Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for what?
Attacking another poster instead of trying to debate the issue?
Why don't you go further into it... WHY do you think my post was "idiotic?"
Or can all you do is name-calling?
I believe that some others tried to debate with you on your contention that there were equal rights already.
I haven't noticed your leaping to the discussion.
But, had I said that your post was idiotic, it would have been because I believed you knew, when you made it, that it did not truly address equal rights, but created a second class set of rights for some people. It would have been because I thought you were being disingenuous.
But, I have chosen, instead, to give you the benefit of the doubt - to assume that in fact you are totally ignorant of the lack of consistency between your position and the word EQUAL. It is as if you had returned to the Plessey vs. Ferguson version of justice. "Separate but equal" is not equal.
On this site and many others, I have challenged Obama supporters to produce arguments in support of their candidate and his policies. To no surprise, I have encountered very little in the way of rational argument, but instead a lot of emotional ranting, or clear evidence that the responder has not done very much research, and cannot in fact defend their choice. So, let's hear it Obama supporters - why should I vote for him?
I don't know. It depends on why you're voting for McCain and Palin. Some people make their decision based on one issue only and that issue is "pro-life." Not really sure what this TRULY means because I don't know anyone who is pro-death. I think that everyone values life. Some people don't go further into the issues, it's an automatic "I'm voting for McCain/Palin because they are pro-life" candidates. If you're not such a person (that chooses the candidate on this single issue), then there's nothing further to discuss.
Secondly, no one needs to convince anyone of anything. The only thing that I can tell you why I would NEVER vote for McCain due to one thing, and that one thing is PALIN. After that, the reason why I am voting for Obama is because I want a complete change from what we currently have. I want the middle-class to get a break, from tax breaks, to funding higher education. I want us out of Iraq ASAP. I want a better form of healthcare. What we have now is not working. There are many more reasons. Basically, I don't want 4 or 8 more years of Bush and his policies which have almost driven our country into the ground. Bottome line; there is no need for anyone to convince you; convince yourself. Most likely you already have. That's your right too.
I believe that some others tried to debate with you on your contention that there were equal rights already.
They do have equal rights. I will ask you... what rights don't they have?
Quote:
But, had I said that your post was idiotic, it would have been because I believed you knew, when you made it, that it did not truly address equal rights, but created a second class set of rights for some people. It would have been because I thought you were being disingenuous.
But what I said did have validity... a homosexual man can marry a woman, just like a heterosexual man can marry a women... and the same thing with women marrying a man. Any woman (of legal age) can marry a man no matter what her sexual orientation.
Quote:
But, I have chosen, instead, to give you the benefit of the doubt - to assume that in fact you are totally ignorant of the lack of consistency between your position and the word EQUAL. It is as if you had returned to the Plessey vs. Ferguson version of justice. "Separate but equal" is not equal.
They (homosexuals) are equal in the eyes of the law. Just because they want to change the definition of marriage does not mean they are not "equal."
They do have equal rights. I will ask you... what rights don't they have?
You know, it's kind of hard to treat you with respect when I posted the exact answer to this question two or three pages ago, responding to your statement as below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
But what I said did have validity... a homosexual man can marry a woman, just like a heterosexual man can marry a women... and the same thing with women marrying a man. Any woman (of legal age) can marry a man no matter what her sexual orientation.
This is what I wrote in post #103:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher
And that's the unequal treatment.
He can only marry any woman and not any man.
He may have the same rights as any man, but he does not have the rights as every person, and no amount of sophistry is going to change that.
We do not talk about "The rights of man" and mean only the one gender.
Or, as I wrote in the piece to which you clicked on reply, but whose main thrust you ignored:
There is a "lack of consistency between your position and the word EQUAL. It is as if you had returned to the Plessey vs. Ferguson version of justice. "Separate but equal" is not equal."
As for your definition of marriage, marriage has always been applied beyond just a man and a woman, and its origins are in civil arrangements, even before religious arrangements. It is not changing the definition, but acknowledging that the definition is broader.
You know, it's kind of hard to treat you with respect when I posted the exact answer to this question two or three pages ago, responding to your statement as below.
This is what I wrote in post #103:
Or, as I wrote in the piece to which you clicked on reply, but whose main thrust you ignored:
There is a "lack of consistency between your position and the word EQUAL. It is as if you had returned to the Plessey vs. Ferguson version of justice. "Separate but equal" is not equal."
As for your definition of marriage, marriage has always been applied beyond just a man and a woman, and its origins are in civil arrangements, even before religious arrangements. It is not changing the definition, but acknowledging that the definition is broader.
I know. I read what you wrote before.
And it is changing the definition of marriage. The voters of California had their say and it was overturned by 4 activist judges.
But I am not going to go back and forth as to what "equal" is.
Gee, you did? That sure makes your asking me to repeat it sort of silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
And it is changing the definition of marriage. The voters of California had their say and it was overturned by 4 activist judges.
But I am not going to go back and forth as to what "equal" is.
"Going back and forth" is, I believe, what somebody might think is meant when you complained to somebody else " Attacking another poster instead of trying to debate the issue?"
But "grasping at straws" is not exactly debating.
I know that you meant "when I used a man as an example it also would apply to a woman" - you have not responded to my pointing out that "separate but equal" is not equal.
Further, you use as a defense/explanation that "It has been that way for hundreds of years in the U.S. (and thousands in older countries). Now it's "unequal!""
Women didn't have the right to vote. Slavery existed. Blacks didn't have the right to marry whites.
These, too, have been that way for thousands of years, Fleet. And "activist" judges have been fixing mistakes like this one throughout the life of the Constitutions - federal and state.
Not to mention that the codification of homosexual marriage as legal goes back more than 1600 years, and homosexual marriages have been remarked upon more than 1900 years ago.
So, my questions for you are:
1) What is your objection to gay marriage?
2) How does marriage for men to men and women to women not increase the degree of equality?
Don't just hand me the crap about definitions, because we've had marriages of corporations, marriages of ideas, marriages of convenience...
Last edited by jps-teacher; 11-02-2008 at 08:05 AM..
btw, I'm voting independent this year because I cannot stand either of them, but if I had to choose between the two of them, it would come down to the "lesser of two evils".
I have to agree with Angleyez
there are so many more reasons to vote for Nader
He also received his degrees from Havard and Princton
He is brilliant
He has always been a spokesperson for the people
He doesn't serve the corporations
He will not increase spending to the Iraq war and will bring the fastest end to it
He will eliminate the Patriot Act and other fear based attacks on the Constitution
He will hold the Bush administration accountable for their actions
He will lower taxes on the middle class
He will bring the US towards green solutions for energy, No Nuclear power
He does not answer to the corporations
He will go after Osama Bin Laden
He is a diplomat of the highest order
He is well spoken and written
He is for the people and wants a smaller government by the people
He isn't part of the main parties and is free from their politics
He would be good for the country and the world
He would prosecute corporate wrong doers
He answers questions instead of side stepping
He is a good honest man
He is a diplomat of the highest order
He isn't part of the main parties and is free from their politics
He answers questions instead of side stepping
He is a good honest man
He is a lot of things.
Diplomatic is not among them.
He sidesteps plenty of answers, as well. He used to be a good, honest man, but as with McCain, he's changed a lot over the last while. I find him self-aggrandizing even beyond Obama's or Palin's,
And his Veep candidate is not much if any readier than McCain's is to step in on day one.
Women didn't have the right to vote. Slavery existed. Blacks didn't have the right to marry whites.
Poor comparison. Homosexuals are neither a race or a sex.
Quote:
These, too, have been that way for thousands of years, Fleet. And "activist" judges have been fixing mistakes like this one throughout the life of the Constitutions - federal and state.
Again, poor comparison for the reason I listed above.
Quote:
So, my questions for you are:
1) What is your objection to gay marriage?
I object to it due to religious and moral reasons, as do millions of others.
Quote:
2) How does marriage for men to men and women to women not increase the degree of equality?
That would depend on how you define "equal." I am saying those kind of "marriages" are not necessary because they already have the rights guaranteed through the many "domestic partnership" laws... laws that would not be affected by Prop. 8.
Prop. 8 is not motivated by by "bigotry," "discrimination" or "intolerance."
It is a reinstatement of the people's will as expressed by the passage of Prop. 22 in the year 2000 by 61% of California voters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
