Incest is obvious as well since any offspring are almost guaranteed to have genetic problems.
But not if the two partners are gay, what if two male cousins or brothers wish to marry? This is why it is not a slippery slope argument, you are in fact redefining marrage so the consiquences of that act need to be considered.
As for you second naive statement, it ignores the role of secular marriage contracts in the history of Western Civilization. Marriage, as a secular contract, is not about love or dedication, it's about recognizing a partnership and confers numerous legal rights for two individuals to act as a single party, which is necessary for those living in such a tightly coupled life.
No it has been about a Man and a Woman to act as a single party, and produce children. If you are going to redefine that part of the societal contract perhaps its time to look at the whole picture.
Just as you can not give up your civil rights when you enter into a contract, the government will not allow you to enter into a contract that will violate the rights of others, such as offspring in the case of incest and polygamy
But as I pointed out above two homosexual brother have no genetic offspring to affect why should they not be allowed to marry? as for polygamy can you show me automatically how it is worse for the kids to be raised in that envirionment (one that kids in other parts of the world are raised in?) or are you just applying your morality to marrage?
It's not about race, but about one group telling another group how they should live, who they can marry, where they can live, what is acceptable behaviour, etc.
How they should live: Sodomy laws have been ruled unconstitutional they can live with anyone they want
Who they can Marry: I am also told who I can marry, I cant marry 2 people, or anyone related to me
Where they can live: What in the heck does this have to do with Gay marrage? Seriously!
what is acceptable behaviour: Umm as has been point out nothing they are doing is unacceptable behavior according to the SC
..so describe why polygamy, between consenting adults, should be illegal.
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.
and the Republicans who picked him, to run a black man against the likely first black senator representing Illinois, shows their contempt for democracy, race, the people of Illinois, and sanity
Umm what? Wow take some meds..
Ms. Moseley Braun has served her country as a United States Senator from Illinois a Female, African American.
The republicans in Ill were in a hard spot, they needed to get someone with a name to run. Keys was *not* picked because of his race (the previous two attempts including Mike Ditka were white). As for Democracy? what choice did they have the DNC forced the primary winner to release his divorse records (something John Kerry wont do) and the scandle destroyed him.
How much more obvious a charade could they run?
Well you wont get much argument out of me this is a publicity stunt by the republicans in Il there is nobody they could have picked to beat Obama (too little time, money, and luck on their side). So they picked someone who could expose just how wacko left Obama is (this guy vopted to let babies who survive abortion die on a cold steel table). When he runs again in 6 years, assuming he is not a vp candidate in 4 (oh wait starting with Kerry/Edwards one can run for president miss a years worth of votes and keep their seat, at leat Bob Dole had the grace to step down before running) his record will be more an issue..
Calling Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner because she loves a woman? It may be a logically consistent point of view, Alan, but it's still a fucking monstrously bigotted point of view.
No its calling something which is a sin a sin. You may not agree with it but in the Christian faith homosexuality is a sin. And in most faiths we are all sinners, the difference is I dont have (or want) legislation confirming my sin, and I dont want to push my sin on the public schools, courts, or your household.
But that excitement turned to sickness when I heard that Cheney sound bite.
Well Keys is not known for pulling his punches, and the woman is living in sin.
This is the guy that called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger for moving to New York to run for the Senate and then moved to Illinois to do the same.
After being asked keys went to Il (a bad decision on his part but I hope he makes a good go), in addition to being asked he looked at the record of the then unoppoesd Obama who voted for a bill that would let a baby who survives an abortion die on a cold steel table..
Mod Parent UP! Even the first generation of US leaders had a prayer before they met. The second generation put the 10 commandments on the wlls of the supreme court..
This is not the establishment of religion (ala the Church of England). And this in no way restricted the rights of anyone to practice their religion!
NY already had a candidate for the Senate when Hillary moved to NY. She was a Democrat from down state who probablly would have won just as easily as Hillary..
Which is why I said he got the measure passed, he did what was within his power. But your right the Republicans use pro lifers like the Democrats use minorities. They dont actually want to fix anything or the voting block might go away..
No fact! The speaker of the house and president of the senate have as much power as Bush.
The point remains the same, the voting system ensures that the largest minority candidate (and party) are the ones in power.
So in 1996 When a Democrat was in the whitehouse and the Republicans controlled congress who was in power? Clinton had to adopt may conservative Ideas like welfare reform and dump many liberal ideas like government control of healthcare.
third party can have on electoral success is to split the votes of one of the existing parties (or candidates) and therefore ensure the continued success of their opposition
The republicans were at one time a 3rd party, what ever happened to the wigs? If any of the third parties got their act together and started really going after districts they could get enough representation to help drive the issues.
The existing system has made America a two party state rather than a democracy, it's the inescapable result.
America was never intended to be a democracy it was *ALWYAS* a Republic..
THe administration better dang well care what the states think as that is who puts them into place. My question is why should I care if france wants someone else in power?
To get rid of the EC you have to scrap the constitution (we are after all not a democracy). To do that you need 75% of the states to want to do it. THe electoral college creates a president of the states not the people. He is the head of a republic congress who is elected by majority vote makes the laws.
If every state wants to go ahead and give out the EC votes like ME and NB that would be fine. Even if they institute some moronic system liek the once being voted on in CO good for them. But the devision needs to lie with the states..
Your head of government representing what percentage of the populace? 38%, 40%, 42%?
If you mean Bush he was elected by about 49% of the population which is one half of a percent less than Gore. Bush is not the head of our gevernment he is the head of the executive branch of our government. Our government does not have a 'head'
I don't see how giving a minority candidate majority power could in any way be described as democratic
Bush has no power, congress could shut him down in a minute. Bush does not have majority power he is the head of one branch of the government. Majority power is held by the Republican in the house and senate (because duh they are the majority) and Supreme court is about split depending on the issue.
The result of the 2000 US elections are similarly controversial, the minority candidate (Bush) assumed power despite Gore having received more than 50% of the popular vote.
here is a dime, go buy a clue. Gore did not get a majority of the vote he got a half percent more than Bush (less than 50%). Also the president is not the same as a prime minister, he is not the head of a government. He is the head of the union (the union of states) and is selected by the will of the states. If the majority of people wanted to keep Bush from doing anything they could have voted the Democrats into power in 2002 instead the Republicans retaind a majority of the law making body. The president is the head of the states, congress represents the people of the nation.
Stability is a ridiculous excuse for preferring the existing undemocratic voting system over one which actually takes account of the preferences of the people.
Umm the will of the people was done in 2000, every law maker who won their district went to congress. THe will of the states was also done the chosen president of the states sits in the white house.
How do you go from stable to strong? The US seperation of powers means on branch cant act without the others congress makes the laws and the house is up for election every two years. Congress also does have to power to remove the president for high crimes. Those who make the laws are elected every 2 years and are thus accountable.
If any third party could muster just 10 congressional seats they would have major importance (congressmen are elected by a % of the vote in a given district). THe reason for the EC is because the US is a Federation of States and the presidents main capacity is as the head of that federation, but he can not make laws on interprit them and any action he undertakes can be overridden by congress or the courts.
So again stable government accountable to the people. Limited government controlled by constitutional checks (most importantly the 10th) by its differing branches and the states. People overseas (and sadly many at home) do not understand the structure of our government and cry about the EC yet without it people in states like Wisconson could kiss any kind of power goodby..
So fix cars for a living, I bring you my car and say I give you the authority to fix my car. So you replace the A-Frame, and the linkage, when I come back and complain I did not approve you fixing the A-frame and the linkage am I right?
No I want to know that when a Head of gevernment is elected he will serve out until the next election and that a simple vote of "no confidence" can remove him. I want to know that a government wont collapse because (insert ultra minority party here) decided to pull its support for a PM..
Slashdot Mirror
But not if the two partners are gay, what if two male cousins or brothers wish to marry? This is why it is not a slippery slope argument, you are in fact redefining marrage so the consiquences of that act need to be considered.
As for you second naive statement, it ignores the role of secular marriage contracts in the history of Western Civilization. Marriage, as a secular contract, is not about love or dedication, it's about recognizing a partnership and confers numerous legal rights for two individuals to act as a single party, which is necessary for those living in such a tightly coupled life.
No it has been about a Man and a Woman to act as a single party, and produce children. If you are going to redefine that part of the societal contract perhaps its time to look at the whole picture.
Just as you can not give up your civil rights when you enter into a contract, the government will not allow you to enter into a contract that will violate the rights of others, such as offspring in the case of incest and polygamy
But as I pointed out above two homosexual brother have no genetic offspring to affect why should they not be allowed to marry? as for polygamy can you show me automatically how it is worse for the kids to be raised in that envirionment (one that kids in other parts of the world are raised in?) or are you just applying your morality to marrage?
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.
Exactly, what is happening that keeps gays from living in certain neighborhoods?
How they should live: Sodomy laws have been ruled unconstitutional they can live with anyone they want
Who they can Marry: I am also told who I can marry, I cant marry 2 people, or anyone related to me
Where they can live: What in the heck does this have to do with Gay marrage? Seriously!
what is acceptable behaviour: Umm as has been point out nothing they are doing is unacceptable behavior according to the SC
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.
hmmm and what stops them from doing that now? They need a certificate to express love??
Umm lie on a steel table at room temperature, tell me how wram it feels. The bill allows a baby, viable and outside the womb to die..
What? Look at what a politican says to know who they are?!?!?! Lookt at the voting record of the man...
Umm what? Wow take some meds..
Ms. Moseley Braun has served her country as a United States Senator from Illinois a Female, African American.
The republicans in Ill were in a hard spot, they needed to get someone with a name to run. Keys was *not* picked because of his race (the previous two attempts including Mike Ditka were white). As for Democracy? what choice did they have the DNC forced the primary winner to release his divorse records (something John Kerry wont do) and the scandle destroyed him.
How much more obvious a charade could they run?
Well you wont get much argument out of me this is a publicity stunt by the republicans in Il there is nobody they could have picked to beat Obama (too little time, money, and luck on their side). So they picked someone who could expose just how wacko left Obama is (this guy vopted to let babies who survive abortion die on a cold steel table). When he runs again in 6 years, assuming he is not a vp candidate in 4 (oh wait starting with Kerry/Edwards one can run for president miss a years worth of votes and keep their seat, at leat Bob Dole had the grace to step down before running) his record will be more an issue..
Now if I had my way the Government would have *NO* Marrage, its not their place period.
No its calling something which is a sin a sin. You may not agree with it but in the Christian faith homosexuality is a sin. And in most faiths we are all sinners, the difference is I dont have (or want) legislation confirming my sin, and I dont want to push my sin on the public schools, courts, or your household.
But that excitement turned to sickness when I heard that Cheney sound bite.
Well Keys is not known for pulling his punches, and the woman is living in sin.
After being asked keys went to Il (a bad decision on his part but I hope he makes a good go), in addition to being asked he looked at the record of the then unoppoesd Obama who voted for a bill that would let a baby who survives an abortion die on a cold steel table..
This is not the establishment of religion (ala the Church of England). And this in no way restricted the rights of anyone to practice their religion!
NY already had a candidate for the Senate when Hillary moved to NY. She was a Democrat from down state who probablly would have won just as easily as Hillary..
Which is why I said he got the measure passed, he did what was within his power. But your right the Republicans use pro lifers like the Democrats use minorities. They dont actually want to fix anything or the voting block might go away..
No fact! The speaker of the house and president of the senate have as much power as Bush.
The point remains the same, the voting system ensures that the largest minority candidate (and party) are the ones in power.
So in 1996 When a Democrat was in the whitehouse and the Republicans controlled congress who was in power? Clinton had to adopt may conservative Ideas like welfare reform and dump many liberal ideas like government control of healthcare.
third party can have on electoral success is to split the votes of one of the existing parties (or candidates) and therefore ensure the continued success of their opposition
The republicans were at one time a 3rd party, what ever happened to the wigs? If any of the third parties got their act together and started really going after districts they could get enough representation to help drive the issues.
The existing system has made America a two party state rather than a democracy, it's the inescapable result.
America was never intended to be a democracy it was *ALWYAS* a Republic..
And despite this the sates of Wisconson and California have vastly different needs.
Can you tell me exactly what tax bracket did not go down??
THe administration better dang well care what the states think as that is who puts them into place. My question is why should I care if france wants someone else in power?
If every state wants to go ahead and give out the EC votes like ME and NB that would be fine. Even if they institute some moronic system liek the once being voted on in CO good for them. But the devision needs to lie with the states..
If you mean Bush he was elected by about 49% of the population which is one half of a percent less than Gore. Bush is not the head of our gevernment he is the head of the executive branch of our government. Our government does not have a 'head'
I don't see how giving a minority candidate majority power could in any way be described as democratic
Bush has no power, congress could shut him down in a minute. Bush does not have majority power he is the head of one branch of the government. Majority power is held by the Republican in the house and senate (because duh they are the majority) and Supreme court is about split depending on the issue.
The result of the 2000 US elections are similarly controversial, the minority candidate (Bush) assumed power despite Gore having received more than 50% of the popular vote.
here is a dime, go buy a clue. Gore did not get a majority of the vote he got a half percent more than Bush (less than 50%). Also the president is not the same as a prime minister, he is not the head of a government. He is the head of the union (the union of states) and is selected by the will of the states. If the majority of people wanted to keep Bush from doing anything they could have voted the Democrats into power in 2002 instead the Republicans retaind a majority of the law making body. The president is the head of the states, congress represents the people of the nation.
Stability is a ridiculous excuse for preferring the existing undemocratic voting system over one which actually takes account of the preferences of the people.
Umm the will of the people was done in 2000, every law maker who won their district went to congress. THe will of the states was also done the chosen president of the states sits in the white house.
If any third party could muster just 10 congressional seats they would have major importance (congressmen are elected by a % of the vote in a given district). THe reason for the EC is because the US is a Federation of States and the presidents main capacity is as the head of that federation, but he can not make laws on interprit them and any action he undertakes can be overridden by congress or the courts.
So again stable government accountable to the people. Limited government controlled by constitutional checks (most importantly the 10th) by its differing branches and the states. People overseas (and sadly many at home) do not understand the structure of our government and cry about the EC yet without it people in states like Wisconson could kiss any kind of power goodby..
Bush was given authorization to use force, not just to throw more sancations...
So fix cars for a living, I bring you my car and say I give you the authority to fix my car. So you replace the A-Frame, and the linkage, when I come back and complain I did not approve you fixing the A-frame and the linkage am I right?
No I want to know that when a Head of gevernment is elected he will serve out until the next election and that a simple vote of "no confidence" can remove him. I want to know that a government wont collapse because (insert ultra minority party here) decided to pull its support for a PM..