LincolnLogolas

The difference? Grant fought, he personally led. Bush? He's typical of the armchair generals all around this country, except he actually hasthe power to send troops around.
_______________________________________________

Uh, yeah, that was basically the crux of my point as far as the differences between them. Are you agreeing with me or arguing against me for some reason?

As for not drawing comparisons between Grant and Bush at all, I don't think anyone is above drawing comparisons personally, but I did, for the sake of argument point out the glaring difference between them that at least one of them was willing to go and fight himself for the country.

mike_71=delusional

Zyklon B. Goode...

What a catchy nickname...nothing like some wacky humor about the gas used to kill Jews, huh?

Funny stuff!

Sloth_DC

Well, aren't we just full of frothy goodness today.

Think it'll be any worse than when the Judeo-Christians redefined marriage to mean monogamy? You do realize that the biblical concept of marriage was polygamous, right?

Marriage is currently defined as man-woman relationship. No re-defining invovled. Did I mention the Bible anywhere in the post? No.

I was merely pasing along what was happening on C Span

Please, continue frothing, don't mind me.

Quadriplegic

Such a typical response. Somebody thinks homosexuality is immoral and immediately you guys start in with the "replace gay with female and black" comments. Why not have a rational conversation instead?

First of all, I've got quite a few gay friends. We treat each other with respect and dignity like any other friends would. I forget often times that they are gay because they are good friends. I'm not threatened or scared of homosexuality, but I know that it is immoral and that it is physically refuted by the nature of the human anatomy. My friends know that I feel this way, but I don't judge them for it because it is not my place to judge someone. I can't change them, and I don't want to. But the fact of the matter is, if you believe that nature intended for gay sex, then you need to go back to anatomy and physiology class. Do some research; I don't want to get into the implications of it on Fark.

sparkythefarker = I think you are confused on what exactly a bigot is. When you call people names and mistakenly call them bigots it lessons your credibility.

If a gay man interviewed for a position at my company and he was damn good at his job I would hire him in a minute. I would, however, have issues paying benefits to his partner because it is my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I clearly stated above my views on homosexuals and I am certainly tolerant of their behavior but I should not be forced to accept their sexually deviant behaviour as the norm nor should i be forced to pay for the their behaviour.

I was sure to include in my post that that was my opinion. By stating that it was my opinion it means that I do not feel that my views are unquestionably right.

Stop calling people names and making ignorant accusations. Attacking people with different beliefs than yours makes you the bigot.

The French find the stones to haul Dr. Evil before a court. The U.S. surrenders :D
HAHAHAHAH

DasNibblet --

"France will never forgive the United States for having liberated her."

Let's turn this around: The United States will never forgive France for her aid during the Revolutionary war.

http://www.americanrevolution.org/frcon.html

http://www.britishbattles.com/american-revolution.htm

French assistance was crucial throughout that conflict. None more so than in the final major battle of the war, Yorktown 1781. The French fleet repelled the British navy from Chesapeake Bay -- cutting General Cornwallis' access to the sea. They provided 9,500 of the 17,000 troops that surrounded the city -- outnumbering the British more than 2 to 1.

Get your civil union, if you're allowed to adopt kids then you should get the same benefits married couples with kids do. If you're married without kids, you should get no more benefits than singles.

Pretty simple.


Quadriplegic --
"Don't you find it odd that the stinkin' libs are trying to make it a state's right to decide on gay marriage, while the repubs are trying to make it national? I'll be back when I stop bleeding from the razor-sharp irony."

Not at all, considering Lincoln was Republican, the prick.

2004-07-12 11:49:56 AM barjockey

I agree. It's always been that way, and nobody has had a problem with it until recently.

Actually, polygamy had been the norm long before it became "between a man and a woman." Polygamy was at least widespread in Europe through the 700s, as, obviously, there is a strong tradition of polygamy in the bible.

Libs, can we keep some sanctity and purity in SOMETHING?

Explain to me how marriage is a sacred institution? I can mail-order an 18 year old bride from Russia, get married to her in Vegas by a guy in an Elvis suit, and then divorce her 30 minutes later.

At least let each individual state have their say.

Unless what they are saying is unconstitutional, as Virginia's interracial marriage ban in 1953.

The Federal government has no business deciding either way for the entire country.

I disagree. The Federal government has an obligation to protect the constitutional rights of every citizen of every state in the country. (Just so you know, I am against the Democrat's stance on gun control).

If a state says "I'm going to take away your AK-47 now," I believe that law should be ruled unconstitutional. Either ratify the 2nd amendment, or enforce the damn law -- the right to bear arms.

Likewise should gay marriage fall under this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If marriage is a religious institution, get it out of our laws. If it's not, let gays marry.

Mr_Fabulous

(rather inaccurate speculation about threadjack omitted)

Actually, several people have tried to talk about Cheney. The only problem is, there's no there there.

I for one would LOVE to see Cheney and his boss doing the perp walk, but it ain't gonna go down through this story.

The VERY worst-case scenario is that Cheney never visits Europe again. Given our VP's general demeanor, I think that's like those speeding tickets I got a few years back. Ooops! Won't be seeing Oklahoma for a while. Darn!

// half the country thinks he's guilty on principle. half thinks he's a brilliant leader. politics and anti-politics collide, not with a bang, but a whimper.

Gay sex is unnatural. As shown here. These are clearly animatronic animals. From San Francisco. Yeah, that's it.

2004-07-12 11:59:06 AM Quadriplegic
Jake Steed
I have not heard of the marriage penalty, what is it?


http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html


copy and paste, no html knowledge

barjockey

If you believe that nature "intends" anything, then you need to have your head examined.

Three words:

Rednecks vote Republican.

That is all.

barjockey

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Prejudice against gays is quite easily comparable with any other kind of prejudice.

As for nature and anatomy, I can say this. There are gay animals, we know this. We've seen them. So much for it being against nature. As for anatomy, the only natural function that gay sex doesn't emulate is conception. Are we then to say that the use of contraceptives is unnatural or immoral?

I fail to see any argument here.

Quadriplegic wrote:

I fail to see any argument here.
________________________________________________

Lack of a well reasoned, supportive argument for their position, or even a poorly reasoned argument has never stopped the Neocons from doing what they want before :)

Quadriplegic

"There are gay animals"

Are these the same gay animals that pee into their own mouths? Remember that funny monkey video? We should do what the monkeys do!


this is getting boring..I'm out of here. have fun everyone!

Omega Ohm

You will have to forgive me for my lack of knowledge, but wasn't that back in the day when the R and D were in reversed positions from today?

Jake Steed

Thank you. As the Marriage Penalty will affect all married couples though, where is the problem?

Does anyone have a non-religious argument against gay marriage?

I would like someone who is anti-gay to tell me what is wrong with two people deciding to have a homosexual relationship. I don't want to hear about "what is natural" or "what leads to procreation" or anything general. I want to know, specifically, in a particular case, what is wrong with two people of the same sex having some sort of sexual relationship (and we'll assume that they are both of legal age and such).

Jake Steed

Are these the same gay animals that pee into their own mouths? Remember that funny monkey video? We should do what the monkeys do!

Wait, now I'm confused. Some people against gay marriage say that it isn't natural. Then, when evidence is presented that homosexual activity is natural, another says that we shouldn't follow nature. WTF?

Hey, if people want to pee in their own mouths, more power to them. If they want to get married to another mouth-pisser, I don't see a problem.

2004-07-12 12:07:03 PM barjockey

not threatened or scared of homosexuality, but I know that it is immoral and that it is physically refuted by the nature of the human anatomy.

So you wish to legislate your morality on other human beings? Where do you suppose your particular brand of Barjockey(tm) morality comes from? Christianity?

How did this turn in to a gay marriage debate?
I have a question about DOMA's. (Defence of Marriage Acts)

does this not violate your bill of rights by in essence forcing gay ghetto states where you can marry and live happily, but you cannot leave without having your marriage annulled.

Let's say your gay and work for a company from MA that decides to move it's offices to Washington. You get a relocation offer but if you accept you would be forced to have your marriage annulled?

How could that be acceptable in a nation built on personal freedom.

Another question, this time about Cheney. Aren't there laws protecting heads of state from prosecution, especially the prosecution by foreign courts?

Would these laws cover Vice-Presidents as well as presidents?

2004-07-12 11:23:59 AM st8kdryver

That was during the primary. Kerry said Edwards was "not ready" for the Presidential positon in the primary and that he wasn't out of diapers when he (Kerry) got back from the Nam And if you look at the headlines on FARK, he was already in college. But that's ok with you, right?

argumentum non sequiter


It does follow though. Yes, Kerry wasn't too positive on Edwards during the primary, but those were public comments on the man's chances as president.

Bush used sneaky and underhanded tactics to undermine McCain, staying just this side of "legal" (but still immoral IMO) by implying (or having supporters imply) that McCain was involved a number of seedy scandals, from a mixed race child out of wedlock, to financial scams.

Hmm...on one side, Kerry makes public comments against his then-opponent, on the other Bush uses chicanery to put doubt into the minds of his opponent's supporters.

It's a fair critique of the Kerry/Edwards ticket, but it pales in comparison to the chances of a Bush/McCain one.

sparkythefarker:

"You do what the government says you must do"

And i do what the gov't says and I vote for the gov't that most represents my personal beliefs. Does that make me a bigot? You have no clue do you? You attack people who do not have the same belief you do. It is clear that you are a hateful, name calling bigot.


It is shameful people actually think the way you do.

Gotta go...out golfing for the afternoon..."Watch this drive"

If you aren't gay, don't marry someone of the same sex and mind your own farkin' business. Serioulsy, what business is it of yours?

How does two men or two women marrying affect you? Why are 'you' even in the conversation?

Will it change anything in your life? Will you still have to get up, go to work, pay the mortgage, fix the car and mow your lawn if Bill and Ted get married?

Why do you care?

/STFU

Did you ever notice how many farkers like talking about queer sex? Wonder what Sigmund would have to say about that?

hey if the ark was full of frozen embryos of the animals then they wouldn't need food. How can you be certain that noah and his ilk didn't have that technology? wouldn't the floods have washed away archaeological evidence of such? Thats what I think happened anyway, if you believe the bible story.

Barjockey

I'm not threatened or scared of homosexuality, but I know that it is immoral and that it is physically refuted by the nature of the human anatomy. My friends know that I feel this way, but I don't judge them for it because it is not my place to judge someone. I can't change them, and I don't want to. But the fact of the matter is, if you believe that nature intended for gay sex, then you need to go back to anatomy and physiology class. Do some research; I don't want to get into the implications of it on Fark.

Is anal sex between a woman and a man in a committed relationship "immoral and refuted by the nature of human anatomy?" Explain.

Is cunnilinguis between a man and a woman (again in a committed relationship) "immoral and refuted by the nature of human anatomy?". Explain.

You don't like anal sex. Maybe you don't like dining at the Y. You (and your girlfriend) are missing out on some good stuff, but don't put artificual value judgements on it.

Come and get him you spineless little pussie frenchmen

I don't know if it was the same Discovery program or not. In the end, they showed an anthropologist's reconstruction of a typical man from that era and location.

He has short, curly hair, a somewhat broad nose, and slightly thick lips, but he was not Negro. He was Simitic, like most of the Arabs are.

2004-07-12 12:23:49 PM zippytheslug

Yes the DOMA is crap, but it's a crap-sort of compromise. We have something called "full faith and credit" clause where states respect one another laws. I think in mississippi you can still get married as a minor, with parental permission. Previously other states had to respect that. If I obtain a driver's liscence in state A, state B can't take that away for reasons that I'm too old/blind/crazy, until I commit an offense.

However, the DOMA was passed when Hawaii and Vermont started kicking around civil union bills in their legislatures, and the talk of gay marriage came up. Some states felt they shouldn't have to respect really "crazy" notions of other states. At first, they were just going to make gay marriage unconstitutional (this wasn't Bush's idea) by ratifying the constitution, and be done with it.

The DOMA was passed so it didn't have to come to a constitutional amendment denying gay rights.

LXAPNorth and sparkythefarker

You both may be right. Perhaps some people are simply so ignorant and irrational that they cannot change. I am (in this regard) a hopeless optimist though. I keep thinking that if only people are presented with the right sequence of ideas they may be persuaded to at least examine their own reasoning.

If people wish to base their views of morality on religion, that's fine: at least then we can explore those religious views and find whether they hold. Most of the people arguing against gay marriage on this thread can't even admit that their opinions come from religion or some other equally irrational belief.

re: I attack people who have blatantly hypocritical beliefs.

haha. you really suck at it. try geting off the keyboard before you break a hip.

2004-07-12 11:23:25 AM DarwinEffect

Front page, baby.

They want to define the worlds morals through military might, and the bastards don't even have the decency to be sneaky about it. They're pulling shiat off right in front of you, and you still lack the perception to see it because the love of your god (read: cold hard cash) and a couple extra bucks off your tax bill are a fair price for the values this country was founded on.

Whoa whoa whoa! Actually, I've read that site, and the neo-con white paper on American security (forget the title...anyone...bueller?). I know that is the neo-con agenda, but I'm writing to those that support that position.

You have me wrong if you think I like this administration. I loathe Bush to a now near-irrational degree. I didn't hate reagan, or Bush I or Clinton, but this guy gives me shivers. Running this kind of extreme administration on such a sliver of a mandate is just ridiculous. Whatever anyone says, any high levels of suppor this guy got in polls after 9-11 were pure "rally round the flag" and not support for his fiscal and moral policies.

For me, I believe in Collective Security (the principle on which the UN was founded, it only fails when nations don't support it). As a replacement of the old balance of power politics of the past, CS is still the way of the future. Imperialism is a huge threat to CS.


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Now tell me Iraq as justified. Nations must change of their own accord, or peace will be impossible

Well, staying away from Iraq specifically, CS mandates that when a state represents a threat to the collective security of other nations, those other nations have a right to band up and eliminate that threat. Of course, classical just war doctrine applies (force as a last resort, least possible use of force to achieve the elimination of the threat, etc).

Iraq failed in using force as a true last resort, and in having mixed aims (some of which were not just war aims). Also, there was not consensus amoung the collective that Iraq represented a true threat, so you get a host of other problems by not having everyone on board. Bush I and Clinton managed to get sufficient legitimacy for their interventions, and the difference was remarkable: Little to no guerrila style campaigns against US forces in the area, even the Bosnian muslims behaved with the NATO US forces.

Abe Vigoda break

zippytheslug

Let's say your gay and work for a company from MA that decides to move it's offices to Washington. You get a relocation offer but if you accept you would be forced to have your marriage annulled?

That is an open legal question right now, and there is in fact a lawsuit pending in Washington State right now to decide that question. It's in King Country Superior Court and is called "Anderson v. Sims". The argument is based on both the freedom of expression and equal protection clauses of the Washington State Constitution.

More here:

Here's the biatch of it:

The Constitution and corresponding Bill of Rights exist to define and limit the powers of the federal government, and protect the rights of the states and individuals. Any amendments that do other than this should be stricken. George W. Bush's proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States of America with something that PROHIBITS is not only idiotic, it's unamerican.

I have a pretty good idea why he wants to do it, though. He knows damn well that an amendment so contraversial would never see the light of day. The only way an amendment has ever passed since the initial formation was by a 2/3s vote in both house and senate (nobody has ever gotten enough states to agree on anything to pass it the other way, through state-based ratification). Pretty much all the Democrats are opposed to it, and even a good number of traditionalist Republicans who don't like seeing their Constitution get shiat upon.

The point of it? Easy. He can appease his Christian supporters by taking a "strong stance" against Gay Marriage, without actually doing anything, so he won't piss off the fence-sitters on the issue. It's a useless, token gesture.

Mike_71: You're lunacy has provided me this morning with hours of laughing. THANK YOU!