What President Bush's reply to Cindy Sheehan should say.

[TwistedCU]

Differences in standards/ideals: Public nudity, cursing on TV, Censorship, Mooning, Teaching hindu in schools, burning the flag, adultery, deadbeat dads, capital punishment.

Examples of social and political attrocity: Slavery, aparthied, racial cleansing, women's sufferage (2nd class citizenry), segregation, and..the Hate amendment.

You do realize that different people could group those differently, don't you? Many Catholics would consider capital punishment a social atrocity for example (although I am all for it). MAny of these things are far too complicated to catagorize which is why we vote.

 

[TwistedCU]

this is long!

Cindy, remember Cindy? (a little Arlo Guthrie humor) The saga continues. Here's a news link that talks about the removing of name tags:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/27/D8C8FM680.html

 

[Junkpile]

"I know that the Camp Casey movement is going to end the war in Iraq," Sheehan said

This woman is just plain crazy. I can't believe so many people are lowering themselves to the point of offering this crackpot support. I also hate the fact that her son won't be remembered for his sacrifice and bravery, but rather his mothers stupidity.

 

[Special_K]

As one philosopher stated: "Support your country always. Support your leaders only when they deserve it."

Sometimes, supporting your country means crticizing your leaders -- especially when the leaders are leading your country down the wrong path.

Most of you know my opinion on this matter so I'm not going to get started in this debate again. I have resigned myself to the fact that a large (albeit decreasing) number of people in this country will say or believe anything to overlook corroborating and fairly damning revelations and obvious/serious problems with the Bush administration.

THEREFORE, the situation have to ride itself out until the percentage of the population that believes the propaganda which props up this administration becomes small enough and the percentage that recognizes the problem becomes large enough to drive a change...either in November 2008 or before, if the pain and embarassment become great enough. As for me, I'm waiting, observing....

Oh, also, pray that Iraq both (1) ratifies a constitution, and (2) does in a truly inclusive manner, or things are going to go to hell in a handbag. And you think it's there now??? hehehehe. <-- BTW, that's a sarcastic laugh as there is little that's funny about this situation.

K

 

[Snitty]

As a friend to you all and an active member and moderator of this community, I sure do hope that nothing within the pages of this thread have been, are, or will be found offensive to anyone. I see we are now on 5 pages of discussion and I respect the mostly civil nature of it. I'm glad to see everyone's opinion. I'm very pleased to see the participation of everyone involved.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

As a friend to you all and an active member and moderator of this community,

.....not to mention an IQ of 4023!!

"I know that the Camp Casey movement is going to end the war in Iraq," Sheehan said

This woman is just plain crazy. I can't believe so many people are lowering themselves to the point of offering this crackpot support. I also hate the fact that her son won't be remembered for his sacrifice and bravery, but rather his mothers stupidity.

That's the sad truth behind it all......

 

[mingez]

Shoot and hang racists? For what, their beliefs alone? Had to ask... I could see if there was a crime, but no matter how ugly, thought and belief are no crime. It has not been outlawed to have a view of others as second rate, it is illegal to treat them as such or to discriminate against them - BIG difference Believe me I am no racist, but if we want to speak of liberty then lets do so across the entire spectrum.

TC, re-read my post. The point you just made was exactly my point. Liberty should be served across the spectrum for all. See the quoted material below? Look at the stuff in bold. LOL. I brought up the example of racist, to show that inspite of my opinion, they deserve liberties as well. (I know it was late) :lol:

This is what I wrote:

Racists have rights too. My opinion is that they should be shot and hung, but to make that into law? Never. Extreme analogy, but you get the point.

It would be unamerican to suggest that the government outlaw the "Right to be a racist" as silly as that sounds. C'mon TC, you know me better than that. :lol: I'd never overlook something so obvious.

As usual, this shall end in agreeing to disagree, but it's good to debate with you again.

 

[mingez]

Differences in standards/ideals: Public nudity, cursing on TV, Censorship, Mooning, Teaching hindu in schools, burning the flag, adultery, deadbeat dads, capital punishment.

Examples of social and political attrocity: Slavery, aparthied, racial cleansing, women's sufferage (2nd class citizenry), segregation, and..the Hate amendment.

You do realize that different people could group those differently, don't you? Many Catholics would consider capital punishment a social atrocity for example (although I am all for it). MAny of these things are far too complicated to catagorize which is why we vote.

Many people out there consider rape and murder a "lifestyle choice," but it's still illegal. Point is, there was a point to which we decide it's so attrocious as to warrant abolishment.

Good times, good friends, it's Miller Time.

 

[TwistedCU]

I knew what you meant Mingez, I was just stoking the fire a bit. It was funny seeing that post after the "liberty for all" post. I didn't miss the word "opinion" the first time


You're not going to respond anymore ? We were getting down to the meat and potatoes of this discussion... I am especially curious as to your response to the first paragraph. I'm not trying to stoke, rile, or egg you on here, I really would like to see your response.

I should have put "equal rights", in quotes.

How is anyone denied liberty in this case? Bush has stated he supports civil unions. He explained why he supports them, and also explained why they should not be called marriages (which have been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time). The majority of Americans agree with that and please don't ask for proof on that - I'm going on memory from the last election so if you don't believe it I'm okay with that (but it's true) Wink . Personally I'm not even for civil unions and the fact that he supports them is a disapointment to me as he did it for no other reason but to try to win a few votes, but that's me. Living wills can take care of the legal issues and as for tax breaks, I'm still waiting for ours... can you show me where I'm missing mine??? Last I checked we were supposed to be working on the "marriage penalty". What they want is some legal angle to be "veiwed" as equal. To me they are equal as a human being but what they do is wrong, therefore I see no reason to extend to them some bogus law or amendment just so they may relish in yet another gay victory to make what they do seem more legitimate to them and to society. They have the same rights I do, as does any citizen in this country of ours.

I never said you shouldn't be upset about, or that you shouldn't protest against Bush if you disagree with him. For Pete's sakes Bill Clinton had me quite ticked off on many an occaision and you bet your arse I made it known just as has Bush at times, just look down at my sig! What I am saying is you should expect him or anyone else to be governing as they campaigned and portrayed themselves, like it or not. To see an elected official govern the way he promised to on the campaign trail is something I celebrate and I am surprised you think it is wrong. If they were all held accountable to govern the way they promise to we could really weed out the candidates and maybe get some very solid, good people in office.

 

[judge09]

"I know that the Camp Casey movement is going to end the war in Iraq," Sheehan said

This woman is just plain crazy. I can't believe so many people are lowering themselves to the point of offering this crackpot support. I also hate the fact that her son won't be remembered for his sacrifice and bravery, but rather his mothers stupidity.

X2...its really getting sad.

 

[mingez]

RE: Lift Questions

How is anyone denied liberty in this case? Bush has stated he supports civil unions. He explained why he supports them, and also explained why they should not be called marriages (which have been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time). The majority of Americans agree with that and please don't ask for proof on that - I'm going on memory from the last election so if you don't believe it I'm okay with that (but it's true) . Personally I'm not even for civil unions and the fact that he supports them is a disapointment to me as he did it for no other reason but to try to win a few votes, but that's me. Living wills can take care of the legal issues and as for tax breaks, I'm still waiting for ours... can you show me where I'm missing mine??? Last I checked we were supposed to be working on the "marriage penalty". What they want is some legal angle to be "veiwed" as equal. To me they are equal as a human being but what they do is wrong, therefore I see no reason to extend to them some bogus law or amendment just so they may relish in yet another gay victory to make what they do seem more legitimate to them and to society. They have the same rights I do, as does any citizen in this country of ours.

First off, I'll grant you, tax breaks for married couples are perhaps an urban legend. LOL. But, would same sex couples be afforded the same breaks concerning children? I think only birth mothers. Housing, local state taxes...I'm not sure, so I won't debate that one. (but will look into it) Maybe get yourself a better accountant. :lol:

But what the arguement boils down to is that you consider homosexuality to somehow be wrong, and I don't. That's it. No winning the debate from there on either side. Because your arguement will be that the Good Book says: "No Queers," and my arguement will be, "Bible matters not." So let's spare both of us ,and everyone else, the pain of that go 'round. (which we've done before- if you all search, you'll find many threads, and it's good/funny reading really--LOL)

How is anyone's civil liberties being violated? I'll answer your question with another...how are they not?

I think we both agree on one point: while a majority of our population also agreed that blacks weren't considered whole beings earlier in our history, inspite of that, effected change due to social evolution caused that type of discrimination to be considered a violation. Now, if societal norms ebb back toward the otherside, and the notion of racism was effectively reinstated as the popular opinion, then should the laws change back to appeal to the masses (In this case)?? I think you'll agree the answer is "No." Why? Because it's a civil liberty issue. Violations of this sort are so aggregious as to "Trump" public opinion.

Marriage between different races, and for the sake of pertinence, we'll use the example of blacks and whites, early in our countries' history was at some point illegal. (It's hard to believe that as recently as 1966, 17 states actually had laws against interracial marriage. And all of the states regulated marriage between whites and other races. The Supreme Court overturned every states antimiscegenation laws [laws against marriage between different races] in 1967)

Many people at the time in those states, had believed that the act of marriage between interracial couples was somehow "Wrong." I use this parallel because your quoted paragraph suggests that to be the legitimacy behind not honoring same sex marriages. Yet, inspite of public outcry, the banning of interracial marriage was determined to be a transgretion of rights.

The compromise of calling them civil unions NEVER came up in this example. But had it, It too would've been a problem. Why should blacks and white couple have to settle for calling their unions, "Civil unions." Would that not have been a violation as well? In my opinion Yes. And the same holds true for our more conteporary situation of same sex marriages.

(Of course, it's debatable as to whether or not public opinion supports that notion in the case of same sex marriage but for reasons stated irrelavent.)

I never said you shouldn't be upset about, or that you shouldn't protest against Bush if you disagree with him. For Pete's sakes Bill Clinton had me quite ticked off on many an occaision and you bet your arse I made it known just as has Bush at times, just look down at my sig! What I am saying is you should expect him or anyone else to be governing as they campaigned and portrayed themselves, like it or not. To see an elected official govern the way he promised to on the campaign trail is something I celebrate and I am surprised you think it is wrong. If they were all held accountable to govern the way they promise to we could really weed out the candidates and maybe get some very solid, good people in office.

I don't think it's wrong for him to govern the way he promised. I think the way he governs is wrong, and that's what I protest. Not the fact that he's keeping his campaign promises towards his constituency. You're right, he should.

This is a circular arguement. Here's the flow sheet:

1- I protest

2- you say: "protest with your vote"

3- I say: "It doesn't matter if the election is over I still should and will protest."

4- You say, "I'm not saying you shouldn't protest necessarily, but that he's governing the way he promised so... what's wrong with that?"

5-I say, "True, but it's not whether or not he's keeping his promises that I protest, but rather the actual governing."

1- Back to square one: I (still) protest.

 

[TwistedCU]

RE: Re: New guy

Child tax credits go to legal guardians, as do the rest of the tax breaks. That's all there is to it, no special bennies for natural parents.

Okay, so leave out the morality of it (society does anyway ), I like to make my opinion known, but you are right, we will probably never see eye to eye on that so... let's stick to civil rights.

You are comparing homosexuals to a race. All men are created equal. I beleive that. I beleive that for everyone. This group of people which you are argueing for civil rights is not a race. They are not of any ethnic origin, color, or creed. They are a random group of people who choose to have sex with thier own gender. They choose to have relationships with them. That's their business, but my arguement is that they deserve no special priveledges or additional rights. , as equality is meant to be consistant. There is a very damaging (and growing) trend in this country to make new laws for every special interest. It is not how our government is designed to work and it is a real problem. This country is legislating it's way into complete confusion and disarray, and the result is a lower quality of freedom (as laws become more numerous).

How are their rights not violated? Well it's not the answer I was looking for Mingez. I was hoping to see an actual rights infringement or denial of liberty to these people. I was hoping so because I do not see that it exists. As I stated, they have the same rights and liberties that you and I do. What true benefit would they have by being legally married? Like I wrote earlier, a will/ living will (which is no harder to do than getting married) can rectify their gripes.

You see, there is no real benefit for anyone to have a "legal" marraige, conventional or not. I honestly beleive that homosexuals are just trying to win a battle. Trying to get some "respect" and special priveledge, just like several other special interest groups in this country.

What have they ever earned other than special priveledge? I seriously doubt their motives.

 

[90Xjay]

RE: Re: New guy

TC Wrote:

They are not of any ethnic origin, color, or creed. They are a random group of people who choose to have sex with thier own gender. They choose to have relationships with them.

It is a behavior. If homosexuals were indeed a race or different species, they would by at least one definition, have the ability to reproduce themselves, but they do not. The only means so far, I see as a type of reproduction is recruitment.

As far as I see, I agree with TC, it is a behavioral choice.

 

[Snitty]

Still observing on, I'm enjoying reading the opinions and such... Maybe I'll jump in at some point, if I find that I can commit myself to the time it takes to come back to reply as often as i'd need to

 

[mingez]

How are their rights not violated? Well it's not the answer I was looking for Mingez. I was hoping to see an actual rights infringement or denial of liberty to these people. I was hoping so because I do not see that it exists. As I stated, they have the same rights and liberties that you and I do. What true benefit would they have by being legally married? Like I wrote earlier, a will/ living will (which is no harder to do than getting married) can rectify their gripes.

You see, there is no real benefit for anyone to have a "legal" marraige, conventional or not. I honestly beleive that homosexuals are just trying to win a battle. Trying to get some "respect" and special priveledge, just like several other special interest groups in this country.

What have they ever earned other than special priveledge? I seriously doubt their motives.

If you insist, I did some research:

By the request of Representative Henry J Hyde (Republican), in 1996-SEP chairperson of the House Committee on the Judiciary, a list was compiled (And is available to the public). He was , and asked the General Accounting Office "to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status."

Their response, which runs 75 pages, is available online at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...me=og97016.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao

The list below was compiled for a couple living in the United States. However, similar provisions exist in many other countries.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

- joint parenting;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
- and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

So, even I was unaware until I had some time to look into it. There ARE certain rights afforded to the married.

 

[mingez]

TC Wrote:

They are not of any ethnic origin, color, or creed. They are a random group of people who choose to have sex with thier own gender. They choose to have relationships with them.

It is a behavior. If homosexuals were indeed a race or different species, they would by at least one definition, have the ability to reproduce themselves, but they do not. The only means so far, I see as a type of reproduction is recruitment.

As far as I see, I agree with TC, it is a behavioral choice.

Ahhhh, the ever popular "Choice Arguement." Why is it always a fore gone conclusion with you all that gays somehow choose to be gay?

Homosexuals do not "Choose" to be gay any more than I "choose" to be straight. You either get the feelings or you don't. I don't recall in my youth saying to myself: "Hmmm... what should I be attracted to? Boys or girls? I choose: Girls!" Did any of you make that decision? I don't care how nice a dude's legs are, I CANNOT convince myself a man is sexually attractive.

And the notion of choice, to my gay friends, is just plain ridiculous. Why would one Choose such a difficult lifestyle? As my ex-boss Linda said to me: "If I had a choice I'd choose to be straight, and avoid all of the bigotry." (I'm paraphrasing.)

Also, having sex within a gender occurs in nature, and amongst primates specifically. And there actually is research being done to see the "why's and the hows" of that occurance. And incedentally, I don't think animals are "deciding" to be gay either. But I digress.

 

[90Xjay]

90Xjay wrote:
TC Wrote:Quote:
They are not of any ethnic origin, color, or creed. They are a random group of people who choose to have sex with thier own gender. They choose to have relationships with them.

It is a behavior. If homosexuals were indeed a race or different species, they would by at least one definition, have the ability to reproduce themselves, but they do not. The only means so far, I see as a type of reproduction is recruitment.

As far as I see, I agree with TC, it is a behavioral choice.

Ahhhh, the ever popular "Choice Arguement." Why is it always a fore gone conclusion with you all that gays somehow choose to be gay?

Homosexuals do not "Choose" to be gay any more than I "choose" to be straight. You either get the feelings or you don't. I don't recall in my youth saying to myself: "Hmmm... what should I be attracted to? Boys or girls? I choose: Girls!" Did any of you make that decision? I don't care how nice a dude's legs are, I CANNOT convince myself a man is sexually attractive.

And the notion of choice, to my gay friends, is just plain ridiculous. Why would one Choose such a difficult lifestyle? As my ex-boss Linda said to me: "If I had a choice I'd choose to be straight, and avoid all of the bigotry." (I'm paraphrasing.)

Also, having sex within a gender occurs in nature, and amongst primates specifically. And there actually is research being done to see the "why's and the hows" of that occurance. And incedentally, I don't think animals are "deciding" to be gay either. But I digress.

animals aside, you can surmise, it isn't the "norm" in the animal world either, and two male monkeys getting giggy wit it can't produce another one just like themselves. Therefore "gay monkeys" are not a race or species unto themselves.


On homosexuality: Choosing to behave and live in the gay livestyle is the ultimate rebellion against society or your parents, your religous upbringing, or whatever you are unhappy with and feel you were delt a bad hand growing up.

When the tatoo's ( I have two), tongue peircings, green hair, goth clothing, heavy metal, all fails to shock whomever we are defining as "the man" the call home from college to tell mom that our buddy "Burt" is actually "the love of my life and I am finally happy after being in agony for my whole childhood" usually does the job.

If a person has ever been presented the opportunity to take a large amount of money and fights off the temptation, they are making the moral choice to not do that.

No doubt people are tempted to experiment in the gay lifestyle, they fall to the tempation, and that too is a choice of morals....

 

[TwistedCU]

How are their rights not violated? Well it's not the answer I was looking for Mingez. I was hoping to see an actual rights infringement or denial of liberty to these people. I was hoping so because I do not see that it exists. As I stated, they have the same rights and liberties that you and I do. What true benefit would they have by being legally married? Like I wrote earlier, a will/ living will (which is no harder to do than getting married) can rectify their gripes.

You see, there is no real benefit for anyone to have a "legal" marraige, conventional or not. I honestly beleive that homosexuals are just trying to win a battle. Trying to get some "respect" and special priveledge, just like several other special interest groups in this country.

What have they ever earned other than special priveledge? I seriously doubt their motives.

If you insist, I did some research:

By the request of Representative Henry J Hyde (Republican), in 1996-SEP chairperson of the House Committee on the Judiciary, a list was compiled (And is available to the public). He was , and asked the General Accounting Office "to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status."

Their response, which runs 75 pages, is available online at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...me=og97016.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao

The list below was compiled for a couple living in the United States. However, similar provisions exist in many other countries.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

- joint parenting;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
- and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

So, even I was unaware until I had some time to look into it. There ARE certain rights afforded to the married.

Well although many on that list CAN be obtained by a contract or will. Someone working for my company has almost every "benefit" on that list. Even same sex domestic partner (fully paid) health insurance and welfare benefits. If a man working there lives with a woman she gets NADA. Where's the prejudice there, eh?

Sure, there are some on that list I had not thought of. Few, but there are some nonetheless.

So what then do you suggest do we do? Make it a law that people of the same gender may be consider a legally married couple, right? Then what? Polygamy? Sister-Brother incest? Mother-Son marraige? Remove age limits and allow a fully grown adult man or woman to marry a child? Allow marraiges to animals?

You see Mingez, crazy as some of those may sound to some there are people out there who will fight for them if gay marraige is authenticated and they will have alot of new ammo to fire with. There is no end to it once it begins. Once that standard we spoke of earlier is comprimised then it's all over. We cannot afford to cater to every special interest out there screaming for something they don't have.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Remove age limits and allow a fully grown adult man or woman to marry a child?

Hell, come to Kansas for that. No legal marriage age. As long as they have parent's consent, two 5 y/o's can marry, or a 30 y/o can marry a 4 y/o. There is currently a case in Nebraska of a 20 y/o man that got a 13 y/o girl preggers, took her to Kansas and married her (with her parent's consent) and when he went back to Nebraska with his bride was charged with statutory rape and sexual misconduct with a minor!!!

But, I digress......I'm glad to see you understand the difference between homosexuality being a choice or not. At least it seems like you believe that gays are born gay, and you think they should choose not to follow their desires, right? I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body......

 

[90Xjay]

I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body......

I always had my suspicions about you, mister!