TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- California's top court legalizes gay marriage
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nerdgrl416 It's one thing to voice our opinions. That's what's this forum is about. The thing about homosexuality being a preference is bull shit to me. Do you know first hand that it's not true? If you ask a gay person if they wanted to be gay growing up, they would all tell you no. No one wants to be different and risk not being accepted by family and friends. |
Self-Evo: You bring up many good points, in fact, I agree with pretty much all the 10 points. Gays do not deserve to be discriminated against and Christianity has no place in the argument of marriage because it is a government issue. While I haven't been in the bible belt recently, I like to think that gays are more accepted than the situation with 1950's racism however. That view seems kind of extreme. I am still in the viewpoint that gays do not fall under the qualifications of marriage, and that it is because of this that they are not being discriminated against. Harsh or not, I can not call discrimination because people refuse to call me disabled or Asian. I am not physically disabled, and I am not Asian. I don't see how gay couples fall into the category of marriage because they are not reproducing partners. If you think that reform needs to be issued around the titling or benefits of heterosexual couples and marriage then I agree. I don't think people should be getting married in general just for benefits.
The documentary Immigration by the Numbers ([[ LINK REMOVED ]]
) shows that country's population is stabilizing among its citizens, yet is still exploding because of illegal immigration. It's a good documentary to watch overall, and there was a thread about it here on the west coast board a while ago.
In2musik - Good article. Indeed genetics and brain development are two different things to look at. Suggestions with testosterone in the womb causing the decision of homosexuality would not be consistent with the research I've posted on genetically identical twins though.
The other thing to consider, is that physical growth size of areas of the brain are also influenced by nurturing experiences. I did not see in the study that they took account the various structure sizes at birth in relation to how large they were when matured. I'm sure the similarities they're finding among "gay" brains are with reason and not just coincidence, however the research assumes the brain organ's growth is not affected by the environment it develops in. -
"By age 15, those who had unsatisfactory relationships with their parents were likely to have a larger hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory formation, said Martha Farah, the director of the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania, who conducted the study."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/st...3190652852.html
It is not to go without dispute, perhaps the brain influenced the gay actions in the study you posted, but perhaps the gay actions influenced the brain's development. I'm not sure how to validate articles which compare brain or genetic similarities that seem to be disproved by identical twin research.
edit> applause once again Chris for putting so much time into your post
| quote: |
| Originally posted by selfEvolution Equality in marriage for all consenting adult *couples* is about the larger issue of human rights, as it was when a majority of people were (and perhaps still are) against the judicial overturning of the majority laws against interracial marriage. This is not a "gay verses straight" issue as much as it is an opportunity to tell the world that we stand against bigotry, fight against intolerance and chose education above blind hatred. Permission is given to quote any of the following, and I'm not ashamed if you use my name, Chris Aable to quote any of this. You can also modify it any way you wish and make it your own, provided it is reposted in the spirit for which it is intended: Freedom and Equality. Note: I use the term non-heterosexual as a respectful short-cut to encapsulate many important groups who this will give greater freedom and equality to: Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender, intersexed (those born or "made by the all-creator" with both male and female organs) - Who do the religious extremists suggest they have the right to marry? If I were to write any article on the pro-human rights decision by the California Supreme Court, I would begin by noting that three of the four Justices who joined the majority decision in favor of this Constitutional equality are considered "conservative" and were appointed by Republican governors. I would do this because, as self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Dinesh D'Souza prove, those who subscribe to religious extremism and who habitually obfuscate, will be the ones yelling the loudest and longest about "activist judges supporting gay marriage" and "marriage is for procreation". The California Supreme Court worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books. It heard expert testimony from all sides, studied the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts and other countries, and *weighed the evidence fairly*. Something that the "tyranny of the majority" either does not have the time or the will to do. Many so-called "Chrsitians" will not display either the intellectual honesty nor time to do likewise before bashing the same Supreme Court who ruled in the 1950s that bashing interracial marriages was unconstitutional. If Dinesh D'Souza, a physically dark person of a "different race" had been dating Ann Coulter in the South during the 50s he probably would have been lynched by white church-going Christians, as many others were for decades. A majority of them didn't want whites dating "people of color". In fact the so-called "Christian" white majority wanted people like Dinesh to sit in the back of the bus until the so-called "activist" judges ruled that the "law of the land" (segregation) was unconstitutional. If individuals in "cultural minority groups" have a problem with the comparison of their struggles with the struggles of millions of non-heterosexual minorities, then they should look deeply into their own discrimination and prejudice, because in the true sense of a fair, civilized society people would be viewed as humans first, second and third, as individuals, as families and as friends. The good news is that most people can learn and grow, and change their subscriptions when they finally realize that they may have been subscribing to erroneous magazines all along. On the Oprah Winfrey show I once witnessed a self-proclaimed "KKK grand dragon" change her bigotry and renounce her organization when presented with the realities from a black person who's personal life had nothing to to with her own. An equally important issue for me is how America will be viewed now and in the future by the rest of the civilized world. How this country will be seen by those seeking to escape the tyranny from the emotional prejudices of majorities. If this country, often called the "greatest in the world", would *not* offer the homage of equality and tolerance to all consenting adults, then what message would that send to leaders of tyranny the world over, where gay people are often tortured, imprisoned and beaten to death? The soul of tolerance is looking at us through the eyes of the world, and tolerance cannot like what it sees when reading the intolerance from Dinesh and his supporters, who take away their own focus from more important, Christ-affirming priorities - helping the weak, the poor and the powerless. Instead, millions who subscribe to extremism will spend millions of collective hours doing quite the opposite - collectively bashing non-heterosexuals and their Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Part of that "pursuit of happiness" means being viewed or at least treated fairly as societal *equals* based on individual talents and character, not who they happen to love or want to be with. Those who subscribe to religious extremism will defile the very god they pretend to believe in, and behave like anything but Christ-like as they bare false witness to support their prejudices. Here is but ten of a long list of mass hypocrisies, as extremisms focuses not on its own redemption, but bashing other people with negative stereotypes while trying to bash minority rights into the ground: 1.) The Judicial branch worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books between two consenting adults. The court protected the minority from the tyranny of the majority, just as it protected interracial marriage from the will of the majority in the 1950s. Most people I know who subscribe to religious extremism were against interracial marriage, citing the bible as cover for their hatred. Yet, most so-called "Christians" I know can't even remember half of the Ten Commandments, none of which mentions homosexuality, but one of which states that we should "NOT work on the Sabbath". If we're going to deny two consenting adults the equal right to marry based on an ancient book of fairy tales, then we may as well deny rights for the millions of people who "WORK on the Sabbath" - and the ones who employee them by buying at their work - fast food places, skating rinks, ball games, theaters, malls, etc. 2.) In a democracy that respects equality, the national and state constitutions are designed to protect minorities such as non-heterosexuals from the ignorance and emotional prejudices of the majority. When the majority tries to ram their religious and/or anti non-heterosexual beliefs down the throats of the world to support their pet prejudices, the Supreme Court has to listen to rational debate. The Supreme Court protects both minority religions and minorities of all types including the minority sexual orientations. The Supreme Court is essentially "we the people" being a branch of government to keep the legislature in check when it attempts to make prejudicial, unconstitutional laws. 3.) The California Supreme Court heard hours of rational argument and evidence and deliberated on the testimonies for months after considering both pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage sides. The anti-gay-marriage proponents were asked over and over to give a compelling arguments that would show that gay marriage somehow injures anyone or injures marriage as we know it. They could not come up with a compelling arguments even though several "experts" were given the opportunity. For those of us who watch CSPAN when it comes to important human-rights legislation, all we heard was their prejudices and their unfounded homophobia. 4.) The bible mentions "gluttony" far more as an "abomination" than it does homosexuality. How many gluttonous Christians do we know? Some would say Jerry Falwell was "gluttonous". According to his doctors, Falwell's excess weight led to an early death from congestive heart failure at age seventy-three. That's not exactly "death age" these days. My relatively fit grandparents and Great-Aunts either lived pass ninety or are currently alive and well in their nineties. Falwell, ignoring his calling to be Christlike and "judge not less you be judged" is the same person who called non-heterosexual Ellen DeGeneres, "Ellen Degenerate". Falwell is just one of millions during this decade who subscribed to religious extremism until the end of their lives, often ending because of obesity. Isn't their body their god's temple as mentioned in their bible? 5.) There are even intersexed people found in all cultures - people BORN with BOTH male and female organs - who do the lying Christians suggest *they* have the right marry? God, who allegedly is the "all-knowing all-creator" by definition, "created" different sexual orientations as found in millions of people in all cultures throughout history. 6.) Marriage is not just for "pro-creation". The notion that non-heterosexual marriage will somehow disrupt population growth is ridiculous. To the contrary, populations in areas where gay marriage is allowed have continued to grow unabated, with teenage pregnancy continuing to run riot. There are millions of couples who either cannot or will not have children in an already growing and overpopulated world where famine and clean water shortages amounting to 1.5 million deaths of children each year. Millions more cannot conceive after fifty years of age, but engage in active sex lives and even cheat on their spouses regardless of religiosity or political party. There are millions of more "known as "nuns" and "priests" who will also not have children. 7.) Alexander The Great was bisexual, but preferred men, and many famous army generals consider him to be the greatest general of all times. The Greek culture prospered for centuries until Christianity was adopted by the Romans and then we saw the ushering in of the dark ages, the inquisition and witch huntings. Many non-Christians, non-heterosexuals or those who were biologically different in any way, were burned at the stake or tortured and killed "in the name of god". Likewise the Christian/Catholic followers of Hitler, who mentioned himself as "God's provenance" and had written many pro-Christianity statements in Mein Kamf, engaged in mass wholesale murder of minorities. Fortunately, some people who subscribe to Christianity did not listen to Hitler at great risk to themselves, but unfortunately they were too few and too far between. More fortunately, most Christians I know think that the insecurities of the anti-gay-marriage advocates are as fallacious and distorted as Hitler's ever were. I've never read of a single account of Hitler himself directly killing a Jew nor a non-heterosexual with his bare hands, but he did so cowardly through his denouncements to all of his loyal followers, many of whom never renounced their religion and proceeded about their merry ways, before and after the war, to their church every week. We must also remember that it takes millions of man-hours from once-moral people to commit genocide against millions of others simply because they were "different". 8.) Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, life-long advocate of freedom and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Gay marriage between two consenting adults was not proven, and has never been proven, to be any more harmful or injurious to any other person than heterosexual marriage. If anything, the most injurious causes of heterosexual divorce come from heterosexuals themselves *One* of the causes of divorce is cheating, often listed as irreconcilable differences, "to save the couple from public embarrassment". With nearly a 50% divorce rate among "Christians" surely "faith" in their god is not *always* stronger than the immediate need for gratification and/or health considerations. If so-called "Christians" are serious about "defending" marriage, they would look at the *real* causes of the weakening of the institution instead of manufacturing excuses to support their biases, prejudices, hatred and "disgust" all of which are attributes born of intolerance, inexperience, and stereotyping while judging an entire group of millions in the minority, instead of educating themselves about the individuals within each group. Our Constitution was designed to protect all people from those who cannot protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority. 9.) Cheating and divorces continue decade after decade, no matter how many prayers have been uttered by preachers and priests, family and friends, to keep the blessed couples together. Studies conducted by Christian organizations found that the divorce rate is actually higher among Christian Fundamentalist than it is among atheists. Divorce rates are higher in the mid south, where non-heterosexuals are relatively closeted, than divorce rates in larger cities where non-heterosexuality is more open and more obvious. I'm not drawing a correlation here, but it does support the fact that the visibility of non-heterosexuals certainly does not harm heterosexual marriage. If a marriage is ever hurt by such exterior matters, then it couldn't have been a very strong marriage to begin with. 10.) Self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Bill O'Reilly used misleading and irrational fear-mongering by stating "gay marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying animals." It hasn't in five countries where it's legal, nor in Massachusetts, which was the basis for the California Supreme Court's decision -a conservative court that actually weighed the evidence. It is typical of those using fear-bating instead of facts to limit freedom and equality. This deserves further elaboration, because this is not about Bill O'Reilly. It's about the millions of his ilk, the angry white male Limbaugh-type self-proclaimed "dittoheads" and their hypocrisy and thoughtless talking points such as "activist judges" with Bill O'Reilly just being a more visible example. Those who subscribe to religious extremism wonder often why their god hasn't listened to their prayers for the economy to improve or for the war to be won (ironic, as the bible states Jesus is the "prince of peace"). They might find it more patriotic and Christ-like to focus on much more important issues than their paranoid fear of what really "marriage" should be about. Every hour spent verbally bashing non-heterosexuals or trying to suppress their "right to the pursuit of equal happiness is an hour spent away from many more deadly-serious priorities. They seem to skirt their the calling of Christ (who never mentioned homosexuality) when they could be educating others by putting a focus on: Human rights and prejudice. Which I hope I have done with this post, knowing I have a lot more to learn myself. Teenage pregnancy, child abuse and sexual abuse, ironically made more visible by religious extremism in Texas. National Security by focusing on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. - Nearly twice as many of our citizens have now died in Iraq than during 9-11. Global Warming, which even a growing list of Republican Leaders are admitting does exist and can be fixed if we put effort into it. Pollution Overpopulation Corrupt politicians Corrupt corporations Lack of universal Health Care Bigotry and hate Fascism & unscientific propaganda spread as "fact". When you increase a person's constitutional right to happiness, you increase the world's happiness in total. Marriage may not be your idea of happiness, but for millions of other people the world over, it is. Here is a chance for California to be a shining example for equality and the tolerance of diversity instead of an example of intolerance and bigotry . Non-heterosexual marriage neither threatens marriage nor procreation. No matter how many get married, it will not stop us bisexuals and heterosexuals from making love like crazed weasels and reproducing like bunnies. Masturbate proudly, because if you don't, someone else will.  |
mobius9 I have time because I'm self-employed and my post is part of my MySpace blog and a book I'm writing - www.MySpace.com/Aable
Since the issue is about Human Rights, I didn't want to oversimplify it with shortcuts or talking points, as it might be taken out of context.
For example, I'm not *directly* comparing present day non-heterosexual rights with interracial bigotry of the 1950s. The point is not one of time, it just happens that laws against interracial marriage were overturned in the 1950s by the CA Court. The larger point is that it is already implied in the Constitution that minority groups, whether consenting adults of color or people with different sexual orientations, are already guaranteed the equal protection clause and the guarantee of their "pursuit of happiness". This, in spite of popular public opninon that interaccial couples should not marry.
Thus, the California Supreme Court had already ruled long ago that the tyranny of the majority should never over ride the freedoms of a minority, unless there is compelling reason that the minority is doing damage to society. There have been no compelling reasons brought before the court, although they had plenty of time to do so.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mobius9 While I haven't been in the bible belt recently, I like to think that gays are more accepted than the situation with 1950's racism however. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mobius9 I was really hoping you would be more mature than this. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jake Benson Gay marriages produce families. And the existence of a gay marriage does not lead to the world not existing. That argument is flawed. We don't live in 10,000 B.C. where we need to constantly populate to overcome disease, hunger, and getting eaten by tigers. In fact I think we need to curb the population and homosexuality is the perfect answer to population control. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jake Benson And 10 years ago I was really hoping that America would evolve to the point where I wouldn't have to carefully argue my rights as a homosexual to everyone so that they "get it." I really don't have the patience anymore. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nchs09 Why has religion "brainwashed" Its their belief and as valid as yours. (Now i thinkt hey are a bunch of idiots but valid in their mind non-the less. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by diggerz this thread needs more ... |
There's no reason that polyandry should be illegal either.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by diggerz this thread needs more ... |
I think it's absurd to argue that the California Supreme Court's decision is a case of activist, liberal judges legislating from the bench given that:
1) 6 of the 7 justices were appointed by Republican governors
2) Gov. Schwarzenegger specifically stated that his reason for vetoing legislation to allow same-sex marriage was because the constitutionality of same-sex marriage should be decided by the court and not by the California Legislature and Governor
Although the California Supreme Court decision (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinion...nts/S147999.PDF) is 172 pages, I thought I would have seen more direct references from the substantive decision making process from the justices instead of the hypothetical rants about swingers, polygamy, and bestiality. For those of you who don't want to read through all of it, here are a few snippets of the court's rationale for striking down the unconstitutional law that infringed on the rights of same-sex couples:
"It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right."
"This state's current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, and, more specifically, recognize that gay individuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of a family and of responsibly caring for and raising children."
"Thus, just as this court recognized in Perez that it was not constitutionally permissible to continue to treat racial or ethnic minorities as inferior, and in Sail'er Inn that it was not constitutionally acceptable to continue to treat women as less capable than and unequal to men, we now similarly recognize that an individual's homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or restricting the individual's legal rights."
"Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights."
"Furthermore, although promoting and facilitating a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children is unquestionably one of the vitally important purposes underlying the institution of marriage and the constitutional right to marry, past cases make clear that this right is not confined to, or restrictively defined by, that purpose alone."
"Accordingly, we conclude the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage."
"The current statutes - by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship of available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership - pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry."
"There is no persuasive basis for applying to statutes that classify persons on the basis of the suspect classification of sexual orientation a standard less rigorous than that applied to statutes that classify on the basis of the suspect classifications of gender, race, or religion. Because sexual orientation, like gender, race, or religion, is a characteristic that frequently has been the basis for biased and improperly stereotypical treatment and that generally bears no relation to an individual's ability to perform or contribute to society, it is appropriate for courts to evaluate with great care and with considerable skepticism any statute that embodies such a classification."
"We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships."
Thank you spiflicated, for sounding a note of reason. I was going to quote court transcripts myself, but had a difficult time finding them anywhere on the net. I doubt if we can find them on sites such as Fox "news" and many of the so-called Christian websites where they will be "baring false witness" in presenting only half of the truth.
Sometimes half the truth can be a whole lie, as evidenced by the anti-gay rants on YouTube and AOL from those who subscribe to Christian extremism. All the while more child-abusing religious cults keep showing the hypocrisy they subscribe to. Ted Haggert paying male prostitutes while preaching against the "sins of homosexuality" are not as rare as some would think, and there are plenty of websites exposing dozens of them.
Thank you, Jake Benson for your kind words. As my signature indicates, unless you're a murderer or something like that, I love you too.
Luv, peace and respect, but no support for the unfounded preachings of intolerance,
Chris
| quote: |
| Originally posted by selfEvolution Equality in marriage for all consenting adult *couples* is about the larger issue of human rights, as it was when a majority of people were (and perhaps still are) against the judicial overturning of the majority laws against interracial marriage. This is not a "gay verses straight" issue as much as it is an opportunity to tell the world that we stand against bigotry, fight against intolerance and chose education above blind hatred. Permission is given to quote any of the following, and I'm not ashamed if you use my name, Chris Aable to quote any of this. You can also modify it any way you wish and make it your own, provided it is reposted in the spirit for which it is intended: Freedom and Equality. Note: I use the term non-heterosexual as a respectful short-cut to encapsulate many important groups who this will give greater freedom and equality to: Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender, intersexed (those born or "made by the all-creator" with both male and female organs) - Who do the religious extremists suggest they have the right to marry? If I were to write any article on the pro-human rights decision by the California Supreme Court, I would begin by noting that three of the four Justices who joined the majority decision in favor of this Constitutional equality are considered "conservative" and were appointed by Republican governors. I would do this because, as self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Dinesh D'Souza prove, those who subscribe to religious extremism and who habitually obfuscate, will be the ones yelling the loudest and longest about "activist judges supporting gay marriage" and "marriage is for procreation". The California Supreme Court worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books. It heard expert testimony from all sides, studied the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts and other countries, and *weighed the evidence fairly*. Something that the "tyranny of the majority" either does not have the time or the will to do. Many so-called "Chrsitians" will not display either the intellectual honesty nor time to do likewise before bashing the same Supreme Court who ruled in the 1950s that bashing interracial marriages was unconstitutional. If Dinesh D'Souza, a physically dark person of a "different race" had been dating Ann Coulter in the South during the 50s he probably would have been lynched by white church-going Christians, as many others were for decades. A majority of them didn't want whites dating "people of color". In fact the so-called "Christian" white majority wanted people like Dinesh to sit in the back of the bus until the so-called "activist" judges ruled that the "law of the land" (segregation) was unconstitutional. If individuals in "cultural minority groups" have a problem with the comparison of their struggles with the struggles of millions of non-heterosexual minorities, then they should look deeply into their own discrimination and prejudice, because in the true sense of a fair, civilized society people would be viewed as humans first, second and third, as individuals, as families and as friends. The good news is that most people can learn and grow, and change their subscriptions when they finally realize that they may have been subscribing to erroneous magazines all along. On the Oprah Winfrey show I once witnessed a self-proclaimed "KKK grand dragon" change her bigotry and renounce her organization when presented with the realities from a black person who's personal life had nothing to to with her own. An equally important issue for me is how America will be viewed now and in the future by the rest of the civilized world. How this country will be seen by those seeking to escape the tyranny from the emotional prejudices of majorities. If this country, often called the "greatest in the world", would *not* offer the homage of equality and tolerance to all consenting adults, then what message would that send to leaders of tyranny the world over, where gay people are often tortured, imprisoned and beaten to death? The soul of tolerance is looking at us through the eyes of the world, and tolerance cannot like what it sees when reading the intolerance from Dinesh and his supporters, who take away their own focus from more important, Christ-affirming priorities - helping the weak, the poor and the powerless. Instead, millions who subscribe to extremism will spend millions of collective hours doing quite the opposite - collectively bashing non-heterosexuals and their Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Part of that "pursuit of happiness" means being viewed or at least treated fairly as societal *equals* based on individual talents and character, not who they happen to love or want to be with. Those who subscribe to religious extremism will defile the very god they pretend to believe in, and behave like anything but Christ-like as they bare false witness to support their prejudices. Here is but ten of a long list of mass hypocrisies, as extremisms focuses not on its own redemption, but bashing other people with negative stereotypes while trying to bash minority rights into the ground: 1.) The Judicial branch worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books between two consenting adults. The court protected the minority from the tyranny of the majority, just as it protected interracial marriage from the will of the majority in the 1950s. Most people I know who subscribe to religious extremism were against interracial marriage, citing the bible as cover for their hatred. Yet, most so-called "Christians" I know can't even remember half of the Ten Commandments, none of which mentions homosexuality, but one of which states that we should "NOT work on the Sabbath". If we're going to deny two consenting adults the equal right to marry based on an ancient book of fairy tales, then we may as well deny rights for the millions of people who "WORK on the Sabbath" - and the ones who employee them by buying at their work - fast food places, skating rinks, ball games, theaters, malls, etc. 2.) In a democracy that respects equality, the national and state constitutions are designed to protect minorities such as non-heterosexuals from the ignorance and emotional prejudices of the majority. When the majority tries to ram their religious and/or anti non-heterosexual beliefs down the throats of the world to support their pet prejudices, the Supreme Court has to listen to rational debate. The Supreme Court protects both minority religions and minorities of all types including the minority sexual orientations. The Supreme Court is essentially "we the people" being a branch of government to keep the legislature in check when it attempts to make prejudicial, unconstitutional laws. 3.) The California Supreme Court heard hours of rational argument and evidence and deliberated on the testimonies for months after considering both pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage sides. The anti-gay-marriage proponents were asked over and over to give a compelling arguments that would show that gay marriage somehow injures anyone or injures marriage as we know it. They could not come up with a compelling arguments even though several "experts" were given the opportunity. For those of us who watch CSPAN when it comes to important human-rights legislation, all we heard was their prejudices and their unfounded homophobia. 4.) The bible mentions "gluttony" far more as an "abomination" than it does homosexuality. How many gluttonous Christians do we know? Some would say Jerry Falwell was "gluttonous". According to his doctors, Falwell's excess weight led to an early death from congestive heart failure at age seventy-three. That's not exactly "death age" these days. My relatively fit grandparents and Great-Aunts either lived pass ninety or are currently alive and well in their nineties. Falwell, ignoring his calling to be Christlike and "judge not less you be judged" is the same person who called non-heterosexual Ellen DeGeneres, "Ellen Degenerate". Falwell is just one of millions during this decade who subscribed to religious extremism until the end of their lives, often ending because of obesity. Isn't their body their god's temple as mentioned in their bible? 5.) There are even intersexed people found in all cultures - people BORN with BOTH male and female organs - who do the lying Christians suggest *they* have the right marry? God, who allegedly is the "all-knowing all-creator" by definition, "created" different sexual orientations as found in millions of people in all cultures throughout history. 6.) Marriage is not just for "pro-creation". The notion that non-heterosexual marriage will somehow disrupt population growth is ridiculous. To the contrary, populations in areas where gay marriage is allowed have continued to grow unabated, with teenage pregnancy continuing to run riot. There are millions of couples who either cannot or will not have children in an already growing and overpopulated world where famine and clean water shortages amounting to 1.5 million deaths of children each year. Millions more cannot conceive after fifty years of age, but engage in active sex lives and even cheat on their spouses regardless of religiosity or political party. There are millions of more "known as "nuns" and "priests" who will also not have children. 7.) Alexander The Great was bisexual, but preferred men, and many famous army generals consider him to be the greatest general of all times. The Greek culture prospered for centuries until Christianity was adopted by the Romans and then we saw the ushering in of the dark ages, the inquisition and witch huntings. Many non-Christians, non-heterosexuals or those who were biologically different in any way, were burned at the stake or tortured and killed "in the name of god". Likewise the Christian/Catholic followers of Hitler, who mentioned himself as "God's provenance" and had written many pro-Christianity statements in Mein Kamf, engaged in mass wholesale murder of minorities. Fortunately, some people who subscribe to Christianity did not listen to Hitler at great risk to themselves, but unfortunately they were too few and too far between. More fortunately, most Christians I know think that the insecurities of the anti-gay-marriage advocates are as fallacious and distorted as Hitler's ever were. I've never read of a single account of Hitler himself directly killing a Jew nor a non-heterosexual with his bare hands, but he did so cowardly through his denouncements to all of his loyal followers, many of whom never renounced their religion and proceeded about their merry ways, before and after the war, to their church every week. We must also remember that it takes millions of man-hours from once-moral people to commit genocide against millions of others simply because they were "different". 8.) Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, life-long advocate of freedom and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Gay marriage between two consenting adults was not proven, and has never been proven, to be any more harmful or injurious to any other person than heterosexual marriage. If anything, the most injurious causes of heterosexual divorce come from heterosexuals themselves *One* of the causes of divorce is cheating, often listed as irreconcilable differences, "to save the couple from public embarrassment". With nearly a 50% divorce rate among "Christians" surely "faith" in their god is not *always* stronger than the immediate need for gratification and/or health considerations. If so-called "Christians" are serious about "defending" marriage, they would look at the *real* causes of the weakening of the institution instead of manufacturing excuses to support their biases, prejudices, hatred and "disgust" all of which are attributes born of intolerance, inexperience, and stereotyping while judging an entire group of millions in the minority, instead of educating themselves about the individuals within each group. Our Constitution was designed to protect all people from those who cannot protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority. 9.) Cheating and divorces continue decade after decade, no matter how many prayers have been uttered by preachers and priests, family and friends, to keep the blessed couples together. Studies conducted by Christian organizations found that the divorce rate is actually higher among Christian Fundamentalist than it is among atheists. Divorce rates are higher in the mid south, where non-heterosexuals are relatively closeted, than divorce rates in larger cities where non-heterosexuality is more open and more obvious. I'm not drawing a correlation here, but it does support the fact that the visibility of non-heterosexuals certainly does not harm heterosexual marriage. If a marriage is ever hurt by such exterior matters, then it couldn't have been a very strong marriage to begin with. 10.) Self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Bill O'Reilly used misleading and irrational fear-mongering by stating "gay marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying animals." It hasn't in five countries where it's legal, nor in Massachusetts, which was the basis for the California Supreme Court's decision -a conservative court that actually weighed the evidence. It is typical of those using fear-bating instead of facts to limit freedom and equality. This deserves further elaboration, because this is not about Bill O'Reilly. It's about the millions of his ilk, the angry white male Limbaugh-type self-proclaimed "dittoheads" and their hypocrisy and thoughtless talking points such as "activist judges" with Bill O'Reilly just being a more visible example. Those who subscribe to religious extremism wonder often why their god hasn't listened to their prayers for the economy to improve or for the war to be won (ironic, as the bible states Jesus is the "prince of peace"). They might find it more patriotic and Christ-like to focus on much more important issues than their paranoid fear of what really "marriage" should be about. Every hour spent verbally bashing non-heterosexuals or trying to suppress their "right to the pursuit of equal happiness is an hour spent away from many more deadly-serious priorities. They seem to skirt their the calling of Christ (who never mentioned homosexuality) when they could be educating others by putting a focus on: Human rights and prejudice. Which I hope I have done with this post, knowing I have a lot more to learn myself. Teenage pregnancy, child abuse and sexual abuse, ironically made more visible by religious extremism in Texas. National Security by focusing on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. - Nearly twice as many of our citizens have now died in Iraq than during 9-11. Global Warming, which even a growing list of Republican Leaders are admitting does exist and can be fixed if we put effort into it. Pollution Overpopulation Corrupt politicians Corrupt corporations Lack of universal Health Care Bigotry and hate Fascism & unscientific propaganda spread as "fact". When you increase a person's constitutional right to happiness, you increase the world's happiness in total. Marriage may not be your idea of happiness, but for millions of other people the world over, it is. Here is a chance for California to be a shining example for equality and the tolerance of diversity instead of an example of intolerance and bigotry . Non-heterosexual marriage neither threatens marriage nor procreation. No matter how many get married, it will not stop us bisexuals and heterosexuals from making love like crazed weasels and reproducing like bunnies. Masturbate proudly, because if you don't, someone else will. |
I thought you guys might be interested in one Islamic website's answer to the question posed in 2004
| quote: |
| As-Salamu `alaykum. I have heard that some a state in the US has enacted a law that allows gay marriages. What is your comment on this |
| quote: |
| Dear questioner, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah's Sake, meet your expectations. Gay marriage is totally prohibited in Islam as well as in all the divine religions. Gay marriage is an atrocious and obscene act which belongs to unsound nature. Islam teaches that believers should neither do the obscene acts nor in any way indulge in their propagation. Allah says, "Those who love (to see) obscenity published broadcast among the Believers will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows, and you know not." (An-Nur: 19) Responding to the question, Dr. Muhammad M. Abu Laylah, professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religions at Al-Azhar University, states the following: Dear questioner, thank you for telling us about this news and for taking an interest to know our opinion about this issue. In the very beginning, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this act is an ugly sin which Allah forbids in all religions, even in the most primitive ones. It is against the ordinances of Allah and against the law of nature. I wonder how in this age of advanced knowledge, science, technology, we allow such things to take place in our human society, how someone allows or gives a legal sanction to such a widespread act that poses a threat to the whole human race and destroys our fabric of society like cancer. Emphatically, Islam forbids homosexuality and lesbianism and regard them as a violation of the commands of Allah. In both the Old and the New Testaments, all Prophets of God forbid such evil activities and punish severely those who practice them. Allah tells us in the Qur�an that He created everything in pairs. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says, �And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect� (Az-Zariyat: 49). For sure, the pairs referred to in the above verse are of different kinds, not of the same kind. Marriage is universally known to be between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. Marriage in Islam, as in all divine religions, does not mean sexual enjoyment only but also the establishment of a family on hygienic and safe foundations. We are greatly sorry to hear about the enactment of such a law that is given to a few people who stand in a marginal place in our society to present a phenomenon. I feel that Allah will never let such an act go without punishment. We have an example of the people of Lut who were deeply involved in such immoral acts and were destroyed by Allah. I, personally, feel that this is one of the deadly germs that are injected in the vein of modern civilization, which the westerners feel proud of. Human rights should not be extended to include human destruction or threats to our life on this planet. We hope that the legislators who enacted such a law will think twice about it and consider its consequences on our human race and to try to repeal this law and put things right. We call our human fellows to give support to our demand for the safety and order of our world.! |
Well, it's kinda of a serious subject. 
As least my dog seems to think so - he's been humping my leg so much I think he wants to marry it. But alas, the court struck down the ban against non-heterosexual marriage, not dog/leg marriage. I'm kinda against that no matter how much he's disinclined to inhibit his youthful exuberance.
The *really* serious peeps are in places like YouTube and AOL - where they have usernames like "EvilConservatives" or "EvilLiberals", etc.,
With names like that, I think they're either asking for misery or even more psychotic, enjoy misery. Either way, what a complete waste of the many things that life has to offer, by seeing the world through only one extreme.
Luv and peace, peace and luv,
Chris
Here's a little different perspective on our cultural differences around the world. While I can't say all of this is fact, I can't say that all of it is fiction, either. There are certainly enough names of individuals from Italy to lend it some credence. So, if being gay destroys civilization, I think that would have happened a long, long, time ago. 
homosexual culture http://www.androphile.org/
Sub-Saharan Africa
Much of the history of homosexual love in pre-colonial Africa has probably been lost for good. Pre-colonial Africa was largely made up of non-literate cultures that left no written records and the colonial powers were not inclined to document practices they considered "beastly"; they were already busy suppressing homosexuality at home. However, knowledge of some examples did survive, such as the boy marriage tradition among Azande warriors, and the gay sex customs at the court of the Kabaka (king) of the Buganda. It would be a stretch to call it "gay love" since those who did not submit to penetration - as a result of having recently been indoctrinated into Christian beliefs - were decapitated.
Arab Lands
From Andalusia under the Moors to North Africa and the Middle East, Arab cultures have made space for male love, even greek gay couple though that space has often been hidden by a curtain of silence. Women are closely guarded in Arab society and thus unavailable for illicit relationships. Youths and men therefore have traditionally turned to each other for love and sexual relief. This love manifested in many ways. At one extreme it was a chaste religious practice where Sufi holy men gazed upon the beauty of a boy to come closer to God. At the other extreme, libertine poets like Abu Nuwas celebrated their gay conquests over unwilling or drunk boys.
Classical Greece
The most civilized culture in antiquity also developed a highly evolved form of homosexual love. In ancient Greece love between males, or more precisely, love between young men and adolescent boys, was harnessed for the good of the state and of the lovers. Though not strictly gay love as we know it today, it was founded on the erotic passion between two males. It was held that the youth was enriched by the friendship of his lover and that the man strove to attain heights of achievement, in battle, sports or his profession, to be worthy of his beloved. These partnerships of lovers were said to make men undefeatable in battle. Seen in that light, one wonders what all the fuss is today in the US about gay soldiers.
Renaissance Italy
The list of Italian men of the fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen hundreds who are known to have had gay relationships reads like a who's who of artists and scientists: Marsilio Ficino did it with Giovanni Cavalcanti; Leonardo da Vinci did it with Salai (some say that is why his portrait was refused the honor of the modern Euro note); Benedetto Varchi did it with Giovanni de' Pazzi; Michelangelo did it with Cecchino de' Bracci and wrote a sonnet to celebrate it; Pope Julius III did it with Cardinal Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte; Benvenuto Cellini did it with Fernando di Giovanni di Montepulciano, kicked the boy out and was denounced by his spurned lover; Prospero Farinacci did it with Berardino Rocchi . . . but what is it that they all did? That was the business of the special police force, the "Gentlemen of the Night," that monitored men's wayward genitals in Florence of the time. Suffice it to say that they fell in love with each other, intoxicated by beauty and inspired by the recently re-discovered teachings of the ancients.
Northern Europe
gay samuraiThough it is true that many Northern Europeans who were gay at heart traveled to Italy or North Africa to satisfy their homosexual desires, others plied their gay love at home. We do not know very much about the great majority who got away with it. They are a great invisible mass, like the submerged part of an iceberg. Usually, the ones we know about were the few who came to mischief. Among them is the great Russian composer Tchaikovsky, who had a fiery gay love affair with his teenage nephew and then was forced to commit suicide when he tried to seduce a nobleman's son. Another composer, Beethoven, was also deeply in love with his nephew, who finally tried to shoot himself in the head to escape his uncle's obsessive love. The loss of the boy plunged Beethoven into a deep depression which he did not survive. Their conversation books were destroyed by Beethoven's biographer as they were too incriminating. Jules Verne also had a misadventure with a nephew and a gun, only this time he was the target of the distraught boy. The nature of their relationship is not clear, but his love for the school boy Aristide Briand, later prime-minister of France, is well known. And let's not forget the paramount playwright of all time, William Shakespeare, who had the nerve and the genius to write one hundred and twenty six sonnets to his beloved youth, and only twenty five to his beloved lady.
India
Northern India under Mughal rule was a haven for gay love. Its icon has to be Mahmud of Ghazni, who deeply loved his boy slave, Ayaz. Their love has become a paragon of ideal love, perhaps analogous to that of Romeo and Juliet in the West. In a telling anecdote, Mahmud asks Ayaz, "who is the most powerful ruler in the world?" "I am the most powerful," Ayaz, the beloved slave replies. The confused king asks his slave boy to explain. "You, Mahmud, are the most powerful of all kings," says Ayaz. "But since I rule your heart, I am more powerful still." In popular lore the two were said to be each other's slave, Ayaz a slave in deed and Mahmud a slave of love.
Ishikawa Toyonobu 1730-40 China
Love between men in China begins with the very beginning of history, with the first (semi-legendary) ruler, the Yellow Emperor. Historians claimed he was the first to establish the custom of taking a male bedmate. Many, if not most Chinese emperors had gay lovers. The tradition was known as the Way of the Cut Sleeve, or the Way of the Bitten Peach. China also stands out as one of the richest sources of erotic homosexual art. Sadly, only a small fraction has been preserved, as most of it was destroyed in the "Cultural" Revolution.
Japan
In an uncanny parallel with ancient Greece, Japan also possessed a rich and profound culture of love between men. All the shoguns had male lovers and the custom was one of the pillars of the samurai pedagogical tradition. Japanese erotic art, in the form of gay shunga, is refined and sophisticated. While much erotic shunga was destroyed during the era of Westernization--entire warehouses of erotic shunga prints were burned by the American occupying forces after WWII--a great deal survived and can be found in museums and treasured private collections of erotic art. It shows the endless ways men can love and make love with each other, and is marked with passion and humor.
Oceania
This land of countless tribes could boast an equal number of love customs until the recent occupation by Western powers and the forcible destruction of native customs. Among the lost traditions (replaced, presumably, with television and imported whiskey) is the tradition that included universal homosexuality. The Melanesian pattern involved young boys taking in the semen of a young man, often a relative, in order to attain masculinity. Upon reaching manhood, the former beloved would take a lover of his own, while the boy's mentor would leave the pleasure of gay sex behind and find himself a wife. The custom died out as soon as it was exposed to Western scrutiny and Christian dogma.
Riza i-Abbasi ca. 1630 Pre-Colombian America
The Mayan people, among their many cultural achievements, also developed a tradition of male love. One aspect involved nobles acquiring a slave or servant to be the playmate and bedmate of their son. Another aspect may have involved relations between an older chief and younger officials.
Native America
In The Two-Spirit tradition a child is recognized as different at a young age and brought up in the ways of the opposite sex. The custom is still honored among many Native American tribes today. Two-spirit people are thought to be endowed with special powers and are often respected as exceptional medicine people. In recent times, some two-spirits have transitioned between the gay world and the traditionalist world.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by djjoshuaallen do you have the patience to carry this thread on tranceaddict on for 10 more years, that would be swell |
And even better if you stopped posting in this thread because it makes you smell like my piss after I've eaten a bucket of asparagus. Go play in traffic.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by naeblis So does polygamy and other alternatives to a 'traditional' family. You can't necessarily throw that argument out, if you are going to claim that all people that form a 'family' should be allowed to marry. |
| quote: |
| After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice... |
| quote: |
| To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two? |
Some people in this forum apparently want to gloss over the facts in favor of their own prejudices, because either they can't apprehend #8 in my post, or perhaps worse, they don't care to take the time to hear both sides of this debate to produce a more healthy, honest debate.
8.) Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, life-long advocate of freedom and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
The *conservative* court ruled that there was *no* legitimate reason that same-gender, consenting adults, should *not* have the equal right to the pursuit of happiness afforded by marriage.
Again, this was after the conservative judges heard hours of testimony from many on *both* sides and deliberated for weeks to study the negative effects, if any, of same-gender marriage in places where it is legal. The judges had to do this themselves, because like many posts in this forum elluding to polygamy and Muslim extremism as a rational defense of "societal norms", the anti-gay-marriage "experts" did not present the court with any compelling reasons.
The conservative judges nor their staff could find any compelling examples of negative societal outcomes resulting from gay marriage in other countries nor in Massachusetts, nor could those arguing against gay marriage before the court.
Thus, we had a fair and balanced ruling, based on deliberations that went much further, deeper and wider than the prejudices, hypothetical fear-mongering about polygamy, unfounded speculative about under-population, and other kinds of lies posted all over the interenet to support those prejudices.
It's like the 1950s all over again, except this time the scape-goat for their own insecurities are millions of same-gender couples, most of whom are upstanding citizens who mean no one any harm. To the contrary, some of them have become the light of the world and martyrs for the continued fight for human rights.
History judges the maturity and fairness of a nation's people by the equality given to their minorities. History has been understandably harsh on the *majority* who chanted prejudicial lies and undigested slogans such as "activist judges" when the law against interracial marriage was ruled UNconstitutional. In this ever-evolving world, history will be equally harsh on those who are now chanting the same undigested slogans.
Now the divorce laws need to be changed!!
I'm very excited for this because straight marriage divorces laws always fuck the man! Now hopefully a smart lawyer will be able to argue so that men no longer get fucked over based on equality of both straight and gay marriages.
in2muzikk, I am so proud to be your friend, because you have a great talent for eloquent and diplomatic communication. We must be steadfast in remembering that evil happens when good people do not speak up or do nothing. I've witnessed even a KKK "grand dragon" throwing away her hood and cloak after hearing the voice of universal understanding.
I give thanks to you and everyone else who sounded a note of reason in terms of minority equality and their right to the pursuit of happiness.
Many self-proclaimed "conservatives" I know are relatively good natured and mean well, but conservative extremism insists on living in a past that never was or in some cases, never should have been. Discrimination of any kind diminishes us all, and the conservative Court rightly ruled so.
Luv and peace,
Chris
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mobius9 The fact I brought up with marriage being about child birth isn't based on the ability to have functioning reproductive organs, that's ridiculous. It is about being generally classified as having the genitalia to do so. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mobius9 Your argument states that same sex couples count as natural families because they have the ability to adopt or circumvent the natural insemination process. Adoption and artificial insemination are wonderful options for same sex couples, however, they are the only option for 2 people of the same sex to start a family. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mobius9 I'm simply pointing out legal facts about the issue that haven't been taken into consideration in the thread yet. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mobius9 Another example: What about male soldiers taking advantage of the gay marriage law in order to shorten their brother's tour of duty? From knowledge off the top of my head, being married shortens the post-active reserve period by 2 years for a US soldier (in our current situation, many ARE re-called into duty during this normally 4 year long period). Every single soldier I know would pull a Chuck-and-Larry in two seconds, simply because they're not paid enough for the danger oriented job they do. What seems clear to me is that your arguments are based on opinion oriented statements. You've fought back by taking obscure viewpoints on my statements that could be considered connotations at best. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by |Thrax| what i mean by that is; America was founded by Liberal puritan Christian fundamentalists. Therefor; marriage is still viewed as somewhat sacred, people hate when you step on their shoes. |
this country was founded by polymaths, lawyers, inventors, radicals, revolutionaries and freethinkers. it was hijacked by the protestants and subsequently festered like a septic wound by the free-enterprise nature of religion.
Well stated, Rich. I would only add that if two same-gender soldiers had the constitutional right to marry, more power to them. But most do not at this time, and probably not in the very near future. So once again we are hearing more hypothetical fear-mongering and distortions from others on this board. Such nonsense is so out of whack that it can only be based in emotional prejudices.
For those who make such baseless arguments, there is *nothing* in the constitution that states any person *has to* serve in the army. To the contrary, the worse form of communism is to claim that an individual's life belongs to state or the group. It doesn't in any form of real democracy. The very essence of freedom is that an individual's life belongs to the individual and no one else.
I will fight to the death to *defend* my country, family and friends, but I will never initiate an *attack* nor ask anyone to give up their life for me, nor give up my life for others by blindly following orders like a robot.
Especially orders from old gluttonous rich men in Washington who are willing to sacrifice us based on their knee-jerk reactions to faulty "intelligence documents" that were never fully investigated. By the way, for the bible thumpers, the bible mentions gluttony as an abomination far more than same-gender sex. Further, Jesus never mentioned same-gender sex in any way, unless you include his passionate mutual love with Paul.
Further, two of the ten commandments are to keep the Sabbath holy and not work, and to honor thy father. Considering how many fathers have abused their wives and children and how many people either work on the Sabbath or support those who do, that leaves out almost no one in terms of habitual abominations. But of course for many religious people, anti-gay sentiments are not about honestly adhering to their religion but more about their personal prejudices.
My ethics are simple: Don't treat others how *you* want to be treated - they may not want what you want. Treat others how *they* want to be treated, within reason. I would never be so morally depraved and deprived as to ask anyone to initiate aggression half way around the the world to kill and be killed for me. A person and a nation has a right to defend force with force, but not to *initiate* it. If individuals and nations were allowed to conduct "preemptive strikes" because they *heard* that we can *potentially* harm them, then the world wouldn't be a very neighborly place, and would probably quickly be unpopulated. Yet, such has been the philosophy of team Bush / Cheney / Rove, with the army marching goose-step to Bush's every bid and calling.
If we include the lives of Iraqis, and I hope we do, the current war in Iraq has cost more lives in the past five years than Saddam had taken out in nearly fifty years. Not to mention nearly a trillion dollars borrowed from China that future administrations will have to pay because Bush didn't want to raise the taxes of this wealthy friends who whine every time they are asked to contribute to the nation's *real* security here at home, our infrastructure, fire & police protection, schools, insurance and a thousand other things they benefit from through their precious taxes.
Sorry to mix up war in all of this, but some people are even playing the army card in a rigged deck to justify anti-gay bigotry.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.