[Kazan]

Code: [Select]


an·ar·chy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

   1. Absence of any form of political authority.
   2. Political disorder and confusion.
   3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


[01010]

What would you do Deepspace9er and Liberator if you had offspring that were homosexual? How would you respond to that?

[Flipside]

Well, this is the problem isn't it, I wonder how many teenage suicides are because a young man or woman has found that they are something that society is being taught is 'evil'.

[01010]

See, personally, the only people I discriminate against are pricks, be they black, white, gay, straight or a ****ing purple unicorn I don't really give a flying ****, however if they are a prick then I can't even stand to be in the same room as them.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by JC Denton
"Anarchy" in my mind is, rather, the lack of a government, or at least, the presence of one with no capacity to enforce its rule..

I know. The point I was making is that anarchy is transitory. It never lasts for long because someone eventually comes along and starts making little pockets of order

[Kazan]

I agree with 01010


(reference to Fundamentalist Christian "I Agree with So-And-So" college campaign)

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by 01010
What would you do, Deepspace9er and Liberator, if you had offspring that were homosexual? How would you respond to that?

This question is REALLY relevant, especially since Vice President Cheney's 36-year-old daughter Mary is openly gay. During the 2000 campaign, Cheney (the future-Veep, not his daughter) went on record saying that gay marriage should be left to the states to decide. But just last weekend, before Bush made his announcement to push for the gay marriage amaendment, Cheney said he "would support whatever decision the president made." Naturally, now that Cheney has spoken in favor of the anti-gay-marriage amendment, gay activists all over the country are wondering where Mary Cheney stands on this issue and have even set up a website imploring her to weigh in and speak up. You can find the website here.

Doesn't it seem strange to any of you that Cheney would relegate his own daughter to a second-class citizen status just for political advantage?

And how do Liberator and DeepSpace9er feel about that?

[Rictor]

In my humble opinion, anarchy is where humanity is headed once it becomes truly enlightened.

It is at the same time the most primitive and the most sophisticated system of human government currently in existence.

Anarchy done right would be a State of Nature. Everything in between anarchy as cavemen and anarchy as enlightened humans is just experimentation to try to arrive at a substitue for it.

[Warlock]

Ya know ... the only problem I've honestly had with any of this.... was Marriages being handled in states while that state's current laws are against it. If two men or two women want to marry.....fine...but I don't agree with city officials 'over looking' state laws.... or any body of government over looking the laws of the government above it. Change the law...., don't just ignore it.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Warlock
Ya know ... the only problem I've honestly had with any of this.... was Marriages being handled in states while that state's current laws are against it. If two men or two women want to marry.....fine...but I don't agree with city officials 'over looking' state laws.... or any body of government over looking the laws of the government above it. Change the law...., don't just ignore it.

I'm a lawyer, so I know how important it is to abide by the law and not flout it. However, in the case of the San Fransisco marriages, I have to disagree with Warlock. Yeah, the mayor might technically be "breaking the law" by providing marriage licenses contrary to California state law. However, two district court judges in California were asked to order a stay on the mayor's granting of marriage licenses. The fact that those two judges refused to order the mayor to stop places this situation from the "breaking the law" column to the "civil disobedience" column.

Kinda like what Rosa parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. Technically, she broke the law then, too. And look at how much the nation improved from that broken law.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
Kudos, Kazan, well done. Take DeepSace9er's own twisted logic and tie him up with it.



It's called debate, WW. If the African-Americans didn't "howl and *****" back during the 1950s and 1960s during the civil rights movement, they would never have gotten the right to vote. And yes, a bunch of conservatives back then tried to argue that it went against religious tenets to give black people the right to vote. (They said "tough ****" too.) After all, no black Americans ever the right to vote before then. By your logic, just because black Americans had always been excluded from the vote, it should have always remained that way.

Their protests (usually) did not stoop to the level of what Kazan and some others are doing. You would never hear Martin Luther King or other prominent civil-rights leaders (with the notable exceptions of the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X) throw offensive and defamatory remarks at anyone who opposed them.

As for your voting thing, you're comparing apples and oranges--you can set up a different civil union system for same-sex marriages as a federal law and as long as you actually inforce this law, the civil union will be just like marriage...only with two men or two women. We can even come up with some nice name for it to make the gay people feel better. There cannot be a substitute for voting but there can be one for marriage. Besides, how long to you think a gay couple will stay together on average? Allowing same-sex marriage would cheapen the institution of marriage greatly as divorce rates skyrocket.

By the way, the amendment could just pass with a bit of luck. You have to get the ratification of 2/3 of the states (or was it 3/4?). The right-wingers have an advantage here in that liberals are concentrated in the east and west coasts while conservatives are spread out all over the country. The Midwest and South especially have a conservative lean. According to polls, over 60% of Americans are neutral on gay marriage or oppose it.  This amendment won't go down without a terrific fight.

Originally posted by Rictor
In my humble opinion, anarchy is where humanity is headed once it becomes truly enlightened.

It is at the same time the most primitive and the most sophisticated system of human government currently in existence.

Anarchy done right would be a State of Nature. Everything in between anarchy as cavemen and anarchy as enlightened humans is just experimentation to try to arrive at a substitue for it.

Your humble opinion is sonewhat dubious. What is this "enlightening" you speak of? Anarchy doesn't work because humans are human. The only real way that I see to change the human race into a workable anarchy is to use genetic engineering to remove humans' highly advanced sense of self-awareness--the very aspect that really separates us from other animals.

[Kazan]

Woolie Wool: what part of the supreme court decision that says "seperate but equal laws" are unconstitutional don't you understand?

it's a 75% ratification in the states - which WONT HAPPEN


Iowa has a conservative lean - but we also have a stronger pro-rights lean

According to polls 60% of americans are AGAINST the ammendment, no matter what their personal opinion of gays are

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Kazan
Woolie Wool: what part of the supreme court decision that says "seperate but equal laws" are unconstitutional don't you understand?

it's a 75% ratification in the states - which WONT HAPPEN


Iowa has a conservative lean - but we also have a stronger pro-rights lean

According to polls 60% of americans are AGAINST the ammendment, no matter what their personal opinion of gays are

Where did you get that poll? I would trust the poll I used, which comes from the Wall Street Journal more than some poll taken from some political site on the Internet.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by mikhael

"Seperate but equal" standing is not allowed on the grounds of not really being equal, Zeronet. Go back and read some history.

Let's set up a parallel:

Lets assume, for a moment that you have a girlfriend, whom you've been living with for years. The two of you have a child. Your neighbor is married but does not live with his wife. He has a kid too.

What if, under the law, you could not be the 'father' of your child. You could be the 'paternal genetic donor', but not the 'father'. Your neighbor, who has never seen his own daughter, is on paper as the 'father' of his daughter. There's a difference there.

The reality of the situation, currently, is actually worse. We don't even have 'seperate but equal'. Under the current system, not only are you not the 'father', but you couldn't even be the guardian of the child when your girlfriend died. You couldn't claim the child as a dependent (because, you're not the 'father').

I was going to say somethnig else but i'll generally be a better person and agree that, at the end of the day, i, its just a name at least, in terms of the non-religious marriages and that your point holds weight.

Anything other than that, would be a argument for the sake of saving face mostly.

[Corsair]

[advertisement]
Join the ABBB Party.
Vote anybody but Bush.
[/advertisement]

[aldo_14]

Surely 'Seperate but equal' is an contradiction in terms, anyways?

Secondly, wouldn't defining marriage by the Christian definition* be a step on the road towards the destruction of state secularity?  (Which I always felt was a key aspect to proper democracy).

* (i.e. as oppossed to civil partnerships, which I think is the equivalent being discussed over here to give rights to non-married partners)

[Flipside]

I always felt that the moment you start mentioning conforming to any holy book as part of a nations laws then you are certainly headed for fundamentalism.
Bush says he is concerned about Iraq becoming a 'State of Islam' and yet tries to turn his own country into a 'State of Christ' leaving the rest of us in a 'State of Panic'.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The [civil rights protesters of the 1950s and 60s] protests (usually) did not stoop to the level of what Kazan and some others are doing. You would never hear Martin Luther King or other prominent civil-rights leaders (with the notable exceptions of the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X) throw offensive and defamatory remarks at anyone who opposed them.

I doubt that flaming on a BB would fall under the category of defamation, WW. Harsh language and childish behavior are par for the course on Internet bulletin boards. And I doubt that you'd be able to make a case that Kazan's calling you a "poopy-head" or whatever would rise to the level of causing you a serious injury to your reputation, which is required to show defamation.

But that aside...

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
As for your voting thing, you're comparing apples and oranges--you can set up a different civil union system for same-sex marriages as a federal law and as long as you actually enforce this law, the civil union will be just like marriage...only with two men or two women. We can even come up with some nice name for it to make the gay people feel better. There cannot be a substitute for voting but there can be one for marriage.

Baloney. The Massachusettes Supreme Court heard that exact same reasoning and struck it down as the same fallacy that was the rationale for "separate but equal." The Massachusettes considered gay unions but said that "separate has almost never equalled equal in the history of this country."

My guess is that the US Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion, if this issue ever got there.

Sorry, WW. Your idea of setting up a "different civil union system" just doesn't hold water.

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Besides, how long to you think a gay couple will stay together on average? Allowing same-sex marriage would cheapen the institution of marriage greatly as divorce rates skyrocket.

This is so plainly insulting to gays and lesbians, I don't even know where to begin. The divorce rate is ALREADY skyrocketing even without homosexual marriage entering the picture. Last I heard, 60% of marriages end in divorce. Lots of those gay and lesbian people getting married in California have been couples for 20 years or more. And you're here *****ing about how the divorce rate MIGHT behave if gays are allowed to marry? You know nothing about how marriage works and you know nothing about how gay partners behave. It's extremely self-righteous of you to say that gay marriage would "cheapen" marriage, when all the evidence I've seen suggests that most, if not all, of these gay couples are EXTREMELY committed to each other and might never consider divorce. Hell, if gay marriage is permitted, the divorce rate might even go DOWN as the gay couples who stay committed to each other drive down the average of divorces to marriage. And if the divorce rate were to go down with gay marriage entering the picture, wouldn't that mean that gay marriage would actually STRENGTHEN the institution of marriage?

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
By the way, the amendment could just pass with a bit of luck. You have to get the ratification of 2/3 of the states (or was it 3/4?). The right-wingers have an advantage here in that liberals are concentrated in the east and west coasts while conservatives are spread out all over the country. The Midwest and South especially have a conservative lean. According to polls, over 60% of Americans are neutral on gay marriage or oppose it.  This amendment won't go down without a terrific fight.

A majority of Americans (58%)  may oppose gay marriage but the most recent Gallup poll ALSO says that by only a VERY slim majority (51%) people favor this proposed amendment to the Constitution. With such a slim majority, the amendment is not going to get 3/4 of state legislatures needed to ratify it. Even a significant number of conservatives, who are against gay marriage, oppose amending the Constitution on an issue that is still in flux.

And if you cant take my word for it, go see the results of the latest Gallup poll yourself here.

Another poll at the National Annenburg Election Survey (see here) also shows that people aged 18-29 oppose the amendment 58% to 30%. People aged 30-44 oppose it 49% to 42%. People aged 45-64 split virtually down the middle, 45% to 44% against the amendment. Only with senior voters (aged 65 and older) is there a clear majority (49% to 40%) in favor of the amendment.

So it seems clear, with so many young people against the amendment, even if it passes (something I consider highly unlikely), it's going to get repealed inside 20 years.

[Stryke 9]

Anybody who's openly gay and tries to get married in this country has already shown they're made of stronger stuff than the vast majority of people here. I don't think divorce over stupid **** is a worry. Incidentially, since the stereotype is obviously that of the homosexual man-skank who sleeps with anybody else who's gay within 400 miles and doesn't care about commitment or any of that crap, wouldn't banning gay marraige directly target those who don't fall under that stereotype?

Never mind that I honestly can't see how you can look at, say, FOX's reality show programme and then say that gays cheapen marraige. I mean, holy ****ing ****.

You wanna strengthen marraige, why don't you all try and make the state refuse to recognize divorce. This is just poorly concealed picking on an unpopular minority.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Surely 'Seperate but equal' is an contradiction in terms, anyways?

Secondly, wouldn't defining marriage by the Christian definition* be a step on the road towards the destruction of state secularity?  (Which I always felt was a key aspect to proper democracy).

* (i.e. as oppossed to civil partnerships, which I think is the equivalent being discussed over here to give rights to non-married partners)

Yes, it would be a step on that ugly road, Aldo.

Marriage, of course, is NOT a Christian institution. They don't hold the patent on it. Its not 'their' idea. Almost every culture has allowed for some for of marriage--including some that Christians would hold to be abhorrent, like matriarchal polygamy (double whammy!). In many of the cultures throughout history and many still extant today, marriage was/is a strictly secular contract.

In the United States today, marriage is a secular contract. Any church performed marriage must be recognized by the state before it can be considered a valid marriage for legal purposes. The state can dissolve any marriage and its real bonds, regardless of the religious factors involved. No church can dissolve the marital contract on its own. It can only dissolve the religious bonds, but without a state filing, the couple remains married for all secular intents and purposes.

Now, given that I can hop a plane to Nevada and get married by a licensed Elvis impersonator with a pair of hookers as witnesses in the modern incarnation of Sodom, Las Vegas, and within the hour get it anulled by another licensed Elvis impersonator, I'd say we have a lot of other issues to take care of before we worry about gay marriages "cheapening" the institution.

Woolie Wool, lets look at some facts about straight marriages. Let see if this is an institution that could possibly be 'cheapened':

• The divorce rate for first marriages is over 50%
• The divorce rate for second and subsequent marriages is over 60%
• 43% of all marriages are remarriages
• 43% of  all marriages end in the first 15yrs.

These are very obviously not people who value the institution of marriage very highly.

Take, on the other hand, any random gay couple that want to be married (given the above statistics, they seem to be the only people who want to be married). I'd say that any couple that had to actually FIGHT for the right to be married, values it one hell of a lot more than these straight people do. You value something you earn far more than you value something you're given.