jcd11235 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteI think my standards are quite clear - I do not like crooks, pedophiles or hypocrites.
WTF is wrong with dopers?
Well, if they're not driving, flying, in command of boats, driving trains, skydiving, riding bikes, running nuclear power plants, passing laws or sending troops off to war, I guess they're OK.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
ExAFO 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteI think my standards are quite clear - I do not like crooks, pedophiles or hypocrites.
WTF is wrong with dopers?
Well, if they're not driving, flying, in command of boats, driving trains, skydiving, riding bikes, running nuclear power plants, passing laws or sending troops off to war, I guess they're OK.
What about:
Proctology?
Rabbis at a Bris?
Veterinary surgery?
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
sundevil777 102
Quote
Exactly what moral standards that have been violated by Repubs would the Dems exclude themselves from following.
Being gay. Because most Dems don't view it as being morally wrong, the GOP on the hand view it as mortal sin. But it seems like every other week a new rupub is being outed. Bill Mahr said it best when he said that the next GOP convention needs to be held in a giant closet.
Fair enough, but not similar to the type of corruption trouble as Rep. Ney.
Many Republicans do not approve of gays and gay marriage. Many Dem leaders in congress also have voted against gay marriage, enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, the don't ask, don't tell policy, etc.
But there are the Log Cabin Republicans, however. Mark Foley could have just admitted he was gay without losing his position in congress. When a Republican member comes out as a result of a sex scandal with an underage page, that is a bit different.
I think it is hypocritical to support gay marriage, but not allow polygamy, or even marriage between relatives. I think the same arguments apply - what goes on in private...doesn't affect my marriage...why shouldn't 2 or 3 people in a loving relationship be allowed...However, I've been called lots of nasty names when I make the comparison. I feel that if it is OK to deny a polygamist their marriage rights, then I should be able to oppose gay marriage without being labeled a 'phobe.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
Amazon 7
QuoteI think it is hypocritical to support gay marriage, but not allow polygamy, or even marriage between relatives. I think the same arguments apply - what goes on in private...doesn't affect my marriage...why shouldn't 2 or 3 people in a loving relationship be allowed...However, I've been called lots of nasty names when I make the comparison. I feel that if it is OK to deny a polygamist their marriage rights, then I should be able to oppose gay marriage without being labeled a 'phobe.
Hell just move to southern Utah if you want a plural marriage.. its common there.
Relatives on the other hand.... BAD idea...for genetics reasons mainly. Any kind of unwanted recessive traits can be accentuated when you go swimming in your own gene pool.
But all the things you list ARE different... personally If two men want to live together and make a household... it has ZERO bearing on my life.
If you want to marry a woman.. and then have a sister wife or two...... go for it...it has ZERO effect on my life.....
sundevil777 102
QuoteQuoteI think it is hypocritical to support gay marriage, but not allow polygamy, or even marriage between relatives. I think the same arguments apply - what goes on in private...doesn't affect my marriage...why shouldn't 2 or 3 people in a loving relationship be allowed...However, I've been called lots of nasty names when I make the comparison. I feel that if it is OK to deny a polygamist their marriage rights, then I should be able to oppose gay marriage without being labeled a 'phobe.
Hell just move to southern Utah if you want a plural marriage.. its common there.
Relatives on the other hand.... BAD idea...for genetics reasons mainly. Any kind of unwanted recessive traits can be accentuated when you go swimming in your own gene pool.
But all the things you list ARE different... personally If two men want to live together and make a household... it has ZERO bearing on my life.
If you want to marry a woman.. and then have a sister wife or two...... go for it...it has ZERO effect on my life.....
Polygamy in Utah is common, but not legal. Utah had to make it illegal in order to become a state.
Marriage with relatives is risky for children, but some relationships have no possibility for that risk, for instance if one is sterile, too old, or if it were a gay/lesbian marriage.
So, you agree with my comparison, that it is a good analogy?
The current situation is that there are very few people that would be OK with such marriages, but a person is only a 'phobe if they oppose gay marriage. Gay rights advocates don't want any comparisons made to polygamy or marriage with relatives. Their issue is to be considered by itself, with no such comparison being valid. I think that position is unreasonable.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteI think it is hypocritical to support gay marriage, but not allow polygamy, or even marriage between relatives. I think the same arguments apply - what goes on in private...doesn't affect my marriage...why shouldn't 2 or 3 people in a loving relationship be allowed...However, I've been called lots of nasty names when I make the comparison. I feel that if it is OK to deny a polygamist their marriage rights, then I should be able to oppose gay marriage without being labeled a 'phobe.
Hell just move to southern Utah if you want a plural marriage.. its common there.
Relatives on the other hand.... BAD idea...for genetics reasons mainly. Any kind of unwanted recessive traits can be accentuated when you go swimming in your own gene pool.
But all the things you list ARE different... personally If two men want to live together and make a household... it has ZERO bearing on my life.
If you want to marry a woman.. and then have a sister wife or two...... go for it...it has ZERO effect on my life.....
One wife is enough.
If it flies, floats or f*cks, renting is best.
(edited to add - personal experience with owning all three)
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Amazon 7
Quotebut a person is only a 'phobe if they oppose gay marriage
But the reality is.. that most of the people who support the ban on a gay marriage do so on their basis of hatred for gays...
Do you really beleive most of those same people would support some form of civil union????
Its all that loving the sinner but hating the sin... but most just go on and hate the sinners as well.
chigbee 0
Fair enough, but not similar to the type of corruption trouble as Rep. Ney.
Agreed.
Many Republicans do not approve of gays and gay marriage. Many Dem leaders in congress also have voted against gay marriage, enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, the don't ask, don't tell policy, etc.
True, I think this is because they are afraid of what will happen come election time. They are cowards.
I think it is hypocritical to support gay marriage, but not allow polygamy, or even marriage between relatives. I think the same arguments apply - what goes on in private...doesn't affect my marriage...why shouldn't 2 or 3 people in a loving relationship be allowed...However, I've been called lots of nasty names when I make the comparison. I feel that if it is OK to deny a polygamist their marriage rights, then I should be able to oppose gay marriage without being labeled a 'phobe.
Agreed.
Many Republicans do not approve of gays and gay marriage. Many Dem leaders in congress also have voted against gay marriage, enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, the don't ask, don't tell policy, etc.
True, I think this is because they are afraid of what will happen come election time. They are cowards.
I think it is hypocritical to support gay marriage, but not allow polygamy, or even marriage between relatives. I think the same arguments apply - what goes on in private...doesn't affect my marriage...why shouldn't 2 or 3 people in a loving relationship be allowed...However, I've been called lots of nasty names when I make the comparison. I feel that if it is OK to deny a polygamist their marriage rights, then I should be able to oppose gay marriage without being labeled a 'phobe.
I wholeheartedly agree. I have absolutely no problem with polygamy (as long as no one is underage). I actually have an uncle who has 2 wives and 4 kids with both women. Just because it seems insane to me (and especially my wife), doesnt mean it should be illegal.
What I do have a problem with is this gov't making things illegal because God says it is bad. This is the same line of reasoning that the Taliban used when it stoned women for adultery or fornication. This should probably be made into a thread of its own though.
Lindsey 0
What I do have a problem with is this gov't making things illegal because God says it is bad.
That's the important distinction right there. Even though many of us share similar values/morals, not all of us think that legislating our own morality is the right thing to do. I think that having basic respect for other people would keep us from trying to limit other people's choices in life to those that fit into one constricted view of what's right and wrong.
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
Amazon 7
QuoteThat's the important distinction right there. Even though many of us share similar values/morals, not all of us think that legislating our own morality is the right thing to do. I think that having basic respect for other people would keep us from trying to limit other people's choices in life to those that fit into one constricted view of what's right and wrong.
You do realize that you will have one of thoswe people come in here any minute now and equate gays being together... with some guy who wants to marry his dog...happens every time
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Even though many of us share similar values/morals, not all of
>us think that legislating our own morality is the right thing to do.
Yep. Indeed, I don't think the US government should be in the business of marrying people at all. That's a role better filled by churces. The US government _does_ have a role in setting up legal civil unions, which should be available to all regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion etc.
Heck, it wouldn't even change the process. When we got married, we went to town hall and got a "marriage license" - then went to a church and got married. Would make a lot more sense (and work out the same in the end) to go to town hall to get the civil union, then go to the church and get married.
>us think that legislating our own morality is the right thing to do.
Yep. Indeed, I don't think the US government should be in the business of marrying people at all. That's a role better filled by churces. The US government _does_ have a role in setting up legal civil unions, which should be available to all regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion etc.
Heck, it wouldn't even change the process. When we got married, we went to town hall and got a "marriage license" - then went to a church and got married. Would make a lot more sense (and work out the same in the end) to go to town hall to get the civil union, then go to the church and get married.
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhat I do have a problem with is this gov't making things illegal because God says it is bad.
And what laws would those be?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuotebut a person is only a 'phobe if they oppose gay marriage
But the reality is.. that most of the people who support the ban on a gay marriage do so on their basis of hatred for gays...
Do you really beleive most of those same people would support some form of civil union????
Would it surprise you that approximately 1/3rd of Americans favor gay marriage, but over 1/2 of Americans support civil unions? That's over a fifty percent increase. Additionally, 25% of those opposed to gay marriage, are not opposed to civil unions.
If you can figure out why there is a significant difference of opinion between gay marriage and civil unions, you might be able to see that this is much more than a simple, back and white, good/bad, all or nothing situation.
sfc 1
QuoteQuoteWhat I do have a problem with is this gov't making things illegal because God says it is bad.
And what laws would those be?
Terri Schiavo, abortion, stem cell research
ExAFO 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I do have a problem with is this gov't making things illegal because God says it is bad.
And what laws would those be?
Terri Schiavo, abortion, stem cell research
Tattoos (some states), Porn, sex toys, (OK) Alcohol (Utah)...
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I do have a problem with is this gov't making things illegal because God says it is bad.
And what laws would those be?
Terri Schiavo, abortion, stem cell research
Schiavo - please show me where it says "God says it is bad" in the bill?
Abortion - Roe v. Wade says that a woman has the right to have an abortion. Not sure where you got that one from - I don't see Bush signing an EO making abortion illegal.
Stem cell research - here's some historical info from the Bioethics panel:
QuoteIn 1993, Congress enacted the NIH Revitalization Act, a provision of which rescinded the requirement that research protocols be approved by the non-existent Ethics Advisory Board.5 This change opened the way in principle to the possibility of NIH funding for human embryo research using IVF embryos. The following year, the NIH convened a Human Embryo Research Panel to consider the issues surrounding such research and to propose guidelines for potential funding applications. The panel recommended that some areas of human embryo research be deemed eligible for federal funding within a framework of recognized ethical safeguards. It further concluded that the creation of human embryos with the explicit intention of using them only for research purposes should be supported under some circumstances.6 President Clinton overruled the panel on the latter point, ordering that embryo creation for research not be funded, but he accepted the panel’s other recommendations and permitted the NIH to consider applications for funding of research using embryos left over from IVF procedures.7
Congress, however, did not endorse this course of action. In 1995, before any funding proposal had ever been approved by the NIH, Congress attached language to the 1996 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (the budget bill that funds DHHS and the NIH) prohibiting the use of any federal funds for research that destroys or seriously endangers human embryos, or creates them for research purposes.
This provision, known as the “Dickey Amendment” (after its original author, former Representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas), has been attached to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill each year since 1996. Everything about the subsequent debate over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research must be understood in the context of this legal restriction. The provision reads as follows:
None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).iii
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘human embryo or embryos’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.8
Looks like this happened on Clinton's watch, and Bush agrees with and is upholding the letter of the law. Of course, "Bush upholds Clinton's Stem Cell Ban" doesn't sound near as sexy as "Bush forbids life-saving Stem Cell Research".
The other thing the papers usually fail to mention is that there is nothing that says private firms can't do research...merely that gov't funds can't be used for it. But again, that doesn't make for as good of a Bush-bash...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I do have a problem with is this gov't making things illegal because God says it is bad.
And what laws would those be?
Terri Schiavo, abortion, stem cell research
Tattoos (some states), Porn, sex toys, (OK) Alcohol (Utah)...
Talk to your fellow citizens about that...bills don't happen in a vacuum. Someone has to convince the legislator to submit it.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Amazon 7
QuoteTalk to your fellow citizens about that...bills don't happen in a vacuum. Someone has to convince the legislator to submit it
Not everyone goes to church on Sunday mornings to get the latest greatest push they are making politically.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteTalk to your fellow citizens about that...bills don't happen in a vacuum. Someone has to convince the legislator to submit it
Not everyone goes to church on Sunday mornings to get the latest greatest push they are making politically.
No, some evidently get the 'reverends' to visit them for 'prayer meetings' and (most likely) commiserations about mutual problems with women...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Amazon 7
QuoteNo, some evidently get the 'reverends' to visit them for 'prayer meetings' and (most likely) commiserations about mutual problems with women...
Then again if you are the president you can get the head of the Evangelicals Organizations to get on a conference call with you... well at least untill you find out he is having a gay affair.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat I do have a problem with is this gov't making things illegal because God says it is bad.
And what laws would those be?
Terri Schiavo, abortion, stem cell research
Tattoos (some states), Porn, sex toys, (OK) Alcohol (Utah)...
The post you quoted referenced our federal government (I assume). Which gov't are you talking about?
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteNo, some evidently get the 'reverends' to visit them for 'prayer meetings' and (most likely) commiserations about mutual problems with women...
Then again if you are the president you can get the head of the Evangelicals Organizations to get on a conference call with you... well at least untill you find out he is having a gay affair.
Yup...and if you're a Democratic Congressman, you can actually have sex with an underage page (instead of just sending questionable emails) and not only *NOT* be censured by your peers, but be re-elected 6 more times!
We can play this game all day... how about we compromise and say there's shitbags on both sides of the aisle?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
WTF is wrong with dopers?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites