State of the Union Wrap-Up

[corplinx]

Bush:
we haven't found any wmd, i dont care
freedom freedom freedom
god god god
i support homophobia at the constitutional level

Pelosi:
I took way too much Zoloft today, dont look at my CRAZY EYES!
Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton
America is da bomb! (not a night-light)
The camera had to turn off its light due to the amount of tooth whitener I use.

Daschle:
Michael Jackson admitted to molesting children after I hypnotized him by talking about unfair gains for the wealthiest of americans for 20 minutes



And well, thats about it.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by corplinx
i support homophobia at the constitutional level

Yeah...wow. Bush gains a few points with the conservative Christians, loses points with...well, lots of people. He's delusional if he thinks he can get the 2/3 majority to make such a permanent statement against homosexuals.

Also, note that it's always "WMD programs" these days :rolleyes:

[ssibal]

It was funny when people started clapping after Bush said the Patriot Act was going to soon expire.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Yeah...wow. Bush gains a few points with the conservative Christians, loses points with...well, lots of people. He's delusional if he thinks he can get the 2/3 majority to make such a permanent statement against homosexuals.

I for one think it was a big mistake. I have no idea how Karl Rove let him go out there and add that to the speech.

It was anti-climatic to me and it ended a generally positive rah-rah speech in a negative way.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by ssibal
It was funny when people started clapping after Bush said the Patriot Act was going to soon expire.

It was hilarious since all of the people clapping for its expiration voted for it.

[dsm]

Has anyone done a wrap-up on previous State of the Union addresses that lists what the President (whoever it was at the time) wanted to do and how much was actually delivered on?

[corplinx]

FoxNews is hilarious by the way. After the speeches they had a "fair and balanced" wrapup with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, and Bill Krystol. Their first interview was with John Breaux.

Tim Robbins is rocking to and fro right now going "see, see".

[Troll]

I used my powers of psychowhatsitness and have determined Mr. Manifesto will ask about people at the address.

So I ask the following.

Who brought their damned kids? There were enough of them. what were they trying to accomplish? Just letting the kids learn or trying to make a point? I sincerely don't know who had the kids there so I can't say it was a partisan thing. If anyone knows, I'd be interested

Did anyone notice Hillary go from golf clap to a big smile and clap? Apparently to her it's a matter of topic. Kudos to her, but apparently she really hated last years.

Charles Rangel looked asleep

Ted Kennedy did an abundance of disaproval nodding while listening.

[Nasarius]

It's a little late, but...

http://www.drinkinggame.us/

[peptoabysmal]

Good summation Corplinx. I wasn't especially impressed by Bush's speech tonight. I expected something more, I guess.

You forgot the other mantra chanted by both sides many times; children, children, children.

[shemp]

I think this sums up his speech best:

http://www.theonion.com/4003/infograph.html

[HarryKeogh]

I agree with Bush wholeheartedly; We cannot let judges impose their arbitrary will on us regarding gay marriage. So we must impose our arbitrary will on homosexuals and make gay marriage unconstitutional.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx
Bush:
we haven't found any wmd, i dont care
freedom freedom freedom
god god god
i support homophobia at the constitutional level

Pelosi:
I took way too much Zoloft today, dont look at my CRAZY EYES!
Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton
America is da bomb! (not a night-light)
The camera had to turn off its light due to the amount of tooth whitener I use.

Daschle:
Michael Jackson admitted to molesting children after I hypnotized him by talking about unfair gains for the wealthiest of americans for 20 minutes



And well, thats about it.

Funny! I think you've nailed it.

[Hexxenhammer]

No mention of the moon or Mars. Not suprising. What a load of crap his new space initiative is. Nothing will ever come it. I take that back, we may get a shuttle replacement out of it.

[Matabiri]

Summed up in Britain as

"War 'making world safer'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1127765,00.html

[Tmy]

these speeches are unwatchable. Talk about a whole lot of nothing. Its more like wathing an award show.

The clapping: Adds a good 30 minutes to the thing
Tom Brady: Im a big Pats fan and I thought this was corney.
Blue Suits: What if one day a Senator wore a green suit! And no blue or red tie!?! Scandle!

Just think, back in the old old days Congressman was not a way to make a living. These people had other jobs.

[Matabiri]

Double post.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by ssibal
It was funny when people started clapping after Bush said the Patriot Act was going to soon expire.

It was even funnier when the rest of the building gave him a standing ovation after he said that the terrorist threat was not going to expire along with it.

How 'bout that Ted Kennedy? What a slug. The Dems looked like they all needed a good stiff shot of prozac.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Yeah...wow. Bush gains a few points with the conservative Christians, loses points with...well, lots of people. He's delusional if he thinks he can get the 2/3 majority to make such a permanent statement against homosexuals.

Also, note that it's always "WMD programs" these days :rolleyes:

so what? He's pandering to the religious right, and BTW to the majority of Americans who don't care to see the mockery that two brides or two grooms make of the venerable institution of marriage.

Personally I am in favor of a civil union lae that allows gays to enjoy the same rights under law as married couples. But why is there a need to call it "marriage"?? Seems to me that the gay rights groups are not just content with civil union, they wish to usurp the trappings of a religious ceremony. This insistence on redefining "marriage" is what galls religious people.

Call it something else, anything else, and I seriously doubt that there would be such resistance to it.

-z

BTW: What is the end product of a "WMD program" if it's not to produce WMD's?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


so what? He's pandering to the religious right, and BTW to the majority of Americans who don't care to see the mockery that two brides or two grooms make of the venerable institution of marriage.

Personally I am in favor of a civil union lae that allows gays to enjoy the same rights under law as married couples. But why is there a need to call it "marriage"?? Seems to me that the gay rights groups are not just content with civil union, they wish to usurp the trappings of a religious ceremony. This insistence on redefining "marriage" is what galls religious people.

Call it something else, anything else, and I seriously doubt that there would be such resistance to it.

Yes, because "separate but equal" has worked so well in the past...

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


so what? He's pandering to the religious right, and BTW to the majority of Americans who don't care to see the mockery that two brides or two grooms make of the venerable institution of marriage.

Personally I am in favor of a civil union lae that allows gays to enjoy the same rights under law as married couples. But why is there a need to call it "marriage"?? Seems to me that the gay rights groups are not just content with civil union, they wish to usurp the trappings of a religious ceremony. This insistence on redefining "marriage" is what galls religious people.

Call it something else, anything else, and I seriously doubt that there would be such resistance to it.

-z

BTW: What is the end product of a "WMD program" if it's not to produce WMD's?

Why can't they call it marriage if they want to?

What business is it of yours?

Is it your word?

IMO, it's one thing for anonymous posters on the internet to be small minded and foolish and quite another for the president of supposedly the greatest nation on earth to display his smallminded foolishness to the world.

For shame.

Graham

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon


Yes, because "separate but equal" has worked so well in the past...

Nice one-liner. Now think about it. "Marriage" is already defined. It has existed for thousands of years, and has never meant 2 guys or 2 girls. Never. On what basis would you say that our generation has a mandate to redefine it?

"Marriage" and "civil union" are two completely equal circumstances under law. It cannot be compared to the civil rights struggle of blacks. Apples and oranges.

There is a real need for gay couples to have legal rights in order to have inheritance and other familial rights. It's hard enough to sell civil union, why then burden the process with the spurrious label of "marriage"?? Seems to me that the agenda demands more than just legal rights, they demand the right to change the nature of a religious institution. They don't have that right.

I am not religious, but if the gay agenda demands the re-defining of marriage itself then I'm all for the proposed constitutional amendment.

Calling a horse a dog will never make the horse start barking. Two brides do not a marriage make.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


Why can't they call it marriage if they want to?

What business is it of yours?

Is it your word?

IMO, it's one thing for anonymous posters on the internet to be small minded and foolish and quite another for the president of supposedly the greatest nation on earth to display his smallminded foolishness to the world.

For shame.

Graham

It's a word. It has a meaning. There's nothing ambiguous about it. Why re-define it??

I really could care less if the gay agenda calls it marriage or not. It's their issue, and if they succeed in redefining marriage then it really doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones. I honestly don't care. It just seems strange to me because this insistence on re-making a religious/cultural institution does nothing less than damage their own quest for legal union. Why? What do they hope to gain? Personally I'd agree that they deserve legal protection and recognition for their "unions". But if they seek to redefine marriage, then I'm against it on principle. Alot of people are out there just like me. Why would the gay agenda seek to alienate us, when they could ask for and get our support?

-z

[Graham]

It's a word. It has a meaning. There's nothing ambiguous about it. Why re-define it??

Here's a newsflash - words can have more than one meaning. Sometimes they mean lots of things.

"Marriage" for instance can be defined as:


1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Funny that.

Graham

[zakur]

FWIW, here are some word counts from last night's State of the Union address. Transcript here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html).

(Applause) - 72
America, Americans - 64
tax, taxes, taxpayers - 21
child, children, young people - 25
Iraq, Iraqis - 24
terror, terrorism, terrorists - 20
free, freedom - 20
health - 18
school, schools - 17
drug, drugs - 15
economy - 14
great - 14
safe, safer, safety, secure, security - 14
war - 12
danger, dangers, dangerous - 11
kill, killers, killing - 11
seniors, senior citizens - 10
marriage - 9
regime, regimes - 8
defend, defense - 8
weapons - 8
sstrong, stronger - 8
better - 7
protect - 7
reform - 6
faith - 6
Afghan, Afghanistan - 6
Saddam Hussein - 5
democracy, democratic - 5
families - 5
courage - 5
peace, peaceful - 5
religion, religious - 4
compassion - 4
character - 4
god - 4
nuclear (nucular) - 4
allies - 4
homeland - 4
budget - 4
Middle East - 4
al-Qaida - 3
resolve - 3
crime, criminals - 3
education - 2
justice - 2
Taliban - 2
thugs - 2
tyranny - 2
deficit - 1
space, Mars, moon, NASA - 0

Note:
weapons of mass destruction - 0
weapons of mass murder - 1
weapons of mass destruction programs - 3

[hgc]

Originally posted by rikzilla


so what? He's pandering to the religious right, and BTW to the majority of Americans who don't care to see the mockery that two brides or two grooms make of the venerable institution of marriage.

Personally I am in favor of a civil union lae that allows gays to enjoy the same rights under law as married couples. But why is there a need to call it "marriage"?? Seems to me that the gay rights groups are not just content with civil union, they wish to usurp the trappings of a religious ceremony. This insistence on redefining "marriage" is what galls religious people.

Call it something else, anything else, and I seriously doubt that there would be such resistance to it.

-z

BTW: What is the end product of a "WMD program" if it's not to produce WMD's? All the homosexuals I've ever heard from on this issue want to be able to live like normal people, as life-long committed couples. Rights to inheritence, insurance and the like are part of it. Also the right to be able to present themselves to the world as a permanent family, like married heteros do, is a major part of it. That is what we call marraige. Would most mind if it was labeled by the civil authorities as "civil union?" I doubt it.

This usurpation of the trappings of the religious ceremony is all in your mind. Plenty of homosexual couples already have religious marraiges, and that's between them and the clergy performing the ceremony.

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


It was even funnier when the rest of the building gave him a standing ovation after he said that the terrorist threat was not going to expire along with it.


Yes, let's all cheer for never-ending terrorism . . .

As Jedi Knight was fond of saying: "Bush, Bush, eight more years"

Graham

[bjornart]

Obviously biased regional nit-picking follows:

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands -- (applause) -- Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. (Applause.) As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

It's very easy to explain to Norway, you dummy, we're one of the countries criticising you. If you find it hard to explain you're obviously not paying attention.

My apologies for interrupting this learned debate. :D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


Here's a newsflash - words can have more than one meaning. Sometimes they mean lots of things.

"Marriage" for instance can be defined as:



Funny that.

Graham

You didn't answer the question. Why?
I honestly don't care. It just seems strange to me because this insistence on re-making a religious/cultural institution does nothing less than damage their own quest for legal union. Why? What do they hope to gain? Personally I'd agree that they deserve legal protection and recognition for their "unions". But if they seek to redefine marriage, then I'm against it on principle. Alot of people are out there just like me. Why would the gay agenda seek to alienate us, when they could ask for and get our support?

The only possible reason is to attack the culture. Republicans and the Christian right will characterize this as evidence of the culture wars they've been telling their followers about. By putting such people on the defensive they're sabotaging their own cause. Why?

BTW, your definition of marriage?
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

So even by this very liberal example of definition, it still excludes the legal same sex marriage.

Marriage is a religiously loaded term. Redefining it intrudes into the religious arena. "Civil union" carries no such baggage, and solves the legal problems that gay couples labor under. Why undercut their position like that?
-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Nice one-liner. Now think about it. "Marriage" is already defined. It has existed for thousands of years, and has never meant 2 guys or 2 girls. Never. On what basis would you say that our generation has a mandate to redefine it?



Oh, give it up. "It's always been that way, who are we to change it" has got to be the WORST reason not to do something. Any time there's been a societal change for the better--getting rid of slavery, Jim Crow, feudalism--there's always been that set of goobers whining that it violates natural law of some sort. Things change. Cope.

I have yet to see even a remotely reasonable reason why marriage should NOT be extended to gay/lesbian couples.

The only reason "marriage has existed for thousands of years" is because we, as a species, tend to mate more or less monogamously on a long-term basis with a single individual. There is no reason to believe this is different for homosexuals.

The only reason marriage has been institutionalized is because we as a society have decided to do so through organized religion and through the government.



"Marriage" and "civil union" are two completely equal circumstances under law. It cannot be compared to the civil rights struggle of blacks. Apples and oranges.


Well, that's obviously untrue. "Civil unions" are basically "marriage lite." They don't include all the same benefits of legal marriage--inheritance, visitation, adoption, those are just the things that come to mind immediately.

Any way you slice, dice, or chop it, even an attempt at "equal to marriage" federal "civil unions" is just another way of saying "Separate but equal." You want to create a SEPARATE institution--not the same one, a SEPARATE one--homosexuals with, on paper, the SAME properties as the heterosexual version. Well, in theory, having "separate"education for blacks wasn't necessarily discriminatory--but we all know what happened. The separation was necessary for the racists to give all the crappies books, buildings, and other materials to the "separate but equal" schools. Same thing. The separation of "civil unions" from "marriage" will exist solely to allow states, cities, places of employment, etc. to give two classes of benefits to "civil unions" and "marriages."



There is a real need for gay couples to have legal rights in order to have inheritance and other familial rights. It's hard enough to sell civil union, why then burden the process with the spurrious label of "marriage"?? Seems to me that the agenda demands more than just legal rights, they demand the right to change the nature of a religious institution. They don't have that right.


I guess propaganda speaks louder than reality.

Nobody--and I mean nobody--is trying to change the nature of the religious institution of marriage. Churches, synogogues, mosques, covens, etc. can and do set their own rules on who they will/won't marry. For example, if you're Jewish and you're marrying a non-Jew, it's frequently difficult to find a synagogue willing to let you marry there unless the non-Jew converts. (Finding a rabbi willing to do it for a few hundred bucks outside of a synagogue is much easier.)


I am not religious, but if the gay agenda demands the re-defining of marriage itself then I'm all for the proposed constitutional amendment.

Ah, yes, nobody can leave out paranoid rambling about the "Gay Agenda." They're coming after our marriage! They want to recruit our kids! AAARGGGHHH!!! Save us from the eeeeevil Gay Agenda, Mr. Bush!

Psst, Rik--want to know what the REAL Gay Agenda is? It's a deep, deep secret--the gay agenda is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla

You didn't answer the question. Why?

I thought it was rhetorical, actually.

"Why would the gay agenda seek to alienate us, when they could ask for and get our support?"

Why should they pander to you? If it was something that would affect you in any way (apart from stealing your word,) I would expect them to but it doesn't and so why should they?

They are not seeking to alienate you, they are seeking equality. You are alienating them by denying it.


The only possible reason is to attack the culture. Republicans and the Christian right will characterize this as evidence of the culture wars they've been telling their followers about. By putting such people on the defensive they're sabotaging their own cause. Why?


The Republicans and Christian right consider gay people the enemy (right up there with atheists, I guess). They will therefore be on the defensive against any pro-active move the "gay community" makes.

Perhaps you think it would be better for gay people to just not draw attention to themselves - don't ask, don't tell and for God's sake don't act like what you're doing is ok.


BTW, your definition of marriage?


So even by this very liberal example of definition, it still excludes the legal same sex marriage.

There were four definitions in there (I knew you would have trouble if there was more than one :p )

I would refer you back to "2. The state of being married; wedlock" - see that - no mention of men or women, gay or otherwise.


Marriage is a religiously loaded term. Redefining it intrudes into the religious arena. "Civil union" carries no such baggage, and solves the legal problems that gay couples labor under. Why undercut their position like that?
-z


Because some gay people don't want a "civil union" they want a marriage. If they want it and they can find (or found) a church willing to give it to them, what business is it of your of the governemnt to deny it to them?

Graham

[Evolver]

"Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since Sept. 11, 2001 -- over two years without an attack on American soil -- and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting -- and false."

Was he telling everyone watching that the danger was right in front of them? Giving a speech? Could it be? Bush told the truth for the first time since taking the office?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Nice one-liner. Now think about it. "Marriage" is already defined. It has existed for thousands of years, and has never meant 2 guys or 2 girls. Never. On what basis would you say that our generation has a mandate to redefine it?





"Marriage" in Judeao-Christian society (and I'm using that criteria based on your own claim that marriage is a religious, not legal institution,) has for thousands of years meant multiple wives too. In fact since the time of Genesis.

The Fruitfulness Of Jacob's Wives (http://www.serveyahweh.org/Family/onmarriage07.htm)

So I assume then based on your own argument that you are in fact angry that we have changed the laws in this country to make marriage solely between 1 man and 1 women. After all...who are we to change the meaning it has had for thousands of years?

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Evolver
"Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since Sept. 11, 2001 -- over two years without an attack on American soil -- and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting -- and false."

Was he telling everyone watching that the danger was right in front of them? Giving a speech? Could it be? Bush told the truth for the first time since taking the office?

Only when it benefits him :)
"I need another term so we can really get those terrorists!"

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


I thought it was rhetorical, actually.

"Why would the gay agenda seek to alienate us, when they could ask for and get our support?"

Why should they pander to you? If it was something that would affect you in any way (apart from stealing your word,) I would expect them to but it doesn't and so why should they?


The same reason anyone else panders, to get my vote. Don't they need all the friends they can get? Or perhaps they don't need or want broad support??

They are not seeking to alienate you, they are seeking equality. You are alienating them by denying it.
Okay, you're wrong. How is being in favor of civil unions, when civil unions contain the same rights as marriage? The only difference is we're not calling it marriage.
:putting on my religious hat:
You on the other hand are not seeking equality, you can get that. You're seeking to undermine my culture by attacking marriage. You've already redefined "family", now you're coming after marriage. It's the culture wars! Pat Robertson was right!
:religious hat off:

Indeed it is alienation of religious people who are on the fence on this issue. Not hard line religionist, you lost them long ago to scripture. I'm speaking of open-minded religious people. Yes, they are out there....and the attack on "marriage" is driving them into the arms of the religious righties.

The Republicans and Christian right consider gay people the enemy (right up there with atheists, I guess). They will therefore be on the defensive against any pro-active move the "gay community" makes.
"Republicans" and "Christians" are not monolithic. Your statement is biased. what of the "Log Cabin Republicans"? Are they not republican? What of the Episcopal church? Are they not Christian?

Perhaps you think it would be better for gay people to just not draw attention to themselves - don't ask, don't tell and for God's sake don't act like what you're doing is ok.
Strawman.

There were four definitions in there (I knew you would have trouble if there was more than one :p )

I would refer you back to "2. The state of being married; wedlock" - see that - no mention of men or women, gay or otherwise.
Because of the gay agenda's "all or nothing" approach you may soon see that change. Once a constitutional amendment is in place the legal definition of marriage will be one man/one woman. If GWB is reelected by a large margin this possibility will become a probability...all because some people are hung up on a word. The only reason they're hung up on that word is that they are following an agenda to fundimentally change American culture. When they fail, they will whine. (my prediction)

Because some gay people don't want a "civil union" they want a marriage. If they want it and they can find (or found) a church willing to give it to them, what business is it of your of the governemnt to deny it to them?
Then they are not after equality. They're after more. Screw them.

-z

[DavidJames]

"You on the other hand are not seeking equality, you can get that. You're seeking to undermine my culture by attacking marriage. You've already redefined "family", now you're coming after marriage. It's the culture wars! Pat Robertson was right!
:religious hat off:"

That hat fits you rather well, sounds like it's been well broken in :)

"Then they are not after equality. They're after more. Screw them"

Freudian?

"gay agenda's "

Do you get a free bible from the 700 club if you post that enough? ;)

"all because some people are hung up on a word"

hmmmm

[Tmy]

DANGER DANGER!! DERAILED THREAD ALERT!!!!!

back to topic:


72 Applause!?!? The SOU wasnt always liek that right. If I remember the insane clapping started aroudn Gulf War 1 right?

I long for the day when a Pres will come out and say somthing like "Please save any applause for the end."

If you must have clapping then toss in some well placed boos to make things interesting.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Tmy
DANGER DANGER!! DERAILED THREAD ALERT!!!!!

back to topic:


72 Applause!?!? The SOU wasnt always liek that right. If I remember the insane clapping started aroudn Gulf War 1 right?

I long for the day when a Pres will come out and say somthing like "Please save any applause for the end."

If you must have clapping then toss in some well placed boos to make things interesting. Yeah this should be more like the british parliament with lots of booing and stomping. That's good government.

[zakur]

I love how the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has now evolved into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla

The same reason anyone else panders, to get my vote. Don't they need all the friends they can get? Or perhaps they don't need or want broad support??


As I understand it, the various state courts that have ruled on this have done so on the basis that laws preventing gay people from getting married are unconstitutional.

Bush's speech yesterday would seem to confirm that he too thinks they are unconstitutional (since he feels and amendment is needed to the constitution to make them illegal.

So the answer then is no, they don't need broad support since they are onlyasking that the constitution be applied properly.



Okay, you're wrong. How is being in favor of civil unions, when civil unions contain the same rights as marriage? The only difference is we're not calling it marriage.
:putting on my religious hat:
You on the other hand are not seeking equality, you can get that. You're seeking to undermine my culture by attacking marriage. You've already redefined "family", now you're coming after marriage. It's the culture wars! Pat Robertson was right!
:religious hat off:

Indeed it is alienation of religious people who are on the fence on this issue. Not hard line religionist, you lost them long ago to scripture. I'm speaking of open-minded religious people. Yes, they are out there....and the attack on "marriage" is driving them into the arms of the religious righties.



The only people painting it as an attack on marriage are the fundamentalists. Of course when the fundamentallists are running your country . . .




"Republicans" and "Christians" are not monolithic. Your statement is biased. what of the "Log Cabin Republicans"? Are they not republican? What of the Episcopal church? Are they not Christian?


I was merely following your usage of the term bit off for you to cry foul, IMO.


Strawman.


Did you miss the word "Perhaps" at the start of the sentence. It was speculation, not a strawman.


Because of the gay agenda's "all or nothing" approach you may soon see that change. Once a constitutional amendment is in place the legal definition of marriage will be one man/one woman. If GWB is reelected by a large margin this possibility will become a probability...all because some people are hung up on a word. The only reason they're hung up on that word is that they are following an agenda to fundimentally change American culture. When they fail, they will whine. (my prediction)


It seems to me that someone is hung up on a word. If words are that unimportant - why does it matter?

You are arguing that one side should not get hung up on a word because the other side are already hung up on it. That's pretty screwed up.


Then they are not after equality. They're after more. Screw them.

-z

They want a right that heterosexual people already have, how is that "more"?

Here's another question for you though:

There are churches and ministers out there that will marry gay people (to each other, I mean, though there are probably plenty of clergy who would marry gay people to themselves if they could too!). Clearly, not all religion is opposed to this practice.

By arguing on the basis that it's against religion, therefore, you are in fact arguing that it's against one (or a selection of) specific religion(s).

What happened to freedom of religion, pray?

Graham

[Andonyx]

It seems to me Rik has four arguments that I can recap here:

1:
Nice one-liner. Now think about it. "Marriage" is already defined. It has existed for thousands of years, and has never meant 2 guys or 2 girls. Never. On what basis would you say that our generation has a mandate to redefine it?

I have already demonstrated that for thousands of years marriage has meant many different things including polygamy....political arrangements of people who had never even met each-other etc...In my previous post. The idea of marriage as a romantic union between a man and a woman is relatively recent on the scale of history. And we change the definitions of our societal institutions all the time, as the circumstances change. Inaddition the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters changes meanings and included words every year to reflect the evolution of language as it mirrors evolution of culture.

The above argument denies that both culture and language are fluid not static, and without that we would all stil be wearing frilly collars and taking buggys to work.

2. You on the other hand are not seeking equality, you can get that. You're seeking to undermine my culture by attacking marriage. You've already redefined "family", now you're coming after marriage. It's the culture wars! Pat Robertson was right!

On the one hand if they were seeking to change the culture, that's not in itself automatically a bad thing. Each group of people singled out as different have had to seek at the very least a change in the culture of the US to one that accepts them as equals. But even so, if we assume that all individual citizens are treated as equals under the law, and asking to be treated equal is not a cultural change, then we are left with the idea that somehow extending the definition of Marriage to include same sex unions is a change in culture.

Since Rik has already stated the following:


I really could care less if the gay agenda calls it marriage or not. It's their issue, and if they succeed in redefining marriage then it really doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones. I honestly don't care.

If it has no practical effects on his life, as he has admitted, is it really a change in culture. I say no as culture is defined as:

The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

In this sense, it may be that the institution has changed as Rik sees it, but since it does not effect the institution as he PRACTICES it, nor does it effect his behavior pattersn or beliefs in any way, nor is anyone asking him to change his beliefs in any way...I would say this is in fact not an attack on culture, but simply as desire to have that culture include a minority group. Which leaves his objection down to:

3.
all because some people are hung up on a word


Yes, apparently it's you. The rest of us could not care less how it's used. You on the other hand cling to it as though the application of it that has not been used before is the crumbling of the foundations of America.

This really leaves us with his fourth point, which....I happen to agree with....to an extent:

4.
Indeed it is alienation of religious people who are on the fence on this issue. Not hard line religionist, you lost them long ago to scripture. I'm speaking of open-minded religious people. Yes, they are out there....and the attack on "marriage" is driving them into the arms of the religious righties. <Edit> Why would the gay agenda seek to alienate us, when they could ask for and get our support?

This is a political reality that they're dealing with, and I'm not sure why some push ahead when backing down on the labeling issues could get many gay couples the legal rights they deserve immediately. Rik is a classic example of someone who doesn't really understand that the issue is the fact that government has no authority to deny them the right to marry if it IS in fact a religious insitution as he claims. But the gay community does need support and going for civil union is the first step on an inroad to true equal status.

What he also doesn't understand is that if there really was a "gay agenda" they'd be alot smarter and more deceptive in this by seeking unions first and slowly enamouring people to the "new culture" then gradually push for changes so slowly that we didn't notice them.

What this push for marriage is demonstrates that it's not about agenda, it's about principle. On the legal side the goverment has no legal grounds to deny homosexuals the same rights of legal union that anyone else has regardless of what they want to call it.

On the religious side, it's up to whatever church, sect, denomination, or commune they gays want to get married in. The argument that marriage is inherently religious is idiotic if for no other reason than I can get married in city hall, by a court clerk, and I am an atheist.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by zakur
I love how the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has now evolved into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Or WMD-RPA's as they are now known.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Andonyx

On the religious side, it's up to whatever church, sect, denomination, or commune they gays want to get married in. The argument that marriage is inherently religious is idiotic if for no other reason than I can get married in city hall, bya court clerk, and I am an atheist.

I was just about to write something like this but Andonyx beat me to it.

Rik, what happens when a major denomination, say the Episcopalians, decides gay marriage is ok? Now the religious right is truly in a pickle because it will expose their beliefs that only THEIR views are correct. We will see a true Scotsman argument about Christianity.

We already are seeing it with the gay Bishop.

All of this may be a moot point. Surveys show the next generation ahs a much more liberal attitude about gays and gay marriages. In my opinion, it is just a matter of time before older, more socially conservative generations die off and gay marriage is a fait accompli.

Lurker

[TillEulenspiegel]

The state of the union address was supposed to be a forum where the president informed the other branches of government about...well the state of the union. It has become nothing more then an extended partisan PR exercise for self ( and party ) aggrandizement.

As far as a constitutional amendment all I can is thank the framers who made it very difficult do such, otherwise we would have the cause De'Jour as ballot initiatives.

[Dorian Gray]

Exactly, Lurker. In a few short years, we will think about gay marriages the way that we today think about interracial marriages.

Nice one-liner. Now think about it. "Marriage" is already defined. It has existed for thousands of years, and has never meant 2 guys or 2 girls. Never. On what basis would you say that our generation has a mandate to redefine it?It had never meant interracial marriage either - but it does now. It has in the past meant one man and dozens of women - but it doesn't now. I hope you don't think about your underwear the same way you think about definitions of words.

If you do, what is the problem with happy people getting married?

[rikzilla]

I am merely arguing that the use of the term marriage is a unnecessary complication to the cause. I could care less if John and Ron get hitched.

They should think on it though...be careful what you wish for! The next issue will quickly be "Gay Divorce". ;)

-z

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The state of the union address was supposed to be a forum where the president informed the other branches of government about...well the state of the union. It has become nothing more then an extended partisan PR exercise for self ( and party ) aggrandizement.



Once again, The Onion has the goods:

http://www.theonion.com/4003/infograph.html


Spoke about bi-partisan support, which was applauded by half the audience.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Andonyx
It seems to me Rik has four arguments that I can recap here:
On the religious side, it's up to whatever church, sect, denomination, or commune they gays want to get married in. The argument that marriage is inherently religious is idiotic if for no other reason than I can get married in city hall, bya court clerk, and I am an atheist.

I think this is an important point; those against gay marriage try to muddle the issue, but it's important to remember there are two different institutions of marriage.

One is the religious institution; this is free of government interference, can be man-man or woman-woman; churches can ban interracial marriage; they can pick and choose what types of marriage they'll allow. Hell, they can even include polygamy if the parties are so inclined.

The other is civic marriage; it's the kind that gets you visitation rights, rights of inheritance, tax advantages, the whole nine yards.

Now, what states have done is allow a slight blending of the two--a preacher (as they say here in the Sahth) can marry a couple, and make it a civic marriage as well (by signing the marriage license and sending it to the count court, usually). Conversely, you can get married by a judge and never set foot near a church.

Fundamentally, though, the two institutions are completely separate. One is legally binding and comes with all the civic benefits, one pleases your particular diety(ies) of choice. What Rikzilla and his fellow anti-gay-marriage conservatives are trying to push is a strawman based on people's ignorance of marriage law; they want to convince people that by changing civic marriage, they'll change religious marriage and good Southern Baptist churches will have to marry gay couples against their will. Not so. Complete BS. Your church, mosque, synagogue, coven, or other House O' God can marry or refuse to marry anyone they want to. What they don't have the right to do--and if the gods are kind they'll never have this right--is dictate to the rest of society what types of marriages are legit and what marriages aren't.

[Tmy]

Isnt the gay marriage definition just as arbitrary as the traditional definition people.

Civil Marriage laws are really about excluding. Same Sex Marriage still puts a limit tween two people. So you expand marriage just a bit more and if that puts you on a some moral high highhorse?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Lurker


I was just about to write something like this but Andonyx beat me to it.

Rik, what happens when a major denomination, say the Episcopalians, decides gay marriage is ok? Now the religious right is truly in a pickle because it will expose their beliefs that only THEIR views are correct. We will see a true Scotsman argument about Christianity.
Religious schism.

We already are seeing it with the gay Bishop.
True, and the ECUSA is utterly split. (I know what I'm speaking of, I used to be Episcopal, and my old church is in the thick of the controversy) Practically every ECUSA parish church in Northern Virginia has pledged their support to the conservative wing. They won't declare themselves seperate though only because the way church rules are written, all property...lands, buildings, down to the last hymnal would remain property of the national church. (ECUSA) They're not that stupid. They are pledged to work within ECUSA to foster a more conservative move. Sadly, the thing I most liked about the Episcopal church was their liberal ideas of inclusiveness. When I was there they actively reached out to gays and minorities. But now they've had a hard choice foisted upon them that they hadn't wanted to make. They were told to choose, no more fence sitting. As far as what I've seen most have let scripture guide them. Bad news for the liberal wing that pushed the gay agenda so hard. Again, their "all or nothing" attitude is going to cost them big time.

In football terms; when the ground game is working...and the clock is not your enemy...why throw the "hail mary"?? Why gamble all when you don't have to. Again, my answer is the irrational gay agenda. These folks are their own worst enemies.

All of this may be a moot point. Surveys show the next generation ahs a much more liberal attitude about gays and gay marriages. In my opinion, it is just a matter of time before older, more socially conservative generations die off and gay marriage is a fait accompli.

Lurker

Perhaps, perhaps not. The polls I've seen have shown young voters are more conservative, but it wasn't specific to gay issues.

-z

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Then they are not after equality. They're after more. Screw them.


I'll bite. When two homosexuals want to get married, and have it recognized by all the states, and enjoy the same legal benefits married heterosexuals get, they are after equality plus . . . . what else? What else do they want? I've never heard the Gay Agenda described as "equal marriage rights plus free Ribwiches." Or whatever. How are equals rights for gays and straights not equal?

Also, for Zakur: mentions of Osama bin Laden: 0.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleon


I think this is an important point; those against gay marriage try to muddle the issue, but it's important to remember there are two different institutions of marriage.

One is the religious institution; this is free of government interference, can be man-man or woman-woman; churches can ban interracial marriage; they can pick and choose what types of marriage they'll allow. Hell, they can even include polygamy if the parties are so inclined.

The other is civic marriage; it's the kind that gets you visitation rights, rights of inheritance, tax advantages, the whole nine yards.

Now, what states have done is allow a slight blending of the two--a preacher (as they say here in the Sahth) can marry a couple, and make it a civic marriage as well (by signing the marriage license and sending it to the count court, usually). Conversely, you can get married by a judge and never set foot near a church.

Fundamentally, though, the two institutions are completely separate. One is legally binding and comes with all the civic benefits, one pleases your particular diety(ies) of choice. What Rikzilla and his fellow anti-gay-marriage conservatives are trying to push is a strawman based on people's ignorance of marriage law; they want to convince people that by changing civic marriage, they'll change religious marriage and good Southern Baptist churches will have to marry gay couples against their will. Not so. Complete BS. Your church, mosque, synagogue, coven, or other House O' God can marry or refuse to marry anyone they want to. What they don't have the right to do--and if the gods are kind they'll never have this right--is dictate to the rest of society what types of marriages are legit and what marriages aren't.

Well put.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


I'll bite. When two homosexuals want to get married, and have it recognized by all the states, and enjoy the same legal benefits married heterosexuals get, they are after equality plus . . . . what else? What else do they want? I've never heard the Gay Agenda described as "equal marriage rights plus free Ribwiches." Or whatever. How are equals rights for gays and straights not equal?

Also, for Zakur: mentions of Osama bin Laden: 0.

If you read my earlier post carefully you'd see I answered that. Let's not rehash stuff, my fingers are getting sore.

Now let me say this about that for those of you who seem to have no idea:

I'm not anti-gay anything. I'm merely acting as "devil's advocate" in this forum.

The only thing I'm concerned about is that the gay movement seems to care not for the individuals it claims to represent...it cares more for "the movement" and by that I mean it's advancement of gay culture at all costs. This turns people off. People like me who, are pre-disposed to a favorable opinion of gay legal union, but do not like the "in-your-face" culture war aspect of the issue. When I am challenged it pisses me off and makes me ready to fight. Why not champion legal rights to same sex union, but drop the culture warrior act? This is the reason I see a constitutional amendment coming. If it gets put into the Constitution, good luck passing any generic civil union laws. The moment will have passed. The "movement" is doing all it can to make Pat Robertson, et al, look like they know what they're talking about.

-z

[pgwenthold]

A point I saw in another forum: Since when does the federal government get into the business of regulating marriage?

Marriage licenses come from the state. Divorces are from the state. Other marriage regulations (marrying cousins, legal age) are handled by the state.

So why should the federal government get involved?

quick question: Are polygamy laws state or federal?

[hgc]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
A point I saw in another forum: Since when does the federal government get into the business of regulating marriage?

Marriage licenses come from the state. Divorces are from the state. Other marriage regulations (marrying cousins, legal age) are handled by the state.

So why should the federal government get involved?

quick question: Are polygamy laws state or federal? Here's why:U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Secion 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. If Massachusetts has homosexual marraige or civil unions, every other state must recognize it. I don't know all the implications of this, but I think it's the driving force behind so many outside Mass. going nuts over what their courts decide.

This legal principle is long established and recognized around the world. Hence the portability of marraiges, divorces and whatnot from country to country.

[Attrayant]

I am merely arguing that the use of the term marriage is a unnecessary complication to the cause.

I suggest you direct your energies at more worthwhile arguments.

It doesn't matter. Call it civil unions, or whatever you want. The common person on the street will look at two men who have been civilly unionized and call them "married". It won't be long thereafter that the dictionary entries are accordingly modified. Hell, if "irregardless" can make it into the dictionary...

As long as the civil contract carries the same legal rights and benefits as marriage (at both the state and federal levels), the [legal/technical] label doesn't matter except to the most superficial & shallow of us.

Back on topic:

ObL is public enemy #1, he should have been topic #1 in the speech. To avoid mentioning him smacks of cowardice.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by hgc
This legal principle is long established and recognized around the world. Hence the portability of marraiges, divorces and whatnot from country to country.

That's interesting because just recently, two married gay people were barred entry into the US form Canada because they filled out their forms as a married couple. The Border agents refused to allow them to do that, and as such they were not allowed to enter.

I believe the option to fill out individual forms was offered, and they turned it down.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/18/gay_customs030918

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Andonyx


That's interesting because just recently, two married gay people were barred entry into the US form Canada because they filled out their forms as a married couple. The Border agents refused to allow them to do that, and as such they were not allowed to enter.

I believe the option to fill out individual forms was offered, and they turned it down.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/18/gay_customs030918

Dang Homos just want special priviledges...

[Tmy]

I think we're mixing love and marriage. (que Frank Sinatra) Religious marriage is based on love, civil marriage doesnt really have that requirement.

Who says the marriage laws need to be fair to everyone? If you REALLY want to be fair then youd ban all civil marriage. Lots of people dont belive in marriage, why should married folks have more rights than non married folks? Of cousre that'd be like creating an exclusive club ( marriage) that didnt have any exclusions.

[hgc]

Originally posted by rikzilla
...

I'm not anti-gay anything. I'm merely acting as "devil's advocate" in this forum. You might want to look up the meaning of devil's advocate.The only thing I'm concerned about is that the gay movement seems to care not for the individuals it claims to represent...it cares more for "the movement" and by that I mean it's advancement of gay culture at all costs. This turns people off. People like me who, are pre-disposed to a favorable opinion of gay legal union, but do not like the "in-your-face" culture war aspect of the issue. When I am challenged it pisses me off and makes me ready to fight. Why not champion legal rights to same sex union, but drop the culture warrior act? This is the reason I see a constitutional amendment coming. If it gets put into the Constitution, good luck passing any generic civil union laws. The moment will have passed. The "movement" is doing all it can to make Pat Robertson, et al, look like they know what they're talking about.

-z Who is the "movement" you speak of? Not the same as the people whom it "claims to represent?" All the gay people I know strongly favor gay marraige/civil union. Some want a religious ceremony, and others don't. What they want is to live exactly like everyone else who has their permanent partnership enshrined into law by the state, and to have all the priviledges there in. Are there gay people that oppose it? I don't doubt that there are -- for a myriad of reasons. But you'll have to provide some evidence if you want anyone around here to believe that "the movement" doesn't represent the people it purports to represent, and that it wants something more than equality.

[Furious]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Perhaps, perhaps not. The polls I've seen have shown young voters are more conservative, but it wasn't specific to gay issues.

-z

I believe the term is South Park Republicans. Essentially, its Liberatarianism only less rabid.

It's a relatively weird mix of socially liberal (traditionally democrat) and fiscally conservative (traditionally republican).

Less taxes, pro-choice, less restrictive gun laws, legalization of drugs and more free trade with other nations.

Each party gives some of those things, but both are shackled to some degree because of special interests who are against some of those beliefs.

So while its true that a lot of young people are conservative on issues like gun control and taxes, it is not accurate to call them traditional conservatives because they are tolerant of homosexuals, pro-choice and favor the legalization of drugs.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
Bush:
we haven't found any wmd, i dont care
freedom freedom freedom
god god god
i support homophobia at the constitutional level

Pelosi:
I took way too much Zoloft today, dont look at my CRAZY EYES!
Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton
America is da bomb! (not a night-light)
The camera had to turn off its light due to the amount of tooth whitener I use.

Daschle:
Michael Jackson admitted to molesting children after I hypnotized him by talking about unfair gains for the wealthiest of americans for 20 minutes



And well, thats about it.

:dl:

Ok, Corps, you nailed this one right to the wall, I have to say.

Maybe eventually we'll get you to have the same bumper sticker I had last time, well, something like "bush vs. gore, just say NO".

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Furious


I believe the term is South Park Republicans. Essentially, its Liberatarianism only less rabid.

It's a relatively weird mix of socially liberal (traditionally democrat) and fiscally conservative (traditionally republican).


How long has it been since republicans have been fiscally conservative?

Cutting welfare programs slightly while at the same time massively expanding defense spending leading to record sized budgets is not really conservation,.

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla

The only possible reason is to attack the culture.


Really. You know this because you read minds, or because you are using the excluded middle?


Republicans and the Christian right will characterize this as evidence of the culture wars they've been telling their followers about. By putting such people on the defensive they're sabotaging their own cause. Why?


Well, last time I looked, the religious right was busy insisting that such people were an "abomination unto god", etc, etc. That hardly sounds like a group that's going to rally to their side, now, does it?

Marriage is a religiously loaded term. Redefining it intrudes into the religious arena. "Civil union" carries no such baggage, and solves the legal problems that gay couples labor under. Why undercut their position like that?
-z

I wonder, did they have a term like "marriage" in the old USSR? If so, that would be an example of secular marriage. How you accept that usage would, of course, be up to you. :)

But I'm an atheist, and I'm married, to another atheist, too. So marriage is not a religious term. Yes, I'm straight, my spouse is of the opposite sex, but we are married, and we never saw a minister, preacher, or anything beyond the local mayor. I have seen the inside of a church about 2 times after being married, for a reception, 2x a (religious) marriage of someone else, and a funeral.

Do you object to my using the word "married"? There's nothing religious about my marriage. The legal document from NJ that says I'm married calls itself a "Marriage Licence and Certificate".

Well?

[Furious]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


How long has it been since republicans have been fiscally conservative?

Cutting welfare programs slightly while at the same time massively expanding defense spending leading to record sized budgets is not really conservation,.

Yeah I find that pretty amusing.

On the other hand, a Democratic president didn't look too socially progressive instituting the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy either, so there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around...

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by corplinx
Pelosi:
I took way too much Zoloft today, dont look at my CRAZY EYES!
Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton
America is da bomb! (not a night-light)
The camera had to turn off its light due to the amount of tooth whitener I use.

My advice to her is: don't talk and chew gum at the same time.

[jj]

Originally posted by Furious


Yeah I find that pretty amusing.

On the other hand, a Democratic president didn't look too socially progressive instituting the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy either, so there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around...

I have to say that the party under discussion doesn't matter, each one has enough hypocrisy spread around to feed the world for 50 years if it was only manna.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Furious


Yeah I find that pretty amusing.

On the other hand, a Democratic president didn't look too socially progressive instituting the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy either, so there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around...


Hell, he signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" as well.

Yep. I now know Marriage is being strongly defended by the President who best upholds the sanctity of that pillar of our society.

There's a word for Clinton signing the "Defense of Marriage Act." Ironically, it escapes me at this moment. ;-)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


How long has it been since republicans have been fiscally conservative?

Cutting welfare programs slightly while at the same time massively expanding defense spending leading to record sized budgets is not really conservation,.
The pork barrel is very deep this election year. It's a disgrace.

There's even (I kid you not!) $50 million for a rain forest in Iowa. (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031206-105920-1912r.htm)

But it's federal money, so it's free, right?

As long as people judge their congressmen by the projects they bring home, this crap will continue. They just don't realize that it's not free...

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by WildCat

The pork barrel is very deep this election year. It's a disgrace.

There's even (I kid you not!) $50 million for a rain forest in Iowa. (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031206-105920-1912r.htm)

But it's federal money, so it's free, right?

As long as people judge their congressmen by the projects they bring home, this crap will continue. They just don't realize that it's not free...

What cracks me up is that the defense and homeland security spending is blamed by some, but it is almost nothing compared to the 160+ billion in pork that was passed last year and the proposed 300+ billion of pork in this years budget. Easy to see how we got to a 500+ trillion $ national debt in about 30 years. This is where Bush is definitely not conservative enough.

edited: ok so I can't spell when I type too fast.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The state of the union address was supposed to be a forum where the president informed the other branches of government about...well the state of the union. It has become nothing more then an extended partisan PR exercise for self ( and party ) aggrandizement.
____
Very good point.
___
As far as a constitutional amendment all I can is thank the framers who made it very difficult do such, otherwise we would have the cause De'Jour as ballot initiatives.
____
Like the Republican sponsored Balanced Budget Amendment.
Why don't you hear anything about it. Could it have been a crass political ploy?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

“Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country – mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely,” Bush said. “Yet government has often denied social-service grants and contracts to these groups just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.”


Where is Bush going with this government supported proselytising?

[Dorian Gray]

Atempting to open his presidential campaign with the platform of interlacing church and state.

Lots of people dont belive in marriage, why should married folks have more rights than non married folks? Of cousre that'd be like creating an exclusive club ( marriage) that didnt have any exclusions. You are an idiot. Yes, that's an ad hominem.
Nonmarried people can simply not get married. Gays can't simply get married.

Now here's a funny thing: Gays could have a religious ceremony and get married, but not a civil ceremony.

Also, if gays start having 'civil unions', practically everyone would call it a 'marriage', and therefore it would be a de facto marriage. Eventually the government would have to recognize it.

This quote from the State of the Union bothers me: Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. It's the churches who are forcing their will upon the people. The judges are defending the people and upholding the Constitution.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
It's the churches who are forcing their will upon the people. The judges are defending the people and upholding the Constitution.

If so, then how explain this:
A majority of Americans oppose allowing homosexual couples to marry legally, but most also say it's not worth amending the U.S. Constitution to ban such unions, an ABCNEWS poll has found.

The churches were not polled....the people were:
Same-Sex Marriage Views :
Legal Illegal
All 37% 55%
Age 18-34 51% 46%
65 and Over 20% 69%
Democrats 47% 45%
Independents 44% 47%
Republicans 23% 73%
Married 28% 63%
Not Married 48% 47%


Even if only people age 18-34, and Democrats were polled, their support for same sex marriage is paper thin. Now, check this out:
Views on civil unions and same-sex marriages largely coincide. However, 10 percent of those who oppose homosexual marriages do support allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions.
It's only 10 percent...but when you're cause is in trouble, every little 10% counts. This is what I meant about the insistence on "Gay Marriage" as opposed to civil unions. Civil union is to gay marriage as pro-life is to anti-abortion. Or how about the "Patriot Act"? Doesn't it sound better than say the; "Anti Privacy Act"?

So why give something a name which conhures up inferences that harm your cause? Because you are not really interested in helpinging gay couples, you're really interested in reshaping the culture.

-z

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

You are an idiot. Yes, that's an ad hominem.
Nonmarried people can simply not get married. Gays can't simply get married.

Actually gays (just like anyone else) can marry. They just cant marry someone of the same sex.

All marriage laws have pretty much the same restrictions

- have to be of age
-man and women
-not a close relative
-can only be married to one person at a time

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Tmy
Actually gays (just like anyone else) can marry. They just cant marry someone of the same sex.

Blacks can marry. They just can't marry whites.

[Tmy]

AND thats what these debates boil down to. IS BEING GAY AN IMMUTABLE TRAIT? Its easy to see someone is black its a physical trait. But being gay is judged on a physical act.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tmy
AND thats what these debates boil down to. IS BEING GAY AN IMMUTABLE TRAIT? Its easy to see someone is black its a physical trait. But being gay is judged on a physical act.

Yeah, and a lot of them are just pretending to be gay to get attention and all that special treatment Rikzilla is banging on about too, right?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tmy
AND thats what these debates boil down to. IS BEING GAY AN IMMUTABLE TRAIT? Its easy to see someone is black its a physical trait. But being gay is judged on a physical act.

"Is judged" being the key words, here. That's not how homosexuals judge whether they're gay or not. That's how heterosexuals judge whether someone is gay or not.

IMHO, I don't think it's something that can be easily quantified; anyone can physically have sex with someone of the same gender. Adolescent experimentation in this area is fairly common. But I think a more key attribute is whether someone is emotionally attracted to people of the same gender (or of either gender).

Whenever heterosexuals try to boil homosexuality down into an act--usually anal sex--they're essentially trying to understand something that I really don't think they're capable of understanding. (The theory that homophobia is an expression of one's own homosexual urges is another matter.)

Fundamentally, I think this logic falls apart on its own. Is a homosexual still gay when they're not having sex? Sure. Can you be a homosexual virgin? Sure. Are there gay men who don't like anal sex? Absolutely. Boiling it down to an "act" just doesn't make any logical sense.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


Yeah, and a lot of them are just pretending to be gay to get attention and all that special treatment Rikzilla is banging on about too, right?

Graham, etc...

I think we've been having a very satisfying debate so far, dragging out the tired old strawman seems to me to be below the level of discourse we've been enjoying.

:rolleyes:

Please, either make a substantive comment, or don't post.
-z

[Tmy]

Ok then explain bi-sexuals, people who "experiment, people who used to be gay and now are straight, people who were straight and are now gay.

Whos who? Are they all born gay and are just confused? Do people become gay? Do we all have gay tendencies? and so on and so on.

Just saying "why would gays choose to be gay" doesnt prove anything.

[Attrayant]

Originally posted by Tmy in a thread titled "State of the Union Wrap-Up":

Ok then explain bi-sexuals...

I really wish this hijack would go to another thread so this one can get back on topic.

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Graham, etc...

I think we've been having a very satisfying debate so far, dragging out the tired old strawman seems to me to be below the level of discourse we've been enjoying.

:rolleyes:

Please, either make a substantive comment, or don't post.
-z

I'll post what I like, thanks Rik.

edited to add: do you get a cash bonus for use of the word "strawman" or what?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


I'll post what I like, thanks Rik.

edited to add: do you get a cash bonus for use of the word "strawman" or what?

Just wait, I'll compare you to Hitler next and lock down this thread for good! ;)

-z

[Graham]

Originally posted by Attrayant


I really wish this hijack would go to another thread so this one can get back on topic.

Gay marriages was a major part of the address (and is mentioned in the OP).

Who died and made you and Rik the thread Nazis who decide what everyone should or shouldn't discuss?

If you want to discuss something else, go ahead, by all means.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Just wait, I'll compare you to Hitler next and lock down this thread for good! ;)

-z

Too late - I already said "Nazis"!

I win!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


Too late - I already said "Nazis"!

I win!

Arrrgh!
:re: :rm: :brk:

:big:

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Tmy
IS BEING GAY AN IMMUTABLE TRAIT? I really don't see the relevance of it.Ok then explain bi-sexuals, people who "experiment, people who used to be gay and now are straight, people who were straight and are now gay.Only very narrowminded people would argue that sexual preference is a fixed trait for everybody and no one ever was changed. However, there are still people who are exclusively heterosexual or homosexual and who are unlikely to ever change.Are they all born gay and are just confused?Irrelevant.
Do people become gay?Irrelevant.Do we all have gay tendencies? and so on and so on.Irrelevant.-have to be of age
-man and women
-not a close relative
-can only be married to one person at a timeYou forgot one: people choose their own partner, according to their own preferences. By defining a marriage as something that can only happen between a man and a woman, you are making it impossible for homosexuals to do that.

That is what relevant: do homosexuals have the right to marry the person they would like to marry according to their own criteria, and get the same legal protection as others for them and their families?Originally posted by Cleon
One is the religious institution; this is free of government interference, can be man-man or woman-woman; churches can ban interracial marriage; they can pick and choose what types of marriage they'll allow. Hell, they can even include polygamy if the parties are so inclined.

The other is civic marriage; it's the kind that gets you visitation rights, rights of inheritance, tax advantages, the whole nine yards.This is a very important distinction, and I think it explains why the Netherlands was the first country to open civic marriages to same sex couples. Civic marriages and religious marriages have always been completely seperated. A priest or any other religious authority simply cannot perform a legal marriage. If a couple wants to be married for God and the law, they will have to marry twice: once in church and once in city hall. People can have some sort of ceremony at city hall, but they don't have to. It can be as simple as signing a few documents.

That's how my parents did it. Being a bunch of commie atheists, they weren't interested in getting married, and wanted to live together unmarried, just like my grandparents on my mother's side. However, it proved to be a bit to difficult, so they went to city hall, signed a few papers, a civil servant put a stamp on it and they were married before the law. No ceremony, no rings, no fuss. Just a legal contract.

If you have marriage law that is so seperated from religious marriage, it isn't much of a stretch to expand it a bit to include same sex marriages. Churches kept the right to define marriage anyway they want, civil marriage officials who had moral problems with same sex marriage were given the right to refuse to perform the civil ceremony and give the job to someone else. (And this right has been tried and tested in court: there have been a few cases where municipalities forced Christian officials to marry same sex couples, but in all these cases the judge ruled in favour of the civil servant).

And a few years later, there is hardly any homosexual couple left that even wants to get married. Problem solved.

[Tmy]

"Immutable trait" is relevent if you want to create a Constitutional/equal treatment argument for gay marriage.

Otherwise anyone has a right to marry who, what, and how many they want.

[fishbob]

Bush quote:Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. Our president seems to have overlooked the constitutional protections that prevent the will of the people from stomping on the rights of unpopular folks. Or, more likely, our president never learned these bits about the constitution. Correcting long-standing wrongs means that the courts are slow, not activist.

The courts are doing what they are supposed to be doing. When did 'activist' become a derogatory term?

[Earthborn]

I think you will have to expand on that argument, because I don't get it. If you're going to give people the freedom to choose whatever partner they want, how is it relevant whether the criteria for that choice are immutable or not?

[Tmy]

I bringup the immuteable part because you broughtup the white marrying a black thing. Its an argument used by the court to overrule some discriminatory laws. Not all discriminatory laws are illegal. If the lawmakers want to make gay marriage legal, fine they can do it. If the courts want to make it legal, well they need to fine some legal basis to do so. The courts dont create the law they clarify it.

[Earthborn]

I bringup the immuteable part because you broughtup the white marrying a black thing.No, I didn't. Nasarius did. It doesn't matter, because his comment is still relevant.

Marriage laws once restricted people from marrying who they wanted in terms of race (not in the Netherlands but we didn't have any black people anyway), but they changed that.

Today they are only restricted in terms of gender. There is no reason to assume that it can't be changed in the future, and the fact that marriage has for the most part of written history been defined as between a man and (more than one) woman is not a justification in itself not to change it.

If people could choose their own skincolour, or their preference for a specific skincolour, the argument for interracial marriage was the same: it gives people more freedom of choice. This is why I think it is irrelevant whether homosexuality is immutable or not.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ok then explain bi-sexuals,

People who are wired ambivilent. What's the problem? If anything the existance of bisexuals very much strengthens the idea that it's a 'built in'.

people who "experiment, people who used to be gay and now are straight, people who were straight and are now gay.

People with nearly ambivilent wiring. What's the problem?


Whos who? Are they all born gay and are just confused? Do people become gay? Do we all have gay tendencies? and so on and so on.


Argumentum ad ignorantum. Meaningless. Empty rhetoric.


Just saying "why would gays choose to be gay" doesnt prove anything.
And your asking the question means even less.

[clk]

Man, do I miss Clinton's State of the Unions:

Clinton's 1998 SOTU
We have more than 14 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in 24 years, the lowest core inflation in 30 years.

Incomes are rising, and we have the highest home ownership in history. Crime has dropped for a record five years in a row, and the welfare rolls are at their lowest levels in 27 years.

Our leadership in the world is unrivaled. Ladies and gentlemen, the state of our union is strong.


Clinton's 1999 SOTU
Tonight I stand before you to report that America has created the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history -- with nearly 18 million new jobs, wages rising at more than twice the rate of inflation, the highest homeownership in history, the smallest welfare rolls in 30 years -- and the lowest peacetime unemployment since 1957.

For the first time in three decades, the budget is balanced. From a deficit of $290 billion in 1992, we had a surplus of $70 billion last year AND NOW We are on course for budget surpluses for the next 25 years.

Thanks to the pioneering leadership of all of you, we have the lowest violent crime rate in a quarter century and the cleanest environment in a quarter century.

America is a strong force for peace from Northern Ireland, to Bosnia, to the Middle East.

My fellow Americans, I stand before you to report that the state of our union is strong.

So with our budget surplus growing, our economy expanding, our confidence rising, now is the moment for this generation to meet our historic responsibility to the 21st century.


Clinton's 2000 SOTU
We begin the new century with over 20 million new jobs. The fastest economic growth in more than 30 years, the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, the lowest poverty rates in 20 years, the lowest African-American and Hispanic unemployment rates on record, the first back-to-back budget surpluses in 42 years.


Next month, America will achieve the longest period of economic growth in our entire history. We have built a new economy. Our economic revolution has been matched by a revival of the American spirit: Crime down by 20 percent, to its lowest level in 25 years. Teen births down seven years in a row and adoptions up by 30 percent. Welfare rolls cut in half to their lowest levels in 30 years.


My fellow Americans, the state of our union is the strongest it has ever been.


GWB's 2002 SOTU

our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term

Americans who have lost their jobs need our help and I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. (Applause.) Yet, American workers want more than unemployment checks -- they want a steady paycheck.


Boy, what a difference 2 years makes.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by jj
If anything the existance of bisexuals very much strengthens the idea that it's a 'built in'.I fail to see how the existence of bisexuals strengthens or weakens 'the idea that it is built in'.

If we assume that sexual preference is largely a learned preference than this would mean that most people are bisexual by default and people with a more restrictive sexual preference simply acquired it through social pressures.

If on the other end we assume that sexual preference is innate or even genetic, then we simply have to assume that bisexuals have been born with both preferences, or that those have failed to differentiate.

Bisexuality fits in both models.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Personally I am in favor of a civil union law that allows gays to enjoy the same rights under law as married couples. But why is there a need to call it "marriage"?...

Call it something else, anything else, and I seriously doubt that there would be such resistance to it.
Then you would be wrong.

It was civil unions which the state of Vermont granted to gays several years ago, and that resulted in a tremendous backlash of resistance. The result was a movement to "Take Back Vermont". Signs saying "Take Back Vermont" could be seen on lawns throughout the state.

Whether it is called "marriage" or "civil union", a large number of people are determined to deny it to gays.

The effort to blame this on gays -- if gays had only used a different term, they wouldn't be experiencing all this resistance -- reminds me of a Civl Rights Movement parallel that I don't think anyone has made yet. As the tide began to turn in favor of ending segregation and passing civil rights legislation, many opponents of civil rights legislation tried to explain their opposition as a result of the supposedly obnoxious way the civil rights activists had gone about trying to win equal rights

. If they had just asked politely, rather than holding sit-ins and holding boycotts and breaking laws and trying to force us to do what they wanted, we would have let them vote and let them atttend our schools and swim in our swimming pools shop in our stores and eat in our restaurants... It was their own fault for being so arrogant and rude in the way they went about it.

It was false then, and it's false today. But it's often easier to criticize the methods used by people trying to wn their rights than to admit one's own shortcomings in denying those rights.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Personally I am in favor of a civil union law that allows gays to enjoy the same rights under law as married couples. But why is there a need to call it "marriage"?...

Call it something else, anything else, and I seriously doubt that there would be such resistance to it.
Then you would be wrong.

It was civil unions which the state of Vermont granted to gays several years ago, and that resulted in a tremendous backlash of resistance. The result was a movement to "Take Back Vermont". Signs saying "Take Back Vermont" could be seen on lawns throughout the state.

Whether it is called "marriage" or "civil union", a large number of people are determined to deny it to gays.

The effort to blame this on gays -- if gays had only used a different term, they wouldn't be experiencing all this resistance -- reminds me of a Civl Rights Movement parallel that I don't think anyone has made yet. As the tide began to turn in favor of ending segregation and passing civil rights legislation, many opponents of civil rights legislation tried to explain their opposition as a result of the supposedly obnoxious way the civil rights activists had gone about trying to win equal rights

. If they had just asked politely, rather than holding sit-ins and holding boycotts and breaking laws and trying to force us to do what they wanted, we would have let them vote and let them atttend our schools and swim in our swimming pools shop in our stores and eat in our restaurants... It was their own fault for being so arrogant and rude in the way they went about it.

It was false then, and it's false today. But it's often easier to criticize the methods used by people trying to wn their rights than to admit one's own shortcomings in denying those rights.

[Dorian Gray]

So why give something a name which conhures up inferences that harm your cause? Because you are not really interested in helpinging gay couples, you're really interested in reshaping the culture.

A majority of Americans oppose allowing homosexual couples to marry legally, but most also say it's not worth amending the U.S. Constitution to ban such unions, an ABCNEWS poll has found.

Um, you were saying?

Your own quote harms your cause. I am interested in progress. Helping gay couples to have the same rights as me is part of that. In the 60s, I would be helping interracial couples do the same thing.

Object on religious grounds?
An atheist man and atheist woman can get married legally right now.
Episcopalian church.

Marriage is a civil union already. You have to get a license to do it. It's called a 'Marriage License'.

AND thats what these debates boil down to. IS BEING GAY AN IMMUTABLE TRAIT? Its easy to see someone is black its a physical trait. But being gay is judged on a physical act. Wrong, wrong wrong. If so, then there are very few heterosexuals under age 16 in this country. Someone can be heterosexual without having sex. Same with homosexuals.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by zakur

I love how the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has now evolved into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Me, too!

I laughed out loud when I heard Bush utter that phrase -- it sounded like what I would expect from a SNL satire of Bush. If I were a Democrat running for president against Bush, I'd be thinking of ways to work that sound-bite into ads and keep it in the public view.

One possible ad would show brief clips from speeches last year (selling the country on war) with Bush and co. confidently and straightforwardly talking about "weapons of mass destruction." Do 3 or 4 brief snips of that, then cut to Bush uttering that beauty. Pause, give a few moments of voiceover pointing out how strange and different the new phrase is -- then replay it, over and over...

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Nova Land

Whether it is called "marriage" or "civil union", a large number of people are determined to deny it to gays.



Ohio seems determined to back you up on that one:




A divided Senate approved the bill 18-15 Wednesday and sent it back to the House, which is expected to approve minor changes next week. Gov. Bob Taft has said he will sign the bill.

The measure says same-sex marriages are "against the strong public policy of the state," and would prohibit state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners, whether they were gay or unmarried heterosexual couples.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&ncid=533&e=4&u=/ap/20040122/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_ohio

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray


....there are very few heterosexuals under age 16 in this country. Someone can be heterosexual without having sex. Same with homosexuals.
People not engaging in sexual behavior (with a partner) are celibate, which is not hetero, bi, or homo. It's a behavior, get it?

No, of course you dont. :(

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

People not engaging in sexual behavior (with a partner) are celibate, which is not hetero, bi, or homo. It's a behavior, get it?

No, of course you dont. :( I don't agree. I knew I liked girls long before I ever got to touch one. You don't have to be sexually active to have a sexual orientation.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by hgc
I don't agree. I knew I liked girls long before I ever got to touch one. You don't have to be sexually active to have a sexual orientation.

Don't worry Hammegk is just trying to raise his celibate status to something accepted as equall by those of us who are sexually active. It's all part of his "celibate" agenda.

He's trying to reshape our culture, don't you know.

Okay I guess I should add that that was spirited ribbing at rik and hamm, not intended to be a serious ad hom.

[Tricky]

Actually, one definition of celebate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=celibacy) (the main one in some dictionaries) simply means "unmarried". In fact, this was the definition that many of the early popes used, as many had mistresses and some, illegitimate children.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tricky
Actually, one definition of celebate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=celibacy) (the main one in some dictionaries) simply means "unmarried". In fact, this was the definition that many of the early popes used, as many had mistresses and some, illegitimate children. But you know that's not how it's used here and now. I think the definition pointing to marriage was relevent (but not accurate) when sex was assumed to be restricted to marriage.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
You don't have to be sexually active to have a sexual orientation.

No duh? That's probably why I keep bringing up the behavioral aspect; you can have all the orientation you would like to be, say, a serial killer -- as long as you don't kill. ;)


I hope most of us would agree "celibate" implies not engaging in sexual activities with a partner. Masturbation while celibate may or may not be ok depending on your mindset I suppose.

[jj]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If on the other end we assume that sexual preference is innate or even genetic, then we simply have to assume that bisexuals have been born with both preferences, or that those have failed to differentiate.

Or we can assume that it's a continuum. Some people (most) are only attracted to the opposite sex. They are on the far "hetero" end of things. Some people are only attracted to the same sex, that's the strong "homosexual" side. Some people are in the middle, and are attracted to both.

This is quite another thing from strength of attraction, which could be argued to be a separate scale.

While you're correct in saying that bisexuality does not prove that it's wired in, I think that it does suggest that there is a scale, with people at various points on the scale, rather than your model where there are two preferences, and people are born with 0 to 2 of those.

Were it 0 to 2 as you suggest, I dare say that there would be many less people who are at least moderately bisexual, yes?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Attrayant
I really wish this hijack would go to another thread so this one can get back on topic. There is a somewhat relevant discussion (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34135) going on at R&P.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Attrayant

ObL is public enemy #1, he should have been topic #1 in the speech. To avoid mentioning him smacks of cowardice.

Pah. OBL is becoming more & more an afterthought. The War on Terrorism has many -- mostly covert -- fronts if we can believe anything we read & hear. It would be nice if we got him, but do you actually think the fact that he is likely in a cave somewhere makes him a #1 topic? I disagree.

On the other discussion, I contend that the only domestic issue that could become more divisive than Roe v Wade is the issue of gay marriage, and GWB certainly addressed it.

[Mona]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


I'll bite. When two homosexuals want to get married, and have it recognized by all the states, and enjoy the same legal benefits married heterosexuals get, they are after equality plus . . . . what else? What else do they want? I've never heard the Gay Agenda described as "equal marriage rights plus free Ribwiches." Or whatever. How are equals rights for gays and straights not equal?

.

Didn't you get the memo? In addition to wishing for the state to confer on them the same benefits it now confers on married heterosexuals -- including civil recognition of a marriage ceremony approved by their religious institution of choice -- gays insist on the right to jump to the head of the line at the DMV and Wal-Mart. They will be stopped in their frenzy for such special rights only by constitutional amendment.

[Dorian Gray]

People not engaging in sexual behavior (with a partner) are celibate, which is not hetero, bi, or homo. It's a behavior, get it? Obviously you have never encountered 14-16 year old boys. Being hetero- or homosexual is not a behavior, it's a desire or attraction. You can be a celibate homosexual, a celibate heterosexual, etc.

You have to kill to be a killer. You don't have to have sex to have a sexual orientation.

Ohio seems determined to back you up on that one: Oh yeah, my state sucks. I am definitely voting people out of office over that one.

Edit: Probably has a lot to do with Bush coming here right after his speech, though.

[corplinx]

As the person who started this thread a tongue-in-cheek look at the state-of-the-union. Let me just say I would like you guys to let this thread die.

[Dorian Gray]

It's a good thread for us to poop on, Corplinx. sorry

[epepke]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Marriage laws once restricted people from marrying who they wanted in terms of race (not in the Netherlands but we didn't have any black people anyway), but they changed that.

No. Just ships for transporting them.