After some thought, I've decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008. Since the country has effectively Jumped the Shark with the election just past, there's no one more appropriate.
I've even got the slogan: "Putting the 'Aaaaay!' in Aaaaay-merica."
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 4, 2004 03:30 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPeter, Peter, Peter. While the Fonz would've worked back in the late 50s ala JFK, his womanizing ways would sink his administration today ala Clinton's problems times ten.
Not to mention that that scandal involving the disappearing Chuck Cunningham and the gossip about the Fonz and Mrs. C.
I think there's only one choice for the next President - Homer Simpson.
He goes to church on Sundays, he's sure to appeal to the people frightened of intellectual candidates (as long as he keeps that crayon inserted in his brain) and he believes problems can be solved with violence.
What more could you ask for?
I don't know...the Fonz was awfully prone to using violence to solve his problems.
But America "jumped the shark"? Pshaw. Our best days are ahead of us.
Our best days are ahead of us.
Wake me when it's 2008.
Advice to US Democrats:
Don't sweat it.
Seriously.
Sometimes people have to make their own mistakes before they realise the error of their ways.
Sometimes you need to let something play out to it's natural + logical conclusion.
If the way America used to be, or to be more accurate: the way some people think it used to be, is the way that America should be now then things will change just as they did last time.
You can't roll back the clock and live in some fixed ideal tme that you believe existed in the past. All you're doing is setting in motion the same chain of events that brought about the way things are now.
The people you're aghast at will come to see that for themselves if only at their own pace.
King Canute went down to the shore and sat on his throne and commanded the tide to stay out.
Millions of 'American Canutes' can all shout at the tide (which represents natural progression in case you hadn't already twigged) but, ultimately, the tide pays no attention.
You could change the constitution to essentially ban all 'gayness' if you wanted. But is there anyone here who honestly believes that 10, 50, 100 years from now that gay people won't be getting married and no-one will bat an eyelid.
Liberal is a dirty word in America at the moment. Liberal Reform is seen by many as the root of all evil.
Yes, liberal reform throws up problems and issues but.......for those that don't get it yet........that's the point.
You deal with the issues and problems as best you can and you muddle through and move on.
Conservatism, by it's very name and nature, is a fear of change. But all the fear in the world and all the resistance to change won't stop it from happening anyway.
So ban sex education from schools and replace it with telling kids that sex before marriage = eternal damnation.
Then wait for the backlash and inevitable change.
Attempt to ban abortion, which is illogical, unworkable and unsustainable and.......well, you get the idea I'm sure.
Let Billy Graham and those who think like him have their counterrevolution.
Why?
Well, what do you think will, inevitably, follow it?
We've been here before.
You have History on your side.
Wasn't someone trying to draft Wil Wheaton as President?
Wil in '08!
...I still want Captain America for President. But since we need someone real... Jason David Frank. Terrorists come after us? He can step on them with his seemingly endless array of Power Rangers Zords...
Apparently Chicken Little has already replaced Tom Daschle as the Democrat leader. Hysterical blind panic seems to be setting in...."Run to the cave! We'll be safe in the cave!"
Capt. America? I guess Superman is out since he wasn't born in the US......
And you're worried about real with "Fonzie" as a suggestion?
Let's go back to the old standby: "Kirk for President"
Mark L? Uhm...actuaally, Superman WAS born in the U.S.A., according to the latest continuity. So, as long as you're building castles in the air and planning to move in by the end of the week, dream BIG!
(the preceeding has been a presentation of the Nerd Continuity Network. Any resemblance to reality as you know it is sheer coincidence. Sort of like the NeoCons.)
But is there anyone here who honestly believes that 10, 50, 100 years from now that gay people won't be getting married and no-one will bat an eyelid.
No doubt. Somewhere. However in the impending Saudi Arabian election no women will be running. Or voting.
We look back now with shame at the people who were killed and harassed 50 years ago because of their color. Well, most of us do I hope. I'd just as soon not have much of my life spent in a time that future Americans will look back at with similar shame.
Mark P,
Thanks for the continuity update. I haven't read comics in a few years, so I'm more of a "traditionalist".
Londo Mollari in '08! "We all have our Keepers"
Bush even has one of those weird little creatures that no one ever sees controlling him,
that would be Dick Cheney.
[quote]I'd just as soon not have much of my life spent in a time that future Americans will look back at with similar shame.[/quote]
Don't worry. Those of us who understand that gays are people and there is no Constitutional basis for banning intra-gender marriage will be viewed in 50 years as this day's aboltionists.
Also, in Europe, I'm told, gays [i]are[/i] getting married and people aren't batting an eye.
My favorite so far is the Power Ranger, but does it have to be Tommy? If we're going the Power Ranger route, let's go with Amy Jo Johnson, the original Pink Ranger. Now HER I'd vote for....
Although Homer would make a good president too because his wife and daughter wouldn't let him make TOO many stupid mistakes. He'd be an "everyman President."
In the Star Trek universe, Kirk would be as bad as Clinton, charming stupid helpless interns and then having his way with them. Now Mackenzie Calhoun....there's a president for you. He served his country (his whole world actually), fought for freedom, he knows the price. Anyone gets in his way, he bowls them over. I'd feel safe with Calhoun as president. Janeway'd be just as good too.
If we look at actors who have portrayed the president:
Harrison Ford: "We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate (terrorism) and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid. "
Oh hell yea, he's got my vote.
Morgan Freeman: He portrayed a very humanizing president.
Jack Nicholson: C'mon....really....who WOULDN'T vote for Jack.
Bill Pullman: He kicked Alien asses. What's a terrorist to him?
Michael Douglas: Another good "Everyman" president.
Gene Hackman's out, so is Donald Moffat and Cliff Robertson, (although I would vote for Snake Pliskin.)
"Mark L? Uhm...actuaally, Superman WAS born in the U.S.A., according to the latest continuity."
Actually re-revised continuity seems to have cast doubts on this. Byrne-continuity has been replaced by Waid-continuity, which has re-introduced an extra terrerstial birth for Kal-El.
> Mark L? Uhm...actuaally, Superman WAS born in the U.S.A., according to the latest continuity. So, as long as you're building castles in the air and planning to move in by the end of the week, dream BIG!
Actually, according to the LATEST continuity, he's back to being born on Krypton. Waid's attempt to wind back the clock'n'all.
Well... maybe it's my desire to try to find something good in any situation, but the "silver lining" in the cloud of Bush being elected is that we know *exactly* how long it'll be before he's out, right?
Still going to be a loooooooooooong four years, though.
Don't forget "My Fellow Americans"
Jack Lemmon, James Garner, Dan Aykroyd
I think I could handle Maverick as President :)
"...I still want Captain America for President. But since we need someone real... Jason David Frank. Terrorists come after us? He can step on them with his seemingly endless array of Power Rangers Zords..."
He has had a few, hasn't he?
Dragonzord (one of the original Dinozords),
White Tiger Thunderzord (not to be cofused with the later White Tiger Wild Zord),
White Ninja Falconzord,
Zeo Zord V,
Red Battlezord,
Super Zeo Zord V,
Red Lightning Turbo Zord
Brachio DinoThunder Zord (which is basically a glorified Carrier, but the Brachio Staff compestates very nicely. Just ask what's left of Golden Boy...)
What about Wes Collins (with Eric Meyers as Vice-President?)
So ban sex education from schools and replace it with telling kids that sex before marriage = eternal damnation.
Then wait for the backlash and inevitable change.
Attempt to ban abortion, which is illogical, unworkable and unsustainable and.......well, you get the idea I'm sure.
Let Billy Graham and those who think like him have their counterrevolution.
You clearly do not know what conservative Christians believe and actually want to do. If you are afraid of Billy Graham, then you are really out of touch. He has worked fairly with Dem & Rep. He has avoided most, if not all, political issues and has focued on preaching the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ. So what exactly are you afraid of with Billy Graham?
On the issues you mention, abstinence programs don't teach a fear of "damnation." They teach, based on documented evidence, that teen sex can be very destructive right now. Using "protection" does not avoid all forms of sexual disease. Condoms can fail, allowing pregnancy. An opinion they teach, and which I agree, is that teens are not emotionally ready for the emotional entanglements of sex. There are a lot of emotional issues going on already as a teen. Sex just further complicates things in a way that is not necessary.
You don't have to agree with all of these reasons. But your portral of abstinence teaching ignores what is really being taught. Very few people think it is a good thing for TEENS to be highly sexually active. There are too many potential ramifications that can last a life time. (For example, a teen pregnancy. Even if you choose an abortion, that is still an emotional issue you carry with you for the rest of your life.)
I won't even get into the abortion issue. That would take too long to go into here and has been debated many times already on this site.
Jim in Iowa
Its funny when Kirk is mentioned. I think back to the Next Generation episodes to have Spock and he mentions Kirk's 'cowboy diplomacy' and I think its a bit like Bush. I looked at this election as a sort of Kirk V. Picard disput amongst the fans.
I think we, the ones that supported Kerry, should remain vocal as to what we think this administration should be doing. Ecenomy, jobs, health care are things that are overall important. Even if the war ends tomorrow, these are things that must be getting worked on no matter what. The country needs to prosper, have healthy and educated kids, and it should have the best job market in the world. That's what we want.
"I don't know...the Fonz was awfully prone to using violence to solve his problems."
Yeah because, y'know, Bush never does that...
"But America "jumped the shark"? Pshaw. Our best days are ahead of us."
No. No, they're really not.
I don't think people have quite wrapped themselves around what's happening. I don't think they really understand why Jews always say, "Never again." That philosophy causes one to possess a...I don't know...a sense of eternal vigilance.
Let's see what we've got:
Declaring war on countries that haven't attacked us, going in and trying to conquer them. Check.
Restriction of civil rights. Check.
Formalizing bias against gays. Check.
Saber-rattling in the name of God. Check.
People rounded up and held indefinitely. Check.
People in foreign lands rounded up and tortured. Check.
Taking actions that cause the world to see us as a rogue nation with a fanatic in charge. Check.
Don't you see? Don't you get it?
These things don't happen overnight. They happen bit by bit, one step at a time, and the circumstances aren't going to be identical, and every step along the way there will be people to deny it's happening. There are ALWAYS people to deny it's happening. Hell, there are people who sixty years later continue to deny it EVER happened.
But it did and it can again. One step at a time, one drop of water on the rock of liberty to erode it at a time.
That's how it always starts. And we've seen where it goes.
PAD
You guys on the left have officialy gone off the deep end. The last day or so has proven that to me. Good luck with ever winning another major political race.
Hmmmmmm, the people honestly made their choice and "jumped the shark"? So, I guess that means America should be cancelled and soon? Hmmmm, if you are going to pick an Italian icon and a good one for America it should be Tony Soprano, you know, the one the neocommie Clooney compared GWB to? Bada-boom-bada-bing, them terrorist f*cks are no longer part of da scene, fugeddaboutit...
Oh no... Eric's the Secretary of Defense... Someone gets on America's case, we end up with Q-Rex and Silver Guardian action in the middle east. And lest we forget, Tommy's also got those Auxillary Zords... Warrior Wheel... And he'll probably be back in another seven years with yet ANOTHER set of powers.
Nice to know I'm not the only Rangers fan on the blog commentary. But I'm not voting for Kimberly... I like her music too much to pull her away from it. Wes WOULD be nice... But too much risk that his EEEEEEVIL twin from the future Alex (come on. We saw how he was. HAS to be evil) might take his place.
Hmmm... Lord Zedd for President? Mesogog would be nice... if only because both are OPEN about wanting to annihilate us all. Unlike the current administration.
Now a big question... is Bush dumber than Zeo era Rocky?
And apologies to PAD for "morphing" this entire debate. May the power protect you... until Bush takes it away.
I've decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008.
A short Jewish guy from Hollywood? Good luck selling that to the red states.
I don't know. I can't find any humor in any of this.
I feel so distraught and powerless that I can't even imagine how I can cope with another 4 more years of this. I was pretty much bedridden yesturday.
All the campaigns against Bush didn't do squat in the long run and now I can only withness while this country further takes the path of the Neo-con philosophy. All I can pretty much do is vent and that still doesn't solve anything.
I don't know how I'll be able to handle myself when history starts to repeat itself.
You guys on the left have officialy gone off the deep end.
Here's a post from a fellow on another forum I read:
-----
What do you think of newly elected GOP Senators?
Specifically, what do you think of Jim DeMin (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK)?
If you're not familiar with these two guys, here's a snapshot of their views:
Coburn voted against disaster relief for his own state. He advocated the death penalty for abortionists and warned that "the gay agenda" poses a big national threat/
DeMint easily defeated Democratic challenger Inez Tenenbaum despite saying he backed a national sales tax and said unwed mothers and homosexuals should not be teachers.
Is it my imagination or is the Republican Party moving to the very fringes of the right? Do the conservatives on this board feel these newly elected Senators represent your views? I realize they may not represent your state of residence, but they will play a role in policy making that will affect all of us.
-----
Yeah, it's really those on the left that have gone off the deep end. Uhoh. Ok. Sure.
Here's my take, from same forum, on the next 4 years:
-----
Bush's agenda
Iraq
He got us into this mess, and I can't see him getting us out of it since he fails to grasp the fact that he royally @#%$ this up.
Some privitization of Social Security
Agree with it in principle, but the last place I would want to put my money atm is the stock market - I would prefer a personal 401k that is valid whereever I take it for employment, along with other options.
Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
Coming soon to a Constitution near you.
Moving "this goodhearted nation toward a culture of life"
A direct challenge on Rowe vs Wade. Again, coming to a Constitution near you.
Halving the deficit
How the hell is Bush going to do this after he already told us we didn't have to pay for the war in Iraq? When the national debt ceiling had to be raised? It just isn't going to happen, and we and our children and our children's children are going to pay for it.
"Vote Cthulu - for when you're tired of the lesser of two evils."
"Londo Mollari in '08! "We all have our Keepers"
Bush even has one of those weird little creatures that no one ever sees controlling him,"
Hunh. So THAT'S what that little thing in the back of his jacket was during the debate.
PAD
Hunh. So THAT'S what that little thing in the back of his jacket was during the debate.
Considering his first debate performance with all of the stammering and stuttering, he must have been doing a good job of fighting its influence.
Hunh. So THAT'S what that little thing in the back of his jacket was during the debate.
Either that or one of those strange mind controlling insects from Star Trek: the Next Generation... No, not the Trill. The other one.
Craig, I was speaking about..well...YOU guys. If the liberals here represent a good cross section of liberal thought..then I can honestly see why you lost almost all of the elections on Tuesday. One party doesn't control most state legislatures, governers, congressmen, senators, and the presidency because they are stupid, wrong, or out of touch with America. That goes to the losers.
Well, it's certainly possible, James, to be stupid and wrong and be IN touch with America. As was sung on the Daily show a couple weeks ago... "I'd rather be right... than President..."
Well, I find it interesting that you guys agree with Europe and believe that the majority in this country is stupid. Kerry spoke of unity yesterday and all I can find here are people who claim to have been bedridden all day because they were so sad about Bush winning. YOU guys are the fear and hate-mongers, not conservatives. You try to scare the American people into voting against Bush and then when he wins you scare yourselves into believing the world is over. During the 90's I couldn't complain about Clinton without someone jumping down my throat, yet the left has treated our president worse than I thought any American could ever do. Fine. You guys continue to live fright-filled, jumping at shadows world.
4 years from now there will be new elections. None of the people on this board will have been rounded up and placed in camps for their beliefs (I can't promise that they won't be in jail for other offenses. Some of y'all have potential for all kinds of stuff.). Despiet claims of oppression it will still be easy to produce films, comics, books etc that protray the government in a negative way (to say the least). It won't be nazi germany or anything like it (unless you think it's already like nazi germany in which case there's no point in arguing).
Let's revisit all this in 4 years and see who's right.
During the 90's I couldn't complain about Clinton without someone jumping down my throat, yet the left has treated our president worse than I thought any American could ever do.
I am amused by this grand statement of blindness. Obviously what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Whoa! reports are coming in that Yasser Arafat has been declared clinically brain dead. The mind reels at possible responses; Cruel--"how could they tell?' Sarcastic-"Why is always the good who die young?" Wistfull--"Gee, I was really hoping they were going to drag him out into the streets and shoot him like a dog."
I'll just settle for..."Good."
Kerry spoke of unity yesterday
And Bush talks of unity as well.
It won't happen.
The entire campaign is spent on trying to put a wedge into the minds of the people, and then, with a snap of the finger, we're to forget about it once a winner is declared.
Sure, only if you're living in a delusional world.
If Bush wants to unite this country, he'll step down and let somebody WORTHY of the job in.
Dude, there are times where you are the cheesiest mutha alive. ie. This post and most of Young Justice.
With these election results, President and GOP Senators, I am ashamed to be American. The conservatives on this board just don't get it.
Bush is not going to attempt to unify the country. He did not really attempt to do it the first time around.
Thank God, I am not of draft age.
Posted by Carl: Hmmmmmm, the people honestly made their choice and "jumped the shark"? So, I guess that means America should be cancelled and soon?
But Carl, the best thing about this is...if America is cancelled, it'll come back soon in expanded DVD form with multiple-disc seasonal sets (228 of them) plenty of extras: commentary, bloopers, documentaries, letterboxing! And it'll be 25% off at Amazon.
Thank God, I am not of draft age.
More evidence of liberals believing their own scare tactics.
"It won't be nazi germany or anything like it"
You're still not getting it.
The people in Nazi Germany likewise didn't think it was Nazi Germany, if you know what I mean...until it was too late.
My grandfather saw the rising tide of hatred. Of discrimination. Of religious fanaticism. All this when he was in Berlin, and when he packed up my father and grandmother and got the hell out, all the neighbors told him he was nuts. That things would become better. That he was overreacting.
And all the neighbors died.
PAD
god, the bitterness of the election results when will it stop, get over it already!!!
bush tried to make amends post election (during his speech) and you're still doing this crap?
the discussion is old, why do i even bookmark this site anymore? it's the same old shit all the time and hardly anything to do about comics or writing in general, it's like notes on a fridge for your wife to read.
if liberals and conservatives can't get along why would we with other nations? ask yourself that if you're one of the liberals crying boo-hoo about how the world hates us, who gives a frick?!? go gloom and doom yourself in a closet, pal. you give bush no slack and as a jew you ought to be ashamed because how we've kept relations with israel stronger and opposed the palastin regime.
the president is only one person. a friggin figure head. 4 years is nothing to weep over, and 4 more isn't going to bring the end of the world like ya think. kerry and his i got a plan BS. just answer some simple questions instead of being a dodgy, slimy lawyer. kerry wouldn't save the world. one guy is NOT going to do ALL the things he said he would have.
finally, accept a president who got the job done and kicked sadaam's ass when everyone before him bombed and bombed him again ultimately failing his demise.
2 of my 4 neighbors are a$$holes do i care what they think about me? NO.
that's why the democrats lost! you guys want to relate to the public at large at least present a plan of hope and stop talking like you're standing on hell's doorstep. either that or go there and stay.
had Kerry won, where we conservatives are better people, we wouldn't be mooping around and being stupid, we'd have faced facts and tried to work together.
Peter David: After some thought, I've decided the Fonz is the ideal presidential Candidate for 2008. Since the country has effectively Jumped the Shark with the election just past, there's no one more appropriate. I've even got the slogan: "Putting the 'Aaaaay!' in Aaaaay-merica."
Luigi Novi: Great idea. I hope he pledges no more tax cuts for the rich-amundo.
Tom Galloway: While the Fonz would've worked back in the late 50s ala JFK, his womanizing ways would sink his administration today ala Clinton's problems times ten.
Luigi Novi: Ah, but toward the end of the series, he was going steady with that single mother, wasn’t he?
[b]Well, I find it interesting that you guys agree with Europe and believe that the majority in this country is stupid.[/b]
I find it interesting that I, and Europe, are right. I also find it mind-numbingly depressing.
[b]Kerry spoke of unity yesterday and all I can find here are people who claim to have been bedridden all day because they were so sad about Bush winning.[/b]
That's because Kerry is trying to be somewhat graceful. I, an anonymous poster in a forum I don't usually post on, feel no such compunction, nor do I feel I should. After four years of bullying and having my opinions declared "unAmerican" -- as scurrilous an accusation as can be made, as [i]all[/i] ideas and opinions should have been [i]welcome[/i] in the former land of the free -- I fail to see any reason that reasonable, thinking people whose federally protected disagreement with the government was repeatedly dismissed by the increasingly cocksure right without any kind of critical analysis (which would have shown that [i]we were right all along, moron[/i]) should be nice about learning that the majority of the country really are as stupid and ignorant as we feared.
[b]YOU guys are the fear and hate-mongers, not conservatives. You try to scare the American people into voting against Bush and then when he wins you scare yourselves into believing the world is over.[/b]
Bullshit. Bush's campaign drew all of its strength from fear. Fear of terrorism (which, thanks to his ineptitude, is now only threatening our military in a hostile country and is unlikely to happen stateside in any significant measure again for some time), fear of losing the "culture war" (read: dudes getting it on with other dudes), which is in reality a complete non-issue, since it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with nearly anybody who believes that gay marriage is actually a threat to them -- in other words, everybody who's afraid of gay marriage is completely and objectively wrong, legally speaking -- and even stupid shit that they wouldn't have thought of if not for Karl Rove -- such as liberals (the people who are in favor of [i]expanding[/i] civil rights, mind you) wanting to ban the Bible.
So, yes; we're scared, as we have every right to be. Our civil rights have been gradually eroding as Fundamentalist Evangelicals have established an increasingly steady foothold in American politics. With the Republican sweep, they're about to erode as fast as those same Fundamentalists think the Grand Canyon did.
Fortunately for us heathen liberals, there exists a slight majority that knows better for us, and managed to elect the right man to be the first resident of the United States of Jesus Christ In Our Father's Name We Pray Amen.
[b]During the 90's I couldn't complain about Clinton without someone jumping down my throat, yet the left has treated our president worse than I thought any American could ever do.[/b]
I don't know what '90s YOU lived through, but as I recall, the '90s were rife with people badmouthing Bill Clinton with far more nonsensical crap than Bush has had to deal with. Plus, Clinton didn't have a compliant media willing to objectively report the White House's spin without any significant criticism or analysis.
I give you an example from Al Franken's [i]Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them[/i] (Paraphrased):
Sean Hannity, on the war in Iraq last year:
People shouldn't question the president! It only lessens the morale of our troops!
Sean Hannity, six years ago on Bosnia-Herzagovina[sp?]:
Frankly, I don't think Bill Clinton has the moral capacity to lead this war.
For the record, Clinton's military endeavor was accomplished with no US casualties and the Chechs regard him as the hero who saved them from genocide to this day.
I don't think I need to compare that to Iraq -- I'm sure you know all the numbers.
So if people were jumping down your throat for criticizing Clinton, are you sure it wasn't because you were saying stupid things? There were legitimate criticisms of Clinton -- I even have a few. No president is perfect. However, Bill Clinton was far closer to a perfect president than George Bush has the moral or intellectual capacity to be, and because of his administrations tactic of bullying dissenters, every criticism, however legitimate -- and you must have been saying stupid things about Clinton if you don't think [i]that's[/i] true -- is dismissed as "liberal whining" or any number of other crude brushoffs.
No, we've got every reason to fear that the hostility of the right will only grow -- after all, they are backed by Fundamentalist Evangelicals, who are decidedly rude people to a man -- and our rights will be trampled as they set G-Dub up as the new God-King of the AmeriChristian Empire.
Oh, and before you say anything, I know I'm being melodramatic. That's because realism is far too easily brushed off by the self-righteous.
OK, it says I can use HTML tags, but it must be referring to these and not [b]these[/b].
[BOLD]had Kerry won, where we conservatives are better people, we wouldn't be mooping around and being stupid, we'd have faced facts and tried to work together.[/BOLD]
you mean like you did both times that Clinton won?
My grandfather saw the rising tide of hatred. Of discrimination. Of religious fanaticism.
What happend to Germany was terrible, but it isn't happening here. To say "Well, your just not seeing it" is plain foolish.
Rise of hatred? There is no rise of hate in this president or his adminstration. The only hate I am seeing is coming from the wacko-left.
Rise of discrimination? Who? Blacks? Gays? They are not being discriminated against. Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, and the National Security Advisor are held by blacks for the first time in history. Protecting the rights of states to not be forced to do something they do not want to do by courts is not discrimination.
Rise of religioius fanaticism? I don't see a rise at all, but rather a real and ernest attempt to hold on to the religious beliefs and freedoms that have always been here.
You guys are trying to change the majority. Not the other way around.
nekouken said...
OK, it says I can use HTML tags, but it must be referring to these and not [b]these[/b].
That's not HTML. Use (no spaces) instead of [b].
Bugger, that didn't work. Use the greater-than/less than signs.
bush tried to make amends post election (during his speech) and you're still doing this crap?
THAT is trying to make amends? Calling for unity during a speech?
In his speech after he was made president in the 2000 election, Bush made a similar call for unity, claiming he would find seek the best interest of all his consituents.
Instead, he found tax breaks for rich white guys.
Gloat about victory if you'd like. Call Democrats stupid and Republicans "Wile E. Coyote, sooooper geeeenyus." Please, revel in it.
But do not for one minute pretend that Bush saying he will be a uniter means he has any intention of doing it.
4 more isn't going to bring the end of the world like ya think
Spoken like someone with no cognizance of environmental issues. As Bush continues to push legislation that allows business to grow without any concern for how much CO2 they pump into the air (as that is a missing provision of what is so delightfully called the "clear skies" initiative), the environment continues to suffer wounds we, the smartest monkeys on the planet, may be wholly unable to fix when the drastic need arises.
So please spare everyone the "four more years don't mean nothin'" babble. Every day that we ignore the health of our planet counts. Four more years can be a time of untold self-inflicted disaster.
Not to mention the use of science the majority of the scientific community feels is junk science.
The Neo Conservatives and the far right just don't get it. All you do is place everyone into little groups and assume that everyone in them has the same ideas. Not all Jews oppose the Palestinians, not all jews beleive Isreal should exist now. Some of us think we didn't have a right to go in there like we did. Not all Liberals beleive the same thing as well. You can't group peoples beleifs that way. Well maybe you can with conservatives, i don't really see how its possible but you all seem to do it anyway.
Thats why their won't be amends. Thats why Bush's silly little speech means nothing to us. It doesn't speak to us in any terms other than "I won. Get over it." Yes we know you won. We didn't like you. We aren't going to like you now. This country won't come together till everyones issues are addressed. I don't foresee Bush doing that. He didn't do it before, and i doubt he will at all these four years. So we will continue to bitch and moan and squabble between ourselves just as we did before. Just like the conservatives and many liberals did under Clinton and every other president before hand.
From DailyKos:
Bush has spent the last year blaming all his ills on 9/11 and Bill Clinton. Well, those boogeymen are now done. Bush is now inheriting his own presidency, and he has a serious mess on his hands.
Who is he going to blame now?
He goes on to say that the one silver lining for Kerry is he does not have to worry about cleaning up Bush's mess, now.
"So what exactly are you afraid of with Billy Graham?"
Judging from my post, obviously nothing.
"On the issues you mention, abstinence programs don't teach a fear of "damnation." They teach, based on documented evidence, that teen sex can be very destructive right now. Using "protection" does not avoid all forms of sexual disease. Condoms can fail, allowing pregnancy. An opinion they teach, and which I agree, is that teens are not emotionally ready for the emotional entanglements of sex. There are a lot of emotional issues going on already as a teen. Sex just further complicates things in a way that is not necessary.
You don't have to agree with all of these reasons. "
What reasons?
And reasons for what?
Jim, re-read what you typed.
You basically said "kids aren't ready for sex".
Everyone agrees on that.
But religious faith isn't going to overpower the sexual desires of a horny teen any more than it will those of a fully ordained priest boffing the local soccer mom.
UNLESS you've been taught that sex and sexual desire are wrong or something to be ashamed of.
Which is a despicable and unforgivable thing to do to a young mind.
"There are too many potential ramifications that can last a life time."
The only way to avoid potential ramifications in life is to stay in bed or live in a shoebox.
"I won't even get into the abortion issue"
There is no issue.
Everyone agrees that we should all be working to reduce abortion.
But no true anti-abortionist or genuine pro-lifer would ever call for an outright ban on abortion as there is no logic to it.
If anything, this election has shown me precisely how easily persuaded people are. A few pretty words about glorious ideals and people forget all about "Ahboo Gahreff." People favor the ideology to the reality. They don't realize that ideology isn't real. It's a culturally created and abstract phenomenon. What this election really tells us is that people (with some exceptions) completely fall prey to ideologically based rhetoric. Sure, Bush's actions and decisions over the past four years sucked, but he's got such great ideas.
If you don't believe Bush sold himself on his ideologies, go listen to his RNC speech again. You can find it at http://www.americanrhetoric.com. At the very beginning of his speech, watch how he mythologizes 9/11 by conjuring certain images and setting the mood, all without even referring to the event by name. Very effective and very ideological. Through ideology, he's put people in a frame of mind that has made them forget the atrocities that happened under his watch post-9/11. Seems to me like a pretty cheap way to earn people's favor. And yet it works.
And, of course, my favorite part of the debates was when Bush repeatedly told us not to "fall for his [Kerry's] rhetoric." Meanwhile, Bush is the one who is constantly assigning benevolent or catchy labels onto things in order to convince us that these things are good. "Leave no child behind" my ass. "Patriot Act." It's all persuasion through ideology. How many people know the specifics of what either of those things actually do? We don't have to know! Obviously, "Leave no child behind" must be good, and should not be looked into further. And the Patriot Act must be good, because being a patriot is also good!
I hardly see the point of ranting on about this stuff. People are just gonna disagree with me and accuse me of not knowing what I talk about anyway. As if they're any better.
Scott,
George Orwell; Did he predict the future, or cause it by planting the seed?
John Stewart is right. Our media do us no favors by not rooting out the facts. He said/She said journalism stinks. I want to know if what they say is true, not just that they say it.
"had Kerry won, where we conservatives are better people, we wouldn't be mooping around and being stupid, we'd have faced facts and tried to work together."
BWAAAHAHA...ha. Oh. Oh, my God. You're serious.
Dude, in the past ten years, the only "working together" done by Conservatives vis a vis liberals is to find ways to drive them out of office. Clinton had the shortest "honeymoon" on record, i.e., none: the GOP was on him from day one.
And this isn't "mooping" or even moping. Coming here and posting about the election is the electronic equivalent of paying a shiva call.
"What happend to Germany was terrible, but it isn't happening here. To say "Well, your just not seeing it" is plain foolish."
No, to say "Well, your just not seeing it" is plain illiterate. Saying "you're not just seeing it" is accurate.
"Rise of hatred? There is no rise of hate in this president or his adminstration. The only hate I am seeing is coming from the wacko-left."
Well, the obvious response is, "Wacko-left? You can just bite me, jackass." The secondary response is that the left is only letting its hatred of stupidity, intolerance, and bigotry become less and less hidden. The third response is, hey, howzabout reading what I said? I didn't say hatred from the administration. I said hatred, period. It wasn't Hitler who threw rocks through my grandfather's window and shouted, "Dirty Jew!" It was civilians.
What the administration is suffused with is religious fanaticism. The hatred comes from the mouthpieces of the administrations, the Limbaughs and his ilk, who spew poison and invective and villification. It's the gits who show up here to throw racist or sexually abusive names at my wife and me . It's the grass roots hatred that is building, and can and will spread because, let's face it, more atrocities have been committed in the name of God than in anyone else's name in the history of mankind.
"Rise of discrimination? Who? Blacks? Gays? They are not being discriminated against."
Gays, and yes, they are, and if you're really claiming that you're not blind and yet can claim gays aren't being discriminated against, you're nuts.
" Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, and the National Security Advisor are held by blacks for the first time in history."
Well, first of all, the Bush Administration distantly trails the Clinton administration in appointing minorities to jobs that are not high profile. And second, of course the conservatives can pat themselves on the back for being the foremost advocates of civil rights and integration. Oh...wait. Not so much. Guess integration was some of that pesky "judicial activism" that Bush is always complaining about.
"Protecting the rights of states to not be forced to do something they do not want to do by courts is not discrimination."
Introducing amendments to ban gays from marriage is discrimination. Supporting such amendments is discrimination. And those who claim otherwise are full of it. The notion that marriage is somehow threatened by allowing gays to marry is not based on reality, on any fragment of evidence, on anything except bias. The only threat to marriage in existence in this country is the ease of divorce. If people really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, let them lobby for an amendment banning divorce. If they're not willing to do so, then they should shut the hell up.
"Rise of religioius fanaticism? I don't see a rise at all, but rather a real and ernest attempt to hold on to the religious beliefs and freedoms that have always been here."
Religion brings out the best in people, but it also brings out the worst. And that's what is happening now. Kerry was able to distinguish between his personal beliefs and imposing those beliefs on the country. Bush is not. And people supported Bush because they likewise cannot. They think that their religious beliefs should form the basis upon which all aspects of everyone's lives are conducted.
I know it's always been that way. Take it from someone whose parents never got an invitation to any parties in their Catholic-heavy neighborhood...until the Vatican declared that modern Jews should no longer be held to blame for the death of Jesus. That year they got four New Years Eve party invites.
I'm saying that deciding on someone holding an office based upon how much he believes God is speaking to him is a basis for deciding on everything from the Pope to Grand Wizard of the KKK...but not President. And yet that's the criteria being used, and I think that's screwed up.
"You guys are trying to change the majority. Not the other way around."
Well, yes. That's because the definition of liberal is someone who questions, who pushes and prods and considers. Whereas the definition of conservative is someone who explicitly doesn't do those things, and wants nothing to change. Conservatives didn't push for the creation of the U.S. Conservatives didn't push for the women's vote or civil rights and didn't challenge the country to get to the moon. Liberals did all that. The main accomplishment of conservatives was to say "Liberals are evil" so hard and so long that the lie has become, to far too many, the truth.
And really, if you want to convince me you're not blind, you might want to say "I don't see" a few times less in your postings.
PAD
The Neo Conservatives and the far right just don't get it. All you do is place everyone into little groups and assume that everyone in them has the same ideas.
SNIP
It doesn't speak to us in any terms other than "I won. Get over it." Yes we know you won. We didn't like you. We aren't going to like you now. This country won't come together till everyones issues are addressed. So we will continue to bitch and moan and squabble between ourselves just as we did before. Just like the conservatives and many liberals did under Clinton and every other president before hand.
Wow, you don't like being put into a group yet you start speaking like a hive mind, no one needs to place you in a group when you do it yourself....classic.
Is the Democratic Party going to re-name itself the Chichen Little Party now?
Not to mention the use of science the majority of the scientific community feels is junk science.
Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. It's junk science. The environment is just swell. The planet is plain old healthy. Plenty of water to go around as well. The complaints you've heard are all a lunatic fringe trying to convince us of the right insane idea that we're slowly but surely committing suicide as a species. Yessiree, this world, and particularly the good ol' U.S. of A., would never push the health of its planet off to the sidelines in favor of short term, shortsighted capital gains. We couldn't possibly be that stupid.
And, of course, if you're wrong, what's the big deal? Reining in problems on a planetary scale couldn't be THAT difficult, could it?
Enjoy the search for high ground, ma'am.
Gays, and yes, they are, and if you're really claiming that you're not blind and yet can claim gays aren't being discriminated against, you're nuts.
Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't.
Barrett Esposito said...
Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. It's junk science...
Perhaps you should re-read Karen's post, and her other posts. I'd say you grossly misinterpreted her, and that you're on the same side. I believe she was saying that the administration relies on "junk science" to continue its environmental abuse.
Now I don't have a big beef with a moderate conservative, their concerns are, by and large, easy to understand, and in some cases even agree with.
But here is the sort of ultra-conservative hate propaganda that we fear. And when you're presented with stuff like this, it can be difficult not to paint you all with the same brush.
Eric! said...
Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't.
Lesbians can't marry anyone you can.
Yes, what I just said was stupid, but it's no less stupid than the crap coming out of your mouth (well, fingers).
"Gays, and yes, they are, and if you're really claiming that you're not blind and yet can claim gays aren't being discriminated against, you're nuts.
Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't."
But no one is telling you (presuming you're not gay) there's someone you can't marry that you want to marry. You obviously can't distinguish the concept of free will from the concept of restricted choice.
You have convinced me, though, that someone doesn't have to be nuts to think gays aren't being discriminated against. "Cluelessness" would also explain it.
PAD
Why would you want Alphonse D'Amato to be president? He just wasn't that good a Senator, and he's a Re-- oh. Never mind.
Perhaps you should re-read Karen's post, and her other posts. I'd say you grossly misinterpreted her, and that you're on the same side. I believe she was saying that the administration relies on "junk science" to continue its environmental abuse.
If that is indeed the case, I hereby offer my public apology in her direction. Many thanks for the intercession.
Additionally, my wish that she "enjoy the search for high ground" can now be read as sincere, whereas before it was quite possibly sarcastic.
Declaring war on countries that haven't attacked us, going in and trying to conquer them. Check.
This distortion of the truth is getting old. If you are referring to Afganistan, Osama Bin Laden has now admitted he attacked us.
If you are referring to Iraq, then you are at best inconsistent. It is not necessary for someone to attack us for us to have reason to go to war. Iraq invaded a neighbor, and we chose to go to the defense of Kuwait. I believe that was a valid reason to go to war.
It could be technically argued that this last war is a continuation of the first Gulf War, because we attacked, in part, due to a failure of Sadaam to comply with the terms of his surrender to the first war.
But leave that aside for the moment. I would consider any country that sponsored and supported an assasination of a former president as a country that at least attempted to attack us. I would consider a country that DAILY shot at our planes as an attack on our country. To say they did not (and yes, could not) successfully mount an attack on our soil is irrelevant.
I am amazed at the fear being expressed by some of you about Bush's reelection. It is way out of line with reality. I don't agree with PAD's argument that we have begun the slide into becoming Nazi Germany. Not even close. Are there some policies that we both may not agree with? Yes. But to suggest there is a plan in motion is beyond ridiculous, as others have already stated.
Saber-rattling in the name of God. Check.
This particular charge is especially frustrating. The fact is, Christians were NOT behind the Nazi movement, not as is being portrayed. Yes, things were done in the "name of God," but go read history. See how many Christians there DID protest -- and lost their lives for it. I agree that many stayed silent for too long. But Hitler was no more close to being a practicing Christian than Saddam was a practicing Muslim.
Frankly, I am surprised, PAD, by your saying all this. I believe you are being honest and not just trying to be delilberately provocative. But your fears are way out of proportion with reality.
Jim in Iowa
Some privitization of Social Security
Agree with it in principle, but the last place I would want to put my money atm is the stock market - I would prefer a personal 401k that is valid whereever I take it for employment, along with other options.
Most 401k's I know of ARE money in the stock market. They may not be in all one stock, but as I understand it, you are asking for the same thing Bush is proposing.
A key point the liberal media and the Dem's leave out is that Bush's proposed plan would GUARANTEE that you would AT LEAST get as much from the privatized part as you would if it stayed in SS as we know it. In other words, if you would have gotten $50 a month on the old system, your deposit is guaranteed to give you at least $50 a month, but with the potential to do even more since you now can make adjustments based on what stocks are doing well.
Jim in Iowa
Yes I placed myself in a group. I'm aloud to do that. I did not place anyone else in any group other than "those who do not like bush and are bitching that their guy lost" and "Stop complaining and shut up." Both of which were pretty much established by people already in this thread. But yes you caught me on a logical point during an illogical argument that was more about passion than logic. A response to what "Americana" wrote. Congrats to you. Now that doesn't change my argument, only the wording. "Us" becomes "me" or "I."
And Bush talks of unity as well.
It won't happen.
The entire campaign is spent on trying to put a wedge into the minds of the people, and then, with a snap of the finger, we're to forget about it once a winner is declared.
At best, BOTH campaigns drove wedges into the minds of people.
Sure, only if you're living in a delusional world.
If Bush wants to unite this country, he'll step down and let somebody WORTHY of the job in.
How would that bring unity when over 50% of the country voted for him?
Jim in Iowa
You basically said "kids aren't ready for sex".
Everyone agrees on that.
But religious faith isn't going to overpower the sexual desires of a horny teen any more than it will those of a fully ordained priest boffing the local soccer mom.
I respectfully, and strongly, disagree. There are a number of teens -- and religious priests -- who DO exercise this little thing called self discipline. Some do it based on faith. I did. Many of my friends did. Others do it based on logic and common sense.
We are not slaves to our bodies or hormones. I know (as any healthy male knows) the power of the male sex drive. But to say it is impossible to control it is wrong.
The fact that some will not control it does not mean it is invalid to ask them to. If I teach an abstinence course to 10 kids, and as a result 8 out of 10 decide to wait till they are at least adults and can deal with the ramifications of sex, that is better than teaching "sex education" where only 4 out of 10 wait until they are adults.
Abstinence teaching DOES work. It is not perfect. It does not guarantee that kids won't have sex. But it can make a significant difference. (I believe it is Uganda which is the only country in Africa where the rate of AIDS has been reduced, and it has been done with a program that relies heavily on teaching abstinence.)
UNLESS you've been taught that sex and sexual desire are wrong or something to be ashamed of.
No, I was not taught it was wrong (in and of itself). I was taught that it is a special gift for marriage. And I am glad that I waited until I was married (which was not until I was 35).
Is this a wrong value to hold? Why does our society treat with disdain the concept that it is better to wait until marriage to have sex?
Which is a despicable and unforgivable thing to do to a young mind.
I agree. I think it is also a despicable and unforgivable thing to not teach a young mind that sex is very different from other normal, healthy physical acts such as eating. It is a powerful act that has deep ramifications. Sex should not be entered into lightly.
Jim in Iowa
Is this a wrong value to hold? Why does our society treat with disdain the concept that it is better to wait until marriage to have sex?
Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first? :)
Barrett,
Jim was absolutely right. The junk science I referred to was the administrations. They have discontinued so many protections that were in place before their first administration, all in the name of more money for the corporations who do not want to clean up the messes they made and do not want to equip their factories with expensive parts to keep from spewing environmental hazards into our atmosphere, water, and the earth. But, hey, who needs air, water, and dirt? They only provide life, notmoney to the already wealthy. Not to mention that they also want to deforest America in the name of logging. But, who needs a healthy ecosystem when there are dollars at stake? I trust I've mad my position more clear? And thanks for the apology. All is forgiven. Next time I will be sure to put who I think is responsible in my posts. I forget that not everyone here has read some of my prior rants, so I assume you all know what I mean. :)
Jim in Iowa:
I agree. I think it is also a despicable and unforgivable thing to not teach a young mind that sex is very different from other normal, healthy physical acts such as eating. It is a powerful act that has deep ramifications. Sex should not be entered into lightly.
Nobody diagrees with this. We simply think sex education should cover all the information. When kids are informed they make better choices. When kids are told there is only one way to think, they rebel. I don't blame them. If my sex ed teacher had told me that abstinance was the only way, when there are obviously other forms of birth control, I would have decided she did not know what she was talking about and had no authority on the subject. Why should kids listen ot only part of the story?
Unrelated, PAD, but I thought you and your's might wanna see this.
Angel "Smile Time" Puppet on sale in March! Brings back memories of the project your wife was working on.
Ummm... Now can we please get back to nominating old comedy show characters, Power Rangers, and adult cartoons for President?
Eric, I get so tired of hearing this response. Here it is, simply. You can meet your beloved, your chosen life partner and you can marry that person. A gay person in this country cannot do that now.
This distortion of the truth is getting old. If you are referring to Afganistan, Osama Bin Laden has now admitted he attacked us.
That's true, but I assume that's not who PAD was referring to. It's not who I read into it. Fortunately, you took that into account.
If you are referring to Iraq, then you are at best inconsistent. It is not necessary for someone to attack us for us to have reason to go to war. Iraq invaded a neighbor, and we chose to go to the defense of Kuwait. I believe that was a valid reason to go to war.
It was. However, this time around, there was no such reason. Saddam was sitting there on apparently nothing but a nuclear physicist and a warehouse full of explosives, and Bush took intelligence the CIA was trying to tell him was faulty and ran with it. Yes, the CIA, Tenet aside, was against the Iraq war because they actually knew there was no truth to the intelligence Bush had. Bush took a reason to investigate whether we should go to war as a reason to go to war. If a guy goes to Wal-Mart and buys a shovel and some dark clothes, is that a reason to arrest him for burying a body in his backyard? No, but it is a reason for an observant cop to get a warrant to determine whether he does, in fact, have a body to bury. However, since the possibility remains that he may have some gardening to do and have decided to go clothes shopping while he was at the store, an arrest would be unfounded. The war is the same way: things were observed that warranted investigation, but Bush stormed in and made the arrest, only to discover after the fact (which I believe he was trying to cover up by opposing the 9/11 Commission in a very Hank Quinlan-esque manner) that the basis for the war was entirely false. There were no weapons, there was no active weapons program and hadn't been one for years, and there was absolutely no al-Quaeda link. Suspecting any or all of those things was a good reason to investigate whether war was called for, but that's all he ever had. That, and "He's the guy that went after my dad," which was also untrue.
It could be technically argued that this last war is a continuation of the first Gulf War, because we attacked, in part, due to a failure of Sadaam to comply with the terms of his surrender to the first war.
That's just it -- he did comply. We have found no weapons save for some explosives that are useless without the weapons program we've already determined was long inactive.
But leave that aside for the moment. I would consider any country that sponsored and supported an assasination of a former president as a country that at least attempted to attack us. I would consider a country that DAILY shot at our planes as an attack on our country. To say they did not (and yes, could not) successfully mount an attack on our soil is irrelevant.
I assume you're referring to firing at planes in the established no-fly zone, in which case, no. You're talking entirely about ancient history. We went ten years without resolving this stuff, that means we let it go, not that it's just waiting for us to pick it back up again. That crap doesn't fly in any situation. Their being unable to attack us is not irrelevant, because the underlying statement in all the reasons we had for going into war (all of which have proven false) was that Saddam Hussein was a threat to national and world security. If he couldn't attack us, he wasn't a threat.
I am amazed at the fear being expressed by some of you about Bush's reelection. It is way out of line with reality. I don't agree with PAD's argument that we have begun the slide into becoming Nazi Germany. Not even close. Are there some policies that we both may not agree with? Yes. But to suggest there is a plan in motion is beyond ridiculous, as others have already stated.
I agree with you there -- Hitler's reign was pretty well anti-religion, establishing itself as religion and Hitler as God. So it's true, Christians didn't fare all that well with Nazi Germany. Christian Americans, however, supported it for a while -- I seem to recall reading Charles Lindbergh, a national hero, publicly endorsing the Third Reich.
That said, the fanaticism extant in Nazi Germany is most definitely alive and well here, in the form of Fundamental Evangelicals.
Personally, I think Christianity is a sign of brain damage, but I don't have problems with Christians if they don't try to force their beliefs on the rest of the world. It seems, however, that people that have convinced themselves that the Earth is 6000 years old don't know how not to do just that, and those people have been gaining power for decades. It's because of them that "secular" is a four-letter word right alongside "liberal" -- hardly surprising that a word synonymous with reason and independant thought would be a dirty word to the group responsible for a wave of anti-intellectualism. It's because of these assholes that what you put in your asshole is the government's business. It's because of them that we propogate immoral conduct among the populace by legislating the moral high ground -- the War on Drugs, for example (which is and always was a bad idea).
These people have the same fervor as the Nazis did, their numbers are growing, and they are able to use the G-word and the J-word to sway moderate and even liberal Christians to their side -- after all, they're doing it for God! -- to further their blatantly unConstitutional agenda and restrict the personal freedoms of everybody who doesn't look to a badly-written fairy tale to help them make their decisions.
It may not be from the same source, but it's every bit as evil.
Introducing amendments to ban gays from marriage is discrimination. Supporting such amendments is discrimination. And those who claim otherwise are full of it. The notion that marriage is somehow threatened by allowing gays to marry is not based on reality, on any fragment of evidence, on anything except bias. The only threat to marriage in existence in this country is the ease of divorce. If people really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, let them lobby for an amendment banning divorce. If they're not willing to do so, then they should shut the hell up.
PAD,
Virtually all conservative Christian leaders who oppose gay marriage would agree with you that divorce is presntly the #1 threat to marriage. (James Dobson is just one of many examples.) Except for divorce due to infidelity or abuse, I am all for making divorce much more difficult to obtain.
Yes, banning gay marriage is discrimination. But so is banning marriage between a father and daughter. So is banning marriage between a brother and sister. So is banning marriage between an adult and a 13 year old. We legitimately discriminate all of the time. The question is NOT whether it is discrimination, it is WHY we choose to discriminate.
I won't repeat what I already posted on another thread (Feel free to discuss the ongoing election results here). My point there is this: Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love. Marriage as a functional entity in virtually any recorded culture you can find has been about providing the place where kids can be born and raised for the propogation of the family, tribe, and ultimately, the human race. Having kids is not a requirement to being married, but I would argue that it is at least ideal that kids are raised in the context of a marriage of a man and a woman.
I am NOT denying a gay person the right to be married as it has been practiced for centuries. The gay community is asking me to fundamentally change the very meaning of marriage (see my other post for my reasoning).
Although my religious beliefs are a factor, this view is not based in just one religious faith. Many people who hold to no religion also come to the same conclusion. When an ammendment wins as overwhelmingly as it did this week in 11 states, and wins in what is clearly one of the most liberal states in America, this is clearly NOT just the view of the radical right. Quite frankly, we are not that powerful or Bush would have won by a far higher percentage!
Jim in Iowa
Conservatives: What steps do you think Bush should do unify this country? What olive branch should he extend?
Ralph and Potsie in 2008.
"Talk To The Malph and Sit On It!"
We are told here that the nation need not be divided. Then we are told that the blame for division lies with "you liberals". And the posters continue blithely on, unaware of the cognitive dissonance.
I'd laugh, if I could stop weeping long enough.
Jim in Iowa says:
Homosexuality is the same as incest and child molestation.
Since he won't come out and say it (coming out is a problem for folks like him) I'll do it for him.
Jim in Iowa says:
"How would that bring unity when over 50% of the country voted for him? "
So are you misguided or are you lying. Either way, you are wrong.
Ammend your statement (and I know you folks like your Ammendments) to say that over 50% of the 58% percent who were registered, could be bothered to vote, voted for him. The rest couldn't get off their worthless asses to particpate in what's supposedly the greatest right we have.
By the way, as I just did two slams at Jim in Iowa, I'd like to mention that I bare him no ill will or malice. I've always appreciated that he'll pretty much speak his mind and give well thought out reasons behind his beliefs.
If more people on both sides would approach things as he does, we'd all be in better shape.
Most 401k's I know of ARE money in the stock market. They may not be in all one stock, but as I understand it, you are asking for the same thing Bush is proposing.
Yes, I realized this on the other forum as well after I posted it.
What I would prefer is something less dependent upon the stock market - where a crash takes everything away, and on the company I work for - where some greedy execs take everything away.
A personal savings account that I cannot access would be one option. This way, it is in my name, and nobody can take anything out of it, or deny it to me, later.
How would that bring unity when over 50% of the country voted for him?
For starters, if you want to argue about who voted for him, then he never would have been president in the first place.
I would have to think that many Republicans are disappointed by his getting the nomination in 2000 to begin with. If they are not, then they seriously need to reevaluate what they want out of this country.
Everybody complains that Kerry and Gore were poor candidates, but Bush sure as hell wasn't a winner either.
"Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love. Marriage as a functional entity in virtually any recorded culture you can find has been about providing the place where kids can be born and raised for the propogation of the family, tribe, and ultimately, the human race"
Back when the brou-hah hah on gay mariage began, I was curious as to a Jewish perspective on this. Afterall, OUR law says homosexuality is wrong....but then OUR law was meant to change over time and wasn't written in stone (well, except for those 10 that, you know...were). And I found a very good study from some serious level Rabbi's on this. And the point Jim makes is one of them. And that Leveticus says homosexuality is wrong was mentioned. But it boils down to while on the one hand the ancient books say something is wrong, on the other hand being against it puts you on the same side as those who'd oppress you. ie..you don't side with the Nazi's.
If you're side of the field has people wearing white sheets and brown shirts...you just may be playing for the wrong team.
Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love.
Maybe it's time you wake up and welcome yourself to the Real World, Jim.
People marry for a variety of reasons, and marrying simply out of love is sure as hell one of them.
This isn't 1200. It's the year 2004. Live in it.
Homosexuality is the same as incest and child molestation.
Since he won't come out and say it (coming out is a problem for folks like him) I'll do it for him.
Gee, thanks. I was really struggling to come out and say exactly that.
Let's also say that someone who speeds is the same as someone who drives drunk and kills someone. Let's also say that someone who steals a car should be executed along with a murderer and be done with it.
Glad I said it. Now I feel better.
Jim in Iowa
Eric!:
>>Gays, and yes, they are, and if you're really claiming that you're not blind and yet can claim gays aren't being discriminated against, you're nuts.
>Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't.
Not true. You can potentially marry anyone you are physically and emotionally attracted to. They can't.
Ammend your statement (and I know you folks like your Ammendments) to say that over 50% of the 58% percent who were registered, could be bothered to vote, voted for him. The rest couldn't get off their worthless asses to particpate in what's supposedly the greatest right we have.
Consider it ammended. On second thought, let me ammend your ammendment and just say I agree with the first sentence and leave out the slam on those who spared us their voting without knowing what was going on in the first place (which IS a responsibility that they are wrong to avoid).
Jim in Iowa
Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love.
Maybe it's time you wake up and welcome yourself to the Real World, Jim.
People marry for a variety of reasons, and marrying simply out of love is sure as hell one of them.
I said, as an instituion, it has never been SOLELY out of love. There are numeous political or arranged marriages over the years. Just as there are many marriages out of love.
I am arguing that marriage came into existence for a greater purpose than just making a commitment to each other out of love. It came into existence for the purpose of having children and providing them a place to grow and be nurtured in love. Bearing children has been a fundamental part of marriage in virtually every society. Marrying for love has not.
Jim in Iowa
"Yes, banning gay marriage is discrimination. But so is banning marriage between a father and daughter. So is banning marriage between a brother and sister. So is banning marriage between an adult and a 13 year old. We legitimately discriminate all of the time. The question is NOT whether it is discrimination, it is WHY we choose to discriminate."
Putting aside that you equate homosexuality with incest...
No, actually, I don't think I'll put that aside. That actually underscores my point: That people have not been able to pull their heads out of their...bibles...and comprehend the simple reality that being gay is not sinful behavior, and also not a choice (whereas deciding to commit incest pretty much is a choice.)
Not to mention the fact that the bible portrays a father having sex with his daughters to be acceptable under certain circumstances, so...
That said, at its most basic, incest and, for that matter, first cousins marrying, is historically frowned upon/discouraged because of the higher chance of birth defects (inbreeding causes everything from mental retardation to hemophelia, which is why the latter wasn't uncommon in royal families where such behavior was encouraged.) Discrimination isn't discrimination when it's based on reasonable health concerns, if nothing else.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it's acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
PAD
This isn't 1200. It's the year 2004. Live in it.
I am discussing how marriage has always been understood up and until the last 50 years. I am arguing that gay marriage is a radical and fundamental change in how marriage is understood and defined.
Jim in Iowa
ANGRY said: We didn't like you. We aren't going to like you now. This country won't come together till everyones issues are addressed.
Guess that means never. Not possible to address everyone's issues, some stances (ie, beliefs) are in diametric opposition to others, mutually exclusive.
Barrett Esposito said: Instead, he found tax breaks for rich white guys.
This is one of those arguments that I just don't understand. Taxes were lowered for everyone that PAYS taxes, those that don't pay taxes (lowest income levels) don't have anything to lower. The richest in the country pay the most, so the lowering of tax rates shows up for them the most. It's just math. I'm sure that the IRS would be happy to take any extra money that you have that you believe should be payed in taxes. Personally I don't make enough to be in that category.
jeff
Did you not type this?
"Yes, banning gay marriage is discrimination. But so is banning marriage between a father and daughter. So is banning marriage between a brother and sister. So is banning marriage between an adult and a 13 year old."
So if you're not equating them...then why make the comparisons?
Jeff is right!
I'm paying far less taxes now then I was pre-Bush.
Of course, I'm making $50,000 a year less than I was then too.
"I am arguing that marriage came into existence for a greater purpose than just making a commitment to each other out of love. It came into existence for the purpose of having children and providing them a place to grow and be nurtured in love. Bearing children has been a fundamental part of marriage in virtually every society. Marrying for love has not."
And thus do you, once and for all, blow your own argument to hell and gone. Instead you have just proven the point of every advocate for gay marriage.
Marriage does indeed have its roots in creating a binding and protective situation in which children can be produced to propogate the species.
But over the years, it has also been for the purpose of a man possessing a woman in the same way that he possesses a cow or chickens. Or men have been able to marry multiple wives. It has been a means of creating unions between powerful families. It has been done as a convenience, loveless, while husband and wife share their beds with various paramours to the full knowledge and acceptance of the other. And in some societies, when the husband dies, the wife is expected to throw herself on the funeral pyre. Or it is expected that if the husband dies, the husband's oldest surviving brother must marry the wife.
Do any of those describe the state of marriage in America today?
No. Because whatever the original intent was, it is a constantly changing and evolving institution. And any rational person would have to concede that having it a mutual union based purely on love is a vast improvement over a man acquiring a wife solely because he needs someone to help plow the field, pump out some offspring, and live her life as a second class citizen with no rights.
So to say now that it must cease to evolve, that--as Picard would say--the line must be drawn here, here and no further, defies recognizing the simple truth that marriage has changed, is changing, and will continue to change. And just as there were husbands raging over the notion of their wives becoming equal citizens because they were just women and not smart enough to vote, and just as there were KKK members howling over blacks marrying whites because it was going to poison the gene pool of America, there will be bigots who will spew reasons for why gays shouldn't be able to marry, and the reasons will be just as valid and invalid as their spiritual precursors, whether they admit it or no.
And once again, unless you're ready to argue that post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to marry or men who had vasectomies shouldn't be allowed to marry, your comment about "greater purpose" has no underpinning. Either people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't.
PAD
Discrimination isn't discrimination when it's based on reasonable health concerns, if nothing else.
Um, actually it is. But then, I'm unusual in that I consider discrimination and its cousin prejudice to be both good things and frankly necessary for cognitive function and human survival. You're basically making a distinction between good discrimination and bad discrimination, but it's still discrimination.
Yeah, I'm serious. Did a paper for a graduate course in human cognitive development (over history, rather than individual development from birth) on this a while back. You have to have discrimination and prejudice since you both can't and don't have time to work out everything from first principles. Our ancestors were very prejudiced against large predators; if they weren't, they'd get eaten. And you discriminate between and among things constantly.
The catch is that it's very easy to misuse prejudice and discrimination. The most obvious way is by choosing wrong, inappropriate, and irrevelant criteria to base your prejudice and discrimination on. The next major way is not distinguishing between "All A are B" valid criteria and "Many/Most A are B, for valid criteria C, but this particular A is not B, since C is not intrinsic to being A". Next major way is not to realize or account for changes in individuals or the criteria.
Oh, and Jim...one other question:
I seem to recall that it should be theoretically possible to take a woman's egg and combine it with another woman's egg in some manner to produce a child. Naturally said offspring could only be female because there's no Y chromosone involved. But still...
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
PAD
No, actually, I don't think I'll put that aside. That actually underscores my point: That people have not been able to pull their heads out of their...bibles...and comprehend the simple reality that being gay is not sinful behavior, and also not a choice (whereas deciding to commit incest pretty much is a choice.)
PAD,
If I do pull my head out of my ... Bible ... then yes, I can see your point. Sinful behavior, almost by definition in this context, is a religious belief. So if the Bible is wrong/invalid/irrelevant, then gay ACTIONS are not sinful.
But a gay lifestyle has been rejected by a very large number of religions and philosophies (including communism, which was aethistic). For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history. If nothing else, if you don't want to bring religion into it, perhaps it is an evolutionary bias to keep us from going extinct.
You did not address my point. This country is NOT a Christian country. It is perhaps more pluralistic than at any other time in its history. Yet over 70% of those polled reject gay marriage. Why?
Let me also say I do not equate gay "desires" with gay "actions." I have counseled people who have sexual attraction to kids. Just because you feel an attraction or desire does not, by definition, make it right.
"Being" gay in orientation is not a sin. Acting out in gay behavior IS a choice. I believe that choice is sinful and that it is emotionally, physically, and spiritually damaging to the individual who engages in such actions. You do not agree. That is fine. It does not change the fact that any sexual act a person chooses to engage in is by definition a choice. The question is not whether it is a choice, the question is whether or not such actions are right.
Why is this such an obvious big deal to me? Because I do share a fear you have. I don't see the religious right leading us down a path like the Nazi's did to Germany. I see the potential for the liberal left to do so. How? On things like this very issue. The first step is an insistence that we make gay marriage legal. The next step is to then tell those, like myself, that to even suggest that a gay lifestyle is sinful is hate speech and wrong. I am not talking about standing in the streets shouting cruel things at gays. I am talking about my right to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, and harmful to the person who engages in such activities.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it's acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
I answered the first part above. Let me reference the second. Yes, the Bible does teach under some circumstances it was permissible to execute a disobedient child. However, there is a greater context in which that law must be understood. You do NOT find this law being practiced in the Bible. It is not because it was understood to show the severity of the crime. Other than for what we consider "first degree murder," you don't find the executions based on the mosaic code for most of the things in the list, which also includes homosexuality. Both Jewish and Christian traditions suggest that a "ransom" (or "fine) was allowed as a way to pay for the crime.
Jewish law, as you well know, is quite complex. It contains a mixture of civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. We don't have the equivalent today. Some people then suggest the OT Law is irrelevant. I would suggest that instead, you must use the context. Let me give you an example.
PAD, you have a daughter. Imagine that at age 5 you gave her these 3 rules:
1.) Go to be at 7 PM.
2.) Don't play in the street.
3.) Don't touch the hot burner on the stove.
As she gets older, you would let her to go bed at a later time, and eventually would not tell her when to go to bed.
In the second, as she got older, the rule would depend on where you live. If you live on a busy New York Avenue, it might never be appropriate to play on the street. If you live in a quiet suburb, it may be fine to play on the street as long as she watches for cars.
Whatever age she is, it is always wrong (harmful) to touch a burner with her bare hands.
The Bible is not a book you blindly read. You read it with common sense as you would any other writing. Some laws (such as not eating pork) are not followed by Christians today, but are by practicing Jews. Others (such as killing man woman and child in the city of Jericho) were a specific judgment on a specific people at a specific time and was never meant to be used as an example for warfare today. Some (I would suggest homosexual actions and any sex with another person outside of marriage) are by their very nature, harmful to ourselves according to the very one who created us.
Jim in Iowa
"Discrimination isn't discrimination when it's based on reasonable health concerns, if nothing else."
"Um, actually it is. But then, I'm unusual in that I consider discrimination and its cousin prejudice to be both good things and frankly necessary for cognitive function and human survival. You're basically making a distinction between good discrimination and bad discrimination, but it's still discrimination."
Cut me a break, Tom. You know perfectly well that I was centering on the following definition:
": prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment "
I wasn't trying to incorporate all the various definitions of "discrimination" in one comment. I mean, you might as well say claim I was saying that there's no such thing as an art fancier having discriminating tastes, or when I'm talking about bias, you ask what race relations has to do with a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric.
Although might I point out that your supposed exception pretty much goes with my original comment. I talked about discrimination not existing when there are genuine health concerns, and you counter with ancestors discriminating against larger animals that could kill them. Dude, if getting eaten by a sabretooth isn't a health concern, I don't know what is.
PAD
So Jim, you pick and choose which of G-d's laws to follow? That's very progressive of you. I'm glad though that you let yourself eat bacon, but follow the ones that lead you to hate another.
You know, Jesus was real big on the hate thing, I hear.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it's acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
The relationship between a gay couple and a heterosexual are different, plain and simple. No matter how hard the majority of Gay couples try they are not going to produce a child, the majority heterosexual couples can. This is were the government has an interest in supporting this union (more customers). I'm all for Gay couples having commitments and all the leagal rights needed for health and finacial support, but not the same as a heterosexual couple that can produce a child. Anyone who can not see these relationships as being different is willfully blind.
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
Short answer, no. It required scientific intervention. I am arguing for "traditional" marriage. Such an option was not even possible before. More importantly, I am arguing that having a parent from each gender is better than having two parents of the same gender. (Not to be funny about it, but why is diversity in this situation not to be preferred? If everyone has a masculine and femine side, is it not at least ideal for a child to grow up with a close and clear model of each?)
If two women choose to do so at their own expense, I would not stop them. But I would not change the definition of marriage to accomodate them.
Let me make a side comment. I do not hate gays. If such a couple lived next door to me, I would probably bring over some baby clothes for them and babysit for them if needed. I worked for 4 years in the Oak Lawn area of Dallas, which has a high population of homosexuals, and none of them would ever say I was mean or hateful to them. On the contrary, we got along fine. But I believe changing the definition of marriage will lead to consequences just as no fault divorce has done. Since it does not yet exist here, I cannot prove it. But I think the evidence points that way.
Furthermore, I believe for personal and theological reasons that a gay lifestyle is not the best choice. I know of people who have left the gay lifestyle and who are very happily married. Does that mean all must do so? Of course not. But it is wrong to say that for at least some people, change is possible. It is not a false hope.
Jim in Iowa
So Jim, you pick and choose which of G-d's laws to follow? That's very progressive of you. I'm glad though that you let yourself eat bacon, but follow the ones that lead you to hate another.
Of course I pick and choose. Everyone does, even with laws here in America. That is called using your head. If a truck is coming up on my tail on the freeway at 80 miles per hour and I can't change lanes, you better believe I will speed up rather than be rear ended.
I don't recall ever saying that I hated anyone. Is it hateful to tell someone who is having an affair that he is destroying his marriage? Is it hateful to tell someone who is hooked on crack that she is killing herself? Unless you say it is hate to warn someone that what they are doing is harmful, I am not hating anyone.
Jim in Iowa
If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?
Nope, unless the government is offering it to every Lesbian couple gratis. Man and woman who flip burgers can have child (no aid needed, well maybe a back seat and some Barry White) therefore Gov't wants to support this, woman and woman who flip burgers can't (even with Barry and back seat). These relationships are different.
But it is wrong to say that for at least some people, change is possible.
Let me restate this the way I meant it:
Change IS possible, at least for some people, and it is wrong to deny them the opportunity to try to change if they so choose. It is not a false hope. A significant number of people have actually done so.
Jim in Iowa
Everyone's prejudiced about something. Most have some bigotry in them.
I personaly have developed a nasty prejudiced against foreigners who work in this country, yet don't speak the language well and then call me up for tech support and want me to help them. Now granted that's a pretty specific bigotry, but there it is.
But you know what? I recognize that it's there, and furthermore, like any right thinking person, I'm ashamed of myself for it.
Now for you holy rollers out there...where is your shame?
Oh I get it now! It's out of love! You're trying to HELP gay people! How white of you.
And how is Mary Cheney being gay hurting her? I'm serious, now. I incredibly want to understand your viewpoint. Reading and studying the bible hasn't done it, but explain it to me.
"you better believe I will speed up rather than be rear ended."
I think that's been clearly established.
"If two women wanted to marry and, with scientific aid, could produce a child that was gentically their own, would that satisfy your criteria? And, on that basis, would you then say that lesbians, at least, should be allowed to marry?"
"Short answer, no. It required scientific intervention. I am arguing for "traditional" marriage."
Ah, okay.
John? John Ordover, you out there?
If he is, I'd like you to meet John Ordover. He and his wife required several years and tons of medical assistance before they were able to have a child. But according to you, since scientific intervention was required, you're not in favor of their marriage. For that matter, if the doctor had finally said, "Sorry, kids, it's just not happening; you'll never have children," then they should be divorced.
"But a gay lifestyle has been rejected by a very large number of religions and philosophies (including communism, which was aethistic). For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history. If nothing else, if you don't want to bring religion into it, perhaps it is an evolutionary bias to keep us from going extinct."
Well, hell, Jim, y'know what? The Jewish lifestyle has been rejected by a large number of religions and philosophies, so let's kill all the Jews while we're at it.
"You did not address my point. This country is NOT a Christian country. It is perhaps more pluralistic than at any other time in its history. Yet over 70% of those polled reject gay marriage. Why?"
Because they're idiots, Jim. Because people are idiots, and just because there's 70% of them, that doesn't make them more right than the 30% who aren't idiots. A lot more than 70% thought the sun went around the earth, and religious types banned them or killed them, but y'know what? They were right and the majority was wrong.
"Why is this such an obvious big deal to me? Because I do share a fear you have. I don't see the religious right leading us down a path like the Nazi's did to Germany. I see the potential for the liberal left to do so. How?"
Beats me, considering the conservatives are the ones with all the guns.
"I am talking about my right to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, and harmful to the person who engages in such activities."
Say it all you want.
The bottom line (your rather inane comparison to child raising aside) is that no one is asking that gay marriage be made legal. It's being asked that it not be made ILLEGAL. As it stands now, the vast majority of states and the US government do NOT have laws forbidding it. And what they're doing now is trying to change that.
There is one reason and one reason only to make something illegal: Someone's going to be hurt by it.
No one is being hurt by gay marriage. No one.
PAD
Eric!: Well, gays can marry anyone I can marry and I can't marry anyone they can't.
Luigi Novi: Where do you get this repetitive gibberish from? Gays cannot marry those they fall in love with, period. A gay woman can marry anyone you can marry? How so? Assuming from your name that you’re a woman, that means that you can marry a woman, and a gay woman cannot. Hence, gays do not have the right to marry has heterosexuals do.
Jim in Iowa: If you are referring to Iraq, then you are at best inconsistent. It is not necessary for someone to attack us for us to have reason to go to war. Iraq invaded a neighbor, and we chose to go to the defense of Kuwait. I believe that was a valid reason to go to war.
Luigi Novi: Apples and oranges, Jim. Iraq did invade another country then, and we had the support of the international community. Neither was the case here.
Jim in Iowa: But leave that aside for the moment. I would consider any country that sponsored and supported an assasination of a former president as a country that at least attempted to attack us. I would consider a country that DAILY shot at our planes as an attack on our country. To say they did not (and yes, could not) successfully mount an attack on our soil is irrelevant.
Luigi Novi: Bush did not convince Congress and the American people to go war because Saddam shot at planes. He did so based on the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Jim in Iowa: Is this a wrong value to hold? Why does our society treat with disdain the concept that it is better to wait until marriage to have sex?
Den W.: Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive first?
Luigi Novi: Yeah, I mean, when you go buy a car, you ask the salesman lots of questions, like:
“Does it have a nice chassis?”
“Does it get many miles to the gallon?”
“Does it go too fast?”
“Is it hard to turn on in the morning?”
“How many people have ridden it before me?”
“How many people do you think I could fit in there?”
These are important questions regarding both buying cars and sex, after all.
Jim in Iowa: Yes, banning gay marriage is discrimination. But so is banning marriage between a father and daughter. So is banning marriage between a brother and sister. So is banning marriage between an adult and a 13 year old. We legitimately discriminate all of the time. The question is NOT whether it is discrimination, it is WHY we choose to discriminate.
Luigi Novi: There are valid harm to the people involved and to society if parents married children, or siblings each other, or adults and minors. There is no such harm if two consenting, non-related, human ADULTS of the same gender do so. Incest and child molestation are already crimes because the two participants are not both consenting, and not both adults. This does not hold true for adult gays.
Jim in Iowa: I won't repeat what I already posted on another thread (Feel free to discuss the ongoing election results here). My point there is this: Marriage as an institution has never been solely about marrying someone you love.
Luigi Novi: But love is the primary reason people do so today, and is pretty much the reason gays wish to do so.
Jim in Iowa: Marriage as a functional entity in virtually any recorded culture you can find has been about providing the place where kids can be born and raised for the propogation of the family, tribe, and ultimately, the human race.
Luigi Novi: According to wikipedia’s entry for Same-sex marriage, same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded from ancient times in the east. Such desire often took the form of same-sex unions, usually between men, and often included some difference in age (there is far less information available on relationships among women in ancient times. There are a number of possible reasons for this: an attitude that women were not important enough to write about; or that same-sex attraction between women was not valued as it was between men; or that women were not afforded equal status with men, so that, while men were free to pursue sexual and romantic pleasure both within and without marriage, women often were not).
There is a long history of same-sex unions in the western world. That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same sex relationships is well-known. Evidence of same-sex marriage, however, is less clear, but there exists some evidence, often controversial, of same-sex marriages in ancient Rome and Greece, and even in medieval Europe. Same-sex unions have also been recorded among Native Americans and Africans.
In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes, is linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.
Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.
In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature.
Finally, in Europe during Hellenic times, pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities, and also had an erotic component.
As Peter asked, does this describe the state of marriage today?
And who cares even if it were a place for kids to be born? If there are heterosexuals who get married but don’t want kids, why can’t gays?
Jim in Iowa: I am NOT denying a gay person the right to be married as it has been practiced for centuries. The gay community is asking me to fundamentally change the very meaning of marriage
Luigi Novi: Right, because all of a sudden, anti-gay conservatives have become vocabulary freaks.
Jim in Iowa: Let's also say that someone who speeds is the same as someone who drives drunk and kills someone.
Luigi Novi: Here, you’re comparing dangerous illegal behavior that might kill someone with behavior that has killed someone. Your point? What does this have to do with comparing incest and child molestation to gay marriage?
Jim in Iowa: Let's also say that someone who steals a car should be executed along with a murderer and be done with it.
Luigi Novi: Another false analogy. One is theft, and deprives one of their property, and one deprives one of their LIFE. Both are illegal, because both involve immoral, criminal behavior against non-consenting victims. Not so with gay marriage.
Peter David: Gay marriage, on the other hand, and the discouraging thereof, has no basis other than bigotry, mostly steeped in the teachings of a book that also teaches that it's acceptable to put a misbehaving child to death.
Luigi Novi: Careful, there, Peter. You might have Avi Green on your case for insulting yourself. :-)
Jim in Iowa: I am discussing how marriage has always been understood up and until the last 50 years. I am arguing that gay marriage is a radical and fundamental change in how marriage is understood and defined.
Luigi Novi: And the problem with that is…?
Jim in Iowa: For whatever reason you want to give, there is an almost instinctive rejection of homosexuality throughout history.
Luigi Novi: As Peter and I illustrated above, this is a statement made only by people who haven’t researched their history. Me, I did a bizarre thing and actually looked it up. You, on the other hand, just asserted what you assumed was historically true.
Jim in Iowa: Why is this such an obvious big deal to me? Because I do share a fear you have. I don't see the religious right leading us down a path like the Nazi's did to Germany. I see the potential for the liberal left to do so. How? On things like this very issue. The first step is an insistence that we make gay marriage legal. The next step is to then tell those, like myself, that to even suggest that a gay lifestyle is sinful is hate speech and wrong. I am not talking about standing in the streets shouting cruel things at gays. I am talking about my right to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, and harmful to the person who engages in such activities.
Luigi Novi: Conservatives who are against gay marriage want to restrict a right, which is certainly more in line with Nazism then some imagined instance of taking away your “right to say” it’s wrong, which, in view of the 1st Amendment, will never happen. It makes no sense to argue that liberals want to expand rights by allowing gay marriage, but want to get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment. Either you think liberals want to expand rights, or restrict them, Jim. Can’t have it both ways.
Jim in Iowa: Other than for what we consider "first degree murder," you don't find the executions based on the mosaic code for most of the things in the list, which also includes homosexuality.
Luigi Novi: Again, you show your ignorance. AT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_which_permit_or_outlaw_homosexual_behavior, it indicates that in Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, you most certainly DO.
Eric!: The relationship between a gay couple and a heterosexual are different, plain and simple. No matter how hard the majority of Gay couples try they are not going to produce a child, the majority heterosexual couples can.
Luigi Novi: This has nothing to do with the members of the couple