karenmeal

Which is why all of the exact same rights that are given to married people need to be given to gays as well. Personally, I think that civil union should be the legal term that takes the place of marriage. Anyone should be able to get a civil union and have th exact same rights which are now only accessible through a marriage. Then I think that marriage should be changed into a purely religious ceremony. It would be along the lines of a baptism and confirmation. I wouldn't give a flip about getting "married" but I would want to obtain a civil union. However, the act of getting married in the church would be important for those who are religious, they would just also have to apply for a civil union liscense in addition to this ceremony. I think that this benefits the church too. It would cut down on hypocrisy. If people want to jump off their houses and call themselves skydivers thats fine with me. If they want to flap their arms, jump and run around their yard chirping they can go ahead and tell people they are an experienced bird man pilot. Whatever, it doesn't affect the fact that I AM a skydiver. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

So its not religious then? You still aren't explaining what the actual threat is. Would it take away your rights? If gays are marrying, then are straights less married? Is there only a certain amount of married people rights that are allotted and you don't want the gays taking away from your rights? "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

Atleast give us all the details on how exactly that ended up happening! Was he terminal? Has he got line burn scars all over him now? WTF???!! "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

Maybe hide the beer? Like an easter egg hunt? haha Last time I watched one of these a guy opened his leg up on a car that he impacted... Youch! "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

Thanks for backing me up so I don't look like an agressive bitch. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

Wouldn't be a bad idea in my opinion. Whoa!!! You think it wouldn't be a bad idea to exclude the non-religious from marriage? Hang on there, now you are suggesting that its ok to take away my rights for even a heterosexual marriage! That would encourage even more wide spread hypocrisy! Hypocrisy I could see being a threat to the institution of religion. I cant however see why gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage. Can someone clarify this one? "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

On a side note, I remember when I was a little girl asking my mother if inbreeding was the reason royalty was so screwed up.. She paused and said, "yes." Back to the discussion. That procreation between siblings produces genetic defomities is a strong argument, it is especially convincing when you tie it in with their offsprings costly health care burderning the economy. Which seems to make my argument for gay marriage even stronger, they are less likely to contract VD if encouraged to pursue monogamous relationships, so in effect less likely to burden the economy. And in addition to this, they are likely to adopt children who would have been economic burdens on the country and help them to become productive members of society. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

I have plenty to stand on. Read my previous posts and you may understand. I was merely countering a view that people defending minority rights couldn't answer questions. I am not the one that was attacking. If you will read the entire press conference (its very long) then you will see my point. The man repeats what he said in those several sentences about 30 more times and cannot answer a very direct question. I am just trying to prove that when asked directly, people who are defending the "sanctity" or marriage cannot explain exactly what will happen to the "sanctity" of their marriage if gays are allowed to marry. You think that I am attacking a speaker? I am merely supporting my side of the argument. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

You did not address my question and thats a horrid definition of marriage. It excludes anybody who is not religious. So, since god would have nothing to do with our union, my boyfriend and I cannot get married? And my question is what is the difference between gay marriage and sibling marriage? (no opinions..) True, siblings can reproduce and this may lead to developmental disorders. Is that the only reason (besides your own personal religious views) why siblings shouldn't be affforded the same rights as others? "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

My opinion on reserves is that you want one that you can land unconscious with line twists. My reserve wingloading is about 1.1 and I don't think I will ever load a reserve heavier than that for the rest of my skydiving career. Other people have different opinions.. but I am personally more than happy to have a larger looking rig. Also, assuming that you will be conscious when you land your reserve you don't want to have to learn how to fly 30 feet less canopy after a stressful malfunction with the possibility of having to land out.. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

WTF?! "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

So nobody can actually address my question..? "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

You think that gay rights advocates can't answer questions? Thats absolutely hilarious because everytime I watch someone try to defend the "sanctity" of marriage they have no clue what they are defending. So, What exactly do straight people lose if gays are allowed to marry? This bit here is from a press conference held yesterday by Scott McClellan. The full document can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-5.html Q Hold on -- what specifically would happen to society if same-sex couples were allowed to marry? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I talked about the values that we should stand up and defend. The President made it very clear in his remarks that this is an enduring institution of our civilization. It goes to the very fabric of our society when he talks about this issue. Q So the fabric of society would break down if men were allowed to marry other men and women other women? MR. McCLELLAN: That's why the President believes that this is an important value and enduring institution to defend. And that's what -- so he's looking at this -- Q What would happen to marriage if same-sex couples were allowed to marry? I just don't -- I'm trying to understand the President's thinking. Is this purely based on his religious faith? How does he arrive at this? MR. McCLELLAN: This is based on principle, it's based on his long-held belief. And I would remind you that this is something that enjoys -- that protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage enjoys widespread support in this country. ----You will notice how no actual question is answered... the whole press conference involves McClellan talking in stuttered circles. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

I would like to start out by saying that I strongly support gay marriage. I do not feel that we should pass laws which so obviously discriminate against a minority. Until yesterday, I felt that my argument for gay marriage was virtually flawless. However, I have now heard one potentially valid (ie. religiously nonbiased) argument that left me puzzled and feeling hypocritical. The argument was: If gays can get married, then why can't brothers and sisters? Arguments against gay marriage may include that many people feel that since gays cannot reproduce on their own, they should not be able to get married. People feel that this goes against their most basic religious beliefs that marriage is strictly reserved for love between a man and a woman (non-related). And that laws should not be made to encourage immorality. When asked why I thought gays should be able to marry and siblings should not.. I was completely stumped! The reasons why I think siblings should not be allowed to get married are essentially the same points that I argue against when applied to gay marriage! Siblings shouldn't marry because they should not inbreed. However, I suppose that they could adopt healthy children and elliminate that issue. I personally feel that its immoral for siblings to marry. However, I also do not feel that religious doctrine should be made into law. I felt extremely hypocritical when I pointed out that if we were to pass a law allowing siblings to marry it might encourage that behavior. However I realize that people have made the same argument against gay marriage and I responded by saying that was un-true. So somebody help me out. Is this different, and why? Should we go ahead and allow siblings to marry too? *disclaimer* This post is not a joke, and is not meant to offend. I'm sorry if it does, I am merely trying to perfect my argument for why gays should be allowed to marry. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

Top ramen with bisquick dumplings... and boxed wine. We're truly connoisseurs. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

I want to debate some more. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

I was flying back from australia last year.. it was something like a 14 hour flight. Anyways.. about a 1/2 hour less than halfway through the flight a lady has a stroke and they make the decision to turn us around and fly back to Sydney. So a 13 hour flight one day and a 14 hour flight the next. That one sucked a whole lot, and they wouldn't even let me drink on the plane. (too young.) "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

Yes, I think we can. I think that we should not use marriage as a legal term anymore. I think that term should be strictly reserved for the religious. Civil union (or civil marriage) would be the legal aspect that affords the rights and benefits that are currently associated with married couples rights. For an example, this would mean that a heterosexual christian couple would get married at their church and get a civil union from the courts. However, people like my boyfriend and I would omit the church part and only go to the courts to get our piece of paper and then go skydiving to celebrate. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

From http://www.iwgonline.org/marriage/ (which seems to be a christian site supporting gay marriage..) "Without civil marriage, families are not legally recognized. In situations involving child custody, medical decisions, burial, and inheritance, preference is given to legally-recognized family members. There are thousands of local, state, and federal laws in which legal marital status determines government treatment of two consenting adults in a relationship. Without legal marriage recognition it is difficult or impossible to legally establish and maintain families(especially when facing opposition from relatives), contrary to the Constitutional right of free association." I'd have to add to this that insurance may not get extended to a significant other, and I know that there are various tax breaks for marriage.. the government clearly encourages people to have stable relationships as that seems to promote a more stable country. I wish I had time to look up more examples for you but I'm writing a paper right now. The website I linked to seemed to have a lot of great information and you could likely find what you are looking for on there. It's especially interesting since it was written from the perspective of Religious people advocating equal marriage rights. As much as so many people argue that gay marriage is inherently wrong and unnatural, I think that everyone needs to put their religious views aside when laws and amendments are being made. We need to protect those who are being discriminated against. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

I personally think that we should create a civil union that encompasses the various tax breaks, insurance benefits, and other benefits that are awarded to married couples. This should take the place of a marriage liscense, and there would be no discrimination as far as what sort of couple could apply for one. Then we should make marriage something that is done at your church or place of worship.. along the lines of a baptism. It would be up to the church to decide who could marry. The ceremony would mean something to the religious.. but others could simply apply for the civil union liscense. The only arguments that I have heard opposing gay marriage are those based on religious views (which in theory should not affect laws) and that its simply not natural. People claim that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and gays and lesbians can't do this naturally. Well....I'm an agnostic and I am not going to have children. Does this mean that I should not be able to marry my atheist boyfriend? Is fertility testing going to be the next requirement to get married? "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

I don't get the faking thing either. I guess some women just don't think its proper to shout out instructions. I'm like a drill sergeant during sex.. works for me. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

I would have to add that since you just graduated AFF.. stick to jumping with people who know how to match your fallrate and have the proper instructor ratings. A baggier jumpsuit definitely helps to slow you down.. however, I would just concentrate on staying as comfortable as possible in the air and letting the people you jump with match your fallrate. When you do your coach jumps they will introduce fall-rate control to you. For now.. just have fun and learn to relax. It's pretty typical for students right off AFF to fall fast since arching is so important when you learn to skydive! Later on in the sport you will learn to fly your particular body shape. Right now just have fun and learn. I know you're probably eager to buy a jumpsuit.. but I would just chill on that for a little bit till you know enough to figure out exactly what you want. (Unless you have extraodinarily expendible income, in which case, will you sponsor me?) *Never mind.. BUY A FLITESUIT!!! I've had my flitesuit for three years now.. I go fast, slow, upside down, right side up, it sure can't be beat! (Am I off the shitlist Ray?) "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

I'd play it safe.. try a hop and pop first to see if it affects you. I know that even when I jump with a very very slight cold it is incredibly painful. I've gotten nose bleeds in freefall from jumping with a teeny little cold. (The only time in my life I've had nose bleed)s I always think, "I'm barely sniffling.. I'll be fine.." and then it hurts really bad. I know it doesn't affect everyone like this, but I think it would be worth it to jump from 5 grand or so to see if it hurts. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

After 1000 jumps I'm still very scared before every jump and terrified at pull time. I wasn't really scared of jumping until I had a nasty malfunction where I ended up temporarily tangled in my reserve lines.. however, I'm glad that happened, that fear has lead to me being very safety conscious. And the scary part makes it all the more fun and exhilerating. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

How is the FAA going to know how many jumps are on a set of cypres batteries?? I'm not saying that I don't think people should follow manufacturer's directions on AAD maintenance, I think it's absolutely imperative that they do... However, if you have in excess of 500 jumps on your batteries the only person you could possibly be hurting is yourself.. the pilot couldn't get in trouble. Not changing them every two years is another story however.. since that is noted on the packing data card. let me re-emphasize that I think when it comes to AAD maintenance, following the manufacturers directions is important for your own personal safety. "Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham