election irony

[lucindrea]

anyone notice that wash. DC voted 90% for Kerry?!

ok think about this , all the elected gov officals are registered in their own state , so a sen. of Ill. is registered in ill. even the presdent is registered in and votes in tx ...  now who is registered in DC ? all the other people , the bartenders , the staff of all the gov buildings , the small buss. owners , the cops , firemen , all the prople that keep the city running , the secret service men and women , even the cleaning staff of the whitehouse , everyone that the gov. depends on who live and work in dc ... and 90% of them voted for kerry!!

kind of makes you wonder how the gov. treats their staff

[DrewKaree]

I'm guessing you feel that since there's so many people crowded in that little District, that they're more enlightened due to the fact that there's "so many more ideas going around with which to base a vote on".

Kinda makes you wonder how that place in the sticks, New York, DIDN'T go 90% for Kerry.

What's that whooshing noise?  Oh, nevermind....that was your inane theory and all the hot air it holds being released.

You may wish to see a plastic surgeon sometime soon, as your nose seems to be out of joint.

[lucindrea]

Kinda makes you wonder how that place in the sticks, New York, DIDN'T go 90% for Kerry.

well acctully ....  ( off cnn.com )


Bronx 100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Kerry
 260,438 82%
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 52,752 17%

Brooklyn 100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Kerry
 468,403 74%
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 156,612 25%

Queens 100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Kerry
 393,482 71%
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 155,363 28%

Manhattan  100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Kerry
 468,841 82%
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 95,362 17%

[Crazy Cooter]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

D.C. is predominately African American.
Around 20% are below poverty level.

Those figures are a couple years old.

[lucindrea]

because i was looking at the numbers ... i just found this amusing

Dallas  100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 345,482 50%
   Kerry
 335,871 49%

10k people .. that's the amount of people in 1 football staduim .. not allot in the grand scheme of things.

[Mameotron]

Warning!! About to launch into Dartful Dodger mode!!



Bush Won, Kerry lost.

Your statistics about how Kerry ALMOST won are pointless.

Get over it.

Oh, yeah, I love my Guns.

Edit:  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[DrewKaree]

That's simply AMAZING!  So you mean to tell me that in NY as well, that there are ~500,000 imbeciles that don't even know any better, that they should move out of there and move to "the middle of nowhere"?  That's simply amazing!

Hey, do you realize that without that half a mil you've just shown us - Bush would have only won the popular vote by 3 million?

Try swallowing that with some Brie.  I hear it'll go down better.  

It seems to me that you're working towards an admirable goal - you want to find the rose growing amidst the garbage dump refuse.  Keep it up, as it may be the only thing keeping you from the pretty white jackets that buckle up the back.

Anyone who's a fan of Pete Webber (don't worry, luc, it's a slack-jawed yokel who is at the top of his redneck sport of bowling) will know the motion required at this point.

[lucindrea]

like every election before , i truly dont care who wins , i have yet to see a single canidate who doesnt say whats expected of them , who will acctully do what they said they will do ( allot of that simply isnt up to them anyhow , it's congress and the house mostly ) , who doesnt spend more time "convincing" the senators and the house to vote for somthing if they give em somthing else etc ...

things you need to become presadent

you need $ , basicly you need to be born into it ..
you need to be really good at lieing
you need a good public relations team ( i.e make people think you really do care )

it's been said before , you will not see a decent hard working amercian in the white house , because the things you need to do to get even on the ballot of a primary , no decent hard working amercian would do.

the winner of any election is the guy with the most $ , the better pub. relations team , and the better speach writer.
issues are just what the speach writers base their speaches on , they really dont have much to do with how the guy ends up doing stuff when in office.

us elections have become "the lesser of 2 evils" .. it's been a long long time since we had a real election.

[DrewKaree]

I'm guessing you must live in "the middle of nowhere", as someone as "educated" as you try painting yourself to be surely wouldn't post without doing a little spell-checking and letting us think you were just a tad wacked in the head, posting all those spelling errors.

Normally it's not something I feel needs to be pointed out, but your pointy-headed obtuse nature requires it.

Even us slack-jawed yokels from B.F. Texas can see - ewe aint no goodly spellur.

So you wish to throw stones while not standing for a candidate.  Admirable  Perhaps you'll next tell us you're gonna "maybe" vote in the next election.

Hey, show me again on this here map where all the "exchange of ideas" is going on.  Seems as if even in those havens you view as part of the great idea-changing areas, they may have a different view than you.

[lucindrea]

hehe I never said I didn

[shmokes]

What a ridiculous map.  The majority of the red space on that map is almost completely unpopulated.

[namzep]

Drew, since you asked so nicely here it is.    The size of the dots in the counties indicates the average level of education of the population.  Kind of an interesting correlation going on there.

[mahuti]

Education shouldn't be the arbiter of intelligence. There's an old saying;

"A college degree is what you need if you lack intelligence, intelligence is what you need if you lack a college degree"

I will agree that there are MANY people that have used their college time to actively pursue and gain some knowledge. However, there are just as many that passed through the gates of my university that should have never been given a diploma. Often times people use their diploma as a way to substantiate their ignorance and closed mindedness, especially when they have none of the scruples required to live without the "degree" line on their resumes.

It's been said, "power corrupts." I think a more accurate statement is "power attracts the easily corruptible." I think a similar sentiment can be applied to education... it attracts those already predisposed to liberal thinking... not necessarily those that are naturally more intelligent.

What we saw in this election has been coming for some time. We saw a divide based on cultural attitude, not necessarily religion, education, or money. Many of the educated think that because they are educated, they know better how to guide their fellow man, and are somehow entitled to it. That's a very arrogant stance, and that's why it was repudiated.

Anyway, I'm one of the "educated" but I think I've learned much more about the important things in life from my very uneducated salt-of-the-earth grandparents and the rest of my relatives that live in the sticks. My degree was in design... really, how profound is that? How many other degrees include some sort of badge that proferrs some extra level of entitlement to "correct" thinking. Maybe the "moral philosophy" degree or a legal or medical degree? Even then, those degrees just show that someone is really good at jumping through hoops. It doesn't show that they are better suited to lead, or to choose who leads.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't think it's the degree that matters, rather it's the exposure to other ideas in a climate that promotes critical thinking. That's why a formal education is important. It's not just an "education" but it's "exposure."

If you have a diverse campus, then all the better. Most people will not experience that type of thing otherwise. I think the majority of people coming out of a university experience, with a proper education, are generally going to be more tolerant, more observant, and more apt to gain wisdom from their everyday experiences.

[mahuti]

Like living in a christian conservative community, the main point of exposure provided at a university is one-sided. The opinion of the one-side assumes it is the correct side... if you don't agree with that side you are "closed-minded"  So perhaps by attending a university, you are opened to liberal thinking, but that is not necessarily "critical thinking" it's just a different way of thinking. Realistically, I don't think there are many campuses that really avail people of a diverse political view. There may be people of different political parties, ethnicities, and races, but that in itself does not promote diversity or clarity of thought processes.

People are all different. I think the other side of the university coin you mention is that people that go to a university will be less open to ideas, assuming that they've already experienced everything required to "be knowledgeful" because of their exposure to the well thought-out ideas and maxims of their professors.

I don't think that an education makes people more open to gaining wisdom from life either, per se. That is something you have to do when life forces itself on you, education or no. And as far as tolerance... that is a concept that only applies to people that tolerate the same thing you do. I've often been exposed to open minded & tolerant people that are absolutely vitriolic when confronted with a different point of view, especially if that view happens to be inspired by religion or condems it (depending on which side of the fence they stand.)

Basically, what i'm saying is... an education does not make an enlightened man. An education requires that people follow a process to it's completion. That in itself does not prove enlightement. I think it's a spurious argument to say that someone is automatically better equipped to make decisions because of what they've been exposed to. I've never been exposed to radiation, cocaine addiction, statistics classes, the european driving experience, hot air ballooning, and I don't think that makes me less able to think critically, or decide what is best for me and my family.

Education absolutely does not equal entitlement. Nor does it infer that someone is better than someone else.

[TA Pilot]

Drew, since you asked so nicely here it is.    The size of the dots in the counties indicates the average level of education of the population.  Kind of an interesting correlation going on there.

I thnk this is a population map.

[Crazy Cooter]

If it was a population map, and the vote was split about 50/50, wouldn't the areas of the circles for the blue and the red be about equal?  I'm not about to start counting them, but it's obvious to me that they're not.

Where did that pic originate?

[allroy1975]

amazing that people think how people voted has anything to do with intelligence, unless you think like I think now...That everyone who voted for bush are stupid god fearing people.  Well, at least we've put off the floods for a while....for the love of god I hope the gays can't get married.

This is the 1 issue that really gets me.  I'm not gay.  

Can someone explain to me why gay people have different RIGHTS than straight people do?  Because the bible says homosexuality is an abomination?  hmm...well, I don't beleive in your bible.  I went to a catholic grade school and I seem to remember that people left other countries to come to the "new world" (that's what they referred to it as in grade school) to get away from people who were opressing their religious freedoms.  But I guess the gays should just know that they're horrible beings (people have rights..like marriage...but gays don't...so ....are they still people?) and kill themselvs....but thats a sin too...so I just don't know.

And speaking of religious wackos....let me get this straight....Welfare is bad...right?  because jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"  I may be paraphrasing there...because these losers milking the system need to buck up and take responsibility for themselves.  They need to raise their children the "right" way.  And...we need to ban gay marriage, because then your kids will see it and think it's acceptable.  So we need the government to ban that for us because we can't tell our kids they're abominations ourselves if they end up being gay.

I hate these people.  I haven't been sleeping well since this last election.  I get all riled up like this and I start going off like Bevis jacked up on coffee and sugar.

Stupid or intelligent isn't the issue.  Educated or uneducated isn't the issue.

I think the issue is are these people open minded enough to think about other people, and their lives/lifestyles.  All the Bush people care about is themselves.  Their kids aren't dying.  Their kids aren't being oppressed.  All they know is that god said voting for someone who's pro-abortion (and check the last time a republican did someting to try to outlaw abortion...they're not ANTI abortion....they can just SAY they are and then people go....Okay....duh) is a SIN!  If the church says it, that's god saying it right?  god wrote the bible?  it's the "inspired word of god"?

It's all too wishy washy for me.  Drives me nuts thinking about how straight people are against gay marriage.  I think from now on if there's a "Straight issue" only the gays should be allowed to vote on it.  Or at least 10 gay votes to ever 1 straight vote.  The problem is...the gay people I've known in my life seem a little nicer and more open minded and they'd still probably make the right choice!

Whatever....close minded ......grumble grumble..... <---hehe...I sound like that little guy in Zelda....remember him?  heheh

Anyway..it's late and I just ranted...so I'm too tired to go back and make sure it's not offensive to anyone.....but I can't imagine being offended...so...I'd probably be a bad censor anyway.


I have no idea what I've said so I can't be held responsible (how american!) and I hope it doesn't get me banned from the boards!  

Allroy

[DrewKaree]

I'm not giving you a pass or anything, because you have some strongly held beliefs, and I know once you get started writing, it's hard to stop the "train of thought" once you get it moving.  I'm only gonna point out some things that don't match up - meaning they seem to address the issue, but due to how the law works currently, don't actually address the problems.

Also, I noticed that you don't have a bias or opinion, as you said here:

...unless you think like I think now...That everyone who voted for bush are stupid god fearing people.

I went to a catholic grade school and I seem to remember that people left other countries to come to the "new world" (that's what they referred to it as in grade school) to get away from people who were opressing their religious freedoms.

I don't know which book you are referring to, but the book I read where they were speaking of the "new world"....they were looking for spices or some such thing.  You may have read a different (read: newer) version than I had.  They were sent by people who believed rather remarkably similar ideas as they did.

And speaking of religious wackos....let me get this straight....Welfare is bad...right?  because jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"  I may be paraphrasing there...because these losers milking the system need to buck up and take responsibility for themselves.

I'm thinking these words all belong together, but I'm not positive.  So the "religious wackos" should read Jesus' words to "do unto others", and that should be their logic to accepting welfare?

While living in Jesus' day, those less fortunate in society were taken care of by the church.  Do people abuse the church to get by?  Certainly.  You've missed in your assessment the fact that religious people believe that it is still up to the church, and that the abuse of the system is something that government FOSTERS.  It also is something the government doesn't give anyone the choice on.  It's done.  Period.  The point of disagreement is that it's the government's job to do something about it.  

Your view that "religious wackos" believe welfare is bad seems predicated on the notion that those same "wackos" don't care about their fellow man and are too ignorant to take what Jesus said to mean that welfare is good.  Those "wackos" see the continuing erosion of anything relatied to religion and see the abuse of current systems in place.  They add up what they see, and can easily see looking after your fellow man is increasinly becoming an impersonal non-caring process - Loving your neighbor as Christ commanded has no place in "welfare".  If you have any doubt about this, I implore you to visit your local AFDC office.

What most "wackos" would base their welfare views on are this, which does not refer to those who cannot do for themselves
_{"We hear that some among you are idle.  They are not busy; they are busybodies.  Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat."}
Do with that what you may.

So we need the government to ban that for us

They need to work within the legal system.  Would you have them do otherwise?  If the church could do these things themselves, they may have.  There are also churches that most certainly would NOT.  By working within the law, the choice of the people is considered - using government, as you see it.  

I hate these people.

although they don't hate you (although some fringe element DOES), didn't you ask them to follow the "do unto others as they've done to you"?  Intolerance works both ways.

I think the issue is are these people open minded enough to think about other people, and their lives/lifestyles.

By open minded, do you mean to imply that you're open minded enough to think about those "religious wackos" and their lives/lifestyles?  I ask that, because the majority of the vote on the issue went against it.  Are you open minded enough to consider that a majority of the people voting on this might have points you haven't considered, or points you may agree with?  I ask because "open-minded" doesn't seem to be, by your definition.  You have stated that you believe these people haven't opened their mind, but the words "hate", "wackos", and your general attitude belie a definite opposition to doing the same towards their way of thinking.

All the Bush people care about is themselves.  Their kids aren't dying.  Their kids aren't being oppressed.

I'm sure this is the emotion speaking.  To believe Bush voters don't have children dying sounds quite emotional.  They aren't being killed for their sexual orientation, but they give their lives to defend the right of those oriented differently than they to argue about this subject in the first place.  Oppressed?  The last time I checked, gays were allowed the opportunites anyone else was...except the right to marriage.  

All they know is that god said voting for someone who's pro-abortion (and check the last time a republican did someting to try to outlaw abortion...they're not ANTI abortion....they can just SAY they are and then people go....Okay....duh) is a SIN!

again, I believe it's the emotion.  You'd have to find that justification in a book you don't believe in.  That's quite simply not in there, it's an opinion you believe about "those wackos".  To vote for someone isn't a sin.  Honestly, if you believe those "wackos" are so "by the letter", then you'll also believe (and sorry, this comes from a book you don't believe, you'll just have to take my word on it) that they believe that leaders and teachers of the law will be judged more harshly when the time comes to face judement, and that they're just "trying to help bring less judgement down on them".    Sound silly?  It is.

If the church says it, that's god saying it right?  god wrote the bible?  it's the "inspired word of god"?

No, it isn't God saying it if the church says it.  The other two are correct for a lot of religions, but again, you lump every religion into a pile.  Also, please see the "harsher judgement" thing.  I'm not positive, and I'm sorry to use the religion you were raised with, but I don't recall any bible saying that sodomizing little children is a godly act.  I am not well versed in NAMBLA's doctrine, but it seems as if that IS something they believe in.  

I think from now on if there's a "Straight issue" only the gays should be allowed to vote on it.  Or at least 10 gay votes to ever 1 straight vote.

Again, emotion, as I don't believe you'd agree with only "pro-smokestack" people voting on "pro-smokestack" issues.  While you may think these are two different things, your idea to have only those who would predominantly agree on an issue be the final say is the same as my example.  

The reason you would put something up for a vote would be to have it accepted by a majority.  To have the minority be the final voice is to circumvent the "will of the people".  I may not always agree with the vote, but that's why we have a voice, a vote, and the ability to speak our minds to work to sway public opinion the next time it comes up.

...but I can't imagine being offended

While I'm not offended, and you've offered the lateness of the hour as your "out", to think that on such a controversial topic you can't imagine offending someone is to demonstrate that you are NOT, in fact, as "open-minded" as you'd like to think you are.  Please don't take this as a slam, I'm just pointing out something I don't think you considered.

[allroy1975]

The problem with me writing lots of stuff on a rant like that is I say a lot of stuff..then you come back point by point..and then I get lazy and quit reading it.  I think I got through most of it, but I don't feel like responding to anything but the last point.  

Is there something you could say that's so horrible that I would be "offended"?  Simply put:  No.

Everyone has the right to think whatever they want.  If you think I'm a Smelly bag o dookie, that's fine.  It's your right.  I can see it.  I have my bad points and if someone doesn't like me or agree with what I think, that's totally up to them to feel and express.  If someone wants to talk to me about a porno movie or anything else, I will not take offense.  I may be stunned by their doing so, but offended?  to think that I'm so perfect that everyone should think and feel like me, and be able to read my thoughts and blah blah blah...that's just stupid.  People just need to lighten up and consider other people.  

Whatever..I have to go hang shelves or my old lady will kill me.

Allroy

[Grasshopper]

Allroy, I agree that the whole 'gay marriage' issue does expose Bush's hypocrisy. On the one hand he continually bangs on about promoting 'freedom' around the world, but then goes to extraordinary lenghts to deny a minority in his own country a basic right enjoyed by the majority.

I would assume that changing the US constitution requires a lot of time and effort. Bush's attempt to push through a constitutional bar to gay marriage smacks of vindictiveness, and makes me question his priorities.

Democracy is not about 51% of the population having absolute control over the remaining 49%. It's about give and take, and compromise. Granting gay people the right to marry would have no significant effect on the straight majority. So why not give them that right? I just don't get it. What happened to the principle of 'live and let live'? Isn't that what America 'the great melting pot' is all about?

Actually I would go further. I would like to see the right to 'marriage' extended to people in non-sexual but dependant relationships, for example a brother and sister living together. I don't have a strong opinion on whether such relationships should be called 'marriage' but they should definitely be legally equivalent to marriage.

[mahuti]

Playing devil's advocate... Gay people have the same rights as straits. A gay man CAN marry a woman. A gay woman can marry a man. A strait man cannot marry a strait man, a gay man cannot marry a gay man. The issue is "same sex marriage" not sexual orientation. That's probably what it really comes down to... I'm not naive enough to think that the people screaming for same sex marriage are all a bunch of straits that need health care.

Anyway, I do agree that a constitutional ban seems stupid, and a waste of time... this is an issue that should be left up to the states. Unfortunately, since ALL states have to observe marriages given in other states, it must become a national issue.

It's a pretty big issue, regardless of sexuality. It opens the door to a lot of issues, law, money, inheritance, family. I can see why people are so vehement on both sides of the issue.  I think it trivializes the issue putting it down to only a religious & moral one, though... regardless of who's doing it, Bush, or the same-sex camp. Like the other 3rd rail issues, Social Security, medical law & health insurance, and the tax code, the whole marriage thing is something that should really be examined, but is difficult. Arbitrarily changing the structure of a legal system that has been in practice for thousands of years, really should have some thought behind it.

[TA Pilot]

If it was a population map, and the vote was split about 50/50, wouldn't the areas of the circles for the blue and the red be about equal?  I'm not about to start counting them, but it's obvious to me that they're not.

Depends on the scale of the circles.

[TA Pilot]

Can someone explain to me why gay people have different RIGHTS than straight people do?

Marriage isnt a right - its a privilege.  It is defined by the state as the people of the stae would have it.    

Plainly, the people want marriage defined as a union of a man and woman.

[Zakk]

Marriage isnt a right - its a privilege.  

Dang, and I thought it was a union under God.  Sure glad the goverment can straighten that out.  Can they get rid of a few of the commandments too?  It would make things a lot more fun.

[allroy1975]

Marriage isnt a right - its a privilege.  

Dang, and I thought it was a union under God.  Sure glad the goverment can straighten that out.  Can they get rid of a few of the commandments too?  It would make things a lot more fun.

If they could get rid of that whole "not stealing" thing, I'd sleep a lot better at night.  Oh, who am I kidding....every program on my PC is legit.  and those mp3s too!  

Allroy

[mahuti]

Marriage isn't a privelege. It is a right. Priveleges get revoked. Not rights. When's the last time you heard of someone losing the "privelege" of getting married.

As far as the marriage being a union under god, that CAN be true, but that isn't its purpose under the law. (course, I don't really understand why the state should decide what is and isn't a marriage... I guess it makes it easier to sort things out with familiy issues & with death.)

[TA Pilot]

Dang, and I thought it was a union under God.  

Silly you.

Marriage is a creature of the state.  State laws define it.  If there were no state laws to define it, it would not exist as a legal entity.   Oh sure, you could still get 'married' in a church, but it would hold no -legal- weight.  

Since it is a creature of the state, and would not ecist if not for the legal construct that created it, it is a privilige, not a right.   Right, by definition, are not created by the state, they pre-exist it.

The reason no marriage has been revoked is because the current laws do not allow for such a thing.  They very certainly could --  thus again, a privilige. not a right.

[mahuti]

Marriage pre-existed the state.

[TA Pilot]

Marriage pre-existed the state.

Yes - marriage before God.   Anyone can have that anytime they want, with anyone they want, right now.

Marriage as a legal entity is another issue.  Its an entity created by the state, defined in its laws.

[Mameotron]

and at midnight I

[shmokes]

TA, that's the worst definition of rights ever.  Does that mean the right to an attorney came before the state?  How about the right to a speedy jury trial?  There is more than one type of right.  I think you're talking about natural rights.  But the state, obviously, can create rights.  Anyway, labeling something a "privelege" instead of a right doesn't shield it from the 14th Amendment.  I very much doubt that we have a natural right to sit at the front of the bus.  But pass a law saying black people have to stand at the back and you're going to run into some problems with the constitution.

The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.  Apply that line of reasoning to a group that you don't hate and its absurdity becomes apparent.  Imagine a law requiring that everyone has to pee standing up.  The law would be enforced and applied the same to everyone.  In effect, of course, the law would discriminate against women (and handicapped).  

It's like passing a law that says everyone has to vote republican and then claiming that the law is fair because republicans are bound by the same new voting restrictions  as democrats.  Misguided at best.  More likely disingenuous and hateful.

[Crazy Cooter]

Whether a right or a priviledge, it's the ramifications of denying it that is in question.  Consider this:

Man1 marries woman1.  They have a kid and get divorced.  Man1 dies, woman1 meets woman2 and they live together 10 years as a couple.  Then woman1 dies.  Who gets the kid?  If woman1 had married man2, chances are good that the court would allow man2 to keep the kid.  Since she did not "marry" anyone, woman2 has zero rights to the kid.  Should she?

Now suppose instead of a kid, it's money, real estate etc.

It makes sense to me to just call it a marriage across the boards.  Done deal.  Avoids all the crap about defining civil unions and all the jazz that would follow.  Marriage isn't some sacred entity.  It's a piece of paper, some metal rings, and a pile of legal mumbo-jumbo.  That's it.  What that stuff "means" is defined by the people it joined.  Some people are monogomous, some people are swingers, some are cheaters, some get divorced.  How is any of this sacred?  I don't think we can tell a couple of chicks they can't get married anymore than we can tell a guy and girl they can't get divorced.

[Mameotron]

Granting gay people the right to marry would have no significant effect on the straight majority.

Only that it devalues what straight people call marriage.


Look, if you work hard for 7 years and finally are awarded your PhD, how would you feel if I ordered my PhD online and got it instantly?  Does it really have no effect on you or the value of your PhD?

[shmokes]

What a spurious comparison.

It doesn't devalue your marriage.  The value of your marriage as far as the state is concerned is $50 for a marriage license and the rights, such as filing taxes jointly, inheritence, decision making, etc. that go along with it.  

If your gay neighbor gets married the "value" of your marriage is unaffected.  Even from a religious context, your ability to get into heaven, if your religion requires that you be married or celebate, is not affected by whether or not gays are granted civil marriages.  And if there were a conflict it would be up to your religion to make sure you got the proper religious marriage to get into heaven, not up to the state to make sure that its civil marriage proceedures covered all your bases.  

[mahuti]

Personally, I don't care who marries who... but I think you have to admit, when you think of the gamut of social, legal, and monetary issues affected by a change in what's allowable as a legal marriage, it should have some thought and discussion behind it.

The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.

[TA Pilot]

TA, that's the worst definition of rights ever

And yet, its the theory upon which our govenrment is based.  Inalienable rights, endowed by the creator.



But the state, obviously, can create rights.

No.  The state gets its power from us, where we cede some of our rights to it.  It cannot give to us what we did not already have.



Anyway, labeling something a "privelege" instead of a right doesn't shield it from the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps...  but then, no one's privelege is being denied.  Gays still have the ability to marry.  



The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.

People have always been limited as to whom they can be married.  These limitations always been an inherent part of marriage.  Suddenly, these limitations are a problem?

Why?



Apply that line of reasoning to a group that you don't hate....

Psst....   I dont hate gays.
But then, liberals charatcerize anyone that disagrees with them as a 'hater', so I guess I'l ignore the insinuation - its a genetic trait with you guys, and you can't help it.

[TA Pilot]

Man1 marries woman1.  They have a kid and get divorced.  Man1 dies, woman1 meets woman2 and they live together 10 years as a couple.  Then woman1 dies.  Who gets the kid?

Did W2 adopt the kid?   If not, then not W2.


If woman1 had married man2, chances are good that the court would allow man2 to keep the kid.

Did M2 adopt the kid?  Then probably he wont.



I don't think we can tell a couple of chicks they can't get married anymore than we can tell a guy and girl they can't get divorced.

Why stop there?
Why not 4 guys and 6 girls?

[patrickl]

The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.

People have always been limited as to whom they can be married.  These limitations always been an inherent part of marriage.  Suddenly, these limitations are a problem?

Why?

Why? Because people aren't as ignorant as they were a millenium ago. Homosexuality was considered a disease or choice a hunderd years ago. Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.

Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.

[TA Pilot]

Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.

So, how about 5 men and 4 women?

Any reason why they should not all be allowed to marry one another?