Author Topic: A civilised political discussion  (Read 3731 times)

Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #15 on: 2 September 2004, 23:17 »
quote:
Originally posted by flap:


Why not let them get married then?



Because marriage is for heterosexual couples.
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

flap

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,268
  • Kudos: 137
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #16 on: 2 September 2004, 23:24 »
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:


Because marriage is for heterosexual couples.



Why is that? If you agree with giving gay couples the practical, legal rights of a married couple, what are you objecting to? The ceremony itself?
"While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is none other than the United States of America." - Ernesto Che Guevara

http://counterpunch.org
http://globalresearch.ca


Laukev7

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,834
  • Kudos: 495
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #17 on: 2 September 2004, 23:35 »
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:


Because marriage is for heterosexual couples.



Whether a 'traditional' marriage should be allowed is up to the religious institution, not the state. If two consenting adults wish to engage in a secular marriage, then the state has no authority to refuse or discriminate. This is another example of separation of church and state.

[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]


Aloone_Jonez

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,090
  • Kudos: 954
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #18 on: 2 September 2004, 23:50 »
Of course they could have a ceremony.

How could they have a bridesmaid/page boy? Would there be two, one for one partner and one for the other?

Would there be two stag/hen nights?

Who would adopt who's surname?

Gay marriage would mess all this up.
This is not a Windows help forum, however please do feel free to sign up and agree or disagree with our views on Microsoft.

Oh and FUCKMicrosoft! :fu:

Laukev7

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,834
  • Kudos: 495
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #19 on: 2 September 2004, 23:57 »
That would be up to the gay community to decide. The government has no business discriminating who is allowed to marry with whom. Consenting homosexual couples who wish to unite should be allowed to marry. This should not even be open to vote.

WMD

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,525
  • Kudos: 391
    • http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #20 on: 3 September 2004, 03:28 »
First of all, I support gay marriage, since, IMO, they won't be affecting my life.  But...

 
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:
Whether a 'traditional' marriage should be allowed is up to the religious institution, not the state. If two consenting adults wish to engage in a secular marriage, then the state has no authority to refuse or discriminate. This is another example of separation of church and state.

Wasn't marriage created by religious institutions?  If so, then the state shouldn't be marrying people anyway.  Why?  Separation of church and state.
My BSOD gallery
"Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez

cahult

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,186
  • Kudos: 182
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #21 on: 3 September 2004, 03:51 »
Luckily enough I don
"The gentleman is dead, the feminists killed him" Anonymous

Laukev7

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,834
  • Kudos: 495
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #22 on: 3 September 2004, 04:15 »
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
Wasn't marriage created by religious institutions?  If so, then the state shouldn't be marrying people anyway.  Why?  Separation of church and state.


Come to think of it, I'm not religious, and I don't really believe in marriage in the first place. However, there is such a thing as civil marriage, which is universal and is not exclusive to religion. My main concern is the legal recognition of the couples, where there should be no discrimination.

[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]


worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #23 on: 3 September 2004, 05:05 »
If the state is going to provide a tax shelter for married couples, and insurance companies are going to provide family insurance to spouses, then gay marriage is a secular issue.  Combine that with the fact that marriages can be performed by a dog (if that's the sort of thing that interests you) as long as the licenses are in legal order, and we have a secular problem.  This forces us to wonder why marriage is rewarded in this way.  I see three possibilities:
1. Rewarding people for providing children with a stable home environment.  Studies have shown that gay couples are just as capable of raising children as straight couples are.  So if this is the case, there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.
2. Rewarding people for becoming monogamous.  In theory, this would prevent people from whoring themselves all over town, because you supposedly quit being a horndog when you get married.  This is stupid, since we all know that marriage does not stop rampant "sinning".  If this is the case, then everyone needs to wake the fuck up.
3. Rewarding people for not indulging in homosexuality.  In theory, married people are not gay.  So encouraging people to pair off in hetero couples prevents gayness.  If this is the case, we live in a very fucked up society.

Now, you might wish to vote for Bush because he represents your interests.  However, he does not represent mine.  In fact, current polls show that neither political party can gain greater than 50% of the voters, which means that Bush is only representing 50% of American interests (assuming that Bush does in fact represent the interests that they think he does, which is another issue altogether).  And to be perfectly legit, Bush only had 50% of voter support in the last election.  Considering that there was only like 20% voter turnout, then George W Bush only "represents" the interests of 10% of the American population.
These numbers are unacceptable.  Someone that only 10% of the people even like should not have this kind of power.  But there's no real solution, since neither Kerry nor Gore is showing the ability to get more than 10% of the vote either.

I think it is pretty obvious right now that America is divided.  Clearly, we are not one nation, because approximately half of us are opposed to the policies of the other half.  The United States, as it is currently set up, will never have a successful and/or popular governing body again.

Back to the trees, everyone.  Time to start over.

Xeen

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Kudos: 55
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #24 on: 3 September 2004, 07:42 »
Here's my view:

I am 100% convinced that the attacks of 9/11/01 were staged by the United States government. I have not seen any proof by the government for their story. Yet I have seen countless proof showing an inside job. If anybody is up for a CIVILIZED AND MATURE pure-factual debate about 9/11, I would love to participate in one.

At the same time as I see the Republican party becoming the 21st century party of fascism, I see the Democratic split into 2 parts: 1)accomplises to the coverup who take advantage of the fascist acts, and 2)pussies who are afraid to reveal the truth.

And so having said all that, I am voting for John Kerry. Now John Kerry is a douchebag. I am the first to admit that. I don't believe he is any better than Bush, but just as corrupt. However with Bush we know exactly what we're getting. With John Kerry there at least is some chance we'll be surprised with something decent or even good. As for John Edwards, I honestly don't know. He seems like a good man from a good family, but you never know...

I am all for getting rid of the 2 party system of corruption in our government. Under normal circumstances I would vote for Ralph Nader or one of the other candidates for president who are actually discussing the truth behind 9/11 now. But I feel getting rid of Bush is the first step. Then while Kerry is president, the thousands of newly formed truth communities nationwide will take the next step.

shuiend

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://stuff4fools.topcities.com
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #25 on: 3 September 2004, 08:31 »
Wow I havent posted here in ages.

I personally am very liberal on most issues.  First off it sucks that i will not be able to vote this election because I am 17.  I believe Bush is a moron.  I do like some of his programs though, No child left behind, Guns, and Space programs.  Other then that he hasent really helped America become a better nation as I see it.  

Now with that being said I dont support Kerry either.  He is a doushebag and is just as bad as Bush.  

I dont support either of the major parties though for diffrent reasons then most.  I am very against corporate money in elections.  Corporations dont have a right to vote, hence they should not have a right to give money to running candidates.  That is my biggest problem with the 2 major parties.

I personally am a Nader supporter because he best represents my values as where I want America to go. universal health insurance, A mininum wage that you can live off, alternate energy sources, environment friendly, against patriot act, against corporate crime, wants to end the war on drugs,  voting age 16.

Bush is against most of those values so that is why I would not vote for him.

Also xeen I would like you to actually start a post about the 9/11 attacks.  I do not know if they were staged or not.  I wouldnt doubt it though if they were and I would like to get whatever info you have on it.
you know its a bad day when you look more sober then usual

Laukev7

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,834
  • Kudos: 495
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #26 on: 3 September 2004, 08:49 »
I second xeen's statement. There are more holes in the official 9/11 story than in every Microsoft software put together, and the evidence that 9/11 was a scam is overwhelming. The idea that a vast global network of Muslim terrorists want to destroy America because they hate their freedoms is even more far-fetched a conspiracy theory than the accusations of cover-up against the American government. Also, the lies used as justification for the war on Iraq make it official that the Bush administration can no longer be given the benefit of doubt.

Stilly

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 653
  • Kudos: 29
    • http://kickassshit.tk/
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #27 on: 3 September 2004, 11:01 »
xeen, you said you haven't found any evidence to support the official story. have you really tried to find evidence for it?

I honestly dont think the attacks were staged. ive even heard that a plane didn't hit the pentagon. which made me think why wouldn't the US use a real plane if they wanted to make it look authentic.

and laukev, dont forget its not the first time the wtc was attacked.  and they didn't attack because  they hate our freedom. I think it either had to do with millitary bases on their holy lands or something. it might have been a protest of free trade or something though.
just say know

skyman8081

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 910
  • Kudos: 187
    • http://sauron.game-host.org/
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #28 on: 3 September 2004, 11:28 »
The "They hate our freedom" is only part of it.

Al queda is mainly trying to prevent us from allying with and supporting Israel.

The agenda of the Terror networks are:

  • Destroy the current US government
  • Make the US abandon Israel
  • Make America ally with/recognise the Nation of Palestine
  • Replace the predominately Athesitic/Christian Government with an Islamic theocracy that follows the islamic law
that last point is there the "They hate our freedoms" come in. Al Queda disagree's with any freedoms/rights that conflict with islamic law.  (Women's Rights, etc...)

If the 9/11 attacks were staged, my one question is: How?

Who would send operatives to hijack one of their own airplanes, into a building of your own citizens, less than a year after your election to justify a war that won't happen for another 2 years?

Edited to add:  Although I disagree with most of you here, I do respect your opinions, and your right to hold them.

[ September 03, 2004: Message edited by: Agent Sauron ]

2 motherfuckers have sigged me so far.  Fuck yeah!


worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
A civilised political discussion
« Reply #29 on: 3 September 2004, 12:33 »
The Arab peoples have some rights.  The right to govern themselves the way they choose, the right to determine their own economic future, and the right to not have the United States up their ass every damn day.  The fact that they have been denied these basic freedoms is why they get so angry.  The goings-on in Africa and the Middle East over the past few years are the result of Western imperialism gone awry.  IIIIIIFFFFFFF the US and the rest of the world would just leave them alone and let them reset their borders and elect who they want and sell their products to the highest bidder, I bet they would be the center of world peace in five years max.  But that would probably cause gasoline prices in the US to rise to well over $5/gallon.  And we are so used to prices being artificially kept low that we would flip out.  Plus, the giant American oil companies wouldn't be raking in trillions of dollars on MidEast oil anymore, so they wouldn't be happy.

Which leaves us right where we are, with nothing changing but the price of a night in the Lincoln bedroom.  If you really wanted to change any of this, you would sell your car today and buy only recycled products.