Dubya to Jump Shark

[Torque]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
This entire issue makes me laugh. The people against it become hipocrites, and most of them cannot even give a logical arguement other then  "the bible says so".

Which rewrite?

[ra]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm saying it shouldn't be a legal arrangement.  Why does the government need to be involved?  Can you elaborate on that instead of making unfounded declarations about my knowledge and political orientation?  I realize that ad hominem is an appealing form of argument to the weak-minded, but I think you are smarter than that.

What you are describing is shacking up, which is not at issue.  But you are getting to the real issue indirectly.  The purpose of this gay marriage push is to erase the meaning of marriage in our society by making it the equivalent of shacking up.  No alimony, no pensions for widows.  Good stuff like that.  People would be free to call themselve married, but it would have no legal meaning.  Social re-engineering at its finest.

ra

[Frogm4n]

No ra wrong again. Gays just want to have the ability to leave pensions for their 'widows', etc. And for the catcher to have something to get excited about like a women.

[FUNKED1]

So Ra, you are saying that in the hundreds (thousands?) of years that marriage existed before the invention of things like alimony or pensions for widows, marriage had no meaning?  Marriage only became sacred when the government made it their business?

I think alimony is ridiculous.  But that's a whole other discussion.

Pensions for widows makes more sense.  I assume you are talking about government pensions.  I don't see why a married person should recieve more posthumous benefits than a single person.  You should be able to designate a beneficiary in case of your death, and the government has no business telling you who that beneficiary can or can't be.

[Thud]

Originally posted by ra
What you are describing is shacking up, which is not at issue.  But you are getting to the real issue indirectly.  The purpose of this gay marriage push is to erase the meaning of marriage in our society by making it the equivalent of shacking up.  No alimony, no pensions for widows.  Good stuff like that.  People would be free to call themselve married, but it would have no legal meaning.  Social re-engineering at its finest.

ra

Therefore all rights normally extended to married people should be applicable to gays as well, marriage itself doesn't change in any way.

[Torque]

Same arguement they use for interracial marriage, and yet still weak.

[Wanker]

How ironic. The same crowd that cries foul and hoists the "solicialism" flag every time the government tries to legislate clean air(such as banning smoking in bars, etc.), has no problem with the government making constitutional ammendments telling us whom we can or can't marry.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

[Dune]

Tempest in a teapot.  You all are winding yourselves up over nothing.  

Bush knows that most Americans (according to the polls) support such a ban.  He also knows that trying to get a new amendment passed is almost as hard as sniping porn stars who have cancer (Which, MrBlack tells me, is incredibly hard).  So he floats his idea, bucks up the conservative faithful, and gets to screw Kerry while he's doing it.  Becuase either Kerry, a) says he supports the ban, pissing off the lefties and agreeing with Bush on something or b) he opposes it and looks really bad to the South and the Midwest.

It's a win-win.  Don't get me wrong, I think the Fed's have much better things to do with  thier time, but in the long run I don't think this is going anywhere.  

It's just political posturing.

[FUNKED1]

Dune is correct.  Dubya has nothing to lose on this, and it distracts people from all of the very real shortcomings of his administration.  It's just sad.

[Frogm4n]

But no he isnt doing what dune says! He aint no good at politicing, he said so himself! Why would he say he wont get involved in playing power politics unless he was just saying that, because that in itself is playing power politics.
No our lord-emprorer is a humble man! he really cares about this issue nooo............

[Dinger]

Curly, read the link you posted.  How many constitutional amendments have we had since the bill of rights?  How many of those have come from a constitutional convention?

0

How many constitutional conventions have we had since 1789?

0

[FUNKED1]

Dinger you lefty!

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Dune
Tempest in a teapot.  You all are winding yourselves up over nothing.  

Bush knows that most Americans (according to the polls) support such a ban.  He also knows that trying to get a new amendment passed is almost as hard as sniping porn stars who have cancer (Which, MrBlack tells me, is incredibly hard).  So he floats his idea, bucks up the conservative faithful, and gets to screw Kerry while he's doing it.  Becuase either Kerry, a) says he supports the ban, pissing off the lefties and agreeing with Bush on something or b) he opposes it and looks really bad to the South and the Midwest.

It's a win-win.  Don't get me wrong, I think the Fed's have much better things to do with  thier time, but in the long run I don't think this is going anywhere.  

It's just political posturing.

Excellent post, Sir.

[lasersailor184]

Seperation of Church and state?


Mind pointing me to where it is?  I can't find it anywhere...

[Horn]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Seperation of Church and state?
Mind pointing me to where it is?  I can't find it anywhere...

Constitutional Principle, actually.

Learn more:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm

h