened the use of violence against Christians and Muslims."

"The BJP and RSS officially expressed respect and tolerance for other religions. However, the RSS in particular opposes conversions from Hinduism and believes that all citizens should adhere to Hindu cultural values. The BJP officially agrees that the caste system should be eliminated, but many of its members are ambivalent about this," the report said.

"Tension between Muslims and Hindus, and between Hindus and Christians," the report said, "continued to pose a challenge to the secular foundation of the state."

It said Hindus had also been victims of violence and referred to the bomb attacks in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai last August in which 44 people were killed.




hah! this coming from a Christian fundamentalist-influenced republican government!

perhaps India should come out with a report on how the U.S. democracy, though long-standing, is flawed, and is in ever-present danger to turning into a christian fundamentalist theocracy! :rolleyes:

[musiclover]

punks, if you follow demographic changes, you would know to be prepared for ever-increasing diversity among Americans :) America will be where India is now, in terms of diversity, in a few more decades. Then we shall see how American democracy works :/ :stunned:

[musiclover]

Bush is only a temporary president...at most 4 more years. constitution is a living document. he can't be allowed to tweak it in such ways.

[punks united]

well..okay i take back saying that our costitution is based on religion and i know that the majority of our gov is neutral as far as religion goes but that does not mean that right now the gov is being influeced by our openly christian pres

[musiclover]

punks, Bush is the one who started the Faith-based Initiative, where he doles out tax-payer money to Christian organizations for services that are normally conducted by secular NGOs.

that's just one example of how Bush is bringing his personal beliefs to government.

another is this State department annual report, an example of which is reproduced above. These annual state dept. reports didn't talk about 'christian persecution' or any such things until Bush came to power. It's alienating American allies because frankly, this is considered external interference in a country's internal matter. No wonder India didn't send any troops to Iraq this time around.

[musiclover]

he has set up an office of 'religious feedom' or some such title that tracks persecution of christians in other countries, but that doesn't say a word about persecution of followers of other religions, or of persecution commited by christians against others.

he only says he's a 'uniter, not a divider', where as almost all his actions divide people. it is unfortunate that he got to be president though gore won the popular vote. :/

[punks united]

i don't see how his beliefs are hurting anyone...and i think that India had other reasons other than his belief system getting tied into the govmnt

[musiclover]

his beliefs are hurting those who don't want to be forced to attend a church before they can get help from a faith-based organization--which gets funded from tax-payer money.

it is almost forced proselytization, and unless it doesn't concern you, you would be blind to it, or in fact even encourage it.

the foreign policy...the less the said, the better....it's in tatters :stunned: i can't see how, for example, bush can be chummy with the pakistani military dictator while scold india about its democracy! :rolleyes:

[punks united]

he does not do that....

[musiclover]

i've not read substantial pieces on this yet, partly perhaps, 'cuz the program is quite new.
but i have seen it on tv...on "NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS, and it wasn't nice. :dozey:

[punks united]

oh...

[Evori]

i hate bush!!
i hate his little friend J.M. Aznar! go out!! :angry:
they are so pathetic! :lol:

[punks united]

fine then!

[musiclover]

Jose Maria Aznar!

i never saw a guy having 'Maria' as middle name before! :lol:

[punks united]

yes u have jk..

[Angel at his table]

I don't like Bush, he still thinks that he can do everything what he wants... :(

[punks united]

it's not that...he does what is right...

[musiclover]

I'm dumbfounded by such blind faith...an idol worship, of Bush by so many Americans. :stunned: :confused:

[punks united]

i don't idolize him by any means...i do admit that he hasn't made right choices at times but overall i think he has done more good....

[musiclover]

he has ruined the environment, his energy policies are kept in secret and aren't right, he started a war for wrong reasons, he has yet to bring bin Laden to justice, he has burned a big hole in the Treasury when in fact he had inherited a budget surplus, his education policy is ruinous and even republican governors are fighting against it, he has presided over unbridled media concentration under few hands, and the list goes on...

he has only served his personal and party interests, not the nation's interest, i'd say.

[punks united]

War for wrong reasons...do u even know why he started it???

Here's what u say: Because he wanted to steal their oil..

and i say: no, because Saddam is a psycho maniac who had concetration camps and tortured people if they weren't for him....who hid his weapons and labs...that were by the way found

then you say: oh but so many people were killed and he is just a big bully...a war monger if i dare say

the i say: what would happen if we hadn't gone to war...then we would have a big problem on our hands...one that might even result in wwIII

then you say: he had no right and blah blah blah

[rf_ucsd]

Nikki, I respect all your views, but I have to ask this: In what was, if any, do your views differ from Bush's? From the Republican platform?

[punks united]

i don't know....um.....

[';']

:lol:

[punks united]

y the laughing ginge?

[musiclover]

War for wrong reasons...do u even know why he started it???

Here's what u say: Because he wanted to steal their oil..

and i say: no, because Saddam is a psycho maniac who had concetration camps and tortured people if they weren't for him....who hid his weapons and labs...that were by the way found

then you say: oh but so many people were killed and he is just a big bully...a war monger if i dare say

the i say: what would happen if we hadn't gone to war...then we would have a big problem on our hands...one that might even result in wwIII

then you say: he had no right and blah blah blah


you pre-judge me! that's funny, though! :lol:

as opposed to some others who may take that line of thinking, I'm for the most part, pragmatic about America's foreign policy.

the reason i said that bush fought this was for wrong reasons is beacuse as things have turned out, courtesy time, he was wrong to be blurting out all sorts of reasons for going after saddam.


as for u saying that saddam was a bad man, i agree. but this war was still un-needed and it has taken our attention away from other higher-priority issues....such as finding Laden.

anyways...i'm tired of saying the same things to every new bush supporter that comes on here. we had a war thread on here...someone should look it up and link it so punks dearest can get to see a different worldview, a more salient one, i might add!

[punks united]

what if punks has made her own views and does not think that music clover is right ?

[musiclover]

everyone is entitled to his/her views, i say. :cool:

but there can only be one truth, rite? :)

[punks united]

yeah i suppose....

[musiclover]

i've tended to switch from being republican to being democratic and vice-versa, depending on issues.


actually i really love Ralph Nader...though i know he doesn't stand a chance of winning! :(

[punks united]

lol....yeah...i like all the jokes about Howard Dean....and then were gonna go to rhode island....

[musiclover]

middle of nowhere...that would be Kentucky! :idea2:

[punks united]

lol....not really i live in antartica!!!! go penguins!

[musiclover]

penguin 1: i thought you were wearing a suit
penguin 2: what makes you so sure i'm not!



:lol: :lol:

[punks united]

lol...penguin 3: :D

[musiclover]

u shud read the jokes thread i had created...! :D

[punks united]

jokes?

[musiclover]

yeah..u know....funny stories.... :lol:

[punks united]

oh me stupid not....what jokes? tell me one

[musiclover]

i'll try and find that thread...hold on

[punks united]

k

[musiclover]

it's there...but i see you're offline now :( but now i too should go...it's getting late!

[punks united]

yeah...i'm watching friends

[musiclover]

oh god...i always missed it this season...oh well, my sister's bigger fan of it than i am. i love Seinfeld the way she loves friends! :rolleyes: :D

[punks united]

:)

[musiclover]

Howdy! :D

[berrywoman]

I thought I'd bump this thread for old times sake...

yet another one of Bush's great ideas... ahh bless! :lol:

[brandon313]

"but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in..."


NO!!! people dont seem to get that there is something called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. and for people who dont know what that means, it means that religious beliefs are to be kept out of the political decision making process. Just because he is a christian and it is against christian beliefs doesnt give him the right to push his beliefs on other people! that is exactly what he is doing! The constitution garuntees that everyone is equal, is not letting a certain group of people wed equal??? its like they arent even people!!! what the hell!?! am i the only one who notices this???

you cant push your christian beliefs and morals on other people, it isnt a question as to what is right or wrong, he thinks its wrong in his own way, but that is because christians believe it is wrong. But what do you think non christians think? ever think about that? not everyone is christian! you cant do that and i hope people piss all over his approval rating for it, what is it now......36%? wait no....34%?? yea i think thats it

[MrLick]

"but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in..."


NO!!! people dont seem to get that there is something called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. and for people who dont know what that means, it means that religious beliefs are to be kept out of the political decision making process. Just because he is a christian and it is against christian beliefs doesnt give him the right to push his beliefs on other people! that is exactly what he is doing! The constitution garuntees that everyone is equal, is not letting a certain group of people wed equal??? its like they arent even people!!! what the hell!?! am i the only one who notices this???

you cant push your christian beliefs and morals on other people, it isnt a question as to what is right or wrong, he thinks its wrong in his own way, but that is because christians believe it is wrong. But what do you think non christians think? ever think about that? not everyone is christian! you cant do that and i hope people piss all over his approval rating for it, what is it now......36%? wait no....34%?? yea i think thats it

our nation was founded on god and some of our earliested leaders and founders used their religious views to make key decision in america. i dont agree with pushing your religion on people, that pisses me off but i just think people have taken the seperation of church and state too far. which is better then taking religion in politics too far because that is a very dangerous combination.