usvi-on-line
DELETED
Having left NJ in my rear view mirror 4 years ago, I say...sell NJ to Canada or Albania or something. They can have it.Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote: What if the nation took a vote and decided that all of the residents of New Jersey should be denied citizenship...
Yay North Carolina!
what we lack in traffic and taxes, we make up for in obesity rates!
-
Pete (Mr. Marcia)
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
What is wrong with civil unions? Separate is not equal. Period.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -- Thomas Jefferson
Our founding fathers were amazing people. In 40 years (hopefully less) this country will find its way to ending discrimination against all of its citizens.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -- Thomas Jefferson
Our founding fathers were amazing people. In 40 years (hopefully less) this country will find its way to ending discrimination against all of its citizens.
-
Pete (Mr. Marcia)
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
I do know about our system of checks and balances. The courts are supposed to strike down unconstitutional laws. The Equal Protection clause has been a particularly effect tool in this regard.
What I don't understand is how in your original post you can advocate for the will of the people uber alles and then later talk about checks and balances. I took your original post to mean that you favor majority rule. Period. In my mind, that can be a dangerous rule.
What I don't understand is how in your original post you can advocate for the will of the people uber alles and then later talk about checks and balances. I took your original post to mean that you favor majority rule. Period. In my mind, that can be a dangerous rule.
Wisconsin, smell the dairy air
SJ - So I'll take that to mean that you believe that if the right of interracial couples to marry had been put to a vote in 1990 when 51% were opposed to allowing it, then it should have been illegal?
Remember the courts ruled in 1967 that couples could not be discriminated against because they were not of the same race, it took until 1991 for the "majority" of citizens to agree.
Based on your logic, that belief against interracial marriage, by the people would NOT have been in any way discriminatory toward interracial couples. Really?
Same issue, different group being marginalized.
Just because a majority thinks a particular way doesn't mean their way of thinking is right, won't change over time, and even reverse.
Talk to some kids in their late teens, 20s and people in their early 30s. The consensus I hear is "Why do you care?" They may not be vocal or activists on the issue, but they surely don't see it as a big deal. Progress is a b$#%ch sometimes.
Remember the courts ruled in 1967 that couples could not be discriminated against because they were not of the same race, it took until 1991 for the "majority" of citizens to agree.
Based on your logic, that belief against interracial marriage, by the people would NOT have been in any way discriminatory toward interracial couples. Really?
Same issue, different group being marginalized.
Just because a majority thinks a particular way doesn't mean their way of thinking is right, won't change over time, and even reverse.
Talk to some kids in their late teens, 20s and people in their early 30s. The consensus I hear is "Why do you care?" They may not be vocal or activists on the issue, but they surely don't see it as a big deal. Progress is a b$#%ch sometimes.
WARNING! CANDID HUMOR DEAD AHEAD!!
At one point the "majority rule" thought that slavery was a fantastic idea. Should we bring THAT back?
It took the courts, not the people, to eradicate that practice. The Civil War didn't hurt either-- and as I recall the pivotal dispute over state's rights.
As a white, property owning, male you have never had the option of NOT having your rights. You would have always been able to vote and you have always been at the top of the food chain. Others, including women, notsomuch.
I think that SOMETIMES the "will of the people" is incredibly short sighted and discriminatory because, generally speaking, people can be fairly self serving and ignorant (present company excepted of course).
BTW I THINK I have figured out, based on your posts, that you are probably divorced (or were at some point) which is why you really don't seem to want to address the issue that keeps being raised about the institution of marriage being threatned by the high rate of divorce amongst heterosexual couples in this country- not by the idea of gay marriage.
I am proud to say that both FF and myself have been married to our husbands for 10 years and 11 years respectively. And we're still going strong. But amongst our co-workers and friends we are sadly the exception rather than the rule.
Why is it that you trust the "will of the people" when it comes to gay marriage, but think that the SAME people are a bunch of idiots or "made a mistake" by electing Obama?
At the heart of this discussion is whether you believe that homosexuality is an issue of nature vs. nuture. Meaning that you think someone CHOOSES to be gay, whereas others believe that someone is BORN gay or naturally predisposed to be attracted to the same sex.
Being truly "gay" or "homosexual" is hardly a choice IMHO. Why would one CHOOSE to subject themselves to the kind of treatment that folks like yourself would have them subjected to and to be told that they are sinners and are godless?
Fundamentally it seems that you think someone CHOOSES to be gay and view it as a "lifestyle" rather than the core of one's being.
I suggest to you that you could no more STOP being a heterosexual than you could CHOOSE to be gay.
Sure, anyone can engage in an act of sexual intercourse with another member of the same sex (I'm sure you are fond of your girl on girl porn -- as many men are. And if you tell me that you've never watched a little girl on girl action I'm gonna call BULLSH!T).
But it's not JUST about a sexual act (as much as it is probably a part of your spank bank). It's whether your heart goes pitter patter when you see someone you are attracted to. The key to this is do you get a physical response when you see a naked woman or a naked man no matter who is doing what to whom?
I can't control the physiological reaction I have when I see my husband enter the room or when he wraps his arms around me and tells me that he loves me. These things result in a physical response. There is just NO WAY that I get that kind of response from another woman. Nor can I control that response. It is PHYSIOLOGICAL. I don't know of anyone who can make their heart speed up at will except some Kung Fu master...
So honestly unless you can accept or believe that being gay is not a choice there's no point to engaging in this discussion.
So, please, continue with your happy dance...
At one point the "majority rule" thought that slavery was a fantastic idea. Should we bring THAT back?
It took the courts, not the people, to eradicate that practice. The Civil War didn't hurt either-- and as I recall the pivotal dispute over state's rights.
As a white, property owning, male you have never had the option of NOT having your rights. You would have always been able to vote and you have always been at the top of the food chain. Others, including women, notsomuch.
I think that SOMETIMES the "will of the people" is incredibly short sighted and discriminatory because, generally speaking, people can be fairly self serving and ignorant (present company excepted of course).
BTW I THINK I have figured out, based on your posts, that you are probably divorced (or were at some point) which is why you really don't seem to want to address the issue that keeps being raised about the institution of marriage being threatned by the high rate of divorce amongst heterosexual couples in this country- not by the idea of gay marriage.
I am proud to say that both FF and myself have been married to our husbands for 10 years and 11 years respectively. And we're still going strong. But amongst our co-workers and friends we are sadly the exception rather than the rule.
Why is it that you trust the "will of the people" when it comes to gay marriage, but think that the SAME people are a bunch of idiots or "made a mistake" by electing Obama?
At the heart of this discussion is whether you believe that homosexuality is an issue of nature vs. nuture. Meaning that you think someone CHOOSES to be gay, whereas others believe that someone is BORN gay or naturally predisposed to be attracted to the same sex.
Being truly "gay" or "homosexual" is hardly a choice IMHO. Why would one CHOOSE to subject themselves to the kind of treatment that folks like yourself would have them subjected to and to be told that they are sinners and are godless?
Fundamentally it seems that you think someone CHOOSES to be gay and view it as a "lifestyle" rather than the core of one's being.
I suggest to you that you could no more STOP being a heterosexual than you could CHOOSE to be gay.
Sure, anyone can engage in an act of sexual intercourse with another member of the same sex (I'm sure you are fond of your girl on girl porn -- as many men are. And if you tell me that you've never watched a little girl on girl action I'm gonna call BULLSH!T).
But it's not JUST about a sexual act (as much as it is probably a part of your spank bank). It's whether your heart goes pitter patter when you see someone you are attracted to. The key to this is do you get a physical response when you see a naked woman or a naked man no matter who is doing what to whom?
I can't control the physiological reaction I have when I see my husband enter the room or when he wraps his arms around me and tells me that he loves me. These things result in a physical response. There is just NO WAY that I get that kind of response from another woman. Nor can I control that response. It is PHYSIOLOGICAL. I don't know of anyone who can make their heart speed up at will except some Kung Fu master...
So honestly unless you can accept or believe that being gay is not a choice there's no point to engaging in this discussion.
So, please, continue with your happy dance...
*Another fine scatterbrained production
For SJ it seems that all these issues and questions are secondary to his fundamental opposition to homosexuality. They really become moot. If there's no homosexuality in the first place, none of these issues come up. And SJ doesn't want there to be any homosexuality. He believes it is wrong. He is deeply and fundamentally opposed to homosexuality. I'm somewhat surprised that he will even consider same sex "unions", since even that second class status would appear to lend some degree of legitimacy to homosexuality. I never know what to say to someone who holds firmly to that belief. I don't think there's much you can say.
I am on the subject matter. Discrimination against citizens is WRONG whether it be based on race, gender, sexual orientation or left-handedness.SJfromNJ wrote:Flip - Please stick to the subject matter.
Gromit - Your fallacious arguments are boring and do not apply. You obviously were not a history major. The will of the people only applies when your side wins, correct? I was the one who introduced the question of divorce into the conversation, please try to keep up. Divorce is allowed in the Bible. Some denominations have forbid divorce, it is a law of man not God. You are not telling me that all same sex relationships are monogamous are you? Remember the spread of HIV and AIDS in the homosexual community? In Europe where same sex marriage has been legal for a while the stats tell a different story than the one you present. Until you can show me data which proves you are born homosexual or there is some kind of genetic disposition, YOUR hypothesis is will remain false.
The will of the majority is often proven throughout history to be wrong. Eventually the people catch up.
And so do I take your response to Gromit to imply that you are divorced? If so, LOL. ROFL.
WRONG!Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:You want fat? Come to Wisconsin. North Carolina ain't got nothing on the Dairy State when it comes to fat.
http://calorielab.com/news/2008/07/02/f ... ates-2008/
We win...or lose depending on your perspective.
GO NC! You cheeseheads have nothing on the Power of Bojangles and crappy health education!
SJ--
Hmmmm... sorry to bore you. Seems like I hit a little close to home... ouch. Did she leave you for another woman?
Since you didn't bother addressing any of my questions I won't bother answering yours.
SJ -- stereotyping is a slippery slope. I suppose next you are going to state that black men are lazy, have large penises and want to rape white women. And that Jews are obsessed with money and all have big noses? Or how about women never cheat?
You never took a Sociology class in college did you?
No one mentioned monogamy in their argument so why are you addressing it?
As for history perhaps you are ignoring the fact that HIV and AIDS is spreading fastest in the HETEROSEXUAL community and that the nature of the spread of AIDS in the 1980's was essentially the nature of the kinds of sexual acts taking place not who was doing them. Read, "And the Band Played On" and we can discuss further.
Here's an article from the Boston Globe that's worth a read...truly and interesting and balanced article.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazi ... eople_gay/
I know I'm not going to convince you that people are born gay and that their desire to marry is in no way threatening to the instution of marriage, any more than you will convince me that divorce is OK.
You can parse the bible and the "word of God" all you want. You can even shop Leviticus like a 7-11 and only pick out the high fat and calorie items and convince yourself that if you eat that box of Krispy Kremes that you aren't making your cardiologists next boat payment. But in the end it's not for you to judge.
Someone once said that Old Testament and the New Tesatament could be summed up in the following way:
Old testament: Don't mess with God
New testament: Be nice to people.
Since you are a "new testament" guy, don't forget to be nice to people.
Hmmmm... sorry to bore you. Seems like I hit a little close to home... ouch. Did she leave you for another woman?
Since you didn't bother addressing any of my questions I won't bother answering yours.
SJ -- stereotyping is a slippery slope. I suppose next you are going to state that black men are lazy, have large penises and want to rape white women. And that Jews are obsessed with money and all have big noses? Or how about women never cheat?
You never took a Sociology class in college did you?
No one mentioned monogamy in their argument so why are you addressing it?
As for history perhaps you are ignoring the fact that HIV and AIDS is spreading fastest in the HETEROSEXUAL community and that the nature of the spread of AIDS in the 1980's was essentially the nature of the kinds of sexual acts taking place not who was doing them. Read, "And the Band Played On" and we can discuss further.
Here's an article from the Boston Globe that's worth a read...truly and interesting and balanced article.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazi ... eople_gay/
I know I'm not going to convince you that people are born gay and that their desire to marry is in no way threatening to the instution of marriage, any more than you will convince me that divorce is OK.
You can parse the bible and the "word of God" all you want. You can even shop Leviticus like a 7-11 and only pick out the high fat and calorie items and convince yourself that if you eat that box of Krispy Kremes that you aren't making your cardiologists next boat payment. But in the end it's not for you to judge.
Someone once said that Old Testament and the New Tesatament could be summed up in the following way:
Old testament: Don't mess with God
New testament: Be nice to people.
Since you are a "new testament" guy, don't forget to be nice to people.
*Another fine scatterbrained production
-
Pete (Mr. Marcia)
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
If you've ever been to a waterpark in the Dells you'll know what I meant.pipanale wrote:WRONG!Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:You want fat? Come to Wisconsin. North Carolina ain't got nothing on the Dairy State when it comes to fat.
http://calorielab.com/news/2008/07/02/f ... ates-2008/
We win...or lose depending on your perspective.
GO NC! You cheeseheads have nothing on the Power of Bojangles and crappy health education!
Wisconsin, smell the dairy air