Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

george

You can't make the 'dilution' move. It would be impossible to demonstrate it. Thus, it is an argument quite like those which seek to restrict women's right to vote, or to restrict immigration - you create a subclass of citizen based on intuition. But I don't think intuition is the proper word here at all.

And if you want to speak to the question of 'modern stressors on the family', then allowing gay marriage is just about the least consequential point of address you might come up with.

0 Replies

suz

Yes, the fundamentalist right WILL jump all over this one (as they will with the Moore decision). This is thinking, and voting, with all the intellectual sophistication that the Taliban was proud of. Easy answers, authority trumping all else, white hats and demons clearly and incontrovertably labelled.

0 Replies

I have a real problem with those who use particular words about any minority, and those words are "allow" and "tolerate." I don't think it is the job of the majority to decide whether they will "allow" or "tolerate" a minority -- not, at least, outside of the privacy of their own homes! Any thinking along these lines strikes me as arrogant in the extreme, or "elitist." What right has any of us to decide who is to be tolerated -- aside, of course, from those who break a law. And come to that, what right has any of us to stand behind laws which go beyond providing us freedom and security to give the second-class citizenship of any group whose "life-style" we find odd? The discussion of gay marriage in the context of "should we allow it" strikes me as completely off-base and very telling.

0 Replies

Thomas,

I agree with you about Bush's failure to veto any spending authorizations. I suspect his strategy is to eventually starve the government beast, but, in the interim, avoid any fractious confrontations over current spending plans as part of an essentially political,as opposed to governance, tactic.

Blatham, Tart,

I frankly don't understand your last posts. I have no objection whatever to civil formalization of homosexual unions. None. My only concern is for the further dilution of a long-standing structure to provide needed support for those who undertake to produce and raise the next generation of taxpayers.

The fact is that gay marriage is not generally "allowed" in current law. Tart finds fault with those who would use this word, perhaps even to liberalize this law. Odd.

While I sympathize with her indignant call for the recognition of the rights of minorities, the autonomy of individuals, and the implied need for the majority to 'tolerate' just about anything, I find her statements in this area hypocritical in the extreme, given her persistent calls for the suppression of the freedom of expression of Christians.

0 Replies

Now, c'mon, george; can't you see that Christian Tradition is reactionary, while Gay Unions are progressive? There are limits to what must be tolerated, after all. Laughing

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

George, I think I've identified your problem with this issue; you are making it too personal by your quote "My only concern is...." With the explosion of the world population, your concern about pepetuation of the species is unwarranted - IMHO.

The fact is C.I. that the solution to the world population problem is already underway. Western middle class lifestyles have proven to be, by far, the most effective form of birth control. They are being adopted in China and India with already visible results. Female fertility in Europe is generally about 15% below the level required to even sustain the current population.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

When this president talks about the "sanctity of marriage," what the f.... is he talking about? Is he trying to imply that "marriage" is free from cheating, rape, murder, incest, etc., etc., etc.......?

Would you argue that because we have murder there is no such thing as the sanctity of life?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I don't see this as a zero sum problem in that "conventional marriage" is somehow lessened by also allowing "alternative marriage". Actually I see this as an attempt at inclusion of the vagaries of human relationships that could give credence and validity to as many as possible without any negative consequences. Unless, of course, those prefering a more conventional descriptor feel threatened by what they consider offensive whether or not it effects their lifestyle. Giving crediblity to others does not seem, to me, to detract from the more commonplace.

Well written. I agree completely.

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

When Dyslexia talks about "alternative marriage" is he speaking about one man married to many women?

I actually see no reason not to allow polyamory and recognize them with civil unions. Beyond that, you go to far, but I acknowledge your point... the line has to be drawn somewhere. In the end we draw it based on societal norms (when the Constitution fails to guide us as it does with this issue), and those (societal norms) do change over time.

0 Replies

Because, George, I think we have moved towards an interpretation of constitutional rights as something "allowed" to the citizen. Whereas they are more correctly limitations on what a government (or a majority) may be allowed. The Christian Right (for example) seeks to ally itself with government to place limits on those of whom it disapproves. That creates a dangerous imbalance and is, worse, wholly unconstitutional.

0 Replies

But you equivalently seek to limit the rights of those of whose ideas you disapprove. Blatant hypocrisy. I would not propose that either their rights to self-expression or yours should be so limited.

0 Replies

timber and george

The point is inclusion or exclusion, single ideological values or pluralist values.

The reason we laud this Mass. decision is that it is inclusive, and that it explicates how such inclusiveness is in agreement with the aims of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, and how, on the other hand, neither tradition nor the fact of offense in some portion of the population ought to trump the freedom principle.

That is the significant point of this court finding...that to restrict 'marriage' to heterosexual unions and to have available only a 'civil union' for gay couples IS to deny them equity, to deny them inclusion.

And that is so, precisely as if we were to allow only 'civil unions' and to deny 'marriage' status for interracial unions.

0 Replies

Blatham,

"Inclusion" like "diversity" is one of the several synthetic new transcendental virtues of the new PC religion. Both are frauds.

One does not owe 'equity' to things that are not comparable.

You have simply waved away the question of support for those who raise children.

0 Replies

george

Neither tart nor I seek to limit the rights of christians, other than in the manner we wish to limit any ideology which might itself seek, in its self-certainty that it possesses some greater truth, to limit all others within the polity, or to establish a set of acceptable state values.

That is the liberal notion, and it's the notion resident in the bill of rights and constitution.

The two following positions are not the same...
1) "In our society, X is allowable, and Y is not.
2) "In our society, X and Y are both allowable.

0 Replies

The irony of this, George, is that I'm taking the position of the conservative here!

I really do dislike the tendency to socially engineer. Both sides of the political spectrum have gotten into the habit of social engineering (I first noticed it on my side because it went against my notion of who we "liberals" really are).

Then each side has chosen its bêtes noires and tried to engineer them, through legislation, into an approved pattern or out of existence. Thus: gun control, sodomy, drugs, etc. In each case, one side or another has decided what is "best for society." It has run away from reality rather than ask: have those loving buggers caused direct harm to anyone?, has that individual gun collector caused injury or death?, does that pothead slap people about? To which the eager social engineer replies, Well, they cause great harm to a generality called "American values" (as defined by social engineer) or "coming generations." And usually those who stand up for these generations are those who live in the here and now, play little power games like other humans, are as likely as not to drive a gas gulper or cheat just a little on their taxes or who, in other ways, are not god.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Scrat wrote:
PD - Don't blame me if you can't read. The law reads explicitly of PRECINCTS, not counties. Your bias and willful ignorance is staggering! I expected more of you, but I suppose that was my error. In the end, you're just Tartarin with different plumbing.

Are you arguing that the initial recount of Gore's cherry-picked three PRECINCTS revealed an "error likely to effect the outcome"? If you are, then show me the numbers. If not, then suck it up and admit you were wrong, because THAT IS THE STANDARD THE LAW SETS FOR ALLOWING A FULL STATE-WIDE MANUAL RECOUNT.

If it says what you think it says, THEN CITE IT.

Paste it in, right here.

You haven't (after three challenges), because it doesn't.

Your miscomprehension, and arrogance associated with, is truly appalling.

Alas, not unexpected.

Once again (and not for you, Scrat, because you just can't get it):

The FOUR counties Gore had re-counted are/were Broward, Volusia, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach.

Not three and certainly not precincts.

Nor is there any standard nor requirement for recounting precincts (specifically from your first citation).

Florida state law mandated an automatic recount because of the closeness of the election, and Gore petitioned for an additional recount in the four counties I named.

Now.....it's time for you to PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

PD - Do I really have to paste the SAME TEXT over again? What then? Will you still pretend I didn't? Will you still pretend it doesn't exist? <sigh> Probably... Here, let me copy and paste if FROM EARLIER IN THIS VERY DISCUSSION:

Scrat wrote:

Here's the link:
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0102/ch0102.htm
* (Be sure the correct year is selected in the drop down list! You want Title IX, Ch 102 as was in place in 2000.)

And here's the relevent section, referring to what can LEGALLY be done following the manual recount of the 3 cherry-picked precincts (bold mine):

Quote:
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

The fact (there's that word again) is that the result of the original 3 precinct recount was well within the margin of error and therefor DID NOT indicate any error. Under the Florida election law in place at that time, a full manual recount of all precincts is NOT ALLOWED. Game over. You are done.

And since you want to hang on the minutia, here's this from just before that seciton:

Quote:

(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts...

Now, you can continue to bleat on about how what the law refers to as "precincts" are in reality counties, or you can actually THINK about the law and the specifics cited here. It's a simple "IF A then B" rule. A did not occur, so you don't get to go to B. Get it?

Now, let me copy and paste again to save myself some effort (but I'll edit it to try to force you to actually answer the f#$%ing question)...

Are you arguing that the initial recount of Gore's cherry-picked counties (which involved at least three precincts, get it?) revealed an "error likely to effect the outcome"? If you are, then show me the numbers. If not, then suck it up and admit you were wrong, because THAT IS THE STANDARD THE LAW SETS FOR ALLOWING A FULL STATE-WIDE MANUAL RECOUNT.

You can't go to the state-wide count without meeting that standard.

p.s. I got the nicest laugh at your calling someone else (me) arrogant. How rich! Bravo!

0 Replies

blatham, I see no need to restate my position on the matter. I really have no problem with equal protection under the law. All laws ought to apply to all people, all the time. However, while I do have a problem with it, the stauts quo is rather more exclusionary. Recognizing that for what it is is not endorsement of it, nor is it acceptance of it. It is merely recognition of the current condition. Things that are going on now will bring about greater, more equitable, fully appropriate legislative and socio-political accommodation of those currently, by virtue of minority sexual preference, accorded less than full citizenship. But first, a couple generations of voters, legislators, and judicians have to die off and be replaced by the upcoming crop, which younger worthies champion the cause.

0 Replies

Let me add a little fuel to the fire. I believe that gay coupling should be recognized for what it is a union of to people of the same sex to wish to form a life long union. It should be given all the benefits accrued through marriage but under no circumstances should the meaning of marriage as it has been known through the centuries be distorted to cover deviant relationships. It is not what has been traditionally termed marriage and I see no reason to make it so.

0 Replies

george

No, diversity and inclusion sit at the very heart of your bill of rights and constitution. Singularity and exclusion are precisely what those documents seek to minimize from your polity.

Earlier, I made the point that every advance in liberty (the Magna Carta, your Bill of Rights, sufferage, equality for blacks, free speech, etc) has been an advance against some earlier tradition which limited or denied liberty.

0 Replies

Tart, your reply above is probably the most cogent thing I've ever seen you write in the political arena. I haven't a quarrel with a thing you said.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know