posted
Kayla every time Kat does this you then blast her for it. While I know that Kat always says she isn't going to discuss it any more is pettilly calling her on it every time for it any better?
I am disappointed all around that people who are otherwise adults and members of this community that I greatly admire exhibit this childish lack of self control over what they allow their fingers to type.
If you aren't going to say anything more on a subject, don't make grand declarations that are meaningless every time you go back on your word. JUST STOP TYPING.
Actions speak louder than words. It's that simple.
posted
Maybe the problem is that, like the Bushies, Katharina also sees homosexual people as a threat to society.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I won't discuss it with Caleb because the last time it made him cry, and I don't want to do that again. Also, I don't think anything I said would be given a fair hearing, considering the above unsupported, speculative, pejorative post.
And so I can't say anything, because if I stop typing, then I get asked why, and if I say why, that's attacked, and maybe the whole thing is designed to get me to stop posting in opposition to the republishing of campaign propoganda. That's not going to happen.
I mean, my reasons given this time were in answer to a question. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask!
posted
Okay, question. who knew, before reading this thread that the 11th was national coming out day? My guess is not many. Do you really think that it was GW own idea? I sure as heck don't. Someone heard about it and decided it would be a great spin, further confirming his pervious positions and statements. Someone "pitched" this to him just like a movie, and just like a fat cat he decided to back it. Only instead of putting money into a fictitious movie he's using his power to pander and put on a different kind of show. I think the importance of a day like this is to lend strength to people who are living in the closet, scared and unhappy. If you know that other people might be taking the same risk you are it somehow makes it a little easier you just feel more empowered. You might not call your mom and tell her your gay, but you might wear a rainbow pin you've never taken outside before you might rip all your Madonna posters off the wall and put up Leo. The point is you came closer to living a life that is more true to your real feelings. Hiding never helped anyone be happy.
just my 2 cents but I think it's worth saying.
Posts: 122 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't call you a liar, I said you were loose with the truth. For someone so hung up on "parlimentary rules" I'm surprised you don't realize there is a difference. However, since you don't like the "unsupported, speculative, pejorative post" here is the support.
quote:I won't discuss it with Caleb
Yet, there were 12 posts prior to you posting that you had nothing to add and 13 before saying you were only discussing "parlimentary rules" which was, in fact, not completely true, in and of itself.
quote:I won't discuss it with Caleb
And yet, you do. Every time.
quote:And Kayla sees Kat as a threat to society.
I don't see kat as a threat. For a long time, I found her to be annoying, but not worth the trouble of arguing with. But, not long ago, someone convinced me that my opinion of her was wrong and that I should give her another chance. I did. I'm done.
quote: Can someone explain to me how the 'Compassionate' part fits in with most of the Conservative agenda?
It does not fit into the agenda. Nor should it. As I have been harping on before, the government has no business being compassionate. It need only concern itself with protecting personal property rights. Once it becomes involved in social issues, it becomes wrong.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Marriage Protection Week, 2003 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.
To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages. Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures. Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home.
We are also working to make sure that the Federal Government does not penalize marriage. My tax relief package eliminated the marriage penalty. And as part of the welfare reform package I have proposed, we will do away with the rules that have made it more difficult for married couples to move out of poverty.
We must support the institution of marriage and help parents build stronger families. And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect.
During Marriage Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage with all its benefits to our people, our culture, and our society.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim the week of October 12 through October 18, 2003, as Marriage Protection Week. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.
posted
kat, you misinterpreted (sp) me. It also looks like I may have misinterpretted you.
I realize it was the author of the article that was describing some statement that Gillespie said. To me, your response seemed to imply that Gillespie was an outsider making a prediction. Therefore I was showing that Gillespie was the RNC chairman, so that it wasn't so much a prediction as a statement of intention. I did concede that the author could have phrased it more neutrally, with "stated" vs. "warned", but "stated" would likely be less correct, since while Gillespie pulls a lot of weight in the RNC, he can't guarantee that the new planks be in there. So "warned" may actually be better. I am assuming in all this that you don't actually believe Gillespie could never have said anything like this during the interview. And I could certainly believe that Gillespie could in fact "warn", much like I believe that the head of the Sierra Club could warn that wind power generators off the coast could spell the end to entire ecosystems. Regardless of correctness of what either is saying, the tone would not be uncommon.
Of course, we weren't there to hear the tone and context of what the author is paraphrasing. So let's just draw the usual party lines.
Or rather, you can persevere in the belief that I am being obtuse, or just am not smart enough to cut through "obvious spin". Heck, if spin were obvious, a lot less than 70% of US citizens would believe that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 (evidence about other possible connections to al-qaeda [EDIT: notwithstanding]).
I meant the part that I quoted was spin. I'm sure he said something, and warned might even be the best way to describe it, but I doubt he said "We are including harsh discrinatory language to block equal rights for people you care about."
Umm....
Kayla, do you know what he actually said, or show me how to find out?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see how the above quoted text is in any way propoganda. Opinionated, yes. But then most of the time you want to say a President's position is wrong or hypocritical, it's going to take some opinions, isn't it?
For that matter, I'm not even certain that I got this off of Dean's websites. I think I was linked to the story through Dean's website, and the story itself was printed on some lgbt website. I just found it poignant and followed up with a copy/paste to Hatrack.
Naturally one would be a fool to get all of their news from political campaigns. But it's a bit reactionary to assume that every bit of info you could get from a campaign--one you do not support, of course--would be "propaganda".
Tabithecat makes a good point to suggest that perhaps President Bush was unaware that the day followed National Coming Out day. Maybe he wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that, absent of any real evidence that homosexuals are about to destroy civilization, President Bush has signed his name (and the name of the highest office in the free world) to a bigoted and oppressive philosophy that has no place in a government that exists primarily to protect people's rights, not to prevent them.
And, in said absence of evidence, reason, or logic, it becomes patently obvious that President Bush would do this only to appeal to his base. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense because at the moment President Bush's base is the only demographic that approves of him anymore.
Personally, I hope that the incumbent's campaign DOES focus on this important human rights issue. I already know the jist of what they'll say, of course (appealing to people's fears, accusing us of trying to destroy American families, arguing that children can't have safe homes if gay people can get married, all that jazz) but I can't wait to see what would happen if an intelligent candidate were right there to respond with the truth. It's about time America started addressing it's civil rights abuses in the public eye.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It need only concern itself with protecting personal property rights.
Robespierre:
The federal government has the following mandate: Form a more perfect union Establish justice Insure domestic tranquility Provide for the common defense Promote the general welfare Secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity.
Just some stuff over and above concerns about personal property rights.
[ October 09, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm, nothing was ever said about discriminatory language about people "you care about." That's you reading into it. That's your bias, not the author's spin.
And really, you couldn't see him saying something close to that? After all plenty of state republican party platforms have very harsh language about gays.
And all this after an article in Time about the RUC and growing grassroots from gay Republicans.
"harsh" - that's a pejorative term. That's literally a spin. I'm sure there's a counterpoint - how about "brave and stalwart." Depending on who's interpreting it, I'm sure some of the reporters paraphrased it as the second.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, but outside of 3rd party evidence, I think it is awfully hasty to pull out the spin card. However, I think it IS a good reason to go looking for an actual quote.
quote: "There is a lot of energy out there, a lot of concern about gay marriage," Mr. Gillespie said. "So it wouldn't surprise me if it were addressed in some form or fashion in the platform."
...
The plank being considered for the Republican national platform, Mr. Gillespie said, would be in the form of a proposed amendment to the Constitution. The language would define marriage as a monogamous, heterosexual union, and would forbid states from legalizing homosexual "marriages."
Now, this is from the Washington Times. I think this also contains spin, because of the quotation marks. Other than that, it seems fairly straighforward - a direct recap of what was said without the paraphrasing language.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's lots of other stuff in there, mostly about some name-calling and the results of a poll of Americans about whether or not they would support such a platform, but that's all about proposed plank. The paraphrase was an interpretation. I believe it was a heart-felt interpretation, but that doesn't make it the axiomatic one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah, the very name "Marriage PROTECTION Week" smacks of fear and ignorance. As if marriage itself was on the verge of being destroyed, and at the hands of 20 million people who, after all, WANT TO GET MARRIED.
Grr.
Where is this *threat* we're being sold by the Church?
It's simple! If the Government doesn't rule in The One And Only Christian Way, there's a danger that the rest of society, understanding that homosexuals really AREN'T trying to destroy morality and civilization (I certainly feel like a terrorist when I contemplate how God made me ), might actually find the practice to be acceptable, and then Christian parents everywhere would have to work even harder to protect their children from society's views.
Maybe they're all just lazy and want the Government to raise their kids as Christians for them?
I know, I know, tone it down. I'm not being fair. I've clumped all Christians together and I'm not being fair.
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND WITH THAT, I SPECIFICALLY AM REFERRING TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO PROTECT MARRIAGE FROM THE GREAT EVIL THAT IS HOMOSEXUAL EQUALITY.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed by any of this, and while there's value in continuing discussion on the topic, I think the major outcome will be hurt feelings. Therefore, I'd rather not continue reading this thread.
So if anyone leaves Hatrack over this, can you please either announce it in another thread (perhaps this one), or tell me via e-mail? I really want to keep up on this stuff, but I don't think it's worth the pain involved in seeing my friends arguing fruitlessly (sorry -- there honestly was no pun intended when I typed that, but now that I've seen it my evil side requires me to leave it in). Note -- I am not saying the topic is unimportant -- far from it. I just don't think that effective discourse between people who already disagree is likely to occur, based on past history with the topic. I'd love to be proven wrong.
posted
Then, Caleb, do please address those people directly rather than paint all Christians.
Some aren't against you. Some have stood on your side of the argument even in light that it may cause a split within their own denomination.
Those are people willing to suffer on your behalf. Why slap them also when you take a swing at others?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Here's my question for you, though you say you won't read the thread anymore.
What if a member of the discussion is hurt every single day by the beliefs of an entire segment of society that demonizes them to be unacceptable? Truly, that's what their view is all about. Gay relationships are not acceptable and cannot be conceived of as anything short of perversion. What if a member of the discussion is the constant subject of that smear campaign? And what if the President of the United States of America, whom that person VOTED FOR, came out (also no pun intended, but evil dictates it must remain) in support of that smear campaign?
When feelings are hurt in the absence of discussion, what possible incentive could there be toward silence?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND WITH THAT, I SPECIFICALLY AM REFERRING TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO PROTECT MARRIAGE FROM THE GREAT EVIL THAT IS HOMOSEXUAL EQUALITY.
HOW ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE ME ADDRESS THIS GROUP?????
Sheesh. I have never gone so far out of my way to prevent the idea that I was lumping all Christians together in one group and then immediately after be accused of doing that very thing.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Bush Proclaims "Marriage is a sacred institution."
The Republicans are considering putting a plank in their platform demanding a constitutional amendment that says "Marriage is a monogomous, heterosexual union."
If my church defines Marriage as "The union between two loving people, regardless of Race, Sex, or Religion" would that mean marriages performed at my church would be illegal?
Could they arrest the minister?
Could we take the proposed constitutional amendment to court for being Unconstitutional? After all, it is limiting my religious freedom. It is stealing the ability of gay couples to have a "Sacred" event in their lives. You may disagree that such an event could be sacred, considering what you consider to be the sin, but you have no power to push your views on what is Sacred and what is Profane on others.
Gambling is considered a sin by many religions. We have wedding chapels in casinos. No one is suggesting that they must shut down for the blasphemy and damage they do to marriage.
Dancing is considered a sin by some conservative churches. Yet most of us have dancing at our weddings.
The eating of pork is a sin to some religions, such as many Jewish and Muslim churches. Yet I have been to wedding receptions where the salad has bacon across the top and the buffet line has sauges or other pork products. I have never made it to a Kosher reception.
Marriage is a sacred institution. I agree. It needs to stay in the churches where it belongs, and out of the greasy hands of politicians.
Families are very important, and the roles of parents are crucial to the development of chirldren.
However, having two mothers or two fathers is no worse for society than having one mother and a father who leaves town, or is in jail, or is stuck in Iraq. It is much better than having two parents who beat you, or abuse you, or don't care about you. It is better than having a mentally disturbed mother who stays at home because the father has no health insurance that would allow her to be institutionalized.
There are a lot of ways to save the sacred institution of marriage and family. Stopping two people who love each other from loving each other isn't one of them. Wasting money, time, and energy trying to convince gay people that they can change who they love if they just try hard enough, and if not they should live in shame as sinners is not one of them. Writing into law that if you don't love a member of the oppisitte sex, you are less worthy of your citizenship is not one of them.
I shouldn't get riled. All this commotion is about the most conservative parts of the Christian faith reacting to the changes that Christ began. Love your neighbors, accept your neighbors, know them for people. Instead they want "That Ol Time Religion" of brimstone, sin, and punishment.
They are afraid of the changes coming to their church, and want to use the Government to stop it. I hope they open up their hearts and their minds or they will be eventually heaped in a pile with the racial bigots and the woman bashers.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Now is a gay republican group more or less biased?
Also, some of Gillespie's responses are silly to me. I'm sorry, you can't redefine the word "accept" and say you accept gays while systematically trying to bar them from certain tangible benefits (and penalties) that others get, simply by virtue of being attracted to the same sex. With marriage laws, are we trying to incentivize (sp) the use[EDIT: <-- I meant more "practice", than "use". That makes it flow better too ] of the missionary position, or monogamy? I'd hope that most of us would presume the latter.
Now, Gillespie's remarks on acts in the privacy of their own home would be spot on, if we didn't already have tangible benefits on the law books for committed heterosexual monogamous couples. The cat is out of the bag, as it were.
Although, he is right, it is "tolerance", by any definition of the word. However, it is limited tolerance, and certainly isn't toleration of the entire lifestyle... Or does Gillespie think that gays just want to "do it", and have no other sorts of affections or deeper emotions toward partners?
Just because the government allows it, doesn't mean you have to think it is right. Consider booze, tobacco use, etc. Unless, of course, you are just starting with the gay marriage issue, and then going on to the others.
Personally, I'd say we require at least as much training for a marriage license as we do for driver's license.
To swing it slightly off-topic, I heard the most fascinating piece on Italian marriage laws on NPR. The proposed laws to protect marriage meant that a man could not, in his will or in his life, "disown" his family. Kind of like child support, only tougher. For instance, if he has children with one wife and leaves to marry another, the first wife and children are entitled to all the benefits he may lavish on the second. That includes college tuition, interests in family businesses, and the estate after the guy died. In other words, any second family he started would only have access to half of what he made financially. Divorce is still totally legal and you can leave your family, but you can't do it with impunity. Isn't that interesting? Do you think that would strengthen or marriage or weaken it?
I'm not sure what I think about that. While I deeply, deeply like the idea of "there's no way to forget your family once you've created it," it would require a great deal of change. I mean, in making marriage stronger to reasonable guys who go mid-life crazy, it also makes marriage stronger to complete idiots that are better forgotten. So, still thinking.
I definitely like the marriage ed classes idea, though. What do you think?
posted
I don't know if we should bring home all of our soldiers at this point in time, but I will agree that the present situation in Iraq is about a thousand times more threatening to the institution of marriage than I am.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
what about only allowing single people with no dependents into the military? As much as I'd love to disband the military, I don't think that's a good idea right now. Since being a soldier means that you have to go and fight when they ask you to, does this mean that anyone who has a child should no longer be a soldier?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, its not the best idea. It is the most obvious and best thing that President Bush is capable of doing within the one week he has set aside for marriage.
Marriage classes are fine. I took one before I got married. However, if they become mandatory (not likely. Nevada alone would never go for it) there becomes the question of who is in charge of defining class curriculum? That could easilly lead to the Government controlling who and how we marry.
Disowning Children and the property rights of children are a quagmire. Saying that you could not disown a child even after remarrying brings up a ton of issues that only the lawyers will enjoy.
However, my wife was seriously hurt when her step father passed away. She was 14 or so at the time. His family came in and claimed most of his possessions and money, leaving her mother (whom the family didn't like) heavilly in debt. My wife's original father remarried. Although we get along well, his wife has made it plane that all their money is going to her kids from a previous marriage. His kids will get nothing. Its mean and petty, but you know what? We live with it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of people who can only make a living in the military because they cannot afford an education to get a better job. So no, I don't think that's a good idea. It does seem a bit off topic, though. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine in the military says the greatest secret in the military is the female soldiers ability to get out of unwanted duty. They sleep around and get pregnant.
I doubt that this is a truly overwhelming phenomenon.
I also am being a bit silly with the demand to bring troops home. I believe we need to keep them there until Iraq is ready to police itself. However, sending men and women away from their families for years at a time is much more destabilizing to a family than having Uncle Joe and Uncle Mike married, IMHO.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we're talking about the things that really threaten marriage, and y'all seemed pretty sold on the Iraq idea, so I was trying to figure out how that would work.
Dan, I've heard lots of stories like your wife's family's. Right - it would be a legal quagmire and headache. Lots of laws are before the kinks are worked out. Do you think it would strengthen marriage as an institution - in other words, there's no way out, you can't forget anyone?
The marriage classes - the government decides curriculum concerning sensitive issues for everything from sex for 10 year olds to the Sociology of Religion in the University. If making a nation-wide curriculum is too hard, we could leave up to the states.
posted
There are states that give discounts on marriage licenses to couples who complete a certain number of hours of pre-marital counseling.
I think it would be a good start if all couples put as much time, thought, and energy into preparing for their marriage as they do preparing for their wedding. But that’s just me.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's actually the problem with heated rhetoric. "No, I didn't mean that part." Okay, what part did you mean? None of it? All of it? How am I supposed to know which parts are real and which you're just goofing around with?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There already exist a number of states that offer incentives for pre-marital classes and/or counseling. Hmm, this list doesn't seem to have been updated lately, but it gives you some idea of the types of laws some states have instituted.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith, I'm not going to put a disclaimer on every single sentence that references Christians. The fact is that the ONLY people trying to "protect" marriage from us gay terrorists are Christians, and they are doing it because of their beliefs.
I have said more than a few times: I recognize that you can't count Christians in one big lump sum. And I have said more than a few times that I am not addressing those Christians who do not seek to oppress their fellow human beings. I said it very clearly at the end of my post because I'm so USED to being accused of it that I knew it was coming.
You accuse me of duplicity where there is none.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, your term isn't working. It is profoundly offending even those who would otherwise be sympathetic. I suggest finding another term. PAHMs?
posted
kat, sex ed curriculum are almost universally chosen on a local (town/city) basis... And, despite the fact that some in the right trumpet it as an affront to home-taught values, it is also almost universally (I'm sure there are a few idiotic cases) optional. You CAN pull your kid out.
And of course, one can always pick a school that has a sociology department that is amenable to your beliefs.
posted
I don't have a "term" for those I disagree with, anyway.
Profoundly offensive??
I'm sorry if I use the word Church when I see only Christians attacking me with their smear campaign. I feel sorry for those Christians that don't take part in it, because they're getting a bad name from it, but I refuse to stop blaming "the Church" for something that is, ultimately, entirely its fault.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, it is innaccurate and offensive. If you keep hearing from all sides that it isn't working and you are hurting people when you say it, and then continue to say it anyway, you are seriously undercutting your own plea for understanding and charity. Are you trying to actually change some minds and speak to people here, or are you just shouting to the wind and enjoying the sound of your own voice?
Bok, I don't know what to say. I can't say anything you'd agree with, even when it's something that sounds like a great idea. Your objections are "it's too hard." I don't know what you're playing, but we're obviously not in the same conversation. Okeydokey.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
), might actually find the practice to be acceptable, and then Christian parents everywhere would have to work even harder to protect their children from society's views.
