New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   NOLA (https://blackandgold.com/nola/)
-   -   Politics (https://blackandgold.com/nola/4859-politics.html)

WhoDat 07-10-2004 08:42 AM

Politics
 
Well, if WW really wants to get to know everyone on the board, there's no better way than screaming at each other about politics! (Can ya tell I love a good debate?)

Just tell me who you're voting for and I'll tell you why you're wrong! LMAO ;)

GumboBC 07-10-2004 05:51 PM

Politics
 
Politics, huh?

First, let me say I\'m not a republican or a democrat.

George W. Bush: I don\'t know what is wonderlic score is, but he sounds too stupid to be the president to me. But, I admire the man to a certain degree. He sets his sights on something and goes after it. He might have misled the public about Iraq, but we need to be proactive against the war on terror instead of using the Venturi \"read and react\" approach. War is always unpopular with a lot of folks once American soldiers start getting killed. But, we all know the price of freedom doesn\'t come cheap!!

I don\'t think Bush had a good plan on how to deal with Iraq after the war was won. I think he underestimated how difficult it was going to be. I don\'t know if Iraq can ever become a democratic society, but you will never know if you don\'t try. Hopefully, Bush has a plan to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

John Kerry: I don\'t think he\'s a bad guy. I just don\'t think he\'s the right man for this time.

My vote will go to George W. Bush. ;)

[Edited on 10/7/2004 by GumboBC]

whowatches 07-10-2004 11:36 PM

Politics
 
Republican. The older I get, the more conservative I become. When I was younger, I believed that the role of the government should include responding to social issues, and I voted based on my stand on the cultural issues which touched my emotions. I thought that the government should be the balm for societal ills.

I guess a switch flipped when I was in my last couple of years in college, and I realized that when the government attempts to tackle those \"emotional\" issues upon which the majority of Democrats vote, it usually screws them up. The best place for my money is my pocket. And I don\'t mean that in a greedy, hoarding way. But the Constitution grants a majority of governmental powers to the state governments for a reason. More often than not, the Democratic party believes that it should dictate from a national level what is right for all of us even on state and local levels. This policy is not only cumbersome and uneffective but also expensive and inefficient.

Don\'t get me wrong, I am not blind to the numerous shortcomings of the Republican party. I believe they cater to the religious right to a fault (but I understand the strategy), and I also understand that the federal government has not shrunk under W\'s watch as well (although we must acknowledge the unique circustances of his tenure). What\'s more, as a teacher, I absolutely abhor his \"No Child Left Behind\" legislature but will not bore you with that rant tonight.

Overall, I vote Republican in all national elections. I my eyes, if you side with an idealogy, you must support those beliefs by sending enough leaders to Washington in order to allow the system to tilt in that direction.

.02

When it comes to local and state elections, I\'m a tad bit more lenient, but not much.

Btw, thanks for the support, Dat. You didn\'t offer much as far as your own beliefs there, big guy.

What\'s the 411?

GumboBC 07-11-2004 01:06 AM

Politics
 
WW brings up an interesting point. He says he like his money in his pocket and that\'s the reason he votes Republican. But, IMO, that logic is flawed unless you happen to be a millionaire!!

I\'ve had many folks tell me the samething. But, I ask them how much better off they were under a republican president and all I ever got was a bunch of double-talk. They gave me all kinds of reaons why a republican had the right approach to government but somehow they were no better off and in most cases were worse off. The deficit climbed to record highs. Unemployment was out of control. But, hey, the rich were getting richer and this was going to \"trickle\" down to the average guy. Only it never did!! And never will!!

People look at government programs as a waste of money. But, the thing is, that money gets spent in the economy and it does reach the average guy. You give a person money that doesn\'t have much money and it doesn\'t go in his bank account and sit there forever. It gets spent at you local hardware store, local resturant, grocery store, etc., etc.. And what happens is the economy starts to grow.

I have yet to see these tax breaks for the rich benefit the common folk or the economy. I\'ll wait and see, but it ain\'t looking promising!! Let me know when this happens.

Government has gotten so complicated and I don\'t care how educated someone is or how much they think they know about how something is SUPPOSE to work, it just don\'t work that way. It\'s too many special interests and too much coruption in goverment. And that\'s especailly true on the national level.

The Regan years gave us many things. Money wasn\'t one of \'em. The Bush Sr. were a joke. READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!! Yeah, read my lips, George..BYE!!

In my life time, the Bill Clinton years were the best. Of course, I had folks telling me that the rebulicans should get credit for that. Yeah, ok!!

Still, I\'m not a democrat nor repulican. I just usually go with my gut. I get double talk and promises from both sides.




WhoDat 07-11-2004 09:33 AM

Politics
 
See, I\'ve been a Republican all my life - but there\'s no way I\'m voting for Bush this time around.... and it has NOTHING to do with 9/11 or Iraq.

I too like the Republican style of government. It calls for spending on defense, a smaller bureacracy, and more concessions for business. My wonderlic isn\'t quite low enough to allow me to believe that business can cure all ills, but I do think private industry will always outperform government.

If people feel strongly enough about an issue to form a business or non-profit to affect change, they will always outperform the government. When those issues are left to government, the decisions are usually based on personal political gain, and executed by workers that are the lowest common denominator (I\'ve been working with municipal government for a year and trust me, it is the LOWEST possible denomnator).

Our government exists to provide me (and you) with freedom. That is their number one goal. The only \"social issues\" that the government should address are those that would infringe upon a person\'s freedom. However, what is the job of a senator or congressman? To make NEW laws! Do you often feel like you can do less and less in this country? It b/c it\'s true. Every new term the congress sets out to make new laws - that\'s their job.

In any case, I was glad that Bush was in office after 9/11 - Gore could not have handled that tragedy well, IMO. I also don\'t mind attacking Iraq. Bush did lie to the public about his reasons, but I didn\'t need those reasons to attack Iraq. Hussien is a terrible man who needed to be unseated for years.

Had Bush done that and focused on the economy, he\'d have my vote again. However he didn\'t. He allowed his religious beliefs to affect his politic opinions andhe further tried to bring about social change to mirror those beliefs.

I don\'t care whether you like his religious beliefs or not, by definition, they have NO PLACE in American politics - especially not from the commander and chief. Further, he\'s attempted to REDUCE the number of civil liberties for gays and women. That is absolutely abhorrent to me. No person should ever seek to reduce the freedoms of Americans. Finally, Bush did this while knowing he had to hold back some so that he could win re-election. My fear is that if given another 4 years and free reign to do what he chooses it will only get worse.

I don\'t like Kerry, but at this point I dislike Bush. My hope is that the Kerry slate get elected and Kerry resigns for health reasons and Edwards takes over.

[Edited on 11/7/2004 by WhoDat]

whowatches 07-12-2004 09:55 AM

Politics
 
Quote:

But, IMO, that logic is flawed unless you happen to be a millionaire!!
This statement is one reason I dislike the Democratic party. Much of their success is bred in this idea of class envy and resentment. I am not rich and probably never will be, but the DP would have me believe that I am oppressed by the upper class who is able to take advantage of special privledges and tax cuts/shelters/loopholes that I am not privy to. Therefore, according to their logic, I should want the government to take more of the rich\'s money and use it to help make my life easier.

I don\'t buy into that logic, and I think that it goes against fundamental American values. The government can encourage the wealthy to contribute to charities etc. through incentives, sure, but governmental redistrubution of wealth IMO is just plain wrong.

Quote:

They gave me all kinds of reaons why a republican had the right approach to government but somehow they were no better off and in most cases were worse off. The deficit climbed to record highs. Unemployment was out of control.
Not sure which administration you\'re talking about here. Reagan brought back consumer confidence and stopped inflation all while outspending the Soviets and ending the cold war. Bush 41 did raise taxes and lost the election because of it.

Quote:

I have yet to see these tax breaks for the rich benefit the common folk or the economy. I\'ll wait and see, but it ain\'t looking promising!! Let me know when this happens.
Bush 43 put money in my pocket with his tax cuts and maintained low interest rates (which helped me buy my first house :) ) in the face of a plummeting economy which was the result of the largest terrorist attack in our history.

Quote:

People look at government programs as a waste of money. But, the thing is, that money gets spent in the economy and it does reach the average guy. You give a person money that doesn\'t have much money and it doesn\'t go in his bank account and sit there forever. It gets spent at you local hardware store, local resturant, grocery store, etc., etc.. And what happens is the economy starts to grow
A fundamental flaw in the thought process of many Americans is that they don\'t understand that when they receive money from \"the government\", they aren\'t getting money from some magical source produced by the suits in DC. They are getting this money from other people\'s taxes... other people\'s wages.... time.... income!

So, when citizen x says, \"the government should pay for my healthcare, lost wages, food, whatever, \" they are actually saying, \"my fellow citizens should pay for ...\"

Americans are a generous people. We help each other and other countries\' people everyday. The problem now is that many citizens feel a level of entitlement to these types of programs, not realizing where the funding for these programs actually originate. IMO, the Democratic party fuels this feeling in order to increase the tax base and fund new entitlement programs. The guy in the middle (me) pays an inordinate share of these funds while receiving little to none of the benefits.

Quote:

In my life time, the Bill Clinton years were the best. Of course, I had folks telling me that the rebulicans should get credit for that. Yeah, ok!!
I have no problem giving Clinton credit for the economy in the nineties. I will not give credit to the Republican congress (sorry, had to say it). Clinton did benefit from the tech boom, but a lack of regulation in the corporate world created a \"paper tiger\" which crumbled early in the Bush 43 presidency (just like it would have under Gore).

Quote:

I don\'t care whether you like his religious beliefs or not, by definition, they have NO PLACE in American politics - especially not from the commander and chief. Further, he\'s attempted to REDUCE the number of civil liberties for gays and women. That is absolutely abhorrent to me. No person should ever seek to reduce the freedoms of Americans. Finally, Bush did this while knowing he had to hold back some so that he could win re-election. My fear is that if given another 4 years and free reign to do what he chooses it will only get worse.
Totally agree. This is my one big beef with the Republican party.

Quote:

I don\'t like Kerry, but at this point I dislike Bush. My hope is that the Kerry slate get elected and Kerry resigns for health reasons and Edwards takes over.
What?!!? The trial lawyer??? The biggest threat to business on the ticket?? Horrible choice for veep, and will lose the election for Kerry.

.02

See, isn\'t this fun?

Some of you other Nancys jump in. :P


GumboBC 07-12-2004 10:31 AM

Politics
 
Quote:

This statement is one reason I dislike the Democratic party. Much of their success is bred in this idea of class envy and resentment.
When 3% of the population has 90% of the money, who do you think can afford to pay more? While it would be fantastic for everyone to pay the same percentage of taxes, it doesn\'t work. What happens is these corporations pay less taxes and supposedly that gives them incentive to create more jobs. But, history has shown that doesn\'t happen. In fact, these big corporations have actually cut jobs and sent jobs overseas to save money and the economy shrinks.

Conversly, when the middle class pays less taxes, that money gets recirculated in the economy and it gives a boon to the economy.

Quote:

Not sure which administration you\'re talking about here. Reagan brought back consumer confidence and stopped inflation all while outspending the Soviets and ending the cold war. Bush 41 did raise taxes and lost the election because of it.
The economy was not good under Regan. Comsumer confidence doesn\'t mean too much. It only means they think the economy is headed in the right direction. And.. how much do we need to outspend the soviets? We already have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 100-times over. What advantage did we have over the soviets that we didn\'t have before Regan spent all that money?

Quote:

Bush 43 put money in my pocket with his tax cuts and maintained low interest rates (which helped me buy my first house ) in the face of a plummeting economy which was the result of the largest terrorist attack in our history.
How much money did he put in your pocket? How ever much it was, I\'m sure inflation ate most of it up.

Repulicans are strong on defesne and right now that\'s #1 and I just believe Bush is the right man for the job at this time. He\'s a no-nonsense guy that doesn\'t rely on polls to make a decision. I like that.

Democrats, while I think they go overboard with the free handouts, usually have better ideas when it comes to the economy...

[Edited on 12/7/2004 by GumboBC]

ScottyRo 07-12-2004 12:20 PM

Politics
 
May I just jump in?

I\'m not really going to address the many topics that have been discussed already. Fact is, there are too many things we could discuss and each individual post will get longer and longer.

On the presidential Election...

I consider myself republican, but I don\'t let that interfere with my reasoning of who might be best for the job. However, my first question when I am deciding whether I will vote for someone isn\'t about how much money I have or will have, it is about whether that politician is for or against abortion. If he is for it, I am against him.

There is no greater injustice in this world than to deny children of the chance or opportunity to life. I don\'t care about the costs on society if abortion is outlawed. It is worth it in my opinion. As Americans we are always commending our soldiers for fighting, especially those who give their lives for our freedoms. Yet as a counrty we continue to allow abortion because, for the most part, the woman who chooses to do so does not wish to be inconvenienced by her error of becoming pregnant. Why is her right to not be inconvenienced more important than a baby\'s right to life? If we are going to recognize that death is \"the supreme sacrifice,\" shouldn\'t the women of this country be willing to sacrifice a mere nine months of their lives to allow a child to enjoy an average of 70+ years of life?

Now I know there are deeper philosophical arguments that come up when discussing abortion such as events of incest and risk to the mother, etc. My feelings are that if abortions were banned except in those cases I may still want to go farther, but I will believe a victory had been achieved.

All of this to say there is no way I could vote for Kerry if I understand correctly that he is pro-killing (saying \"choice\" just dehuminzes the act). I\'m not happy with the things Bush has done. I don\'t think he needed to lie to me about going into Iraq. It\'s not like we had the world behind us anyway so he should have just gone in proclaiming the removal of Saddam as the best reason to do so.

The economy is bigger than the presidency. It was turning before Bush took over. Certainly, the president can help it or hurt it, but its ups and downs are natural occurences.

We\'ve had 20 years or so of a pretty good economy (with ups and downs) under both republican and democrat presidents. I don\'t believe that either Bush or kerry is really going to make all that much difference in this area. but I do believe that if we vote on a moral basis from the top of the ticket all the way down to our local elections we can make a difference in the area that is a black mark on our record as a society.

Isn\'t it ironic how civilized we think we are? Yet, at some point in the future, society will look back on our country\'s abortion stance and think of us as barbarians.



canucksaint 07-13-2004 10:00 AM

Politics
 
Oh boy this looks like fun. I can’t wait for WhoDat to tell my why I’m wrong for who I vote for. I ended up voting for Harper, even though his views are a bit to right for me, but the Liberals under Paul Martin just couldn’t regain my trust. However even he was better that Chrétien.

Ok, that’s enough of Canadian Politics. Now in regards to the presidential election;
Bush’s wonderlic score… do they go into the negatives? Just kidding. I don’t give the guy too much credit for being to smart. But he does know what he wants and goes after it, right or wrong. I hope for all of North America that he doesn’t get back in. I don’t think that his economic policy is viable; as a matter of fact it is quite outdated. It was probably his Dad’s policy left over from when he hoped to get a second term. He will go down in history as probably one of the worst leaders for foreign policy. He has completely severed ties with most of his closest allies, with the exception of the British, however that will end soon, as Tony Blair is even losing more support that Bush Jr. As for him going into Iraq, was it right or wrong? Both. Right idea, wrong pretenses. Saddam was horrible and needed to be ousted, however Bush lied to the population and the world about why he was going in. Billy, you said that you don’t think that Bush had a good plan on how to deal with Iraq after the war was won. Who’s saying the war is won? What was the objective of the war in the first place? Was it to find WMD? Or was it to oust Saddam? How about liberated the Iraqi people. The focus and objective of the war changed every time Bush realized he screwed up again. Bush could have had a good plan on how to deal with Iraq after the war finished (I don’t think it will ever be won or lost). But that would have required him to actually allow the weapons inspectors to finish there job, then he would have been able to get the UN to back him, at least for a chapter 6 intervention. I am very glad that my country stayed out of Iraq, however I am disappointed that Bush is so petty, that he feels it is right to punish his closest allies for not backing him on his ridiculous adventure.
Kerry may not be the best person, nor do I really feel that Edwards was his best choice in Veep. However at this point, he’s got to be better than Bush.
I have very strong feelings also in regards to the religious aspects that the Republican Party brings to the table.
One question I do have; as it is becoming a larger issue up here, and I just can’t understand the argument; why should gays not be allowed to get “Married�. Is it just the word marriage, or is there some other underlying reason. If someone could give me an argument (that doesn’t include the bible, remember the separation between church and state) regarding this, I would appreciate it.

GumboBC 07-13-2004 11:43 AM

Politics
 
Quote:

One question I do have; as it is becoming a larger issue up here, and I just can’t understand the argument; why should gays not be allowed to get “Married�. Is it just the word marriage, or is there some other underlying reason. If someone could give me an argument (that doesn’t include the bible, remember the separation between church and state) regarding this, I would appreciate it.
Personally, it\'s not a big issue with me. However, I don\'t support gays. I think it\'s morally wrong. Marriage was created for a man and woman. Some folks have sex with animals. You know, \"beastiality.\" Why not allow a marriage between a woman and a horse? LMAO!! Who is to say that\'s wrong? I mean, I really don\'t care, but it ain\'t right, IMO.

canucksaint -- You bring up a lot of very good points about George W.. When I say we won the war, I was simply refering to the ousting of Saddam. At that point, the \"real\" war was over and now it\'s just comes down to liberating Iraq. But, most of the time that\'s more difficult than the war. This thing is a long way from being over, but we\'re not fighting a war. There\'s always pockets of resistance after every war. But, this thing is a long ways from being over. If it is ever over....

To Bush\'s credit, he did make the rest of the rouge nations stand up and take notice. Libia, for example, completely changed it\'s tune. And I don\'t agree that Bush will go down as the worst president in history either. History has yet to be wrttien. Bush might indeed pull this off. Now, he could fail, but it\'s way too early to judge.

Rightly or wrongly, I\'m supporting Bush. Four more years isn\'t going to kill us. We\'ll still be here. Bush started this thing and I want to give him an opportunity to finish it. Not too many presidents have the courage to stand up for what they truly beleive in. Bush is one that does. I admire him for it.

Courage is sometimes allowing yourself to make mistakes. Show me someone that\'s never made mistakes and I\'ll show you someone that never tried.

ScottyRo 07-13-2004 12:52 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

One question I do have; as it is becoming a larger issue up here, and I just can’t understand the argument; why should gays not be allowed to get “Married�. Is it just the word marriage, or is there some other underlying reason. If someone could give me an argument (that doesn’t include the bible, remember the separation between church and state) regarding this, I would appreciate it.
Honestly, I don\'t have a real strong opinion on this matter. However, I believe the first argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is wrong. The simple fact that lots of people do it and don\'t feel that it is wrong doesn\'t change that. There are plenty of people molesting children everyday that don\'t appear to have a problem with that either.

Otherwise, I feel that a person who lives a homosexual lifestyle has chosen to do so outside of the normal and natural conventions of our society. Now, they are outside of what is and has always been legal marriage and want to change it to fit the world they want to live in so that they can receive validation of their lifestyle\'s propriety.

The problem with allowing this sort of thing is that it may further shift our society away from the traditional nuclear family which has been shown to be the most healthy environment in which to raise children.

Now, as for your separation of church and state argument. It is a common misconception to say that a person should not bring up the Bible or religious philosophy when discussing politics in this country. However, \"church and state\" does not mean that religous views and philosophies should not be included in our laws or politics. It simply means that the government should not tell its population how to worship their God, if any. To go further than that is to ignore that the United States was founded on moral and religious principles. These principles are embodied in our laws and declarations.

Additionally, President Bush is not the government of the United States. He has been slammed in some circles for his religious beliefs and his willingness to express them. However, his expression of his faith is not a command that all the people of the US follow his lead. It is simply a person that happens to hold a political office expressing his philosophy on a subject just like any other. He has as much right to speak out in favor of his faith as he does to speak against the abuse of illegal drugs, for instance.

Thus, the actual abuse of the church and state clause would be to pass a law prohibiting the president from expressing his beliefs. At that point you have the government telling an individual how to worship his God - an obvious violation.


canucksaint 07-13-2004 12:57 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

Marriage was created for a man and woman.
?? who defined what Marriage was/is?
From webster\'s dictonary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ry&va=marriage
Quote:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \'mer-ij, \'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
The only reasonable argument I can see on this is the issue of workplace benifits, which in Canada that has already been granted. (not sure about the policy in the States).

Quote:

I don\'t agree that Bush will go down as the worst president in history either.
If I\'m correct I never accused him of goind down as the worst president in history. What I said was he was probably one of the worst leaders for foreign policy. With his unlawful attack on Iraq (right thing to do, wrong way to do it), his amazing ablitiy to make his closest allies take a huge step back and distance themselves from him, and his renewed interest in policy\'s that should have died when Regan won(finished) the cold war, does not equal the fact that he has gotten 1 leader of a rouge nation (circa 1980\'s) to change his tune. (which I will give credit for). However it\'s not like Lybia was really a major threat compaired to China or N. Korea.
You\'re right that another 4 years of his reign will not kill you. However it will harm your ecconomy and severly tarnish the view of the USA in the eyes of the world.

GumboBC 07-13-2004 01:13 PM

Politics
 
canucksaint -- Marriage in the US has always been for people of the opposite sex. Define marriage however you want, but that\'s the way it is.

Since you don\'t object to gay marriage, is there anything you object to that you think is morally wrong? What about incest? What about having multiple wifes or husbands? What about sexual relationships between adults and childern? Who has the right to say this isn\'t OK? Me, for one. Just like gays. You got to draw the line somewhere. It\'s not natural to sleep with your sister and it\'s not natural for a man to sleep with a man. Of course, an arguement could be made to justify all of \'em.

[Edited on 13/7/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 13/7/2004 by GumboBC]

canucksaint 07-13-2004 01:52 PM

Politics
 
ScottyRo - Good point about the separation of church and state. I guess I misspoke.
In regards to you and Billy relating homosexuality to being a pedophile is horribly wrong IMO. I don’t feel that anything should ever be related to being a pedophile, as nothing can even come close to that stage of evilness.
Now Billy, stop putting words in my mouth. Don’t jump to the assumption that I am pro-gay marriage. I didn’t say that.
I just don’t understand the argument. If being homosexual is now accepted in mainstream culture (as much as many people still feel it is immoral), they are entitled to their partner’s health benefits, in many states/countries they are allowed to adopt, they are allowed to vote, join the military and even become an NFL quarterback if they want. Then why isn’t their lifelong union with their partner allowed to be called marriage?
I’m not trying to start something about whether being homosexual is accepted, immoral, evil, lovely or whatever else it may be.
I am just trying to figure out why they just don’t call a spade a spade.

GumboBC 07-13-2004 02:02 PM

Politics
 
canucksaint - LOL.... I\'m sorry if I jumped to conclusions.... But, when you said you just can\'t understand why folks are against it, then I assumed you were for it. My bad.

You know, back in the day, girls were married at the age of 13. This was perfectly acceptable. Some countries it still is. The point I\'m trying to make is:

What makes something right or wrong?? Who decides? And if it does become law, does that make it right? It comes down to personal beliefs. Religious or whatever.

Myself, I try to use common sense. I do NOT belive it\'s right for girls to marry at the age of 13. I do not believe in incest and I do not believe in homosexuality. But those are MY beliefs. I don\'t try to force them on anyone. This is a democratic society, and the majority rules. Right now, the hetrosexuals would win. How much more fair can you get than that?


canucksaint 07-13-2004 02:23 PM

Politics
 
Not necessarly for it, not necessarly against it. Just ignorant enough :P
I like to understand all sides of an argument prior to jumping into the fray and picking sides. As I stated, I just don\'t understand that side yet. Just making sure that I\'m not missing anything.
Quote:

What makes something right or wrong?? Who decides? And if it does become law, does that make it right?
Getting a bit philosophical here, but I guess that\'s what off-season is for.
IMO, right or wrong is decided by the majority of the society that you have chosen to live in. Who decides; the voting public. If you don\'t vote, you don\'t have a right to bitc... uh.. complain. If it becomes law, then it needs to be followed and accepted (or at least not broken), because that is what a democracy is.
My spideysense tells me there\'s a debate coming on....


GumboBC 07-13-2004 02:36 PM

Politics
 
Well, it\'s just nice to see that we\'ve got some smart folks that can think for themselves. No matter how they feel about something. Often times I talk to folks and they have bought into the propaganda from the national media. They don\'t even bother checking the facts.

Just because something is LAW doesn\'t make it right. Ask some black folks if they thougtht slavery was right when it was legal to own people.

The BIG problem I have right now is when something can\'t be won on the national level, you\'ve got people wanting to take it to a vote on the state level. That\'s not right. Every state is part of the US. Remember that little thing called the CIVIL WAR. Sould we have let individual states vote on slavery?? Of course not. If they did, you\'d still see folks picking cotton in Louisaian and Mississippi!!

Right now gay marriage would lose on a national level. When gays can win on a national level, then fine, I\'ll live with it. But, I still won\'t agree with it.



[Edited on 13/7/2004 by GumboBC]

canucksaint 07-13-2004 02:54 PM

Politics
 
I agree that the individual states/provences should accept the decision that is made on the national level. However speaking of Gay Marriages, the national level doesn\'t want to touch that issue. So the state level is the only level that actually has the balls to do anything about it. Not the best way, but if enough states do something about it, then they are forcing the hand of the feds who are too chicken to step into it. (Not bashing Bush, as our federals are doing the same).

Quote:

Just because something is LAW doesn\'t make it right.
Very true. But that\'s why laws can be changed. Even constitution\'s can be changed when one realized that they got it azz backwards the first time around. But what I was saying, is that when it is a law, it does need to be obeyed until (if ever) it is changed. If not we would have an anarchist society. (I\'m not even touching the slavery issue, as I doubt you will find too many people who will try to justify that one... at least not smart people :D )

Nomtoc 07-13-2004 03:32 PM

Politics
 
I\'m more confused/middle of the road than ever.
This is \"The Other White Meat\" pat two.
:casstet:

GumboBC 07-13-2004 03:39 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

I\'m more confused/middle of the road than ever.
This is \"The Other White Meat\" pat two.
:casstet:
That\'s why, while you can listen to both sides, you\'ve got to vote how your heart tells you to. Anything can get complicated real quick. Debating is good, because it can bring FACTS to the table that otherwise might have been overlooked. And it can call BS on things that are being presented as facts. But, in the end, all it comes down to mostly is somone trying to \"sell\" their beliefs.


ScottyRo 07-13-2004 04:06 PM

Politics
 
When I mentioned child molesting above I was not trying to say that they are similar acts, but they are related in that many people feel that they are both immoral acts. Thus, I tried to make the point that if one of these \"immoral\" groups were to change the rules as they have always been, then the other should be able at some point to change it as well.

The definition of marriage is simple. So simple that Webster\'s missed it because he (they) didn\'t feel the need to define it fully. This planet has thousands of years of \"marriage\" history and in none of it that I know of has there ever before been a marriage that included two people of the same sex. Further, Louisiana in its civil code defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Certainly, there could be some obscure homosexual tribe out there on some other continent, but I don\'t think that changes anything.

I also think that it would be nice if we could handle this issue on a state level. Unfortunately, we cannot let each state handle this issue because of the \"full faith and credit\" clause. Again, Louisiana\'s civil code states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus, if Mississippi were to allow gay marriages then Louisiana would not have a choice, but to do so or else defy the US Constitution. In the end it would be MS changing the laws of LA by proxy.

Nomtoc 07-13-2004 06:31 PM

Politics
 
Child molesters and rapists should all be euthanized.

WhoDat 07-14-2004 02:51 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

There is no greater injustice in this world than to deny children of the chance or opportunity to life. I don\'t care about the costs on society if abortion is outlawed. It is worth it in my opinion. As Americans we are always commending our soldiers for fighting, especially those who give their lives for our freedoms. Yet as a counrty we continue to allow abortion because, for the most part, the woman who chooses to do so does not wish to be inconvenienced by her error of becoming pregnant. Why is her right to not be inconvenienced more important than a baby\'s right to life? If we are going to recognize that death is \"the supreme sacrifice,\" shouldn\'t the women of this country be willing to sacrifice a mere nine months of their lives to allow a child to enjoy an average of 70+ years of life?
Now this is one big bag of worms to open. One note before I start: All of the candidates in the election are Pro Life. Kerry and Edwards are both Pro Lifers from what I\'ve seen in the past.

That said - I do not disagree that a child should have a right to life. The problem is, when is a child a child? In essence, when a child is conceived it is little more than a cyst. The question becomes when does life begin? I can\'t answer that, and until someone can with a good deal of supporting evidence, I find it inheirently unAmerican to limit her civil liberties.

One other note: A President\'s opinion about social issues is, in most cases, of little conseqence. He\'s not making laws or ruling on judicial proceedings. Far more important are the beliefs of the Supreme Court Justices.

saintfan 07-14-2004 03:57 PM

Politics
 
I\'ve managed to avoid this \'til now, but I absolutely positively agree with you whodat...110%. It\'s not that I don\'t think a child has a right to life, but as you said, when it begins is up for debate, and for that reason I can\'t see where I have ANY right whatsoever to tell someone I don\'t know who\'s circumstances I am totally unaware of what she can or cannot do regarding HER body. That there are people out there who think they can angers me more than I could possibly relate.

Kerry Sucks tho...not enough room to bring it all up here. Thank GOD he\'s not our president, and God willing he never will be. Kerry is Jane Fonda minus the breasts, but he might as well have a pair if you know what I mean. We presently have the ability to defend our country, and I\'d prefer we keep it that way. ;)

ScottyRo 07-14-2004 10:10 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

That said - I do not disagree that a child should have a right to life. The problem is, when is a child a child? In essence, when a child is conceived it is little more than a cyst. The question becomes when does life begin? I can\'t answer that, and until someone can with a good deal of supporting evidence, I find it inheirently unAmerican to limit her civil liberties.
Let\'s break it down like this. Nobody has an abortion without knowing that she is pregnant. A human woman can only be naturally impregnated with a human child. We do not need to know when life begins. All we need to accept is that by the time a mother knows of the pregnancy (2-3 weeks after conception at the earliest) the mass of cells that once was simply a fertilized egg is now developing into a human child. It is obviously alive and growing at that point. Sure, not all are viable at that point and certainly cannot live outside the womb, but it is living nonetheless.

So, let\'s not even talk about the perhaps questionable, early on cases. Let\'s talk about something like partial birth abortion. It\'s an obvious child, only very young and undeveloped. Yet, you somehow consider the killing of this child to be inherently American because the woman got to choose? (For more on choice see below). The deal is that we\'re not aware when life begins. I think it\'s irrelevant. But, why not err on the side of caution considering the relatively small inconvenience to the woman?

Quote:

It\'s not that I don\'t think a child has a right to life, but as you said, when it begins is up for debate, and for that reason I can\'t see where I have ANY right whatsoever to tell someone I don\'t know who\'s circumstances I am totally unaware of what she can or cannot do regarding HER body. That there are people out there who think they can angers me more than I could possibly relate.
As I said, when life begins is irrelevant to the discussion. It should be obvious to anyone willing to admit the truth to himself or herself that this is true.

Saintfan, I am not asking here for the right to tell women what I want them to do with thier bodies. I am suggesting the government should do so. I am shocked that soomeone who holds an opinion such as mine would anger you to such a degree. As if the injustice is to the woman.

The woman has all the choices she could want before the pregnancy. She could choose not to have sex. She could choose not to have unprotected sex. After the pregnancy has begun, she can choose not to keep the child after she gives birth. Remember, this is a mere nine-months of her life compared to an average of 70+ years of life for the child. There are plenty of couples wanting to adopt children and she may actually decide she wants to keep the child despite the hardship raising a child in difficult circumstances might bring.

The absolute worst argument you could bring as far as I\'m concerned is that it is HER BODY. What a joke! In the grand scheme of life the inconvenience to her and her body is really quite small when compared to the sacrifice the child is having to make.

The problem is that the subject isn\'t personal enough to you. You live in a society that desensitizes you to murder by portraying it on television many times everyday. It\'s ok. That dead guy will be on a new show next week so \"no problem\". Think about your children or your nieces or nephews and consider them being killed in the womb simply because they were going to cause their mother an inconvenience. Your angry with me?

I do feel sorry for the woman who gets in the position of being pregnant when she did not plan or want to be. I wish medical technology was such that she could have the child removed and placed within another woman without damaging the child. Some people may even be against that, but I find it much better than killing the child.

Saintfan, this isn\'t really about telling woman what to do with her body. It is simply about saving the life of a child and, unfortunately, the mother\'s body is part of it whether she likes it or not. Saving the life of children is a noble cause. You shouldn\'t get angry about this. If you\'re going to remain pro-choice, you could at least feel sadness for the consequences of the procedure.


ScottyRo 07-14-2004 10:28 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

One other note: A President\'s opinion about social issues is, in most cases, of little conseqence. He\'s not making laws or ruling on judicial proceedings. Far more important are the beliefs of the Supreme Court Justices.
Quote:

I don\'t care whether you like his religious beliefs or not, by definition, they have NO PLACE in American politics - especially not from the commander and chief. Further, he\'s attempted to REDUCE the number of civil liberties for gays and women.
What definition states that Bush should not speak out about his religious beliefs? If you mean \"church and state\", see my argument above.

In what way is Bush reducing gay civil liberties? In Louisiana, marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman. The marriage amendment would only keep some judge who feels that it should be changed (maybe even because he\'s been paid to feel that it should be changed) from changing that. That\'s not reduction. That\'s status quo.

The most right thing you\'ve said on this thread is about the Supreme Court. Long gone are the days when the Court actually interpreted the law. They are now policy makers with agendas and it\'s a shame. The funny thing about them is...once upon a time this country was founded to get away from European oppression and rules. Yet, now the Court consistently looks toward Europe in order to determine how things should be rather than on our own history and precedent.

canucksaint 07-16-2004 08:38 AM

Politics
 
I don\'t really want to get into the pro life, pro choice debate as I\'m sure we can all argue till we\'re red in the face, however I do have a question or two:
Quote:

The woman has all the choices she could want before the pregnancy. She could choose not to have sex. She could choose not to have unprotected sex.
What about the cases (small minority) that the woman doesn\'t have a choice? How about protected sex, which fails?

Quote:

now the Court consistently looks toward Europe in order to determine how things should be rather than on our own history and precedent.
I\'m sure you\'re refering to a specific case, as I can\'t think of more opposites than Europe and the USA. Did you want to clarify?

saintfan 07-16-2004 09:53 AM

Politics
 
I\'m with ya Canuck...this sort of thing can go on forever since, as Whodat indicated, when life begins is debatable. The thing that floors me is that there are people who think that they, or the government for christs sake, should have the power to make that decision FOR SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!! If it EVER comes to that in America we\'re all in trouble.

ScottyRo 07-16-2004 10:49 AM

Politics
 
Quote:

If it EVER comes to that in America we\'re all in trouble.
America is already in trouble becuase it allows the killing of unborn children. It somehow finds allowing a woman to choose to kill a growing human child preferable to letting the baby live.

Quote:

What about the cases (small minority) that the woman doesn\'t have a choice? How about protected sex, which fails?
Because this is such a huge issue with many caveats, I\'d prefer to only debate the simple case involving unprotected sex, first. My opinion is that, protection or not, you should be well enough aware that there is a chance of becoming pregnant by having sex. Therefore, if you accept the risks and have sex, you should accept the consequences.

Does anyone deny that even just a month after conception the thing that was once just a mass of cells is a growing child? It\'s very, very small, but at that stage it is already taking its human shape.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now the Court consistently looks toward Europe in order to determine how things should be rather than on our own history and precedent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I\'m sure you\'re refering to a specific case, as I can\'t think of more opposites than Europe and the USA. Did you want to clarify?
There are some specific examples, but I was refering generally to the attitude of the Justices of late. I can and will try to find some specific examples of this. I too think that America and Europe are very opposite, but I have read (a couple years back) of instances where the Justices were becoming more likely to look at European law before they rule on a law here in the States. I just don\'t think they should.

I understand and agree that sometimes it is needed to look at the results of a European law on its people. I just want to avoid the \"Europe allows it so we should too\" mentality.

I do understand that this abortion issue is a difficult one. And it does involve the rights of people to choose what is right for themselves and their children. However, the government is already involved in regulating this type of thing. Here in Louisiana, as I understand it, if you threaten to kill yourself and you\'re taken seriously, the government can place you in a hospital to prevent that. Also, if you ignore your child\'s illness or don\'t seek proper medical care, you can be subject to criminal charges for such act even if based on religious grounds. Thus, banning abortions wouldn\'t give the government a power it doesn\'t have over people, it would simply extend that protection to unborn children. Most states use the \"best interests of the child\" standard to determine every single issue brought before a court in which a child is involved. The parents rights are secondary to this. Why should that not apply to abortion of an unborn child? It cannot legally be said that a person, no matter what the circumstances, would have been better off having never been born.

[Edited on 16/7/2004 by ScottyRo]

ScottyRo 07-16-2004 10:52 AM

Politics
 
Btw, I just want to thank everyone for tackling this issue and others on this thread in such a civil matter. THAT is truly American (democratic) to allow an open and honest discussion without trying to bring it down to the level of a brawl. Thanks!

We can disagree on an issue so emotionally charged as abortion and still be friends, right?

[Edited on 16/7/2004 by ScottyRo]

WhoDat 07-20-2004 01:42 PM

Politics
 
I skipped a lot, but I have to throw a few things in here:

First:
Quote:

I\'ve managed to avoid this \'til now, but I absolutely positively agree with you whodat...110%.
Everybody stop. A moment of silence please to honor this moment. Maybe i\'m not the miserable person Saintfan thought I was outside of the Brooks/Haz debate! ;) I always thought that we thought alike Saintfan - great minds usually do. Now if I could just get you off the sunshine laced tang that Billy\'s got you hooked on... :P

Now, I gotta get a little ticked.

Quote:

canucksaint -- Marriage in the US has always been for people of the opposite sex. Define marriage however you want, but that\'s the way it is.

Since you don\'t object to gay marriage, is there anything you object to that you think is morally wrong? What about incest? What about having multiple wifes or husbands? What about sexual relationships between adults and childern? Who has the right to say this isn\'t OK? Me, for one. Just like gays. You got to draw the line somewhere. It\'s not natural to sleep with your sister and it\'s not natural for a man to sleep with a man. Of course, an arguement could be made to justify all of \'em.
1. Comparing gay marriage to incest shows ignorance of the subject matter. That\'s sad Billy - do you know any gays. Really, do you have a single gay who is truly your friend, or who you have ever gotten to know? If you had you wouldn\'t make those kinds of ridiculous comments.

2. Unfortunately, you\'re half wrong here and it is the half that matters. In practice, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Hoewever, that is not always the way it is defined in law, which is why gays CAN marry in certain places. Its those laws (and the impending challenges of those laws) that will eventually allow gays to be married in every state in this country within the next 20 years.

3. There are NO grounds for disallowing marriage between gays in law. Marriage in this country is DEVOID of religious signifigance (separation of church and state). Thus it is simply a civil contract between two people. Marriage, for the position of the state, is nothing more than that. As we all know discrimination on race, sex, age after majority, etc. is illegal in this country, as well it should be. So is discrimination based on sexual preference. There are a plethora of reasons why gay marriage should not be banned and very few other than a \"religious\" argument for why it should be. Fortunately, religion AND majority view mean very little in this country when it comes to civil liberties and personal freedoms.

4. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: One person please give me any reason whatsoever as to why gays should not be married THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE \'morals\', \'ethics\', or \'religion\'. What threat does the idea pose to American society? None. Plain and simple. The bottom line here is fear. People who oppose gay marriage generally know very little about gay people and that ignorance makes them scared. Religion is another major contributor - thankfully our government does not legislate morals.

Gay should have the right to be married, and they most certainly will have that right sooner rather than later. George Bush\'s decision to make this an issue now may serve to act as a wedge amongst Democrats and help him win another election, but he is doing it at the cost of \'his cause.\' Bringing the issue to the forefront has only shortened the time frame until gays can be married. States like MS, GA, LA, and other bible belt states will be quick to pass laws outlawing gay marriage. Gays will take legal action and eventually this will sit in front of the Supreme Court - who will decide that it is unconstitutional to bar a citizen of rights afforded other citizens based solely on sexual preference. Thanks George, what might have taken 30 or even 50 years may now only take 10.

canucksaint 07-20-2004 03:38 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

We can disagree on an issue so emotionally charged as abortion and still be friends, right?
Yea, but don\'t tell me that Brooks is a good QB, cause them fightin\' words ;)

ScottyRo 07-20-2004 05:08 PM

Politics
 
Quote:


Gay should have the right to be married, and they most certainly will have that right sooner rather than later. George Bush\'s decision to make this an issue now may serve to act as a wedge amongst Democrats and help him win another election, but he is doing it at the cost of \'his cause.\' Bringing the issue to the forefront has only shortened the time frame until gays can be married. States like MS, GA, LA, and other bible belt states will be quick to pass laws outlawing gay marriage. Gays will take legal action and eventually this will sit in front of the Supreme Court - who will decide that it is unconstitutional to bar a citizen of rights afforded other citizens based solely on sexual preference. Thanks George, what might have taken 30 or even 50 years may now only take 10.
Although I don\'t agree that religious or moral reasons for disallowing gay marriage should be left out of the discussion, there is at least one purely sociological argument. That being that allowing gay marriage will continue the trend of the deteriorating the family system in America. It has been shown many times that children perform best and are better psychologically when raised in a home that contains a mother (female) and a father (male). The ease of obtaining a divorce was the first major blow to this. You haven\'t noticed how over the past 30+ years that child discipline has seemed to become such a large problem? Allowing gay marriage will only increase this and other problems.

As far as states such as LA passing laws banning gay marriage...as I said above, LA already has in its civil code the statement that a marriage is between a man and a woman. There should be no need for another law.

Moreover, this isn\'t a civil rights issue. Gays are not being stopped by the prohibition of gay marriage from doing anything except attain married status. If they can attain this status just because they wish it, then I wish to be considered a senior citizen and start receiving my social security now.

JKool 07-20-2004 06:48 PM

Politics
 
Wow, you guys have been working hard here.

Normally, I don\'t share my veiws on these things, but since this has been going so amicably, I think I\'ll say a few things:

(1) I\'m Canadian, so I cannot vote in your election. I\'m not terribly upset about that, since I think it is obvious that this will be a tough election. I think though, Bush has proven himself to be of questionable integrity - his life before becoming President should be enough to show this, but this whole \"we believed they had weapons of mass destruction and chemical/biological weapons\" stuff is utter carp! I think he has done a lot to drive your county\'s good name through the mud with many other, normally congenial, countries.

(2) On the abortion issue. Here is an argument I\'ve always thought was interesting. We believe that sometimes right to the use of our bodies and minds outweighs others\' right to life. There are tons of examples: we don\'t spend a lot of time or money to save people dying of hunger right here in the US, we don\'t take the time to volunteer with organizations that save lives in third world contries, we don\'t take the time to help look for missing children, etc. All of this demonstrates that we think our right to the use of our own body (and time) outweighs so many others\' right to life. Thus, what is the difference in the abortion case? Women have the right to choose whether to use their bodies to \"save\" a fetus/child or not - the same way I get to choose if I\'ll spend 99 cents a day to feed/\"save\" a starving child. Furthermore, if you claim that the difference is that the woman made a choice in starting the life of the child, there are two problems: (1) most women made a choice that involved a very minute chance of a child resulting (failed birth control, etc.) and should thus not be held accountable (the same way no one should be held accountable if they take proper precautions - think a mail carrier could still slip on your stairs even if you\'ve carefully cleared them of snow), and (2) I made some choices that allow children to be born into a world where I will not feed them (e.g. I chose to vote for so and so, who passed laws that aren\'t sufficient to educate potential mothers, feed the hungry, and so on).

(3) On the issue of whether or not morality is nothing more than individual opinion, I\'d have to say that is dead wrong. Here is a quick argument. If I am the cause of my moral system (that is, if I am the sole thing that creates right and wrong FOR ME), then I could never make a morally incorrect judgement (for in deciding to do something, I would be deciding that it was morally good). However, I know when I think back, I think that I have done some morally bad things - I am ashamed to admit it, but it is true. This shows that morality is not created by me for me - in order to be wrong, there must be some other cause of things moral OTHER THAN MYSELF. This is the most basic argument against moral subjectivism (the view that things are morally good or morally bad based on the individuals opinion/view).

Cheers.

JKool 07-20-2004 06:52 PM

Politics
 
Oh yeah,

(4) On the gay marriage thing: I don\'t understand why people squable over the definition of marriage - law making, as well as right and wrong, has nothing to do with defining.

I thought I\'d share this amusing idea: there was a comic in one of the papers a few days back. There are a bunch of women sitting around discussing gay marriage. They say that they don\'t think that it is gay marriage, or the possibility of bestiality, or whathaveyou that brings down the value of their marriages - it is all the hot, single women who do! :)

ScottyRo 07-20-2004 10:06 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

(2) All of this demonstrates that we think our right to the use of our own body (and time) outweighs so many others\' right to life. Thus, what is the difference in the abortion case? Women have the right to choose whether to use their bodies to \"save\" a fetus/child or not - the same way I get to choose if I\'ll spend 99 cents a day to feed/\"save\" a starving child.
You make a good observation J, but let me answer your question. The difference is that one is passive the other is aggressive. Not contributing to feeding hungry children is not a very good thing to do and I am as guilty as anyother of this, but it is a passive act. I think this is infinitely less harmful than if I were out there killing all the hungry children. Also, one mistake does not mean we should commit an even greater error.

Quote:

Furthermore, if you claim that the difference is that the woman made a choice in starting the life of the child, there are two problems: (1) most women made a choice that involved a very minute chance of a child resulting (failed birth control, etc.) and should thus not be held accountable (the same way no one should be held accountable if they take proper precautions - think a mail carrier could still slip on your stairs even if you\'ve carefully cleared them of snow), and (2) I made some choices that allow children to be born into a world where I will not feed them (e.g. I chose to vote for so and so, who passed laws that aren\'t sufficient to educate potential mothers, feed the hungry, and so on).
About women\'s right to choice, the fact is, she did. She had sex. Who should bear the burden if the protection was not adequate? The chiild who will give up an entire life (possibly 100 years of life), or the mother who could only have to be pregnant for nine months?

Unfortunately, we cannot protect everyone. Some in North America are going to go hungry by being born into tough situations. But does being born and having to live as a hungry child, worse than never having been born. I say no, death is worse. Furthermore, the law presumes this to be true. A child, even one that is born with a birth defect, is better off alive than dead.

Everyone of us born after 1970 are lucky that our mothers chose to give birth to us. When you consider whether a mother has a right to kill her unborn child, consider it as though it is you on the chopping block or someone you love. Then you\'ll finally give the death its proper weight. It is so easy to dismiss the unborn child as a non-person and it is therefore easily done away with.


WhoDat 07-21-2004 09:26 AM

Politics
 
Quote:

Although I don\'t agree that religious or moral reasons for disallowing gay marriage should be left out of the discussion, there is at least one purely sociological argument. That being that allowing gay marriage will continue the trend of the deteriorating the family system in America. It has been shown many times that children perform best and are better psychologically when raised in a home that contains a mother (female) and a father (male). The ease of obtaining a divorce was the first major blow to this. You haven\'t noticed how over the past 30+ years that child discipline has seemed to become such a large problem? Allowing gay marriage will only increase this and other problems.
FINALLY, a decent argument. One that I think is generally inaccurate, but your point is well-taken Scotty.

Many people argue that allowing gays to marry will further destroy the crumbling American family. Scotty also suggested that children perform/develop better in a two parent system. However, Scotty suggests that this is a MOTHER AND FATHER system. I\'m not sure that\'s entirely the case.

It seems that research has shown that children perform better in a family structure that is supportive, nurturing, with parents that encourage and love one another. Can gays not provide that environment?

Generally speaking, families with gay parents work BETTER than the AVERAGE American family. The reason - gays have to fight SO HARD to get and keep children that you know they are truly dedicated to being good parents. MANY people have suggested that there shold be a test to be a parent - for gays, there basically is.

How often do you hear of gay families in which there is abuse? Never. Why? Unlike \'normal\' families, children cannot come without planning. Additionally, gays tend to be inherently more accepting and supportive.

Quite frankly, the American family argument is entirely unpersuasive. The ease at which a person can enter into marriage and then dissolve it affects the American family system FAR MORE than gay marriage does or ever will. But I don\'t see anyone fighting or making an issue out of toughening divorce laws or marriage laws. In fact, Louisiana just made it EASIER for out-of-state parties to marry in LA by reducing the time period before which a marriage license takes affect. It used to be three days, not it\'s one, just like Las Vegas.

Quote:

As far as states such as LA passing laws banning gay marriage...as I said above, LA already has in its civil code the statement that a marriage is between a man and a woman. There should be no need for another law.
You\'re 100% right. That doesn\'t mean that a gay couple won\'t eventually come along and challenge that law. They can easily challenge it in FEDERAL appeals court, which would take the issue out of the State\'s hands.

Quote:

Moreover, this isn\'t a civil rights issue. Gays are not being stopped by the prohibition of gay marriage from doing anything except attain married status. If they can attain this status just because they wish it, then I wish to be considered a senior citizen and start receiving my social security now.
This isn\'t true. They are being barred from entering a contract that other people can enter. It is like me telling you that you cannot enter into a loan agreement b/c you\'re NOT gay.

The only type of factor for civil rights in this country that is allowable is age. Obviously, minors do not have certain rights. Likewise, programs like SS (which has a purpose of providing disability/retirement funding) is only allowed to people above a certain age. It is NEED based. Thus, you can make a reasonable argument as to why a 65 year old man with no income and no savings who contribute to SS for his whole life DESERVES SS, as compared to a 25 y/o person with 40 more years of earnings potential. Of course, if you broke your back and that earnings potential was lost, you would collect disability, which is SS.

There are NO grounds for stopping people of the same sex from entering into a civil contract. Currently, the grounds being employed are sexual preference. We all know that is invalid. You may think it is valid b/c you\'re not gay and in the majority, but if you stop and think about it you\'ll know that it is wrong to deny someone rights on those grounds. 50 years ago if you were white you would have been in the majority class of people who often suggested that blacks shouldn\'t be afforded the same rights as whites. Now we look at that time and wonder how the people who came before us could have ever been so ignorant. Same applies here. Allowing gays to be married is about as dangerous to American society as was the decision to allow women suffrage or minorities the same rights afforded whites.

JKool 07-21-2004 11:37 AM

Politics
 
Nice points ScottyRo.

Here are two arguments that stike me off the top of my head:

(1) The active/passive distinction is flimsy at best. Here is a famous example. Imagine two guys, Smith and Jones. Smith and Jones both have a nephew who is going to inherit their respective family\'s fortune (but Smith and Jones are next in line to their respective nephews). Each of Smith and Jones plan to kill thier nephews. One night Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the bathing nephew - all the while thinking how great the family fortune will be. Jones on the other hand sneaks into the bathroom where his nephew is bathing. Unlike Smith though, Jones\' nephew slips in the tub just as Jones enters and drowns - all the while Jones waits with glea (ready to drown the child if he regains consciousness) for the child to drown. Smith actively kills his nephew, but Jones seems no less morally reprehensible while merely allowing the child to die! At any rate, this is a somewhat compelling reason to think that the active/passive distinction has little to no weight in moral judgements.

(2) In making choices, there is a simple distinction between \"intention\" and merely \"forseen consequences\". Take for example the following - yesterday I intended to go to work, but it was raining, so I got wet. While I fully intended to go to work, I did not intend to get wet - that was merely a foreseen consequence of my going to work. Thus, in the case of failed birthcontrol, the woman may foresee that there is some very small risk of getting pregnant, but it is not an intended consequence. Generally, people feel that you should be held accountable for your intended actions (and sometimes for foreseen consequences - depending on how dumb the intention was), but usually not the full scope of the foreseen consequences. Here is an example: imagine I don\'t tie my shoe because I think that is cool. There is a chance (albeit small) that I will trip at some point during the day. Let say I\'m passing a bus stop when I trip and accidentally knock a would be passenger in front of the stopping bus. No one thinks that I am morally depraved for not tying my shoe, even though this COULD happen.

Ok, I lied, there is a third point.

(3) I\'m not sure that we should be so quick to equate \"the value of death\" between an unborn child and a fully grown living person with a life history. This IS a tough question, but I always thought that the \"value of death\" was the loss to those who go on living of that person. That is, of course, extremely controversial - especially since it is basically the claim that some people are more valuable than others. I think I\'m willing to defend this veiw, but I\'ll have to think a bit harder. Maybe you guys have some thoughts?

ScottyRo 07-21-2004 02:22 PM

Politics
 
Again, thanks for the level-headed discussion guys. WhoDat, my response to you is going to have to wait a whaile as I find the abortion debate more compelling. Not to mention the no-gay marriage argument is harder to make than no abortion.

JK on point (1): Jones is not as passive as you would like me to believe. His intent was to kill the child. He was fortuitous enough not to have to touch the child, but is culpable nonetheless. Jones had the power to act, but refused because it fit his intended purpose.

In the hunger scenario, Jones did not remove the child\'s food nor did he hope that the child would go without food. He simply does not act. However, this inaction does not fulfill any purpose of Jones\'. It simply occurs. Nor is Jones in a position to cure the problem of hunger unlike the situation where he could have saved the drowning boy. He certainly can help by sending 99 cents a day, but it wont cure the problem.

This one is tough and I might have to come back to it later.

Point (2): I\'m gonna expound on your raining scenario to fit the abortion debate more fully. You will play the baby. You intend to go to work. It is raining. You put on a raincoat that guarantees the wearer 99.9% effectiveness in preventing rain from getting in. Unfortunately, you got wet. Your boss under federal law may shoot you for for coming to work wet to avoid the inconvenience of having a wet employee smear the ink on the office\'s paperwork. You could have stayed home but you would not have received your paycheck (gratification) if you had. Should you die? No, the consequence of your death does not equal the inconvenience of smeared paperwork.

Did you intend to get wet? Yes. A ruling in law says that \"the intent follows the bullett.\" This means that if I wanted to shoot WhoDat, but you were standing behind him and I shot you instead, I intended to shoot you. Thus, if you go in the rainand get wet, you intended to get wet even if you aimed to stay dry.

On your shoe tying scenario: You might be found guilty of negligent homicide. You were aware of the risks of tripping, but refused to tie your shoes. Also, it is foreseeable that you could trip and fall into someone and injure that person.

Let\'s go further and say 45 million people have died since 1970 because of people who failed to tie their own shoes. I guarantee there would be a law making it a crime to not tie your shoes. Then if you didn\'t tie your shoes and tripped as described, you might be found guilty of manslaughter, if not murder.

Point (3): The value of life cannot simply be judged by who is left behind. If it were, then you would say that a man who has no friends, no family could be killed without consequence because there is no one alive to grieve for him. Has that man not lost something even though he is no longer around to complain of his loss? Death does not mean we never existed and never had the right to continue living.

WhoDat 07-21-2004 04:32 PM

Politics
 
Quote:

This means that if I wanted to shoot WhoDat, but you were standing behind him and I shot you instead, I intended to shoot you.
Why am I getting shot in this scenario? ;)


I think you may be a bit off Scotty. As I understand it, here\'s how intent works.

If you and I get in an argument, and I say, \"I\'m going to shoot you,\" then I walk over to m car, get my gun, come back, walk up to you and shoot you, that\'s premeditation and intent - First degree.

If we\'re fighting and I\'m furious and pull out my gun and shoot you there may be no premeditation, so that could be 2nd degree.

If I pull out my gun, try to shoot you, miss and hit Jkool, there\'s a gray line, but that\'s usually 2nd degree as well.

If I pull out the gun to threaten you, start waving it around, it accidentally discharges and hits JKool - I believe that\'s manslaughter.

Again, I\'m not 100% on all these - Gator, our resident legal expert, is the best person to ask.


In any case, I\'m not sure how that relates to abortion. you can drill down all you want, but it boils down to a question of when a life is a life. I\'m not sure on that. If I give another person the right to choose that does not mean I intend to harm anyone or that I am an accomplice to the \'crime\'.

Here\'s a question - if a family member of yours was in a terrible car accident, ended up in the hospital in a coma, and stayed that way for 20 years, would you feel justified in eventually pulling the plug? That is what we\'re talking about here. Just as many seriously injured people cannot live without a machine, even a fairly mature fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. It is no more \'alive\' than the person on life support. Why do people feel it is justified to make a decision when it comes to the LIFE of an injured person, but not when it comes to a DEVELOPING LIFE?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com