Another important issue, no doubt
-
The olsen twins are not interested in you, Mike. Your cow is not human. Marriage is between people.
-
The olsen twins are not interested in you, Mike. Your cow is not human. Marriage is between people.
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Marriage is between people.
What are you, some kind of beastiality bigot? Oh, if only all people could open their minds what a wonderful world we would live in ... "You get that which you tolerate"
-
To begin with, Reid is a moron. Secondly, what everyone misses is that marriage is a states rights issue, not federal. However (witness Mass.) every time a state passes a law, by elected officials who represent the will of the majority of a state's citizens, state and federal courts find a convenient way to shoot holes in the law. Ergo the need for an amendment, even though I agree it shouldn't be a constituitional issue it almost has to be to keep judges from legislating. Thirdly, if homosexual marriage becomes legal then on what legal basis will you use to prevent my marrying either the Olsen twins or my stump-broke cow? The answer is you can't because one alternative version of mariage isn't any different than another alternative. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
Mike Gaskey wrote:
However (witness Mass.) every time a state passes a law, by elected officials who represent the will of the majority of a state's citizens, state and federal courts find a convenient way to shoot holes in the law.
Why can't these laws be made in such a way that they're bullet proof?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Thirdly, if homosexual marriage becomes legal then on what legal basis will you use to prevent my marrying either the Olsen twins or my stump-broke cow? The answer is you can't because one alternative version of mariage isn't any different than another alternative.
Yes, the old slippery slope argument... The gay marriage issue is not about removing all the limits of marriage. It's about removing the gender rules. Marriage should be between two unrelated consenting adults. Their genders should not matter. That's all. Alvaro
-
As usual, Bush can rely on the Democrats (and liberals in general) to take the bait. Once again, they will get wrapped up in and issue that only a small part of their base really cares about, and will offend and lose the votes of the rest... How's that hook taste, anyway?
Rob Graham wrote:
As usual, Bush can rely on the Democrats (and liberals in general) to take the bait. Once again, they will get wrapped up in and issue that only a small part of their base really cares about
Huh? Did you read the link? The bait is for Bush's base.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
However (witness Mass.) every time a state passes a law, by elected officials who represent the will of the majority of a state's citizens, state and federal courts find a convenient way to shoot holes in the law.
Why can't these laws be made in such a way that they're bullet proof?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Thirdly, if homosexual marriage becomes legal then on what legal basis will you use to prevent my marrying either the Olsen twins or my stump-broke cow? The answer is you can't because one alternative version of mariage isn't any different than another alternative.
Yes, the old slippery slope argument... The gay marriage issue is not about removing all the limits of marriage. It's about removing the gender rules. Marriage should be between two unrelated consenting adults. Their genders should not matter. That's all. Alvaro
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Why can't these laws be made in such a way that they're bullet proof?
14th Amendment (or at least modern Marxist interpretations of it).
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Their genders should not matter. That's all.
Why not? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Rob Graham wrote:
As usual, Bush can rely on the Democrats (and liberals in general) to take the bait. Once again, they will get wrapped up in and issue that only a small part of their base really cares about
Huh? Did you read the link? The bait is for Bush's base.
So who brings it up as "another important issue"? Are you part of Bush's base? The same thing happened in 2004, except that Dem's actually introduced the issue. It will bring out bush's base, but only because Dems will make it an issue, instead of ignoring it. How many Democrats will vote because of this issue that wouldn't have anyway? I'll wager rather few. Republicans, however, will pick up religious conservatives who might have passed, and Dem's will help by making a lot of noise about an issue that doesn't motivate their base, but can move the oppositions base. Strategic stupidity, combined with tactical incompetence. Instead of introducing your own issues and campaining on them, you just react (predictably) to those introduced by the Republicans.
Last modified: Monday, June 05, 2006 6:43:51 PM -- sp
-
So who brings it up as "another important issue"? Are you part of Bush's base? The same thing happened in 2004, except that Dem's actually introduced the issue. It will bring out bush's base, but only because Dems will make it an issue, instead of ignoring it. How many Democrats will vote because of this issue that wouldn't have anyway? I'll wager rather few. Republicans, however, will pick up religious conservatives who might have passed, and Dem's will help by making a lot of noise about an issue that doesn't motivate their base, but can move the oppositions base. Strategic stupidity, combined with tactical incompetence. Instead of introducing your own issues and campaining on them, you just react (predictably) to those introduced by the Republicans.
Last modified: Monday, June 05, 2006 6:43:51 PM -- sp
Brilliant! "You get that which you tolerate"
-
The olsen twins are not interested in you, Mike. Your cow is not human. Marriage is between people.
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
The olsen twins are not interested in you
don't presume to know which twins I'm referencing.
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Your cow is not human. Marriage is between people
by just whose definition? I grew up believing it was between a man and a woman, only to have my beliefs dashed against the shores of alternative reality. Maybe it is your turn. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
So who brings it up as "another important issue"? Are you part of Bush's base? The same thing happened in 2004, except that Dem's actually introduced the issue. It will bring out bush's base, but only because Dems will make it an issue, instead of ignoring it. How many Democrats will vote because of this issue that wouldn't have anyway? I'll wager rather few. Republicans, however, will pick up religious conservatives who might have passed, and Dem's will help by making a lot of noise about an issue that doesn't motivate their base, but can move the oppositions base. Strategic stupidity, combined with tactical incompetence. Instead of introducing your own issues and campaining on them, you just react (predictably) to those introduced by the Republicans.
Last modified: Monday, June 05, 2006 6:43:51 PM -- sp
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
However (witness Mass.) every time a state passes a law, by elected officials who represent the will of the majority of a state's citizens, state and federal courts find a convenient way to shoot holes in the law.
Why can't these laws be made in such a way that they're bullet proof?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Thirdly, if homosexual marriage becomes legal then on what legal basis will you use to prevent my marrying either the Olsen twins or my stump-broke cow? The answer is you can't because one alternative version of mariage isn't any different than another alternative.
Yes, the old slippery slope argument... The gay marriage issue is not about removing all the limits of marriage. It's about removing the gender rules. Marriage should be between two unrelated consenting adults. Their genders should not matter. That's all. Alvaro
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Why can't these laws be made in such a way that they're bullet proof?
it is not possible. in the case of the Mass supreme court the vote went in favor of a lesbian member's view. the same result will obvioulsy happen again and again as members of the various courts decide they know better than the majority of their citizens.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Yes, the old slippery slope argument...
that is how we arrived at this juncture in the first place. for the record, I'll say it again. I don't believe this should be a constituitional issue, but there is no other choice. modified to add: I am perfectly happy for laws making civil unions a fact. I am inscensed at the idea of redefining marriage to fit a minority view. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry! -- modified at 20:26 Monday 5th June, 2006
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Why can't these laws be made in such a way that they're bullet proof?
14th Amendment (or at least modern Marxist interpretations of it).
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Their genders should not matter. That's all.
Why not? "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why not?
Because gender is a social construct, not something someone inherently is. A decent enough way of looking at it, I suppose, but I'm no expert.[^] I.e. what's the difference between a "man" marrying a "woman" vs a "very masculine female" marrying a "very feminine man" or a "very feminine man" marrying a "very masculine man" vs a "sterile female" marrying a "regular Joe" One way of looking at it, anyway. - F
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Strategic stupidity, combined with tactical incompetence.
Do you expect they to lay down and let the first ammendment to specific deny a persons rights pass unopposed? It's not strategic, it's principle.
Hey, if you want to lose another election on 'principle', then let me be the last to try and stop you. It cost you Ohio in 2004 (Republicans got the largest percentage of African American votes in their history there, largely on this issue). Go ahead, make a big fuss over your 'principles'. You really will further them by blowing your best chance to regain either the Senate or the House in years. Brilliant strategy. You guys just don't get it, do you? Republicans know this hasn't got a snowballs chance in Hell of passing the Senate (with the required 2/3 majority), but they do know that Democrats will feel compelled to rise loudly to the 'defense', and will continue to make noise about it all through the election. And this will only serve to motivate the religious right (and that part of the normally 'safe' religious left that you lost last time). You and Alvaro have already proven my point.
Last modified: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:34:07 PM -- close paren...
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
However (witness Mass.) every time a state passes a law, by elected officials who represent the will of the majority of a state's citizens, state and federal courts find a convenient way to shoot holes in the law.
Why can't these laws be made in such a way that they're bullet proof?
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Thirdly, if homosexual marriage becomes legal then on what legal basis will you use to prevent my marrying either the Olsen twins or my stump-broke cow? The answer is you can't because one alternative version of mariage isn't any different than another alternative.
Yes, the old slippery slope argument... The gay marriage issue is not about removing all the limits of marriage. It's about removing the gender rules. Marriage should be between two unrelated consenting adults. Their genders should not matter. That's all. Alvaro
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Why can't these laws be made in such a way that they're bullet proof?
Even when written carefully, liberal judges can find technicalities to overturn them. Georgia's state constitutional ammendment on marriage in 2004 passed with 76% of the vote. It was struck down on the grounds that it adressed two issues in one ballot item (it defined the state's position on both marriage and civil union - as if those were unrelated ) the judge held that voters should have been allowed to vote on those separately, and so struck down the ammendment. The ammendment will likely be back this year - as two ballot items. And it will pass with the same percentage. And probably be struck down again on some obscure technicallity.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why not?
Because gender is a social construct, not something someone inherently is. A decent enough way of looking at it, I suppose, but I'm no expert.[^] I.e. what's the difference between a "man" marrying a "woman" vs a "very masculine female" marrying a "very feminine man" or a "very feminine man" marrying a "very masculine man" vs a "sterile female" marrying a "regular Joe" One way of looking at it, anyway. - F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because gender is a social construct, not something someone inherently is.
BS! Gender is purely biological. Either you have an X a Y chromosome or you don't. Don't confuse gender with sexual preference or sexual identification, although both of these are valid topics in this context, they are not gender, and gender is biologically inherent, even when 'mismatched' with the other two non-inherent attributes.
Last modified: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:28:46 PM --
-
To begin with, Reid is a moron. Secondly, what everyone misses is that marriage is a states rights issue, not federal. However (witness Mass.) every time a state passes a law, by elected officials who represent the will of the majority of a state's citizens, state and federal courts find a convenient way to shoot holes in the law. Ergo the need for an amendment, even though I agree it shouldn't be a constituitional issue it almost has to be to keep judges from legislating. Thirdly, if homosexual marriage becomes legal then on what legal basis will you use to prevent my marrying either the Olsen twins or my stump-broke cow? The answer is you can't because one alternative version of mariage isn't any different than another alternative. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
Mike Gaskey wrote:
my marrying either the Olsen twins
If you would seriously consider marrying the Olsen twits (mispelling intended), you need immediate psychiatric treatment. :)
-
Hey, if you want to lose another election on 'principle', then let me be the last to try and stop you. It cost you Ohio in 2004 (Republicans got the largest percentage of African American votes in their history there, largely on this issue). Go ahead, make a big fuss over your 'principles'. You really will further them by blowing your best chance to regain either the Senate or the House in years. Brilliant strategy. You guys just don't get it, do you? Republicans know this hasn't got a snowballs chance in Hell of passing the Senate (with the required 2/3 majority), but they do know that Democrats will feel compelled to rise loudly to the 'defense', and will continue to make noise about it all through the election. And this will only serve to motivate the religious right (and that part of the normally 'safe' religious left that you lost last time). You and Alvaro have already proven my point.
Last modified: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:34:07 PM -- close paren...
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because gender is a social construct, not something someone inherently is.
BS! Gender is purely biological. Either you have an X a Y chromosome or you don't. Don't confuse gender with sexual preference or sexual identification, although both of these are valid topics in this context, they are not gender, and gender is biologically inherent, even when 'mismatched' with the other two non-inherent attributes.
Last modified: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:28:46 PM --
Rob Graham wrote:
Either you have an X a Y chromosome or you don't.
That's sex, not gender. Check your definitions. Edit: I should be more specific why I say this; from dictionary.com: Usage Note: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels. - F -- modified at 21:58 Monday 5th June, 2006
-
Democratic leader enumerates issues gay marriage vote won't solve[^] Well said, Senator. And here's what Joe Scarborough had to say: Everybody knows Bush is pandering on gay marriage[^] Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Since marriage is between a man and a woman, is a hermaphrodite allowed to marry itself?
-
Thanks.:rose:
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because gender is a social construct, not something someone inherently is.
BS! Gender is purely biological. Either you have an X a Y chromosome or you don't. Don't confuse gender with sexual preference or sexual identification, although both of these are valid topics in this context, they are not gender, and gender is biologically inherent, even when 'mismatched' with the other two non-inherent attributes.
Last modified: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:28:46 PM --