Re: Wow.

Post #183,250 by JayMehaffey 11/6/04 1:55:10 PM Reply	Re: Wow. "death spiral into theocracy" no negative connotation there...in the same group of thoughts with other anti-christian statements. But the disdain is all in >my< head. Of course there is a huge negative connotation to theocracy, but you where the one that thought I was trying to paint all Christians with that phrase. And you need to listen to your politicians more. Its a simple phrase-ology. Same-sex union versus gay marriage. Blame it on the press if you want. I'm telling you what I think needs to be done. Your reaction leads me to think it won't be done anytime soon. Except of course they are not the same thing. Civil unions implies only a legal right, marriage implies a moral and/or religious right. There is nothing wrong with putting the best possible light on a posistion. But I won't play the game of calling things what they are not to make them sound better. And as for "selling out" versus "fighting for what is right". You go ahead and think what you want. If you think that they are right...then you will continue to have the problem that you are trying to figure out. IT is a culture gap about which you appear unwilling to learn. I understand the culture gap quite well. I'm just not sure what to do about it. I will no more cave in on gay equality today then I would on black equality 30 years go. People try to cast the issue if those two things are different (any an amazing number of african-american preachers fall into that camp) but it is the same bigotry passing as religious belief that is trying to block gay marriage now that was blocking interracial marriage then. Jay
Post #183,252 by bepatient 11/6/04 2:49:16 PM Reply	"so what" about the gay issue. Its not the problem. Quit focusing on it as the problem. Pass >civil union< legislation. You will get the equality you want. Nobody really has a problem with that. Marriage is a religious institution...SO AVOID IT. Do NOT say you support "gay marriage". Because the church's view is that it CANNOT EXIST. Do not allow wards of the state to marry same sex couples. The battle is about legal rights...keep it there. However, those fighting the battle want to take it further than that...making public spectacle of "marriage ceremony" etc. Also, you have the ACLU leaders meeting with violent criminals and in some cases (mumia comes to mind) saying that these criminals should be freed. You have democratic leadership and hollywood types associating with these causes without actually knowing anything about them (Mike Farrel comes to mind). These are free associations. The war protests ended up in some cases hijacked by these organizations. It gave the opposition ammunition to say they were driven by "communists" and other fringe elements. But its all ok becasue you are fighting for what is "right" (tm). Unfortunately for you it is only >your version< of what is right. What I am trying to tell you is that better than half of everyone else does NOT share your opinion...and for you to gain political power you are going to have to come to grips with this. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,259 by ben_tilly 11/6/04 6:27:52 PM Reply	Really? According to [link\|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/\|polls], about half the country doesn't want civil unions of gays either. And the people who are against it are more likely to turn out at the polls than the people who are for it. Of the 11 states that just banned gay marriage, 2 of them (Georgia and Ohio) banned gay civil unions as well. As for whether marriage is a primarily religious institution, we've disagreed on this before. I think that it is not. You know why I think that, I know why you think otherwise, and we each think that the other person is wrong. That isn't about to change. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,281 by admin 11/6/04 9:31:39 PM Reply	3 of them. Read the Michigan proposal a bit more closely. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #183,290 by daemon 11/6/04 11:25:17 PM Reply	why a "civil union" and lets ignore religo marital issues If something happens to my kids and MJ (G_d forbid!) I have a true friend for many years (who would help me hide the bodies) now why could I not have a will that names him sole executor and inheritor, give him a "general" power of attourney that specifically excludes any blood relation of mine to make decisions for me while I am alive and as executor and in my will excludes my blood relatives from exercising any control over my body or assets. This relationship is not sexual, simply people I trust. Its legal and I can do this Now why cant gay people do the same? The reason is simple, they want their union to have the same tax, and social acceptance as hetrosexual marriage. Its not about rights its about acceptance, you cannot legislate morality and you cannot legislate societal acceptance either. That is the major reason for the states to get out of the marriage bidness. regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,446 by jb4 11/8/04 9:25:46 AM Reply	So when you have your second heart attack... ...is your gay partner going to be allowed so sit vigil by your bed in the ICU? NO. Why not? Becuase "only family is allowed in the ICU". No amount of general power of attorney is going to override that bit of provincialism. And as far as having the same tax arrangements as does a married couple, why shouldn't they? (And no, I'm not accusing you, daemon, of having a gay partner. That's the "collective" you.) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #183,580 by daemon 11/8/04 5:33:02 PM Reply	sorry a general power of attourney puts you there bedside, In most General POA's medical is covered, you are the only one making decisions for the person. My friend I spoke about had one for his Granma with Alzenheimers, he called all the shots. Sure I dont mind the couple paying the marriage penalty, let them join the club. regards, daemon ps Im trying to cut down :-) on being accused that is that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,481 by tuberculosis 11/8/04 12:51:47 PM Reply	Banning Gay Marriage (new thread) Created as new thread #183480 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183480\|Banning Gay Marriage] "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #183,262 by Andrew Grygus 11/6/04 6:38:05 PM Reply	The gay civil union issue is important . . . . . because when all states have banned gay mariage, the Republicans won't be able to use it any more to bring out the "moralists" vote - but they'll be able to run the thing all over again with the civil union issue. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #183,300 by drewk 11/7/04 12:33:18 AM Reply	That's exactly the problem Civil unions implies only a legal right, marriage implies a moral and/or religious right. It certainly does. That's why no one should try to get a gay marriage recognized by the sate. Marriage is a moral/religious concept. Of course, that also means that straight marriage shouldn't be recognized by the sate. You going to try to make that argument? You think maybe someone could get elected doing it? That's what Bill is saying. You may be right, but you can't get elected saying it. More than half the population likes their state-sanctified religious ceremony. If you argue in favor of gay marriage, they can't argue against you without saying their own marriage shouldn't be recognized by the state. So yes, gay marriage does threaten straight marriage. The difference is that while Kerry (and other democrats) are articulating (supporting) the legal rights issue, Bush (and other republicans) are articulating (opposing) the moral rights issue. While they may agree with each other on the two issues, the choice of which one to focus on says something meaningful to a lot of people. I've concluded that when the exit poll number showed people voted on a moral basis, they didn't mean that they approved of Bush's morals. They meant the liked that he based his positions on morality. Ask Ben sometime how evangelicals react when he expresses his beliefs. That he is in favor of most of the same things they support doesn't matter, if he doesn't do it out of religious conviction. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.

Welcome to IWETHEY!