Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
RaveKid, I understand completely what the amendment does. I am asking why we need it. As in, " I understand you want to turn this wall of 2x4s into a brick wall; but please provide your rationale beyond because it be stronger." Why do you feel the need to make it stronger?
Perhaps you can climb upon your genius pedestal and tell me all about it.
Ugh, where did I state anywhere in my message that "I" wanted it stronger? I don't agree with it. As far as telling you all about it, I did. Do you seriously not get it? Those who want it want an amendment vs. a state law, because amendments are harder to get over-turned. So is your question to those who support this why they want an amendment vs. a state law? Or is your question why even have the state law to begin with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
You can't say the same thing about plural marriage because pluralism (sic?), unlike sexual orientation, is a choice based on an external factor like religion. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is a predisposition determined by genetics.
So in your professional, medical expert opinion, the human DNA would never allow for a group of three or more humans to simultaneously love each other on an equal basis? That the entire concept of a plural marriage could never be found in genetics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
I will concede that individual freedom is restricted in this case, but again, there are shades of gray. It is wholly invalid to compare union membership with restricting a couple from marrying or to telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body.
It is my money. There is absolutely nothing that says non-members can't be exempted from whatever is in the union agreement. While I won't say money is equal to a human body, I do think that I should have the right, the choice, on if I want to join a union or not. At a minimum, there should be a federal law that dictates that a person who chooses to opt out but is forced to pay can pay a minimal amount of union dues to the union. I find it laughable to believe that union dues are never used for politics. Obviously they are in some cases. I also don't think a person who wants to join should have to fork over a hundred dollars, or maybe even more, just so the union officers can get PAID and so they can build some union hall for them and those who are more into being a member (supporters). That isn't right. I would say if we are going to restrict people's freedom, we should at least cap union dues for those who would rather not be a member at say $5 to $10/month.
Ugh, where did I state anywhere in my message that "I" wanted it stronger? I don't agree with it. As far as telling you all about it, I did. Do you seriously not get it? Those who want it want an amendment vs. a state law, because amendments are harder to get over-turned. So is your question to those who support this why they want an amendment vs. a state law? Or is your question why even have the state law to begin with?
If you don't understand the conversation your are impeding on, why do you bother? Find someone else to belittle to make yourself feel tough.
So in your professional, medical expert opinion, the human DNA would never allow for a group of three or more humans to simultaneously love each other on an equal basis? That the entire concept of a plural marriage could never be found in genetics?
I am not a medical professional, so I can't answer that. I do know that there is research showing that sexual orientation is determined by genetics. The right wing likes to argue that being gay is a choice, but science (which the right wing is no friend of, as we know) has shown repeatedly that orientation is a predisposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_317
It is my money. There is absolutely nothing that says non-members can't be exempted from whatever is in the union agreement. While I won't say money is equal to a human body, I do think that I should have the right, the choice, on if I want to join a union or not. At a minimum, there should be a federal law that dictates that a person who chooses to opt out but is forced to pay can pay a minimal amount of union dues to the union. I find it laughable to believe that union dues are never used for politics. Obviously they are in some cases. I also don't think a person who wants to join should have to fork over a hundred dollars, or maybe even more, just so the union officers can get PAID and so they can build some union hall for them and those who are more into being a member (supporters). That isn't right. I would say if we are going to restrict people's freedom, we should at least cap union dues for those who would rather not be a member at say $5 to $10/month.
There is already a rule like that. I don't know the exact facts and figures, but people are allowed to decline union membership if they so choose. They must still pay fees, however, because they are represented.
And you're right, it is your money. You are free to choose to work elsewhere; not every company is union-affiliated. Just like any other factor that goes into looking for a job, if being non-union is so important, find out ahead of time and don't take a job at a union company.
If you don't want to work 3rd shift, would you think it's reasonable for the government to "get rid of" third shift? Or would you just not take a job that requires you to work 3rd shift?
Your premise was that the institution of marriage is important because it provides social benefits to couples to promote procreation. That is the only objective difference between gay and straight couples. Everything else is subjective, and therefore it shouldn't matter what orientation a couple is.
The historical facts are not subjective. Pick a society throughout history, you'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
Perhaps you should see MY previous post about legal technicalities and tax code differences. An American shouldn't be treated differently under tax law and/or not be able to visit his/her partner in the hospital simply because he/she is gay. That, by definition, is discrimination and is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
Americans are treated differntly under the tax law for all sorts of reasons. If you qualify for this, if you qualify for that...
Hospital visitation is a matter you should take up with the hospital. That isn't a federal mandate. That again is not discrimination. If I am close to your mother and the hospital doesn't give me visitation, that isn't discrimination. I have to have a certain predefined relationship (policy of the hospital). We might both have a reasonable basis to want visitation but we are not discriminted against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
I never said that "abortions of convenience" don't happen. What I am trying to say is that the right wing tries to portray women that have had abortions as wild party girls that get knocked up one day, have an abortion the next, and are out living it up again by the next weekend, and that's nonsense.
The is a poor representation of the right wing. That might be someone's argument sometime, but it isn't THE argument. Besides, you just agreed some abortions are for convenience. Don't you also agree that SOME abortions are by wild party girls that get knocked up one day?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
The rape victim shouldn't have to rely on the court to determine if she was raped. Surely you don't consider our justice system infallible? Only the victim knows if she was really raped or not, and it should be up to her to decide to end the pregnancy if she thinks that is best for her. I've read about women that carried a rapist's baby to term; others get abortions to cut ties with a horror they've experienced. It's not the government's call, that's for sure.
That still depends on what you think about the life that is terminated. You just set up a system whereby one person call unilaterally decide to terminate a life (NOT the life that has caused her harm) because they feel like it. They coose what they think is best for themself regardless of the consequences to another life. In almost any other circumstance that would be considered so brutal you wouldn't even consider it an option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
Our health care technology is pretty cutting-edge, but that's where it stops. Other industrialized nations have FAR better access, life expectancy, preventative care, and so on. By almost any objective metric, our health system is middle-of-the-road. To use your analogy, we're buying a Chevy and paying for a Mercedes.
What facts do you have to assert that? There is nowhere that has better access. Anything close to the quality has a government access plan. Long waiting lists and a nonmedical person determining if you are worhty of receiving a procedure is not better. At least in our system it is only a matter of affordability. Even theen there are plenty of examples of people getting incredibly expensive care which they cannot afford, with or without insurance. THAT is access. Like i said we want a Cadillac but want to pay for a Chevy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
I completely understand "pro-life:" Anti-abortion. Real Pro LIFE means anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-universal health care, and so on. You can't be pro-life in the fetus stage and be totally OK with threatening life after that. That, my friend, is called hypocrisy.
That is quite a misrepresentation of what many believe in their pro-life stance. One significant difference is this: the fetus is an innocent life, whereras death in war (assuming the same individual is for that particular confrontation) is not an innocent life. In that case, the opposing soldier has taken up arms against us. I would never consider harming an innocent person, but I would shoot an intruder in the night breaking into my home if I felt threatened. There is no hypocrisy in that.
At this point, the discussion has gone off the rails. You said gays wanted to make it legal to have wild sex orgies with eachother which is flat wrong.
Now, you are trying to ignore the fact that heteros do it to, and pointing out that affairs are not recognized like marriage. Further, now you are suggesting gays should add that to their crusade.
Could you be more demeaning?
I never said any such ridiculous thing. You didn't quote my post on that obviously. As to the latter, I am suggesting gays should consider all aspects of their claims and not ignore others that might have similar claims. Of course, this is somewhat tongue in cheek, but then you probably didn't see it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
I was thinking deeper into the issue, forgive me for thinking you would understand that.
Makes no sense whatsoever. Forgive me for asking you to explain your comments.
Yes, it is the same thing by another name. I never didn't admit that. My proposal uses a different term for the same thing as an effort to compromise with religious people who feel strongly about the word "marriage" and don't want to see it redefined. Therefore, the state calls it a union instead. Problem solved.
The discussion always goes off the rails with conservatives because they know they don't have any ground to stand on. It comes down to discrimination against people that are different or "icky" and about cramming a religion/belief system/ideology down everyone's throat. They try to talk you into circles and lure you into a "gotcha" moment, all the while ignoring pesky obstacles like "facts" and "science."
Actually, the discussion seems more often to go off the rails when a non-conservative cannot stick to the subject and decides to accuse people of legislating "different or icky". Irony/hypocrisy seems also to be an integral part of their approach by retreating to accusations of "cramming religion/belief system/ideology down everyone's throat" while simultaneously trying to do just that with their particular ideas. As intellectual as many of them seem to be, they nevertheless fear being talked into circles and lured into gotcha moments which they cannot defend; all the while clinging to pseudo-science and fictitious facts.
RaveKid, I understand completely what the amendment does. I am asking why we need it. As in, " I understand you want to turn this wall of 2x4s into a brick wall; but please provide your rationale beyond because it be stronger." Why do you feel the need to make it stronger?
Perhaps you can climb upon your genius pedestal and tell me all about it.
Don't bother. You already did just that. He didn't think the abberant judge overruling the current law was a problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is nowhere that has better access. Anything close to the quality has a government access plan. Long waiting lists and a nonmedical person determining if you are worhty of receiving a procedure is not better. At least in our system it is only a matter of affordability. Even theen there are plenty of examples of people getting incredibly expensive care which they cannot afford, with or without insurance. THAT is access. Like i said we want a Cadillac but want to pay for a Chevy.
