African American prejudice against homosexuals by a margin of 3 to 1!!!

[SgtSpike]

good....glad that got straightened out
so, spike......you don't believe that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a law based on the moral authority of the bible?

Nope - it's entirely up to the people. If the people want to define marriage as between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with the Bible. Heck, I could write a book and call myself the Gawling religion, and say that only gays are allowed to marry, but would that make any vote to make marriage only available to gays based on religion, and thus against the constitution? I think you're stretching things.

The only thing that that amendment talks about is establishment of religion - in other words, the government cannot say that X religion is the national religion, and everyone must be a part of that religion. Anything else goes, just so long as the people vote for it.

 

[Fox Mulder]

good....glad that got straightened out
so, spike......you don't believe that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a law based on the moral authority of the bible?

I would also point out that the opposition on moral grounds to homosexuality goes much farther than the bible--its painted as a "Christian homophobia" but the bottom line is when you get 2/3rds of the population to vote for man/woman marriage definition, there's got to be a lot more in that majority than just those with religious convictions. Obviously, there are some homophobes as well, but I think that's a small minority.

 

[siasl]

point taken, both of you....thanks

i guess the bottom line is that this great experiment, particularly wrt to personal liberties, will just have to continue to evolve....

'tis good enuf for me.

 

[Alien Allen]

point taken, both of you....thanks

i guess the bottom line is that this great experiment, particularly wrt to personal liberties, will just have to continue to evolve....

'tis good enuf for me.

why does it need to evolve?

some things don't always need to be changed to accommodate a minority.

seems like the system worked pretty good for a few thousand years.

 

[siasl]

why does it need to evolve?

some things don't always need to be changed to accommodate a minority.

seems like the system worked pretty good for a few thousand years.

what system, bill?

i'm pretty sure that whatever system you're referring to has evolved in the last few thousand years

but i was talking specifically about our system, and i've laid out my arguements before...imo, our checks and balances are not designed to inhibit the change that a society must go through to keep from stagnating....they are only designed to manage the change, so it doesn't spiral out of control, either stifling the desire for change, or creating a revolution to promote it (think French Revolution....hell, think American Revolution :ninja)

as someone more conservative than i, it's easy for me just to say that you're interested in the status quo....believing that change is too risky to embrace.....it's a powerful force in human nature, all rightee

but there's always someone willing to push the boundaries....:cool

the first ones are always ahead of their time -footnotes in history
but once the seed is planted, it will grow, if a society is truely interested in personal liberties.

 

[SgtSpike]

what system, bill?

i'm pretty sure that whatever system you're referring to has evolved in the last few thousand years

but i was talking specifically about our system, and i've laid out my arguements before...imo, our checks and balances are not designed to inhibit the change that a society must go through, or smother itself in stagnation....they are only designed to manage the change, so it doesn't spiral out of control, neither stifling the desire for change, nor creating a revolution to promote it (think French Revolution....hell, think American Revolution :ninja)

as someone more conservative than i, it's easy for me just to say that you're interested in the status quo....believing that change is too risky to embrace.....it's a powerful force in human nature, all rightee

but there's always someone willing to push the boundaries....:cool

I think he means the system of marriage, which has largely been defined as a man and a woman for the past few thousand years.

I agree that the checks and balances are not meant to hinder change, but to better facilitate it, and that is exactly why it is the people who should be making the decision about whether things like marriage should change or not, NOT a few supreme court judges.

 

[siasl]

I think he means the system of marriage, which has largely been defined as a man and a woman for the past few thousand years.

I agree that the checks and balances are not meant to hinder change, but to better facilitate it, and that is exactly why it is the people who should be making the decision about whether things like marriage should change or not, NOT a few supreme court judges.

heh...of course he is.....duh
s'ok....still think this whole thing 'bout personal liberties is essential to america's health. :ninja

 

[Fox Mulder]

why does it need to evolve?

I think you need to define what evolves. The Constitution has been called a "living" document and used by liberals to change the law (the "living" is code for we will change it to suit our poltiical agenda)--typically to get things through they can't in the ballot box. The facts surrounding the Constitution evolve and the laws evolve, but the Constitution should not evolve. That is it if it is not permanently secured with general principles of equality and justice, then it is useless--its like a raft adrift in the oceas subjet to whatever political winds blow at the time. This is why conservative judges are much better than liberal judges.

This is the perfect example. Two-hundred years marriage has never been a Constitutional right and now all of a sudden its in there? :confused Some liberal will invariable come back with the "what about slavery? Are you saying that should not have changed?" Well the principle of equality of all men in the Consttution did not change. What happened was society changed its view on African Americans (they were considered less than human). The Constitution was right when it was drafted, it was the application of it to African Americans that was not occurring.

Now someone else will come back and say--well now its the application to gays that's not occuring! NO--FUCKING-NO. That's the cart before the horse. FIRST YOU NEED TO DETERMINE THAT MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION. That's never been the case. Equality for all men/women was ALWAYS part of the Constitution from day one. The right to marriage is not. Therefore, the state has a right to define marriage.

The problem is people jump right over the initial Constitutional analysis claiming gays are being discriminated against. Wel so are fathers and sisters and cousins and men and women who want to marry more than one person. There is no way to make a LEGAL distinction between gays and anyone else. Once you say that the a human being has the right to marry and the state can't regulate it, then all fucking hell brakes loose--all sort of litigation from every person who wants to marry some other person or persons. That's why you need to leave it up to the state to decide--because if its not a fundamental right, then the state can regulate it a lot more specifically.

 

[Alien Allen]

the only thing that has changed about marriages is that too many end up in divorce.

as to the topic at hand I am old school. grew up where divorce was rare and frowned on. homosexuals were rare and frowned upon.

We need to find a way to reduce the numbers of divorces because it seems like it is a mirror image of an abortion for marriage. People take the easy way out too many times rather than working thru it for the sake of their children. In lots of cases like yours Bob it is the right thing to do and is for the best but I gotta believe in too many cases it is for the worst.

As to homosexuality I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors. I see the mainstreaming it and attempt to make it the norm as akin to Stoners argument with drugs and what that culture does to society. That probably gets me labeled a homophobic but I is what I is.

 

[siasl]

We need to find a way to reduce the numbers of divorces because it seems like it is a mirror image of an abortion for marriage.

yucky image, but true, and well said....
imo, we seem to have our heads on tight (maybe too tight ) wrt to our economic system, but we're becoming a poor excuse for a society.....not the business of politics to legislate solutions for it, tho.....religion seems to help some folks "get it"....so does the environmental movement.....

As to homosexuality I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors. I see the mainstreaming it and attempt to make it the norm as akin to Stoners argument with drugs and what that culture does to society. That probably gets me labeled a homophobic but I is what I is.

i don't think it labels you anything, bill.....besides an IPN :24:
imo the whole "gay pride" thing is probably pretty close in flavor to all the wierd hippie events back in the 60's for most folks nowadays.....i can understand all the joy and crap, but i'm tired of it.....:nod:

don't make me homophobic at all....just keep your sexuality to yourself, thank you very much. :ninja

or wear a figgin tshirt..."by the way, i'm gay"

we can work that out if i want to sleep with you, ok?

 

[Alien Allen]

yucky image, but true, and well said....
imo, we seem to have our heads on tight (maybe too tight ) wrt to our economic system, but we're becoming a poor excuse for a society.....not the business of politics to legislate solutions for it, tho.....religion seems to help some folks "get it"....so does the environmental movement.....

i don't think it labels you anything, bill.....besides an IPN :24:
imo the whole "gay pride" thing is probably pretty close in flavor to all the wierd hippie events back in the 60's for most folks nowadays.....i can understand all the joy and crap, but i'm tired of it.....:nod:

don't make me homophobic at all....just keep your sexuality to yourself, thank you very much. :ninja

or wear a figgin tshirt..."by the way, i'm gay"

we can work that out if i want to sleep with you, ok?

had not really thought about the gay pride comparison to the hippie stuff. There are some similarities. Hope the end result is something better though. The I , Me, Mine, generation of the 60's set us on a downward spiral. Kind of scary that the children of those are what is now becoming our leadership. :eek

 

[Fox Mulder]

yucky image. . .

we can work that out if i want to sleep with you, ok?

You sleeping with Alien Allen--now THERE'S a yucky image!!! :yuk

 

[siasl]

You sleeping with Alien Allen--now THERE'S a yucky image!!! :yuk

you sound jealous, fox :24:
s'ok....you can have him....he complains to much anyway

 

[Alien Allen]

you sound jealous, fox :24:
s'ok....you can have him....he complains to much anyway

me complain??? :eek

bend over baby and we will see who is bitchin :24:

 

[siasl]

me complain??? :eek

bend over baby and we will see who is bitchin :24:

hehehe

ok, then.....

that's enough yucky images for me :surrender

 

[SgtSpike]

the only thing that has changed about marriages is that too many end up in divorce.

as to the topic at hand I am old school. grew up where divorce was rare and frowned on. homosexuals were rare and frowned upon.

We need to find a way to reduce the numbers of divorces because it seems like it is a mirror image of an abortion for marriage. People take the easy way out too many times rather than working thru it for the sake of their children. In lots of cases like yours Bob it is the right thing to do and is for the best but I gotta believe in too many cases it is for the worst.

As to homosexuality I have no problem with what people do behind closed doors. I see the mainstreaming it and attempt to make it the norm as akin to Stoners argument with drugs and what that culture does to society. That probably gets me labeled a homophobic but I is what I is.

I definitely agree with you there... people far too often take the easy way out of their marriages, when 90% of the time the problems can be resolved with counseling or something else. More than 50% of all marriages are ending in divorce in America now, and I find that statistic very troubling...

 

[Mikewastaken]

It's sad because our divorce rate is 50%, we take this privilege for granted and we won't even allow gays to have a chance?

 

[Fox Mulder]

It's sad because our divorce rate is 50%, we take this privilege for granted and we won't even allow gays to have a chance?

What's that have to do with the issue? Whether divorce rate is 50%, 100% or 2% is irrelevent to the discussion.

 

[Panic]

It just goes to show that although the majority of black voters are democrat, the bulk of them are morally conservative.

So people who love to throw the word "liberal" around like it's a dirty word when referring to democrats don't know what they're talking about because lots of democrats don't swing so far to the left are in fact, not really liberal at all.

 

[Fox Mulder]

It just goes to show that although the majority of black voters are democrat, the bulk of them are morally conservative.

So people who love to throw the word "liberal" around like it's a dirty word when referring to democrats don't know what they're talking about because lots of democrats don't swing so far to the left are in fact, not really liberal at all.

Than they are moore-ons--because voting for a Democrat is economic suicide. Politics is a necessary evil and the less of it the better. Anyone who votes for a political ideology that believes we need more government and more taxes seriously is just simply clueless when it comes to understanding what makes and economy work.

All you need to do is look at what's happened to GM, Ford, and Chrysler--destroyed by the UAW and paying people 90,000 a year who are almost impossible to fire. That shit isn't cutting it anymore in a global economy--that's why we are getting killed outside America. Democrats are beholden to unions--that's how they get elected and the government unions are even worse--paying people 90% pensions and medical benefits for life (here in California). This state's economy is driving the coming recession and its been building since Grey Davis was in office--the rest of the country is now feeling it. Stupid economic policies like forcing banks to give loans to lower income people who can't qualify and "living wage" are destroying the economy. They are stupid "feel good" liberal policies that don't work economically but work for people emotionally. And in fact that's the best way to differentiate Republicans and Democrats--the former are pragmatic while the latter are emotional. The economy does not suffer foolish emotional policies very well.