As the election gets near...

[fivedragons]

Don't bother Jason right now, Justin, he's busy helping to bury his father's guns.

[Bill Glasheen]

So tell me, do you really think it's reasonable to put on the ballot a measure whose primary purpose is just to demean and insult? Is that not just disgustingly petty and cruel? Is that what you think America should be about?

Woah, woah, woah!!!

Why is it that only one group of people are being demeaned and insulted, Justin? Why do you fail to acknowledge that religious have a vested interest in their sacred institutions?

IMO, there's too much posturing on both sides here. Folks are just talking past each other. Tolerance needs to be a 2-way street.

I don't have all the answers. But I sure recognize when the proposed solutions aren't going to fly.

- Bill

[fivedragons]

This is really kind of dry and boring. I'm kind of sick of all this tepid debate and whining.

I would like like to hear from Stryke and Tigereye, and others around the world, about their thoughts on this election, and what it says to them about the hearts and minds of us Americans, who supposedly stand for such idealistic and childish notions of freedom and equality.

Although this website doesn't really seem to bolster this view. And this country has let me down in the past, and will probably continue to...

But my ancestors didn't give their lives just so the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution could become coffee table discussion and fodder for intellectual irony.

We've made quite a promise to the world, and taken on somewhat of a responsibility by proclaiming ourselves the voice of liberty. Let's see who's willing to back it up.



edit: what do you Canadian people up there want the U.S. to do with ourselves, or do you even care? I don't blame you if you don't, we're just a bunch of egotistical, narcissistic and self centered pricks.

But hey, at least we finally got rid of the child tyrant, who had lots of nuclear weapons at his disposal.

[Bill Glasheen]

Wow... glad you got that off your chest, fivedragons.

IMO it matters not what the Canadians or Europeans or any other country wants us to do with ourselves any more than they want us to tell them what to do or where to go. They have their ways; we have ours. They have their culture; we have multiple cultures. They have their resources; we have our own. What works in Toronto won't work in Quebec and certainly won't work in Peoria, Boston, or LA.

The only relevance I can see here is the extent to which we meddle in the affairs of other countries, and vice versa. Good thing there's nothing going on there... um... er... Never mind.

Oh, and lets not forget our economies are now inextricably linked. When our banks fail, the world banking system tanks. The domino effect a few weeks ago was nothing short of breathtaking - in a very bad way.

But at the end of the day, a person has to do what matters to them and the people they work with every day. My international friends certainly have their opinions and the world gossips outside our borders just like they do here. But people have their lives to live. We have more fun learning about each other than telling each other what to do.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Why is it that only one group of people are being demeaned and insulted, Justin?

I never said that. But since you brought it up, show me a ballot proposition (or any other state or national level governmental action) equally demeaning and insulting, but aimed at religious folks. Remember, California's ballot proposition has no functional impact, it's just a way of saying "we don't like you and just want to make that clear." Just show me one example of governmental scorn being heaped on religious people with absolutely no practical effect.

Why do you fail to acknowledge that religious have a vested interest in their sacred institutions?

Yes, they have an interest in preserving their institutions. But nobody is messing with their institutions. Nobody is going to evangelical churches and saying that they have to perform a wedding ceremony for gay people. Nobody is saying that they have to move their services to Tuesday. All gay marriage says (when taken apart from the legal construct) is that nobody has a monopoly on the word marriage. Nobody has a right to claim a common word as their own and forbid other people from using it.

[IJ]

"Why is it that only one group of people are being demeaned and insulted, Justin? Why do you fail to acknowledge that religious have a vested interest in their sacred institutions?"

Justin made this point himself quite clearly (and thank you). But:

Bill, no one is taking anything from them. This is just like the seats in the bus. Blacks and whites will all get to their destinations. If whites feel their front seats are sacred, then by all means, let them sit there. Letting blacks sit in the front too doesn't take anything from whites (in this case, the front seats are marriage certificates--and unlimited).

Gay people didn't try to take marriage from conservative christians. We didn't ask to come to their churches. Heck, I haven;t even asked for the tax exempt status of the Mormon machine that generated huge sums of political money to further their animus toward out of state citizens. And as a matter of fact, a great many temples and churches WANTED the freedom to marry those they see fit. Religious equality requires that they be able to, just as much as churches that wouldn't marry same sex couples should never have to. Thomas Jefferson (who published a version of the bible with all the moral lessons retained and the miracles removed, if memory serves, and who fought for the equal rights of religions) would have it no other way: keep the government out of our churches and bedrooms.

And, again, my two way street has been laid out and is pretty respectful. It gets the state entirely out of marriage. IF religious people wanted the state not to mess with marriage, they would support this. I suspect they are happy for the state to interfere in marriage provided it helps them impose their views on others.

May no one come for their rights in the future. *I* certainly won't. But someone might. On that day, I hope they realize they paved the road.

[Jason Rees]

Hey Jason, what the ##### do you have to do with anyone else's right to cohabit and become a family unit with who they choose, or with who their genetic makeup or whatever the scientific terminology is, decides for them?

*sigh*

I have a long tradition of ignoring people who can't hack a civil conversation and start cussing... I'm going to violate that just this once. You don't strike me as a polite person, fivedragons, and you're becoming offensive to me. Granted, I've been a bit moody the past few days. I'm not happy about who our next president is going to be, but I'll get over it. Will you get over whatever you're all up in arms about?

Did this proposition in California suddenly make it illegal for gays to live together? No. So I guess they can still cohabitate. Did this proposition make it a hatecrime against heterosexuals for gays and lesbians to call a rabbit, a goat and two women a family? No. So I guess they can call whatever they want a family 'unit.' Lucky them. Yay for 'progress.'

Is there a section of the Constitution which grants anyone and everything the 'right' to marry?

No.

So forgive me if I don't join you in righteous anger at the violation of mystical rights that don't exist and never have.

Nope, just terrible when people want to strip rights from their fellow citizens for no reason.

See above.

Jason: I'm aware of how the process works. I'm disappointed by your attitude that anything is alright since the majority voted for it. Probably no one has tried to take away your rights, eh?

I have a few less rights than you do, Ian, so spare me the self-righteous prattle.

I never said the majority is always right. Remember, I'm not happy about what the majority of the masses just decided was hunky-dory for them.

I just don't believe in a mystical right for gays to marry. Apparently some people believe that faith in things unseen is unseemly and ignorant. In this instance I happen to agree.

I also don't equate blacks with gays, and neither should any rational being. I'm actually offended by attempts by the gay community to steal the bandwagon from people whose ancestors were actually slaves.

Do I think gays should be able to have the same legal rights as others, such as gay hospital visitation, gay financial ruin, etc, etc? Absolutely. They should be able to have their own little gay church ceremonies, and have legal gay documents stating they've attached the gay ball and chain firmly.

Do I think they should keep thumbing their noses at everything that's come before, and expect to receive a 'hands-off' from everyone? Nope. Gay advocates stir ##### up. Expect to have your ##### stirred.

[Valkenar]

Is there a section of the Constitution which grants anyone and everything the 'right' to marry?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

9th amendment. Doesn't mean there is a right to marriage but its absence from the constitution also doesn't mean there isn't one.

So forgive me if I don't join you in righteous anger at the violation of mystical rights that don't exist and never have.

So if a law was passed forbidding people who eat meat from getting married, would that or would that not be abridging the rights of those who enjoy steak?

Do I think gays should be able to have the same legal rights as others, such as gay hospital visitation, gay financial ruin, etc, etc? Absolutely.

Haha, I have to say that "gay financial ruin" really struck me as being a pretty funny turn of phrase.

Anyway...

So for you it's really just about the word "marriage?" Why does it matter? What is important about keeping the word marriage just for heterosexuals if the legal and social ramifications are all the same? What effect does applying the word "marriage" to an otherwise identical construct that just happens to be between to people of the same sex have?

What is the difference between people of two different races getting married and two people of the same sex getting married?

[Jason Rees]

So for you it's really just about the word "marriage?" Why does it matter? What is important about keeping the word marriage just for heterosexuals if the legal and social ramifications are all the same? What effect does applying the word "marriage" to an otherwise identical construct that just happens to be between to people of the same sex have?

I'd explain it to you, but I think it's a matter of perspective. I can see where the other side is coming from, and you and Ian would just assume the other side shut up and color. I will never change your mind or his on that subject, so I won't bother trying.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

Show me a state where gay people can't marry someone of the opposite sex? Every person of sound mind in this country is free to marry an individual of the opposite sex who isn't a sibling or first/second cousin, I believe.

Nobody's being denied or disparaged from marrying someone of the opposite sex. It's all equal. 9th amendment doesn't apply.

[Valkenar]

I'd explain it to you, but I think it's a matter of perspective.
...
I will never change your mind or his on that subject, so I won't bother trying.

Well, that may be true, or you may be surprised. Even if I won't be convinced I still am interested in hearing the perspective. Because to me it just makes no sense. I understand that you value marriage as an institution, and you value its nature as a bond between a woman and a man sanctified by God (I'm making some assumptions there, appologies if I'm wrong). That I disagree with, but I get. What I don't get is why you care if someone else calls their bond between two women sanctified by God marriage. I just don't see how it hurts you to have other people use that word.

If you want, I'll promise not to argue with your perspective any more if you'll really explain it (You'll need to tell me not to respond). Because I really do want to try to understand it.

Show me a state where gay people can't marry someone of the opposite sex?

Every state. They can't marry someone of the opposite sex, because they can't fall in that kind of love with members of the opposite sex*. They can no more get straight married than you could get gay married. I mean, in Massachusetts or Connecticut you *could* get gay married, but in any realistic sense, a law saying you could only get gay married would be the same as a law saying you can't get married at all.

And even so, are you saying that a marriage between a gay man and a woman (gay or straight) who don't love each other, don't sleep together and don't have kids is more a real marriage than two women who love each other, sleep together and have a child via artificial insemination? The former really doesn't fit any sincere description of marriage that I've ever heard (though divorcees sometimes describe it that way).

Nobody's being denied or disparaged from marrying someone of the opposite sex. It's all equal. 9th amendment doesn't apply.

And nobody was being denied or disparaged from marrying someone of the same race, so there was nothing wrong with miscegenation law. It was all equal.

*This is leaving the broad spectrum of bisexuality aside.

[mhosea]

Now this thread reminds me of this one:

http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/viewtopic.php?t=18103

Granted, that one degenerated into another IJ/CXT epic, but it was interesting for several pages.

[Valkenar]

Now this thread reminds me of this one:

http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/viewtopic.php?t=18103

Granted, that one degenerated into another IJ/CXT epic, but it was interesting for several pages.

Yeah, I have been feeling some dizzying deja vu here. But hey, I can always use the practice arguing this point of view.

[Jason Rees]

Every state. They can't marry someone of the opposite sex, because they can't fall in that kind of love with members of the opposite sex*.

I fail to see where that gives the government (a democracy where the majority rules) an imperitive to adjust to the desires of a minority.

[IJ]

Jason: "Did this proposition make it a hatecrime against heterosexuals for gays and lesbians to call a rabbit, a goat and two women a family?"

IJ: When you, even jokingly, drag out that nonsense about how gay marriages are just a domino on the way to marriage with animals, you say more about yourself than us.

Jason: "Is there a section of the Constitution which grants anyone and everything the 'right' to marry? No. So forgive me if I don't join you in righteous anger at the violation of mystical rights that don't exist and never have."

IJ: the long answer to this involves the finding of the SCOTUS that LGBs are a discreet group, one than can't be attacked just because (see Romer v Evans). The short answer involves pointing out that you would never, never come out in public and say the Constitution doesn't grant the right of interracial couples to marry so we shouldn't care if a state amends their Constitution to deny them that right. THAT threat to traditional marriage became a reality in the 60s with a SCOTUS decision that only the KKK would speak against these days.

Jason: "I have a few less rights than you do, Ian, so spare me the self-righteous prattle."

Really? Please elaborate. Be clear if this relates to the voluntary restrictions you undertook when you joined the service, which is something many of us still cannot do.

"I also don't equate blacks with gays, and neither should any rational being. I'm actually offended by attempts by the gay community to steal the bandwagon from people whose ancestors were actually slaves."

Me neither. The situations are analogous in some domains, not in others. Gays were never slaves (well, not out of proportion to their numbers in the population). But we were targeted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. The marriage struggles and the battle over military service are VERY similar. So are battles over nondiscrimination in hiring and housing (I was denied housing because I'm gay--that's cool in VA). An essay by a biracial woman about how she could pass for white or black and thus had racist jokes made to her face was something I completely understood. I should also point out that drawing a comparison steals no bandwagons, that we're talking about the civil rights era and not the 18th-19th century, and that blacks ARE gays and vice versa sometimes.

"Do I think they should keep thumbing their noses at everything that's come before, and expect to receive a 'hands-off' from everyone? Nope."

I agree Jason, and LGBs should stop trying to destroy the marriages of all the straight people in this nation

"Show me a state where gay people can't marry someone of the opposite sex? Every person of sound mind in this country is free to marry an individual of the opposite sex who isn't a sibling or first/second cousin, I believe."

Again, you say more about yourself than others with this kinda nonsense. If you lived in a gay nation where you could only marry a man, you know you wouldn't grin and bear it. This is an asinine argument which belittles the feelings and relationships of gay people. What if everyone was only permitted to marry in a christian ceremony? That would be equal. Would that be fair?

"I fail to see where that gives the government (a democracy where the majority rules) an imperitive to adjust to the desires of a minority."

Who had to adjust? 70 million dollars was wasted in the battle and great effort was expended to eliminate a right in this state. No action would have been required to leave it there. Besides, this country is ABOUT little people. You're ostensibly defending those who can't defend themselves. ALL of them. Not just the majority. "Democracy" does not require us to outlaw Mormonism, vegetarianism, Asians, Uechi practitioners or anything else just because it is not the majority. In contrast, this country believes that we expend great effort to ... put a wheelchair ramp into Burger King. To protect the KKK as they march anonymously. To provide protection for people facing political threats. To integrate the schools and military. To permit minority religion to flourish. *I* will always believe in and fight for the rights of others and minorities even when they are opposed to my rights, and America would be a better place if everyone else felt that way too.

Rights are not a popularity contest. You would agree if yours were under attack--if you were the sheep after the wolves voted on dinner plans--or if you stretched your sense of empathy a bit.

[Jason Rees]

IJ: When you, even jokingly, drag out that nonsense about how gay marriages are just a domino on the way to marriage with animals, you say more about yourself than us.

Hmm... wasn't trying to, but I can see where you drew that up.

IJ: the long answer to this involves the finding of the SCOTUS that LGBs are a discreet group, one than can't be attacked just because (see Romer v Evans).

Nobody was attacked, Ian. No blood was drawn, no hostages taken. People voted for what they believe marriage 'is.'

Really? Please elaborate. Be clear if this relates to the voluntary restrictions you undertook when you joined the service, which is something many of us still cannot do.

Gays are free to join the military, Ian. They're just invited to keep their mouths shut about 'it.' Don't ask, Don't tell. It's not, "Don't Apply."

(I was denied housing because I'm gay--that's cool in VA).

Which I think is stupid, but unrelated.

I agree Jason, and LGBs should stop trying to destroy the marriages of all the straight people in this nation

Where did I say they were?

Again, you say more about yourself than others with this kinda nonsense. If you lived in a gay nation where you could only marry a man, you know you wouldn't grin and bear it.

Maybe not, but I'd be in pretty high demand . I'd imagine replacing an aging workforce would be difficult in such a scenario. Now who's spouting nonsense?

Who had to adjust? 70 million dollars was wasted...

70 million dollars. Did we just have an election where a man with less than one term as senator was given 300+ million dollars to run for the highest office in the land? Hmm... I think we did. Do I feel sorry about the 70 million the opponents of prop 8 spent trying to shoot it down? Heck, no. How much money was given to McCain? That's the system we have. It's not perfect. But I'd rather have that than one group have a guaranteed lock on getting what they want and shutting the other side down without even a chance.

But I guess you're used to having the courts for just that purpose. Bummer.

Rights are not a popularity contest. You would agree if yours were under attack--if you were the sheep after the wolves voted on dinner plans--or if you stretched your sense of empathy a bit.

Mine are under attack, and so are yours. The rights we're given under the constitution. Not the mystical ones granting you the right to fart under the covers with someone of the same sex with a certificate over the bed and a joint tax file under it. I'm talking about the rights to freedom of speech, of association, of religion, and to bear arms, among others.

Every day some jerk tries to whittle down the rights that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution.

First up: the Fairness Doctrine. Your favorite advocates want to shove this down the throats of Americans. With unchecked majorities in the House and Senate, and a Dem in the White House, you can count on it.

Empathy? Hell with that, Ian. I'm all out today.