1
   

America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?

 
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 07:40 pm
Re: so, much interests in little old me?
disenter512 wrote:
Quote:
But I hope you DO understand the underlying message: what the majority rules, is not always the correct thing to do.
[/QUOTE

First there are too many posts to respond each and every one. So, I will try to respond to as many as my time will allow.

So, Rick d' Israil you don't always agree with the majority? It's true that in the past men have looked down at women, whites have done the same to blacks and over time the wrongs have been smoothed over though some are not satisfied entirely.

I agree that people have made mistakes but if you pay close attention to my first post I was wondering why Homosexuals are rocking the boat when (and from most of your replys) they don't receive horrific treatment. Being Gay is for the most part a state of mind no one hast to know if you don't want them to. Our little dilemma seems to be of a moral nature what is right what is wrong and does anyone care?[/quote]

I suppose you've never heard of the fine art of curbing.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 07:44 pm
I'll hedge on what I said, foxfire, in that I haven't noticed you saying that sort of stuff about Craven and some others.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 08:13 pm
No prejudice allowed
Foxfyre wrote:
why are you so unwilling to compromise in any way so that most Americans can feel good about a realistic solution? Or are you one of the all or nothing camp?


Compromise? I can compromise if it doesn't involve evil.

Prejudice is an evil. I can never feel good about prejudice. I don't want to make it easy for other people to feel good about their prejudices. I am completely against prejudice. I am against prejudice in a religious way. I'm pretty sure that God told me two words: "No compromise."
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 08:27 pm
Here's a compromise
Here's a compromise that you might find acceptable:

We can establish a boundary line that runs across the United States. We can call it something like the Mason-Dixon line.

People who are against prejudice can live north of the line.

Everyone else can live south of the line.

There's a risk, however. Someday, this division could spur a civil war.

Wait. I think that already happened.
0 Replies
 
disenter512
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 08:35 pm
Deb... No God said burn in Hell sinners
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 08:52 pm
disenter512 wrote:
deb do you live on A2K cause I get the feeling you have a lot of time on your hands.


Yes. I moved here a month ago. I'm a full-time resident. My mission is to fight evil on A2K. You got a problem with that?

Quote:
Ok Mrs. Law why the passion and protection don't you read history?

Do you know that it has a tendency to repeat itself?

Take Rome for example: the first empire a strong military. The Seeds of disinagration started (and some people say it was St. Augustine and Christianity) when Homosexuality was allowed and it spun out of control the people didn't take pride in their military and everyone just sat around will the barbarinans sacked Rome. I don't know if it is true but toward the end most of the emperors could have been Gay like Nero. Any way America is headed toward moral, no we are in a trasitional period and sooner or later you will see I am right.


I know about history. I know about lessons to be learned from history. And yes, history tends to repeat itself. I think I already pointed that out several times in several ways.

I do not agree that the fall of Roman Empire can be blamed on homosexuality. You can also blame gay people for the bombing of Pearl Harbor if you want to, but I think the Japanese are responsible.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 08:57 pm
evil doers
disenter512 wrote:
Deb... No God said burn in Hell sinners


Then I suggest you take a some ointment with you . . . oh evil spreader of manure . . . I mean, prejudice . . . .
0 Replies
 
disenter512
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 09:10 pm
Find whatever helps you sleep at night person
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 09:11 pm
hmmmmm, the insurance industry is notoriously conservative in its thinking, but things are on the move ...

Quote:
When Tom Hroncich married his longtime male partner in Canada this year, the newlywed was delighted to receive well-wishes from the Canadian border guards, the Toronto marriage license clerks and the minister.

But he knew such embraces would not last.

A few weeks after the wedding, the Bay Shore man called Geico Auto Insurance to get a new, joint policy -- with all its spousal benefits -- but an insurance representative told him he was not eligible.

After Hroncich filed a complaint earlier this month, Geico quietly reversed that decision, saying it will offer married gay couples the same privileges that opposite-sex spouses receive. Three other insurers in New York -- Allstate, State Farm and Electric -- also said they will follow suit.

The decisions appear to make New York the first state in the nation that will not marry gay couples but will offer insurance benefits for such unions formed elsewhere, experts said.

Even as gay marriage opponents denounce the move, the issue is expected to have widespread implications for how businesses will respond as gay spouses in New York test their new rights under the law.

"This is about making sure that private companies and governmental agencies don't discriminate," said Alphonso David, an attorney with the Manhattan-based Lambda Legal Defense and Education fund, a gay civil rights advocacy group which pushed the issue for Hroncich. "This has broad-reaching implications."

Hroncich hailed the decision.

"We're hard working, tax-paying citizens," he said. "We're just looking for equal treatment under the law. We're not looking for anything special."

Under most insurance policies, when an individual is covered, his or her spouse is automatically covered as well, industry experts said. Some benefits are only offered to spouses, not to unmarried joint policy holders. And many policies, particularly for car insurance, offer cheaper rates to married couples than to singles, experts said.

"It would definitely be a more favorable rate for a married couple," said Maureen Sullivan, a spokeswoman for Allstate Insurance, one of the companies that now offers same-sex spousal benefits.

For example, Sullivan said, a 28-year-old man living in Massapequa, with a good driving record and a new Honda would spend about $400 a year more on insurance if he were single than if he were married.

"This is what we've been talking about: being treated as equal," said Kim Mills, education director for Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "There are still many impediments to reaching full equality."

There are more than 1,800 rights and benefits that heterosexual couples get when they marry in New York -- 1,100 of them federal benefits, including social security payments, immigration rights and tax breaks, according to the Manhattan-based Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay advocacy group.


click
0 Replies
 
disenter512
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 09:13 pm
Why do Gays get aids?

if it is normal and good then um maybe they wouldn't be the number one spreaders of the disease?? Just a thought ha ha


End
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 09:17 pm
Another homophobe's folk tale: aids is a gay disease.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 09:26 pm
Actually, the principle cause of the fall of the Roman Empire--the real fall--was the sacking of Constantinople in . . . 1204? (I'll go look it up.) Crusaders from western Europe, abetted and encouraged by their good christian priests and monks, murdered, looted and descrated holy places--good christians that they were. This marked the complete schism of the Roman from the Orthodox church. Coming as it did but a generation after the sack and destruction by crusaders in 1185 of Salonika, the second city of the empire at that time, it dealt a body blow to the revenues of the dwindling empire, and its ability to defend itself.

When the Turk finally poured over the Sea of Marmara and began fighting the Serbs and Bulgars for Adrianople (the city changed hands 17 times), the remnant of the Roman empire could only look on in horror, and wait it's turn. That came in 1453, on a warm spring day in may, when Constantine IX died at the head of his household troops, in the streets of the city named for his illustrious predecessor and namesake. Poor Rome, poor Roman empire--it only lasted about 2200 years.

Comparisons of Rome to the United States are not only specious and foolish, they are dull-witted and ill-informed, and pathetically full of conceit. We've barely been in existence for a tenth of the run of the Roman Empire. They were an oligarchic, plutocratic republic, and we're well on our way to that, but we're still pikers compared to them. Then they became a principiate empire--i'm sure the religious right would just go gaga over the Emperor George the First, and his cognomen, Nonsapiens.

Comparing the United States to the Roman Empire is a favorite pasttime, by those who know little of the history and significance of either, but have a "moral" axe to grind--the same thing the English did a few centuries ago. It is an ultimate case of apples to oranges--even were we to become a principiate empire, the world we inhabit in no way resembles that of two millenia ago, and the stakes are considerably higher. Sadly, it seems the competence of the population and government to look carefully to the welfare of themselves and their progeny, however, not to have changed.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 09:31 pm
"Just a thought". disenter? Not much information though.

Quote:

Among young people aged 15-24 in sub-Saharan Africa, far more girls and women are infected than men.


Quote:
Worldwide, women account for nearly half of all people with HIV.


Quote:
Of the 7.4 million living with HIV in Asia, 5.1 million are in India. Sharp increases were seen in China, Indonesia and Vietnam, where the spread is driven by intravenous drug use, prostitution and unprotected sex among homosexual males.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the number of infections has stabilized at 25 million, though the 3 million new infections kept pace with AIDS deaths. Women make up 57 percent of those in Africa with HIV, the report said.

In high-income countries, AIDS deaths have slowed, but there are signs of increased heterosexual transmission in western Europe, the report said. In the United States, AIDS is the leading cause of death for African-American women aged 25-34.


link

Lots of good info out there right now, as
Quote:
The XV International AIDS Conference was held in Bangkok, Thailand last week.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 09:52 pm
disenter512 wrote:
Why do Gays get aids?

if it is normal and good then um maybe they wouldn't be the number one spreaders of the disease?? Just a thought ha haquote]

what's so goddam ha ha about anyone getting AIDS? How old are you ? 15?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 11:38 pm
In fact, in Africa, at the least, heterosexual males spread the disease, and their wives and children are the most common victims.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 12:28 am
McGentrix wrote:

Yes, they are doing this. By granting homosexuals marriage, they are forcing Catholics to recognize an affront to their religion.


No, McGentrix they are not. Nobody is forcing the Catholics to think it's their business.

Nobody is "forcing" them. Laughing

Quote:
Yes, they are granting them special rights. They have the right to marry now. They want special rights to marry someone that isn't the opposite sex.


To take a page from your book, heterosexuals will have the right too. <shrugs>
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 12:58 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
disenter512 wrote:
Why do Gays get aids?

if it is normal and good then um maybe they wouldn't be the number one spreaders of the disease?? Just a thought ha haquote]

what's so goddam ha ha about anyone getting AIDS? How old are you ? 15?


I'll second that.

disenter
If you can laugh about AIDS, then you must think cancer is a riot!

Bear
I think you're giving he/she too much credit. I was thinking more on the lines of this person being no more than 12 ;-)
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 01:04 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

Yes, they are doing this. By granting homosexuals marriage, they are forcing Catholics to recognize an affront to their religion.


No, McGentrix they are not. Nobody is forcing the Catholics to think it's their business.

Nobody is "forcing" them. Laughing

Quote:
Yes, they are granting them special rights. They have the right to marry now. They want special rights to marry someone that isn't the opposite sex.


To take a page from your book, heterosexuals will have the right too. <shrugs>


Exactly!

McG
I'm Catholic and that doesn't give me any special right to dictate what others do with their lives. It's none of my business!
0 Replies
 
kitchenpete
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 04:00 am
Deb-Law

I haven't seen you on the threads before but it's been a pleasure to read well articulated ideas, backed with examples from case law.

Setanta

I just knew that you'd blow the "Gays cause the downfall of Rome" story out of the water.

ehBeth

Thanks for giving some facts about AIDS. Maybe the disenter will learn something - and (when he's old enough Laughing) might practice safe sex!

For myself - as a first step, civil union with identical rights to "marriage" is required. If it's not called "marriage", however, drafting laws, etc. will be that much more complicated.

What if I want a civil union with a woman? Do I have that right...or am I ONLY allowed to marry or co-habit, with consequently fewer rights?

Talk of "sin" etc. makes me want to puke - religion is the oldest and most vile way of creating a social agenda which supports the status quo. I'm not against "faith", just the use of "God's word", as interpreted by grey haired men, being used to inform social policy or public mores.

KP
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 07:02 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

Yes, they are doing this. By granting homosexuals marriage, they are forcing Catholics to recognize an affront to their religion.


No, McGentrix they are not. Nobody is forcing the Catholics to think it's their business.

Nobody is "forcing" them. Laughing

Quote:
Yes, they are granting them special rights. They have the right to marry now. They want special rights to marry someone that isn't the opposite sex.


To take a page from your book, heterosexuals will have the right too. <shrugs>


Your right, no one is "forcing" them to do anything. The Catholic stand on gay marriage. Don't know if you have read that before.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 02:48:23