Grr I hate living in the bible thumping texas..Follow

But it's ok for you to force people to be governed by views they don't share? Just as long as you agree, right?

Just checking.

The point is not that I disagree with teaching evolution or that I disagree with gay marriage. I don't. My point is that there will always be somebody that is forcing their views on others who don't agree with them.

Ambrya is one of those people but instead of admitting it she tries to forge moral high ground where there is none. Neither side can claim it because they're both doing the same thing. Both sides try to claim it because they're doing the right thing.

Face it. You will always be governed by somebody else's views. Whether you share those views or not will vary over the years, but there will invariably be somebody out there that doesn't share them.

i never saw what the big deal was about not letting gay people marry or join the military. whats the point of defending freedom if only a select few get to enjoy it.

Ev'ry sperm is sacred

I just watched that today.

Maybe she got the e-mail as a chain letter and was just trying to avoid the curse of breaking the chain. Them chain letters are teh debil.



Be sure to add a foot note: "This sign is part of the other 20%" just to preempt any potential accusation of you being a retarded farmer.

In CA we have a measure on the special election ballot next month regarding a doctor having to notify a minor’s parents 48 hours prior to performing an abortion. I don’t think this is going to help anything at all.

Abortions were taking place prior to them being legalized. What has changed is the procedure is now done in a sterile environment by a licensed physician/nurse practitioner. There are fewer complications and fewer deaths (of the mothers. Head that off right now) due to bleeding and infection. Banning abortions again will just lead to them happening in back alleys and motel rooms like they were before. The problem I have is so many women/girls using abortion as a form of birth control. Abortion should be a last resort. Condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal gels, and “birth control” pills are birth control. Abstinence and surgical sterilization are the only 100% pregnancy prevention. I don’t think abortion should be banned, but what we need to do is start teaching personal responsibility.

As for gay marriage, my suggestion would be this:

Civil Union defined as a union of 2 (or more) adults (having all the rights and responsibilities of what marriages are today) performed by state authority: Justice of the Peace, Ship’s Captain, etc.

Marriage defined as a Civil Union performed under the authority of a religious institution.

If churches are opposed, they don’t have to perform the ceremony nor recognize the marriage. Hell, there are Catholic churches now that don’t recognize inter-faith marriages. So the couple finds a church that accepts them.

I love children and would love one day to be a mother but the one thing I feel strongly about is that it isn't my business to force people to not have abortions. Whatever their reasoning, the consequences are theirs to deal with same as with most other lifestyle choices (with the extreem exceptions of Murder or Rape)
With the current advances in Medical Technology the fetus can now be viable at a younger age (5 months) of course some risks are higher and more heartbreaking, it is the parents choice to choose what they feel is best for them and the child.
My point, it should be the choice of the one carrying the fetus. If you want to avoid putting yourself in the position of having to deciede whether you should have an abortion, get some birth control and condoms (Pregnancy could be the least of your worries with all those nasty STD's out there)

Bah. Slow day here, so dredging this up for fun... ;)



You're forcing people to provide to gay couples the same benefits we as a society have decided that herto couples need. I'll refer again to my analogy of providing handicapped stickers to a subset of people who don't need them, but feel they are excluded. Some classifications exist within society for a reason. They're not just created on a whim. Marriage is one of those things.



Of course not. Stop strawmanning the issue! What would happen is that the societal "value" of marriage would effectively be destroyed. If any two people can be married, then what's the point of the status? We place a high value on marriage because it represents a stable family environment for raising children. That's why marriage exists. It's definately why it's recognized at a federal level.



Again. Stop strawmanning. Let me turn it around. What if Roe v Wade were reversed? Would every state automatically make abortion illegal? Why? Defend your position...




Huh? Not even sure where you're going here. However, I could certainly find Liberal groups who clearly *do* have the agenda of making it illegal to teach creationism to any children, just as we can find Religious groups who want creationism taught to all children. Both have a social agenda. Both have a right to pursue it. IMO, both are equal violations of separation of church and state.



You're right. I'm not seeing a distinction at all. Please explain to me how a gay marriage ban tells people how to live their lives? No one's saying that gay people can't have sex. No one's saying that gay people can't cohabitate. No one's saying that gay couples can't share finances. What the gay marriage ban does say is that gay couples can't file as a married couple on their income taxes, or file for certain federally funded loans.

I'm reasonably sure that the founding fathers did not include a right to get a preferential loan rate from the federal government in their "inalienable rights" list...

Guess what? Marriage is *not* a right. In terms of a federally recognized marriage, it's a special status granted to those who qualify for the things the federal government provides to married couples. It's not a right at all.

When did the culture of entitlement get so ingrained in our society that we actually confuse a funded program aimed at a particular segment of people with a "right"? That's insane.



No one's saying you are. All I'm saying is that when you strip away your personal view on any given topic, there is little difference between the people who want to impose the view that abortion is bad and should be outlawed and those who want to impose the view that abortion is ok and should be legal. Both sides want to change society to make it match their personal views. The details differ, but the basic motivation and methodology are the same.



Only because you've decided that since you're ok with gay marriage, and abortion, and a lack of religion in school, that everyone else should be ok with those things as well.

I'm going to toss out an analogy. I know that someone will call "slipperly slope" on me, but that's not how it's meant. What if tomorrow a group of people adovating child pornography started a political activist group? Would you support or condemn them? Heck. Look up the NAMBLA site if you want a more extreme example right now. Read their arguments. Sound suspiciously familiar? They should. They are *exactly* the same ones you are arguing for your "causes". They don't think that it should be illegal for a man to have sex with a 10 year old boy. And isn't it just quaint ideas about sexuality that make that illegal? Who's to say that a 10 year old can't consent to sex?

Are you imposing your ideology on them by supporting laws that keep sex with a minor illegal? Exactly how is that different then those who belief that abortion is wrong? Or gay marriage (even those who think it's actually wrong as opposed to just a dumb economic contruct as I do)?

Ultimately, we draw those social lines at some point. It's up to *us* to decide where they lie. There is no inherent right way to detemine that. If most people think that having sex with a 10 year old is wrong, then it'll likely stay illegal. If people decide it's ok, then it'll be legalized. Same deal with abortion, gay marriage, and religion in schools (although that last one has other issues). Those sorts of social norms are by definition relative. You are free to agree or disagree on any given issue, but then restrict it to that issue itself. When you argue someone is wrong because of the source of there argument for or against something, you ultimately end up weakening your own.

Again. It makes absolutely no difference if the people outlaw abortion because they think it's against God's law, or legalize it because they don't like God, or outlaw it because of some medical or social statistics, or legalize for some other statistical reasons. It simply doesn't matter. They're social ideals. The laws will and should reflect on the societies ideals regardless of *why* society holds them.



Heh. And the NAMBLA guy would argue the same. How exactly is his sexual relationship with a 10 year old hurting you?

I'm willing to bet that you can't answer that question without using more or less the exact same arguments that the religious right uses to argue against gay marriage and abortion. Are you really any different? Or is your moral compass just set a bit differently then theirs?

Awesome sign.

I would suggest spelling retarded right though.

First of all, Gbaji, you never actually responded to my response to you, but instead chose a response I made to someone else, but what the hell, why not?



Your analogy has nothing to do with nothing, because of the phrase "don't need them." Homosexual couples need the right to have a partner act as a medical and emergency advocate for them every bit as much as hetero couples do. They need their default inheritance preferences established in case they don't get around to making a will before an untimely demise. They need the right for their life partner to come and be with them in the hospital when visitation is restricted to "immediate family only."

These are all rights that are AUTOMATICALLY conferred with "marriage" that a subset of couples are being categorically denied, and that is discrimination. Right now, in order to acquire these "rights," a gay couple must pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to get all their legal ducks in a row, just to be allowed the same "rights" that het couples get by signing the marriage license. That wouldn't be legal if the couple were of mixed races, so why should it be legal because the couple is the same sex?



Bullsh[/i]it. Bull-sh[i]it. I am married and I can tell you that my marriage is not destroyed, not devalued, in no way at all affected by any two people getting married.

The fact is, marriage is more devalued by an eighteen year old boy and girl who have known each other for six weeks and will be divorced in six months getting married on a whim than it is by two thirty-five year old women who have been together for seven years and will be together for another forty years getting married. You want to take issue with the societal value of marriage being undermined? Make frivilous marriage more difficult. Oh wait, you can't do that, because it would undermine a person's right to form a relationship and marry another person...but, wait...we ARE doing exactly that, we're just targetting gay people for it. Again, discrimination.




Yeah...and? How many gay couples have children via adoption, or artificial insemination, from previous heterosexual relationships, or some other form of surrogacy? A lot of them...should these couples not be allowed the representation of a stable family environment for raising children?




If Roe v. Wade were overturned, MOST states would make most forms of abortion illegal, probably within only a few election cycles. Most of those states were states where abortion was already illegal when Roe v. Wade was decided, and states which have already done everything they can do short of completely disregarding Roe v. Wade to make abortion difficult, if not impossible, within the state. These are states where the constituents have strong pro-life religious inclinations and they would get bills illegalizing abortion of the ballots if not through the state legislature then by public referendum. Count on it.




That's because you are comprehension impaired. It was a continuation of the "what if" line of thought.

Continued in Part 2 to fix the quotes...

Edited, Tue Oct 11 03:51:55 2005 by Ambrya

Heh. Fine. I'll respond to your responses then...




None of which are benefits granted by the federal government to married couples.




Because people of different skin tones can produce children. Gay couples cannot. See the difference?

The problem here is that you are looking at what people need because it's convenient. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a government, and why it would create a status of marriage in the first place. From the government's perspective, there is no more "need" for a gay partner to have access to his/her dying SOs bedside in a hospital then I do for any close friend of mine.

And in any case, it's not the government that makes that decision anyway. It's a civil matter between the individual and the hospital.

You're missing my point. I'm 100% for a "civil union" contract that provides any two parties with joint inheritance, guardianship, and power of attorney (including fighting to get hospitals to recognize them). I'm *only* opposed to changing the current insitution of marriage, because while it includes those things, it also does include other things that are specifically intended for those who may producd children.



Um. Yes. It will. If states legalize gay marriage, and if it's recognized federally (so all states and federal institutions must recognize it as well). Then what exactly is the point of the married collumns on your income tax forms? The reason they exist is now moot. Exactly what percentage of gay couples need a tax benefit when one member works and the other stays at home (a common situation for hetero couples with children)? How about the federally backed loans? Does a gay couple (again, where there's no social benefit to both not working) need them? No more then I, as a single male, need them. But if I were to shack up with a male roomate and fill out a form, I not only get to share expenses, but I *also* get better tax rates *and* home loans? You're kidding, right? That's not needed at all.

Those things will disappear if marriage is redefined in this way. Maybe they'll be replaced with other funding targetted more specifically at those with children. But that's not the same. Take away the "married" part, and you're just rewarding people for having children. We've already increased the rates of unwed births 10 fold in the last 60 years, are the Liberals really going for 100% now? You don't think that damages marriage and it's purpose in society?



And yet... for some bizarre reason, before we started eating away at the institution, it was quite effective at ensuring that if the boy and girl were to have children, that the children would be raised by two parents instead of one. And the two lesbians will not generate a public burden on the system if they don't have marriage available to them. That's not to say that the boy and the girl will, or that all boys and girls will not if marriage is available to them. But making it available to them, and making it a real benefit will change the numbers in a way that makes the instution work it to the government. Granting it to the lesbian couple generates no social benefit, nor avoids any social burden that may be generated by them.

The fact is that the liberal agenda is largely about making as may people reliant and dependant on the government as possible. Marriage as an instution allows people to do somethig needed by society (creating the next generation of citizens) while minimizing the potential burden of raising those children on the state. By destroying the institutions ability to do that, the liberals can push for a state where as many children as possible are generated by single women, so as many as possible are finacially dependant on the government, kids sent to government schools, etc. It's not about gay rights. It's about control of the population. Keep the people poor and dependant on the government and you take away their power. Trade them goods for votes, and you can get them to do anything you want.

Farfetched? Maybe. But there are vastly simplier and more logical solutions to this problem then the one being persued by the left. One has to wonder why they are going the way they are...




Sigh. No one's undermining anything. Marriage is *not* a right. Not the status granted by the goverment anyway. It's an incentive for hetero couples to generate children inside a sound economic unit. Since gay couples can't generate children, why on earth should they qualify for the status?




Do a lot off unplanned adoptions occur where you live? Think about it. The point is to try to minimize the number of children raised in families that cant afford them. Simple as that. Not a while lot of poor people adopting children, so that's not an issue, gay or not. But poor couples do have sex, right? And while the poor gay couple wont produce children that'll have to be supported somehow, the poor hetero couple might. It's really not rocket science...




I wouldn't. When Roe v. Wade occured, there was already a huge movement in most states to legalize abortion to some degree (a handful alredy had with more coming up for votes). It became moot when the decision was handed down. As a result of Roe v. Wade each state has had to pass abortion laws codifying their rules so they'd fit within the guidlines of the decision (each subject to 30 years of SC judicial revue as well!). Those laws don't suddenly disappear.

And if a state does pass tighter abortion laws then they have currently, what does that say? The citizens of that state don't agree with abortion. What exactly is the problem? Who are you to impose your ideas of morality and law on the citizens of another state?

See. If each state is allowed to have different rules, then you can live in a state that has rules you agree with. But if all states are required to follow a single federal rule, and you happen to disagree with it, you're kinda stuck, aren't you? Think about it. Which method gives the citizens more liberty?

Doesn't that tinfoil mess with your hair?



Edited, Tue Oct 11 09:23:17 2005 by NaturalDisaster