ProgrammerCat,

:-) Yeah, I know.

Catracks

I'm not sure if I am totally comfortable with the civil disobedience thing, but I admit thank I can't think of any other way. I mean, life is short and this is people's lives.

Sometimes the only choice is between civil disobedience or armed rebellion. I'd prefer the former if possible, but I'd support a rebellion to force government to get out of people's bedrooms and relationships.

Lebowski78
If you were making 80,000 a year, and had a house with a mortgage, would you want to work at McDonalds.

Not in the least. But if I were trying to collect unemployment, I'd certainly accept it if the rest of society said "we're not paying you to sit at home, work four days a week, bub."

Also, keep in mind, unemployment only lasts 6 months, after that, you are erased, and you no longer count as a statistic.

This is true, and skews a lot of unemployment statistics from my understanding. Again, I didn't want to suggest we reinvent the work-fare state, only that we find a way to get the people who want to abuse the system out.

"Thats exactly what pisses me off about the current administration. Issues like defining morality, which although is miniscule compared to crappy toilets (which you are 100% right about) it pisses me off none the less."

Are you sure we both are'nt Libertarians? We seem to be thinking the same thing from different direction: Get the govt out of our houses, both the bedroom and the bathroom

\off to buy a case of beer and get snokkered. ITS FRIDAY.

FloydA
Sorry to jump in out of the blue but I disagree with your argument. I think everyone can agree that homosexuality represents a deviation from the normal. Depending on differing published estimates homosexuals comprise approximately 10% of the US population. Stating that you engage in behavior that 90% also engage in is not controversial. Being in the fringe 10% and expecting, in fact demanding the same recogniton as the 90% is what we are talking about. It is one thing to prevent discrimination against minority groups, it is another to demand acceptance of behavior that many cannot understand. That is the problem many have with the so-called Gay Agenda. Instead of being left alone to pursue their own happiness, they are demanding that others change their world view to accept them. If gays are as well-adjusted as so many claim why is this acceptance necessary?

FloydA:
Last weekend, my wife and I went out to brunch at my favorite pub. Do you feel that the preceeding sentance is "in your face" because I'm openly calling your attention to my sexual preference?

Yes it is in my face and I like it! Is your wife hot? Of course I have a double standard, because I dont like gayness in my face. That doesnt mean I should have to be against hetro couples in my face too. And yes to you that is a double standard.


Death_Poot

I just got home with my beer, and couldnt be happier.

Just a question however, whats wrong with defining morality? Especially if has allready been defined, and just reminding people?

FloydA

Don't listen to me though, I got some beer running through me now, listen to Nivlac74 . That was stated better than I could hope to do today.

/golf clap

Egad, Franky17 mentioned daycare. I was a single parent for 6 years. If there is one thing that would have kept me from working, it was the daycare issue.

Where in THE HELL was I going to come up $400 dollars a month in day care fees what with sky high rent, etc.? I had to have it subsidized. I had no choice. One raise of $200.00 a year put me over the top and I didn't qualify anymore. I certainly would NOT stop working. Most women leave children in care of siblings or just leave them. Horrible solution.

Daycare is an big issue. Even two parent households struggle with this.

//Just a question however, whats wrong with defining morality? Especially if has allready been defined, and just reminding people?//

Nothing's wrong with defining morality. There is something wrong with legislating morality. And by "legislating morality", I mean specifically any action between two consenting adults which does not harm or damage the property of anyone else.

So if it's behind closed doors, the government should stay out of it.

If it's marriage unions, the government should be equal to all individuals to choose who to marry, man or woman.

The only exception to the rule involves minors, whom the state has an obligation to protect if their parents are irresponsible.

"Just a question however, whats wrong with defining morality? Especially if has allready been defined, and just reminding people?"

everything. government defining morality leads to discrimination.

"Depending on differing published estimates homosexuals comprise approximately 10% of the US population. Stating that you engage in behavior that 90% also engage in is not controversial. Being in the fringe 10% and expecting, in fact demanding the same recogniton as the 90% is what we are talking about. It is one thing to prevent discrimination against minority groups, it is another to demand acceptance of behavior that many cannot understand."

I don't give a crap what you think, in the eyes of the law - EQUAL

actually, what Raiders of the Fark said.

Catracks
I was a single parent for 6 years. If there is one thing that would have kept me from working, it was the daycare issue.

The fact that we don't have decent daycare options for middle class working families in this country is utterly ridiculous imho.

And all this (above) was generated by a simple article about how rich the Dems for Prez are?

Unless I misread the article, nowhere did it talk about Bush or how rich he is. Interesting how the first rebuttal on this comment page was all over Bush.

Geez, we all know that you gotta be a bored rich guy to want to run for any office from dog catcher on up. Or nuts. Or both.

-ws

Instead of being left alone to pursue their own happiness, they are demanding that others change their world view to accept them. If gays are as well-adjusted as so many claim why is this acceptance necessary?

Yup thats it in a nutshell. And that is exactally my problem with the whole farking deal.

I said this right before my beer run:
Oh and QESD ( didnt know there was a widely accepted anagram) is in itself not forcing an agenda, but when you partner it with gay marriage issues, the constant media barrage, Ellen, and word "metrosexual" and those god damn find a male for a male phone hotline commercials, there is an agenda. And for what? I said equal rights, and Lebowski78 thats the whole deal, but what rights are they not afforded? They have the legal right for them to be able to marry, just has to be a person of the opposite sex, so therefore they have equal rights under the law. Sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional. So where does the equal rights thing come in? They want "special" rights. IMHO, they need not apply, they allready have every right I do.


Please pursue your anal loving, carpet munching happiness. But you have NO RIGHT TO MARRIAGE to the SAME SEX! You want to get married then switch FARKING TEAMS!!!
Your rights are not being infringed upon. Gayness is not a religion, but certainly is free speech. So do what you want, but you are afforded no legal status of husband-husband or wife-wife, It will never ever happen.
( I am of course talking to gay people that want to get married...)

\sitting back happily with a cold one now

"Just a question however, whats wrong with defining morality? Especially if has allready been defined, and just reminding people?"

Personally, I see no problem with it. If we have no standards, we have anarchy. Was just mentioning that the govt in general (i.e. toilet size) sometimes needs to get out of our lives. Morality issues, in my opinion, are defined less by government and more by society. It kind of goes back to the church/state thing. I know gvt has its' place when it comes to law and order, though. It's where the defining line where govt leaves off and society takes over that's harder to define.


\hoping that makes at least a little sense.

EatTheWorld
Oh and QESD ( didnt know there was a widely accepted anagram) is in itself not forcing an agenda, but when you partner it with gay marriage issues, the constant media barrage, Ellen, and word "metrosexual" and those god damn find a male for a male phone hotline commercials, there is an agenda. And for what?

All of the things you posted above (excluding the marriage issues) are evidence of free market capitalism expanding and finding markets (advertising or phone-billing) that are open to them. These are no more indicative of an "agenda" than any other TV show or commercial - they are just TV shows that people watch and phone numbers that people call.

wasmith3

No the real question is how IN THE HELL did this turn into a gay marriage debate?

I just joined it out of bordom, I really thought I was gonna be able to bash Kerry and talk about he is a traitor for what he did upon return from Vietnam, turning his back on his commrades that were still over there.

Nivlac74,
10% of the US population is one hell of a lot of people. Say 10% of the U.S. population is Japanese. Just because they are small in number doesn't mean that they shouldn't have equal protection under the law and the same rights.

You said: It is one thing to prevent discrimination against minority groups, it is another to demand acceptance of behavior that many cannot understand. That is the problem many have with the so-called Gay Agenda. Instead of being left alone to pursue their own happiness, they are demanding that others change their world view to accept them. If gays are as well-adjusted as so many claim why is this acceptance necessary?"

You still don't personally have to accept them if the law accepts gay marriages. You can still hate the idea all you want. They don't care what you do, they just want to marry. Some think that otherwise, it is just "shacking up." I still don't see how it would impact you personally other than give you fealings of revulsion. At lot of things go on that I don't agree with personally, but how can I complain it it doesn't really affect me?

Instead of being left alone to pursue their own happiness, they are demanding that others change their world view to accept them. If gays are as well-adjusted as so many claim why is this acceptance necessary?

When pursuing their own happiness prevents them from enjoying the benefits that other people that are pursuing their own happiness get, then it's an issue of discrimination. Particularly when pursuing their own happiness is being done in an identical manner to that of other people who get legal status for pursuing their own happiness.

Franky17

You have a point there, but why was there a need for the word metrosexual ( a term to describe a hetro pretty boy, the best I can tell)

EatTheWorld,
Bash away. We digressed.

Also, forgot to mention. For me at least, I lean on God when it comes to morality, too. Though, I resent anyone putting me in a pigeonhole by defining me as a fundie; far from it (as I open my second beer).

As for the gay marriage thing, I have nothing against gays general and are'nt what you'd call homophobic. Got a number of friends/aquaintances who are gay, and they all tell me that the marriage thing is about as inflammatory as the Act Up parades that you see in some of our big cities. I do resent when a small minority kicks the bees' nest to see what they can stir up, like in SF. That justs breeds resentment from the majority.

Article and ensueing flame war = teh ghey

seriously, and I like political flame wars....

EatTheWorld
You have a point there, but why was there a need for the word metrosexual ( a term to describe a hetro pretty boy, the best I can tell)

Because the term "dandy fop" had gone out of style?

\apology for multiple posts, but I have short term memory

And, if legal issues are the problem, that can be worked out so as not to p**S off the ones who dont want to see gay marriage. Have a document, such as a power of atty, that gives a gay couple the same LEGAL rights.

\doesnt think that society will accept gay marriage anyway. I myeslf am not, as I disagree on moral grounds.

EatTheWorld,
Please, before you get back to the beer. I don't understand why people have such a problem with this. You said,
"But you have NO RIGHT TO MARRIAGE to the SAME SEX!"

But where does the constitution say this? Marriage is not defined. What gives us the right of heterosexual marriage? Why does it bother you? How are they messing up your world? Most gay people I know are not the flamboyant type anyway. You'd never know unless you asked and that's nobody's business.

I laugh when I see people defending large corporations.

Like saying trial lawyers are the reason insurance is high, and that we should give negligent companies a free ride. We've had tort reform in Texas for over 10 years, it was the ONLY issue George Bush fast-tracked as our Governor, and our insurance rates are STILL rising.

dandy fop

Now thats a description I have never heard before in my life. Must have gone out of style a long ago.

Actually, IMO, the word metrosexual was created and pushed by the main stream media, in order to wreak disorder, and put more fuel on the fire for homosexuals. In this word, acceptance is given for those men who get manicures and facial creams, and botox ( hehh KERRY, who said he is a metrosexual) and just simply are far more about appearances than the average male. Because by alot of thier peers, these afforementioned pretty boys were being called gay. This word was put out there to further homosexual acceptance. Did you follow that?

Death_Poot wanna have a race, Im on number 3.

Catracks

Okay maybe the constitution does not define marriage, that is generally left up to the states. Which is another problem I have if you read any of my earlier posts. These people getting illegal licsenses in San Fran, are gonna want those same rights all over the country, but whatever state does not have to acknowledge thier marriage. That is why the constition needs to be amended.

Am about to finish my third, fine bottle of Shiner Bock as we speak..........

Death_Poot - now that you've finished your 3rd bottle, what are you going to do now?

Also - ladies and gentlemen...

2004-02-19 02:40:09 PM sod213

This gets greenlighted? Ugh.

1. Neo-con posts Fox News link with anti-liberal headline.
2. Flamewar ensues.
3. No one wins.

Of course, this one is pretty lame, so I don't see it getting too far past 100.

-------

I do believe that whoever said this is a complete moron as this has been the most lively discussion of the day...let's keep it goin!

Lebowski781
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent statutes prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, age, physical limitation, and national origin. Doesn't mention sexual preference, so until that changes the equality is not clearly defined.

Catracks
You are absolutely right, gay unions do not affect me. I am not regularly confronted with anything that causes me any particular discomfort and if gay marriages become law, I am not leaving the US nor do I predict the end of the Republic. I do believe this whole issue is a statement of principle. Gays are not being deprived of a necessary right. Many have stated that civil unions are not good enough, they must receive full recognition the same as heterosexual couples. So I think that we, as a nation, should decide what our values are. Many beleive that marriage is the cornerstone of our society. If the majority of citizens believe this and feels gay marriage somehow harms the instituion, then the goverment should support this view.

EatTheWorld
Now thats a description I have never heard before in my life. Must have gone out of style a long ago.

It's a term from the 1800's i believe...

Actually, IMO, the word metrosexual was created and pushed by the main stream media, in order to wreak disorder, and put more fuel on the fire for homosexuals. [...] This word was put out there to further homosexual acceptance. Did you follow that?

I follow it, but it sounds a little tin-foil-hat for me.

Anyway, I'm out. enjoy your race, I'll be catching up later...

"We've had tort reform in Texas for over 10 years, it was the ONLY issue George Bush fast-tracked as our Governor, and our insurance rates are STILL rising."

Tort reform is the result of an unholy alliance between lawyers, doctors, and the insurance industry, at the cost of the average joe.

It doesnt matter what side you think youre on (left or right), nothing will change until we take the power to screw people away from the mega corps, who pay the guys on the left and right.

the fact that people pick a side and scream at the other is really stupid, considering the same people control both.

yell all you want, but at least yell at the right people.

How does showing off the fact that there have been more rich democratic presidents than rich republican presidents help the republican side at all? Isn't it kinda like saying, lets hate democrats because we're less successful? And for the record...since when did how much money you have determine how much you care about the poor? Thats why people donate to charities.....

mattyc

I seen that earlier myself, when I got on here it was allready at infinity, I however can not believe it is still going.

But I am not going anywhere, and Im on #4 of lovely, yet intoxicating Bud Ice.

should your name be changed to DRINKtheworld??

/valid question

EatTheWorld,
I did read your posts around the time you got your first beer I think. What constitutes marriage has always been a state's perogative and IMO should remain so. For instance, in California, you must have a ceremony. It makes me nervous that the Federal government would be able to put a big NO sign on something. The constitution to me is more of a bestower of rights than a crusher of rights. They gave citizenship to former slaves, gave women the right to vote, gave us religious freedom, gave 18 year olds the right to vote. Prohibition took away. It didn't work.

My main question is just this: Why do you think Gay Marriage would do us harm? Is it because it is unnatural and unwholesome and for that reason it brings our morality as a society down and will contribute to collapse?

That's just what I have a problem wrapping my mind around. Answer or don't as you please. It's been beaten to death and too off topic. I did post something on topic. it got lost. I need a beer. Thanks for listening to my ramblings.

YES!!! this is it! actkevin00 said:
Thats why people donate to charities.....

That is what needs to happen across the board! Get rid of ALL of these goddamn social programs ( welfare, unemployment, NEA, medicare) and lets just have private donations. If the american people as a whole think you are worthy of help, then you can get it from private charities. If not, then you are screwed. Why do we need the goverment to tell us who should be afforded monitary compassion?

actkevin00: "How does showing off the fact that there have been more rich democratic presidents than rich republican presidents help the republican side at all?"

It doesn't. Just shows how bloody irrelevant it is.

mattyc
Actually it should be Eat&DrinkTheWorld. I eat alot too. But upon deep reflection, you maybe right, as I do drink alot more than I eat.

Catracks - back ON topic - I guess the difficult part about Kerry, Edwards or even Bush calling out to the poor man...well I compare that to a bear telling a group of salmon that he can best take them back upstream. Even if these guys TRULY want to help the poor, they're time and interests are so tied up in the BS of what you read on the front page that they couldn't even come close to doin anything about it. which is why I personally believe that local smaller governments should be given the resources to help the poor. I mean, what poor person is going to put a group together and go lobby in DC?

like bears campaigning to salmon...

Hooray Nivlac74. You gave me the answer I was looking for beyond all the hate. I can go shut up now.

catracks - by the way...what Nivlac74 said has been said at least by me several times today on this thread

chitownjack I find it kind of bizarre that you don't think rights exists. This idea of power relationships seems kind of silly. I don't mean any disrespect, maybe you can explain it better?

Kinda late but anyway. Rights exist as legal fictions. However, they do not exist per se. There is no object in nature called a right.

Originally, not everyone in society had rights, most obviously in the case of slaves. If rights were natural, everyone would have had them from the beginning of social history. Also, no other animal structures its relationship to the rest of its species in terms of rights, yet we can find animal analogies to just about everything else we do.

If certain technical developments take place, it is not hard to imagine a future where the great majority of the population has no rights of which to speak.

What I can't believe is Bush is pulling a Grey Davis by thinking he will get Latino vote for relaxing the borders even more. Why is is so hard to realize that citizen Latinos HATE the idea of illegal immigrants. Most immigrants who did things the right way do.

They want those big states like California and Texas. They'll put on the face to do it too.

/Still not shutting up, but OT

but read the whole bill about the borders that he signed...it's not quite like that

mattyc,
I believe it. I'm actually supposed to be working. Bad me. I miss things in the middle of the thread.

Sad part is Bush will lose California and win Texas, and no immigration law will change that.