| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2005 05:02:04 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
Dirty commie!!! |
I am dirty?? You do not know me.... |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:02:48 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
I think you better learn the meaning of the word " patronising"!
:)
P{ |
I know not this word... |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:03:55 PM · #153 |
Saj,
i never said ID shuold NOT be taught. I said it should not be taught in a science class. I never said science was perfect. ID is being researched by scientists, and when they can present it in a scientific context, it can be taught in science class room. Until then, keep it in the social studies classroom
I never said ID shouldn't be discussed. I never said it should be locked up and the key thrown out.
You state that some believe there are complexities that cannot be explained. Until there is a way to TEST it, leave it out of teh science classroom. There are theories and inconclusive abound in scince, I know that. But all are within the realm of being tested with the sceintific method.
Let me repeat I didn't say it shouldn't be taught, it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom until it can be tested under the scientific method.
As for Brittney Spears, it was one example. My main thing is as was previously stated, is so much time and energy has been invested in this debate about gay marraige. Why not let them get married, and invest the money in other areas that need attention?
Saj and others, didn't mean to hijack the thread with the ID and evolution thing, so I'll run away and hide under my toque with my beer and watch the hockey game :P
Cheers |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:04:10 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
But, since its come back, what exactly in that history do you see as tolerant? A good percentage of them deal with the denial of a freedom (polygamy) aimed at a minority group (Mormons). I will admit I started skimming to towards the bottom, but I didn't see much related to same-sex marriage - other than the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Was the "history of progressive tolerance" meant as sarcasm? If so, it didn't really carry the tone well. |
I wasn't being sarcastic.
Here are the one's that jumped out at me:
Right of married woman to own property in her own name�
All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage�.
Right of women to vote�.
Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying
(1975!) - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:04:28 PM · #155 |
| Saj: My apologies for misunderstanding your point. Again I guess I refer back to the fact that I think we probably have some common ground to stand on here... As you said, it's a matter of semantics, and it's obviously a VERY fine line where that is drawn. And I agree, that is unfortunate - for all parties involved. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:04:39 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
Dirty commie!!! |
I am dirty?? You do not know me.... |
I love it! - a Russian with a sense of humour!!!!
:))))
P
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:06:35 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
Dirty commie!!! |
I am dirty?? You do not know me.... |
ROFL |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:06:52 PM · #158 |
| I think America people thinking too small in things, when the main life ideal is not as it seems. The whole it not so large what you think, it is smaller. If man want to be with man, who say that is wrong? What rule? I see no rule. Bible is not a rule. And now you American people can laugh me, but it is okay. I only say my mind to this. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:07:44 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
[quote=SJCarter] [quote=ScottK] [quote=SJCarter] But seriously, correct me if I'm wrong (but I'm pretty sure I'm not): same-sex marriage is not a right, and never has been. So you ARE fighting to GET rights - you cannot fight to KEEP rights you never had (and therefore nobody is taking away from you). Perhaps I'm missing something subtle in your logic. |
I think the rights that are being fought to get are the same legal rights you and I, as heterosexuals, would recieve when we enter into a "marriage" or "union". So yes, they are fighting for rights that they don't have, but everyone else does. Which, in turn, is a form of discrimination and should not be condoned by our government.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:08:33 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
Dirty commie!!! |
I am dirty?? You do not know me.... |
I love it! - a Russian with a sense of humour!!!!
:))))
P |
I have humor, but I do not understand the most :( |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:11:40 PM · #161 |
My thought, is that the homosexual unions are "new"...
As such, let them take on a newer term "civil union" "civil incorporation" etc.
Then over time, as society becomes accustomed to the two seperate divisions. Terms like marriage, weddings, unions, etc. will become more acceptable.
In fact, perhaps "unioned" will replace "married" in 20 yrs. But the actual balance and processes will be fair. The terminology will catch up - it always does.
For example: take "handicapped" - originally it was "crippled" but this became an offensive term, so we came up with "disabled" then after it became common it too was regarded as offensive. Then we came up with "handicapped". Now, this is becoming regarded as offensive and there is a movement to change it to "handicapable". And if such a change occurs, give it time and it too will be offensive and there will be a move to supplant it with a new "non-offensive" term. (It's because after a generation or two it becomes common vernacular tossed around.)
Likewise, if civil unions are implemented, with 20 yrs or so it will be "unioned" not "married" on forms. Marriage will simply be recorded in people's Bibles, Tanachs, Korans, and Satanic verses. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:12:23 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
Dirty commie!!! |
I am dirty?? You do not know me.... |
I love it! - a Russian with a sense of humour!!!!
:))))
P |
I have humor, but I do not understand the most :( |
It's ok, neither do most of us
 |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:21:01 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by senoj:
Oh America, America, you have so many problems. But they are not problems, only conflicts, there is so much to learn. I only can smile at this :) |
Dirty commie!!! |
I am dirty?? You do not know me.... |
I love it! - a Russian with a sense of humour!!!!
:))))
P |
I have humor, but I do not understand the most :( |
Don't worry, my comment to you was in jest - a joke and not to be taken seriously. Your reply was an apparently unwittingly brilliant retort.
(Just for your information, "dirty commie" is an American knee-jerk phrase used to dismiss or disparage people from the former Soviet Union or Americans with political leanings towards Communism. Most Americans my age or older would get the joke, you, on the other hand, might not have.) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:22:49 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
You'll die if you can't marry your partner??? Please explain. |
No, I won't die if I can't marry my partner, BUT I may not be able to see him on his death bed. Only immediate family is admitted to ICU. I may not be able to participate in administering his final wishes. His blood kin will have exclusive authority over anything I say or do - regardless of what he has shared with me as to his final desires. I can even be prevented from attending his final ceremony (yes, this is a very extreme example demonstrating the hurtful and vendictive desires of a person's family), but it's all possible because I would have NO RIGHTS AS HIS PARTNER, regardless of how many years we had spent devoted to each other. And I'm sorry, but that SUCKS! The tax breaks would be nice, but I really don't think much about them - most gay couples are actually sought after by marketing firms. We are a dual disposable middle-to-high income household, usually with no children. It just makes business sense. Granted, I'm stereotyping with the best of them, but that seems to be part of this thread anyway.
The point that I think most gay couples are trying desperately to prove/achieve is that they matter. I don't think they really care what the "union" is called. Semantics/Nomenclature/Religious beliefs aside... We want the right to be able to speak for our loved ones - and to know that they can speak for us. Currently, that is NOT the case, and every time a state passes a law specifically discriminating against us, it takes away that much more of my "God given" civil liberties. And that is just something that I will always fight for. And if it's something that you will always fight for, I can accept that. My brother has told me that I'm going straight to Hell, but that he still loves me. (That's a WHOLE nother story & conversation.) I don't agree with his values, but I respect the fact that he's entitled to his opinion and give him the freedom to live his life the way he chooses - and he does the same for me.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 17:23:34. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:24:06 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by senoj:
And now you American people can laugh me, but it is okay. I only say my mind to this. |
Marilon, you are doing great! If I could even begin to write in Russian as well as you do in English, I would be very happy! Also you are taking part in a debate that is difficult for me to follow in places! Please don't be put off joining in - no-one is laughing AT you and hopefully we will all be laughing WITH you at times!
Oh and anyway I'm British not American!!!
:)
Pauline
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:26:10 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Elemmennope:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. |
all semantics aside (marriage vs. "civil unions", etc.), the above quote certainly shows that texas is opposed to ANY kind of union of a homosexual couple.
so, you guys can have your religious marriage. i don't want it. what i want are the RIGHTS that such a union bestows. the language of the texas amendment does everything possible to deny me those benefits, be they civil or religious.
so, no, there is no homosexual equivalent to marriage -- not without a lot of paperwork and that still doesn't come close. i can't file taxes jointly with my fella, for instance. don't for a second fool yourself that a civil union is just a $50 legal software program away. the fact that some think so is evidence of how dense people are. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:30:37 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Also you are taking part in a debate that is difficult for me to follow in places! ...
Oh and anyway I'm British not American!!! |
Is it our accent, Pauline?
:)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:33:07 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Also you are taking part in a debate that is difficult for me to follow in places! ...
Oh and anyway I'm British not American!!! |
Is it our accent, Pauline?
:) |
And the spelling!!
:))))))
P
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:34:13 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by senoj:
And now you American people can laugh me, but it is okay. I only say my mind to this. |
Marilon, you are doing great! If I could even begin to write in Russian as well as you do in English, I would be very happy! Also you are taking part in a debate that is difficult for me to follow in places! Please don't be put off joining in - no-one is laughing AT you and hopefully we will all be laughing WITH you at times!
Oh and anyway I'm British not American!!!
:)
Pauline |
Thank you! British people not so small in arguments, and also not waving flag every time :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:39:27 PM · #170 |
Here's a bit of irony for you.
My uncle lived in Texas with his partner (together 20+ years). There, their church acknowledged their union but the state, of course, did not. They moved to Ghana (a gay-friendly nation and culture despite its Christianity) where my uncle's partner contracted a severe form of hepatitis and died. He died because of the difficulty of getting him to the Netherlands or any other sympathetic country with an appropriate level of health care resources. All of their joint assets were stripped apart by his partner's family. The body had to be cremated (a decision they had discussed) because my uncle would not have been able to bury him in the US (because of the family). I will forever cry and cry out for the victims of governmental abuse through the denial of human rights.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:40:04 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by senoj:
And now you American people can laugh me, but it is okay. I only say my mind to this. |
Marilon, you are doing great! If I could even begin to write in Russian as well as you do in English, I would be very happy! Also you are taking part in a debate that is difficult for me to follow in places! Please don't be put off joining in - no-one is laughing AT you and hopefully we will all be laughing WITH you at times!
Oh and anyway I'm British not American!!!
:)
Pauline |
Thank you! British people not so small in arguments, and also not waving flag every time :) |
Whoooo hoo Russian/British alliance !!!
:)))
P
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 17:40:45.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:41:46 PM · #172 |
This country was started by founding fathers who owned slaves.
American Indians had no rights and those that survived were abused.
It was almost a hundred years later that Blacks were "freed".
Women could not vote until the early part of the 20th century.
Blacks and whites continued to be segregated until the 1960's.
Jews, Italians, Greeks, Irish etc. all took their turn in the barrel of dicrimination.
This is just a short list that exemplifies the lack of tolerance in this country. The level of discrimination and hatred and mistrust. It is our history. It continues today. Today we must tolerate homosexuals but by we don't have to make them equal. Dispicable. Shameful. Why do Americans like to find new ways to discriminate and new peoiple to hate and despise? How are we The Land of the free and the home of the brave, when we want to shackle those different then ourselves and we fear those who have different values and lifestyles?
--JR
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:44:14 PM · #173 |
| jrjr you rock in my book... :-) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:47:08 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
jrjr you rock in my book... :-) |
And mine!
Just add the UK into that litany of misdeeds as well!
P
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 05:47:29 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by jrjr:
Why do Americans like to find new ways to discriminate and new peoiple to hate and despise? How are we The Land of the free and the home of the brave, when we want to shackle those different then ourselves and we fear those who have different values and lifestyles?
--JR |
Because we're God's chosen people. Didn't you know that? |
|
