Agree or Disagree with Zell Miller???

[Royd 0]

I've never seen a gay person who didn't have just as many rights as I do.

Quote

I've met several. If you've never met a gay person who didn't have as many rights as you do, you haven't met many gay people.

They have the ability to get an education, jobs, housing, utilities, food, transportation, the right to vote, to bear arms, free speech, on and on.

I do not need to telegraph my sexual preferences to get something that others do not have.

[billvon 3,095]

>They have the ability to get an education . . .

They do not have the right to marry those they love. That's a very big difference, one you would be screaming about if it was denied you.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

for some reason the URL's aren't taking, copy and paste the sources if need be.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

A progressive would look at the outcome and find ways to improve.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Lucky... 0]

No problem whatsoever, I'm just trying to define the word, "progressive" for you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>If you had to put what progressive means into two (or three)
>sentences that relate to politics, what would you say?

A progressive advocates progress, change and reform. A conservative favors keeping things as they are and maintaining old habits and traditions. A "regressive" (don't know anyone like this; they are rare) favors a return to older traditions and values.

A progressive advocates attempts at improving conditions for people, and encourages more enlightened liberal ideas or methods as opposed to maintaining traditional ideas and methods.

An example - A conservative might try to solve the energy shortage by drilling for more oil. A progressive might favor increased reliance on solar and wind power. A regressive might favor bringing horses back to replace cars.

God damnit that's good.

[Lucky... 0]

Well, the dictionary example defines it just as Bill did. I had a conversation recently with a guy over the word, "Imperialism." He came back and wrote, "Yea, I don;t like that definition." Shit, I'm sorry, I can't fucking rewrite it, I'm not dishonest.

I know you don;t like to think if your party that way, but it's true. This is one reason I changed parties. The Repubs (neo-conc not Lincoln Repubs) are for traditional things, which is why they are considered the ones favoring antimiscegenation, discrimination, etc. Essentially, they are the good ole boys, hence, Grand Ole Party.

Quote

I also think a progressive liberal mind set tries to diminish personal responsibility.

This is cliche. Do you think the mess Reagan/Bush/Bush has made is fraught with personal responsibility? From a 1T debt to 8.7T in 26 years is not responsible, esp since the only ones getting rich are the corps. Is that repsonsible or extortion?

Quote

Thew want to destroy tradition and label those that do not agree with them. I also think some of the more radical are socially destructive. Example, language and cultural pc thinking.

No, they don;t wanna wipe out the old foggy neo-cos, they want to allow more room for more ideas, teh neo-cons want only their deas.

Quote

They are less tolerant of differing views and work to use courts to install what they believe to be correct.

No, if a guy wants to be a conservative maggot, great. If a guy wants to be gay, so what? The restrictive maggots ar ethe righties, they want to cancel out gays, abortion, anything new. Look at the homophobe amendment that was shot down, it was about anti-progressiveness.

Quote

Progressives do not want alternate schooling because they loose indroctrination chances.

No, school vouchers were a backdoor way for teh fundies to pipe off $$ to Christian schools. Remember that thing about the 1st and the gov not establishing any religion?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'm seeing a lot of talk about Gay rights now. What's that have to do with the speech?

Gay rights has a lot to do with thpeach.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

As for my little story, if someone with a true progressive mind had been doing the work, I would not have been called to fix a major screw up that would have eventually caused serious damage, if left to run its course.

A person's work ethic and their political progressiveness are not correlated. OK, you cleaned up a messy job from some guys, are they a bunch of ass-pounders because they did shitty work? Jesus.

Quote

Quality before quantity is a basic conservative mindset.

This is self-gratification: my party is better than your party....

Quote

It was your precious Democrat party that was a major roadblock to desegragation in the sixties, and today it's people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who hate for a free man to be free.

OH God, how so? LBJ signed civil right legislation in teh 60's, your arg ha no merit. Then teh Yellow Dog Dems in teh south switched parties.

Quote

As to abortion rights, I'm sure that if they had a voice, there are about 30 to 40 million souls who never got a chance to reach their full potential, who would argue against "progression."

Progression isn't adverised as a soul saver, just forward-looking.

Quote

I've never seen a gay person who didn't have just as many rights as I do.

I don't think they have rights of survivorship with their partners. They don;t have rights of protection against self-incrimination to include a spouse as do hetero married couples. So you are wrong.

Quote

Here's another great example of progressive thinking. NAMBLA.

That's a criminal element that all libs I know are disgusted with. Desperate.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I've never seen a gay person who didn't have just as many rights as I do.

Quote

I've met several. If you've never met a gay person who didn't have as many rights as you do, you haven't met many gay people.

They have the ability to get an education, jobs, housing, utilities, food, transportation, the right to vote, to bear arms, free speech, on and on.

I do not need to telegraph my sexual preferences to get something that others do not have.

Again, the same rights to married couples in regard to self-incrimination do not apply, you are wrong.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Again, the same rights to married couples in regard to self-incrimination do not apply, you are wrong.

So, what you are saying here is that two male thieves who want impunity from each other simply should have the ability to get married?

By your thinking, they don't have to have a sexual attraction or even love one another.

This type of nonsense is where the slippery slope of liberalism, excuse me, progressivism, takes us as a society.

The closer we move to anarchy the better you like it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So, what you are saying here is that two male thieves who want impunity from each other simply should have the ability to get married?

By your thinking, they don't have to have a sexual attraction or even love one another.

This type of nonsense is where the slippery slope of liberalism, excuse me, progressivism, takes us as a society.

Your lack of understanding of Constitutional law is exceeded by.... nothing.

The 5th Amendment, amongst other things provides for protection against self-incrimination. If you are married that protection extends to your spouse in that they cannot be compelled to testify against you.

Of course as you know it, if people are arrested they are automatically guilty, but in the real world innocent people are tried allof teh time and should not be compelled to testify if they hoose not to, as wel as their spouse should not be compelled to testify against them.

In your perfect world homosexuals do not have that protection. Congratulations, you live in your perfect world. Now tell me that homosexuals have = rights.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

By your thinking, they don't have to have a sexual attraction or even love one another.

Hate to shock you but soooo many hetero marriages are based on greed, lust, favor, and all kinds of other things except sexual attraction and / or love. They still enjoy all of teh right/privs of marriage.

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

>They have the ability to get an education . . .

They do not have the right to marry those they love. That's a very big difference, one you would be screaming about if it was denied you.

If you want a union with your significant other, fine. Heterosexuals have that. However, I believe what he was getting at is that gays should not have college funds or anything special provided to them based on sexual preference. I mean that only makes sense. I can understand programs for minorities if they didn't have the equal opportunity to acquire benefits, but when the phrase "I prefer" comes into play, special benefits should not be factored into the equation. How can you prove who is eligible?? Have a test??? I'd sure like to see who volunteers to administer that test. Next you know we will have people exploiting it because they prefer the color red over blue. Lets get real!

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Well, the dictionary example defines it just as Bill did. I had a conversation recently with a guy over the word, "Imperialism." He came back and wrote, "Yea, I don;t like that definition." Shit, I'm sorry, I can't fucking rewrite it, I'm not dishonest.

I know you don;t like to think if your party that way, but it's true. This is one reason I changed parties. The Repubs (neo-conc not Lincoln Repubs) are for traditional things, which is why they are considered the ones favoring antimiscegenation, discrimination, etc. Essentially, they are the good ole boys, hence, Grand Ole Party.

Quote

I also think a progressive liberal mind set tries to diminish personal responsibility.

This is cliche. Do you think the mess Reagan/Bush/Bush has made is fraught with personal responsibility? From a 1T debt to 8.7T in 26 years is not responsible, esp since the only ones getting rich are the corps. Is that repsonsible or extortion?

Quote

Nope, you want it to be but it is not. The example you give here has nothing to do with my point and besides, you twist the topic to a bogus context

Quote

Thew want to destroy tradition and label those that do not agree with them. I also think some of the more radical are socially destructive. Example, language and cultural pc thinking.

No, they don;t wanna wipe out the old foggy neo-cos, they want to allow more room for more ideas, teh neo-cons want only their deas.

Yep, and anybody that disagrees with the self apointed elitist ideas

Quote

They are less tolerant of differing views and work to use courts to install what they believe to be correct.

No, if a guy wants to be a conservative maggot, great. If a guy wants to be gay, so what? The restrictive maggots ar ethe righties, they want to cancel out gays, abortion, anything new. Look at the homophobe amendment that was shot down, it was about anti-progressiveness.

Quote

Can't make a point without an insuilt and labeling. Again, an attempt to intimidate the oposition side into silence. Thanks for making my point

Quote

Progressives do not want alternate schooling because they loose indroctrination chances.

No, school vouchers were a backdoor way for teh fundies to pipe off $$ to Christian schools. Remember that thing about the 1st and the gov not establishing any religion?

Bull shit argument at best. Your defense of the public (inercity) schools shows your desire to make sure not all can get good education. Shame on you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[billvon 3,095]

>If you want a union with your significant other, fine.
>Heterosexuals have that.

Right, and gays do not. That's the problem. There are over a thousand laws/rules/procedures in the US that apply to married couples but not to civil unions.

>However, I believe what he was getting at is that gays should not
> have college funds or anything special provided to them based on
> sexual preference.

I agree with you there. There should be no difference in college funding/eligibility for loans/adoption/marriage rights etc based on sexual preference. Treat everyone equally.

[jakee 1,583]

Quote

If you want a union with your significant other, fine. Heterosexuals have that. However, I believe what he was getting at is that gays should not have college funds or anything special provided to them based on sexual preference.

No, that is not what Royd is getting at.

Royd does not want gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples, end of story. Nothing whatsoever to do with preferential treatment.

Edit:

Quote

I can understand programs for minorities if they didn't have the equal opportunity to acquire benefits, but when the phrase "I prefer" comes into play, special benefits should not be factored into the equation. How can you prove who is eligible?? Have a test??? I'd sure like to see who volunteers to administer that test. Next you know we will have people exploiting it because they prefer the color red over blue. Lets get real!

Yes, lets get real. Who have you ever heard seriously propose special bursaries or scholarships and otherwise preferential treatment in the education system based on sexual orientation?



BTW, how did this thread go from Zell Miller saying "We should all support GWB 'cos, um, there's a war on!" to discussion of gay rights? Is Zell gay? Is George gay!? Man that would be a hell of a news story.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Quote

Of course as you know it, if people are arrested they are automatically guilty, but in the real world innocent people are tried allof teh time and should not be compelled to testify if they hoose not to, as wel as their spouse should not be compelled to testify against them.

That's exactly what I was saying. Your argument was that the right against self incrimination, currently afforded only to hetrosexual spouses should be afforded to homosexuals as well. Why stop there? Two good old boys who decide to knock over the 7-11 should be able to run out and get married in order to afford them the same privilege.

[jakee 1,583]

Quote

Quote

Of course as you know it, if people are arrested they are automatically guilty, but in the real world innocent people are tried allof teh time and should not be compelled to testify if they hoose not to, as wel as their spouse should not be compelled to testify against them.

That's exactly what I was saying. Your argument was that the right against self incrimination, currently afforded only to hetrosexual spouses should be afforded to homosexuals as well. Why stop there? Two good old boys who decide to knock over the 7-11 should be able to run out and get married in order to afford them the same privilege.

Absolutely, without doubt the most vacuous argument I have ever heard on this forum and boy, is that saying something!

If that right is not currently a problem with heterosexuals, there is no reason to believe it should be a problem for gays. If that right is currently a problem then it should be removed across the board and would then not be a problem for either gays or straights anyway.

Seriously dude, when you are reduced to grasping at straws this short all you do is show up your position for the ridiculous, intolerant, untenable one it really is.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Your argument was that the right against self incrimination, currently afforded only to hetrosexual spouses should be afforded to homosexuals as well. Why stop there? Two good old boys who decide to knock over the 7-11 should be able to run out and get married in order to afford them the same privilege.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Absolutely, without doubt the most vacuous argument I have ever heard on this forum and boy, is that saying something!

Absolutely, and thanks. Just using the absurd to point out the absurd.

Marriage is what it is and always has been. The homosexual community simply want to corrupt its significance.

If they want to take out life insurance policies on each other and put each other in their wills, noone is stopping them.

The claim is that their rights are being restricted. If the act of "marriage" entitled someone to draw social security because he or she is someone's spouse, whether a legitmate hetrosexual marriage or a pretend homosexual marriage, why stop there?Hell, anybody should be able to say a few words, sign a piece of paper and have legal access to everything.

My point is that once you start fudging the line, you might as well completly erase it.

[Lucky... 0]

YOU: I also think a progressive liberal mind set tries to diminish personal responsibility.

ME: This is cliche. Do you think the mess Reagan/Bush/Bush has made is fraught with personal responsibility? From a 1T debt to 8.7T in 26 years is not responsible, esp since the only ones getting rich are the corps. Is that repsonsible or extortion?

YOU: Nope, you want it to be but it is not. The example you give here has nothing to do with my point and besides, you twist the topic to a bogus context

Yes, personal responsibility is not running teh country into the shitter, it is paing your bills and behaving responsibly. Your party is the one that ran the debt up, they are irresponsible, yet you clammer this personal repsonsibility tune and say it doesn't apply.
___________________________________________________________

YOU: They are less tolerant of differing views and work to use courts to install what they believe to be correct.

ME: No, if a guy wants to be a conservative maggot, great. If a guy wants to be gay, so what? The restrictive maggots ar ethe righties, they want to cancel out gays, abortion, anything new. Look at the homophobe amendment that was shot down, it was about anti-progressiveness.

YOU: Can't make a point without an insuilt and labeling. Again, an attempt to intimidate the oposition side into silence. Thanks for making my point

As I wrote, the homophobe amendment proposition, it is not progressive, it is really regressive. Clinton pushing the, "don't ask/don't tell is progressive, The righty homophobe propositions are regressive; is this difficult? Can you stop avoiding?

___________________________________________________________

ME: No, school vouchers were a backdoor way for teh fundies to pipe off $$ to Christian schools. Remember that thing about the 1st and the gov not establishing any religion?

YOU: Bull shit argument at best. Your defense of the public (inercity) schools shows your desire to make sure not all can get good education. Shame on you

That was what the left said, the voucher were for private Christian schools and would cost more in the longrun over public schools. I don;t see a correlation between private schools and better education. Even if there is, the righty who clammers over tax cuts is contradictory over that one, but it's a wayto shuffle off government $$$ to the church.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course as you know it, if people are arrested they are automatically guilty, but in the real world innocent people are tried allof teh time and should not be compelled to testify if they hoose not to, as wel as their spouse should not be compelled to testify against them.

That's exactly what I was saying. Your argument was that the right against self incrimination, currently afforded only to hetrosexual spouses should be afforded to homosexuals as well. Why stop there? Two good old boys who decide to knock over the 7-11 should be able to run out and get married in order to afford them the same privilege.

Geez, it sounded very scattered. Anyway, you think 2 straight guys will go out and get married so they can commit crimes and enjoy mutual 5th protection? Are you actually serious wen you write that? Do you think street criminals are that well planned that they would enter a public record advertising their homosexuality so they could have 5th protection? Really? And when their little theft charrade was over, they would have to get divorced, a record that goes right to the county superior court forever and ever. Do you really want to make that assertion to the forum that there would be masses of criminals throwing themselves into that?

If you knew anything about the criminal system at the interrogation end, the cops gt these idiots to roll on each other, so their 5th never gets to be an issue. Would you just be honest and say that you despise gays so you will make obscure, inane arguments to prohibit any rights for them? Do you think the forum buys into the argument that straught criminals will run out and get married to secure mutual 5th rights?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course as you know it, if people are arrested they are automatically guilty, but in the real world innocent people are tried allof teh time and should not be compelled to testify if they hoose not to, as wel as their spouse should not be compelled to testify against them.

That's exactly what I was saying. Your argument was that the right against self incrimination, currently afforded only to hetrosexual spouses should be afforded to homosexuals as well. Why stop there? Two good old boys who decide to knock over the 7-11 should be able to run out and get married in order to afford them the same privilege.

Absolutely, without doubt the most vacuous argument I have ever heard on this forum and boy, is that saying something!

If that right is not currently a problem with heterosexuals, there is no reason to believe it should be a problem for gays. If that right is currently a problem then it should be removed across the board and would then not be a problem for either gays or straights anyway.

Seriously dude, when you are reduced to grasping at straws this short all you do is show up your position for the ridiculous, intolerant, untenable one it really is.

Isn't it a bizzare argument? Undubtedly after 10 or 20 years of gay marriage rights thee would be some whacky case in some backwoods state where this occurrs, kind of a page out of the stupid criminals book, but to assert it would be commonplace is insanity.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Marriage is what it is and always has been. The homosexual community simply want to corrupt its significance.

There ya go, now you're showing your colors. You just despise gays. Fine, stand on that platform and run with it, but don't assert that straight guys will marry for the extended mutual 5th rights.

Quote

If they want to take out life insurance policies on each other and put each other in their wills, noone is stopping them.

How about social security rights? How about general rights of survivorship? Inheritance rights? Health insurance rights? Many, many rights that they are being denied. I think most gays are ok with calling it something other than marriage, they just want the rights, so they are not out to destroy this civil process, they want to participate in it.

Do you think gays wnat to be gay? I doubt it, I think many wish they weren;t compelled to be gay, thy are just what they are. They have to keep secre who they are or fear being faired, beat up and perhaps killed. Is that a choice? If so, a reckless one.

Quote

The claim is that their rights are being restricted. If the act of "marriage" entitled someone to draw social security because he or she is someone's spouse, whether a legitmate hetrosexual marriage or a pretend homosexual marriage, why stop there?Hell, anybody should be able to say a few words, sign a piece of paper and have legal access to everything.

We're drifting back to fairytale land here, do you think straught guys are going to publicly proclaim their homosexuality so they can get a few bucks? Jesus help me (bangs head on desk). Could you see that, 'Mom, dad, I'm not gay, just getting married for the money.' Then he gets married and divorced, then the record is there forever to be ridiculed later. He would have to leave town. And on job applications he would have to disclose that in some apllications, esp for secret clearances..... forget that job. SO this diabolicle plan would cost more in the longrun.

Just go back to explaining why you dislike homosexuals and quit convoluting it with stories from the Twilight Zone.

[billvon 3,095]

>If they want to take out life insurance policies on each other and put
>each other in their wills, noone is stopping them.

Then I assume you won't mind if a gay partner gets the same rights as a married partner does when it comes to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation, automatic status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent, joint insurance policies for home, auto and health, immigration and residency for partners from other countries, automatic inheritance, inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship, spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home, veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans, joint filing of tax returns, bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child, decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her, crime victims' recovery benefits, loss of consortium tort benefits, domestic violence protection orders and judicial protections and evidentiary immunity.

If that's the case, good on you. I hope you will vote for such rights when they are proposed, and put your money where your mouth is. (They are currently denied to gay couples in most states.)

>The claim is that their rights are being restricted. If the act of "marriage"
>entitled someone to draw social security because he or she is someone's
>spouse, whether a legitmate hetrosexual marriage or a pretend
>homosexual marriage, why stop there?Hell, anybody should be able to say
>a few words, sign a piece of paper and have legal access to everything.

ANY TWO PEOPLE should be able to 'say a few words' (if that's all marriage means to you) sign a piece of paper and get the same rights as any other two people - no matter what their race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.

>My point is that once you start fudging the line, you might as well
>completly erase it.

We started fudging the line with cross-faith marriage. Society didn't fall apart. We continued with interracial marriages. Lo and behold, society was OK with it. Next step is same-sex marriage. Society will survive as it always has, no matter what the narrowminded think.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Then I assume you won't mind if a gay partner gets the same rights as a married partner does when it comes to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation, automatic status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent, joint insurance policies for home, auto and health, immigration and residency for partners from other countries, automatic inheritance, inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship, spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home, veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans, joint filing of tax returns, bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child, decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her, crime victims' recovery benefits, loss of consortium tort benefits, domestic violence protection orders and judicial protections and evidentiary immunity.

Much of what you have written here can be performed with the proper legal paperwork.

I can leave my property and belongings to anyone I choose.

I sure that if I were in the hospital, I could designate any person of my choosing to be my go between to the outside world, especially if no blood relatives were close enough to take care of business.

As for adoption I would say no. Man and woman provide a balance for the child that simply cannot not be achieved by other situations.

Children who are raised by a single parent quite often suffer phycological imbalance.

Why would having two parents of the same sex improve that situation.

I know that if I were a child, and had to listen to Rosie O'Donnell for 18 yrs. I would be looking for some kind of mental help. And she's the poster child for gay adoption.