Thread Options 
|
#163517 - 03/04/04 10:12 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,678
United States
|
Chi, there is one flaw in your point. Among the things that the Roman Empire did to the Christians includes being fed to wild animals, crucifixion, beheading, forced battle in the ring as a gladiator, and being covered with flammable liquid, hung on a pole and set on fire to serve as a light for Nero's garden at night. That's persecution. Throwing someone in jail for their homosexuality is persecution. Physically beating, torturing, or killing someone who is homosexual is persecution. Using any number of epithets to demean a homosexual is persecution (albeit a relatively mild form). However, disagreeing with the homosexual agenda, debating it in the arena of ideas, and a society struggling with itself to determine what it defines as marriage is not persecution.
_________________________
Opinions expressed are solely my own.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163518 - 03/04/04 10:12 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment *DELETED*
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Post deleted by zaibatsu
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163519 - 03/04/04 10:23 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163520 - 03/04/04 10:50 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 832
southeast
|
But, in this country, marriage is also tied to a lot of potential or actual monetary benefits that can affect taxpayers totally unaware of the loving couple. For example, welfare (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) rules favor the traditional marriage, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid may, too. Flat tax rates and universal health care are unlikely anytime soon, and may not unwind all of these possible inequalities based on marital status.
What we've seen on TV are long-time fairly well-off dual income partners. We haven't seen or heard from "couples" who rely on government assistance programs who may view a change in marital status as a convenient source of increased revenue.
Complete freedom? I recall the arguments for and against mandatory use of motorcycle helmets. Why should I care? What about the cyclist who doesn't wear the helmet and crashes, and as a taxpayer, I foot part of his/her medical costs. That money could have been used elsewhere. Or his/her employer has to raise other employees' share of premiums on group health insurance, or has to lay off other employees due to higher costs? If helmet use is required by law, perhaps the likelihood of reduced injury and lower medical expenses would improve.
We don't live in a vacuum - what one or a couple of us do(es) affects everyone else. While we don't need to know what goes on in bedrooms between consenting adults, we do have the duty to shape a productive society through the tools (preferably non-violent!) available to us. So - how to define a society that does the best job possible of nurturing the next generation? One of those tools is law.
_________________________
From the end spring new beginnings.
Pliny the Elder
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163521 - 03/04/04 11:20 PM
Here's a thought for all of you!
|
New Poster
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
|
All of those claiming this "family sanctity", morale issues, religion, law, etc. against gay marraige, to me (AND THIS IS MY OPPINION)are complete and utter idiots. The number one reason for the government not allowing gays to marry has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that gays NOW are taxed at an individual rate. Being able to marry cuts into the tax income of Uncle Sam and that just kills him (Where else would Mrs. Busch get her money for her hairdressing bills?). I'd like to pose the argument as to equality and equality alone. Uncle Sam has no problem collecting tax dollars from me at a higher rate, being a gay man...yet he wants to control my rights to marry??! Well, why don't I have the "right" to control "not paying him"? Here's another thought for you: All of you against this issue have NO CLUE what's it's like to have a partner that you love more than life itself and to have that partner lay dieing in a hospital bed, where you are COMPLETELY helpless in making the RIGHT loving decisions for that person. The one person you spent most of your living and dieing days with. And to know that you have absolutely no RIGHTS in the eyes of the law to be by that person's side while he slips away. What would you feel like if it were your wife or husband laying there while you stand there completely helpless? Think about that! Think about that! OK! Dawnie is the only person who actually has the compassion to stand up for what is right! The rest of you who have no clue, just shut up and remain ignorant, because ignorance is ALWAYS bliss.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163522 - 03/04/04 11:26 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
New Poster
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163523 - 03/05/04 12:24 AM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Doesn't every compliance person hate the words:
"Because we've always done it that way"...?
Tradition doesn't make it right, just because it's "tradition". (Doesn't make it wrong, either.....)
Popularity should never be confused with justice. That's how lynch mobs are formed.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163524 - 03/05/04 01:27 AM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you! *DELETED*
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Post deleted by zaibatsu
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163525 - 03/05/04 01:44 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 730
Maine
|
Quote:
Mickey123, you have taken a polite discourse and turned it nasty. Thanks for showing your true colors early in your posting career here. I am now shutting you up. Now, where is that "ignore user" button.
I think you're being a little harsh - Mickey 123's view is fueled by the kind of anger and passion that comes from actually living with the reality - not just speculating from the outside. How much passion would you use in your speech if you were in his shoes? He has the anger that groups who are discriminated against always show (angry black man, angry feminist) that comes from the frustration of living with discrimination and having that translated into real-life situation.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163526 - 03/05/04 02:00 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
100 Club
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 138
Kentucky
|
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the most recent tax reform all about eliminating the so-called "marriage penalty" in the tax code that caused married taxpayers to pay more in tax than their single counterparts? So why are we discussing the tax advantages of marriage.
As far as making medical decisions for a dying loved one, anyone can be designated in a living will to make decisions relating to medical treatment for someone who is no longer capable of making those decisions themselves. It does not have to be a spouse.
_________________________
Just my 2 cents worth--for what its worth!!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163527 - 03/05/04 02:02 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,706
|
Mickey 123,
The only thing I don't agree with is the way you made your point but Dawnie is not the only one in support of allowing gays the right to marriage. There have been several throughout this forum including myself. You should read all of the posts.
_________________________
Beauty is only skin deep...but ugly goes all the way to the bone!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163528 - 03/05/04 02:10 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,568
New Jersey
|
Mickey123, I am sorry that you had to endure such a wrenching experience, and I am sorry for your loss. It seems to me that your experience is fueling your passion as expressed in your previous post. For that, I think some allowances can be made.
However, you should realize that reasonable people can differ on issues. The beauty of this country is that we do have the freedom to debate issues. Banning people from the public forum because they do not agree with you curtails the free exchange of ideas. Besides, how can you convince someone of the correctness of your position if he or she is not allowed to debate you?
_________________________
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. Peter Drucker
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163529 - 03/05/04 02:11 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
The example, KY, would be a single person making $100,000 a year, while their "partner" did not work. The tax advantages to filing MFJ would be significant. However, I don't think we should change the definition of marriage for tax avoidance purposes.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163530 - 03/05/04 03:17 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
However, disagreeing with the homosexual agenda, debating it in the arena of ideas, and a society struggling with itself to determine what it defines as marriage is not persecution.
I'm sorry, but denying people rights is not persecution? I fully understand that gays are not being rounded up and executed en-masse; however, I do believe denying people certain rights is a form of persecution.
From dictionary.com: Persecute (v): To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
Quote:
Taoism and Wicca
Well made point on Taoism Z; however, Wicca is a recognized religion. The point I was trying to make is that you cannot make a general statement saying: "all other religions do not condone gay relationships". I think such generalities are made out of ignorance and prone to misleading people. General statements are easy to make, but extremely sloppy. When it comes to polemics, they should be avoided at all costs.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163531 - 03/05/04 03:37 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
100 Club
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 234
|
Regarding your third paragraph, and not that I am at all condoning this, Claude Levi-Straus postulates that the incest taboo is a purely social construct, apparently aimed solely a t increasing the tribe's size early on in man's evolution. That being said, in the absense of already preasent genetic defects, or such instances as child abuse, there is actually no harm. That being the case, the only reason behind widespread condemnation of incest is rooted in religion or other socially taught morality. Again, not that I wish to take a side in this debate, but I think, from a legal side, that I really could make a case that it would be unconstitutional, from an equal protection standpoint, to deny the right to an incestuous marriage (as icky as that sounds) with the right precedent. Sorry to inject an uncomfortable topic back into the conversation, but everyone has the two headed baby concept in their head, and from a scientific standpoint, that's just not sound. Although this thread has gotten somewhat brusque, I at least prefer accuracy. By no means is this a knock on you Dawnie, your posts do seem civil.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163532 - 03/05/04 06:04 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 862
Mexifornia
|
I was thinking of not dignifying Mickey123 by making a comment but am compelled to do so, just to point out a certain hypocrisies that exist in us mortals and how we adapt to situations to suit our personal gains. On one hand we point to the constitution as the law of the land and demand an equal protection under it, but in the same breath we tell those in disagreement with us to shut up? We fight to maintain the sanctity of marriage but have the highest divorce rate in the world? The bottom line is that the institutions and the law is not flawed, we are. We are so self centered and egotistic that eyes of our conscience has been blinded by the flares of our arrogance. But then again, the first casualty of anger is logic and in this day and age everyone is mad and something. Sad.
_________________________
If you have enough, would you know?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163533 - 03/05/04 06:16 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Mickey 123's view is fueled by the kind of anger and passion that comes from actually living with the reality - not just speculating from the outside...He has the anger that groups who are discriminated against always show (angry black man, angry feminist) that comes from the frustration of living with discrimination and having that translated into real-life situation. Quote:
Who will all of this pent-up anger be directed toward, and when do you think the lid will come off? I envision thousands of angry feminists and other leftists tearing down Disney theme parks and other family institutions. So much anger...so little time.
Can't all of this pent-up anger aimed toward long-held traditional Americana be re-directed? Can't they just give peace a chance?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163534 - 03/05/04 09:33 PM
Re: Here's a thought for all of you!
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 730
Maine
|
Quote:
Quote:
Mickey 123's view is fueled by the kind of anger and passion that comes from actually living with the reality - not just speculating from the outside...He has the anger that groups who are discriminated against always show (angry black man, angry feminist) that comes from the frustration of living with discrimination and having that translated into real-life situation. Quote:
Who will all of this pent-up anger be directed toward, and when do you think the lid will come off? I envision thousands of angry feminists and other leftists tearing down Disney theme parks and other family institutions. So much anger...so little time.
Can't all of this pent-up anger aimed toward long-held traditional Americana be re-directed? Can't they just give peace a chance?
How do you get from being angry about not being able to be at a loved-one's bedside, or make decision on behalf of an ill loved-one, and attacking Disney?????? 
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163535 - 07/15/04 03:03 PM
Senate Vote on Marriage Amendment
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Here is how your Senators voted on allowing a final vote on an amendment defining marriage in the United States as consisting of one man and one woman (a "no" vote denied the vote on final passage; a "yes" vote would bring the amendment to a vote on final passage):
NO:
Akaka, HI
Baucus, MT
Bayh, IN
Biden, DE
Bingaman, NM
Boxer, CA
Breaux, LA
Campbell, CO
Cantwell, WA
Carper, DE
Chafee, RI
Clinton, NY
Collins, ME
Conrad, ND
Corzine, NJ
Daschle, SD
Dayton, MN
Dodd, CT
Dorgan, ND
Durbin, IL
Feingold, WI
Feinstein, CA
Graham, FL
Harkin, IA
Hollings, SC
Inouye, HI
Jeffords, VT
Johnson, SD
Kennedy, MS
Kohl, WI
Landrieu, LA
Lautenberg, NJ
Leahy, VT
Levin, MI
Lieberman, CT
Lincoln, AR
McCain, AZ
Mikulski, MD
Murray, WA
Nelson, FL
Pryor, AR
Reed, RI
Reid, NV
Rockefeller, WV
Sarbanes, MD
Schumer, NY
Snowe, ME
Stabenow, MI
Sununu, NH
Wyden, OR
YES:
Alexander, TN
Allard, CO
Allen, VA
Bennet, UT
Bond, MO
Brownback, KS
Bunning, KY
Burns, MT
Byrd, WV
Chambliss, GA
Cochran, MS
Coleman, MN
Cornyn, TX
Craig, ID
Crapo, ID
DeWine, OH
Dole, NC
Domenici, NM
Ensign, NV
Enzi, WY
Fitzgerald, IL
Frist, TN
Graham, SC
Grassley, IA
Gregg, NH
Hagel, NE
Hatch, UT
Hutchison, TX
Inhofe, OK
Kyl, AZ
Lott, MS
Lugar, IN
McConnell, KY
Miller, GA
Murkowski, AK
Nelson, NE
Nickles, OK
Roberts, KS
Santorum, PA
Sessions, AL
Shelby, AL
Smith, OR
Specter, PA
Stevens, AK
Talent, MO
Thomas, WY
Voinovich, OH
Warner, VA
NOT VOTING:
Edwards, NC
Kerry, MA
Last edited by Jokerman; 07/15/04 10:16 PM.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163537 - 07/15/04 09:01 PM
Re: Senate Vote on Marriage Amendment
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Mickey: Quote:
All of you against this issue have NO CLUE what's it's like to have a partner that you love more than life itself and to have that partner lay dieing in a hospital bed, where you are COMPLETELY helpless in making the RIGHT loving decisions for that person. The one person you spent most of your living and dieing days with. And to know that you have absolutely no RIGHTS in the eyes of the law to be by that person's side while he slips away. What would you feel like if it were your wife or husband laying there while you stand there completely helpless? Think about that! Think about that! OK! Dawnie is the only person who actually has the compassion to stand up for what is right!
I probably feel the same heat after dealing with my Aunt's death just a few weeks ago which is why I chose to stay out of this thread for a bit. I'm sorry you had to endure this. Very sorry. As the only available relative I was phoned from California to make life and death decisions for my aunt instead of allowing her partner of over 40 year make them for her. They wouldn't even let her in to be with my aunt until I threatened to set up a ruckess like none they'd ever seen before. The fact that this kind of garbage can go on in 2004 is rediculous. I morn her, but I also morn the way she died, and the say her poor partner was treated. It was shameful.
My family, using current laws, is attempting to further add insult to injury. A long gone niece is attempting to sue for some of the estate because she won't recognize the partner's claim. She has a jackarse lawyer who touts his bible and claims she's in the right, not even considering she hadn't seen my aunt in years, heck didn't know where she lived even! And in the lawer's mind god still wants this money grubber to have the money because the relationship my aunt had was wrong.
I have to shake my head at the world sometimes and hope that someday it will be better. Right now, it's a bizzare circus full of clowns!
There are others on BOL who agree with my sentiments. While they might not be so vocal  they're out there. Your situation might be crappy, but you're not alone.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163538 - 07/15/04 09:09 PM
Re: Senate Vote on Marriage Amendment
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
As the only available relative I was phoned from California to make life and death decisions for my aunt instead of allowing her partner of over 40 year make them for her.
While I feel for your aunt Dawnie, she could have taken care of this with a couple of legal documents that are very cheap to obtain from any competent attorney.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163539 - 07/15/04 09:51 PM
Re: Senate Vote on Marriage Amendment
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,678
United States
|
Jokerman, while you and I agree on many things, I must take offense to the claim that Edwards is a senator from South Carolina  . He is from SC by birth, but he is not our Senator. Hollings is enough, thanks.
_________________________
Opinions expressed are solely my own.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163540 - 07/15/04 10:15 PM
Re: Senate Vote on Marriage Amendment
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Jokerman, while you and I agree on many things, I must take offense to the claim that Edwards is a senator from South Carolina . He is from SC by birth, but he is not our Senator. Hollings is enough, thanks.
My apologies. It was a lot to get straight. I completely missed Akaka, mistaking it for "Alaska".
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163541 - 07/16/04 12:12 PM
Re: Senate Vote on Marriage Amendment
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
This is a vote deciding whether or not to vote on the constitutional amendment. Senators Kerry & Edwards had planned to make a trip back to DC for the actual vote if this had passed (They are slightly busy with other things these days), but changed their schedules when it became evident that the matter would not be close to even coming to a vote.
Look, there's plenty of stuff I don't like about the guys, but to suggest that they should take time out from campaigning to participate in something that they would have had no effect on is silly. Find something legitimate to complain about, like Botox injections or expensive haircuts or a somewhat nebulous military career or looking 10 years younger than ones age.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index