Slashdot Mirror
Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
We're teaming up with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate to ask the two major party candidates "the 12 previously unasked questions that most concern young Americans." This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post. Next week you'll have a chance to help select questions for the candidates from among the top 50 asked by everyone -- not just Slashdot readers -- by first winnowing those down to 20 through the Slashdot moderation system, then by voting on the "final 12" displayed on the New Voters Project site. On October 12 we'll post the answers, and on October 19 we'll post candidate-supplied rebuttals.
Note that the idea here is to solicit questions specifically from voters 18 - 35, because this age group tends to vote less than older Americans, plus questions from people 13 - 17 who will be voters before long. But the question selection process is not age-restricted, and it's where your comments and moderation become most important, because one great hope here is to avoid asking questions the candidates have heard (and answered) over and over.
The other question-selecting moderators are groups like Youth Vote Coalition, Earth Day Network, Rock The Vote, Declare Yourself, and 18to35.org, plus lead moderator Farai Chideya.
Anthony Tedesco, founder of the Presidential Youth Debates, has been doing this since 1996. 2004 is the first time an entire online community has participated in the moderation process. It's a logical evolution of the group-questions idea, and Slashdot is the obvious community to choose not only because of the wide range of political views held by Slashdot readers but also because the primary Presidential Youth Debates tech guy, Dan Collis Puro (AKA Hero Zzyzzx), is a Slashdot member himself (and would be happy if you volunteer to help work on their all-FOSS Web site).
Anyway, this is an interesting experiment. Ask your questions, prepare to moderate and comment next week, and to read the candidates' answers and rebuttals when we post them next month.
The other question-selecting moderators are groups like Youth Vote Coalition, Earth Day Network, Rock The Vote, Declare Yourself, and 18to35.org, plus lead moderator Farai Chideya.
Anthony Tedesco, founder of the Presidential Youth Debates, has been doing this since 1996. 2004 is the first time an entire online community has participated in the moderation process. It's a logical evolution of the group-questions idea, and Slashdot is the obvious community to choose not only because of the wide range of political views held by Slashdot readers but also because the primary Presidential Youth Debates tech guy, Dan Collis Puro (AKA Hero Zzyzzx), is a Slashdot member himself (and would be happy if you volunteer to help work on their all-FOSS Web site).
Anyway, this is an interesting experiment. Ask your questions, prepare to moderate and comment next week, and to read the candidates' answers and rebuttals when we post them next month.
Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?
... I got my mod points *this* week. Unless they're giving mod points to all (for fairness) ;)
Either way, I bet a lot of people will metamoderate that week.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
Should the internet be regulated, and if so, in what way?
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Mr. President, why do you think the Democrats think you're such a bad leader? I think you've done an admirable job, and I can't for the life of me understand why so many people hate you.
"What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."
- Confucius
Still trying to marry your sister, eh?
When do you think is the appropriate time for the patriot act to expire? What action would be required to remove this "temporary" anti-terrorist legislation?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
What I want to know is each candidates position on reinstituting the draft. As someone who is going to be up for selective service once the new president is in office, I am very concerned about this subject. I also miss the election by a few weeks. So I have to deal with the reprocutions of whoever is in office although I don't get to vote.
What about women getting paid time off from work after having a baby ? In Canada women get a whole year off and their job is guarenteed.
Who fired first? What is your opinion on Han firing first? Was it justified? Is he a murderer or a hero? What about revisionist editing by Lucas? Should all /.'ers who get bent out of shape over such matters be detained at Guantanamo Bay? Or just CmdrTaco?
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Mr. President, do you think the word 'whom' has all but died completely? Should it die? Would you pardon it?
The USA incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other nation, due to an out of control War on Drug Users. What will you do to keep me, successful student, productive citizen, and pot smoker, out of jail?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Mr. Bush, I supported your decision to replace Saddam Hussein, and I'm not embarrassed to say that I don't care whether WMDs were found or not.
That being said, why does it seem that no one had a clue about what to do with Iraq once the war was over? With our proven experience in successfully occupying other countries (Germany, Japan), why did we stumble so badly in Iraq?
Follow up: Is it too late to get rid of John Ashcroft? He makes me ashamed to be "conservative"
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
The ultimate tax cut will be when there is no further servicing, paying interest on, the national debt. US tax payers would need only pay about 50% of what they currently do for approximately the same level of service from the federal government. Further, the extra money left to taxpayers would amount to considerable investment and consumer spending. The federal government has cut tax revenue and returned to deficit spending rather than hold spending below revenue and retire the debt. How would you address balancing the federal budget and paying down the debt, so americans will pay far less in taxes?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Politicians promise a lot, and then something different happens. People are always saying that presidents "said one thing, and did something else", but no one ever seems to get in trouble for it. How can we know that you'll keep your promises once you've got the job?
--
make install -not war
You have said that recent CIA estimates of the instability and dire situation in Iraq represent the CIA "just guessing." Since you are choosing to disregard the intelligence community's considered assessment of the situation, on what basis do you formulate your contrary assessment of the situation in Iraq?
1) Mr. Bush, exactly how fucking high were you when your handlers somehow let you say "there are OBGYNs that are unable to practice their love on the women of America"?
2) Mr. Kerry, while I, like many Americans, approve wholeheartedly of your 1-point "Get Bush the Fuck Out of Office" plan to getting America back on track, do you have an actual agenda to win over those of us who wouldn't vote for a stuffed deer head before Bush?
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Bush: Why are you such a sack of shit?
Kerry: What guarantee can you give me that in 4 years you will not have pissed me off as much as Bush has?
Do you feel it is important to reduce the deficit? If so, what are your plans to do so? If not, why?
Kerry,
Is there any reason to vote for you other than you are not President Bush?
You voted for the war. You voted to infringe on our constitutional rights. You voted for the budget that puts our children in debt.
I voted for Bush the first time. I won't do it again. But I can't vote for you either.
I think I will write in the name Chest Notgerman for president this year.
The AC with the most Karma (tie acutally).
What is the biggest mistake you made in the last four years? What were the negative repercussions of that mistake and what have you done to fix it?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
How do you feel about the Patriot act violating the 1st, 4th, and 5th ammendments? And are you prepared to keep sponsering laws that violate the Bill of Rights and undermine the spirit this country was founded on?
What's the difference between you two? I mean, seriously, should I vote for the rich Yaley who was in Skull & Bones and went to Vietnam, or the rich Yaley who was in Skull & Bones who didn't go to Vietnam?
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Maybe it's illegal, but does the Constitution mention it?
In Soviet Russia, the government questions YOU!!!
How likely is it that a draft will be required to keep up our efforts around the globe?
Do you believe fellatio is sex?
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I know that freedom of the press is a good thing, but it seems like there should be some quality checks and balances in a lot of cases, is there a happy medium between policing the media (which we do anyway) and requiring some kind of standard for the media?
With all of the complexities involved in determining what the top questions are, the obvious issue is: who will be counting up the votes as to the top question?
And who will be disenfranchised?
Let's just hope that some competent, open, responsible and honest system is in place to tally everything up. Has anyone considered Diebold?
Why are you so much alike, yet you campaign in a way that makes the American public think that there is a significant difference. I can think of several important areas where you are virtually indistiguishable:
1) Use of Military Power: Both approve of foreign intervention, but one party prefers to get the tacit approval of the international community before invading.
2) Tax Policy: Moving the marginal rates around only makes a difference of a few bucks to the average tax payer. The user fees are almost exclusively a middle-class burden, and neither party looks to decrease any of them.
3) Intellectual Property: Both parties are rushing to become the poster child for media conglomerates. They constantly chastize the 'media', but can't wait to lick their boots when it comes time to pass legislation regarding extending copyright protection (as one sleazy congressperson said: "Forever minus one year").
4) Drug policy: Neither party can put a stop to the madness that the drug war has brought us. Nothing useful has been accomplished in 30 years of police-state enforcement of drug laws. That is, unless you consider the fact that the US leads in per-capita encarceration as a 'positive' social gain.
These are just a few. Why shouldn't we view the Demopublican or Republicratic Parties as two sides of the same bad penny?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
If we ask a question are you just going to tell us what you think we want to hear or are you going to give us your honest answer?
i would like to know what the candidates say about waging an effective war on terrorism. I believe that the stronger candidate will be able to convince Voters that they can provide the safest America possibe and at the least loss of civil liberties.
"Perennially barely legal"
Mr. President, do you believe that the government should decide whether I can marry 3 people simultaneously, or whether one of these "people" can't be a horse or other arbitrary livestock?
Both of my wives agree that the government shouldn't decide!
And what are your views on the subjunctive?
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Do you think that the two-party system is a good thing for America? Would you support voting reforms (instant-runoff, approval voting, etc.) that would make third-party candidates more viable?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Christ, don't you people even read the damn blurb?
This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post.
Let's look ten years out. Since we have a wave of baby boomers planning on retirement, what effect will their retirement have on me, my family, and the nation as a whole.
How will we pay for the trillions that Social Security, Medicaid, and all of the other entitlement programs be handled?
How does having countries like Japan, China, and India who are buying our debt (thus allowing us to spend more money than we have), change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?
Please answer in a fashion which is not compatiable to a 10 sound bite.
Thanks
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Is it possible for a woman to get pregnant without intercourse?
Why the heck do you guys want a name with a question? Doesn't the New York Times process teach us anything?
I do. Marriage is what society holds up to be the ideal. If you disagree, then you must also logically hold polygamy to be a valid form of marriage. Who are we to say that fifteen consenting adults cannot express their love through a committed set of relationships?
Should we stop what private idividuals do behind closed doors? No. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional in my mind. But marriage is a separate issue.
Mr. President, Should the war on terror be faught alone and if not then how can we regain the moral leadership and trust of the international community?
Mr. President, Senator Kerry, why should Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, Michael Peroutka and Ralph Nader be excluded from the Presidential debates? After all, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, John Edwards, etc. were all included in the primary debates.
-moitz-
Screw 'em...who cares what anyone thinks.
Because most of the population can relate to him.
EVERYTHING is better in Canada. We got lots of space... move on in!
Rednecks must move to Alberta.
Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? What did you think of it?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Best deals: Democrats
Best deals: Republicans
Hmm, maybe I can buy a couple congressmen to make the it.slashdot.org "theme" illegal...
Sailors. Oh man!
My wife and I were talking about this and what's funny is that he fits the perfect profile of a communist president.
The questions will not be answered by the two key-people. They will be answered by PR departments.
The key-people will not answer questions straight and honestly, but will waffle around them or lie through their teeth.
The key-people won't even think about holding any words, promises or whatever once they're [still] in office.
So... who cares?
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Dear canidates, please answer truthfuly. Recently, we the public in general have received spam from both campaign offices, as well as from lower offices -- govenors, senators, representatives, mayors. The fundimental problems are this:
First, they are not targeted. Folks in Maryland are getting advertisements in the email for canidates in Texas. California's getting ads for Maine. Republican ads for Democrats and Democratic spam in Repblican hands. The Postal Service is more reliable.
Second, they are violating the host ISP's contracts. Take Senator Kerry's host, Rackspace. Their Terms of Service and Acceptible Use Policy states (and I quote) "Use of the Rackspace network, servers or services to transmit any unsolicited commercial or unsolicited bulk-e-mail is expressly prohibited, as is hosting web sites or services on a server which are advertised in any UCE/UBE." Spams traced back to Senator Kerry's site are in violation of this, and we hope Rackspace removes the site.
It's also to note that the Republicans back in 2000 are also guilty of such spamming. Documentation is already public on Usenet.
Third, THERE IS NO SUCH THING IS LEGAL SPAM! We don't want to eat it. We're paying for the bandwidth that this junk travels through. If you are truly wanting to improve the economy, Senator Kerry and President Bush, why are you not seeking to ban all types of unsolicated bulk email?
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
knowing this site, I expect the winning question for bush will be "I heared that UR just liek hitlar... U eat babys... Y do you steel my freedams?"
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
I don't know why this question got moderated interesting. The government absolutely has the right to decide what marriages it will recognize as being significant to it (for tax reasons, etc.). If you want to live with someone and share a religious or other non-governmental-but-personally-meaningful-state-o f-existence, of course the government can't stop you and won't try.
The end.
Simple question: What is the role of war?
Ryan Fenton
I have some good real questions, but upon thinking about it, I would just like them to admitt that they are doing "what they think is best" by using their own frame of reference. But what they should be doing is to judge their actions based on an impartial or at least multi-faceted viewpoint.
This is completely false. This is not a sig.
or will you stick it out any cost to make sure it becomes a democracy?
But my work puts me in a position where I am able to glean much of the young person zeitgeist.
The thing that most kids want to know is whether they will have jobs when they get out of High School and College. The future looks pretty bleak at this point with a job market that is not improving at a rate fast enough to absorb new graduates into anything but the most lowly and menial jobs. (Not to mention the influx of illegal immigrants that are snapping up those jobs at the expense of the American youth)
During this time of economic decline, do you think it is more important to pour government money into the economy in order to generate more jobs to satisfy the current glut of unemployed workers, or would it be more forward-facing to invest that money in educational grants for post-secondary education thus preparing today's students for the eventual economic upswing?
It may sound like a loaded question, with the obvious answer being to invest in the future rather than quick and easy band-aid solutions now. However, with the limited funds of the government you must choose where to direct that money. Are you willing to go out on a limb and possibly sacrifice votes to invest in the future at the expense of your constituency? Or do you think that by helping your constituency now you can still bring about a future-prepared workforce in the next generation without funding education as much as would be necessary?
Dancin Santa
Why am I paying a fifth of my paycheck for a retirement plan that will be broke before I'm halfway to even thinking about retirement? What will you do to make sure I'm not turned into an indentured servant for retiring boomers?
"I would give my right hand to be ambidextrous."
ME: OMFG have you seen the Halo 2 trailer?!?>11`
PRESIDENCE BUSH: YA!!~ it's like slow and it's telling you all the stuff you did in the first one then the music kicks in and and the chief comes out and gets a gun the earf is on fire and chief is like fuck this im jumping and HE JUMPS PUT OF TEH SPACESHIP with angels singing and he lands on the bad guys and that annoying ai lady is like GO GET EM TIGER! WILDCAT IS ON TEH SPOKE!!!~`1 and theres less polys but rawkin bumb mappings you can view this on a special MICROSOFT xbox disk that comes with EB games store.
Since 9/11, President Bush, you have had a strong push for fighting terror. However, you seemed to have shown little concern for Osama Bin Laden after we went to Iraq. Constantly on the news, we hear more and more about al-Qa'ida, yet you seem to take little concern over them. My question is, will there be a larger focus on finding the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the reason you started this war? Or will our primary focus be in Iraq, which has not been a threat to our country?
As a followup question, what effect does this have on the health of democracy in states where a criminal record can render one ineligible to vote?
Best deals: Republicans
Awesome! I've been looking for some great deals on low-cost Republicans. I've been scouring eBay daily without much success.
I never new pricegrabber.com had such a wide variety of things in stock.
You don't need to read TFA to see this...
--
My bad karma is directly proportional to slashdotters stupidity
What do you think of NESARA.us and FairTax.org?
...what business does government have in framing public policy around a religious institution?
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post
President Bush and Senator Kerry, what are you going to do about the literacy problem in this country, particularly as it relates to people who post to Slashdot and can't read simple instructions in the article?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Should Purto Rico reamin commonwealth of the United States?
Indecision may, or may not be my problem! -- Jimmy Buffett
if bush wins this election, may god have mercy on us all!
With entitlement programs such as Social Security projected to cost trillions of dollars in the near future, how do you propose to reform the system in a manor that's fair to current recipients, as well as the 20-somethings who will probably never see a dime under the current system?
As we all know, if we want social programs, someone must pay for them. How do you address the fact that currently we are shoving a massive amount of debt onto future generations, by continuing to spend much more than we actually have? Surely, we must either cut spending drastically, raise taxes, or both. And as a secondary question, how do you address the fact that forcing someone to involuntarily pay for someone else's social programs amounts to government-sponsored theft?
MORTAR COMBAT!
To Bush: As part of your Vision for Space Exploration that you laid out earlier this year, do you intend to direct NASA in the direction of human settlement of space, or just scientific research.
To Kerry: As president, would you direct NASA to continue with human space exploration of planetary bodies or would you contract it's focus to Earth and near-Earth subjects? (Please provide specifics as previous answers to this have been very vague.)
Blaze a trail to the New World
Are you concerned that neither of you shows up under "Best deals: Republicans" or "Best deals: Democrats" in the link collection at the right? How do you plan to address this?
What about the other candidates?
"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"*
*$2315.36 Bounty to the first person to ask George W. Bush this question in a public forum.
Contact john_goldstone@nospamyahoo.com with documentation to claim your reward!
That's a friggin retarded argument if I've ever read one.
The original question basically was, "What's the big deal about gay marriage?"
Throwing in polygamy into the mix is NOT the same thing. The current argument is for 2 same sex people getting married, and if there should be a constitutional ban on that (which I say no!).
I'm not sure what you meant by "marriage is what society holds up to be the ideal." Ideal what?
Why shouldn't two same sex people be married? Keep in mind any religious based arguments are null - separate church and state for a minute, and make the argument. I bet you will not have one reason that holds up to the constitution.
A good question with youth-interest:
A lot of people are talking about a military draft for various reasons. Can you definitely rule-out a military draft? If it can't be completely ruled-out, what events might or might not evenutate a military draft?
Hopefully, the answers to that question will put an end to all the unsupported scare-mongering about the draft.
do you truly believe that your "band of brothers" and other troops are monsters? or that 2000 vietnamese died or fled after the war? are you happy with the freedoms in vietnam now?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Let me begin by saying that prior to moving to California I was considerably less sympathetic to gays and lesbians. Having worked side-by-side with many with alternative lifestyles, I've come to appreciate they are no less human and no less entitled to all rights and privileges because of their choice of partners. Some I even consider good friends. How could I suggest withholding certain liberties to friends?
I associate this issue strongly with the civil rights struggles of african americans, who even had caucasians telling them who they could and could not marry, lest some harm come to them. The issue is effectively the same, a fundamental civil right of people who marry who they choose, without threat of physical harm or legal injunction.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not for the chosen or political elite, but everyone.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What's insightful about this? Comparing two citizens getting married to bestiality? Is anyone *seriously* threatened by this idea?
"Oh no! The horse marriers are destroying society!"
Whatever. Try again, loser.
So far, it seems as if this campaign has been about 30-year old government documents, typefaces, and who did what in 1969 or 1974. I have never experienced a presidential campaign that went so negative so early.
My questions are these: is this what we can expect from every campaign from now on? What happened to a frank and honest discussion of issues? How negative does a campaign have to get before voters give up and stay home on Election Day?
How do we break out of this cycle? Is the will to power so strong that winning an election at the expense of damaging the political process is seen as a legitimate outcome?
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
You no longer count in any statistics once you're there ;)
To both candidates:
If (re)elected, what will you do for the country in way of patent reform? With businesses big and small snapping up patents for COMMON and already public domain ideas/systems/methods only to use said patents for the purpose of preventing competition (i.e. Monopolistic Behavior), or suing everyone to make a quick buck - the system is obviously broken and no longer protects - but stifles innovation.
Some patents include (and there are thousands more, some even better examples)
Task List Patent:
"Use of a Task List generated from a "TODO" list" (Microsoft P#6,748,582)
URL and Domain Name Patented:
"Method , apparatus and business system for online communication with online and offline recipients" (Nizza Group, P# 6,671,714)
Email Forwarding Patented:
" Systems and methods for automatically forwarding electronic mail when the recipient is otherwise unknown " (Mail Registry, Inc. P# 6,427,164)
= Grow a brain...
You both want to reduce our indepence on foreign oil. Mr Kerry you and the Democrat party oppose oil exploration in the United States. President Bush, you support oil exploration in the US. Can both of you describe how you will implement this plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and also explain why this would be advantageous?
Dear Mr. Bush-
What does Israel have on us that allows them to basically dictate our foreign policy (especally when it comes to which middle eastern nations we invade and threaten to invade in the name of "terrorism")?
Why do you allow Israel to conduct covert espionage mission within the United States? Also- When the spies are cought (especally in war time)
why are they sent home, instead of being put on trial?
Why do you ignore the fact that Israel is the only nation in the middle east with means to deliver large-scale nuclear attack? I thought you were out to rid the world of WMD.
Why have you turned a blind eye to the genocide in Sudan as well as the growing threat from North Korea?
Why have you been unable to locate Osama Bin Laden?
Why did you fight an independant investigation into 9/11 at first?
Why was the wreckage from 9/11 removed from the scene of the crime so quickly?
With all of the accounting scandals in the news these days, the largest ongoing accounting scandal is being done by the US government through a cash accounting method. Would you be in favor of implementing GAAP for the US government's finances?
Actually, I'm trying to marry his sister. He's trying to stop our forbidden love...
Nevermind not reading the article, you guys haven't read the post it seems.
I quote from above:
"This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post."
I reiterate: "... submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post."
Mr.President, Do you believe that during a time of international crisis and with our responsibility to fight the war on terror that we as American's should not accept that responsibility ourselves through taxes?
Decreasing the amount of debt held by foreign entities should also be considered, so that we can keep the interest dollars in our country. Significantly cutting the debt would allow less interest to paid. This would allow the government to maintain the same levels of funding, perhaps increase funding, and perhaps lower taxes. If the ratio is pushed to 1:15 or even 1:20, imagine what we could do.
My questions is this: if this realization came easily to a sophomore in college, why is this not screamingly obvious to politicians in Washington? What are your realistic ideas about significantly reducing the debt over the next 5-10 years? (Note: I do not want vague answers like "cut the debt in half," I want specific ideas and plans.
(aren't we a bit beyond the whole pissing on each other's character? Who really listens to that stuff anyway?)
For both candidates ...
Why haven't weapons of mass destruction been found? If we have the technology to detect them, shouldn't we have the technology to find where they went after the invasion? Or can we now admit that Iraq likely did not have weapons of mass destruction?
It was claimed that Iraq could launch a near immediate attack on American interests with these weapons of mass destruction. Please name five "rogue" countries who actually do have weapons of mass destruction that could readily be launched on American interests.
Finally, it has been stated that even if no WMD have been found, it was worth it to liberate the Iraqi people. Plenty of other areas of the world have suffered under the ruthless leadership of corrupt men. When can we expect that the United States military will invade the following countries with the intent of liberating their people: China, Russia, North Korea, the littany of countries in Africa where genocide has become commonplace?
What Mr. President still thinks about the weapons of mass destructions in Iraq?
Officially, I think it's been stated that "Iraq had the potential possibility of someday creating a program to research and develop such weapons" and that "Yes, that all along was the real reason for going to war, this possibility that they someday might become an iminent threat".
MORTAR COMBAT!
To both candidates:
If (re)elected, what will you do for the country in way of patent reform? With businesses big and small snapping up patents for COMMON and already public domain ideas/systems/methods only to use said patents for the purpose of preventing competition (i.e. Monopolistic Behavior), or suing everyone to make a quick buck - the system is obviously broken and no longer protects - but stifles innovation.
Some patents include (and there are thousands more, some even better examples)
Task List Patent:
"Use of a Task List generated from a "TODO" list" (Microsoft P#6,748,582)
URL and Domain Name Patented:
"Method , apparatus and business system for online communication with online and offline recipients" (Nizza Group, P# 6,671,714)
Email Forwarding Patented:
" Systems and methods for automatically forwarding electronic mail when the recipient is otherwise unknown " (Mail Registry, Inc. P# 6,427,164)
= Grow a brain...
US students are currently at a disadvantage by not being surrounded by the metric system as most students in the rest of the modernized world are. Although many studends are taught the metric system in school, do you have any plans to further along the transition to the metric system?
I would like to hear from Mr. Kerry his direct response to allegations that he has broken multiple gun control laws and at least one that never made it to law (but he supported) when accepting an auto loading (or, in his words, "rapid fire") shotgun while on the campaign trail. This gun was accepted outside of his state of residency so there are multiple potential felony offenses here if he accepted the gift and took it home to Massachusetts. The value of the gun exceeds the maximum cash donation under current campaign finance laws, as well.
From Mr. Bush, I would like to know if he has a permit for the revolver he keeps in the oval office. As we all know, the District of Columbia has some of the strictist gun control laws in the country. Yet Mr. Bush keeps a gun in a federal office, and regularly shows it off to guests.
If I could have a followup, I'd like to ask both candidates to clarify allegations of hypocrisy on gun control issues. For example, Mr. Kerry claims to be pro-Second Amendment, though his Senate voting record clearly shows he is one of the most anti-gun politicians in US history. From Mr. Bush I would like to know why he claims to support tougher gun control legislation, but then doesn't follow through with action.
what are your plans...if any to ensure that social security is still there by the time my generation needs it, and i don't mean what would you like to do, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
Search thomas.loc.gov. It will be voted on. On other matters concerning the draft, they can't keep 'stop lossing' forever and the second most insecure job in the US Military is the one in charge of recruitment. People are not lining up to join. It is just a matter of time.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
How are you going to support, encourage and protect freedom of information? (I'm assuming you will, aren't you?)
How well do you know each other? Is it true that you two were classmates?
(tinhats on) Is it true that both of you belong to the Skull and Bones secret society?
How about this, for Bush: Yaser Hamdi was imprisoned for two years, in solitary confinement, without access to counsel, without ever being charged. Your administration argued before the Supreme Court that he was so dangerous he could rightly be locked up forever, without ever facing trial or having the opportunity to answer charges against him. This week your administration has determined that he is free to go, and will never be charged with anything. Why, if he was so dangerous he had to be detained indefinitely, did you let him go? And why, if he was so little danger that he will not even be charged with anything, did you go all the way to the Supreme Court to defend locking him up forever?
Why is it that Republicans don't act like Republicans and Democrats don't act like Democrats anymore? The only recent president who demonstrated overall fiscal responsibility was Bill Clinton, and the only recent president who wanted to so far as to amend the Constitution for increasing government intervention was George W. Bush. I see Kerry advocating free trade for pharmaceuticals, and I am just completely confused about what the two big parties actually stand for. The voters stubbornly vote Republican or Democrate, because they believe in their ideology. However, if they really listened to what the canidates were saying, they would probably glaze over in complete befuddlement.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Here are a few questions I'd like to ask Mr. John Kerry-Heinz 57 and El Presidente George Dubya Bush:
...
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Do you still beat your wife?
Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
What is the meaning of the word 'is'?
If an orange is called an orange because of it's colour, why isn't a banana called a yellow?
What did you know and when did you know it?
And finally
Why do dogs have wet noses?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
I'd like to ask both candidates: 1. Do you think it's right for China to have the "Most Favored Nation" status in foreign trade, even though they continually violate people's human rights. and 2. Do you fair trade is fair to the American worker when people overseas can live on less than half the money Americans need to survive here, and companies overseas have no labor laws. Isn't "Fair Trade" as it is championed today just an excuse for US businesses to get cheap, powerless labor?
But what is the difference between a man marrying a woman, a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman? What real difference is there?
We're not talking about polygamy here, or animal husbandry - just the union of two people in love. Where does the government get off trying to interfere with that?
seriouslyexcited.net
I am a recent college graduate and am now starting to pay significant social security taxes. Why should I believe that I will see a reasonable return on the taxes I will be paying, if there is any return at all? Should I not be exempt from paying the tax if I will get no benefits?
Mr. President and Mr. Senator, recently a humorous clip called "This Land" has begun circulating the media. In this clip, this election has been mocked as nothing more than a childish name-calling session between the two of you. Yet the clip has only grown in popularity, suggesting that it represents the population's feelings about this election. What are your thoughts on the video, it's popularity, and how it has affected you personally?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Why is federal govt. so concerned with controlling marriage, yet not at all concerned with setting any "ground rules" for divorce?
A couple can get a marriage license in 10 minutes as long as they have $50 or less for the filing fees - but a divorce (especially if children are involved) turns into piles of legal issues that can take as long as years to get through.
Meanwhile, I hear very few complaints about government's handling of the whole marriage process (mistakes in issuing the licenses, or problems when someone needs their last name changed), but can barely find ANYONE who has been through a divorce who felt the whole thing was handled quickly and efficiently, and was relatively fair/equitable for all parties involved.
It strikes me as ridiculous that government would want to concern themselves with anything on the whole marriage side of the equation, when there's so much MORE that needs addressing on the divorce/seperation side!
Would you have sex with an intern in the oval office ?
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
Why many people feel that saying nothing or asking nothing will achieve exactly that, I do question the point of asking politicians anything.
Most often, with any real issue, they avoid answering by rambling something offtopic or providing such a vague answer that you are left confused.
I really do not see any real purpose to asking questions to the President or Prime Minister or Dictator of any country. There is far too much corruption and far too much deception occurring in modern governments to believe they will actually listen.
No offense to the American people, but I am very skeptical of their government's practises. I am not promoting the Canadian government in any way, as one of the reasons our healthcare and eductation systems are in trouble is the government.
I am quite confident that Slashdot readers will submit excellent questions. Unfortunately, I am also confident that the fearless leaders will do unjust by providing horrible answers.
IMHO, most governments need to be closer watched and controlled by the people, not by organizations or the quest for power and money.
In my mind, I don't see why the government can decide this. But there is always the problem of, whered do you draw the line. OK, so I'm for gay marriage, if 2 people are that committed to each other, so be it. But then do you have to draw the line at inter-family marriage? Multiple spouses? Where does the government start to draw the line at the legallity of marriage? Do we go by what is socially acceptable? Where is that line drawn? Now what gets me is why this has to be a constitutional ammendment. That seems a little blown out of proportion.
This space intentionally left blank.
That's absolutely silly. "Horse or other arbitrary livestock" is clearly not a person.
or "Do you have any more wars planned that you would like to tell us about?"
Mr Bush, Why are you such a dick?
Mr Kerry, Why are you such a dick?
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Emacs or vi?
+99 Funny
He obviously does, otherwise he would not have pushed for his amendment.
So, sodomy laws are unconstitutional, but two gay guys getting hitched is? Which amendment is that, specifically?
And you're right, marriage is something society holds up to be an ideal, which is probably why gay people *want* to get married, and is part of the reason it should be allowed.
It really baffles me why this is even an issue. Civilians are being beheaded in Iraq by foreign fighters, genocide is happening in Sudan, and still people are freaking out about pairs of guys wanting to say "I do".
Oh no! Whatever shall we do!!! Next they'll be letting black guys marry white girls, and maybe show them kissing on television!!! Our society will crack under the strain!! The horror!!
Goddamn. People need to friggin grow up.
P.S. Yes, who is to say that "fifteen consenting adults cannot express their love through a committed set of relationships?" You?
AyeRoxor!: Mr. President, do you think the word 'whom' has all but died completely? Should it die? Would you pardon it?
Bush: Son, there's no such word as hoom.
Mr. President, Do you believe the government should decide who should marry who?
Even better yet, Mr President and Mr Kerry, should the government even be involved in social issues? The American Government was originally made to
1. Provide for a national defense
and
2. Regulate interstate trade
It hasn't even got #1 right yet, as we saw on September 11th. Shouldn't it focus on these issues before it worries about who anyone marries, if someone is getting an abortion, etc.
They have to maintain the illusion that there's actually a difference between the two parties. So now and then, he'll say the opposite of what Bush says to keep that illusion alive. That's his job as "challenger".
Wan't to know where he really stands? Just read Bush's positions.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The question I want to know is why does the US government continue to mislead the public regarding the events which transpired at Roswell New Mexico in 1947? Both Bush and Kerry are members of Skull and Bones and they know everything about what happened there. I've also put this question up on my blog by the way.
So what? Why should we care what young people think? They have no clue how the world works, so their concerns are meaningless until they grow-up...
Oh, and of course mod me into oblivion for speaking the truth..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I would like your comments on the following http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=2004 0525
Is it true that: At a recent appearance at the City College of New York, Kerry talked to an audience of students about, of all things, "tax-code reform, outsourcing, Social Security and Medicare."
er. the law, which is what we're discussing here, only applies to people. can a horse be charged with murder? does it need to submit income tax returns? no. and it can marry or be banned from marrying either. your point is moot.
if you're going to argue against gay marriage then i would request that you stay away from over-dramatic implementations of the slippery slope fallacy.
2 1337 4 u!
What we should ask ourselves and not the President is it is actually good strategy to lower our commitment in a time of war.
The taxes will always be there as the price we pay for living in America. This price provides benefits such as the internet, radio, and scientific building blocks which in the future will allow us to compete in a global economy but not just for economic reasons would a tax cut at this time be bad, it would also be bad because we have a war on terror to fight.
What we as well as the President should ask ourselves is if we are seriously committed to this war on terror and what are we willing to sacrifice for increased security of both ourselves physically and security of our economy. This requires investments. We cannot be the greatest nation on the earth if we don't pay our taxes and fight our wars.
It's our responsibility to pay taxes, its Bush's responsibility to properly spend this money. We are the share holders and Bush is our CEO.
As long as said religion adheres to protestant rules. Mormons are just one of many sects that have their religious freedom imposed upon.
So if I wanted to have Dan Rather report that the hot fashion of the day is to stuff your pants with fig newtons, how much would that cost?
Thanks Mr Kerry!
What are your plans to make sure I still have a technical related job in the future?
By some latest counts, already 37,000 Iraqis have been killed since invasion of Iraq -- majority of them, admittedly, are not insurgents. That's 37 Iraqis for every American soldier killed. Q-1 : How many Iraqis is it "all right" to kill before it becomes worthwhile to have toppled one Saddam Hussein -- All for the sake of some non-existent WMDs? Q-2 : Why doesn't the US keep an official count of the number of Iraqis killed? What's the justification behind the "we don't keep body count" policy?
If gays can marry then I demand the human right to marry 10 people.
Now seriously, by altering the definition of marriage how do you not open the debate of polygamy?
In this day and age, college tuition is on a very sharp increase. Financial Aid doesnt always work like its supposed to and Loans arent always granted appropriately. What will you do to help lower college tuition to encourage more americans to attend school for the first time, or even re-enroll at a middle age thus increasing advances and proficiency in many areas of the United States.
as no true conservative is a supporter of imperialism.
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)?
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Paizurishitetai desu ka?
Mister Presidunce, how many times have you been arrested?
Why are you a lying to the entire planet about Iraq? Oh and ... where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
PS: It's nuclEAr
With much love,
- Some random Canadian.
There are essentially four "pillars" to marriage in the US:
1. You can only marry someone that is not married to someone else.
2. You can only marry someone that is of the opposite gender.
3. You can only marry someone of the appropriate age.
4. You can only marry someone that is not too closely related to you.
(I'm ignoring such obvious issues as the fact that the person has to be a living human being etc).
You can't just decide to remove one of these pillars and expect the other three to hold. If two women can get married then why can't the Hilton sisters marry each other? Why can't three people get married? If we don't allow it, aren't we discrimating against the civil rights of "bi-sexuals"?
This is a perfect example of a question that should NOT be asked.
ANSWERS:
G. Bush: Yes the gov. should decide.
J. Kerry: No the gov. should not decide.
Simple.
Do you plan your personal (family) budget the same way you plan the nations (federal) budget?
-- &&
CB
Penis count.
Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children, but given that something like 80% of parents shouldn't have been allowed to breed, I don't see a problem with it.
What's up with the whole "We're pregnant, aren't we clever?" attitude. Its not like getting up the duff is particularly difficult. Hell... every species from sandflies up do it. The hardpart is bringing up baby, but it seems that once they've popped it out, it becomes SEP (somebody else's problem).. usually their teachers', the government's, etc etc.
Anyway, if non-vanilla sex between consenting adults was wrong, they wouldn't enjoy it so much.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Now that's funny! Where's my mod points when I needum?
Sirs,
Will there be a military draft in the next four years?
Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward
But what is the difference between a man marrying a woman, a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman? [snip] We're not talking about polygamy here, or animal husbandry
No, we're talking about the penis, stupid.
akad0nric0
This sentence no verb.
Should I be able to retain my anonymity?
Here's what the president's answer might be...
"My biggest mistake was underestimating the resistance in Iraq, which is currently fed by a stream of terrorists entering that country in order to destabilize Iraq and demoralize Iraqis and Americans. Had I known then what I know now, I would have used our coalition troops to better protect the Iraqi borders from those terrorists and to ensure Iraqi citizens that we are working with their own and our own best interests in mind.
"The negative repercussions are the continued violence and suicide attacks against foreigners and even Iraqis who support a peaceful, democratic Iraq, instead of a militarily-enforced dictatorship, or a theocratic government imposing strict religious law on all who live in the country.
"To repair this problem, we will stand firm as we progress toward a truly independent and self-governing Iraq. We will not be deterred by the terrorists, and we will use all methods at our disposal to eliminate their threat, not to cower to it, or to make consessions to it. We will make the world a better place by allowing Iraqis to demonstrate that everyone in this world has the right to live in a self-governed democratic society."
What do you propose to do about funding higher education in this country? The amount of aid given to most students is paltry compared with the cost of higher education, whose cost is only increasing.
When you gave this speech you had no idea of what was to come in terms of commitment and loss of US lives. What was it that you did not know at that time?
This is a question for both candidates:
The Bush administration is the most secretive government in American history, retroactively classifying public data, holding secret meetings to decide public policy, and refusing to hold regular press conferences.
Mr. Candidate, will you acknowledge the public's right to participatory government and oversight, and open the process of government to public inspection? Will you commit to monthly press conferences, truly OPEN press conferences where the questions are not picked in advance?
So, given that you are all for letting essentially anyone get married whether it's fifteen people, a pair, brother/sister, same gender etc. At this point, what meaning does marriage have anymore? Why not just get rid of it if this is your attitude towards it?
Bear in mind, too, that society once held racial discrimination laws up to be the ideal. Indeed, the majority still favored them when they were struck down as Unconstitutional. Do you think the courts were wrong to do what they did? Do you think they should have deferred to the will of the majority instead of favoring the rights of the minority?
Why should we put such stock in the whim of "society's ideal" when our nation's legal foundation has some pretty clear positions on the importance of human rights and liberty? Why should the liberty of some be sacrificed for the religious particulars of others?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
When are we going to legalize it?
No candidate is going to support a draft before an election, but when Kerry promised not to reinstitute the draft if he was elected, Bush called him irresponsible.
Does this mean Bush is planning on reinstituting the draft, or is just trying to keep his options open? Who knows, only time will tell.
This is the absolutely right time to cut taxes (and spending), with global competition fiercer than ever, having a streamlined government is a necessity. Taxes are a necessary evil but they should be as low as possible.
Plus cutting taxes is the best way to give everyone a bump up in standards of living.
Wake up moderators!
The LDS church no longer advocates polygamy. However, as this was due to the political/legal issues rather than genuine religious discourse, and the fact that our anti-polygamy laws were designed to target them made me include them in this list.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
We're not talking about polygamy here, or animal husbandry - [...]
What happens when furries, et al. start doing extensive body modifications?
I bet you will not have one reason that holds up to the constitution.
No shit. That's why they're trying to amend it.
It seems to me that both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry are all about educating the workforce, job creation, and lowering costs for businesses.
However, it has been well documented that as far as broadband and our data infrastructure is concerned, that we are falling far behind many other countries (like Korea and Sweden) as far as the availability of broadband.
Question: Wouldn't an infrastructure overhaul work wonders for job creation (alot of bodies and materials needed to lay all that fiber), new service creation (saturation of high speed data/digital into homes and businesses), and education (distance learning!)?
Follow up: What are your feelings on the government taking over the infrastructure and then leasing the lines to competing companies (sort of like the wireless spectrum) instead of allowing local providers (cable in particular) to have a monopoly on services?
1)What is your feeling on the fact that we supplied Saddam with many the weapons of mass destruction that we went to war with him for having?
2)Do you believe that the American way of life is right for every country?
3)Why is such a simple phrase as "Under God", which has only been a part of our Pledge of alliegiance since the 50's such an important part of our national identity that it is portrayed as unpatriotic to question its place in our secular institutions?
4)What is the place of religion in politics, in your opinion?
5)How are you or your family adversely affected by gay and lesbian couples being able to marry.
I have a whole bag...
So here goes:
Do you believe that the president should, in a country with a separation of church and state, make public references in his speeches to an hypothetical god.
Should the president's religious beliefs interfer with the country's foreign policy (ie: calling a crusade, defining "good" and "evil")?
The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
It means people can come together and express their love and devotion for eachother for the rest of their lives. Duh.
So, you're idea is we should get rid of marriage because this definition does not preclude gays from hooking up?
Hey, are you my wife?
Can I put the penis in the palm?
Perhaps we should have a constitutional amendment against that as well.
vi || emacs?
I think you mean bestiality...animal husbandry has been an acceptable practice for a few thousand years now...
One of the things I have found particularly alarming about the Bush Administration has been the assault on basic and fundamental consitutional protections. These include statements by Ashcroft that they would ignore judicial orders to release detainees after Sept. 11th, and comments by Rumsfeld that the right to habeus corpus, trial, etc. should be waived if the administration feels that this is in the public interest (i.e. that we don't want Jose Padilla to be, in his words, "lawyered up").
Bush: How do you respond to people who are very much concerned that your administration does not want basic to protect the basic checks and balances of our system?
Kerry: What are your thoughts on these issues? Why should I conclude that your administration will not continue these policies?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Mr. President, if the government makes laws concerning marriage to confer rights, privileges and benefits, doesn't that mean the government can decide who gets those rights, privileges and benefits? A better question (that isn't completely missing the point, as this one clearly does) is "Should the government have any laws regarding marriage, etc.? If so, how do I go about making them say what I want them to say?" If you think a constitutional amendment is the "government" deciding who should marry who, then you need to take a civics course. And listen this time.
1. What the fuck is wrong with you, giving tax cuts only to rich people in a recession? Are you trying to push us into a depression?
2. What the fuck is wrong with you, sending America's sons and daughters to die in an illegal war, encouraging even more terrorism?
3. Have you no soul?
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Oil is a finite resource. Most of the oil is under countries that are known to be either politically unreliable or unstable or down right hostile. What is your administration going to do to get the US to an electricity based economy before peak oil?
Do you believe that when a war crime is committed, that the accused should be tried before the war crimes tribunal at the Hague?
If yes, do you think American citizens and/or officials are uniquely exempt from this rule, and on what grounds?
If no, do you believe we should petition the Hague to release Milosevic and drop all charges?
Actually, I think part of this question is actually quite good. The question needs to be re-phrased as:
Mr Kerry: why do you change your opinions so readily? Do you see reasons, or is it simply to get votes?
Mr Bush: why do you NOT change your opinions? Is well-reasoned analysis or just you being stubborn?
If either candidate could answer this question honestly, I think it could make a difference for a lot of undecided voters. In either direction.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
No, my point is that you are deluting marriage down to such a low level as to make it meaningless so why stop what you've started?
Can't you see the madness of it all? Dammit, man! Open your eyes! They won't be satisfied until they've destroyed the very fabric of the universe!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Government cannot avoid morality decisions. Unless you choose anarchy, there are a thousand and one things that government does that are in the sphere of morality. Your complaint seems to be that some people in government actually have a basis for their morality, beyond their whims.
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
Government has long had that role, and is not going to give it up anytime soon. It's a little hypocritical to start complaining about it *now*, when a convenient pet issue comes up.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
Replacing all legal marriage with "civil unions" isn't even on the table, so it's kind of pointless to discuss, other than as a rhetorical or debating trick.
Just playing DA here:
If the definition of marriage is to move away from the union of a man and a woman, and instead be two consenting people, then why not three?
What is the real difference?
It is my belief that most Americans hold generally moderate/centrist political viewpoints. Yet it appears that both parties are moving toward thier extremes. Wedge issues that affect only a few such as gay marriage seem to be taking center stage over issues like the federal deficit that affect every American. Since those that hold more extreme viewpoints are also the most active politically and financially, I can understand the temptation of parties and candidates to move in these directions. Unfortunately, politicians with moderate views are coming under attack more and more from within thier own parties. To folks like me, it is a disturbing trend as each party becomes less and less appealing.
My question is this, Can you tell me if and why there is room in your party for moderates/centrists?
That's the real question. If the pro-gay-marriage advocates get the federal legislature to rewrite the law, fine, so be it, that's our Constitutionally-limited government at work. But this business of having UNELECTED JUDGES rewrite law in clear violation of their Constitutional restraints has got to stop. The anti-gay-marraige amendment is just a ham-handed (and ultimately ineffective) swipe at the root issue.
Original intent matters. If the Constitution is a "living document" that means whatever the hell a judge says it means, law becomes arbitrary and we're on the road to dictatorship.
But what is the difference between a man marrying a woman, a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman? What real difference is there?
Only one of those serves the real purpose of marriage: Keeping track of patriarchal family trees.
Marriage is a contract by which a woman enters into an exclusive sexual relationship with a man in exchange for material gain. If gay people are so desperate to be declared "normal" by emulating the rites and tradition of the patriarchal society that they reject by their lifestyle choice, then they should go see a mental health specialist instead of trying to have laws change to accomodate their insecurities.
P.S. I firmly believe that if people want to be with people of the same sex as theirs, and they find someone with whom to live happily that way, then nobody should get in their way. But marriage isn't for them. You don't need marriage to be with someone, you just need to be with them. Civil unions will give you all the tax breaks you want.
P.P.S. If you are gay and you want to follow the rites and traditions of the patriarchy, then become a priest or a nun. If you want to reject those traditions, don't do it half-assed and demand to be included in the tradition of marriage.
You can't take the sky from me...
Both candidates have been victims of FUD attacks from 527 organizations. Should laws be enacted that force groups to take more accountability for the untruthful content in their message? What way would you deal with this issue?
Presidient Bush,
What concrete actions have you done to improve our national security and to make advances on the "War on terror"?
I have heard no admittance that our air defense and that of NORAD had failed on 9/11/01, nor have I heard of any changes to those systems that would prevent a similar air attack. I also would like to know why our military does not physically defend our land and sea borders. With a defense fiscal budget of over 420 billion dollars for 2005 its pretty embarassing that most anyone (and millions do) just walk into this country without a question asked.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"
From The World's Shortest Blog.
Yet Another Web Site
"Mr. President, why are you such a flaming fucktard?"
Evidence:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Po
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/
Mr. President, you are actively working to ban homosexual marriage. Do you consider this restriction of rights descrimination against homosexuals or not and is the USA going twards a faith based rule instead of a government with church and state separated?
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Slashdotters:
Wow. You are a fiesty lot!
Please remember to submit any questions you want to be considered for voting to the New Voters Project Youth Debate site.
Post 'em here, by all means! But remember to submit them to the main site if you want them to have a shot of getting voted up to go to Senator Kerry or President Bush.
In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:
D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
The details of these bills are here:
H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors
S.89 | Text
By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.
Details:
H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors
D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]
I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.
This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...
I hope this information is found useful.
PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.
"If you are putting it in the butt, make a note."
Yeah, to hang onto that one!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Exactly, this is the argument that the pro-same-sex marriage advocates don't want you to hear. It's one thing to convince America to let men marry men, it's quite another to completely throw out all requirements for marriage (incest, polygamy, samegender). Much easier to do the former and ignore the fact that you can't do it without also doing the latter.
Do me a favor and check the candidates positions before spouting off again. Thanks!
Mr. Kerry, what is your administration's stance on man/robot unions?
Question:
Will you legalize cannabis?
If yes:
What steps will you take to make this happen?
If no:
Why not?
TO the presidential hopeful and the incumbent:
It is true that the FCC commissioner said that fines against Oprah for a particularly raunchy dialog will not be levied, because "she is beloved", while fines against Howard Stern are imminent, because he's "a lightning rod". How can such a subjective decision be made with taxpayer dollars outside of the courtroom? Shouldn't indecency issues be handled by courts instead of by the FCC, if fines are to be dispensed? Where are the clear rules about what can be said and what can't (i.e. very, very specific, so no one's surprised by a fine)? I believe that specific rules are necessary, or else all indecency calls become subjective and should be handled by the taxpayers INDIVIDUALLY by TURNING THE CHANNEL if they are offended, in much the same way that in real life when someone is offensive, you can just walk away.
stuff |
How many times have you been arrested?
From the if-you-don't-vote-you-have-no-right-to-complain dept.
I resent that.
I've been living in the US, legally, for over six years now.I did my best to be allowed to vote in November. I applied for US Citizenship as soon as I could after being eligable (which was three days later than I was - I was out of town). I followed all the instructions to the letter - which unfortunately meant I did some things wrong because the instructions are incorrect.
I finally had my interview/citizenship test on August 26th. But for some reason, "You will be notified about the result on the same day" turned into "We'll let you know in 3-4 months".
Yes, part of this might be because I didn't supply some documents which I was never requested to supply.
So no, I'm probably not going to vote in November. But not for lack of trying. And if you think I'm not going to complain, you're sorely mistaken.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
You have stated publicly many times that you have a better plan for Iraq then what we have in place now. Will this plan be put forth to congress for the better of the country regardless of you status (win/lose) in the upcomming election?
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
In other words, you proposing the Domino Theory of marriage. If you were alive in the mid-1950s, you would have been saying that we should send troops into Vietnam, because if Vietnam fell to the Communists, then Japan would be next. Pretty soon, the commies are marching straight down Main Street in Omaha, Nebraska.
The Domino Theory was discredited as a legitimate argument for anti-communisma a long time ago. Although I don't have any proof, I doubt it is a valid argument against gay marriage. Try to come up with a btetter argument.
First of all, the government doesn't "prevent" marriage. People have marriage ceremonies without the government's consent, and it doesn't matter. The question is (a) should government recognize marriage, and (b) in what cases should government recognize marriage.
If marriage is viewed as an act of love, then government has not reason for involvement whatsoever. However, if you view marriage as the foundation platform for a family, then that view changes, for several reasons:
1) Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.
2) When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
When marriage is viewed as a foundation for a family, then there are legal reasons for the government to recognize or not recognize certain marriages (but again, legal recognition of marriage is not equivalent with marriage).
On a different topic, one could also point out the absurdity of calling anything between same-sex partners "marriage". Even in the past when same-sex relationships were viewed as being better than man-woman relationships, same-sex relationships were not considered, even for a second, marriage. Why? Because marriage is more about family than it is about affections.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Try 'Darwin'. By any scientific standard, if homosexuality is genetic like almost everyone claims, then it is a genetic defect. We should not have laws on the books that say this is fine.
Hold up to the constitution? Show me anything in the constitution that says marriage cannot be regulated. Please don't give me 'pursuit of happiness', because many things that some people find pleasurable are outright banned.
Its all well and good to ask the tough question. But what hope do we have of insisting on an answer?
I don't believe in the ability of our press to pursue a full answer to any question. Might as well ask them what they had for breakfast, the answer will be as relevant to the future of our nation.
Even if you manage to catch the candidate in a question that the handlers havn't prep-ed them on, those same handlers will be on hand 15 seconds after the debate to re-answer the question "correctly". With no fact checking by the "reporter".
My mother always said "life isn't a popularity contest". Well, an election is. The truth, and doing whats right, and stating your beliefs are not popular. But that is the price of a democracy. And a price that is supposed to be held in check an educated population and a free press.
This cycic believes our press sold out long ago and the popularity contest is running unchecked.
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.
Exactly what is your strategy to deal with global warming. You said you would come up with a more workable alternative to the Kyoto Treaty. You've had four years. What is your plan?
Please don't say that the evidence isn't there. The ten hottest years on record have been since 1990. The southwest of the US has been hit by three hurricanes this year. Europe was hit by a record heatwave last summmer (2003). The records keep piling up. What will the US do to help save humanity?
If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor.
Dear President Bush and Senator Kerry,
For the first time in history, this presidential election will make use of electronic voting machines to track more than half of all votes cast nationwide. Diebold is the largest manufacturer of these machines.
The Diebold machines have been proven insecure by numerous security analysts, and contain numerous security flaws. For example, it has been shown that anyone can change the electronic vote tallies by simply writing and executing a five-line computer script.
William W. O'Dell, CEO of Diebold and one of the largest Republican campaign contributors in the state of Ohio, has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.
My question is this: While there are clearly several advantages to electronic voting, do you believe that these problems could compromise the integrity of the 2004 election?
Free, Anonymous surfing: Pagewash.com.
Seriously, disobeying the slashmind is a -1 Troll offense. Dissenting against the slashmind is useless since intelligent human discourse is modded to oblivion.
1. If you don't hate Bush specifically and the U.S. in general and...
2. You don't hate Gates specifically and Microsoft in general then...
don't bother posting. We don't want you here, you are not welcome, and if we found out where you lived we would burn a political or religious icon on your lawn. Dissention and discussion are completely disallowed.
End of line.
A1: Having two wives
A1: Having two mother-in-laws
Thank you, I'll be here all weekend. Try the fish.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Would Microsoft believe that cutting R&D would be good for their company at this time of global competition in the form of Linux?
No of course not, they won't cut R&D, Microsoft increases R&D as a commitment to their goal and they increase their commitment to share holders to earn and regain the trust.
This means we need targetted tax cuts by our CEO Mr.Bush to the middle class, and we need increased spending on R&D to develop the technologies and to create the building blocks from which we can construct the world of tomorrow.
We need a long term vision not just short term.
"just the union of two people in love"
If that were the complete definition of marriage, then it would be acceptable for any two people who love each other to be married (that would include parent/child, siblings, etc.). Fortunately, there are other requirements for marriage.
"Anyway, if non-vanilla sex between consenting adults was wrong, they wouldn't enjoy it so much."
By this argument, it is OK for a person to do anything as long as they enjoy doing it. I bet there are a lot of serial killers, rapists, etc. that would love to see you make laws.
The Fat Man Walks Alone
Mr Bush,
when interviewed during the last presidential campaign, you were asked by an interviewer if you had a role model. To this you replied that Jesus was the closest that you had to one.
During your tenure as Governor of Texas, more people were killed in Texas prisons, enacting the death penalty, than during the tenure of any previous Governor in modern times. You presided over an execution nearly every two weeks from the moment you took office.
Considering the commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill' directly from God, and considering Jesus' stance on killing, how do you explain this glaring discrepancy between 'do as I say, not as I do'?
Thank you for your answer.
Mr. President, Mr. Kerry; why have your respective parties pandered so much to the baby-boomers that you'll bankrupt SS and Medicare and destroy the environment before I am your age?
Interestingly enough, Ayn Rand merely preached monogamy, fidelity and loyalty. In fact, she was busy shagging everything and everyone in her little circle of admirers/idolators.
A right wing intellectual saying one thing and doing another? Inconceivable.
(And remember kids : if you do cocaine, you'll go to prison. If W did drugs, thats just "youthful indiscretion".)
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Mr. President, do you think the Constitution should be amended to allow Presidents to serve more than two terms?
Should I, with the government that is supposed to represent me acting as proxy, be forced to recognize the so-called marriage of same sex couples?
Yours isn't the only POV.
Check out some of the related links above:
:)
Best deals: Democrats
Best deals: Republicans
Best deals: United States
Who thought buying into the system could be so transparent?
I'll take 200 shares of the junior senator from my state and 100 of the representative from my neighboring district.
This is not my sig.
We've seen treaties come internationally like the Nuclear Weapons Proliferation treaty, and the Kyoto accord. Both have been very progressive, and both are a very good thing for this world, as was shown by the amount of countries that have opted into these treaties. Yet America has shown the world they prefer to not participate.
The disrespect for international treaties was further shown with Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was defiant of the UN.
It has affected me in Canada as well. America has signed into GATT, and NAFTA, yet continues to place levies on Canadian softwood exports to America, defiant of the rulings of these international bodies, which are governed by the international treaties America has signed.
These four defiant issues show the world that America whishes not to be part of the international community, and choses to go it alone.
I'd like to know if Sen. Kerry is going to be interested in revisiting these treaties and showing the rest of the world that America is again part of the international community, or if he continues to follow in Bush's legacy, and tear up international treaties and continue to go their own direction.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
See here for an example. People can and do oppose drug criminalization on conservative principles. I'd vote for decriminalizing marijuana, I'm less certain about the harder drugs. (No, I don't smoke. Or drink. Boring as hell am I...)
Why does such a large and wealthy country with 250 million people living in it does NOT have better candidates for the White House? I'm gonna have a hard time voting this year. On one hand, I want to vote against Bush. On the other hand I see _ABSOLUTELY NO REASON_ to vote for John Kerry! He fails to give me this reason. I don't give a crap if he served in Vietnam or not (quite frankly I'd rather see know he avoided the draft), I don't give a crap if he's a decorated veteran. And I have yet to hear his clear and concise plan as to what he will do to improve the lives of the middle class and the poor if he takes office.
Bush's plans may be horribly wrong, but at least his message is clear - "fuck the poor, but not as badly as to cause a revolution".
So I guess all my questions boil down to one. Why is mr. Kerry's message is so horribly unfocused?
I'm not a US citizen but politics is the same everywhere so:
The politician should select the issues (after all supposedly he's been listening to public opinion and trying to understand what his country needs).
I think it's high time we've asked for some accountability on the part of our leaders...
P.S. On the other hand, Bush can't run for election again if he's elected twice, right?
To err is human, but to forgive is beyond the scope of the Operating System...
(yes, I read the blurb posted this to the site; I'm repeating it here)
The H1-B program has destroyed the careers of thousands of U.S. citizens while simultaneously making indentured servants out of the foreign workers it brings to this country. Will you take a stand and shut this program down, or at least revise it so that foreign workers cannot be virtually enslaved by the companies that sponsor them?
If you are not familiar with the issue, there is some excellent testimony about it here:
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
Loading...
"How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"
Courtesy of the World's Shortest Blog.
I agree. However, I disagree with the notion that divorces should be handled quickly and efficiently. Divorces should be very rare and very hard to get. Marriage is a lifetime agreement. If you don't want to get into a lifetime agreement, you shouldn't.
Engineering and the Ultimate
But it's not meaningless. I just gave you a perfectly good definition of marriage that I think works just fine. Let me restate it for you, and maybe you can tell me what's wrong with it. Even better, show me where it says *in the constition* that it is not an adequate definition:
Marriage: A social instition allowing people to come together and express their love and devotion to eachother for the rest of their lives.
So for conditions needed for marriage we have: (1) People who love each other and who (2) Want to formalize a lifelong relationship based on mutual respect and devotion.
Seems simple enough to me. And it definitely doesn't dilute the concept of marriage such that it is meaningless. Why aren't (1) and (2) enough? And what would you add to make marriage a qualitatively better institution?
You can remove one bonus Arch if you manage to successfully navigate the Sphere of Fidelity through at least three archways in under sixty seconds.
It's right there in Article VIII of the Constitution. I can't believe you missed it.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
What do you consider to be the 3 best policies/ideas of your opponent?
What do you consider to be the 3 worst policies/ideas of your opponent?
-L
hmmm and what stops them from doing that now? They need a certificate to express love??
Mr. President- when making decisions on foreign policy- do you perfer to get coked up first or hit the bottle instead?
If we are going to be the military leader, economic leader, and world leader, we should also be the moral leader. To regain moral leadership the international community must trust us again.
(Since I guess my subject wasn't very specific...)
Free, Anonymous surfing: Pagewash.com.
Mr Bush,
You are the Commander in Chief. You are ultimately responsible for all of the actions of every branch of government and military that you oversee.
You were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Your administration was wrong about believing in a tie between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, ignoring national sovereignty solely to end dictatorships is plainly illegal under international law.
Why won't you admit that you were wrong?
Changing the subject to "expanding freedom" does not count as an answer. Changing the subject to "Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator" doesn't count either.
It is estimated that 1 to 3 million illegal immigrants a year cross the Mexican border into the United States. America has 230,000 troops abroad in 760 bases within 130 countries. Many of those countries do not want us there. We have American Troops defending the borders of many countries such as South Korea, why can we not defend our own borders, especially after 9/11? What would you do to prevent illegal immigration?
The idea that you can just impose democracy in a country and everybody will be ecstatic about it is simply idiotic. The citizens of Iraq, btw, consider themselves to be under occupation, and not liberated (see the response of the Iraqi Olympic Team Leader for instance).
The Raven
and have aural sex with box turtles!
Would that be sex in the ears?
I've had the man's sister. You can keep her.
If you want a streamlined government, reducing taxes doesn't accomplish that. Tax cuts just push the bill off into the future via increased debt service.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Mua-hahaha...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Straw Man.
See the key words: "BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS".
I doubt that the victims of serial killers, rapists, etc... consented.
Nice try though.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
What arguments are being used to suggest that we should remove the requirement that marriage partners have to be opposite genders? Why can those same arguments not be used to remove some or all of the other requirements?
That was my point.
Umm where did he say homosexuality should be illegal? where did he say that a guy cant have two women? What he said is that marrage is for a man and a woman.
Did either of you serve in Vietnam?
It's national service all right. It was also national service when the fucking Germans gassed the Jews during WWII. It wasn't exactly as if the Germans had much of a choice. They were in the military because it was cumpulsory.
So, we are all brainwashed into believing that the draft is part of being a citizen and that we should just do whatever we are told because we are Americans.
Sorry but I don't agree with the fucking President and his cabinet. I especially don't agree with their choices in the Middle East. Personally I think the fucking President should be on the front fucking lines and fighting. Maybe then he would think twice about putting 1000+ soldiers to their death to protect oil prices and promote lucrative business contracts.
Technically you are correct if you are talking about the federal government. State government does have power over social issues. In fact, it was not considered a violation of the bill of rights for states to even have a state religion, as many of them had at the time.
"if someone is getting an abortion"
You don't think the government should get involved when mothers and doctors kill children? Should Terri Schaivo's husband also be allowed to kill her in order to be with his new honey? Abortion is NOT a "social issue". Now, again, this is really a state issue. Unfortunately, the courts thought it was a federal issue and made the decision for everybody. The marriage thing, too -- it's the courts who are, in general making the executive branch have to deal with social and other issues outside of their jurisdiction, because the court keeps bringing it into their jurisdiction.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Mr. Bush: Are you an insane and corrupt warmonger with less IQ than a medium clever mushroom? And, why do you blindly listen to your dad's oil greedy pals? Mr. Kerry: Why do you look so much like a horse, and why are you so boring? And, does these two facts have a secret connection?
Badnarik didn't resort to such non-answers in his Slashdot interview, but I'm pretty sure both Kerry and Bush will. It's not worth reading. I have written letters to them about various issues and I always get responses that don't answer questions but instead talk about "making America stronger", "safer", "whatever" without directly addressing the issue.
"Do you support education?" "Yes, education is essential to America's future!" Why do Americans tolerate such non-answers from national level politicians? That's really my question.
....but I do know that they're taking applications for volunteers to sit on the local draft board. I got my application in the mail just last week.
Finding God in a Dog
I have often wondered if people are more concerned with the word "marriage" or with the union of two same sex people? Since the word marriage has been used for centuries to describe a man-woman union, why not give a different name to gay marriage, but still the exact same benefits and characteristics, including divorce laws? Do same sex people want their union to get the present benefits awarded to marriage, or do they just want to use the word?
"Partner, would you like to join me in arriagemay?"
Mr. Bush: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
Are you sure? John Kerry has actually come out against gay marriage. The candidates only disagree as to whether or not the issue is deserving of an amendment, not as to whether or not the government should decide.
Engineering and the Ultimate
So what's you're point? I suppose the idea of marriage is that it's a formalization of such a relationship. And like the a.c. said, it is sort of held up as an ideal in society.
And if your point was to ask why *gay* people can't express their love and devotion etc. without getting married, then why can't straight people do that as well?
Few of us here are lawyers (I know I ain't), but aren't corporations considers "persons" for legal purposes?
"I, IBM, take thee, Red Hat, to be my lawful flunky..."
or even worse:
"I, Ben Affleck's Career, take thee, Jennifer Garner's Career, to be my legal co-producer, to have meetings with, schedule lunches, and arrange occasional carnal interludes with and between our respective Parties of the First Part...."
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
Many young (and old alike) voters feel disenfranchised by a system that favors two strong parties and restricts the representation of ideologies outside the mainstream. Exasperation over this state of affairs has been exemplified by: a general malaise among would-be voters; major third party candidates that have no realistic chance of success, despite strong popular support and financial backing; and a highly charged polarization of the electorate between Republicans and Democrats, two parties that often espouse similar policies. Do you consider these symptoms indicative of systemic problems? As a presidential candidate, do you believe that our nation needs to adapt our election systems to further our democratic principles, if not, why? What specific systematic changes would you advocate for in our campaign finance system to increase participation by additional parties and individual voters? Would you advocate fundamental changes, such as elimination of the Electoral College, or the adoption of Approval voting or Instant-Runoff voting, or use of proportional representation, to our election system to relieve this perception of disenfranchisement?
Seriously, can we mod people up who just repeat what they hear on NPR?
Dick Cheney has said Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter, and during the president's first term deficits have reappeared and bloomed.
Democrats are historically tagged, right or wrong, as "tax and spend." With the Baby Boom aging, a shrinking tax base will have to pay more, proportionally, to maintain the same size government spending.
I am part of the generation that will have to confront the consequences of economic choices made today and the realities of an aging population, and I would like to know how are you looking out for us. What steps are you planning today that will ensure that America is solvent 15 or 30 years from now?
"The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life, and poisons the earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the gun shoots death, and purifies the earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth and kill! "
Just yesterday I asked someone whose user name is GOD ALMIGHTY, who said God is against Bush: Since you are here, would you answer this? (#10337626)
--
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. Gov. is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
that's a very sad statistic. We have similar issues in Canada with our native population. 20% infant mortality rate on our reserves. That statistic alone is very disheartening.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
How is it a genetic defect? From the point of view of the survival of the species homosexuality itself is a minor risk, and you have to remember that many gay couples would be willing to adopt or be 'inseminated'. By your logic, we should also not have any laws that protect other 'genetic defects' such as handicaps, mental development problems, albinism, people with genetically elevated risk of cancer etc.
I doubt you fundamentally understand evolution.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Try equal protection under the law, sporto.
Why have you lost interest in Osama bin Laden, the leader of the organization that attacked the United States of America on September 11?
Mr. President, in July of 2003 you said if anyone wanted to attack our troops in Iraq, they should bring it on. In March of this year you appeared at a reporters' dinner and ran a video in which you jokingly stumbled around your office looking for weapons of mass destruction. Can you explain this behavior to the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq?
You recently received a formal intelligence assessment provided by your own agencies, indicating that our mission in Iraq was in great danger of failing. You described this as the CIA 'just guessing'. and indicated that you did not believe what it said. What intelligence sources do you trust when it comes to giving you an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq?
Do you believe it is best to stick to your guns on an issue even when history is proving the decision incorrect? What about the example of older members of your party were adamant segregationists who have now changed their views and don't apologize for this change of heart. Would you call this flip flopping and a moral weakness? Are there times when admitting your previous position was a mistake is actually a sign of strength?
Both houses of congress have agreed that genocide is occurring in the western part of the Sudan. 50,000 to 100,000 people have already been killed and over 1 million people have been displaced from their homes by force. How will USA help the rest of the world to put a stop to these crimes against humanity?
What is your position on the adoption of approval or instant-runoff voting as an alternative to the Electoral College?
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Why should the liberty of some be sacrificed for the religious particulars of others?
That brings up an interesting question:
Contextually, you could hardly remove any definition that the Founding Fathers had from the context of religion, specifically Christianity (even in as much as Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin adheared to it precepts).
So, without defining what religion/Christianity means by liberty, let me pose this:
Does it mean:
What do you think?
I've seen you both talk about bringing jobs back to America and I have yet to see anything posted as to how exactly you plan to accomplish this.
Having lost my job with a certain large company recently to some fellow in India (who I had to train), I, as many technical people on slashdot, am quite interested in this.
I'm not sure why you bring up the constitution, where in the constitution does it say that two men can get married? I.E. what right are they being denied given that all men have the right to marry the same subset of people no matter their sexual preference (ignoring incest).
If you are comfortable with that definition of marriage then this argument is moot. I am of the opinion that most people do not hold the same view towards it as you and as such my objective is just pointing out that they can't have their cake and eat it too. I.E. if they don't agree with your loose concept of marriage then they better not go around shaking it's foundations because that is the end result that they will end up with. Sounds like you're ok with that, I'm wagering that most aren't.
OB Princess Bride reference:
Inconceivable
"I do not think that means what you think it means."
Although it does apply to most same-sex relationships... or would that be "unconceivable"?
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
By any scientific standard, if homosexuality is genetic like almost everyone claims, then it is a genetic defect. We should not have laws on the books that say this is fine.
Yeah, defect, okay. So I suppose then that anyone with a gene that sends their phenotype straying too far from the norm should called defective and not be given the protection of laws? Was that your point?
Senator Kerry, How do you reconcile the strict environmental guidelines established by the Kyoto Protocols - which you have spoken in favor of - with the creation and continuation of high tech - and therefore high energy consumption - industries?
I guess I'll start this one by saying: I am not opposed to gay marriage. Not by a long shot.
But there is an issue I raised in a conversation about this that was interesting. Right now, it is very difficult to adopt a child if you're not "married". A lot of adoption agencies have restricted those who can adopt by using marriage as an indicator of a "committed, stable, relationship." In its absence, they have justification to reject gay couples in the adoption process for reasons other than "oh, you're gay..." which turns into "oh,you're not married...": much less offensive.
Why does this matter? Well, I think may have an significant impact on a young child to be raised in a home with gay parents. A lot of what we grow up with and learn about marriage would be significantly different - we learn gender roles from our parents (which is not always the same in all families, but it certainly sets our bearings as we grow up). We may eventually confront the issue of sex with our parents, and although most of us don't like to think of our parents as having sex, on another level, when we are first confronting the issue with them in our teens (probably), we have the tacit understanding that they are talking about the same kind of sex as I would be experiencing. This is not true in two cases: gay children with straight parents, and straight children with gay parents. Until now, we haven't had to consider the second option very often.
Anyway, there's the issue worth conidering: if gay marriage is allowed on a grand scale, how will it affect the validity of a gay couple's claims to adopt, and how will the subsequent increase in adoptions affect the children who are raised in a home with gay parents?
I don't have answers to this, but legalizing gay marriage will have more long term effects than simply "all the gays got married!" Marriage is many things, but it is certainly a *legal* institution. We must examine the legal ramifications of allowing it in ways we have not before.
There are other legal issues. Insurance companies do lots of research to determine premiums based on lifestyle. They have statistics that life expectancy is greater for people who are married. Whether these statistics are equally, greater, or less valid for married gay couples is probably undetermined.
I'm sure there are related issues, but I have to work now (!), I just thought I'd throw these few thoughts out as long as we were on the topic. I'm sure the issues can be worked out, and I support gay marriage, but the issue may not be as simple to implement as some might presume (leaving religion out of it).
It seems on one hand the government pushes hard to encourage students to pursue math, science, and technology careers. Yet globalism is eating away at the wages and opportunities in these fields. Is it expected that students will pursue these careers out of patriotism alone rather than salary and stability? How do you reconcile these opposing forces? Thank You.
Table-ized A.I.
What about a business' rights? I couldn't guarantee somebody a job for a whole year and still stay in business. Besides, having a baby is somebody's choice. Why should somebody's bad decision be able to potentially ruin my business?
I don't respond to AC's.
If we make you president will you show up to work?
Most folks with that sort of absenteeism would be in the unemployment line instead of seeking a promotion.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I think I'll post the following question on the affirmation site.
President Bush and Senator Kerry, I believe the current two political party system in the U.S. isn't meeting the needs of our extremely diverse country. Do either of you see any benefits in letting or helping some of the lesser recognized political parties gain more recognition, such that our government could move to a three party or multi-party system? If so, what are they and are you welling to help move our government toward a truly multi-party political system?
If some one wants to reword this question, such that it makes more sense, please feel free to do so. I think you all get the gist of my question though.
Since the end of the Cold War, less and less federal support is given to the sciences. In the last few years, aside from some flimsy promises, I have seen nothing but restrictive legislation. Born-again Christians touting family values is all well and good, but without the ability to advance our understanding America is doomed to fall behind other countries. So with this in mind, I give five questions:
1.) "What is to be done with stem cell research? Will more federal funding go into this line of research? Will the restrictions currently in place ever be lifted?"
2.) "The space program is a joke. Decent advancement has not been made in the last twenty years. Will America cut this expensive program, or will adequate federal funding be provided? Will goals be set to form a permanent presence on the moon? On Mars?"
3.) "When the Religious community calls for a ban on a new technology, will the government listen? Is the separation of church and state truly coming undone? Are we doomed to become the Amish of the world? "
4.) "Nuclear energy is the only way to prevent the impending energy crisis as oil and coal reserves dry up. Will federal funding be provided to accelerate research in this field? Will new generators be built? Will new and better types of generators be developed?"
5.) "Will more money go into developing better science programs in public schools?"
Pick and choose if you like any of these questions I stated above...
"P.S, releasing all of the papers of Nikola Tesla that were seized by the "Office of Alien Property" and declared "Top Secret" when he died would be nice."
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
for *either* one of you to simply tell the truth? About anything? Kerry with your "war hero" issues, and Bush with "intelligence failures".
Many a famous and noteworthy person gained popularity and power by simply being honest. If you expect to lead this country, and want the faith and trust of the American people, then you would do well by do just that.
Telling the truth, about everything.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Do you feel that all electronic voting machines in use in the United States should produce a verifiable paper record?
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
You think that the victims of serial killers and rapists are consenting?
Look at how she was dressed! She was asking for it!
Um, no. That's just not the case, as the courts have proven over and over again. So go put up your straw man elsewhere.
Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children,
What does god have to do with this? The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens. If you're not encouraging "family", then there is no point in government recognized union. This has nothig to do with "god", just common sense.
Is this, then, official U.S. government policy, and the law of the land? Can anyone who doesn't like his neighbor and thinks his neighbor may become a threat in the future solve his problem by killing the neighbor?
Or, is this just the typical thinking of dry drunks?
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
That's YOUR opinion. So does that mean heteros who choose not to, or are not able to have children, are "less" married than a family with 10 kids?
That's an extremely narrow-minded view of marriage, hell, it's a load of sh*t. And if 2 straight people marry because of 'affections', so be it, it isn't any of your or my freakin business. I don't care why they marry.
The implication that 'strong families' only come from straight unions is also crap. Gay or Straight, some couples are healthy and strong, some aren't. I know gay couples who've been together for years, and straight people who are on their 3rd marriage - does that mean anything? No, you just can't judge all relationship with sweeping remarks. You make broad generalizations with nothing to back it up whatsoever.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
If you didn't have any income you wouldn't have to submit an income tax return, either.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Every man has the right to marry the same subset of women as every other man. (throw sisters and mothers out of the equation for the moment).
This has nothing to do with equal protection.
Revenge on Saddam for murdering innocents, simply does not justify our own murder of innocents. Perhaps, if the fantasies of Iraq as a shining bulwark of freedom and democracy were to be realized it would be worthwhile. But the reality is that we are looking at ongoing bloodshed, and a pending civil war bloodbath worse than the inhumane and barbaric regime we cast down.
...regarding being "brainwashed" about the draft, because it's NOT BUSH, or any conservatives, that would be doing it. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123012&cid=103 41487 for details.
They already can, for the most part. There are no laws stopping a man from living with multiple women, sleeping with them, having those women carry his children, etc. And there is no laws against those churches performing marriage ceremonies for polygamy.
To religious people, the government has no power to marry. If it turned up that due to some legal mixup my wife and I were not legally married I would not consider us "living in sin" for 4 years.
Brian Ellenberger
Are you, like your father, not very high on atheists? If yes, is it because you get high on things other than atheists?
What is a good balance between protecting citizens and protecting citizen rights? Apply your answers to legislation that you have supported/signed into law. What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of these laws? Explain the cost-effectiveness of your plans for domestic security? how much do your plans cost versus how effective are the plans, and couple your answers with the idea of the balance of such laws with nuisance and usefulness?
>
> Throwing in polygamy into the mix is NOT the same thing.
No shit. The tax forms are hairy enough for two-person marriages.
(Mercifully, this is Slashdot, so I don't even have to worry about those! :)
What do you think of the Pledge Protection Act?
Is it *ever* appropriate to remove judicial oversight of our code of laws?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Your example works too, but I meant what I said.
"Animal husbandry is the agricultural practice of breeding and raising livestock"
I was just giving examples of different kinds of relationships.
seriouslyexcited.net
Mr. Bush - can you explain why we should 're-elect' a president that avoided active service in the military, yet clearly has an agenda that includes re-instating the draft?
George W. Bush: Drugs are terrorists. We have to fight these terrorists, to keep our families safe, like the thousands who lost loved ones in the vicious, terrorist attacks of 9-11. That's why we're winning the war for freedom for the people of Iraq.
Laura Bush: Just say no, dear (thanks again for lending me your play book, Nancy!).
Kerry: My party enjoys the benefits of getting voters like you on our side because we're the "liberal" party - but when it comes down to it we also like the benefits of being able to rush some more insane mandatory minimum sentencing and revisions to the bill of rights through congress any time we feel we need to have a "we're tough on crime" pissing contest with the GOP. So I'm just going to keep treating that issue like Kryptonite so I can play both sides.
Teresa Heinz-Kerry: Oh god, we all smoked dope like it was going out of style back in the day! I never said that... you're twisting my words... stuff it! You can just stuff it!
John Edwards - uh, what Kerry said, but with my own little rhetorical spin so you know that I'm not just the man's little sidekick, in case we somehow get the next 8 years outta this, or if he tanks it and I get to go for the gold in four.
Dick Cheney: Go fuck yourself.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Who says that there are 4 pillars? Where is this defined in the constitution? What are you talking about?
/. posts" booklet that I can pick up somewhere?
Do they make a combined "the 5 pillars of Islam, the 4 of US marriage, the 3 of cooking, the 2 of taxes, and the 1 of dumb
What about that big section on "shall not discriminate.."?
Lame, very lame man.
First, I don't want this nation managed as if it were a corporation. I'm not a shareholder, I'm a citizen.
It isn't my responsibility to pay taxes. The country did well for more than 100 years with no income tax at all. You are right about one thing though, it is someone's responsibility to spend this money... Congress controls the budget as far as I'm aware.
I've sacrificed far too much already, and I have nothing left to give that can possibly win the "war on terror". The term itself is a dead giveaway, they can't possibly solve the problem unless it is a war... and the only kind of war it can be is unwinnable.
Now, maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't believe my income tax pays for my internet service (even indirectly), radio (you must be kidding, the FCC sold the family cow for magic beans), and federal funding seems to only work for the most bizarre shit. Instead of buying our own fusion research, we're waiting 20 years for ITER to decide where to build the facility?
What we need to do, is simple:
A) Lower all congressional salaries to $75,000 a year. Lower the presidential salary to $95,000 a year. Symbolic, but a good one. And before you yuppies start getting all pissy, $75,000 a year would make my life sooooo nice... if they can't live on it, let them starve.
B) Figure out how much tax revenue we bring in, in any given year. Cut this number in half. Allocate it to all government services, on a priority basis. When this limit is reached, nothing else is bought that year. Anything left over pays principle on the debt.
C) Reduce our military to no more than 100,000 soldiers, total. Re-equip them to defend north america and Hawaii as best possible given the manpower.
D) Dissolve the Dept. of Education.
E) Ban anyone provably associated with either the democratic or republican party from ever holding public office, donating money to political parties, or any other political activity other than voting. Shoot the dissenters.
F) Start coining our own money, rather than allowing the Federal Reserve to do it.
Throwing in polygamy into the mix is NOT the same thing.
It absolutely is the same thing. You need to decide what marriage is. Either it's something to do with the govt encouraging a stable environment for having children (in which case presumably you frown on old and infertile people getting married), or it's a way for people to inform the govt that other people should be regarded as their next of kin.
This has nothing to do with the Christian sacrament of marriage - the church(es) is(are) quite free to restrict marriage to whatever categories of people they wish, it has to do with whether I can tell the government "that person is my family".
If you believe that I should be able to make that statement about another man (and I do), there's no logical reason to prevent me from making that statement about two other men, or a man and woman, or 6 people or whatever. Livestock and children don't count, as they can't give informed consent.
Sure, I have concerns about the wacky mormon fringe marrying 10 of their 13 year old cousins, but I have those same concerns for some redneck marrying one of his 13 year old cousins - it's a free and informed consent thing, not a polygamy thing. Why should you deny a polyfamily the opportunity to register their existence?
When you are about to get in bed with the missus at night, do you stand at attention at the bedside, salute and say "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!"?
good god this was moderated insightful?
I've got two questions I want to ask, and will post them as seperate posts to save moderators the hassle.
My first question is this:
How would you like to be remembered 100 years from now by your country, and how do you think your country will actually remember you in 100 years?
Sure it does. It's saying that two same-sex partners ought not to have the legal benefits such as hospital visitation, inheritance, etc., that a man and a woman in an identical arrangement should have.
The family is the basic unit of government. Destroy the traditional definition of marriage, and you destroy the traditional family, and the nation will crumble within four generations. Strong families build a strong nation. The extremely high infidelity rates among homosexuals shows that any "marriage" between them wouldn't be as strong.
Constitutionally Correct
Technically you are correct if you are talking about the federal government.
I was, I don't think such decisions should be made by the federal government
State government does have power over social issues. In fact, it was not considered a violation of the bill of rights for states to even have a state religion, as many of them had at the time.
And they should decide social issues, because those things are dealt with better on a local scale. A person from New York probably has very different views on social issues than one from Idaho.
You don't think the government should get involved when mothers and doctors kill children?
The federal government? Probably not. What is needed is a legal definitiion of life, just as we once had one for death. The legal defintion for death nowadays if I recall correctly is "the absolute and total loss of the individual's brain function that is irreversible.". An unborn child's brainwaves can be seen around week 4...
Should Terri Schaivo's husband also be allowed to kill her in order to be with his new honey?
No, and it's sickening that the AP story that came across the wire yesterday didn't even mention the inheratence he was going to get if she died, which is the reason her parents are fighting it.
Abortion is NOT a "social issue". Now, again, this is really a state issue.
Which is what I was getting at. The other nice part about it is if Abortion is left up to the states, I can move to a state where abortion is illegal and my tax dollars won't be going to planned parenthood.
Unfortunately, the courts thought it was a federal issue and made the decision for everybody.
It was based on a poor premise too, that a right to privacy somehow covers a right to kill...strange right?
The marriage thing, too -- it's the courts who are, in general making the executive branch have to deal with social and other issues outside of their jurisdiction, because the court keeps bringing it into their jurisdiction.
Exactly, because the supreme court is making law instead of interpreting it. It's obvious our founding fathers wanted two things, states rights, and congress to be the most powerful branch of the government. It's too bad we have lost both. All congress is good for nowadays is pork barrell spending to bribe people to vote for them in the next election. It's sad.
You bring some excellent insight to this discussion.
However, I would like to point out that many people don't consider "the family" to be anything particularly important or worth protecting, or even use the breakdown of the family as an excuse to increase government intervention/programs. You'll find that family deconstruction to government dependence is the perfect tool for anyone that wants to solidly indoctrinate the masses in a particular ideology.
The other way to look at it is that it's a statist powerplay: family deconstruction by design. You point out that "[s]tronger families mean that there is less need of government." The reverse is also true; weaker families mean that there is more need for government, i.e., those in power get more power because those in their control become increasingly dependent and increasingly unable to resist the shrill call for more government control.
Dear Potential President,
Given that 100 top scientists including 20 Nobel prize winners attribute more frequent natural disasters such as Hurricane Ivan to deforestation and overuse of fossil fuels, what will you do to try to turnaround the worsening phenomenon of Global Warming?
Why should we pay for someone else to look after YOUR children?
Personally, I think we should be encouraging potential parents who can't afford it to NOT have children.
This means free contraception/sterilisation. Maybe even means-tested payments to childless couples.
Mr Bush,
If I have 5 red skittles and 10 green skittles, and I eat 1 red skittle and 4 green skittles, how many skittles will I have left?
This question requires less than 30 minutes, and should be answered with less than 100 words.
Thank you.
What do you think is the cause of this severe imbalance in law enforcement and the judicial process, and what can be done to correct the problem?
That was the purpose of the laws, and they are working well. See here for more info.
Social security collects about 12% each year. Take somebody who works from age 15 to 65. Using simple high school math, we find that they have put in about 6 years of salary. The current average lifespan is 77. So having put in 6 years of salary, it is typical to take out 12.
These numbers are rough, particularly in that they don't include SSA investment returns. However, they also leave out inflation, which largely offsets any such gains.
Mr. Kerry, these numbers make no reference to the strength of the economy, or to any other of your "three pillars". Also, it is always harder to fix you financial problems after you run out of money. Solvancy till 2040 isn't so very reassuring.
Mr. Bush, privatization is risky. There is a reason for the spread between treasuries and other instruments.
In any case, a requirement for a financialy sound social security program is that the typical retiree has paid for their retirement. This is an actuarial question, and the retirement age was originally set to ensure this. Since then, the actuarial tables have changed by more than the retirement age.
From your platforms, you don't believe this argument. Otherwise you'd be starting to push for another slow shift in the retirement age. So I ask, with specificity, where exactly do you think I have gone wrong?
FL recently amended its constitution to extend certain rights to pigs. Seems to me that law can be applied to animals. If marriage is only about "love" then the argument for "marrying" your dog seems pretty strong.
Constitutionally Correct
after all the badmouthing and lying nonsense by so-called but untamed "supporters" on each side... which have been warping public positions into unrecognizeable shapes... and after you candidates respond to them... what truth is left? why should we believe either of you at this point?
and as the requisite follow-up, who do YOU see as a credible source in national and international affairs we should feel is useful to check up on you guys with? there are all sorts of self-appointed oracles that are, to put it mildly, full of mad-cow disease and as reliable as the town drunk. who do YOU trust?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
.
How many innocent people have died in Iraq in each of the following years?And the winner is?Surely +1, Funny?
"By scientific standard"... "homosexuality is genetic" ... "then it is a defect"...
Um, yeah, having specific hair color, eye color, height, weight, blah blah blah are also genetic. Are they also defects? Are you really suggesting that someone has a genetic defect because they are homosexual?
Wow. That's quite an assertion.
Being gay is no more a defect than having curly hair (on your head). Or being bald.
My sig left me for a younger user id.
to both candidates. What are the most important issues with regards to improving the economy for both short term and long term? specifically, how would tax cuts and reduced government be balanced to achieve a solid solution. cutting taxes without reducing government is not a viable solution. Please provide a clear plan for improving the current education system. by that I mean, how should education administration should be reduced and scaled back so that more money goes towards classes, books, tutoring and after school programs. with regard to national and international security, it's obvious to voters there's no quick and easy solution to Iraq and terrorism. How do you see education and communication in the role of disarming militants. Using a narrow minded "guns" approach is not a long term solution. both sides have to reach a deep understanding of each other before real progress can be made.
I have to agree with this, on more than one level, as I have Multiple Sclerosis, and there are studies (albeit small ones, but it's nice to have hope for a "no-cure, yet" disease) that support that medicinal THC (the active ingredient in pot), actually helps MS...
Here's the URL:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3247571.stm
My question however (I'm 27)... When will the Stem Cell lines be expanded to include more lines for public research? Going on what another poller has asked, how can with the separation of church and state, morality be an issue in the greater public good? Especially since most of the ways that new lines would be created, would be through disposal of excess embryos from infertility treatment and abortions. Someone like me, a young person with a potentially debilitating disability could draw hope from getting stem cell lines to repair damage to my brain and spinal cord, making me have the potential for never getting a disability and for being a productive member of society until I die.
Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
--Mahatma Gandhi
But, as demonstrated by American Law and numerous historical incidents, the definition of "person" is quite malleable.
Back to square one.
I don't recall having run into one blinking person who's said that she thinks Bush and his cronies are secretly plotting to reinstate the draft. Heck, Rumsfeld went out of his way to dismiss the military significance of draftees in previous wars, in a move I remember particularly well because it so upset my Uncles down in Oklahoma who served. Your entire premise is a misstatement of the objections to Bush's policy.
What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.
It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips. Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
You can only hope that your girlfried/wife never finds out what she misses out on
.. because we need laws to prevent brothers and sisters from fucking each other, right?
Given the fact that cocaine and meth amphetamine are Schedule II narcotics (able to be prescibed by a physician), and marijuana, a Schedule I narcotic ("no medicinal value and high potential for abuse"), which has been proven scientifically to be beneficial in many health cases where conventional medicines have failed, (See the Institute of Medicine study from 1999 for starters, it helps with wide angle glaucoma, anorexia, AIDS wasting syndrome, nausea from chemotherapy, migraines, chronic pain, etc.), what are your plans for the rescheduling of medical marijuana, also known as cannabis, from Schedule I to Schedule II so that severly ill patients may use the medicine which benefits them most, without fear of having their door kicked down by DEA agents, and their property seized by the federal government in a civil forfeiture?
-Myke
myke@compassionatecoalition.org
http://www.compassionatecoalition.org
How is Rumsfeld in bed?
Now you're confusing me, because it's Kerry, and Bush haters, who are saying we don't have ENOUGH troops over there! Just yesterday, Kerry was bullshitting about how Bush supposedly forced Gen. Shinseki into retirement because he didn't like the answer about troop levels, and that we need A LOT MORE!! Like, over 100,000 more! So, how is it exactly that Bush is happy putting the "kids" over there?
Please, come up with some argument that makes sense, instead of saying something stupid like "well, now that we're THERE, Kerry needs to do it right", because, that would be the ultimate hypocritical answer. And before you answer, remember, Kerry is calling for A LOT MORE troops. Like double.
You're talking about a pairing there, not an individual's rights. Assume the following three men and one women:
Bob
Steve
Harry
Molly
Each of those three men has exactly the same rights, to marry Molly (and thereby gain all the benefits you mentioned). None of them has the ability to marry any of the other men, so again, equal protection is guaranteed.
I'm not sure why you bring up the constitution, where in the constitution does it say that two men can get married? I.E. what right are they being denied given that all men have the right to marry the same subset of people no matter their sexual preference (ignoring incest).
...now if only we could get out of Iraq."
Uh, I brought up the constition because the great great...grandparent post that you wrote (or maybe it was a different a.c., I'm not sure), said, pretty clearly, that while sodomy is not unconstitutional, gay marriage is.
Secondly, I think the best way to construe the laws on marriage now are that they are inconsistent with the totally appropriate definition of marriage I just gave. And I think you're wrong that the majority of people wouldn't support my definition. Maybe not the majority of 60+ year old bastards trying to hang on to one of the last living prejudices in the western world. But ask people under 30, and even better, people under 20, and you'll get the same reaction I give:
WHO THE HELL CARES IF GAY GUYS WANT TO GET MARRIED?
It doesn't matter to anyone but them. It harms no one. It is a tremendous waste of time and money to to debate this. It's a total non-issue. And in 15 years time, when gay marriage is common everywhere in the west besides 10 southern states in the usa (if the states'-rights camp gets their way, and I figure they will. Fair enough.), people will look back on this just like they look at sodomy laws, laughing and saying, "Hey, our society didn't collapse...straight people still get married...families remained intact. Wowee, zowee, boy was that debate a total waste of time.
Do you think it is fair for large corporations to set up divisions in the Cayman Islands or other locations in order to avoid paying taxes (i.e. Enron, Haliburton), especially when it's often just a mailstop?
Do you think companies that do this deserve all the benefits a company that does pay its U.S. taxes gets? Do you think the US government should do business with corporations that practice this behavior?
Do you think the law needs to be changed and if so how and if not, why not?
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Well, there are many same sex couples bringing up children right now - that's not new. By not legally allowing couples to marry, we actually put more of a burden on our legal system.
What happens when the couple breaks up? If they were man & woman, the judge would give both parents rights to see the kids (usually). Not always so if they are not married. The result is an increased burden on our tax dollars in court to figure these issues out.
Giving equal legal status will help resolve these issues and save us all some tax dollars.
Why don't we just use a different word for unions in the eye of the government? Same-sex or not, I don't believe that government has the authority to deem it a "marriage." Sure, let same-sex unions have the same tax breaks or whatever, but don't make society believe that it falls within the bounds of "marriage."
Marriage is something that is too religion based to be dictated by government. In my viewpoint, which may be "narrow" in your eyes, marriage can only be granted by the Church. Thinking poorly of someone because they follow their faith is rather... narrow-minded itself, as well as being a load of shit. Oh... yeah. It's spelled "shit."
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Thats funny, an makes a point, however not a negative ones for christians..let me explain.
But first let me state that many Christians do not know there own theology.
here we go:
What you listed are from what is knwo as the Holy Code. Which was abandoned by Jesus Christ(Yes, THE Jesus Christ) who laid down the New Covenant.
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."
As you know, this all stems from Leviticus 18:22
"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
Literally translated:
"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
nobody really knows what "lay lyings" means. It is assumed to be anal sex, but other interpetation exist.
At this time it is my opinion that the sins is not 'anal sex' but 'treating a man as a women'. remember the era. Men were perfect, women were considered property. This would be mistreating a perfect(and thus 'clean') thing as unclean.
This would also explain why NO WHERE in the bible does it condone lesbians.
Modern bibles(who need to sell a product) have added the word homosexuallity to the bible. There is no hebrew word for this, and in fact the word homosexuality was created in the 19th century.
God's word does change...hence the sending of his son, Jesus Christ.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Asking the "two" "major" candidates is capitulating to the dichotomy set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, recently ruled to be a partisan entity breaking FEC rules.
c id =152
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04-731.pdf
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But you alluded to it being a rightly banned relationship, which it definitely is not...
how many died at his hands back when he was the US Govt's good buddy? How many died due to the help, whether knowing or blind, of the American government?
...please try to remember that there actually some things in history that call for military force. And before you go off on some spitting and sputtering diatribe about WMD or Bush being a dry drunk, try to focus on the fact that there really are people in the mideast who want there to be one true Islamic superstate, and that any and all people who do not live by their specific interpretation of their religion should be slaughtered or subjugated.
It's all well and good to talk about Saudi Arabia and becoming independent of mideast oil, but those things are TAD more fucking complicated than just saying them. The US will, for its own and the world's economies' sakes, and thus the happiness and prosperity of much of Western civilization as we know it, be in the mideast for a LONG time to come. It's not about soccer moms driving around in Suburbans.
Mr. Candidate, I understand your position on the issues, but do you support Ogg?
The state giving preferential treatment to one religious view on marriage over others is a clear and obvious violation of the legal language 1st Amendment and the spirt of the separation of church and state. ...as far as psuedo-darwinianism goes. Unless you're a biologist or have run your own experiements you really have have no business invoking Darwin.
Perverts in nature are more than capable of meeting the darwinian standard.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
To both candidates:
Recently there have been multiple efforts in the form of laws to stifle technology to prevent the chance of potential (not real) copyright infringement. Additionally, the length of copyrights has been extended to the point that most works will never be seen in the public domain. As we, the United States of America, continue to stifle innovation with laws and other countries such as China operate without such restrictions, are we dooming ourselves to being the number 2, 3, or lower technological superpower in the world?
Throwing polygamy into the mix isn't different and it's "friggin retarded". Your argument that any religious based arguments are null justifies polygamy to the same extent as gay marriage. Why shouldn't three or four people, of whatever gender, have the ability to enter into a binding marriage if they want to? What is the big deal about limiting marriage to two people? By allowing gay marriage, what you are doing is throwing morality, religion, and tradition out of marriage, and those are the only things preventing polygamy from being recognized as legal.
And, polygamy is perfectly consistant with Islam and the Mormon faith (before they were forced to change it). So forget the religion argument - polygamy is illegal only because of tradition and the moral positions of the religious philosophies of those in power.
So, my question to you is this: If two same sex people can be married, then they shouldn't three same sex people be married?
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Actually, I don't think that's a straw man. The original argument basically stated "Nothing that feels good can be wrong" which is clearly not true.
Your definition is (correct me if I'm wrong) that something is wrong if it does not occur consentually. What about putting murderers in jail? I'm sure they don't want to go to jail.
It seems to me that your definitions may be incomplete.
That has to be one of the most insightful posts I have ever seen on Slashdot- congrats. If I had mod points, I would hand them out.
On top of that, I think that the issue has to be addressed legally, otherwise it's the proverbial elephant that no one wants to talk about. I don't really think a constitutional ammendment is in order, because they scare me - but it also doesn't really matter what I think. But something needs to be done to remove all legal doubt. That law can then be tested in the courts and eventually my guess is some sort of status quo on the issue will be settled on and acepted. Remember, there are more possible solutions than what is presented by the extremes.
OTOH, you could justify the rejection of perfectly suitable married heterosexual couples just because the man doesn't "wear the pants" in the family. You don't need to have "two dads" to confuse children in the manner under discussion.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You think that the victims of serial killers and rapists are consenting?
No. But assisted suicide is still illegal (I think).
That's killing between consenting adults.
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
Bush: I never made any mistakes! Everthing is going exactly like Dick says it should.
Wait! I thought of a mistake. I ate an evil pretzel once! I think it was an Iraqi pretzel, or maybe it was Osama bin Pretzel! I'm pretty sure it was an Arab pretzel and they're all the same anyways. That evil-doer pretzel almost killed me.
The rekerpushions of that mistake was me almost dying, leaving the country in the hands of a bunch of cheese-eating, flip-flopping, french-looking surrender-monkeys.
I no longer eat pretzels. God told me I should only eat Freedom-Breadstick-Knots!
Actually, that pretzel-thing wasn't my mistake. The CIA told me that pretzel was safe to eat and that was Bill Clinton's fault for weakening the CIA so that they couldn't tell a terrorist Arab pretzel from a freedom-loving all-American patriot pretzel.
That was my biggest mistake - saying that eating the pretzel was my mistake was my biggest mistake.
Kerry: My biggest mistake was that I voted to abdicate my responsibility, as a member of Congress, to declare war. It was a cowardly act of political expediency, but when I made that vote, I believed that the President would use the power we were giving him in a rational, careful way, trying to build real international support before heading to war. At the very least, i thought he'd have a real plan before he sent our soldiers off to die.
The repercussions include a loss in American credibility and support, a decrease in our overall safety because we diverted resources away from the real War on Terror and created many new enemies, increased instability in the Middle-East, over 1,000 dead American soldiers, over 10,000 dead Iraqis, a huge budget deficit, and the creation of a violent quagmire with no good exit strategy available.
I'm trying to fix it by getting this corrupt, secretive, war-mongering, idiotic administration out of power.
Gentlemen:
Our personal freedoms and standard of living seem to be eroding away at an alarming rate. If we are to trade our personal freedom in the name of fighting terrorism, dosnt that make the government our oppresors? Is the removal of American liberty, from any source, including our own goverment acceptable to you? Please explain.
---
My sig was stolen - the insurance company replaced it with this one.
Because the argument to legalise polygamy is separate from the argument to legalise same sex marriage.
It's separate becasue when the discussion is to legaise same sex marriage it is directly opposed to the concept of traditional marriage. It's not introducing a new concept of multi-person (more than the two) marriage.
The polygamy argument can be made separatly at any time, but I can't see how the two issues should be considered the same, or joined together.
Can 2 people get married? Yes or no?
Can more than 2 people get married in the same union? Separate issue. Talk amoungst yourselves.
My sig left me for a younger user id.
Elie Wiesel's recent essay published in many newspapers pointed to the distressing trend in American electoral politics that has produced this issueless, relentlessly negative campaign. Wiesel hesitated to find fault, and I do as well; however, I do believe it is imperative that BOTH candidates do something to stem the tide of negative rhetoric and restore some decency to our campaigns. In the interest of young voters in particular, it is exactly this sort of negative campaigning that has turned off so many young voters to politics and voting. What steps do either of you plan to take personally to restore honor to our campaigns? What pledges will you make to avoid such partisan name-calling that has led us to this state of division and disarray? If you truly love America, you will try to be less negative, if only to make sure there is truly a UNITED states of America, instead of one divided by partisan bickering and negative campaigning.
(I realize this both a political statement and a question, but I believe its importance should excuse my voicing of opinion.)
Regardless of whether you are right or left wing, people ask candidates tough questions because they dislike that candidate and are hoping to expose them on a perceived weakness. A lot of people are not trying to find out if they agree with that person, they are trying to make other people 'see the light' and change their mind that this candidate is 'bad'.
Most of the time, however, you only do the opposite. Because they have the final word and you are not allowed follow up questions, they can quickly write you off and throw in a happy feel good ending. Like "Saddam was an evil person, of course Iraq is better off without him. So therefore the war on Iraq is justified."
With your inability to respond to that, Bush would just have strengthened his supporters' view that the war was justified. Your question was not only wasted, but hurt your cause as well.
So, the moral of the story: Be careful of how you word your questions. Don't be vague. Don't leave room for simple answers that just write you off. etc. etc. Think about the answers they can give before you ask the question.
can you state: "Read my lips, No new wars!"
Sure you can. American society is founded on more fundemental principles than "the pillars of marriage". These are quite easy to find in any discourse on natural rights from the englightenment.
A secular society needs to do more to justify it's actions that merely pander to some particular religous point of view.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Actually, your 'predictable copout,' is exactly WHY liberals have introduced the Draft. Today's all volunteer army is disporportionately made up of the lower income classes. The idea was to get a draft with fewer loopholes, so that *everyone's* kids would be at risk. It really has little to do with chilren of liberals vs children of conservatives. It has to do with putting some risk in it for the higher-income classes, when they start beating the War Drums. In that light, you can see why the Black caucus is behind the bill. Others get the idea to go to war, but a disporportionate number of Blacks pay the ultimate price.
OTOH, military service is certainly a way for lower income people to bootstrap their way into a better economic class.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You're relying on NewsMax for proof of Saddam's ties to terrorism? Why not just quote the Church of the Subgenius while you're at it? At least they're known to be loonies.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
My question:
In todays world, it seems that the individual has virtually no rights, whereas big money corporations are now dictating the laws which keeps them 'in the money', while stripping more and more constitutional rights away from the individual.
For example, we have the DMCA, which companies can wield against tomorrows innovators. If this would have existed during the late 19th century, we would not have many of the inventions and innovations that have brought the country to where it stands today.
We also have people like Senator Orwin Hatch who it's been proven is accepting payments from the RIAA in return for submitting more and more legislature designed to remove consumer rights. I'm not referring to pirating or sharing music, but simple, formerly proven concepts like backing up our purchased media, and being able to record television shows for later viewing.
So why is money allowed to sway votes and legislation like this? Isn't this the very thing that existing laws are made to prevent? What's happened to our consitutional rights, and why as todays premier politicians, have you not done anything to stop this abuse?
I have heard politicans (as well as pundits, columnists, and others) state that homosexuals should not marry, as the principal purpose of a marriage is to conceive and/or raise children. However, my wife and I have been unable to conceive, while more than one of our gay couple friends have successfully adopted children, or have conceived their own children via sperm donation. My question is, do you believe that having the ability to conceive and/or raise children is a principal purpose of a "legitimate" marriage, and if so, would you consider my own marriage illegitimate?
So, my question would be
"Are you aware that a VAST majority of your constituents distrust you?"
I think most politicians think people trust them, and they're in some way respected, and I think most people distrust them, and disrespect them. Please reply if you do in fact trust any current politicians?
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Mr. President,
Do you think you have made the United States safer by toppling Saddam now that Muslims are flocking to Iraq to join the fight against the United States and recruitment has become far easier for Al Queda?
Do you think we should have put a lot more troops on the ground in Afghanistan early on in our hunt for Osama bin Laden?
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Come play Moral Decay!
Who can argue with logic like that?!
Yes, but pointing this out is trolling. Prepare to have your karma revoked...
Marriage isn't just about family. It's about formalizing a commitment between two people to essentially act as one in society. You're both responsible for many things (such as paying the bills). Shouldn't two same-sex partners be able to make that same commitment? Or is it cool to you that if one partner dies unexpectedly, the authorities won't even bother contacting their partner because that person isn't legally a spouse? And the financial loss/burden that can impose?
My wife and I plan on never having children (for various reasons), so should we have remained unmarried?
Fundies just don't want to be embarassed when the divorce rate suddenly drops, or when the median marriage length increases.
Fidelity is no higher among breeders.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Do you feel that a person should be incarcerated for smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own home?
What I meant was accompanying tax cuts with spending cuts.
In Soviet Russia, the government questions YOU!!!
In Bush's America, the government questions YOU.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Can't invoke religion.
Can't invoke science.
Damn, you have me now.
Though I don't think your parent post really identifies the "dominos" correctly, such a theory with respect to marriage is quite valid. In fact, I would argue the last "domino" or two is already about to topple.
The domino theory of the 1950's relied on circumstantial geo-political/strategic/military conditions. You are mistaken to apply this analogy in an attempt to discredit an argument in defense of marriage.
The "dominos" of marriage are not subjective political concerns but concrete realities: love and procreation, and the logical necessities that each of these aspects entail.
The most obvious concern with gay "marriage" is that same sex couple don't have the biological ability to reproduce.
"But," you say, "you're wrong. 'Marriage' is about two adults that love each other, procreation doesn't have to have anything to do with it."
Which is my point exactly. Marriage is dead and you have killed it.
President Bush, when you were inaugurated into office you swore this oath-
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
How is the Constitution of the United States preserved, protected, and defended by introducing legislation such as the Patriot Act that tramples our Constitutional rights?
How is it preserved, protected, and defended by starting a war that Constitutionally can only be declared by Congress (Article I. Section 8. Clause 11)?
What should happen to a man who breaks his oaths of office?
Polygamy is nothing that hasn't already been accepted and widely practiced in other cultures. Infact, polygamy is far less outside of the global cultural mainstream than would be gay marriage.
This notion that allowing polygamy (or gay marriage) would suddenly open some sort of floodgate is simply absurd. Each conforms to the same basic constraints as straight unigamy.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If I enforce the strictures of my Holy Sacrament on your marriage, how does that impact your Freedom of Religion?
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Uh, where do you get the idea that there is a requirement that marriage partners have to be of opposite genders? That "requirement" has been created by those homophobes who hate the idea of two same-sex people actually being in love with each other.
What happens at a Skull and Bones meeting and who else are members?
"By allowing gay marriage, what you are doing is throwing morality, religion, and tradition out of marriage.."
I disagree with that completly. What's immoral in allowing two people to have the same happiness as afforded to two other people? It's immoral to deny that to someone.
Religion - hey, to each his own. Not a topic that I see relevant to this issue.
Tradition - hmm. Traditions change, times change. People adapt, learn, and grow. Marriage won't suddenly disappear or fall apart because two people got married.
Go back to legal reasons - and I'm not talking about polygamy, because I don't see that as related to this issue. The pro-polygamy people can take their argument separtely to the courts.
My sig left me for a younger user id.
Different-but-equal has been tried in the past. It doesn't work. It results in some people being more equal than others. If the new term affords the same rights, benefits, and characteristics as the old term, why should it be different at all?
Sometimes, words evolve and come to mean various things. Society is just going to have to deal with the fact that many people want "marriage" to apply in more situations than it used to.
Personally, I don't understand what people have against the allowance of the word "marriage" to apply to homosexual relationships as well as hetero-. If someone is heterosexual, how is it actually going to affect them?
I'm looking to get rich. I've got steps #2 (????) and #3 (PROFIT!) planned out, but am having trouble coming up with #1.
Point 1- what business does government have in framing public policy around a religious institution?
An amendment is something the people vote on. George Bush is merely giving the people of the US a chance to define marriage. No matter what society you talk about. No matter what religion you talk about. There has not been a society that has survived flourishing same-gendered sex, much less a government that supports it.
Point 2- The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members.
The way I see it and 80% of Arkansas and 71% of Louisiana voters voted that same-sex marriage is bad for society. It is immoral which means it degrades security due to the immoral message it sends to the populus which sways public opinion to immoral standards. One of the Governments responsibilities is providing security which is what it would do with a marriage amendment.
Point 3- Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
Judges are a part of the government and they are working their tail off to define marriage while ignoring the people.
Point 4- If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine.
Men and Women are able to create babies without technological help. More citizens increase the tax base and are a great investment for any government with lots of spare land. Is all this is about is money? If anything, the doctor should get the tax break, not the same-sex couple. It seems to me that its your understanding that same-sex marriage is not illegal. Just not benefited.
Point 5- If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we wouldn't even be having this gay marriage debate.
Exactly, we need to remove justices from the bench that legislate and define marriage that is contrary to the will of the people. George Bush's marriage amendment was a response to renegade judges. Thank God for such a brave, strong, and wise leader.
This question is murderous for John Kerry to answer, because he's going to violate more of his base if he comes out not opposing gay marriage. It can only help George Bush. It resonates with a majority of the US citizens.
Good Question.
How can you defeat an emotion?
That's why you need to cut spending, too.
I'll agree that the tax cuts were bad only because they didn't accompany budget cuts, too. It doesn't make sense to decrease revenue while increasing spending, but the way to go is not to raise taxes.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Interestingly, President Bush's position on reinstituting the draft is similar to his positions on things like deficit spending and the Iraq insurgency: "Don't Worry About It."
Oh my, my! It's HanzoSan, back from the dead! We knew you couldn't stay away for long!
Yes, who is to say that "fifteen consenting adults cannot express their love through a committed set of relationships?"
If that relationship fell to pieces, just imaging the divorce court fees, and that'd be a hell of a lot of alimony, too.
Or could 4 people split off in divorce leaving the other 11 married? If they did that could 1 of the 4 member family stay married to 7 of the 11 member family?
And that's not even considering child support and custody. Does the larger family group automatically get custody?
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
From the Washington Post:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.
You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?
BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.
John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.
I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
The morals of virtually all Western Societies are derived by a set of 10 rules handed supposedly handed by God to Moses. The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens.
"encourage children" as in "encourage production of children"? Yeah, a lot of the western world has a birth-rate that's below the replenishment rate, but failing to recognise same-sex relationships is not the way to do it.
"Hey, I'm gay, but I can't be with my Man. Guess I'll have to go poke a women and breed". Somehow I doubt it.
To get more children, there needs to be a change in society that means that people aren't so driven to spend 40-50 years of their lives building careers in order to pay for retirement. I have no solution to this. I'd love to work fewer hourse, live in a nice house, have wonderful holidays and have enough money to raise a dozen kids, but its not socioeconomically possible.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
In addition to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are engaged in a "War on Terror." It would seem that the wars are being extended, and in the case of the War on Terror, there is no end is sight. How do you plan to keep the military strong enough to wage these wars, and any future wars ? Will you bring back the draft ?
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
yea, people should marry whoever they want. in fact, a person with 2 personalities should marry themselves - they're not hurting anyone, right? yea, 2 women for 1 man, 3 men for 2 women, son and mom, brother and sister. yea, there should be no morality! yeeeea! *puke
I'm currently enrolled in College, and I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by John F. Kennedy Jr, nephew of President Kennedy. Most of what he said was that President Bush is the worst president the United States have ever had for the environment. He also said that in a real free market companies do NOT pollute, and cited the case of 1100 coal burning plants to produce electricity which produce about 60% of the mercury contaminating the US's waterways today.
Mr. President, you say you share family values. In my family, one of the aspects my parents taught me was to not leave a mess behind me, and also how to take care of the environment. Shouldn't that be part of your plans too? Or do you favor the coal plants more because they donated over $100 million to your campaign? Also, according to Mr. Kennedy's lecture, the mercury contamination in water will be responsible for up to 30,000 deaths a year. That's more deaths than the ones that happened in the Twin Towers on sept. 11th! WHY are you letting American citizens die? And why do you appoint people that fake the numbers when it comes to science? Wouldn't the space shuttle Columbia disaster be related to your negligence in appointing people knowledgeable in critical positions?
Mr. Kerry, what will you do to support the environment? Will you re-open the lawsuits that our President has closed against the coal burning plants? Will you listen to the scientific community in general instead of a selected few that tell you what you want to hear instead of the truth?
Yes, I am a supporter of John Kerry in this campaign, but to be frank it is more because I fear President Bush more than Senator Kerry.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
"Or is it cool to you that if one partner dies unexpectedly, the authorities won't even bother contacting their partner because that person isn't legally a spouse? And the financial loss/burden that can impose?"
You can set this up already. Many have already done so. I certainly would support measures to make this easier legally, because this is quite useful for any non-married people. Many old ladies live together in a non-sexual fashion, and have to jump through hoops to get this kind of stuff done, and I fully support "civil unions" or other such legal devices to make this easier. But to call it marriage is silly, and to call a breakup of such a union a divorce is likewise silly.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Given that the development of space could significantly grow the economy (and humanity for that matter), will you make space development a real priority in your administration?
www.lonseidman.com
And if you can't do it without reference to religion, then the separation of Church and State says its none of the government's business.
(Of course, what you'd have to do is define objective morality. And its hard to make a good case for objective morality. Murder's pretty easy. Anything that directly affects people who are non-consensual to the act... you can make a case for that. Consensual gay marriage? Good luck with that.)
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
And if these people aren't willing to say that we also need a Constitutional ammendment to stop impotent men, post-menopausal women and people who just don't want to have children from marrying, then I will just ignore them.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
If that relationship fell to pieces, just imaging the divorce court fees, and that'd be a hell of a lot of alimony, too.
;) Actually, polygamy is a slightly different debate from the plain-cake gay marriage debate since it does involve multiple people. But my suspicion is that those questions could all be ironed out if necessary. Not that I can do it here, heh.
Or could 4 people split off in divorce leaving the other 11 married? If they did that could 1 of the 4 member family stay married to 7 of the 11 member family?
And that's not even considering child support and custody. Does the larger family group automatically get custody?
All good questions
There are TONS of websites, blogs, and emails circulating which either imply or directly state that "the administration" is trying to "quietly" bring back the draft. Some even reference the actual bills, but of course don't link to them. Most people just assume what's said is true on its face.
What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.
That I will agree with. The Guard is being used for tasks for which it was never intended, quite inappropriately in my personal opinion. However, consider that the forces are there, and the current administration, frankly, doesn't want a draft. It was either that, or cripple active forces - or find more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines elsewhere. I don't agree with it, but since I agree that the radical elements in the mideast as a whole MUST be dealt with, up to and including with force, I agree with the general strategy.
It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips.
It's not really "funny", and "who's who" was a little tongue-in-cheek, but some of those representatives are pretty darned liberal.
Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
How is that funny? I even noted that. I'm glad that sensible people on both sides of the aisle might be able to collaborate on a bill. What's "funny" is that there's not a SINGLE Republican on the former set of bills.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
Sure, but I think that's a different discussion. Heck, I think if framed properly, a lot of people would support some kind of "service" (not necessarily military). But I don't think that's what people are talking about when they speak of the "draft".
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points.
On the contrary: I simply don't have time to write a novel on the subject on slashdot. I realize it is insanely more complex than what will be discussed here.
This whole issue is ridiculously more complex than what people want to make it out to be. Sometimes I wonder how the United States ever had the will to fight and win the great battles of this century. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
Oh? Please, do tell. Because I really don't particularly like Bush. Or Kerry.
Kerry's detailed policy speech today was fantastic, in my opinion. (I'm glad he's stopped talking about something that happened over three decades ago.) He talks about Al Qaeda being the real enemy. He talks about holding Saudi Arabia accountable and responsible. He talks about becoming independent of mideast oil. He talked about radical Panislamism wanting to use hatred of the West to topple governments in the mideast to develop a new unified empire in the region, to fight the US and the West. He made some really firm statements about the things we should be doing. It all is really, really great rhetoric - and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.
But how do we do these things?
Al Qaeda *is* the real enemy. And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. And much of the Arab/Muslim world s
Senator Kerry,
earlier this year you told Tim Russert that you would release all of your military records, yet you've failed to do so and you refuse to release your Vietnam journal. Why shouldn't the public infer that the contents of these documents would undermine your credibility or otherwise damage your candidacy?
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
This sounds more complicated than doing my taxes.
"However, from a legal stance when looking at "unions" you can't push that moral obligation onto the person."
Why not? The union is freely entered into. Noone is preventing two people from making other random commitments to each other. It is just not legally recognized as marriage.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Do you feel that Congress has, over the past 100 years, extended its commerce power beyond what is reasonable? If not, what effect will recent Supreme Court Cases such as Morrison and Lopez, which limit federal influence to interstate economic spheres, have on your noneconomic policy goals?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I'd gladly kill 10,000 Americans if it saves the life of one Iraqi.
-one of the people you'd gladly kill
I keep hearing that "Knowledge is Power", but I'm hella smart ... and ConEd won't get up off my back. What's up with that?
Oh, answer that Halo question too! Aight?
On the other hand, same sex couples will, have the same freedoms as everyone else.
Ideally, isn't it a good thing for everyone to be free to do what they want in so far that it does not prevent other people's freedom?
I'm looking to get rich. I've got steps #2 (????) and #3 (PROFIT!) planned out, but am having trouble coming up with #1.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
First, can either candidate please show me in what way they are fiscally responsible?
Second, how will tort reform lower the costs of my health insurance when we barely do anything to keep out illegal aliens? When we combine their emergency room coverage with the ever-growing numbers of uninsured Americans, those costs have to be paid by someone, and that someone will either be the government, which uses my tax dollars, or my insurance company, which will charge me higher premiums. Please explain this logic.
Third, what is a service economy really? If we keep shipping manufacturing overseas, then those who produce will have control over the products we receive and control the price charged. So, should we start language education so that we can handle the future call center jobs here that will support China and India?
Fourth, what good is No Child Left Behind if all it does is bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator? As everyone must agree, the job of President is a demanding position requiring a person of exceptional skill and intelligence. That being the case, why do so many politicians try to act like dumb everyday people?
Fifth, let's assume terrorists are like fire ants. Nasty little creatures! In numbers, fire ants can take out a person, as terrorists can take down a nation. Do you think big-stick politics (invasions and warfare) are a real solution? I know fire ants are a problem in Texas. Has the President ever dealt with them directly?
Oh well, some questions. I just which they'd allow charts and pictures at the debates. I'd love to have an impromptu section where the candidates are asked to point out countries on a map, name capitals, name current world leaders, name the basic price for common goods, answer questions about common costs, etc.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
"encourage children" as in "encourage production of children"? Yeah, a lot of the western world has a birth-rate that's below the replenishment rate, but failing to recognise same-sex relationships is not the way to do it.
You misunderstand. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It does, on the other hand, have everything to do with good citizenship. Doubt me? Look at the statistics for successful people that come from a stable, healthy family structure versus a broken home and/or unmarried women. The statistics speak for themselves. Bluntly, a healthy family makes tomorrows healthy society. Period.
Maybe you should tell that to my wife. I could use some 'time off'.
The most obvious concern with gay "marriage" is that same sex couple don't have the biological ability to reproduce.And, whose concern is that? Yours? What about all those couples that either choose to not have children or can't have children. Should we not allow them to get married?
Obviously, I don't understand why you are making such a fuss over some decision that is between two people. There are benefits and penalties to marriage. Two people that enter into a marriage (hopefully) go into it aware of those benefits and penalties. And, those benefits and penalties do not impact you in any way.
In fact, heterosexual couples with children (like myself & my wife) cause more 'societal' impact when they divorce than a childless couples.
Since I am not, I won't be constrained to ask questions according to him or his organization.
My top questions for Kerry are:
Since we are still talking election rather than impeachment, what will you do to supplant Bush's killing sand niggers as homeland entertainment without being called a girly-man?
Given that advances in technology makes it ever easier for intelligent, motivated individuals to exercise terminal control over thousands if not tens of thousands of people over that world, what is the point of winning an election when America under Bush will be hated for generations by intelligent, motivated muslims?
polygamy (n.): Marriage with several, or more than one, a plurality of spouses; the practice or custom according to which one man has several wives.
Polygamy is specifically about marriage. Having multiple sexual partners is simply polyamory.
Oh shesh. I see mostly garbage that you've typed. Offer something which isn't garbage, while not attempting to be inflamitory, and I'll happily respond.
Before you bother to reply, bother to check the statistics on same sax relationships. Both to check duration of relationship AND the associated crime rates (mostly same-sex males). Now, check the social statistics for unwed mothers and/or fractured families. Now, compare against healthy families.
You can get angry all you want, but don't bother to reply until you understand the value of "family" on society and the associated costs. Until such time, you're waving a banner with nothing to say.
What I want to know is how we got here:
Two loving, devoted people want to get married and spend their whole life together, but happen to not be of the same gender: "No! you'll destroy the insitution of marriage!!!!"
Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie want to get married: "Okie dokie, Mr. Jackson!"
Just to be the devil's advocate, wouldn't eliminating the _no-fault_ divorce be a better way to protect marriage? I mean, they want to change the consitution to talk about marriage, but thats the ONLY thing they want to say?? One man and one woman? You trivialize marriage even further if you do that. "We want to protect the initution of marriage to ensure that everyone has compatible genitalia". What a relief, I can sleep safer now. Thanks George. You would think that these people would be more concerned that you can usually just arbitrarily dump your spouse every couple of years for someone younger if they were so dedicated about protecting the insitution of marriage.
Oh and lets come back to earth for one second and talk about poligamy. The gay person is a biological fact (and it's not just people either). However, the woman who doesn't mind that her husband (if she loves him) nails some other woman every other night, is not. Laws against poligamy protect women, because you know men would try to get away with it, if they could. That is what you call a real theat to marriage. What is protected by laws against gay marriage? Nothing, execpt maybe the sensibilities of insecure bible-beaters.
Not even the republicans have a good argument against gay marriage, they just talk about what it will lead to (beastiality, poligamy). Thats like saying Evangelical Christians shouldn't be allowed to spank their kids because it will inevitably lead to an epidemic of children being beaten to death by their parents.
I have a real question for George: Why, with everything else that's going on in the world do you worry so much about what gay people do? Do you find yourself fixated on the activities of homosexuals often, even though you might try to think about other things instead? Is it just disgust you feel or is there a certain fascination you maybe just aren't admitting to yourself? Have you talked to a therapist about it, and if so what did he say?
Or a better one: Since this has nothing to do with protecting marriage and everything to do with making sure religious people don't have to deal with the fact that God makes gay people gay, why not just come right out and say it, if it's such a great thing? Either God is wrong or you are George, which is it?
Oh, but here is the best one yet: If you really (strictly for the sake of argument) want to defend marriage why not make the amendment "Every couple that marries shall be legally bound to love, honor and charish their spouse for as long as they both shall live"?
It's sad that some people looked at what happened in San Fransico and just saw two fags or dykes getting married. I saw people who really cared about each other. I saw families being made. It's hard for me to imagine how thats a bad thing.
I'm concerned about the growing number of people advocating sinister connections between some members of the Bush administration to the 9/11 attacks. A large conference about the issue was recently held in Canada where many individuals, both known and unknow to the public, advocated such theories, also the Federal law suit launched by Stanly Hilton alledging such connections make me worry. Do you (both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry) think such efforts to be damaging to the USA and/or the war on terror or to US security in general? How do you intend to respond to this development (i.e. the fast growing number of people believing in such a connection, particularly in Canada and Europe)?
Having curly hair (on your head) does not prevent you from reproducing. Having same-sex partners does. Adoption and artificial insemination is a way around the genetic defect of homosexuality for them to feel like they have reproduced even though they have not.
A genetic defect that prevents reproduction is severe, be it by sexual preference or by looking really ugly.
Pubcrawler.ca
.
How exactly does one have aural sex with box turtles ?
Does it involve talking dirty with them? Or, do you go in a dark room and listen to what they're doing, and they listen to you?
Now, oral sex with box turtles, that's something that's a little (just a little) more easily understood.
I'd gladly kill 10,000 Americans if it saves the life of one Iraqi.
Feel free to try. I hope my government one day realizes it must kill all of you for us to survive
So behead our soldiers, but don't think we aren't pissed off, and don't think we aren't enjoying videos like this one.. Iraqi getting owned
Mr President and Senator Kerry, where do you stand on the issue of the rights of dogs to stick their nose up people's butts?
Wow... way to create a Loaded Question Contest... See who can show their political afilliation most obviously by asking questions that they already know the answers to.
How about people asking questions that pertain to YOUTH, since that IS the purpose of the whole-she-bang. For example:
"Why can't I drink until I am 21, but I can drive, vote, smoke, and most importantly, the government can send me off to get shot when I am 18?"
There's a good question that pertains to the Youth of this country, eh?
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
I know neither candidate will respond with anything but hot air but if people see those two waffle around when asked real questions, it just might get people to think about how pathetic the candidates really are.
For John Kerry,
What's it like having the personality of a grapefruit?
Just so you know, the main reason that US companies set up division sin the Caymans and other "tax-sheltered" countries is not for the sole reason that they want to avoid paying US taxes... ...since the US has the highest corporate tax rate of any country in the world, their international divisions of their companies would be at a distinct disadvantage when competing against companies from other countires with less stringent taxation laws.
Now, to even the playing field for American companies, we could always lower the cporporate tax rate within the US... but then wacky liberals like yourself would say that Bush is just doing it to make Cheyney's buddies in Halliburton richer (which, of course, is the battle-cry of the leftist conspiracy theorists who don't bother to look into the "nuance" of world economics).
Fuck this marrage shit. If we would just enforce the damn sodamy laws we wouldn't have this problem. If we treated homosexuality like the mental deases that it is instead of some acceptable "alternitive" lifestyle we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Can you please explain the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror?
If the injustices of Hussein's regime would have been magically ended by taking 10,000 random, innocent American lives, you would have still been all for it, right?
do not read this line twice.
I am afraid our political system has been co-opted by the elites to such a level that the needs of the citizens are being ignored. While we still have a representational democracy, our elected leaders no longer represent their constituents, but rather their patrons.
We are experiencing a true constitutional crisis that transcends mere campaign finance reform. We must eliminate the Electoral College. We must move from a winner-takes-all electoral system, to a multi-party system.
Personally, I am saddened we American's have not used our wealth, influence and might to solve global problems. Providing health care that is more concerned with helping people than making money, pursuing environmental policies that make long term sustainability a higher priority than short term profits, improving global education, fighting poverty, and finally, pursuing global justice.
Clinging to the myth that we can achieve security through violence is another serious flaw. In fact, when policy makers have close connections to large corporations that benefit from war, and then decide to pursue war, we have a total conflict of interest.
The war on terrorism has been pathetic. Basic conflict resolution requires an understanding of the positions of all parties involved. The Israelis and the Palestinians need to lay down their weapons, and get back to the table. Compromise is the only solution, as continuing this war will only continue the death and destruction that serves to cultivate the very roots of militant terrorism.
So I guess my question is: Is holding these beliefs a crime of sedition? Is forming groups who share these beliefs illegal? Is actively trying to change the system, not through senseless violence, but education something that threatens the status quo to the point that it is too dangerous to do?
Let's ask Bush why they can be so hypocrite about China being favored for trade when they qualify as the "axis of evil", and if he's really retarded or it's just a strategy to get sympathy from the dumb average Joe.
Mr. President you have said that invading Iraq was a logical extension in the war on terror. Given the horrible security situation in Iraq and all the continuing terrorism how was installing a known terrorist as that country's new leader a positive move in that war?
m l
=tkk
PS Overview for anyone who doesn't know
http://kenlayne.com/2004/09/meet-ayad-allawi.ht
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
thats an interesting idea. i would support trying that. for a few billion dollars that might be enough to create an industry of companies. people might be willing to put up venture capital to a company with enough experts and ex cia and ex marines who had a decent chance at pulling such an operation off. of course then one of his sons would probably just become the next dictator. but hey do the same thing there... its certainly worth trying. if no one can pull it off, then we don't have to pay the reward, no harm done.
i think they should do the same with osama bin laden. $25 million isn't enough to create an industry of companies where people are willing to put up venture capital. if we had teams of professional hunters harrassing al quaeda... well offering a reward that large certainly wouldn't hurt anything because we are certainly spending more than that right now.
Mr. President can you spell "sovereignty"?
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Here we go again, someone who thinks that there are no degrees in this world. Come on man wake up. I think not having laws forbidding me and my boyfried from having anal sex in the privacy of our own home, and Jeffry Dahmer going out to a bar and picking up young boys to eat them are two completely different leagues. Anyone with half a brain in their heads would see this. One is consenting, the other is not. It simply is not right to dictate who and how one person can love another, if it is consenting and between two adults then you are nothing but wrong (immoral type of wrong) to try and forbid it.
"and have aural sex with box turtles!" Aural, you say?... I always thought turtles were very quiet.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Do you know personally someone who has downloaded music illegally from the internet? And does he/she belong in jail?
Senator Kerry:
You have gone on the record stating that you want to undo the tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans (those making $200K or more), but have you thought about the effect it might have on small business owners? If they are the ones bearing the brunt of the risks and taxes don't you feel this will have a negative effect on the economy?
President Bush:
Do you feel that your tax cuts have shifted the burden of taxes onto the middle class? You have talked about making the tax code more fair and far more simple, do you have any more details or is this just camping promising that you don't intend to keep?
Bush: Son, there's no such word as hoom.
Not in my dictionary, at least...
:n
The debate obviously in part, is what defines marriage, and who gets to define it? I'm not sure the answer is all that clear.
Yes, people are welcome to follow their faith, but when they impose their views on others (anti-gay legislation et al) then they stepped over the line. If someone's faith requires them to step on my or another's rights, then telling them to back off is not 'narrow-minded', it's protecting my own rights and civil liberties, and often that of persecuted minority groups.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Please explain why I am a "young" voter because I'm 33. I have two kids, a wife, a house and mortgage, a job, a lawn that needs mowed, aches and pains in joints I never knew I had, a dog and a cat.
Why do voter advocacy groups put me in this youth group and associate me with others as young as 13-17? I don't get jiggy wit it cause P Diddy says voting is phat. I don't spread the bling-bling to my senate homies cause a certain bill is whack. I don't look to MTV to motivate me to vote and get involved.
10-15 years makes a lot of difference in one's life. Please explain why these groups assume that "youth" campaigns appeal to adults.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Dear Mr. President and Sen. Kerry:
Do you think that in your lifetime, the Dept. of Homeland Security will reduce the threat level to "Low"?
How about even "Guarded"?
How about ever?
This is true. I'm a Linux developer and I never file an income tax return.
The problem is larger than just the gay marriage issue. We need to think long and hard about what exactly we want our government to do. We need to define the governments function and then elect people who will do only that. In my opinion the government has no business telling us who we can marry. If a male wishes to marry a male, so be it. If a female wishes to marry a female, that's fine. If a group of however many people want to have a weddding and get married, that is their business. Just because you or I wouldn't do something doesn't mean that other people shouldn't be able to.
We need a much smaller government and we need to learn how to take care of ourselves.
My question to the candidates:
What should be the role of our government and how can we limit the government to only this?
I think the founding fathers thought they had taken care of things like the government telling us who we can and can't marry when they defined our rights... they attempted to ensure that we would control our government rather than the other way around but unfortunately things didn't work out how they envisioned.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
I never knew slashdot EVEN had the symbols for republicans and democrats (donkey, elephant) althought they doo look a little raw :)).
But as far as far as interviews go, i do believe that this will be one of the most unique chances to get an answer from a politician (that doesen't sound like it has been done to death by CNN, NBC, other politicians, stock q's...)in previous elections, other politicians, now etc..
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
I love how price grabber is offering me the best deals on Republicans AND Democrats. I knew they were all for sale but now I know how much!
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Keep in mind that in the bible having more then one wife was a normal thing. Actually it was just poor people that had one wife as you needed to proof your capability of supporting more then one wife and their children.
-- I don't buy it, I grow it.
Children can still exist in a gay marriage. Artificial insemnation, adoption, etc. In fact, it may actually improve adoption rates and could be a great boon to our society in many ways.
:)
And with gay marriage comes (no pun intended) gay divorce. And as every lawyer knows, divorce is a huge money maker and thus gay marriage can stimulate the economy... amongst other things.
And as a bonus... you get to piss off Rush Limbaugh and Jimmy Swaggart at the same time. It's a win-win-win menage trous.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
come on guys! gay marriage debates are so lame!
how about something truly fundamental like stem-cell research, which can actually save lives?
I mean, which of these candidates is going to support providing new strains, full and open access to everything our doctors and scientists need in order to provide cures for life-threatening diseases and conditions?
(Not that that this will ever get past the screening processes, so this is more of an open letter and rant.)
Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry:
It seems that neither of you are truly interested in reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government, protecting our Constitutional Rights, or taking the necessary steps to make the United States a less desireable target for international terrorists.
However (thanks to your campaign underlings), I now know a lot more about your service records from the Vietnam Era than I really would care to know about.
It is pretty obvious from decades of Republicrat rule that the following things have happened.
1. The Constitution and our civil liberties have been pissed on repeatedly by just about everyone in D.C.
2. Our tax dollars are squandered on overpriced and unecessary legislation.
3. Congress is for sale to the highest bidder.
4. Terrorists continually target us because you guys need feel the need to get involved in issues world wide we have no business sticking our nose in.
So, my question is this:
It totally baffles me how the American populace is continually conned into voting for either of your parties. How do you achieve such levels of media mastery? Do you guys really have those mind control rays I've heard about?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Ideally, traditional marriage helps perpetuate the species (I say ideally because not everyone can have or wants kids). Perpetuation of the Society is currently a large part what the government endorses when it comes to marriage.
You can have children without marriage, but for a healthy society two separate sexes coming together, having kids, and committing to taking care of them is the ideal in that it wastes as few resources as possible given the desired output (no "welfare" single parents, theoretically a better upbringing, etc). Marriage is the most efficient way to ensure a relatively healthy next generation. That is a very good reason in and of itself for the government to take notice.
This element is, typically, missing from same-sex couples. Same sex couples may make great parents, but they can't reproduce: From a genetically-diverse point of view, they are inefficient (just like polygamy or inbreeding). From a number-wise point of view, well, they can't reproduce period. There are no equivalent benefits for endorsing same sex-couples as they are for endorsing traditional marriage.
Love is not a sufficient requirement for government endorsement. It has never been. If it was, we wouldn't have anti-relative-marriage laws, age-of-consent-laws, anti-marry-your-dog laws, etc. Since love, though important, is by itself not enough to provide any practical advantage over the traditional next-generation rearing institution ("co-ed" marriage), same-sex marriage can be seen as a burden of society (by taking resources such as taxes, etc, but contributing nothing in return).
Having said that, I agree that same-sex couples should be able to "marry," but asking the government to carry the burden with its sanction is another matter.
A recent Salon articlehad some fascinating info on lobsters, in particular
They also have this little interesting feature of their anatomy where they have a big bladder in their head and they piss out the front of their head. So they're constantly pissing in each other's faces.
Then you say
I'm not fond of a president that thinks and urinates with the same body part.
I am confused. Are you saying President Bush is a lobster?
Infuriate left and right
True, but the link between family income and "sucess" is much stronger. Single mothers, in general, may be poorer, but marrying them to some dipshit isn't likely to tip the scales very far. The link with marriage is indirect.
A large proportion of children growing up today with married parents have attention from either due to double careers, and the general idea amoung the "wealthy" that child-raising is just another task that can be delegated.
BTW: I come from a "broken home", as you put it. Now, what's your definition of "sucessful"?
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
If you become our next president would you support drafting young people into the military?
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
"If marriage is only about "love" then the argument for "marrying" your dog seems pretty strong."
And as soon as your dog can say "I do" go ahead and marry it.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
How about:
...
If you can't vote (because you're not a US citizen) but subjected to the outcome of this anyway,
insensitive clod
What are your plans or thoughts about protecting personal privacy and rights for digital media usage in this increasing digital age.
"This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
Dear Presidential Candidates,
In light of the looming budget cut, which cabinet or department would you deemed as overbloated and could stand to be made more effectual?
No, the Congress nor US Supreme Court would not be a viable nor constituional option, but their program-specific entities are fair game.
That's quite a logical leap from 'destroy the traditional definition of marriage' to 'destroy the traditional family.'
First of all, how will allowing homosexuals to marry destroy the definition of marriage? Seems like it would merely amend it. Did the first amendment destroy the constitution?
Second, even if it did 'destroy' the traditional definition of marriage, by what mechanism would that destroy the traditional family? Are you saying that if homosexuals were allowed to marry that from that moment forward all heterosexual couples would suddenly divorce, and no whitebread nuclear families would ever form again, ever? Isn't that a little insane when held up to even a brief analysis?
Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, I'm sure you both have plans to influence Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons... but that is not what I'm asking. I want to know what the US's reaction will be under your administration if Iran ignores outside pressure and continues to pursue nuclear weapons anyway.
(If this is actually submitted, please knock off the sig...)
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis... it doesn't even have to agree with me.
statistics please
I thought the candidates submitted the questions and we only get to decide who asks them.
In World War II, the GI life insurance policy was for $10,000. In the 1940's, $10,000 could buy a house. During the 1960's, the GI Life insurance policy was boosted to $12,000. Considering the average price of a funeral is $8,000, this does not leave much life "insurance" for the family of a fallen solider. If you "support" the military, why has the GI life insurance policy not been adjusted (at least to match the rate of inflation)?
Also, the majority of the ground forces in Iraq are in the Reserves or the National Guard. However, since these people are not full-time military, they (and their families) do not have access to a whole host of military benefits that are available to full-time military personnel. In my opinion, if a Reserve or National Guard unit is activated and deployed, they should be treated as regular military personnel, having the same access to military benefits, pay scales, etc. Again, if you "support" the troops, should we not treat all troops the same?
"homophobes who hate the idea of two same-sex people actually being in love with each other"
First, why do people like you always descend to name calling? Isn't it possible that people have a legitimate reason for being against gay marriage? Is your argument so weak that you have to close off discussion by calling people who disagree with you "homophobes"?
Secondly, why should being in love with someone have anything to do with this? The government does not, and should not, recognize love as a compelling reason to do anything. Doing something that changes the fabric of society, and gay marriage will for good or ill, should be done for FAR more compelling reasons than "love".
Except that medical ifertility can be treated. Last time I checked, nothing can be done to make a man pregnant.
Which suggests that your logic is bollocks.
That merely shows you haven't had sex with one.
Neither have I, of course. I heard it through the grapewine..
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.
This is for 18-35 year old voters. Is /. going to start up a new section named "Youth" that us old farts are denied access to?
Seriously, though, I think this is great. I remember when I was in college, so many of the people didn't care about the election. One of the reasons why is that the candidates weren't answering their questions. Clinton started changing that by appearing on MTV, but I'm willing to bet the perception still keeps a lot of younger people from voting.
This is a great concern for me, because I want to marry my pet monkey.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I like your idea. It will keep those devilish deaf-mutes and throat cancer victims from breeding as well.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Grapevine... right, I understand.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Actually polgamy is a great arguement. If there is no constitutional ban on polygamy why should there be a ban on gay marriage. And shouldn't a constitutional amendment define marriage (i.e. min age, bloodline restriction, number of partners, sex of partners etc. If marriage is such a national insitution is should be straightforward to define the insitution in the constitution. If gay marriage is such an obviously bad thing why not let each state pass laws outlawing? Since when did the republicans become federalists? I personally, like George Bush, am all for a huge federal government. I would like to propose a constitutional amendment requiring the State of California to replace the golden bear with a vagina.
Most of what has been posted is directed at Bush (overwhelmingly negative, but...). I guess it goes to show that very few are pro-Kerry and rather (Rather? heh heh) are anti-Bush. So much for staying OT. Uh...ahemmm...
Yes, but I suggest removing some bark first. It'll rub you raw.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Since religious-based arguments for or against legal doctrines are invalid
--->since the separation of church and state is an established legal concept in this country
and since only religious-based arguments have been used to defend banning same-sex marriage
and since I can think of no other reason why two same sex people should not be permitted to legally marry
and since it is unlikely that a consitutionally valid reason can be given for prohibiting gay marriage
Therefore,
There should not be a constitutional prohibition against two same sex people marrying.
My analysis:
First premise is debateable -- needs more defense. Some legal doctrines are based on concepts of morality, which might, themselves, be based on religious considerations.
Second premise fails -- it is unsupported and reasonable people might not accept it as it is. It needs support.
Third premise fails -- it is a rebuttal argument that states, in essence, you can think of no rebuttal. Not very compelling.
Fourth premise fails -- it is, in part, a restatement of the second premise (I can think of no reason). Also, attempts to ammend the Constitution are attempts to change what is Constitutional, by definition.
So, the best premises we have are the first two and they need more support before they could be deemed acceptable.
The conclusion is unwarranted based on your argument.
Thanks for your concern. Though I'm so much better off than others with MS, I'm feeling pretty good about the way I'm feeling now. I'm just concerned about the future.
Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
--Mahatma Gandhi
In Junior's defense, the above was from his father's election campaign in 1987.
Pretty incredible stuff. The apple apparently didn't fall too far from that tree. --EC
--Have a good night's sleep. Don't forget to brush your tooth.
If it feels good, do it.
If God didn't want us to do X, he wouldn't have given us Y.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
For both candidates:
Will you answer any of these questions legitimately or will they be full of meaningless political doublespeak and rhetoric?
"Do you, Mr. Paralyzed-from-the-mouth-down, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife? ...Uh, if you do blink once for 'I do' and twice for 'I don't.'"
Why do we never see you standing next to anyone tall? Do you really think that we don't know you're short?
You are making the assumption that homosexuality is genetically determined. This has not been proven. In fact, what we know of the human genome so far seems to disprove it.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Mr Bush, why has your administration hired over 3,000 people to administer the draft and when are you planning to begin conscription?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
What do phrases like "under God" mean for Buddhists, Hindus, Asatruar, and other non-monotheists? Maybe we could change it to "Under a god" for them?
Why not strike it, and phrases like "In God We Trust." We can print our money with phrases like "In a god we trust..."
By using phrases like "In God We Trust" we are endorsing at least the Abrahamic (Judeo-Islamic-Christian) branch of religions as a whole.
Sure we are a Christian country. This is why the Capitol building has a statue of a Greek goddess on its dome and why it is indeed named after the Roman temple to Jupiter....
Perhaps we trust in the goddess Liberty?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
By the way, there is no evidence he did cocaine. It's called "hearsay". Even if he did, yes, that would still be stupid and illegal. I don't see anyone saying what he did was okay.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So you are saying that if same sex marraige is allowed....everybody will turn gay and the genetic diversity of the population will vanish and the human race will come to an abrupt end?
If I was married to another guy, I'd be pissed that I had to pay the same taxes as a opposite-sex couple would. If I can't have kids, why should I pay school taxes? Why should sterile opposite-sex couples be allowed to marry? By your definition they should not be allowed since they will be returning nothing to society as well. There are plenty of people out there poppin out babies, that we don't need to worry about those reasons.
Marriage is a construct created by humans, there is no biological need for it. Since the definition of marraige was created by us, it can be changed by us.
I see no burden the government would have to carry beyond what it already carries for sterile couples.
Eh? Women are people too. Let's expand your pool a bit; 3 women and 3 men:
Bob
Steve
Harry
Molly
Susan
Maria
Each of the three men has exactly the same rights, to marry either Molly, Susan or Maria. OTOH, each of the three women could marry either Bob, Steve or Harry. These pools are different; the rights of the men differ from the rights of the women. For example, Bob can't marry Steve but Maria can.
The most powerful nation in the history of the planet supposedly has every resource, from human intelligence to the most sophisticated spy satellites, hunting for him.
So, Mr Bush, three years on, where is he?
Is there *any* chance at all that this mass-murderer, who killed not only thousands of US but also hundreds of allied citizens at the WTC, has not been found is because he is hiding in Saudi Arabia, a country which your administration refuses to antagonise in even the slightest way?
Yes or no, Mr Bush. Is there a chance that he is in Saudi Arabia? And if the answer is yes, why aren't you looking there?
You must think in Russian.
Because we all know that one straight parent is better than two gay parents, which is better than a man having sex with a box turtle. //nice Daily Show reference.
With our proven experience in successfully occupying other countries (Germany, Japan), why did we stumble so badly in Iraq?
Germany and Japan had both been functioning democracies for a significant period (10+ years) before they were taken over by the militarists who started WWII. All that the US had to do after the war was support and help stabilize democratic forces that were already there.
Iraq has never been a democracy. That this experiment would go batshit has been obvious from the beginning, partially because of that fact. Self-government cannot be imposed on a people, whether the imposed government consists of ballots and elections or not. It's called self-government for a reason. It's not something that can be forced to happen.
So what if I'm a property owner who doesn't rent to non-married couples? I'll have to recognize what the government chooses or get sued.
I believe that does infringe on my rights, quite significantly.
Senator Kerry, would you have supported the war in Iraq? ^^lets see if anyone gets the humor.
Amen.
OK. Give me a legitimate reason. I have not heard one that can't be boiled down to some personal objection against gays or lesbians.
Medical infertility is sometimes treatable. A woman who has had a histerectomy or a castrated man cannot reproduce, last time I checked. Same goes for gross genetic problems that cause permanent sterility.
Do you support marriage of permanently sterile people, even when they are of different sexes?
Are you saying Microsoft as a company should not care about working conditions of the employees? How will Microsoft ensure employee loyalty if they do not care about the needs of the employees? What would stop these employees from quitting and going to work for Apple? What would stop them from even joining the Linux movement?
Woops. I fogot to reply to this. Sorry.
You do have a point. So, let us say two gay men want to get married for reasons other than love. Why would you be opposed to it? I mean, if you aren't opposed to heterosexuals getting married for reasons not related to love, then you have no reason to be opposed to gays being married for non-emotional reasons.
what business of yours is it if 15 consenting adults want to live in the same house and rotate happily
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Or non sequitor, if you like.
The logical fallacy in your statement can be easily demonstrated with bagels. Let us say your statement instead read as follows:
"Bagels with cream cheese is what society holds up to be the ideal. If you disagree, then you must also logically hold bagels with tapioca to be a valid, tasty treat."
Obviously, it does not follow that someone who likes choice in bagel spreads would necessarily like any and all possible combinations of bagel and x.
At this point, our society is trying to determine whether there is any logical point in preventing homosexual couples from marrying. Society has not begun questioning strictures against polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, or any one of a number of other possible (and impossible) pairings. In many of those cases, such as pedophilia, the logical argument against them is strong and abundantly clear to all; marriage between an adult and a being who cannot possibly consent to the marriage would have physiological and psychological impacts on the wellbeing of the one who cannot give consent.
So we are left with the question of homosexual marriage (all other topics brought in being red herrings at this point). The arguments against homosexual marriage typically boil down to these three:
1) It is against the arguer's religion.
2) The "tradition" question. "It's always been this way..."
3) The assertion that marriage is for children.
The first argument is categorically invalid for anyone whose religious opinions differ. For instance, I am agnostic, and do not hold any religious text to have any meaning whatsoever outside of what one finds in it personally, and that is a matter between oneself and God. The proscription against a man "laying with another man" in Leviticus means literally nothing to me.
The second argument is not only illogical (if we did things the way we always did them, we'd still be picking lice out of each other's fur in the trees), but it is historically untrue. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, marriage was between one man and one woman of the same race. Earlier incarnations made the woman the slave/property of the man. In some cultures, marriages are even now still political in nature, and not at all based on the desires/loves of the marrying couple. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples would be a change, but it wouldn't be a drastic one.
The third argument is the most persuasive on the surface. Obviously, a stable home is important to children. However, men and women beyond child-rearing age are currently allowed to marry, as are infertile couples. Moreover, even many fertile couples are married without producing children (I am an example of that). If the sole purpose of marriage was for the generation/rearing of children, then marriages such as mine would necessarily be invalid.
In the absence of logical arguments against homosexual marriage, it appears that homosexual marriage is eventually going to be a fact in the United States. It is already overwhelmingly supported by the 16-29 demographic, and at this point I'm confident it's just a matter of time.
All of the major inventions have been produced by the public sector. Road, The internet, radio, satelites, robotics, even computers.
This technology is then passed down to the private sector and the reason the public sector must develop the building blocks of future technology is because the private sector will not invest its R&D into something without immediate profitability. We need taxes to build the foundations to new industries.
We also need taxes to train the workers of these new industries. NanoTechnology may someday be a new industry but if we cannot educate the scientists of the future through the public academic sector do you think the private sector wants to pick up the tab? Absolutely they will pick up the tab, but they will train workers in india, china, africa, and every third world country they can to reduce costs.
Without a public sector we have no way to protect American workers. Without a public sector its harder to start a business. Do you want to learn Indian and go over to India to teach C and C++ or do you want to just hire a kid out of college in your own country?
Where does the government get off trying to interfere with that?
An even better question...what business does the government have in any personal relationship? I don't have to get a liscense to have a best friend do I?
Marriage is a religious institution, not a political institution...or at least that's how it should be.
"He hated Mexicans, and he was half Mexican. AND he hated irony!"
>Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.
So homosexuals cannot be a family?
>When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
Gay couples are already allowed to adopt children. Allowing those couples to marry puts the child into a stronger family.
The greatest issue to me this campaign is probably the most oft-ignored one. Only three democracies in the world don't have runoff elections. This has limited the political debate to what only two elites want us to hear. Third party voices have been willfully silenced. Many feel their voices on critical issues extinguished. Minnesota, however, has the highest voter turnout due to its election reform. If elected, what would you do to promote open and fair elections and debates in America?
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
Good decisions are based on good intelligence - trusted information from a diverse number of sources. A good way to test the veracity of information is read widely, comparing news and commentary from sources with opposing political slants.
Where do you get your news and information from?
What sources would you recommend to the American people for informing their decisions?
If you are concerned about getting drafted, just get an influential relative to get you into the Texas National Guard.
The best thing: You don't even have to show up!
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
Why are you afraid to pay your dues? America is not free, building a country like this costs money, why not pay for membership in our country?
Waste? The private sector wastes just as much money as the public sector trying to come up with new ideas. In the private sector shareholders often have to wait for years while Microsoft or others come up with good ideas. The benefits come when that revolutionary idea happens and the same rules apply to the public sector and to the government.
Our government needs R&D to continue to keep America strong.
What if I voted democrat? I'd be pissed if my taxes went to pay for a republican president's salary. What's your point?
Notice how you conveniently left qualifiers such as "for the most part", "theoretical ideal" out of "my" definition. Here it is again in case your reading comprehension skills fail you once more: In general traditional marriage is the most efficient way to ensure a healthy next generation. There are cases where traditional marriage won't accomplish that, but you don't stop supporting an entire institution because of a few exceptions.
I do however, partially agree on your last point: The burden would be similar as it already is for sterile couples. However, that's the extent of our agreement. The more sterile couples, the greater the burden. If we allow same-sex marriage, the burden grows without any additional returns. If the burden is limited to heterosexual, the burden will increase if more couples get married, but so will the benefit. It's simple arithmetic.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm
Here is Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts .htm
I'm sure someone will want to discredit the sources as biased, but if you do so please quote some statistics that are contrary when you do. Otherwise, such a statement wouldn't really address the issue. Also note that many of the statistics are pulled from Bureau of Justice reports.
What are your views of the idea proposed by some congressmen to replace the income tax with a national sales tax?
Pluses include:
-Finally taxing the underground economy ~$10^12
-Elimination of IRS reducing govt.
-Reduced accounting expenses to business and others.
-Increases personal freedom from social engineering programs.
Drawbacks include:
-Government has less control over finance or the people.
-IRS no longer used to criminalize unsavory people like Al Capone.
high-tech and low consumption are not mutually exclusive.
Troll? Obviously, the moderators don't get the joke.
Wow, your news really is censored! Don't believe me? Do some simple math. Everytime you see a report of a US serviceman dying count how many other people died too. Now how large is that multiple. Then add-in the daily bombings to get an accurate multiple. Hospitals in Iraq are conservatively estimating 40K-60k.
Also, you do know that if a US serviceman is evacuated and dies elsewhere he isn't added to the total US forces death toll? Some UK sources estimate that the count is really 1200.
Mr. Bush, what have you done in the past 4 years that shows you'd be an effective president? Cuz I sure can't think of anything...
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
I don't make enough money to qualify for a mortgage on a home. What will you do about this?
It's very simple:
1) We were attacked by Al Qaeda
2) We responded by bombing Saddam
We sent 17000 soliders to Afganistan.
We sent 134000 soldiers to Iraq.
Why?
What happened to going after Bin Laden?
Millions want an explanation.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russel
Why have you lost interest in Osama bin Laden, the leader of the organization that attacked the United States of America on September 11?
Your mindset on that matter seems a little transparent. Just because you don't see him talking about it, you think it's not happening? Do you think that he wouldn't like Bin Laden caught? (BTW: I think he knows who Bin Laden is, and so do we. Spelling it out for dramatic effect is...well...lame.)
The rest of your post is pretty much as worthless as the first line, so I am just letting it go. It's too dumb to be real. You are trolling.
Sir, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
You can name anyone as you medical voice (I had a GF in school who had it be me). in addition its called a will look into it.
If all the people materially (IE more than trivially) involved consent to something, then it is absolutely always right.
OTOH, if none of the materially involved people consent to something then it is always wrong.
After that, it gets more complicated: if all directly involved parties don't consent it doesn't necessairly mean it's good or bad. You have to look at the details of the situation.
Putting a murderer away can be right even though the perpetrator doesn't concent because it can discourage murder in the future. As a policy, the murderer had to expect imprisonment as a possible consequence for his actions; he has to weigh the alternatives and decide wether to go through with it. It's a form of implicit concent for living in a civilized society; live here and you could go to prison for murder. Once you commit the crime, it's too late to back out.
If a group of people all consent to have some exotic form of sex, and it doesn't affect anyone outside their group, then that is right. No one outside of their group has any right to know about it, let alone interfere.
shit, and here I was thinking that people were worried about OVERpopulation.
Please explain the concept of killing people that kill people to show that killing people is wrong.
How do you define freedom? Does it include brain activity and other vital signs? Please explain especially in context of the large civilian casualties in Iraq.
However, due to the 500 char limit imposed (but not expressed on the page), this is the question I asked:
==
I don't know exactly what that means, but I'm sure it means something....
You should have checked more closely (or paid attention in Biology)
Hyterectomies don't remove the ovaries, so those women can reproduce by removing eggs, fertilizing them, and finding a surrogate. It happens regularly.
Leave this to the adults, I hear your Xbox calling.
The situation in Iraq is getting worse by the day, and since complete and immediate withdrawal of all American troops is not an option, it seems likely that Bush will reinstate the draft in order to get enough troops to solve this quagmire.
Why don't you emphasize this more in your campaign? Do young people realize that Bush will send them to war? Such a realization could be a real test of people's faith in the Bush-administration's war-mongering.
Maybe this realization will awaken those who still think that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and other attacks on America.
Not in 100% of cases. What about, for example, a man whose testicles don't produce reproduction-able sperm. Or a woman who has had her ovaries removed and has no eggs to provide. If you suggest that the "able" parent can create an embryo with donated sperm/eggs, why not let lesbians marry and conceive children from donated sperm?
Maybe they can adopt, but adoption is not tied to the gender of the adopting parents. An adopted child will be a child, whether the adopting couple is man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, woman/alien, whatever/whatever.
Historically, marriage has always been between members of the opposite sex--even in the societies where homosexuality was a common practice.
While I am on the subject, there is no discrimination by not allowing same sex marriages. They are equally capable of marrying a member of the opposite sex just like everybody else.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
I want to know how they intend to prove this is ligitmate? Not that I disbelieve, but the possibility exists and I would think that something which is done by professionals, that they would see the need to show evidence. (ie linking to a post on a kerry/bush offical site which says they are going to answer these questions)
AGREED!
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
What does god have to do with this? The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens. If you're not encouraging "family", then there is no point in government recognized union. This has nothig to do with "god", just common sense.
I have heard this argument before and don't buy it. Hetero couples are not required to create a family in order to get married. Why should homo couples be held to something that is not required of hetero couples?
First we must ask the questions if homosexuality is actually something you are born with. Don't use the argument about "as long as I can remember" because recent scietific studys have proven that you memories are very easily altered to reflect your current point of view.
By moral leadership I do not mean we should follow the UN moral system, I mean we should follow our own moral system.
We believe in strength because you have to be strong and competent to carry out your responsibilities and no one is debating the strength of Mr.Bush, what is on debate is if he is being a responsible leader.
We believe in safety and protection and that is why we need strength.
We believe in fulfillment in life and this is why we have the ability to empathize with others who may or may not be able to have a life like ours.
We believe in freedom but we also believe in fairness because when we care about others we believe we should treat them fairly while also helping them them treat others fairly.
We believe in freedom, this allows us to have fulfillment, it allows us to live up to our full potential and realize our dreams.
We believe in opportunity, because a society in which we care about others has to be a society which is fair.
We believe in prosperity because without prosperity there can be no oppurtunity.
We believe in communities, healthy communities are based on cooperation, honestty, trust and open communication.
The United States of America is a community, and what is the major issue in this election? Betrayal of trust. Without honesty you cannot have trust or open communication.
We also believe in discipline, this means the ability to earn your prosperity.
and because discipline is so important, we reward those who have it.
Discipline will also be a debate in this election.
So the election is going to be discipline vs trust, and we have to pick the value which we want because neither Bush or Kerry has both qualities.
We need a moral leadership to represent our morality to the world and Mr.Bush needs to explain his betrayal of our trust to both the international community and to American voters. Kerry needs to prove he has the discipline to run this country and represent us.
Ok sorry, I was wrong about hysterectomies and ovaries. How about an operation that DOES remove both ovaries (IE to treat ovarian cancer)?
How much reproductive assistance do you think a couple would need to make them ineligible for marriage? Apparently, it's ok if a third party carries the baby. What if there was a process to create a zygote from a third-party egg, to be carried by fourth party, stripped of genetic material and then infused with a set of genes from two men? Would they be allowed to marry then?
What about castration? That definately does remove the gonads. Without stored sperm or genetic manipulation, a castrated man has no possibility of procreating (last time I checked).
How about women who have passed menopause?
Should these people be prevented from marrying since they cannot produce offspring?
I have to point out that it is a Very Good Thing(tm) that even if you have a $25 million reward on your head that it is still possible to go somewhere in this world and tell the U.S. government to "go to hell".
Do you really want it to be possible not to evade the U.S. government if you really want to get outta Dodge? Do you want to have an organization, any group, so effecient that they really will know where you are and what you are doing 24/7/365/100 years?
Osama gives me some hope that at least in theory I could go somewhere and not have to worry about what the occupant of the White House is and what their opinion of me is.
This is not to say that I approve of Mr Bin Laden's actions. I really don't agree with them at all, nor his political views. This also shows just how big this world is, and that trying to track somebody down who is deleberately trying to hide is a very difficult proposition.
For all I know, Osama is somewhere in California growing marijuana to pass the time of day. At least it wouldn't surprise me if he were found in some remote wilderness area in California...or even Texas for that matter. What about Columbia or Peru? How certain are you that he is even in Southwest Asia?
" Interestingly enough, Ayn Rand merely preached monogamy, fidelity and loyalty."
Ayn Rand never preached about any of these things. She preached about individual rights and self interest.
Would you like to provide an ancient historical reference to Marriage that pre-dates Genesis?
It is the belief of Jews and Christians (probably Muslims too) that God invented/created Marriage, and defined it as between one man and one woman.
Aside from that,
A question that needs to be answered is this:
Can Government actually positively affect the course of Society as a whole?
If Government can not actually change the course of the function of Society, then it should not practice the encouragement of one behaviour or belief over another.
On the other hand, if it does have that ability, a new question is raised:
What direction can Goverment try to guide Society?
I do not think that you will find agreement across the histories of the States of America about the level of involvement in this process. Since Belief systems(commonly called religion) are core to the direction people take in their lives, and one of the most fundamental freedoms that this country was founded upon is the ability to believe however you wish (as long as it does not infringe upon other people's rights (Life, Liberty, Property/Pursuit of Happiness)), the Federal Government (by no means) and the State Goverments should not prescribe which beliefs the people should hold to.
A question that you must ask yourself, is this:
If the majority of the people in this country somehow became Muslim (or Buddhist, Jewish, Wiccan, Mormon, whatever) how much right do you think they should have in Guiding your belief system, or even rewarding certain activities?
Should the government reward people for women not working? Should the government place restrictions on the pork industry? How about tax breaks for polygamy?
My proposed answer is that the Federal Government needs to get out of the Societal Guiding business.
And YES, I'm willing to give up my Married and Child based Tax Breaks. Although I strongly prefer a Federal Sales Tax
Maybe you should tell that to my wife. I could use some 'time off'.
Heh. I guess what I was trying to say is that marriage doesn't seem to mean anything at all to a lot of people anymore, that it has no value or reason for being.
Side note: I've noticed that most proponents of gay "marriage" say the government shouldn't be able to dictate who can get married and who can't...then turn around and say polygamy, incest, bestiality-based marriages should not be allowed. If people would argue that the government should not have its nose in marriage AT ALL (i.e., strike every law concerning marriage from the books, refuse to hear ANY divorce settlement case, etc.), I would find such an argument much more persuasive, perhaps even acceptable for public policy. But no, gay "marriage" proponents don't want that, they want to force me (under the law... or courts, as happened in Massachusetts) to recognize these "marriages."
And, those benefits and penalties do not impact you in any way.
Yes they do. Rather than repost or be redundant, here are some links. Follow the threads to get some ideas of how other peoples' marriages affect everyone else.
It's the only question in the minds of young citizens age 18-35, "Are you different enough that my vote matters?"
Mr. President, when are you going to tell the world the truth about 9/11?
I see that conservatives must be pure and virginal to meet the Left's standards now. Who made up that rule?
Now you're just being an ass.
The conservatives made up those idiotic rules.
That much is obvious and undisputable.
The fact that they are far worse than the Liberals at following their own idiotic rules is just the proof of how moronic those ideas were in the first place.
Senator Kerry, several witnesses place you at a VVAW meeting in Kansas City in 1971, where you reportedly voted against a plan to assassinate US Senators. To your credit, you reportedly resigned immediately thereafter. Did you report the plot to the appropriate law enforcement authorities? If not, why not?
And a followup question, Senator Kerry.
Have you stopped beating your wife? If not, why not?
"reportedly voted against a plane to assassinate US Senators"? Who did the reporting? The much-debunked, lying Swiftboat Veterans for (un)Truth?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So you are arguing for same sex marraige correct? According to #1:
Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.
So by your reasoning, encouraging more homosexual couples to marry rather than remain single and uncommitted would make "stronger" families and thus require less governance. And since it is unknown whether a heterosexual couple is "stronger" than a homosexual couple, it may even be better for society to have more homosexual marriages since they could in fact be the "strongest" of all types of families.
Q: Do you believe two single people require less governance than two married people?
And yet... it's still everywhere. Even in nature. Hmm, maybe it's not such a severe defect.
Why wasn't the patriot act supplied with a sunshine clause?
If a poll in Iraq shows that people there are happier with the direction their country is headed than people in the US, what does that say about the state of our country?
Let'em.
Problem, what problem. The whole drug war premise, and all of the laws banning substances for recreational consumption were based on race. I think it has worked perfectly. You blacks and Mexicans with your weed, you asians with your opium. Put your immigrant asses in jail, that was the plan from day one. Its been workin like a charm since the late 1800's. The Mick in the pub can get blind drunk, anytime we ^h^h he wants, but we gotta keep you sub races under control. Plus none of us have any good connections with weed or opium, but most of us are connected to distilleries and tobacco. Got to keep that "fun" money between all us white folks.
As for your follow up question. It affects democracy just like we planned it. If we didn't want to shut you up, then we wouldn't restrict voters based on criminal record, now would we? You think it is an accident that we charge you, and convict you way out of proportion for crimes (many of which harm NO ONE, but are just easy to prosecute), then pass laws to prevent you from EVER having a say about CHANGING those laws. My god, with such a blinded view I wonder why we ever even bothered to pass these stupid laws. We could have just said "Hey, Toby, don't vote, it gives you herpes", sounds like you all wouldn't have even questioned it.
Of course I am being theatrical here, and I am sorry for the stupid racial slurs, honestly, purely for effect. But this is the history of these laws. They were made by WASPS to keep the immigrant labours in check. What they were doing was foreign to us, so we reacted like neanderthals, and outlawed a bunch of stuff that didn't effect us at all. To ensure changes to these laws can not be made, we ban anyone with a record from voting. It makes me want to puke. I have no problem with restricting a persons right to vote WHILE incarcerated, but once you have "paid your debt", welcome back.
I hope you all can get these words out there. Your war on drugs is just a waste of time, meant to harass people for fun and profit.
The flood of illegal aliens has destroyed the normal upward force on wages and working conditions in the market for unskilled labor. Americans who are in this market cannot earn enough money to buy basic necessities like housing and food. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats care about Americans in this market. The Republicans and the Democrats care only about catering to racists in LaRaza, the Hispanic equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan.
If you hate what is happening to our country, the USA, then please write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
Of the 43 Presidents of the United States, all have been male Protestant Christians (exception: Kennedy was Catholic) of European ethnicity. As far as I can tell, all Vice Presidents have been the same, demographically. Is it important to have women and men of a variety of ethnicities elected to the Presidential and Vice Presidential offices? If so, what will you do to help encourage these groups participate in the highest offices of the Executive Branch?
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Well it depends on what type of legal protection you are referring to. There is no law, for example, ensuring the right of people with Down Syndrome to get into college. College is created to provide benefits for people with the mental capacity to achieve higher education. One could make the argument that marriage exists for the benefit of people with the physio/psychological capacity to reproduce and/or raise a child in a home with both a mother and father. The fact that complete dumbasses are sometimes admitted to college and that heterosexual wife-beaters are allowed to marry doesn't change the purpose of those institutions, and it doesn't require the people who control those institutions to make infinite allowances to people who are unable to fulfil the purpose of the institutions for genetic reasons.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
Mr. President, what can I do to convince your party to extend the same freedom of choice concepts that it does to economic issues to community, values and morality issues it so much wants government involvement and regulation in?
Oh yeah? Then what do you call Mr. Ed? Bullwinkle? Babe? Donkey?
"Gay couples are already allowed to adopt children."
Actually, that's a state issue. Not all states are agreed, I don't think.
Engineering and the Ultimate
You're right. And when you're right, you're right. And you, you're always right!
So why don't we just change the law to ONLY allow same-sex marriages, there still won't be any discrimination and all these gays will shut up.
I would like to hear from Mr. Kerry his direct response to allegations that he has broken multiple gun control laws and at least one that never made it to law (but he supported) when accepting an auto loading (or, in his words, "rapid fire") shotgun while on the campaign trail.
In Sarah Brady's autobiography she detailed the time when she bought a shotgun for her son. This is CLEARLY illegal. You're looking at no less than 5 years of mandatory Federal prison time if you buy a firearm for someone who is not eligible.
Rosie O'Donnell has an armed guard to protect her and her children, even though she has suppored a ban on handguns for the rest of us.
Hypocrisy on the issue of Guns is nothing new from the left.
From Mr. Bush, I would like to know if he has a permit for the revolver he keeps in the oval office.
According to the source you linked...
"The magazine quoted a visitor who had been shown the gun, which is kept in a small study off the Oval Office where Bush displays memorabilia. It is the same room where former President Clinton had some of his encounters with former intern Monica Lewinsky."
Not exactly IN the Oval Office, but close enough.
More to the point, I would guess that any sitting President would be exempt from the DC gun ban because technically he is "the highest law enforcement" officer in the nation.
DC's gun ban does not apply to Law Enforcement, otherwise Cops, FBI, Secret Service, and the like would all have to go about the Capital naked.
From Mr. Bush I would like to know why he claims to support tougher gun control legislation, but then doesn't follow through with action.
When has he publically declared support for tougher gun control? Bush has his office, in large part, due to the voters of the NRA. When an election is this close, you don't piss off your base. End of story.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Should the government even recognize marriages at all? Should everything be called a civil union? Same benefits granted to all kinds of couples, and "marriage" is reserved for religious connotations?
Unfortunately, they've decided to abdicate that responsibility to the bloggers. Just wish the metamods I put on the press would take :-)
When you declared the war in Iraq over, was it you or Donald who forgot to tell the Iraqis?
$2000s = $1950s;
$2000s =~ s/nigger/faggot/g;
print "vote Bush";
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
when they tell you that you can chose any of these two(2!) scumbags.
Whoa, easy there gowen. You can stick your weener wherever you like. Just don't tell me where you like to stick your weener cause I don't care. Penis in the mouth is not as good as the vagina, IMO. There's a funny movie called "The Mating Habits of Earth Bound Humans" (with Carmen Electra) that illustrates the fundamental wrongness of the blow job. I don't suppose the gender matters in the case of a blowjob.
Will there be a DRAFT next year for the Iraq war?
Given soaring personal debt levels and an unprecedented trade deficit, economists (Volker, Peterson) and governmental organizations (CBO, GAO) have predicted the collapse of the US economy given these trends of spending continue. Considering the typical method to stimulate the economy is for the president to encourage consumerism with words and tax-breaks, what steps will you take to reverse the situation and prevent another depression.
This was my question, but it certainly will not be amoung the top 50 asked unless you help! Most will ask about how to make new jobs and stimulate the economy, Let us geeks ask a question does not clash with our tinfoil hats.
How do you intend to protect the rights of people of all religions? Or, if that is not the case, how do you view the role of government with regard to religion?
I'm just not very high on atheists.
Yeah, that's got to be Poppy Bush. Dubya has never admitted to being high on anything.
Aural sex... that's where you just talk about it, right? Now, oral sex is another matter ...
... icky.
Animal husbandry? You mean like breeding dogs, etc.? It's bestiality that's just
I fear that next we shall here something about "extremophiles" (while it is literally 'lovers of the extreme', it refers to organisims, typically microbes, that can withstand harsh environments).
Each of them have equal rights as they all have the ability to marry the opposite sex.
Unless you're arguing that the right to marry a man is greater than the right to marry a woman or vice versa?
If the equal protection clause isn't able to agree with the above then it adds more weight to the argument that an additional ammendment is necessary.
Mr. President, You often talk about how we must "stay the course" in Iraq. Tell me, did "staying the course" work for Vietnam?
Enough said.
Ah well, here 'tis (paraphrased):
There are presently two top issues in the state of Minnesota: health care and transportation.
Frankly, I find both the Republican and Democrat health care proposals to be woefully inadequate. What will you do as president to ensure that all Americans receive the health care and insurance every human being deserves?
What will you do as president to build vibrant communities and ensure mobility for all Americans, including those who cannot afford a persoinal vehicle.
As far as I know, faggots aren't prohibited from marrying.
But hey, if you want to co-opt the civil rights movement, why not? It's been devalued for decades now, sometimes even by blacks willing to sacrifice it for their own petty purposes.
Tell me though, at what point do you stop? The Nambloids have been oozing their propaganda for close to 20 years, in some ways even more obnoxious than pro-homosexuality ever did in the 1970s.
Also, I find it interesting that you'd think I'd ever vote for Bush. Or that like him, I might somehow favor a constitutional ammendment barring asspirate marriage.
If the definition of marriage is to move away from the union of a man and a woman, and instead be two consenting people, then why not three?
What is the real difference?
The difference is that it is unconstitutional for any law to discriminate between people on the basis of race, gender, or religion. You can choose to have a law establishing marriages between two people or you can choose not to have a law establishing marriages between two people. However you can no more create a law utilizing gender to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants than you can have a law utilizing color to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants. Any such law is simply constitutionally invalid.
There used to laws prohibiting interracial marriages. They were struck down in court as invalid. Massachusetts had a law prohibiting same gender marriages. That law also was struck down in court - struck down in the same way and for the same reason.
When you have tyo go to the extreme of ammending the constitution in order to remove someone's right to do something, well, maybe it's time to consider that you really don't need to deny them that right. By the way, calls for "Defense of Marriage" are a real joke. It's kinda like "Defending the Right to Vote" by passing an ammendment to prohibit some people from voting.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
There are a statistically higher proportion of black people that deal drugs than white people. So naturally, they get busted more often than white people. Furthermore, they are more likely to be repeat offenders, and repeat offenders get tougher sentences.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
Maybe he could debate the grand-uncle post's left nard.
Would you consider a "manhattan" or "apollo" style project to bring humans to the next level? The big prize is locating where and how consciousness operates. Lesser prizes are already being worked on--including cochlear implants and artifical eyes.
-I am an elective eunuch.
I think we have a problem here: what IS marriage?
It's so traditional, almost no one has bothered to think about it. In part, it is a religious right, where each religion has its own traditions concerning it. And yet, it defines one thing: who is family.
This being important in law, we must have some legal recognition of this, though we can certainly change some of the details. As it stands now, your religious cerimony is of no import, save that the priest may act as a witness to your marriage. We have defined this institution, at least in part, for the raising of children, though we have been doing this traditionally for so long we have apparently forgotten many of the reasons for doing so.
However, we might want to think through what we're doing here. Marriage extends certain benefits intended to aid generally those who keep a common household and (most likely) raise children. However, if we extend these arbitrarily, is it fair who should get them? For example, why should unwed roommates be denied the benefits wed roommates should have?
Can we really declare anyone we wish to be "family" (and "not family" when divorced)? If we declare marriage rules to be arbitrary, should they also extend to polygamists? If not, on what grounds do we deny them?
In sum, I doubt we're prepared either as a culture or in law for such a thing. The law only recognizes a union of two people into a household to facilitate raising children. While I can sympathize with the idea that this change might help legitimize a disfavored group, I don't think we can (or should) legislate tolerance. Even so, the hatred of homosexuals is a different problem that must be worked out by each of the people who harbor it--I know that I harbor none, and I value my gay friends.
I would imagine that judges would simply use common law (precidents) to adjudicate between any gay couples who try to raise children, and it's quite true that many who marry simply never have children. However, these to me only represent imperfections in the system, not its intent. Thus the law need tell no one whom they can love, but neither can nor should it be obligated to recognize every sort of relationship two or more people might enter into.
What, that's been asked before? And TMI? Okay, I'll sit down now.
So, define marriage and provide justification for that definition. It would be best if you did this without reference to religion, because the chances of getting most people to agree to religion-based premises are small.
When marriage is viewed as a foundation for a family, then there are legal reasons for the government to recognize or not recognize certain marriages
Riiiiight. And I suggest you try that one with an infertile couple, or even a couple which includes a post menopausal woman. While we're ammending the constitution to prohibit gay marriage lets prohibit those marriages as well. Chuckle.
The question is (a) should government recognize marriage, and (b) in what cases should government recognize marriage.
and (c) how can those laws be written, within constitutionality?
The real point is that the in the Massachusetts law granting marriages, the portion restriction it based on gender was struck down as unconstitutional in the same way and the same reason as the old laws prohibiting interracial marriages. As you say, you can have laws granting marriages or not have them, but they cannot contain unconstitutional discrimination based on race, gender, or religion.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
[playing DA again]
Or, one penis
1) Is America safer?
I have a number of friends who were former officers in our military at every level from Army Lieutenants to officers of flag rank.
Their opinions express to me have been mixed as to which candidate they would support. But they all indicate to me that they believe the military is over-extended. They believe that our ability to respond to global threats has been seriously diminished by the number of operations currently underway.
(For the record, I personally tend towards Kerry, and, also for the record, I have not had the chance to discuss the matter with my knowledgeable friends since the recent announcement of redeployment plans a few weeks ago.)
So, is America safer? If a major conflict were to occour now, whether between India and Pakistan, or between China and Taiwan, or, say between Iran and Israel, what would our options be?
What plans would you (either candidate) have to ensure that our military is able both to prosecute the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, stabilize Iraq, and handle an international crisis?
2) Winning the war
The cold war was fought with deterrence. Anti-American militant Islamic fundamentalism seems to lack an obvious deterrent. To win the war, it seems to me, we have to win the war of ideas, because we cannot either kill everyone who hates us, or deter them from attack.
How would you win the war for the hearts and minds of the world? Or would you not try? Would you maintain that force can protect us? If so, how?
(I realize that this is a bit of leading question and I invite people to dispute the premise that we must make them NOT hate us. If there's a way to win without defusing the hate, I'd love to hear it.)
3) The palestinian question
Another leading question: The situation between the Israeli government and the people who identify themselves as Palestinians (coupled with the Islamic world's perception that we one-sidedly support Israel) is the major contributor to anti-Americanism in the region. To me, the single biggest step forward in winning the hearts and minds would be to find a peaceful settlement of that conflict.
What is your plan to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
I would like to ask Kerry if he remembers talking about the vitality of finding WMDs in Iraq and that an invasion is important. Here's a small clip from a CNN article on the topic, and I've seen multiple videos of him in 2001 expressing his support for the Iraq war. Now even though I'm not really 100% for the war in Iraq, I see it as ironic that he supported it until around 2003 or so.
from here
"The video included comments Kerry made in late 2001 during an interview with CNN that the United States should "keep the pressure on terrorism globally" and "it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance on Saddam Hussein." He told CBS that "Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and there is some evidence of [Iraq's] efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them."
In October 2002, Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, were among the 77 senators who voted for the resolution authorizing war in Iraq.
In his campaign launch speech 11 months later in Charleston, South Carolina, Kerry characterized the vote as one meant "to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations," according to the video.
"Are you one of the antiwar candidates?" Kerry was asked on MSNBC in January of this year.
"I am, yeah," Kerry answered."
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
Simple question and I believe the most important. If Americans aren't working, they aren't paying taxes. If they're not paying taxes, there are less funds to support the military budget, education, and health care.
Why is outsourcing not being discussed in the current election rhetoric? Is it because neither candidate has any specialized education on economics? Remember that IT workers require many years of specialized education, which they paid for and are no longer able to find compensation in these fields. They give up and go after jobs others with less skills historically have occupied. You've given educated people a lower-skilled job and put less educated people in a position where there's nowhere else to turn, but perhaps crime?
I'm confused this issue hasn't received more attention during "Decision 2004." Paying bills is the most basic human task; having a job is the most obvious means of doing so. Middle-class America pays the bills. The upper-class in America needs the middle-class if they wish to continue evading contributions to social programs and financing America's wars.
Why aren't the candidates working harder to stop the outsourcing of our jobs and get Americans back to work? Where will they work once America has no one left to "represent?"
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Mr. President, in Michigan, 30,000 signatures were needed to get Ralph Nader on the ballot. The Nader campaign submitted fewer than 5,400 signatures, while the Michigan Republican Party delivered nearly 45,000 signatures.
Does it bother you that the Michigan Republican Party thinks it is easier to convince people to vote for Mr. Nader than it is to convince them to vote for you?
To hinder. Except. Exclude.
Acceptance. More at approval. Recognize.
Here's some more interesting quotes:
... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
Don't forget that our original post-war policies in Japan *didn't* work. When we started to realize the communist threat in Asia in the 50s US policy in Japan underwent what was called "the reverse course" to create a viable strong ally in the east, and this helped cause their economic prosperity later on.
Mind you, there were also terrible riots when the original US occupancy was supposed to end and the Diet voted to retain the US as a peacekeeping force under a new treaty.
He's right you know - studies have shown that you have a lot more joy in different-sax relationships. When you have an alto and a tenor, there is harmony, but two altos or two tenors is a recipe for discord....
Exactly. And who says hetero couples are any better at "family" than anyone else? There's no demonstrable relation between heterosexual marriage and a "stable social environment for future citizens."
"A genetic defect that prevents reproduction is severe"
All the more reason to breed it out of the population by encouraging homosexuals not to reproduce. The best way to do that is to stop encouraging homosexuals to pretend to be heterosexual. Thus, same sex marriages should be a good thing from the point of a homophobe. Unfortunately, most homophobes aren't that rational.
Of course, if it is a same sex relationship between two women, this becomes more difficult, as women can become pregnant via artificial insemination. However, they don't need to be married to do this, so gay marriage neither helps nor hurts reproduction of gay women.
Overall, the average homophobe's opposition to gay marriage is counterproductive of their own position. Personally, I find that funny.
- As others have said, a horse isn't a person.
- This is a very poorly argued slippery slope argument. Same sex marriage is no closer to multiple marriages than opposite marriages, so you can just as equally argue that we shouldn't let heterosexuals marry because next they'll be wanting multiple marriages.
- But then again, I don't see why multiple marriages shouldn't be allowed. It would be more work to change the laws, but at the end of the day benefits and legal relationships given by the Government should reflect the sorts of lifestyles that people have, not the other way round.
Actually not true.
Everyone keeps pretending that gay people aren't having their own biological children, but it's actually reasonably common. A lot of gays go through a stage where they desparately *want* to be straight, so they pretend that they are, get married, have kids, and only later "realize" that they are gay. Divorce inevitably ensues, and you end up with a gay/lesbian couple that, depending on custody arrangements, may very well be raising a child, at least part time.
Now, you can debate what affect this may or may not have on the children, but that fact is that gay couples are raising children, and will continue to raise children, in measurable numbers, no matter what ends up happening with gay marriage.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
So what about non-Christian or non-patriarchal heterosexual marriage? According to your definition, there should be no reason for a man and a woman who don't believe in or want to further "patriarchy" to want to marry either. It's a bizarre argument, especially given that even most Christians have rejected this archaic notion of "patriarchy" as the dominant form of social relations. The modern nuclear family is not patriarchal in this sense at all. This is more akin to a bizarre form of feudalism, in which the woman is the property of the man. I'm certain there are many heterosexual couples who would be rightfully insulted by the notion that this is the meaning of "marriage."
Frankly, I don't care if people want to marry
their vibrators. But as another submitter said,
the costs of entering into these non-traditional
relationships should be born by the individuals,
and not society.
Fine, keep it to an individual thing. So why should people who are single, in a same sex or polyamorous relationship, support the costs or monogamous opposite-sex couples getting married? I don't see why I should have to.
Anyone who labels this as a false slippery slope
is betting that there are no judges that agree.
It is for certain that laws against polygamy,
polyandy, group marriage, bestiality, marriage
with underaged but mentally mature children,
etc. are all going to be overturned in the courts.
That's irrelevant - it's still a slippery slope argument. If judges allow polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, it's because they consider good reasons for doing so, and it's hardly a problem to allow such marriages. But if you think there are reasons why a particular type of marriage (eg, marriage with children) is wrong, then arguing for same sex marriage doesn't imply that marriage with [something-bad] should be allowed.
Hard to look at the statistics without knowing how you define "healthy family structure". My definition would be looking at eliminating violence, abuse, and neglect from the mix long before I looked at the gender of the parents, but maybe that's just me. (Heck, for that matter, I don't know how you are defining "success," either, but that's probably much less problematic.).
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Not to mention the not-insignificant number of children from a previous heterosexual marriage.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Along those same lines...
Through the proliferation of felony laws, we create more felons than any nation on earth. Most of these felons will be released from prison at some point, with no ability to support themselves. Basically, we are creating a felon class.
What do we do about this?
Guess what petition was going around at the same time the Nader petition was going around.
You and your surrogates at MoveOn.org, CBS News, and Texans for Truth have attacked President Bush's service in the Alabama Air National Guard, claiming without any evidence what-so-ever that he was AWOL from service, and even going so far as to manufacture falsified memos (which may prove to be a felony violation of Federal Election Law and Federal Wire Fraud Laws). You have demanded that Bush release his records, which he has complied with. However, you and your campaign have released no such records to counter the allegations that you were AWOL from your Naval Reserve obligations.
How do you account for the 17 days of active duty and 47 drills over two years you failed to attend as you had agreed to do when you were given an early release from your Naval Officers Commission? Additionally, how do you account for the fact that you have been absent from 32 Senate votes since November of 2003?
Directed at either or both candidates:
Many people believe that a two-party system, such as the one in the US enforced by the Electoral College, is inherently unfair and undemocratic, in that people cannot cast a meaningful vote for anyone but the two "main candidates," in this case you and your opponent. Of course, a multiparty system would break down the duopoly on most American politics currently held by your party and your opponent's party. Would you put partisan politics aside in the interest of fairness? If so, what is your preferred alternative to the plurality or electoral college system?
Signature.
IT salaries are up, US employment in the IT sector is on the rise (as covered by slashdot yesterday), and the net number of jobs has increased over the last four years. Have fun over at www.bls.gov
Mr. President, who is more important: corporations or people?
Are you gay? Are you a nigger? ARE YOU A GAY NIGGER? If so, the GNAA is just what you are looking for!
Support Gay-Niggers' right to marry!
First of all, the government doesn't "prevent" marriage. People have marriage ceremonies without the government's consent, and it doesn't matter. The question is (a) should government recognize marriage, and (b) in what cases should government recognize marriage.
Yes it does. You're just trying to distort the issue by choosing a "fluff" definition of marriage.
By you're logic I could say that the govnment to does make murder illegal because murder consists of sneezing at someone.
Just as there is a LEGAL definintion for murder, there is one for marriage and that is the definition being used when to gov't passes laws.
If marriage is viewed as an act of love, then government has not reason for involvement whatsoever. However, if you view marriage as the foundation platform for a family, then that view changes, for several reasons: [blah blah blah]
See, you're just playing with the defintion of marriage to dodge the real issue. The real issue here is all about legal protections NOT philosophy. Gay couples want the same legal protections as straight couples.
It's that simple. Whatever your own personal philosophy on "what marriage means to me" is, gay couples just want the ability to get married in the legal sense.
On a different topic, one could also point out the absurdity of calling anything between same-sex partners "marriage".
Or one could comment on someone in a "free society" thinking that their own views of what is absurd should interfere with what is none of their damn business.
Life is too short to proofread.
Cut the crap, homosexuals should STFU, as should all those that think just because the person is gay, they are somehow 'sick'(yes, they are different, but does liking what you think is gross cause to think they are sick? Is the person that likes anchovies on his pizza 'sick' because you think they are gross?). Having said this, I am hetrosexual for the record, and secure enough to not worry about the gay people causing me some sort of 'problem'. I do have gay freinds, and they are just people, with enough respect to not act like swooning little teens hugging and smooching in public, they are adults and behave as such, by keeping the intiment moments to themselves (as most adults do where I live)
The homosexual makes the choice to be that way, (genetics my ass, thats like saying the killer was genetically disposed to kill and should be let go based on their having no choice in the killing...it is always a choice, or you are just an animal acting on instinct).
Let them enjoy their deviant sex life, they don't reproduce, and if they do, it is further proof that same-sex sex is a CHOICE, not "who they are" by birth alone (geeeez, even my gay freinds think that 'genetics' crap is BS).
NO they do not need laws to allow same sex marriage. (just stfu and live together)
NO the majority does not have to give them any EXTRA rights or privileges. (you think you are soooo special you need them??? well i am rather unique [no other like me] so I should be granted what ever I want...)
NO they should not have all the legal privileges of contemporary marriages. (if the majority says no, then live with it, or leave the country for someplace that will cave in to a minor minority group)
Yes they can stay together (who really cares, it's been going on for a long time)
Yes they can enjoy the right to use a WILL to dictate how their estate will be used after death. (duhhhh, even normal marriages can run into legal issues as to who gets what after death...get a will...)
Yes they can use their partner as a beneficiary's to a life insurance policy. (nothing to stop you there...)
now both sides can sit in the corner and play nice, or I'll take my balls and go home...(ohhhh you sicko you, I was reffering to the basketballs...)
"A president should be as concerned about his country's future as about what happens while he is in office. What are your plans for restoring sanity to the national debt and Social Security? When I get an income, I would prefer not to pay income taxes into an ever-widening hole - the runaway national debt, thanks to our deficit budgets, or the slowly failing pyramid scheme of Social Security."
Yeah...there seem to be a lot of questions about Iraq, but for me, by the time I leave college we'll be out of Iraq (well, at least as "out" as we are every other country we've been in). But we won't have abadoned the war costs. And by then, we'll be suffering through the baby-boomer squeeze on Social Security. Why must my taxes be used to finance the mistakes of decisions I couldn't vote against?
While I agree assisted suicide should be allowed under terminal conditions (ie die with dignity), some times giving consent is proof you are not fit to give consent.
That was what a German court ruled when a man ate his lover earlier last year.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Bush, Rumsfeld have both said there will not be a draft. Rumsfeld in particular has always been ann advocate of smaller, higher-tech military rather than a mass of conscripts.
However I think it is a fair question to ask of Kerry. Although he has stated that he is against a draft he vowed in his acceptance speech to increase the number of soldiers by 40,000. Meanwhile his Democratic allies in the senate have introduced a bill to reinstate the draft.
I suppose you could argue that Kerry isn't serious about the additional 40,000 troops and that the Democrats in congress are only kidding. Still... if the draft comes up as an issue in the campaign it's only fair that the party actively introducing bills to that effect in congress and running on increasing the number of active duty personnel should be the one answering this question.
Lawyer: What is your relationship with Ms. Smith?
Witness: I do not at present have any relationship with Ms. Smith.
The point is that any other restrictions on marriage are arbitrary as well. So if the sex/gender restriction is unconstitutional/wrong, then so are all of the others. If that is the case, if marriage applies to ANYONE who wants it, then why not just codify the benefits into common law instead of requiring people to jump through hoops? The idea (legally) was for society to promote certain behaviors that it liked, but if doing so constitutes discrimination, then marriage shouldn't exist at all.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Ah yes, attack how I say something rather than what I am saying.
d =/templatedata/ab/story/data/1683.xml
Ok, we'll go for facts then
Here is a page with the 10 Myths of Infertility:
http://ww4.americanbaby.com/ab/story.jhtml?storyi
The page states that about 1 in every 10 couples experiance some sort of fertility problem. If I remember correctly, I believe the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual people is also about 1 in 10. So where is the difference in burden? And, since the parties in question are already gay, they have 0 chance in producing children, married or not, so there is no gain or loss by allowing marriage. As you said, simple arithmetic.
Aren't there enough kids in the world who need to be adopted that something as silly as if you can have children or not be a deciding factor that you could get married.
I've not gotten married yet, but when I do, I doubt that they are going to ask me to sign a contract saying I MUST have 2.5 children in my lifetime. If somebody choses not to...thats their decision, isn't that why we live in this country?
By the same tolken that you say: "There are cases where traditional marriage won't accomplish that, but you don't stop supporting an entire institution because of a few exceptions." How will allowing a few exceptions, same-sex marriages, cause marriage to crumble?
I know that when I get married, the strength of my marraige will be defined by the relationship between my wife and myself, not if two guys are getting married. If having same-sex marraiges threatens the validity of your marraige (this isn't directed at you btw) then perhaps you should be more concered with that than what others are doing. On an unrelated note, I hate this small window Slashdot gives you to type in.
My view is that a government has no business in the social/religious definition (the social contract). However it obviously does have the authority to make laws, thus any legal definition of a union falls to the legislature. Since marriage, by definition, gives benefits to some individuals and not others it inherently "discriminates". So in my view, either these unions are legal and the government can place restrictions on them accordingly, or the rules are discriminatory, in which case unions cannot have any restrictions at all and they would have a meaning entirely different from their current one.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Kennedy, a radical environmentalist and highly-left-leanign Democrat would say that about a Republican? No. This is strike 1 - a logical fallacy which is based on an appeal to authority.
Kennedy is a dumbass. A true free market economy would cause rampant pollution. Some limited controls are necessary to tax companies who pollute in order to make the cost-saving benefit of polluting go away. The only thing other than environmental legislation that has ever prevented companies from polluting like crazy is conscience.
Once again you were willfully misled by your idealogical idolatory. According to the National Resources Defense Council, 100 tons of mercury are put into the environment each year through chlorine production. By contrast, coal burning power plants put 50 tons of mercury into the environment each year. Simple math will tell you that coal fired plants account for 33 1/3% of Mercury emissions. That's if you ignore the other top methods of mercury production, such as chemical manufacturing and electronics production. Thats strike 2.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign has claimed that the Bush campaign got $300,000 from the coal industry. Kennedy's claim is about $1.7 million short of the truth. Strike 3.
Yet another moronic statement. I can predict with equal certainty that nobody will die from mercury poisoning due to contamination in the waterways of the US this year. Thats because so-called "estimates" are based on populations and "risk factors". So 30,000 people out of a population of 280,000,000 people equates to a .00107% risk per unit (person) of death by mercury contamination. I'll try not to stay up late at night.
That, however, is not your strike 4. Your strike 4 is blaming Bush for allegedly relaxing standards for mercury emission at all. The truth is that there has never been a standard for mercury emissions. Bush's 'Clear Skies' plan placed the first ever cap on mercury emissions, and mandated a 54% reduction in emissions by 2010. Clear Skies also mandates a 73% reduction in SO2, which is what is killing our forests - those forests being essential to carbon fixation and sequestration, reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Clear Skies will also reduce NOx emissions by 63%. Bush also fronted an energy plan which would encourage the construction of newer designs for coal plants which would produce zero mercury emissions, and reduced CO2 emissions. Additionally, it would allow new safe nuclear plants to be brought online so we can decommission and clean up the 50 year old designs which are now posing a tremendous imminant threat. Lastly - and most importantly - Bush will commite $1.7 billion to developing hydrogen fuels for power production and automobile transportation. Kerry's answer? He fought the Clear Skies initiative, and the Energy Plan whose provisions he claimed to support. In turn, Kerry wants to offer $10 billion in corporate welfare for car companies - including non-us companies - to develop alternate fuel vehicles. The problem is they are already doing this without one dime of taxpayer money. So for blatently misrepresenting the Bush record,
However, getting the government out the business of subsidizing traditional marriage is something that is not going to happen anytime soon. Be practical, and don't use the "two wrongs make a right" argument to extend this to subsidizing non-traditional marriages.
What *is* the correct pronounciation of the word "Nuclear"?
-Senhokyoho
Whilst I agree that the parents who don't have the resources to educate a child don't deserve an educated child, the child itself might deserve an education. And society itself has to deal with the consequences.
At the end of the day, it's not about who deserves what, it's about motivating potentially bad parents to stay childless, whilst simultaneously educating existing parents how to raise their children to be good citizens.
If this is what passes for insightful on Slashdot, then folks around here are a lot dumber than I thought. Funny, yeah. Insightful, nope.
African American media glorifies the criminal lifestyle while casting the stigma of an "Uncle Tom" or "House Negro" on African Americans who seek paths of education and career development. What would your administration do to endorse positive black role models for African Americans who emphasize honesty and hard work of the 'thug life'.
...they're too balanced. However, I'd be instrumental in creating a network which has nothing but news from the Conservative Libertarian viewpoint. I'd call it "fuck off and let me live my life" news.
Obviously a troll if when calling pot smokers stupid, he utilizes such poor spelling. He's laughing at you if you take him seriously you stupid people!
Overpopulation is arguably a bigger problem than supporting a single generation of baby-boomers.
Seems like the money saved in not educating children today could go a long way towards providing care for the elderly in 20 years time.
The immigration problem is unlikely to go away either. Kill 2 birds with one stone.
Oh no. Now you've brought that into it.
Actually, the Constitution only specifies that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." emphasis added From this, we get the longstanding tradition of a seperation of Church and State, but technically the States themselves are not prohibited by the Federal Constitution from doing just that.
Of course this is where things get a bit sticky, precisely because the Feds started attaching Federal laws and benefits to the originally Religious institution of Marriage.
You see, as the system was originally designed, Full Faith and Credit guaranteed that if I got married in Nevada I'd still be married in Mississippi. If marriage only has a religious context, then the people of Mississippi don't have to worry about their tax dollars going to someone who would not have been able to get married at any church in Mississippi.
The ironic part is that Bush understood this before he took office, stating that questions of who should get married should be left to the States. It was only after he got into office that (apparently) some advisor told him he could snag extra Religious Right votes by trying to (excuse the pun) "make a Federal Case out of it" that he flip-flopped to the other extreme.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
You, sir, have the best URL on Slashdot.org.
seriouslyexcited.net
Yeah, my point was really that hate doesn't disappear, it just changes targets.
I don't really understand the whole 'slippery slope' argument, since we're talking about two consenting adults and not an adult and a child (adult and box turtle, etc...). The point that we stop at is two consenting adults. That's it. Your (and I don't mean you particularly) religious beliefs shouldn't trump another citizen's rights. That seems pretty fucking logical, doesn't it?
The Bush line was gratuitous I'll admit, and I just proved the rule about assumptions =)
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
I went to their site to post a question, but it appears that Michael Badnarik is not being included in this debate either.
It must be the logistical difficulty of sending and receiving emailed responses to more than two candidates.
"Gosh, I think everyone would be confused if more than two candidates answered questions."
"Yeah, the youth of America are too stupid to choose between more than two options."
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...let Badnarik debate...
I can't claim that I don't hate... I do. However, my targets are carefully chosen.
My distaste for homosexual marriage has nothing to do with hate. Two men want to spend their life sodomizing each other? Fine. If they don't make me watch, or suggest that I participate... what business of it is mine? I'll go further. If I see them with car trouble at the side of the road... I'll try to help. If I see someone beating on them with a baseball bat, I'm calling the police, and depending on how risky it is to play hero, trying to put a stop to it myself.
But I don't understand the need for homosexual marriage. Even as potentially objectionable as a homosexual couple adopting children is... marriage isn't necessary for that. As has been proven. What will this accomplish? If homosexuals want to piss off the fundamentalists, hey, I'm for that in principle... but this goes a little too far.
I'm not some eugenicist freak, mind you. But, I'm almost certainly going to be painted as one for what I'm about to say... human society does have an interest in perpetuating itself. And if growing people in test tubes does become an option, I'm not sure that method is such a good thing. The US has seen a drop in population growth, that excluding immigration, could have grave consequences in a not so distant future. (And I'm not blaming homosexuality for this, either). So, it's at least plausible that we all have an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage beyond "alternative lifestyles".
I can't help but feel this situation is being manipulated on some grand scale, and that the "anti-homosexual marriage christian/republican right wing" is merely a puppet. Having children is a rather sacred thing (and this is coming from an atheist/agnostic), I think. It serves someone's agenda to screw with that, and grow replacement workers in synthetic wombs when needed. It serves them that the extended family is all but gone in middle-class america. It serves them that Dave grows up and falls in love(if he does at all) with Mike, rather than Michelle. Even Orwell saw this. The only thing I'm undecided on, is could they do it if they wanted to, and is there a "they" powerful enough to accomplish it.
For the record, I'm not religious. I hate Kerry and Bush equally, and I think anyone that votes for the lesser of two evils is sure to get evil anyway, even ignoring the fact that they always try to give us two nearly equally evil asshats as candidates. And, the closest I come to agreeing with you on anything, it would seem, is the opinion that a constitutional ammendment on this issue is 110% Bad Idea(TM).
To say that because homosexuality prevents individual reproduction it is a genetic defect (assuming it is genetic) is not correct. Does it help the survivability of near kin? The tribe? The species? If it harms this, then you have a valid argument that is is a defect. Inividual reproduction is not enough to come to that conclusion.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
It has everything to do with God for me!
The Lord forbids homosexuality; it is an abomination to God.
I will continue to demonstrate His requirements through MY GOVERNMENT.
err.. you meant 'have no legal meaning' right? Marriage would become nothing more than a non-legally binding agreement between two (or more?) people.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
No, but if one half of a same sex couple ends up in a hospital, the other half of the couple cannot visit their sick partner. That is my dread fear that my partner will become sick and after being together with him for 10 years, some hospital person will keep us apart because we don't have that magical "certificate" that married couples take almost for granted.
One vote for insightful....
Ye gods, aren't you an arrogant jerk.
Just what the world needs, another angry feminist
Don't call me a feminist!
You can't take the sky from me...
Speaking from experience here...
The damage to a child's psyche that happens due to growing up with gay parents is much more attributable to the bigotry and cruelty of other children rather than the role models that the parents provide. Hopefully this is easier now than it was 20 years ago (when my mother came out) since it is not as fashionable now to gay-bash - I would hope that most parents would at least not encourage their children to make fun of children with gay parents, although this may not be the case.
I learned a lot about hatred growing up with a gay parent - my mother and her partner ran the gay helpline for the city we lived in, and the phone company 'accidentally' published our home address as the address for the helpline. We finally ended up taking the house numbers down to discourage any further vandalism. Before we lived there, we were evicted from an apartment complex for not having my mother's partner on the lease - despite the fact that LOTS of people had live-in partners of the opposite sex that weren't added to leases. I was ridiculed in school to the point where I begged my mother to transfer school districts (fortunately, this was right before we were evicted, so I indirectly got my wish).
My mother's partner was, and is, my closest and most supportive parent. I feel lucky to have her as a parent and as a grandmother to my son, and I am fairly certain she is my husband's favorite (or a close second to my geek father) in-law.
That said, I don't understand gay support for the Democratic party, or for John Kerry. Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was a load of crap - my mother's partner was in the Guard, and she wasn't directly asked about her sexual orientation, but questions like 'Who's waiting at home for you?' were frequent. Hell, Kerry and Edwards couldn't be bothered to show up to vote against the amendment banning same-sex marriage, and Kerry has spoken against gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
Here is my answer to that question. Or at least the first part.
Insure the Liberty, Safety, and Prosperity of the citizens, in that order of priority. Some level of safety is necessary to maintain liberty. Think national defense. Some level of prosperity is necessary to maintain both safety and liberty. Freedom to use your property means squat if there is no property.[1] But no level of prosperity or safety is worth the loss of liberty.
For the argument 'What, you want to let the terrorists win?' I quote Patrick Henry. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" What is the difference between terrorists taking my life and/or property and my government doing the same?
As far as this applies to marriage, Social engineering is anathema to liberty, and usually does not enhance either safety or prosperity. Most laws dealing with marriage are social engineering attempts. Giving certain priveledges and responsibilities to marriage without explicit consent of the 'happy couple' is both social engineering and contrary to liberty. Government should allow people to take which priveledges and responsibilities they wish, and make them legally binding, without government interference. Essentially each marriage is defined by a legal contract that would look something like a pre-nuptial agreement. If this would allow society to go in some direction that someone thinks is bad, lump it. Even if they are right. It is not the job of government to effect or prevent social change.
For those who say 'This allows gays to marry', think of it this way. by giving government the power to ban two gays from commiting to each other and calling such an arraingement 'marriage', you also give the government the power to regulate your own marriage, and say what it is, or isn't. Banning gay marriage will not 'preserve marriage'. Even if gay marriage can destroy marriage. It will however, give the government the power to destroy it. Note also that having the government sanction any marriage, gay or not, also does the same thing. It gives governenment power over marriage, to do with as it pleases.
[1]Don't think 'if you have no property' here. Think 'there is no property to be had'.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Jerry Springer has proven that hetero families are not naturally better than a gay couple raising a kid.
That is totally untrue, You can delegate anyone to make medical decision for you. My then g/f made me her medical decision maker when we were in college together now that we are married nothing has changed in that regard. When she was hospitalized for serious kidney problems I was alowed to stay by her side at all times..
"Would you like to provide an ancient historical reference to Marriage that pre-dates Genesis?"
Sure! Genesis being written by man around 1500BC, right?
That would mean Egyptians had been practicing marriage for at least 1500 years. Of course this predates God...
SUV's are starting to become a forgotten issue with all these things like Iraq overshadowing them, however it is still important to discuss them.
Do you see any issues with the popularity of these over-consuming luxury rides?
If no, what direction do you plan to take the laws governing these vehicles?
If yes, what laws will you change and how will you change them to make SUV's safer and more efficient?
and also, what do you think of the newest models of hybrid gas-electric vehicles? Will you be supporting these in any way?
(possibly rephrase these questions to make answering in the negative easier, anyone can tell I'm asking them with a slant)
seriously, amazing work, good job.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
... and you're making the assumption that if sexual orientation is not genetically determined then a gay man or lesbian has no preference over who they have sex with.
I'm sure that you like some foods, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some movies, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some holiday destinations, but not others.
I'm sure that you like some musical artists, but not others.
My point is, even if nature is not the determinant, nurture is just as powerful. As a gay male, I can tell you that regardless of the nature/nurture debate, it's pointless for me to try to have sexual intercourse with a female. The prospect simply doesn't arouse me. This is not true for everyone that engages in same-sex relationships - the homosexualheterosexual definition is one big continuum.
To summarise, different people have different likes/dislikes. If the likes/dislikes in question are not hurting anyone, the government has absolutely no right to create legislatation that limits the freedom of individuals with them particular preferences. Whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined or a product of nurture is irrelevant.
One would presume by now that each candidate has an exit strategy for Iraq.
Q1) What specific conditions must be satisfied before we can withdraw troops from Iraq?
Q2) What steps are you taking to accomplish those specific conditions?
Q3) Do you believe you can accomplish this in 2 years? 4 years?
Q4) Can you now promise to the American people you accomplish this goal within 2 years? If not, why should we vote for you?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
can a horse be charged with murder? does it need to submit income tax returns?
no sir, i don't like it!
President* Bush:
Q1) Was the rationale for invading Iraq because Saddamn would imminently come into possesssion WMD? If so, what proof can you present to the world?
Q2) Was the rationale for invading Iraq because the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from Saddam? If so, why haven't we invaded North Korea?
Q3) Was the rationale for invading Iraq because Iraq presented a threat to Gulf Oil? If so, why have they not invaded an Arab state since '91? What is the justification to invade Iraq if our military presence alone was sufficient to keep it at bay? If it was insufficient, and Iraq represented a credible military threat, what proof was this the case since the '04 campaign was a military cake walk?
Q4) Do you feel the US taxpayer's dollar is better spent destroying and rebuilding Iraq, or letting Americans spend their money at home?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I think the deficit is large enough to look after itself...
There aren't any laws on the books prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. Their biggest problem is convincing someone of the opposite gender to agree to marry them. If they can do that, they can get married just like anyone else.
What they're looking to do is to change the definition of what a marriage is. The definition for a very long time has had a male/female sexual and family relationship at it's heart.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Bah, even without the frothing Xians, that would never happen. If it did happen, the courts wouldn't be able to financially sodomize fathers anymore.
...and a pitiful listener.
Sure, Bill Clinton lied about his sex life. But Bush lies about National Policy and reasons we should go to war with people his neocon cronies wanted to go to war with when he got elected.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
There aren't any laws on the books prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. Their biggest problem is convincing someone of the opposite gender to agree to marry them.
[sarcasm]
Exactly the same way there have never been any laws on the books anywhere prohibiting the people of an interracial couple from marrying. Their biggest problem is each convincing someone of the same race to agree to marry them.
[/sarcasm]
Not that this matters, the point is to look at the TEXT of the law. Any portion of that text attempting to discriminate the race/gender/religion of applicants is constitutionally invalid. Null, void, was never actually law in the first place. You are then left with a text issuing/recognizing marriage between a pair of generic people, or you are left no law issuing/recognizing marriages for anyone.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
As a Historian, Japan's major and mid level cities were destroyed. (See fog of war for the quick numbers). This did NOT break the will of the Japanese to fight. The Japanese military and civilians were all too willing to die for their emperior. Not that their deaths would have meant anything military. That is why so few Japanese military and civilians were captured on the island campaigns. It was less then 10% (See the Great courses on Tape World War II History)The Americans thought that they would have to kill all the Japanese. The occupation of Japan resulted in ZERO American deaths from hostile action. (Time Magazine) I belive because the Emperior told them to cooperate. Ah the advantages taking over a tightly controlled population.
Mr. President, most pilots will do anything to keep their flight status active. What was in your medical history that caused you to lose your flight status?
Don't like homosexual marriage? Then join a church that doens't allow it. Don't invite married homosexuals into your house. But don't tell them what they can or cannot do in their own lives that doesn't have any effect on your own.
shithead.
Your analogy would only be appropriate if gays were demanding to be Southern Babtist ministers or take leadership positions in Jerry Falwel's Moral Majority. They aren't, so what you just said was a whole load of bullshit.
What they are trying to do is change the foundation of society
"Foundation of society" my ass. Throughout history a large percentage of marriages were not made from love or the desire to have a family, but arranged for political or economic gain. And while you don't see many arranged marriages in the West anymore, you can't tell me with a straight face that a Britney-Spears-36-hour-Hollywood-marriage is more respectful of this "sacred institution" than two homosexuals who love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
It *very* telling that all this "protection of marriage" crap starts and stops with homosexuals. And homophobes should realize that gays and lesbians want to embrace marriage, not destroy it.
Innumberable studies have shown that children are much better off with both parents in their lives. And if you have to pick one parent or the other, children are better off with the father rather than the mother. Want to know what's the number one way to reduce child drug abuse, crime, and teen pregnancy? Have a father in the child's life.
Furthermore, wtf should the father have to work his ass off to pay for children that he has limited access to? Not to mention what a godforsaken mess the child support system is.
I live in Norway, you insensitive clods
Couple of things.
:)
First of all, you really have no choice as to whether you live in this "civilised society" or not. This is forced upon you as surely is your own life.
Second, rather than state a moral absolute, it seems like you're qualifying it: "So long as everyone consents, it is ALWAYS OK--unless it is bad (e.g. murder), in which case, to prevent it from happening again, we can do something else bad." "Bad" in this case meaning that something is not consentual. So you have, essentially, that something is good unless it is bad, at which time you can do more bad to prevent it. No offense, but I think that thinking such as this is partially why America is as jacked-up as it is
Furthermore, what do you think of Lincoln's proposition that you have no right to do a wrong? E.g. simply because you agree to it by contract, a free person could not sell himself into bondage because liberty is a fundamental human right.
This is really a question for both camps. What would it take to allow Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party to attend the presidential debates?
RFC2119
And please don't answer, "We won't do anything illegal." We know the Justice Department drated a memo showing how torture could be legally justified.
Isn't this contrary to 228 years of being the world's guiding beacon in the struggle for human rights?
The point is, it isn't unfair that monogamous straight couples support other lifestyles, when they themselves are already well supported by everyone else. By your logic, any form of tax or government is unfair. "Oh why should I have to support all these things I don't believe or agree with," whines the guy who ignores that those people pay taxes too, for things that he benefits from.
It's not a case of two wrongs make a right, it's that there are two ways to fix it. If we agree that a system is unfairly biased towards one set of people, they you either remove the biased system altogether, or you work at providing the benefits it for more people to even things out. Of course I realise that the former is unlikely to happen, that is why we work for the latter.
Your argument seems to hinge around this idea that "non traditional" somehow equals wrong. Strangely, not everyone agrees with you.
But I don't understand the need for homosexual marriage.
So what's the need for marriage?
I'm not some eugenicist freak, mind you. But, I'm almost certainly going to be painted as one for what I'm about to say... human society does have an interest in perpetuating itself. And if growing people in test tubes does become an option, I'm not sure that method is such a good thing. The US has seen a drop in population growth, that excluding immigration, could have grave consequences in a not so distant future. (And I'm not blaming homosexuality for this, either). So, it's at least plausible that we all have an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage beyond "alternative lifestyles".
But trying to persuade people to be heterosexual through government benefits, in the hopes that they'll then have children, is something that is very ineffective. You are surely far better off having a system that rewards people who *actually have children*, if that is your aim.
There are plenty of childless straight couples out there, and they are surely more of the reason for falling birth rates (if this is the case) than there being more same sex couples (and indeed, you agree that they are not to blame for this), and it is surely easier to persuade childless straight couples to have children, than it is to persuade childless same sex couples to break up, change their sexuality, find someone else and have children..
and I think anyone that votes for the lesser of two evils is sure to get evil anyway,
Well, it's a crappy system, but I'd rather have the lesser of two evils than the greater of two evils.
I think parent's point, which you seem to have missed when you called it a "fluff definition" is that marriage is both a religious/social institution and a legal one; however we don't clearly distinguish between them today.
My point is that we do.
The state does not issue a bunch of religous dictactes about what you must do when you get married. If only deals with the LEGAL aspect of marrige.
If two atheists, who plan to live in different states, raise no family, and have sex with other people want to get married, they can.
Clearly that's against a whole bunch of fundamentalist religious and social edicts, but the state deals strictly with the LEGAL side of things.
Life is too short to proofread.
Except, you can't eliminate the statistics are you wish. Subtract the difference in home violence from same sex relationships from different sex relationships, especially two males, have you're left with an interesting statistic.
What a straw-man argument. Planned and unplanned births happen ALL the time in herto unions. This will never happen for same sex marriages. And when birth does happen, statistically, a child from a healthy family structure does much, much, much better than one that does not.
;)
At least we're talking about something other than the, "look how small minded I am, this has to do with god", straw man.
Some of the Americans who were around in the 70's can answer me this. Is 'Athiest' then name of a drug that was around back then or something?
The link with marriage is indirect.
Not at all. The link is direct and conclussive. Healthy families stand a much greater chance of producing healthy, productive citizens.
Would you like to provide an ancient historical reference to Marriage that pre-dates Genesis?
I didn't even finish reading your comment because it's sad. Believe it or not, this has NOTHING to do with god. Period. Period. Period.
People believing that marriage is a divine right, certainly has a right to believe it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a contractual arrangement between two people, regardless of religious beliefs. Period.
The crime rate statistics completely disagree with you.
Exhibit B - handbills relegated to unseen areas
Exhibit C - cavity searches for journalists on World Press Freedom Day
Exhibit D - arguments in favor of squelching 527s
It is important to note that the only consent that is relevant comes from the people who will be materially affected. In general, the more of an effect it will have on a person, the more important their consent is.
The act of murder is bad because the victim doesn't concent to being killed. It is a strong action because death is permanent. It is not fall under either absolute because the killer consents but the victim doesn't.
If the person to be killed does consent (IE assisted suicide), then that's OK.
The killed's concent is more important than the killer's concent because the killed is affected more.
The punishment system is one of those solutions that sucks, but not as badly as the known alternatives. There has to be some way of preventing people from using force to take away the rights of others to disagree (and reserve consent). The threat of punishment serves as motivation to play nice. The threat wouldn't be creadible if it didn't get carried out. Not really. If someone, given other alternatives, willingly and knowingly sells himself into bondage, then that is their right. Of course, it also requires agreement from the bonder.
The problem with most slavery (all that I know of) is that the slaves were not given any viable alternatives. Conditions were manipulated into making slavery the only usable option. This does not represent a free choice; a choice requires usable alternatives. Creating an environment that intentionally removes choices (even by making them impractical) is bad because the people getting the "short end" of the deal don't consent to this situation, and yet they have a much larger stake in it. Also, I think that most cases of bondage, the original agreement is changed by those in power. If no agreement can be reached, but something has to happen then it may be time for government to step in.
IMO, the role of government should be to deal with cases where the involved parties cannot reach an agreement, including agreeing to drop the issue. When the involved parties do agree, then it is totally outside the domain of government. However, enforcing previously made agreements may fall into the government's domain. For example, say Bob makes an agreement with Joe. They also make an agreement with the government that if either one backs out, the contract will be forcibly enforced. This service is paid for by the taxes they both pay.
Let's say that the terms are disputed after the document explaining them has already been signed. The government agreed to enforce the agreement, so it has to figure out what the document says and then enforce it. No, I suppose there isn't much choice. This is an artifact of living in a finite world. Still, there are some alternatives, like moving to a 3rd world country in anarchy. It isn't a good alternative, so I guess I would have to conclude that the situation pretty much sucks. Sorry
Like, what's the deal with your face? Is it congenital, you big-chinned fuck?
The post anonymously option you are [not] attempting to use is one that isn't available to your user.
Why is it the Democrats tend to believe in freedom, except in fiscal matters, and Republicans tend to believe in freedom, except in social matters? Why can't we just believe in Freedom?
I believe that the true test of freedom is when you apply it to things you don't agree with: the freedom to be or do only what others approve of is no freedom at all. I would like to hear your viewpoint on that.
If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
LOL! That's one heck of a clit on the girl!
If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
That's if turtles have willies and ears. Otherwise, nasal sex.
If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
Um, I assume that was an attempt at an insult, but you need practice.
If I am a property owner, why would it be my mom's basement? How does that make sense?
Speaking of mom's, yours left her grundies at my house last night. Tell her to bring my money when she comes to get them.
The post anonymously option you are [not] attempting to use is one that isn't available to your user.
The current argument is for 2 same sex people getting married, and if there should be a constitutional ban on that (which I say no!).
No, the current argument is one side saying that society has the right to define marriage and the other side is saying that society can't impose one definition of marriage upon people who don't agree.
Personally, I'd like to have two wifes. When one is being particularly bitchy, I can roll over to be with the other. But society has decided that three people can't enter a marriage. Society has also decided that people of the same gender can't enter a marriage.
It's the same thing.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You can use the logical extreme argument however. What is marriage based on? Love for another? Or simply a dictionary definition of a man and a women. If you follow that marriage is based upon love, then why couldn't I love more than one person, and if I can love more than one person, why can't I love more than one gender. If I love people so much, why can't I love my dog, who is practically a member of my family anyway. I love my dog (hypothetical, I own 2 cats), Some guys love other men, some women love other women. What is the major difference between our love?
Following the World Trade Center bombing you stated that these terrorists did this "because they hate our rights and freedoms", yet in the three past years all orders, decrees, and laws which limit, or abridge, these same rights and freedoms, have your signature on them, not Osama bin Laden's. Would you care to comment?
Recent polls internationally, show that the US is considered, overwhelmingly,to be the most serious threat to not only Democracy, but to the well-being of the Earth and its inhabitants.Yet,since 1945, US-backed right-wing paramilitary groups abroad, US-supported right-wing dictatorships, and illegal bombings of civilian targets contravening both US and International law, have resulted in nearly 12 million fatal civilian casualties around the World. Since these American activities are neither Constitutional, nor Christian, what moral authority is it, exactly, that gives you the right to decide who is, and who isn't, a terrorist threat?
--too old to ask, but not too old to vote
What bothers me about these kinds of questions is that a voting record is not something one can easily look at as representative of ones ideals and beliefs. Bills presented in today's congress are so full of loopholes, riders, and other extraneous and unrelated consequences that it becomes almost impossible to understand why a candidate did or did not vote for an issue. One could vote against a bill they fundamentally believe in because it could also legalize eating babies or something else horrible.
If you noticed, he announced his gay marriage ban at the exact time the 9/11 report was released. The headlines for the day focused on the ban, not the report. Since then, he has rarely mentioned the ban. Another example of the "Shiney Nickel Effect".
Atheist here. Comparing one sexual deviance to another. Pretty much don't care about homosexuals, as long as they aren't out on their front lawn buttfucking each other. Willing to support laws against housing or work discrimination as pertains gays.
Unwilling to support laws that would permit gay marriage. Unwilling to go as far as a constitutional ammendment (which it shouldn't require, and would only cause more damage).
Sounds like you're the bigot here. But since you're on the politically correct side of the bigotry, that's not only allowed, but something to be proud of, isn't it?
PS Even me, the atheist, thought that the "who wants to marry a [BLANK]" shows were beyond tasteless, and deep in the territory of "sick/shouldn't be tolerated".
I'm not religious and I'm not gay; but I am young and still give a shit about the happiness and well-being of others. Maybe my compassion will fade as I age, and maybe I'll even start voting Republican when I give up believing in the goodness of strangers; but for now, I believe that the government has no place defining love. Marriage is the official, legal institution of the love shared between two people. For the government to say that two, loving people can not get married is the equivalent of saying that either they don't love each other, or they (comparatively speaking) don't love each other as much as a heterosexual couple. No one has the right to judge the love between two people, not me, not you, and certainly not the government.
It's is a commonly held misconception that gay people have a desire to marry each other. The last number I heard was below a tenth of a percent of the overall population would take advantage of it, were it allowed. Yet it is the most hyped up talking point of this election, and it all started as a tool for the President to distract the media on the day the 9/11 commission report was released.
*Vote Cthulu/Hastur in 2004, or we'll eat your face*
I think you misspelled "Hastert."
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
First off, government has never defined love. But, if that mistaken belief is what drives you to want gay marriage, then who am I to interrupt by saying something sensible?
Let them love all they want. Let them call themselves "married" to their friends and neighbors. They do have freedom of speech, you know.
As for me, I do claim the right of judgement. Anyone that thinks you shouldn't judge, is a fool. When I walk, I judge where I should place my foot. When I vote, I judge who should run the affairs of government. When I see a NAMBLA freak on Donahue (or whatever the equivalent is today), I judge him to be a sick freak.
Maybe you're confused on the difference between judgement and condemnation. Or maybe you're just scared that your judgement is so poor, it can't be relied upon. I might agree with that last one. Even so, judge me now (though it makes you cringe to do so... you've got that pussy attitude but enough sense to know your hypocrisy), becausing judging me wrongly is ever so better than not judging at all. When hippy asshats like you decide "it's wrong to judge someone", they're opening the door to anything... and gay marriage is unfortunately one of the most mild of the problems to be invited.
There seems to be a theme in your posts: just about every time you mention homosexuals, you refer to buttfucking. Are you capable of thinking of hetersexual people in love without thinking of the sort of sex they have? How about lesbians?
I think you're letting your primate fear of being dominated get the better of you. Basing your political agenda on a fear of anal sex is borderline pathological. I realize the idea of being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is, as a heterosexual, naturally quite alien to you. Given that it clearly exists, though, is it so impossible to accept that people of the same sex might actually love each other romantically?
Which crime rate statistics? You're going to have to be more specific than that. I know of no evidence suggesting that crime is higher among gay and lesbian couples than among heterosexual married couples, or that the latter turn out more criminal children. Also, I think you'll find that for some family crimes, like spouse abuse and child molestation, the statistics are much higher among family members who identify as "heterosexual" (even in the case of men abusing boys, for example). So I think you're completely wrong.
According to some article I read a decade or two ago, probably in National Geographic, in some parts of Tibet it's fairly common for a woman to be married to a set of brothers. Typically she marries the oldest one first, and then the others as they get to marriagable age. Leftover women end up becoming nuns or something (and yes, Buddhists to have nuns.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but gender isn't mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution.
I'm personally of the opinion that the government at all levels should stay completely out of regulating marriage and leave it to private individuals, contracts and churches to sort it all out, but that doesn't change the current reality that a law mentioning male or female in it's text doesn't make it unconstitutional.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
There are plenty of childless straight couples out there, and they are surely more of the reason for falling birth rates (if this is the case) than there being more same sex couples
It is my suspicion that the same people/organizations that have manipulated society to promote homosexuality (bear in mind I'm not a holyroller, I don't think that they created it), also promote the idea of straight couples remaining childless, and barring that, that they promote divorce to further destabilize things.
Well, it's a crappy system, but I'd rather have the lesser of two evils than the greater of two evils.
Figures. Funny, I had you pegged as someone that might recognize that they now choose "equally evil" candidates for us to vote on...
Note that the idea here is to solicit questions specifically from voters 18 - 35, because this age group tends to vote less. . .
That way, the candidates will know which issues they can safely ignore.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but [color/race] isn't mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution.
I'm personally of the opinion that the government at all levels should stay completely out of regulating marriage and leave it to private individuals, contracts and churches to sort it all out, but that doesn't change the current reality that a law mentioning [black] or [white] in it's text doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Apparently you have just successfully defended laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Heh.
The good news is no, your argument is flawed. The very purpose of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause is to prohibit discriminatory laws. The fact that it does not contain the actual words "race", "gender", and "religion" is irrelevant. Countless court rulings explicitly say that it applies to (at minimum) all three of those things.
I doubt many people would seriously argue that the anti-discrimination Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution does & should apply to race, gender, and religion. It's just that many people are uncomfortable with one of the consequences of that.
As you say, one ultimate solution would be to eliminate all laws relating to marriage, leaving marriage a strictly social/personal/religious thing with no effect in law. However the direct issue is the validity of the current existing laws. Such laws are either wholly invalid (meaning that all marriages already have no lawful effect) or only the portion doing the discrimination is invalid (meaning the supposedly excluded classes of marriage already carry full effect in law).
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
When I heard him talk about this, he side stepped it neatly. He said he was opposed to gay marriage, but for civil unions. He said he thought marriage was a religious thing, and because of that, the government should refrain from dealing with it.
Essentially, this breaks down to "we should stop dealing with marriage, and give civil unions only, and to any couple (straight or gay) that wants them". That's just legalizing gay marriage, and changing every instance of marriage (as defined by the law) to civil union.
So yes, he's against gay marriage, but against straight marriage too, if that makes sense. Unless he's flopped on this issue as well, I would say that makes him (carefully) pro-gay marriage.
While there is definitely some ambiguity here, with Bush there isn't any. So if gay marriage is your thing, Kerry's your man (although less so than he ought to be).
As the traumatized child of divorced parents, I can agree with your sentiment. But I think legislating it is the wrong move.
Your assumption that marriage (or civil unions, or whatever) are freely entered into is a big one. That may be true for many of the people in your social circle, but in some cultures (remember that ours is a nation of immigrants, and they bring their traditions with them), marriage is arranged or at least heavily influenced by parents. This sometimes happens very young.
Now, in the case of a religious marriage, a breaking with the faith can result in you not carring whether divorce is acceptable or not. So, if for example, I am Catholic and can't obtain an anullment, I'm always free to break with the faith.
But if I am, for example, a young indian guy or girl, born to recently immigrated parents, who at age 18 is married off to a childhood acquaintance of my parents' choosing, a country with no legal divorce leaves me very little in terms of wiggling room when I wake up, realize that I'm more American than Indian, that I don't love the girl/guy, and that I want a life of my own.
My point is that in some cultures, unions are not freely entered into.
Now, you did say that you would want them very difficult to obtain, rather than impossible to obtain, so perhaps you would provide exemptions for such exceptional examples. Probably you wanted to discourage people from having Vegas style weddings and divorcing the next day, thus making a mockery of the institution of marriage, which used to mean something and sadly no longer seems to. But the problem is, if you make it a law, you put the burden on the state (and the courts) to decide who has the right to get divorced and who doesn't. Frankly, I'd much rather them dealing with issues that are important to society and not just to those directly involved (you know, like crime and repealing the DMCA and stuff).
You're wasting your breath, friend. Anyone that suggests that not only is homosexuality not genetically predetermined, but in fact that there is evidence pointing to the contrary, has already made up his mind: you and I both know that there is a tremendous amount of conflicting evidence on this topic, and that most of the "evidence" against genetic predermination comes from sources with a vested interest.
;p), it certainly is pretty deeply engrained. I've never heard of anyone "turning gay" or "turning straight" -- everyone I know was pretty aware of their preference for as far back as they can remember, and that's good enough evidence for me.
They'll use whatever argument they can against it, but in the end, anti-gay types are just homophobic, plain and simple. It's a moral issue of some sort for them, whatever that means. I really think "but that's the out hole" is the core of the issue for them. Seriously.
I'm not gay, but many of my friends are, and I actually met a guy in college at our LGBT who had grown up in the midwest and been put through a religious "straightification" program by his parents, to cure him (I'm Californian). In the end he pretended to be "cured" to get out of it, I swear, it was like something out of But I'm a Cheerleader (great flick, if you haven't seen it). Thank god for the American tradition of sending your kids off to college, huh? Needless to say he went from being a depressed, fucked up kid to a well adjusted, well liked, happy guy overnight.
So what I'm saying is, regardless of what causes it (I think it's nature, but my dyke soc teacher was sure it was nurture, go figure
And homophobia is just ignorance, anyway. I honestly don't know anyone that has actually dealt with openly gay people on a regular basis that has managed to remain homophobic. It's just impossible. In the rural midwest, everyone thinks they don't know anyone gay, but personally I absolutely believe the 1 in 10 stat. Hearing homophobes talk, they seem to think that gay men hit on anything with a penis! They must really think they're god's gift, or something.
The fact that we even need to debate this issue (gay marriage, gay rights, etc) just pisses me off.
Anyway, I hope you're living somewhere where you can live your lifestyle in peace. Seriously, fuck the closet.
And you should've answered the question : Do you support marriage of permanently sterile people, even when they are of different sexes?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Marriage is based on the idea that you should have someone who will pull your head out of the toilet water when you've been throwing up.
'Cos God is a damn' yellow-livered flip-flopper, that's how it is !
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
The crime rate for domestic distrubances are higher, specifically for male-male relationships. I believe I also remember reading that average same-sex relationship averaged less in duration, again, specifically for male-male relationships. That combination of statistics doesn't seem to fair well for a stable family environment. I don't know what the statistics look like, as a whole, for all gay-relationships.
If gay marriage and "gay-dom" in general were part of "normal" society, such situations would become a tiny, minority.
Interesting point of view. And, I can sort of understand your point of view. I don't agree with it, of course. But it is an interesting argument. IMHO, the weakness in your argument is that you are comparing a polygamy, incest and bestiality with homosexuality. They are not the same.
A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two consenting adults. In polygamous relationships, the idea is that everyone agrees to this relationshiop, but one of the problems is that, eventually, the relationship ends up being abusive. In an abusive relationship, there is no agreement between consenting adults.
That is the same with incestuous and bestiality. In both types of relationships, there usually is no agreement. One party is being forced into the situation.
Follow the threads to get some ideas of how other peoples' marriages affect everyone elseWell, I did follow the links. And, I must be missing the point. I read both and I saw a couple of replies to those posts that appeared to refute the original arguments. Oh well. I am prepared to punt. It appears we are going to disagree on this forever.
You're misunderstanding the parent. He's not saying we should only recognize marriages that can produce children, he is asking on what basis government needs a concept of marriage. Personally I think the state should keep reasonable track of which children are the offspring of which parents (for questions of inheritance and caretaking responsibilities), and possibly, just possibly keep a list of people who declare that "We want and plan to have children!".
On no account should the state have a concept of marriage - the biggest religions we've got all agree that marriage is a religious concept (some even define it quite differently from the rest of society, like the roman catholic church), so why on earth should the state try to define it?
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.
This is the key as far as I'm concerned, and the only thing the government has a role in with respect to the entire issue.
I would privatize marriage entirely; it's really just a contract between two people. There is no particular reason that a working man and a working woman should have their tax rates changed (up or down) just because they decide to go through some ceremony. Nor should a working man and a working man have their tax rates changed should they decide to have a ceremony.
However, I believe the government does have a role in the welfare of minor children (including enforcing child support, preventing negligent or abusive parenting, regulating adoption, perhaps tax breaks or other support, etc).
Exactly who (and how many) should be allowed (or preferred) to adopt (and other child-related issues) should be a distinct argument from who should be allowed to commit to each other for life, have power of attorney in the case of horrible accident, recieve inheritance, etc. The latter are clearly private decisions between consenting adults. The former impacts a minor who cannot legally give informed consent, and the government does have a vested role in the protection of minors.
That said, I think I'd disagree with you in the debate over who should be able to adopt (in that I probably wouldn't want to prohibit homosexual couples from adopting, and it sounds like you would). But it should, IMO, be a debate that is seperate from the marriage debate.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Really? That's funny because about 50% of gay couples I meet WANT that American dream of the two kids and a picket fence. Last I checked, 50% isn't that tiny of a minority.
Oh wait, you've been listening to that rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh about how if gays were allowed to marry, we'd all mutate into half-pig half ape hybrids and poop cantalopes until the 4 horsemen came selling tupperware, right?
Yep... that's FAR more likely than them just wanting to fit in.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Thankfully, I think and read for my self, so I don't listen to dribble that comes from a druggie like Rush. Oddly enough, while you seem to dislike Rush, dribble that is 180' off from his, seems to be all I see coming from you.
Well thanks. It's nice to know I'm headed in the right direction :)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
...wait a minute. I have one question for you; what is religion? Do you mean a belief in god, or an organized set of values adheared to by any group of people? If it is a belief in god, then you must ask the supreme court to seperate the original intents of all of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution, (who were all strictly "religious" individuals). If it is a set of beliefs followed by people, you must remove science, atheism, and all governmental laws. NOTE: seperation, does NOT mean segregation. If you read the constitution, you will find religious beliefs everywhere. Don't just preach your side, look at the other, and understand. Then, you can decide.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
Hehe.
:P
In my face!
If you look the posts, the conversation actually talked about gays having children from hetero relationships. Most studies indicate that this happens because of social pressure. If homo-life style became the norm, the number of children in this situation would be greatly reduced because the social pressure to "force" a homo into a hetero relationship would be greatly reduced. Accordingly, the 50% statistic you spouted is nowhere near realistic. Chances are, your 50% would be more like 5-10%. Again, this assumes significant changes in acceptible social norms.
Which orifice are you pulling these statistics out of?
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Forwarded to YouthDebate.com
Between 2002 and 2004, we have seen a 67% drop in corporate taxes and a 17% rise in private citizens' share, and an abuse of off-shore tax havens. During the same period the $197 Billion tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% could have made up for the states deficits'. Do you believe that society exists to provide for the wealthiest citizens and corporations, or should society demand repayment proportional to ones success for providing the framework necessary for anyone to rise to such eminence?
Rolling eyes. I guess this is where it ends. I guess we know which one of us is reasonable.
Enjoy.
Patronising little shit.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Since when did the republicans become federalists?
Actually, you seem to be misusing the term. Federalism is the aspect of our government which grants necessary powers to the national government but reserves all others to the lower levels of government. A federalist would say, "this is not a national government issue," and let the states decide. This used to be the Republican position, but many Republicans are as bad as Democrats about limiting the national government to its delegated powers. Power corrupts and all that.
Your argument seems to hinge around this idea that "non traditional" somehow equals wrong. Strangely, not everyone agrees with you.
Your parent post's argument hinges around the idea that government subsidy of marriage is wrong, not that "non traditional" equals wrong. Your argument is that imbalance of subsidy is wrong and that it can be fixed by equalizing subsidy by making everyone have it or noone have it. The other poster's point is that the subsidy itself is wrong, giving it to traditional marriage is wrong, and giving it to non-traditional marriage is wrong, so adding it to non-traditional marriage makes the problem worse.
First of all, a slippery slope argument does not imply a slippery slope fallacy. Some slopes are slippery. Furthermore, the argument is that a redefinition of marriage alters the institution and makes it easier to further redefine the institution in the future (by setting the precedent). It's not about the actual relation between same-sex marriage and poly-marriage but about the redefinition of legal "marriage" required to institute either.
15th ammendment includes both the words race and color.
"It is estimated that 1 to 3 million illegal immigrants a year cross the Mexican border into the United States... What would you do to prevent illegal immigration?" Why not just charge Mexico 1 barrel of oil per day for each illeagal immigrant as an "Oil for Illeagals" and it will stop.
LOL!
But at least I'm right.
What a moron.
Then the other poster should be advocating removal of marriage altogether - even if this is (as he points out) unlikely to happen, it would be the fair solution given the point of view.
The reason it is unlikely to happen is because most people don't share his view that marriage is unfair - they think that actually it's a great thing. You can't argue that x is wrong on the one hand, but on the other hand insist that we should keep x because of what the majority think, when "the majority" disagree with your original starting point.
And I still disagree with the idea that allowing everyone the access to the rights of marriage, and making it more flexible is making it more wrong - the only reason I view marriage as wrong is because it only favours one particular type of lifestyle.
The problem with this is that it's like saying we shouldn't change any laws at all, because someone might introduce completely stupid or unjust laws.
Now sure, for those reasons it is best to make it so that changing laws is hard and goes through whatever drawn-out checks. I'm not saying that same sex marriage has to be allowed overnight, just that this is something that should change.
Plus, this argument works both ways, since Bush has tried to get an amendment to prevent gay marriage. If you start being so hasty to change the constitution for things like this, where next, we might say - an amendment to prevent black people from getting married perhaps?
Wow. Could you take that to a further extreme? Homosexual relationships becoming the norm and homosexual relationships becoming ACCEPTED are two entirely different things; one has us giving them equal rights and the other has us all in bath houses.
:)
Get back to me when you understand what a balance is and how overpopulation is actually a BAD thing.
And for the record, ONE person said children from a past relationship. I put in my two cents as to how other scenarios might play out; there is no one scenario after all and all of those are dilemnas currently facing gays who are trying to achieve the American dream.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Your constant equation of sex with race and color doesn't work. If that's your only argument (to misquote me), then you have no argument. Race and color aren't inherent in the definition of marriage.
Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone in the same way. Marriage laws apply to everyone in the same way. As I stated earlier, homosexuals are currently allowed to marry under the law in the _exact_ same way as non-homosexuals are, so there is no equal protection issue.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
For Bush What comes first The Constution or the Bible?
what?
What is your solution to social security? Are we just pretend the problem doesn't exist and throw more money at it? Isn't it unfair to force younger Americans to pay into a system they will never see any benefit from?
Well, I did follow the links. And, I must be missing the point.
:)
I really just wanted to point out those issues, because this is probably an issue far too complex to discuss every aspect to its final conclusion (especially on Slashdot), and as you mention,
It appears we are going to disagree on this forever.
That is probably true, but I hope neither of us cease examining the issue.
misquote me
No, I took your argument and used it myself. I simply changed the target when I used it. You are then faced with three options:
(1) Accept your argument is valid when retargeted at race.
(2) Abandon your argument to eliminate my retargeted version.
(3) Demonstrate the retargeting step was somehow invalid.
You attempted the 3rd option with:
Race and color aren't inherent in the definition of marriage.
Really? Says who? It used to be widely held that it was.
If you can reject their claim about race then I can reject claim claim about gender.
The point is that it doesn't matter how YOU choose to define marriage, it doesn't matter how some slaveholder in 1800 chose to define marriage, it doesn't matter I would choose to define marriage. The only thing that matters is what the law may say and do, how the law may be defined.
It simply isn't possible to write a valid law which could discriminate the color of applicants in order to grant legal effect X for applicants of matching color and deny legal effect X to applicants of non-matching color. It simply isn't possible to write a valid law which could discriminate the gender of applicants in order to grant legal effect X for applicants of non-matching gender and deny legal effect X to applicants of matching gender.
Either the entire law is invalid and there is no legal effect X for anyone, or only the portion of the law that attempted to look at the color/gender of each of the applicants is invalid and legal effect X applies for general pairs of applicants.
Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone in the same way.
Laws excluding interracial marriage also applied to everyone in the same way.
As I stated earlier, homosexuals are currently allowed to marry under the law in the _exact_ same way as non-homosexuals are so there is no equal protection issue.
As I stated earlier, people would would like to marry interracially would be allowed to marry under the law in the _exact_ same way as non-interracial applicants, so apparently no equal protection issue here either. If you are going to pointlessly repeat a claim that has been addressed then I will pointlessly repeat the answer. If you thought this answer was invalid then you should have argued how and why this answer was invalid.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
15th ammendment includes both the words race and color.
Whoops, good catch. I did a text search just before posting so I don't know how I missed that. Anyway, that only kills the "dramatic flair" I used. It doesn't invalidate the foundation of my argument that 14th amendment prohibits both race and gender discrimination.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Do you think Bush would want pretzels banned ? under the 'food of human destruction' category.
______
Burn the BUSH, I am anon e mous!
The government should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious and a family issue. If you don't honor the separation of church and state, then don't get upset when we adopt sharia law.
1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
hey sorry for cross-post. there is a site where they are deliving questions to the debate moderators. other post about this here.
So in general, reproduction and child-rearing are the only valid reasons that the government has to intrude into marriage, and they are why government will sanction your future heterosexual marriage. Not because you have to have children, but because your marriage will have a potential that the government has a vested interest on. If the government didn't intrude into marriage at all, then the whole debate would be a moot point and gay marriage wouldn't be a problem. The issue at hand however, is government sanction of gay marriage without a valid reason (love is not the government's business, just as it is not for heterosexual marriages either), a sanction that will furthermore go against the only principle that the government can use to justify it's regulation of marriage.
Heck, you're being elliptical enough in your phrasing, I'm only about 90% sure which side of the argument you'd come down on.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
I just find it amusing that there is all this argument about what the effects might be if gays were allowed to marry and raise children. When this has already been happening for a while, due to children from a previous marriage. (Which is the case with 2 different couples in my wife's immediate family.)
We don't have to guess--we can look at the outcomes right now. (Not that that will stop the arguing, of course.)
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month January.....
...
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January!
That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following.
FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. >From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman... finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy... started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson... turned Vietnam into a quagmire. Vietnam never attack ed us. >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton... went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked the US President Bush has
liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find her Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick, drowning Mary Jo.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military moral is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
What are you going to do to stop large scale abuse of the patents system - particularly with regard to software.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Honestly, I don't want you to have to strain yourself with a little bit if introspective examination on such a complicated issue. Especially when you've already got an axe to grind. Get lost troll boy.
Saddam was terrified of pissing off the US. He didn't dare invade Kuwait until he had the all-clear from the American ambassador, and ten years later when the US threatened another war, he submitted swiftly to the UN weapons inspectors. No doubt the next strong Iraqi government (if any) will take these precedents to heart when choosing its friends.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
I think the problem here is that even if we accept that "marriage is what society holds up to be the ideal," society has held up a loving, monogamous homosexual marriage to be a better ideal than a hating, abusive heterosexual relationship. Or at least, the society in the blue states does. I still think that the red states should just secede - the differences between urban and rural areas are so different we live in two different nations that happen to share the same political boundaries.
Come on. If civics were still taught in schools it would cut down on 90% of these stupid questions/comments about the popular vote. There is a reason for the electoral college.
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
There's no shame in being a pariah. -Marge Simpson
> it doesn't require the people who control those institutions to make infinite allowances to people who are unable to fulfil the purpose of the institutions
If a moron gets into a University, that is one student slot not available to me now. I was their 510th pick, but they only enroll 500. 20 of those people are retarded & were only listed above me because of that fact. Fair? Of course not.
That lesbian's "slot," (sorry) however, is off-limits to me whether she marries her lover or not. I remain unaffected, except perhaps that I now have something new to imagine at night.
There is no limiting involved in ALLOWING gay marriage, only in banning it. These asshole christian politicians seem to have the idea that if something is banned, people will immediately see that they were "wrong," and start fucking people of the opposite sex again. What a crock of shit.
> Whether these statistics are equally, greater, or less valid for married gay couples is probably undetermined.
That has no bearing (or, at least, shouldn't) on whether something is legal or not. Statistics on insurance are the insurance company's problem and don't belong in this argument.
> Fortunately, there are other requirements for marriage.
Despite your insinuations, love is certainly NOT a requirement for marriage. If it were, we probably wouldn't have so many divorces.
> The morals of virtually all Western Societies are derived by a set of 10 rules handed supposedly handed by God to Moses
Which of those countries has passed a law stating that you cannot pray to any other gods beside Him and you shalt not "make unto any graven images" or some such crap?
No, laws may parallel some of the 10 commandments, but they are not directly based on all of them. The 10C's are mostly common sense -- don't kill? No shit, wouldn't have thought of that myself if I weren't told by some ignorant nomads.
> I believe I also remember reading that average same-sex relationship averaged less in duration
Couldn't have anything to do with a shitload of them being annulled against their will very suddenly & after an extremely short duration...
> By the way, there is no evidence he did cocaine
While it may not be actual evidence, he has neither confirmed nor denied it.
> I don't see anyone saying what he did was okay.
Now you do. I have no problem with him doing coke when he was young. Hell, I have no problem if he does it now, as long as he's not meeting with anyone important or making any governmental decisions at that time. I'll defend him on that, even though I dislike many decisions he made during his term.
> I fear that next we shall here something about "extremophiles"
I'm sure they exist. No doubt there is at least one couple out there who wants to screw at the top of Everest.
That would absolutely be, "NO!" That's because I'm talking about relationships and not marriage.
Dear Mr. Republican / Democrat representative, As the only nation, in history, to have ever deployed and employed atomic weapons, do you consider possession and the potential use of your own WMD, in this day and age, relevant? What kind of event would cause you to consider their use again?
This question is for both candidates: coke or weed?
How much liberty is security worth?