Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
He11... I've been hoping for it ever since Jumpin' Jim Jeffords did it in 03. Get rid of all of the RINOs. At least we'd know who the conservatives are.
Specter Joins Democrats; Senate Count May Reach 60
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
He11... I've been hoping for it ever since Jumpin' Jim Jeffords did it in 03. Get rid of all of the RINOs. At least we'd know who the conservatives are.
There are many legal reasons why a couple should be legally hitched. A gay couple lives together for a long time, in all respects being married, but one of them dies and the other one has no legal say in anything other than what is in a Will.
A civil union solves that problem and gives the same legal status and protections as marriage does, without going after the "M' word.
The following is quoted from this thread, because I'm lazy and it still applies here.
Gay marriage is not about marriage, it's about yet another special interest group forcing their wishes upon the majority.
In the United States and other similar cultures, marriage has become a social institution, but it is first and foremost, and is still very much grounded in, the institution of religion. A Civil Union would give same-sex couples all of the legal rights that a marriage would. In fact, a marriage presumes and mandates the legality of a civil union by the issuance of a marriage license, which is a civil document. But a Civil Union without the attachment of the word "marriage" to it is unacceptable to gays and lesbians, even though a Civil Union gives them precisely what they are asking for. In other words, they don't really want what they are proclaiming, which is the same legal rights as any other married couple, but rather to force their will onto the religious connotations to redefine marriage as they see fit.
They aren't asking for equal rights in marriage, they're asking for special rights. Because most of the world's religions, and the dominant religions of America, all denounce homosexuality, gays and lesbians are just as much, if not more, concerned with "winning" against religious attitudes as they are about equal rights under a Civil Union. Civil Union wasn't good enough, they wanted to go after the Marriage word.
Gay marriage is about the redefinition of what marriage means to suit the particular wants and needs of a very small segment of society. It's about special rights being redefined as equal rights. It's about asking for one thing, getting it, but then changing what you're asking for.
Marriage was invented for the union of a man and a woman. That's how it had been used throughout most of recorded human history. Now, after thousands of years, instead of accepting society and the world for what it already is, gays and lesbians want the world to not only make special allowances for "equal rights" that aren't even equal at all, but to actually change the fundamental meaning of marriage. The meaning of marriage doesn't need to be changed. It is what it is. But rather than live within that meaning and deal with it, gays and lesbians want it changed juuuuust for them. Horse hockey.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I think the party would have been better off to boot McCain to the curb.
I am surprised no one gets the gay marriage thing - atheists will agree there is no God, marriage between a man and woman is sanctioned by God hence no God, no exclusivity - marriage can now be between a man and women, a man and a man, a woman and a man, between a goat and a man, a German Shepard and a woman or between a woman and an inanimate object (as documented on BBC's "the Eiffel Tower is my Lover).
The subject is a touchy one with me, because I don't care about the sexual orination part, it is out of my hands. But the problem I understand is not of marrage but rights and there is something I do think we do need to change. I had a freind who was not gay but lived with another guy, they fought in two wars together and one never got married and the other lost his family in a house fire. Well they were in there late 70's when one got sick and ended up in the hospital dying. The hospital refused to allow him into the room, he wasn't family. He dies and there was a big deal about who was to claim the body and all that, it didn't turn out good. The point is that people can and should make their own decisions on who does what for them or who shares what, the state should not have a right in what goes on.
I am surprised no one gets the gay marriage thing - atheists will agree there is no God, marriage between a man and woman is sanctioned by God hence no God, no exclusivity - marriage can now be between a man and women, a man and a man, a woman and a man, between a goat and a man, a German Shepard and a woman or between a woman and an inanimate object (as documented on BBC's "the Eiffel Tower is my Lover).
The subject is a touchy one with me, because I don't care about the sexual orination part, it is out of my hands. But the problem I understand is not of marrage but rights and there is something I do think we do need to change. I had a freind who was not gay but lived with another guy, they fought in two wars together and one never got married and the other lost his family in a house fire. Well they were in there late 70's when one got sick and ended up in the hospital dying. The hospital refused to allow him into the room, he wasn't family. He dies and there was a big deal about who was to claim the body and all that, it didn't turn out good. The point is that people can and should make their own decisions on who does what for them or who shares what, the state should not have a right in what goes on.
Warning! This is a Turtle Trap.
Doug, if I took something wrong, I apologise. You might not want to stop me from living my life as I please but many that you support do. I can prove it, it would damage Michigans economy to the point of breaking, but I doubt that you would believe me so we will drop it. By the way I am NOT a right winger in the correct sense of the word. I am mostly right down the center, I believe in the Republic. I don't like the extreme left, as in socialists, communists, oloagarchy or monarchy. I have never met a true anarchist, the extreme right wing. Met many who claim it but in the end they support some government. Shame I would really like to meet someone who really believes that no governemnt of any form is needed. That would be an interesting debate. Any who, you can support YOUR president, I don't, that is both OUR rights. You can support your socialists, I don't, that is again both our rights. It is also my right to NOT live under that type of government and I won't. Good luck to you, I truely don't believe that you have any idea what you are in for, but, hey, I can say with all certintiy, 'Taint my fault Bubba!!
You asked for it, you got it, just leave me out. Layoutshooter
You asked for it, you got it, just leave me out. Layoutshooter
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Turtle... I agree with everything you said, but want to add one thing. Most gays would be content with civil union. In fact, there are many who are pizzed at the term 'gay marriage'. It is the militant gays, who believe they speak for the whole gay community, who are on this crusade to make themselves special, when compared to straights. Equal rights? No. Because once they are successful in this agenda, they will find something else to bully the country into adopting. Most likely, it too shall be something the typical gay is appalled by.
Reminds me of every group out there, pushing for 'special' rights. The Muslims who get a prayer room in college. The illegals who fight for, and get, more benefits. The unions who push for legislative handcuffs for their corporate partners. Farmers, blacks, women, terrorist prisoners, the list goes on and on.
Everyone wants every right 'owed' to them, without thinking about the consequences of their vote. Yes, you may get your special right; but someone else will get theirs too... and you may not like it, because it affects YOU. Just remember... for someone to be given a right, someone else has theirs taken away.
Also remember that in this experience called DEMOCRACY, the Romans collapsed NOT because they were conquered. They collapsed because the Democracy caused them to go broke; and being conquered was the result. That's why we started out a Republic. We are now in a Democracy. We shall die in an Oligarchy.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson
Reminds me of every group out there, pushing for 'special' rights. The Muslims who get a prayer room in college. The illegals who fight for, and get, more benefits. The unions who push for legislative handcuffs for their corporate partners. Farmers, blacks, women, terrorist prisoners, the list goes on and on.
Everyone wants every right 'owed' to them, without thinking about the consequences of their vote. Yes, you may get your special right; but someone else will get theirs too... and you may not like it, because it affects YOU. Just remember... for someone to be given a right, someone else has theirs taken away.
Also remember that in this experience called DEMOCRACY, the Romans collapsed NOT because they were conquered. They collapsed because the Democracy caused them to go broke; and being conquered was the result. That's why we started out a Republic. We are now in a Democracy. We shall die in an Oligarchy.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson
Could someone-anyone explain to me, how with the Election 17 months away. President Obama in office for 3 months. How it is guaranteed that the enormous financial hole the Democrats are putting out Country in, is going to make every one love them 17 months from now.
Last edited:
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Ask those who are still alive from the depression, why ppl kept voting for FDR. Obama and Congress are doing the same thing.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
No T-Hawk, you got that wrong.
Obama is not doing the alphabet programs, he has yet to come up with one to help us but what he is doing is what FDR would have never done, take advantage of a morbid situation.
FDR would have loved to have this congress to a point but I think he would not have tolerated Reid or Pelosi.
Obama is not doing the alphabet programs, he has yet to come up with one to help us but what he is doing is what FDR would have never done, take advantage of a morbid situation.
FDR would have loved to have this congress to a point but I think he would not have tolerated Reid or Pelosi.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
I'm talking basics, Greg... printing money, overtaxing the corporations AND the ppl, blaming corporations and Wall Street, government programs up the wazoo. Their philosophies are very much alike. The difference I see is that FDR really thought his philosophy would work; whereas Obama wants to level the playing field with the rest of the world, and make many more citizens dependent on his party, in doing so.
Before the depression, most were Republican. They wanted the government out of their lives, for the most part. During the depression is when ppl started looking at government as 'daddy'. I can understand that, because ppl were hungry. But we are still paying for that chicken in every pot. Obama is just frying it, adding many more spices, and reserving it to us... and charging a helluva lot more.
Before the depression, most were Republican. They wanted the government out of their lives, for the most part. During the depression is when ppl started looking at government as 'daddy'. I can understand that, because ppl were hungry. But we are still paying for that chicken in every pot. Obama is just frying it, adding many more spices, and reserving it to us... and charging a helluva lot more.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I understand now, the thing is FDR didn't know what to do... he copied Hoover's plan in some aspects and had his 'Stalinist' advisors tell him what else may be a good idea.
Think of it as a bunch of cooks who had a dinner the night before and are attempting to recreate it, some think it was chicken while others think it was pork but it was really fish.... you know what I am driving at?
The problem is Obama doesn't have the luxury of FDR's staff, he lacks a lot of the things that actually made up FDR and reading the speech from the other night, people should realize that Obama doesn't even understand what FDR did and did not do or who the man really was, he is doing the same thing that the press and Obama's other aduring fans are doing with Obama in JFK's image, making him out to be someone he isn't.
Think of it as a bunch of cooks who had a dinner the night before and are attempting to recreate it, some think it was chicken while others think it was pork but it was really fish.... you know what I am driving at?
The problem is Obama doesn't have the luxury of FDR's staff, he lacks a lot of the things that actually made up FDR and reading the speech from the other night, people should realize that Obama doesn't even understand what FDR did and did not do or who the man really was, he is doing the same thing that the press and Obama's other aduring fans are doing with Obama in JFK's image, making him out to be someone he isn't.
My point, which I am not making very clearly is. I don't believe the voters of our country are still going to love President Obama & a Democratic controlled congress if they continue to put future generations in ever larger Debt.
I don't think that will make much difference. Most of the Obamites are part of the now,now,gimme,gimme culture. They could care less what it's doing to future generations. They only want what isn't their's now and to you know where with those of us they are stealing it from and those in the future who will pay it off.