No, Tress, i would not. And, as i've mentioned more than once in this exchange, their displeasure or approval would be expressed at the next election. I would, add, however, that the assemblyman was speaking to the issue of the state of Maine passing a resolution on national policy, so he was speaking for more than just his own constituency.
Set - No, by definition he represents his constituency.
Yes, he represents his constituency, and his comments were on a resolution passed by the assembly, therefore his comments regarded an action taken on behalf of the entire constituency of the state of Maine, and therefore representing a good deal more of Maine's population than his spceific constituency.
I was in Hawaii from '96 - '99. I got to witness some of the debate about same sex marriage from up close. I had a lot of time to think about it, and come up with at least some semblance of an opinion on the matter. I even did a speech about it (against) in a class I was taking at the time.
There are several aspects of this debate that cause contention, and I don't pretend to have total grasp of all of them. One thing I can comment on is the tendency I noticed of some of the gay rights proponents to couch their arguments in terms of civil rights; to blatantly or implicitly align themselves with those who championed the move to lead the country out of Jim Crow. This is a loaded approach, because in order to engage someone in this regard, one has to buy into the idea that sexual orientation and behavior is as intrinsic as ethnicity. Not only that, but I'd have to buy into the idea that someone experiences discrimination on similar levels as a gay person, as he/she would if they were, say, black.
Although it may seem like it, because one side of the argument is fairly cowed into silence, the debate about whether homosexuality has anything to do with individual choice is not dead. And as to my point about discrimination, how many men do you think get stopped for driving while gay, or followed suspiciously in department stores because of their gayness? By definition, discrimination is picking and choosing on sight.
I hope the readers can see the natural segway between the points I've attempted to make, and the larger issue of gay marriage (or in PCspeak, same sex marriage).
snood, I don't completely agree with you; but, this is a topic for a different thread and I won't entertain it here. Have a good day!
I'm ready to put up a fight, Snood, if you'd like to start another thread!
------snood, I'm willing toooooooo!
Set - I understand you, but disagree, and I think we'll have to leave it at that on this point.
There is an existing discussion on same sex marriage, if anyone wants to jump into it:
Same Sex Marriage
Steve
Your post on page 236 regarding the issue of oil----great post---I disaggree that it's all about oil but it's near enough. And as you imply in your last paragraph, it's because that much oil has a global consequence of huge proportions-----Now you have France, Germany and Russia blocking and stirring up trouble for the same reasons. Which is the most self serving block of nations in this picture? Keeping in mind that France, Germany and Russia want the Status Quo meaning that Saddam will keep the wealth for his personal use and to hell with the Iraqi people. The obvious question now hinges on whether the US/ British block will do as we say and attempt to provide the Iraqi people with the wealth. You be the judge. Which side is most likely to have the best intentions for the Iraqi people, national interests and global interests?
Oh--Steve I hasten to add----I forgot to give you credit for that great last line----Quote: "Oil makes the link between the stone age and the nuclear age" end Quote.
perception
I guess I'll throw my agreement in here as well. It does seem kind of silly to be arguing that it is about oil for A but is not about oil for B when the reality is that it is about oil to some extent for all.
Its not solely about oil true. But to deny oil comes into the equation is either naive or disengenuous.
BBC tv debate going on right nowTHE WAR AIMS
(in no particular order)
Removal of Saddam
Destruction of WMD
Control of Oil
Establishment of democracy (in Iraq that is, USA a lost cause)
Defeat of international terrorism
I would add something else
The protection of Israel by the elimination of Israel's primary enemy (Israel will strike first as soon as mossad confirms Saddam has nuclear weapons) hence: the prevention of nuclear war tomorrow by conventional war today
(the bit about USA was a joke, lighten up you people!)
If that was a joke, Steve, why do i feel like crying rather than laughing?
Set, It's because "truth" hurts. c.i.
Kara
Maybe you read something into my post that was not there----think of it from an Iraqi point of view----With Saddam they may be jerked out of their bed at night and thrown into one of his torture chambers------With us they may someday have the ACLU!
Set,
there is a french word, similar but different from the capital of n korea, which i will now attempt
Poignancy
heeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
ah, Boss, sometimes you crack me up . . .
there is another french word, foutu, but we've already had that discussion . . .
