Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 02:25 am

Quote:

Quote by: Mathieu,

it doesn't matter who does the ceremony... marriage is defined differently

So you would allow them everything heterosexuals have, as long as it does not have the same name ?

*** yes, I have said as much many times... civil unions are fine

What's your definition of marriage ?

*** man and a woman

Why your definition is better than someone else definition ?

*** it is the traditional definition

What is different from an heterosexual ?

*** huh?

Children ? :) Come with a different argument. My sister is a lesbian and she have a children . Her kid is as sane as any kids. She is the best of her class and is a totally normal kid. And that even if raised with two mother. Doctors, psychologist, everyone has told her the research were showing there was no problem to have 2 women raising a children .

*** great for your sister

Some you will have to find something else.

*** I wasn't looking
[/quote]

Mathieu · Mar 1, 2004, 02:38 am

So as I understand it, Impenitent, you oppose only for the fun of opposing .
If the only thing you oppose is that it is called the same ...

I'm not exactly following you . Do you follow yourself ?

Leopard · Mar 1, 2004, 02:47 am

Mathieu,

Well in the real world, there is fiscal advantage to marriage, but, that apart, I agree with you, fondamentally, Governement have absolutely nothing to do in defining what a marriage or a Civil union is. As long as it take place btween consenting adults ...

by 'fiscal advantage' do you mean (a) because two people are combining their households/efforts (ie: they only need one stove, refrigetrator, etc). or are you talking about (b) government advantages like taxation or ther things?

if (a) then any cohabitation gains from this advantage, it is not restricted to marriage

if (b) then... thats the whole point, get government outta da picture!

Mathieu · Mar 1, 2004, 02:58 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
Mathieu,

Well in the real world, there is fiscal advantage to marriage, but, that apart, I agree with you, fondamentally, Governement have absolutely nothing to do in defining what a marriage or a Civil union is. As long as it take place btween consenting adults ...

by 'fiscal advantage' do you mean (a) because two people are combining their households/efforts (ie: they only need one stove, refrigetrator, etc). or are you talking about (b) government advantages like taxation or ther things?

if (a) then any cohabitation gains from this advantage, it is not restricted to marriage

if (b) then... thats the whole point, get government outta da picture!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well what i meant was B , and about the the fiscal advantage, what wanted to explain is that in the current situation, heterosexual couple HAVE an advantage gay couple don't have, and that's why the debate. Also, as there is no libertarian at the head of the United state and Hetero Couple are absolutely not willing to drop their advantages, this won't be one of the solutions.

If we were in a libertarian utopia, then yes the governement would be out of that, but we would'nt have to discuss of that here in the first place ...

That's what I meant by, "in the real world".

lcswoosh · Mar 1, 2004, 05:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
What's your definition of marriage ?

*** man and a woman

Why your definition is better than someone else definition ?

*** it is the traditional definition

What is different from an heterosexual ?

*** huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>So, tradition should be put into law, then? Right. We should have made arranged marriages law as well, since they were tradition, not marrying outside of your race was tradition. Get a decent argument.

Leopard · Mar 1, 2004, 11:31 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
If we were in a libertarian utopia, then yes the governement would be out of that, but we would'nt have to discuss of that here in the first place ...

That's what I meant by, "in the real world".<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

libertarian has nothing to do with it... we (as in you and me and all the voters) can choose to change the 'terms' of the debate into one of 'should the government be involved in the first place' - don't we have 'the power' to change 'the real' world of political debate and activity, or are we always saddled with the legacy of previous voters decisions (right or wrong)?

Would you rather have the government defining what marriage is and determining what benefits (if any) should be conferred on married folks?

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 11:31 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
So as I understand it, Impenitent, you oppose only for the fun of opposing .
If the only thing you oppose is that it is called the same ...

I'm not exactly following you . Do you follow yourself ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

yes there is an element of fun in opposing it but no, I am serious about changing the language

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 11:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
What's your definition of marriage ?

*** man and a woman

Why your definition is better than someone else definition ?

*** it is the traditional definition

What is different from an heterosexual ?

*** huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>So, tradition should be put into law, then? Right. We should have made arranged marriages law as well, since they were tradition, not marrying outside of your race was tradition. Get a decent argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

tradition is the law...

if you want to change the law, then change the law... if you want to change the meaning of words, you have to do more than change laws...

Mathieu · Mar 1, 2004, 11:47 am

What point are you trying to make Impenitent ? I don't think you brought any arguments here... You are just showing you have no more argument...

Can you state clearly what is your position ?
What the difference you make between giving every rights hetero couples have to gay couple and call it ... Let's say looforertre (well anything wich goes threw your mind) and changing the definition of marriage to envlop gay marriage ?

Impenitent · Mar 1, 2004, 12:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
What point are you trying to make Impenitent ? I don't think you brought any arguments here... You are just showing you have no more argument...

Can you state clearly what is your position ?
What the difference you make between giving every rights hetero couples have to gay couple and call it ... Let's say looforertre (well anything wich goes threw your mind) and changing the definition of marriage to envlop gay marriage ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

ther difference is in the name... marriage is marriage... gay marriage is gay marriage... civil unions are civils unions...

black is black... white is white...

but change the definitions! good is bad, right is wrong, freedom is slavery... stupid is stupid

Mathieu · Mar 1, 2004, 03:29 pm

If you want to see it this way, gay mariage is just marriage with gay on the side ...

Here something funny I found :

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
God Hates Shrimp
Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-11 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

From
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mia · Mar 2, 2004, 03:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
I don't understand why Bush and other won't just say what they mean: they want the bible definition of marriage to be in the constitution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is the bottom line for them. Bush is a fundamentalist Christian. That's great for him, but imposing his beliefs of the rest of the country flies directly in the face of separation of church and state.

Gays NOT being allowed to do as they wish affect us more than "allowing" them to. We wouldn't even notice if those against it didn't make such a scene.

10% of the population. Not all even want to get married. Many that do still won't because legal or not it's not socialy accepted widely...it wouldn't even be on TV if the government just butted out and left it alone.

Mia · Mar 2, 2004, 04:02 am

[quote=Impenitent,]

Quote:

Quote by: Leopard,

Impenitent:
marriage is marriage... the secularists will not succeed in changing the definition...

Why is it a problem to treat ALL citizens equally in the 'eyes of the law'? How can you rationalize giving tax benefits to certain folks just because of their choice in joining households/lives and not to others? It is PURELY an attempt at social manipulation, which the government has no business in doing. The ability of people (religious groups, churches, lobbyists, special interests, etc to influence government has destroyed and weakened our individuality and freedoms...

michael

Correct me where I am wrong for I have not followed this issue: but my memory is that of the tax laws previously working out to "punish" married couples. In that by getting married they fared worse on their returns. Has that not simply been corrected or is there now "marriage incentive" in the tax code? Thanks.

Mia · Mar 2, 2004, 04:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
who's definition is that? Yours? The bibles? This country's (if GW had his way)?

There is nothing wrong with your logic...but your original definition is the source of the argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

that is the definition ever since the concept of marriage was invented...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

OK, but how does that change your marriage or mine?

Mia · Mar 2, 2004, 04:07 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
they did it themselves and the vast majority of americans back bush on this one...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Yup, 20% is a VAST MAJORITY.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Let's get our numbers straight - the majority of Americans according to polls don't support gay marriages, but that doesn't mean they all think there should be a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. BIG gap in the numbers on that, I believe.

Mia · Mar 2, 2004, 04:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
I never understand the need for people to attempt to justify their position by quoting some other person, dead or alive. Either your position has merit at face value or it doesn't - an Appeal to Authority in no way furthers anyones case. Use your own words, or do you let others do your 'thinking' for you as well?

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Why does everyone in here make a personal attack when they disagree? If someone before you expressed what you think in an elegant manner and you want to give them credit for saying it before you came along and thought it, you quote them.

If someone does nothing but quote I can see you making this accusation. But not in this circumstance.

Leopard · Mar 2, 2004, 04:33 am

I guess it is a personal attack at the end... but not name calling... either way, it wasn't a good way to end the post...

my point is that even if someone said something that you agree with, regurgitating it does not necessarily help your case - if anything it does come across as being too 'lazy' (not meant as an attack, that is what it feels like to me when I see famous people quoted...) in that the person hasn't 'digested' the idea and thought about it indepth with all its implications.

For instance, in an argument, one could take any opposing position, search the web, cut & paste anothers view and, viola! we have a discussion!.... not

when someone states a view in their own words OTHER things come out as well... for instance, in my posts, pretty much no matter the topic, it should be rather obvious that I have an almost 'religious' view on economic matters, in addition to believing in individual freedoms... this gives clues to others about me and perhaps where I am coming from which might make my posts easier to decypher (sheesh, I can't even read them most times... I wander all over the place...)

but, I do agree with you, personal attacks are not really part of my character and I shouldn't let others drag me down that road... must... watch.... self!

michael

Leopard · Mar 2, 2004, 04:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Correct me where I am wrong for I have not followed this issue: but my memory is that of the tax laws previously working out to "punish" married couples. In that by getting married they fared worse on their returns. Has that not simply been corrected or is there now "marriage incentive" in the tax code? Thanks.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

actually, I believe you are correct in most instances, most folks don't even realize this. the fact that there are two different tables for single and married, no matter which ends up being 'favored', is the point tho... different = social engineering. So currently the state wants to discourage marraige and all the gay folks want the same right to be taxed more just like the married folks.... same argument, just sounds silly!

michael

Mia · Mar 2, 2004, 05:41 am

I think some type of correction has been made to end the tax DISADVANTAGES to getting married. I just wondered if it swung to the other side to actually start giving ADvantages.

On the personal attacks, I didn't mean to single you out. I have just noticed in this forum there is a lot of it and all argument, no discussion. I fell into it right away. I have the respond as spoken to trait - so if I read an aggressive post to me (or an idea) I leap to respond in kind. Bad habit.

I just wondered if we'd benefit more from an exchange of ideas and a little more discussion and less "I AM RIGHT, DAMMIT!" ;-)

Most of these issues have no clear-cut, black-and-white answers, else learned minds wouldn't be disagreeing.

Anyway, I never said hello, nice to meet you all. :-)

Sandy · Mar 13, 2004, 10:13 am

What ever happened to Individualism? Is this now considered some kind of evil?

Coming from a world of live theater and classical musical groups whether one is gay or straight has no bearing on their talent! Our homosexual base is a lot bigger than anyone realizes and their private lifestyles are not that much different from ours. I know these people and have worked and lived with then for years. They have a sexual glitch....so what? My gays are producers of great syphonies, build great buildings, do exquisit decorating displays and are certainly not the pedophiles we find in the Priests of the Catholic church! I would estimate that only 25% of them have come out of the closet due to society's mores and they know they would lose contracts, bookings and even many of their friends and family members.

I also know many who have married those of the opposite sex just to prove they are not gay! These marriages end up in a terrible disaster expecially when children are to learn later on that one or the other is gay. This is a potential tragedy that can be prevented if all Americans were free to be the individuals that they were born to be.

All throughout the world's history there have been homosexuals and they managed to be forceful warriors like Richard the Lionhearted and Alexander the Great! It took the French, Spanish and Italian Inquisitions to try to bring these people down as the enemies of all civilization. Jews and Atheists were also in that group and thousands of them were burned at the state.

This whole gay mess comes directly from the combined Christian churches in America. Each sect wants to outbreed the others and so they define Homosexuals as abominations. It is time we stopped this incessant bigotry and give all individuals back their freedoms that are clearly called out in the U.S. Constitution.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and with a failure rate of 58% I think it is time we ignored the religious people on this and take back our meaning of marriage. It is what the couples want it to be.

Mar 1, 2004, 02:47 am	#103 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Mathieu, Well in the real world, there is fiscal advantage to marriage, but, that apart, I agree with you, fondamentally, Governement have absolutely nothing to do in defining what a marriage or a Civil union is. As long as it take place btween consenting adults ... by 'fiscal advantage' do you mean (a) because two people are combining their households/efforts (ie: they only need one stove, refrigetrator, etc). or are you talking about (b) government advantages like taxation or ther things? if (a) then any cohabitation gains from this advantage, it is not restricted to marriage if (b) then... thats the whole point, get government outta da picture! Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 1, 2004, 02:58 am	#104 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) Mathieu, Well in the real world, there is fiscal advantage to marriage, but, that apart, I agree with you, fondamentally, Governement have absolutely nothing to do in defining what a marriage or a Civil union is. As long as it take place btween consenting adults ... by 'fiscal advantage' do you mean (a) because two people are combining their households/efforts (ie: they only need one stove, refrigetrator, etc). or are you talking about (b) government advantages like taxation or ther things? if (a) then any cohabitation gains from this advantage, it is not restricted to marriage if (b) then... thats the whole point, get government outta da picture!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well what i meant was B , and about the the fiscal advantage, what wanted to explain is that in the current situation, heterosexual couple HAVE an advantage gay couple don't have, and that's why the debate. Also, as there is no libertarian at the head of the United state and Hetero Couple are absolutely not willing to drop their advantages, this won't be one of the solutions. If we were in a libertarian utopia, then yes the governement would be out of that, but we would'nt have to discuss of that here in the first place ... That's what I meant by, "in the real world".

Mar 1, 2004, 05:37 am	#105 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) What's your definition of marriage ? * man and a woman Why your definition is better than someone else definition ? * it is the traditional definition What is different from an heterosexual ? *** huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>So, tradition should be put into law, then? Right. We should have made arranged marriages law as well, since they were tradition, not marrying outside of your race was tradition. Get a decent argument.

Mar 1, 2004, 11:31 am	#106 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) If we were in a libertarian utopia, then yes the governement would be out of that, but we would'nt have to discuss of that here in the first place ... That's what I meant by, "in the real world".<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> libertarian has nothing to do with it... we (as in you and me and all the voters) can choose to change the 'terms' of the debate into one of 'should the government be involved in the first place' - don't we have 'the power' to change 'the real' world of political debate and activity, or are we always saddled with the legacy of previous voters decisions (right or wrong)? Would you rather have the government defining what marriage is and determining what benefits (if any) should be conferred on married folks? Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 1, 2004, 11:31 am	#107 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) So as I understand it, Impenitent, you oppose only for the fun of opposing . If the only thing you oppose is that it is called the same ... I'm not exactly following you . Do you follow yourself ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> yes there is an element of fun in opposing it but no, I am serious about changing the language "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 1, 2004, 02:38 am	#102 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	So as I understand it, Impenitent, you oppose only for the fun of opposing . If the only thing you oppose is that it is called the same ... I'm not exactly following you . Do you follow yourself ?

Mar 1, 2004, 11:34 am	#108 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) What's your definition of marriage ? * man and a woman Why your definition is better than someone else definition ? * it is the traditional definition What is different from an heterosexual ? *** huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>So, tradition should be put into law, then? Right. We should have made arranged marriages law as well, since they were tradition, not marrying outside of your race was tradition. Get a decent argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> tradition is the law... if you want to change the law, then change the law... if you want to change the meaning of words, you have to do more than change laws... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 1, 2004, 11:47 am	#109 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	What point are you trying to make Impenitent ? I don't think you brought any arguments here... You are just showing you have no more argument... Can you state clearly what is your position ? What the difference you make between giving every rights hetero couples have to gay couple and call it ... Let's say looforertre (well anything wich goes threw your mind) and changing the definition of marriage to envlop gay marriage ?

Mar 1, 2004, 12:26 pm	#110 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) What point are you trying to make Impenitent ? I don't think you brought any arguments here... You are just showing you have no more argument... Can you state clearly what is your position ? What the difference you make between giving every rights hetero couples have to gay couple and call it ... Let's say looforertre (well anything wich goes threw your mind) and changing the definition of marriage to envlop gay marriage ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ther difference is in the name... marriage is marriage... gay marriage is gay marriage... civil unions are civils unions... black is black... white is white... but change the definitions! good is bad, right is wrong, freedom is slavery... stupid is stupid "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 1, 2004, 03:29 pm	#111 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	If you want to see it this way, gay mariage is just marriage with gay on the side ... Here something funny I found : </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by God Hates Shrimp Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants. Leviticus 11:9-12 says: 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Deuteronomy 14:9-11 says: 9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: 10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you. 11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat. From http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Mar 2, 2004, 03:55 am	#112 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) I don't understand why Bush and other won't just say what they mean: they want the bible definition of marriage to be in the constitution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is the bottom line for them. Bush is a fundamentalist Christian. That's great for him, but imposing his beliefs of the rest of the country flies directly in the face of separation of church and state. Gays NOT being allowed to do as they wish affect us more than "allowing" them to. We wouldn't even notice if those against it didn't make such a scene. 10% of the population. Not all even want to get married. Many that do still won't because legal or not it's not socialy accepted widely...it wouldn't even be on TV if the government just butted out and left it alone. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 2, 2004, 04:04 am	#114 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) who's definition is that? Yours? The bibles? This country's (if GW had his way)? There is nothing wrong with your logic...but your original definition is the source of the argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> that is the definition ever since the concept of marriage was invented...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> OK, but how does that change your marriage or mine? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 2, 2004, 04:07 am	#115 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) they did it themselves and the vast majority of americans back bush on this one...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Yup, 20% is a VAST MAJORITY.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let's get our numbers straight - the majority of Americans according to polls don't support gay marriages, but that doesn't mean they all think there should be a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. BIG gap in the numbers on that, I believe. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 2, 2004, 04:12 am	#116 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) I never understand the need for people to attempt to justify their position by quoting some other person, dead or alive. Either your position has merit at face value or it doesn't - an Appeal to Authority in no way furthers anyones case. Use your own words, or do you let others do your 'thinking' for you as well? michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why does everyone in here make a personal attack when they disagree? If someone before you expressed what you think in an elegant manner and you want to give them credit for saying it before you came along and thought it, you quote them. If someone does nothing but quote I can see you making this accusation. But not in this circumstance. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 2, 2004, 04:33 am	#117 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	I guess it is a personal attack at the end... but not name calling... either way, it wasn't a good way to end the post... my point is that even if someone said something that you agree with, regurgitating it does not necessarily help your case - if anything it does come across as being too 'lazy' (not meant as an attack, that is what it feels like to me when I see famous people quoted...) in that the person hasn't 'digested' the idea and thought about it indepth with all its implications. For instance, in an argument, one could take any opposing position, search the web, cut & paste anothers view and, viola! we have a discussion!.... not when someone states a view in their own words OTHER things come out as well... for instance, in my posts, pretty much no matter the topic, it should be rather obvious that I have an almost 'religious' view on economic matters, in addition to believing in individual freedoms... this gives clues to others about me and perhaps where I am coming from which might make my posts easier to decypher (sheesh, I can't even read them most times... I wander all over the place...) but, I do agree with you, personal attacks are not really part of my character and I shouldn't let others drag me down that road... must... watch.... self! michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 2, 2004, 04:38 am	#118 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Correct me where I am wrong for I have not followed this issue: but my memory is that of the tax laws previously working out to "punish" married couples. In that by getting married they fared worse on their returns. Has that not simply been corrected or is there now "marriage incentive" in the tax code? Thanks.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> actually, I believe you are correct in most instances, most folks don't even realize this. the fact that there are two different tables for single and married, no matter which ends up being 'favored', is the point tho... different = social engineering. So currently the state wants to discourage marraige and all the gay folks want the same right to be taxed more just like the married folks.... same argument, just sounds silly! michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 2, 2004, 05:41 am	#119 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	I think some type of correction has been made to end the tax DISADVANTAGES to getting married. I just wondered if it swung to the other side to actually start giving ADvantages. On the personal attacks, I didn't mean to single you out. I have just noticed in this forum there is a lot of it and all argument, no discussion. I fell into it right away. I have the respond as spoken to trait - so if I read an aggressive post to me (or an idea) I leap to respond in kind. Bad habit. I just wondered if we'd benefit more from an exchange of ideas and a little more discussion and less "I AM RIGHT, DAMMIT!" ;-) Most of these issues have no clear-cut, black-and-white answers, else learned minds wouldn't be disagreeing. Anyway, I never said hello, nice to meet you all. :-) "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 13, 2004, 10:13 am	#120 (permalink) (top)
Sandy Igneous Magma Posts: 257	What ever happened to Individualism? Is this now considered some kind of evil? Coming from a world of live theater and classical musical groups whether one is gay or straight has no bearing on their talent! Our homosexual base is a lot bigger than anyone realizes and their private lifestyles are not that much different from ours. I know these people and have worked and lived with then for years. They have a sexual glitch....so what? My gays are producers of great syphonies, build great buildings, do exquisit decorating displays and are certainly not the pedophiles we find in the Priests of the Catholic church! I would estimate that only 25% of them have come out of the closet due to society's mores and they know they would lose contracts, bookings and even many of their friends and family members. I also know many who have married those of the opposite sex just to prove they are not gay! These marriages end up in a terrible disaster expecially when children are to learn later on that one or the other is gay. This is a potential tragedy that can be prevented if all Americans were free to be the individuals that they were born to be. All throughout the world's history there have been homosexuals and they managed to be forceful warriors like Richard the Lionhearted and Alexander the Great! It took the French, Spanish and Italian Inquisitions to try to bring these people down as the enemies of all civilization. Jews and Atheists were also in that group and thousands of them were burned at the state. This whole gay mess comes directly from the combined Christian churches in America. Each sect wants to outbreed the others and so they define Homosexuals as abominations. It is time we stopped this incessant bigotry and give all individuals back their freedoms that are clearly called out in the U.S. Constitution. Marriage is a religious ceremony and with a failure rate of 58% I think it is time we ignored the religious people on this and take back our meaning of marriage. It is what the couples want it to be.