Strange thing about Iraq

[Mechagodzilla]

Poppycock... Tax dollars, health care dollars, Insurance premiums are all at stake. Religion is not the only thing at issue here.. My hard earned money, however little or easy you think it will be for me to part with is a great motivator.

Okay, so let's just assume that in your perfect world, all the gay people did not exist, and we had an equal number of straight people in their place.

You'd support that, right? Not "sick" anymore.

Now, what If the same proportion of those newly straight couples wanted to marry in heterosexual union. Would you stop them?

After all, all their marriage benefits would be coming out of your pocket, right?

It would cost you the exact same amount of money to pay for all those straight marriages as you are deciding to keep away from the gays. Would you all those happy straight couples from having the right of marriage simply out of not wanting to pay?

Would you even care?

It's pretty obvious to me that you just don't want to pay purely because gays are "gross".

Now, remember there was a time when interracial marriage was "gross". When black people had to stay out of school because they were "gross".

Nobody wanted to pay for their rights because the would rather pay for white people. Because they were more "normal" and "civilized". Blacks were lesser humans. Less than human. So they didn't deserve a dime.

Do you see my point?

 

[Neutrino]

Poppycock... Tax dollars, health care dollars, Insurance premiums are all at stake. Religion is not the only thing at issue here.. My hard earned money, however little or easy you think it will be for me to part with is a great motivator.

So are you saying the main reason you don't want two people who happen to love each other to be able to visit one another in the hospital, inherit belonging from one another, and be able to share health insurance just like everyone else is because it might raise your taxes or cost tax money? I find that somewhat hard to believe.

Getting back to my earlier point about motivations for supporting a ban on gay marriage I disagree that concerns about money are the underlying motivation for anyone in this debate. As MechaG pointed out, I find it hard to believe that anyone would have financial concerns if the people in question were straight instead of gay.

So I stand by my statement that the motivation stems from either relgious issues or a simple dislike for gay people. I maintain that if they were not gay, money would not be an issue. Therefore it's not the money that is the problem, it is the sole fact that they are gay.

Again I wont answer you here... The question and answer has no bearing on why I am against it.

I actually thinik it has a huge bearing on things. However, if you won't answer, you won't answer. I won't push the issue.

 

[seinfeldrules]

A gay dating a gay and taking it to the next level isnt marriage. It defies the word. Give them civil unions with equal rights to married couples.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

A gay dating a gay and taking it to the next level isnt marriage. It defies the word. Give them civil unions with equal rights to married couples.

Not to start the debate off on another tangent, but what difference does the name make?
Marriage... Civil Union...
If it's exactly the same as marriage, why not call it as such?

 

[seinfeldrules]

If it's exactly the same as marriage, why not call it as such?

It is not the same as marriage.

Marriage- The union between a man and a woman. To some this is a very special word and a very special meaning behind it. There is no need to change this for them, I'm sure most homosexuals would agree.

If they have the same rights under a civil union I dont see any room for debate.

 

[Neutrino]

It is not the same as marriage.

Marriage- The union between a man and a woman.

If they have the same rights under a civil union I dont see any room for debate.

How about somebody who had a sex change?

Oh, and about gay marriage being against the word of the Bible, I disagree with this stance. However, I don't know if I really want to drag out that whole debate....

However, having said that and considering your beliefs I admire you for taking a very reasonable position on the subject and putting forth a pretty decent compromise.

Personally, I don't think any church should be forced to grant a marriage between gays if that is against their beliefs. After all they are a private organization and forcing them to do something like that would be religious intolerance in and of itself. However, I see no reason why gay can't have a religious ceremony at a church which has no problem with it.

 

[Cybernoid]

So how many millions of people do you think Bush has killed so far? Hmm and I'm brainwashed? Dont make me laugh.

I don't think Bush has reached the million milestone yet, but he has had a very good start. I wish him all the best. Soon he'll be up there with the heavyweights like Hitler and Stalin.

I can answer this from a standpoint you can't refute... I am an American Soldier and for me Iraq and Afghanistan are worth fighting for... At the risk of my own life.

I've never met a person who is willing to die so Bush and his corporate buddies can get even more money. I guess there's a first time for everything!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I don't think Bush has reached the million milestone yet, but he has had a very good start. I wish him all the best. Soon he'll be up there with the heavyweights like Hitler and Stalin.

If you can reach Hitler, 14.5 million killed, maybe I'll give you a cookie.

But if you can reach Stalin: +30 million, then I'll buy you a cookie JAR.

 

[^Ben]

Cybernoid you just did a double whammy!

Comparing such and such to hitler means you lose the argument.

Internet debating rules 101

 

[CptStern]

It is not the same as marriage.

Marriage- The union between a man and a woman. To some this is a very special word and a very special meaning behind it. There is no need to change this for them, I'm sure most homosexuals would agree.

If they have the same rights under a civil union I dont see any room for debate.

bah that's discrimintory, marriage should be for everyone and anyone ..you are the staunchest conservative I've ever met, there's not a liberal bone in you ..I guess you dont believe in abortion, evolution, the big bang, the earth is round etc

 

[Korgoth]

It is not the same as marriage.

Marriage- The union between a man and a woman. To some this is a very special word and a very special meaning behind it. There is no need to change this for them, I'm sure most homosexuals would agree.

If they have the same rights under a civil union I dont see any room for debate.

So if we called it a marriageST or any other name, you wouldn't be such a homophobe?

 

[CptStern]

So if we called it a marriageST or any other name, you wouldn't be such a homophobe?

What's ST? Special Title?

how about marriageSE (special edition)

 

[Korgoth]

marriageCE (collectors edition)

Actually i was trying to be a jackass, end it with est, like smartest, or dumbest etc.

 

[CptStern]

marriageCE (collectors edition)

Actually i was trying to be a jackass, end it with est, like smartest, or dumbest etc.

you mean like seinfeldrulesest?

 

[Korgoth]

yup... Like i've said before, I have 0 respect left for him, therefore I vow to be a thorn in his side for the remainder of his existence.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Have you seen those camel spiders! Now that's a strange thing about Iraq that we can all agree on. :cheers:

 

[Korgoth]

omg yes, my friend (who is in the army) was/is over there, he can in for break for two weeks. He was talking about those things, they sound scarey

 

[seinfeldrules]

So if we called it a marriageST or any other name, you wouldn't be such a homophobe?

Seriously kid, you need to stop following me around and posting false crap. It is starting to get on my nerves. I have nothing against homosexuals and I already mentioned it. By saying they get equal rights as married couples, I am being more than accepting. Why dont you go dream up another conspiracy theory and leave the serious topics to mature individuals. It is clear you dont fit in with the rest of us.

mar·riage (m²r“¹j) n. 1.a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Now please tell me where you see room for a man 'marrying' a man. It is completely against the definition of the word.

bah that's discrimintory, marriage should be for everyone and anyone

I think you have no social values left in you. Marriage cant be the same for everyone because it is against the defintion of the word. Now civil unions give homosexuals the complete same rights as marriages give meterosexuals. So in simpler terms for you and innversion- civil union rights = marriage rights.

there's not a liberal bone in you

This coming from the guy who couldnt think of a single nice thing to say about Bush. I could at least think of some nice things to say about Kerry, but you couldnt even go that far. Please look at the facts before calling me the extreme one in this debate.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Now please tell me where you see room for a man 'marrying' a man. It is completely against the definition of the word.

Same case for SPAM. When my inbox clogs up with V14GRA offers, I recieve absolutely no canned meat.

And no matter how funny it would be, a jive turkey is not a real turkey. Nor is it the country.

Definitions can change or become expanded. They do all the time.

 

[CptStern]

Marriage cant be the same for everyone because it is against the defintion of the word.

well then the definition should change, to bring up to the 21 st century

btw I really dont think you should have a say in it: are you married? I am and I wouldnt have a problem with gay couples calling themselves married: equality for all and all that

This coming from the guy who couldnt think of a single nice thing to say about Bush. I could at least think of some nice things to say about Kerry, but you couldnt even go that far. Please look at the facts before calling me the extreme one in this debate.

what does it matter if I flatter the individual? I dont agree with his issues, there's nothing biased about it ...it's not like the minute he opens his mouth I cover my ears chanting "nanananana" I just dont agree with his main policies.

 

[seinfeldrules]

are you married?

Not yet, but when I am I want it to hold a special meaning. Actually, I want it to fit the defintion of the word. What is so hard about using the word 'civil union' do define a gay 'marriage'? Homosexuals have their own word, just as heterosexuals do. What is the big deal about their marriages having a different word as well? To some people the word marriage is very important, why should they change that for such a small group of people? You are being very inconsiderate to them by demanding it.

what does it matter if I flatter the individual? I dont agree with his issues, there's nothing biased about it ...it's not like the minute he opens his mouth I cover my ears chanting "nanananana" I just dont agree with his main policies.

So by that token I can assume you are 100% liberal, just as you assume I am 100% conservative. Isnt it nice to assume things, you and innversion seem to be the masters of it.

 

[Korgoth]

I make assumptions, that much is correct. I have assumed that you are simply george w. bush in disguise. Only the man himself, could love himself as much as you seem to.

(still no respect.)

 

[CptStern]

Not yet, but when I am I want it to hold a special meaning. Actually, I want it to fit the defintion of the word.

so you want the law to suit your needs? what about everyone else ....should everybodies wants be taken into consideration? I want everyone to have equal opportunity, I want gays to be able to choose if they want to be married or not

What is so hard about using the word 'civil union' do define a gay 'marriage'? Homosexuals have their own word, just as heterosexuals do. What is the big deal about their marriages having a different word as well? To some people the word marriage is very important, why should they change that for such a small group of people? You are being very inconsiderate to them by demanding it.

why should the law be different for groups of people? it's the same thing as segregation. Would you ask a black person to sit at the back of the bus because he's not white? ..it's the same scenario


look this has nothing to do with civil rights; it's just an attempt by religious groups to segregate homosexuals... I hope you'll never live to see the day your child is discriminated against because of their hair colour, skin colour, sexual preference


btw STOP CALLING ME LIBERAL! I have no party affiliation, I vote for whom I think is the best candidate, not based on party loyalty. If you must label me call me humanitarian, realist, or left wing

 

[seinfeldrules]

I really think you should stop posting innervision. You bring zero to the debate. As I said, if you are not mature enough, leave it for people who are.

 

[seinfeldrules]

why should the law be different for groups of people?

It wouldnt be. Under civil unions homosexuals would receive the SAME tax breaks and the SAME treatment on loans etc. There is NO unfairness involved. You dont seem to understand that. And its not just 'I'. Look at Missouri, they voted 70/30 against gay marriage. So I suppose, following your logic, that gays should not receive any of the benefits I am calling for. By proposing civil unions I am taking the middle ground. You need to stop discriminating against religious followers just because they believe in a God.

I want gays to be able to choose if they want to be married or not

What you are asking for is a civil union.

btw STOP CALLING ME LIBERAL

How about you stop calling me a 'neo-con', religious fanatic, and many of the other names. You seem to not realize you do many worse things.

 

[CptStern]

It wouldnt be. Under civil unions homosexuals would receive the SAME tax breaks and the SAME treatment on loans etc. There is NO unfairness involved. You dont seem to understand that.

then why not call it marriage? if you say it's the ame then why use a different term to describe it? ...because they are gay! you cant avoid the discrimnation

And its not just 'I'. Look at Missouri, they voted 70/30 against gay marriage. So I suppose, following your logic, that gays should not receive any of the benefits I am calling for. By proposing civil unions I am taking the middle ground.

isnt Missouri in the bible belt?

You need to stop discriminating against religious followers just because they believe in a God

I may be critical of the discriminatory practices of relgious groups (I may not like them all that much, that is true) but I dont descriminate. But lets put it this way: "Let he without sin cast the first stone" ..the religious groups are the first to protest when it's even mentioned

What you are asking for is a civil union.

nope, Marriage

How about you stop calling me a 'neo-con', religious fanatic, and many of the other names. You seem to not realize you do many worse things.

I've never called you a religious fanatic, I didnt even know you were practicing. Neo con? isnt that what you are? the republican's top men are neo-cons, you've affliated yourself with the republicans and support the neo-cons in their group ... so you're guilty by association

 

[seinfeldrules]

I've never called you a religious fanatic

I guess you dont believe in abortion, evolution, the big bang, the earth is round etc

Sounds like a religious fanatic to me.

you've affliated yourself with the republicans and support the neo-cons in their group

I also affiliate myself with McCain, Rudi, and Arnold. Very moderate Republicans. Bush is fairly moderate himself when compared to Newt and others. You defend Kerry and are affiliated with him, yet you claim not to be a 'liberal' how about the same respect to me.

if you say it's the ame then why use a different term to describe it?

Because to many people (mainly religious) marriage is a special term they have been using for thousands of years. It signifies for them the ultimate love between a man and a woman. It is unfair to those people to have their customs changed (which have been going on for thousands of years) to fit the demands of homosexuals. By granting them civil unions, they receive the same benefits as married couples, but leave the term 'marriage' sacred for those who feel it is.

because they are gay!

You are discriminating right there. Perhaps, following your logic, we shouldnt use the terms gays, homosexual, heterosexual etc. But then, how could we tell the difference between the two? The same argument fits for civil unions/ marriage.

 

[blahblahblah]

Around and around they go, where they go, nobody knows!

Quick 2 cents. I do not want gays to be married. In my definition, marriage is a sacred thing between man and a woman. Having something that is important to my belief cheapened is not the way to make friends with this subject. I'm sure you people must have several beliefs that you want to try to defend, right? I'm sure whatever it is, you will try your best to defend it.

However, I am for civil unions or call it whatever you want as long as it isn't the term "marriage". Give them all the tax benefits (more work for me ), medical benefits, and whatever else married people get. Don't infringe upon my beliefs because it is the politically correct thing to do. They should compromise some too by calling their "marriage" some other term. After all, compromise is what makes the world go around.

/leaves thread

 

[CptStern]

Sounds like a religious fanatic to me.

that was a question not an accusation ...I'm not responsible for how you interpret something

I also affiliate myself with McCain, Rudi, and Arnold. Very moderate Republicans. Bush is fairly moderate himself when compared to Newt and others.

alright my mistake quasi-neo-con-republican ...how's that?

You defend Kerry and are affiliated with him, yet you claim not to be a 'liberal' how about the same respect to me.

I called Kerry a douche bag in one thread ...I dont support Kerry ...I support "anybody but bush"

Because to many people (mainly religious) marriage is a special term they have been using for thousands of years. It signifies for them the ultimate love between a man and a woman. It is unfair to those people to have their customs changed (which have been going on for thousands of years) to fit the demands of homosexuals. By granting them civil unions, they receive the same benefits as married couples, but leave the term 'marriage' sacred for those who feel it is.

to some people slave ownership was morally ok, because it's been the norm for thousands of years ...It is unfair to those people to have their customs changed (which have been going on for thousands of years) to fit the demands of slaves.

progress, seinfeldrules, progress makes the whole world go round

You are discriminating right there. Perhaps, following your logic, we shouldnt use the terms gays, homosexual, heterosexual etc. But then, how could we tell the difference between the two? The same argument fits for civil unions/ marriage.

you're splitting hairs again, my comment wasnt discriminatory it was descriptive .I could have used homosexual but what's the point? We stll need language to describe what we're talking about. If it was up to me, people wouldnt be judged on their sexual preference, therefore eliminating the need for those words

btw, I answer your entire post, you just pick and choose what you want to answer and leave the difficult ones unanswered


edit: blahblahblah you're religious arent you? is there anyone who isnt religious that thinks gays shouldnt be allowed to marry? I'm not being facetious, I'm asking a question

 

[Korgoth]

You are the supreme authority on maturity now I see. Ok I digress, your shit don't stink, there happy? I'm sorry, but talking to you is tiresome. Arguign with a brick wall would be more entertaining and rewarding...In fact, thats what i'm going to do now

 

[seinfeldrules]

alright my mistake quasi-neo-con-republican ...how's that?

How about conservative.

"anybody but bush"

The same slogan 99% of Democrats in this country follow. They are liberal, guilty by association you say?

to some people slave ownership was morally ok, because it's been the norm for thousands of years ...It is unfair to those people to have their customs changed (which have been going on for thousands of years) to fit the demands of slaves.

progress, seinfeldrules, progress makes the whole world go round

Were slaves ever offered the same rights as whites? I thought so. That is what I am doing. And comparing the 'discrimination' of homosexuals to that of slaves is laughable.

 

[seinfeldrules]

You are the supreme authority on maturity now I see

Well coming from someone who called me a homophobe... I would have to say yes.

 

[CptStern]

How about conservative.

hmmm then my question still stands: are you conservative in everything you do?

The same slogan 99% of Democrats in this country follow. They are liberal, guilty by association you say?

please, so even kerry's supporters say "anyone but bush?" It's mostly people outside of the US that say "anyone but bush" I highly doubt supporters of the democratic party have so little regard for their leader

Were slaves ever offered the same rights as whites? I thought so. That is what I am doing. And comparing the 'discrimination' of homosexuals to that of slaves is laughable.

"seperate but equal" = segregation ...it's the same thing


I wrote much more than that, answer all my points

 

[seinfeldrules]

hmmm then my question still stands: are you conservative in everything you do?

No. The stance I am taking right now is more liberal that conservative. You are just taking the 'neo-liberal' stance. The conservative stance would not no homosexuality at all.

please, so even kerry's supporters say "anyone but bush?"

Of course they dont say it, but many observers agree that is the main drive behind Kerry.

I wrote much more than that, answer all my points

No you didnt... I respond to your points, not every word you write.

"seperate but equal" = segregation ...it's the same thing

They arent seperate. They receive the same treatment in the same ways.

 

[CptStern]

No. The stance I am taking right now is more liberal that conservative. You are just taking the 'neo-liberal' stance. The conservative stance would not no homosexuality at all.

but that isnt a choice is it? it's either for same sex marriages or against

Of course they dont say it, but many observers agree that is the main drive behind Kerry.

meh, that's only part of it ..no party member democrat would vote just to vote against bush

No you didnt... I respond to your points, not every word you write.

there were many points you didnt touch

They arent seperate. They receive the same treatment in the same ways.

then why not call it the same? ..."seperate but equal"

 

[seinfeldrules]

there were many points you didnt touch

Show me then, your last post was screwy because half of it was in my quote and half was out.

but that isnt a choice is it? it's either for same sex marriages or against

For same sex marriages, for civil unions, against civil unions, and against same sex marriages.

then why not call it the same?

Because it isnt the word. It is clear you have no respect for religion, but most in America do. It isnt fair to those people to change one of their most sacred practices.

no party member democrat would vote just to vote against bush

I think you will find most Democrats hate Bush as much as you do.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh and since this topic is on Iraq I found this pretty funny cartoon for all interested (has nothing to do with your pics Stern, really is a nonpartisan cartoon).
How Saddam Managed to Win All His Elections

 

[CptStern]

Show me then, your last post was screwy because half of it was in my quote and half was out.

I fixed it

For same sex marriages, for civil unions, against civil unions, and against same sex marriages.

all facets of the same coin

Because it isnt the word. It is clear you have no respect for religion, but most in America do. It isnt fair to those people to change one of their most sacred practices.

you're only have right there, I have no respect for fundamentalist religions that base their ideology on hate and dissemination of lies. It is fair when that word discriminates against a specific people. It's high time religion joins the 21st century. Adapt or perish

I think you will find most Democrats hate Bush as much as you do.

I dont think so

 

[CptStern]

Oh and since this topic is on Iraq I found this pretty funny cartoon for all interested (has nothing to do with your pics Stern, really is a nonpartisan cartoon).
How Saddam Managed to Win All His Elections

see that cartoon is not all that humourous because there's no question he's a criminal and a tyrant ..it's stating the obvious

this is hilarious because it attacks the accepted notion that the coalition were there to help

 

[blahblahblah]

see that cartoon is not all that humourous because there's no question he's a criminal and a tyrant ..it's stating the obvious

this is hilarious because it attacks the accepted notion that the coalition were there to help

How is that hilarious? Would it be hilarious if I took a picture of an overweight person and then put a picture of a cow next to them for comparision? Maybe because I am attacking the fat person to help them feel bad so they loose weight?

A political cartoon should be making fun of the way Bush speak or his stances on certain issues.

I don't want to debate this, how does Bush, the US and the oil companies benefit from the Iraq war? The Iraq war has caused nothing but problems for all three parties. Even before the war started, nobody thought there would be short-term benefits involved. Most companies are not smart enough to think long-term (after 5 years). I think it is a stupid political cartoon (if you can call it that).