Very well done Bush/Kerry flash video

[Big Gulp]

Check it out =P

[geldonyetich]

SirBruce linked it on the delayed elections thread yesterday.

It is pretty topnotch though.   Wether or not you political aficionados like it (as I doubt it tells the whole story behind any issue it presents) it's a fairly accurate portrail or your average American voter's perspective based on various media blatherings.

[Alkiera]

If this is the one with Bush and Kerry singing "This land is your land" with altered verses, I've seen it, Lanei ICQ'd it to me awhile ago.  It was amusing.  I've not been reading the 'delayed election' thread, I decided to avoid the thread after reading page 1.

It was kinda nice when all the political stuff I'm pretty sure I'm gonna disagree with was tucked into one forum where I could ignore it.  As it is, I sometimes click on them, but almost never past page 1.  If it generates more posts than that, it's degerenated beyond my ability to withstand.  I simply seem to lack the ability to understand the liberal viewpoint since approximately late november, 2000.

--
Alkiera

[Anonymous]

I haven't understood conservatives since 1980, so I guess I'm ahead of the game.

[SirBruce]

The biggest reason I liked it was that it was "fair" to both parties.

Bruce

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I haven't understood conservatives since 1980, so I guess I'm ahead of the game.

Depends on what the game is you're playing. Its obviously not "Head of the Class"

</funcomedy>

[Anonymous]

When the republican party ditches the religious right, all will be well with the world.

I eagerly await that day.  Or the day when a true conservative party forms.  Either one is fine with me.

[Big Gulp]

When the republican party ditches the religious right, all will be well with the world.

I wouldn't mind that, but on the other hand, we libertarian (small L) republicans need the social conservatives in order to keep power.  So I'm willing to put up with some of their nuttiness in order to advance the larger cause.  I personally don't give a damn one way or another about abortion, but if social conservatives are anti, well I'll leave them to it.  Just think of it as a coalition; the two types of conservatives can generally get along with each other, so pooling forces just makes sense.

I personally think the Democratic party could use a shot of this badly.  You've pretty much been going straight to the left with very little middle ground.  All of the old school democrats have jumped ship to the Republican party or vote as independent because frankly their needs just aren't being addressed by the Democrats.  I also think you're going to slowly lose your hold over the minority vote as people are starting to realize that they're just being taken for granted.
 
Besides which, there are many points with which I agree with the social conservatives; the moral backsliding of this country is frightening and needs to be addressed.  Multicultural fanaticism and PC culture has gone way too far into the realm of the absurd and needs to be reversed.

[daveNYC]

When the republican party ditches the religious right, all will be well with the world.

I wouldn't mind that, but on the other hand, we libertarian (small L) republicans need the social conservatives in order to keep power.

Uh, you do realize that social conservatives are in favor of government intrusion into (what I consider to be) people's private lives?

Not even bringing up my belief that the power of the government should be used to counteract the power of private companies.

[Big Gulp]

Uh, you do realize that social conservatives are in favor of government intrusion into (what I consider to be) people's private lives?

How so?  By arguing against gay marriage or standing against abortion?  In what way is the religious right barging into my private life?

Frankly I'm willing to put up with a little social conservatism if it means I don't have to embrace a party that advocates kowtowing to international opinion, cradle to grave welfare, protectionist trade, and treating every little special interest out there like it's a victim group.

Face it, the democratic party is the pity party.

[daveNYC]

Uh, you do realize that social conservatives are in favor of government intrusion into (what I consider to be) people's private lives?

How so?  By arguing against gay marriage or standing against abortion?  In what way is the religious right barging into my private life?

Those aren't the only issues.  School prayer, drug testing, freedom of speach issues.

Calling the Democrats the 'pity party' is avoiding the issue.  Both parties are following the 'what's in it for me' agenda.  But feel free to believe that things will be better with Republicans in charge.

[CmdrSlack]

Well, technically, marriage and sexual privacy are offshoots of your fundamental right to privacy.

Which makes them fundamental rights as well.  

So yeah, policies that try to further limit abortion past the limits set by the SCOTUS and attempts to amend the constitution to prevent any form of civil union between two adults who want to be joined in that manner does, in fact, intrude on personal liberties/privacy.

Does it have an impact on you personally?  Maybe not.  Should it bother you when people try to erode the rights of others?  Absolutely.

when they came for me there was nobody left, etc.

[Big Gulp]

and attempts to amend the constitution to prevent any form of civil union between two adults who want to be joined in that manner does, in fact, intrude on personal liberties/privacy.

I disagree.  The government isn't saying who can and cannot cohabitat together.  They aren't intruding into the bedroom.  What they are saying is that they aren't obligated to recognize whatever convoluted lifestyle choice consenting adults can come up with.  In other words, they don't need to recognize polygamy, sibling marriage, homosexual marriage, etc.

Now does this issue require a constitutional amendment?  I don't think so, but then this also just isn't a burning issue for me.  I'd say we should leave it up to the states, but the problem is that in our legal system any couple that gets married in any state has to be recognized by another state, regardless of whether they want gay marriage or not.

[daveNYC]

I'd say we should leave it up to the states, but the problem is that in our legal system any couple that gets married in any state has to be recognized by another state, regardless of whether they want gay marriage or not.

I'm farely sure that isn't true.  In fact I'm certain a number of states have passed laws to cover just such an eventuality.

The argument (IMO) for homosexual marriage is that marriage conveys benefits, therefore denying those benefits from homosexuals is discrimination.

[Big Gulp]

I'm farely sure that isn't true.  In fact I'm certain a number of states have passed laws to cover just such an eventuality.

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit clause?  It essentially ensures free movement and free commerce across state lines.  The problem is that it goes a little bit deeper than that by saying that one state's legislation must be respected by another state.  Ergo, any marriage legal in say, Massachussets, also has to be respected in New York.  Look it up.

The argument (IMO) for homosexual marriage is that marriage conveys benefits, therefore denying those benefits from homosexuals is discrimination.

Once again, I disagree.  Simply being gay doesn't disqualify one from these benefits, you simply have to be married to the opposite sex.  You can still be gay and be in a conventional marriage.  You may not like the answer, but there it is.  Just because you choose a certain lifestyle doesn't mean that the government has to ratify it.

Now if they were denying those rights to blacks and hispanics we'd have a problem.  Being of a certain race is an accident of birth, marrying someone of the same sex is a choice.

[CmdrSlack]

I'm farely sure that isn't true.  In fact I'm certain a number of states have passed laws to cover just such an eventuality.

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit clause?  It essentially ensures free movement and free commerce across state lines.  The problem is that it goes a little bit deeper than that by saying that one state's legislation must be respected by another state.  Ergo, any marriage legal in say, Massachussets, also has to be respected in New York.  Look it up.

However, FF & C WON'T allow recognition of a marriage in all contexts.  If a couple travels to a state which allows gay marriage/civil unions/whatever you want to call it, that union won't be recognized (or doesn't have to be) in any other state.  The basic rule is if you go elsewhere to avoid the rule in your home state, you don't get FF & C.  

But I guess that doesn't prevent you from just moving there, in theory.  I say "in theory," because you'd have to find a job, etc. and deal with the hassle of relocation.

As an aside, that's something that hetero couples don't have to do.

[daveNYC]

The argument (IMO) for homosexual marriage is that marriage conveys benefits, therefore denying those benefits from homosexuals is discrimination.

Once again, I disagree.  Simply being gay doesn't disqualify one from these benefits, you simply have to be married to the opposite sex.  You can still be gay and be in a conventional marriage.

On the Really Bad Idea-o-meter that rates an eleven.

Here's a list of states that don't recognize out of state gay marriages.  http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/marriage.html

Whether or not these laws would survive in court is another matter.

[Big Gulp]

On the Really Bad Idea-o-meter that rates an eleven.

Well no shit.  I'm saying there's a distinction between the state discriminating against people (whether it be for race, religion, what have you) for marrying a member of the opposite sex and the state granting full recognition to an entirely different class of marriage; in this case homosexual marriage.

And people like to dismiss this argument as hysterics, but it's true.  If you open the door to gay marriage what stands against polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc?  All of those relationships can be between consenting adults, and they are all lifestyle choices.  If gay marriage is valid then why wouldn't those relationships be?

[daveNYC]

...and they are all lifestyle choices...

I think this is a good spot to simply say I disagree, and then have someone lock the thread.  The role of choice in sexual orientation gets real ugly, real fast.

[Big Gulp]

The role of choice in sexual orientation gets real ugly, real fast.

No argument from me on that.  I completely believe that sexual orientation for the most part is something you're born with.  Of course there are probably people for whom homosexuality is a choice, but I'd say that they're the exception and not the rule.

That really doesn't enter into the argument, though.  Suppose I have a couple of aunts who have never married.  They're not gay, but they've decided to spend their spinsterhood with one another.  They live together, are committed to one another, and want to have the benefits that marriage confers (transition of property, social security benefits, etc), but can't because they're not married.  Are they being discriminated against because they've never married?  I'd say not, because the state is under no obligation to grant them benefits for their particular situation.

Just for the sake of argument, I'm not even against that kind of scenario, or civil unions for gays.  However, I can see where the opposing side is coming from.

[Dren]

This argument has got me thinking (yes, I have an opinion on this, but I'm choosing to go a different route.)  Why are we going after the definition of marriage when the ultimate goal is to not discriminate against a certain lifestyle?  We are saying that gay couples do not have the same benefits as married hetro couples.

Fine, let's get rid of those advantages then.  I'm surprised this hasn't come up actually.  We have laws that make it illegal to discriminate people based on their race, color, sex, age, etc., so why not marriage status too?

Originally, marriage was just a way of binding a couple together spiritually.  Governments built more into it than that over the years.  Why should even a single person be discriminated against just because they aren't married?

Is this perhaps the middle ground that should be investigated?  Does this have any validity?

[Murgos]

Fine, let's get rid of those advantages then.  I'm surprised this hasn't come up actually.  We have laws that make it illegal to discriminate people based on their race, color, sex, age, etc., so why not marriage status too?

Because it costs a lot of money to raise children and so need some gov't relief but two men living together without children?  Not so much.

That brings in adoption and what have you and I'm not going to go there.  But I'm pretty sure the benefits of marriage are mostly due to the high costs of child rearing.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Adoption has its own tax incentives and discounts. I'm going to let everyone else decide why having a natural born child should have fewer tax breaks than spending tens of thousands to adopt someone else's baby.

oh wait.....

[Dark Vengeance]

Because it costs a lot of money to raise children and so need some gov't relief but two men living together without children?  Not so much.

I think it's moreso because you don't want a housewife collecting welfare while hubby is bringing in 100K per year. The idea is that the household income supports 2 people, where a single person's income only supports one.

To take another tack....who is actually generating more wealth? A single man making 200K per year, or a couple each making 100K per year? The single man comes out with a higher net income. Thus, he is taxed more than the married couple.

Some folks tend to forget that these laws and tax policies were divised quite some time ago....prior to the era of dual income families, open homosexual relationships, and the public tolerance of premarital co-habitation. No thought was given to roommates filing jointly, because the mindset was that platonic roommates don't normally pool their wealth.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Dren]

You guys are just making my point for me.  We base everything on the marriage status rather than the situation.  If kids are the source of disparity then use that as the evidence of need, not the fact that you're married.  You are saying that because married people might have kids, let's give all married people the advanatage?  That doesn't make sense.

As far as pooling money, leave it open to do just that.  Change the laws to allow 2 people (of course polygamy will come into that argument) to pool their money for taxes for the year no matter what their status is between them.  Sure you'll get friends doing this that may not even live together, but I'm sure there's some way of proving cohabitation or whatever.

As the rules and laws go for all the points above go, yes they are not set up for recognizing anything other than married couples.  That is my point.  Why not change them rather than changing the definition of marriage?  To me they are already discriminatory anyway.

[Riggswolfe]

Sorry. I really don't care what chicken little arguments conservatives make about this (Men will be marrying their sheep!) it all essentially boils down to discrimination pure and simple. This is something history will judge us on and I suspect that if you come down against gay marriage you'll have grandchildren that will be ashamed of your ignorance and bigotry much like people of my generation were ashamed of grandparents who were racists.

[Big Gulp]

I suspect that if you come down against gay marriage you'll have grandchildren that will be ashamed of your ignorance and bigotry much like people of my generation were ashamed of grandparents who were racists.

And there are very good reasons that my grandparents didn't plan their thoughts and actions around what I'd think of them, just like I don't give a shit what my future grandkids might think of me.

Thanks for playing, though, professor.

[Joe]

Maybe they should have?

[Big Gulp]

Maybe they should have?

I see no reason why.  When each successive generation this country creates is more self-absorbed and whiny than the last I tend to view worrying about what my hypothetical whiny bitch offspring think about me as being flat-out jackass.

There's at least some reason for society rewarding marriage, and that's the creation of children.  It's also why we have wonderful things like child credit on one's tax returns.  Homosexual marriages would provide no such incentive to the state, all it'd really do is drain it a little bit further with more social security benefits being paid out, less taxes, etc.  It's not a winning proposition for the government to ratify something that A) the majority of the citizenry is against (and yep, the majority of the people in this country are against gay marriage), B) provides a tax loophole for approximately 10% of the population that hadn't been using it, and C) does not further society's interests, because the main societal benefit behind marriage, child rearing, is pretty much an impossibility with a gay couple.

[SirBruce]

The problem is, your arguments were true... like, 4000 years ago.  Today we know that certain marriages won't produce children naturally... be they too old, or infertile, or using birth control.  Yet we still allow them to marry.  Furthermore, with modern adoption, a gay couple can engage in child-rearing as well.

So why is marriage the way it is?  Institutional inertia.  But today we're more advanced.  So why not allow gay marriage?  We allow all sorts of marraiges that were previously not allowed for a variety of reasons.

Bruce

[Alkiera]

I understand the arguments proponents of gay marriage are making, tho I am both religious and conservative (the two aren'texactly equivilent).  I understand, however, that the government needs to not promote religious ideals, so that we remain free to practice whatever religion we wish.

On that note, marriage is a religious ceremony.  The first such was, in fact, proctored by God Himself, and the majority of such since have been done before priests, pastors, and other religious representatives for thousands of years.  Thusly, due to the left's oft touted seperation of church and state, the government should recognize no marriages whatsoever.  Marriage will continue to be a religious ceremony, but to be recognized by the government, you will have to file for civil union(exactly the same as you must file for marriage license now).

The government, as part of this change, would do a search and replace on all laws and replace 'marriage' with 'civil union'.  And allow any pair who wants to file one do so... In fact, all judge/captain/pilot/etc 'marriages' would be handled this way.

I have nothing against gay couples living together officially recognizing that fact, and gaining similar benefits as heterosexual couples who do so.  I'm completely averse to recognizing them as 'marriage'.  A marriage is a religious ceremony, created by a religion whose deity hurled fire and brimstone at two cities because they were overrun by gay men.  The English word for non-reproductive sex acts comes from the name of one of those cities.  Thus, the idea of 'gay marriage' defiles marriage.  I have no problems with gay civil unions, however.  You may claim it's semantics, and maybe it is, if you aren't religious.  To those who are, it's not.

--
Alkiera

[Big Gulp]

created by a religion whose deity hurled fire and brimstone at two cities because they were overrun by gay men.

Incorrect.  The sins committed in Sodom and Gomorrha weren't carnal, they were sins of inhospitality (when the mob accosts the house, demanding that they send the strangers, the two angels in human form, out).  Remember that you're talking about an ancient middle eastern religion, not showing hospitality to a guest is just about the worst thing you can possibly do.

[Teleku]

Sorry. I really don't care what chicken little arguments conservatives make about this (Men will be marrying their sheep!) it all essentially boils down to discrimination pure and simple. This is something history will judge us on and I suspect that if you come down against gay marriage you'll have grandchildren that will be ashamed of your ignorance and bigotry much like people of my generation were ashamed of grandparents who were racists.

So, if in 60 years time the general society swings heavily conservative and the history books and your grandchildren are ashamed of you because you supported such a horrible barbaric practice, are you going to then wish you had not supported Gay marrige?  That it would then be ok that we didn't support gay marrige?

I have little hope for future generations.  From what I can tell they will be bigger dumbass's than us, but with better mp3 players.  I prefer to disregard what people will think of me in the future and do things my damn way.

For the record, I'm for Gay marrige.

[daveNYC]

I have little hope for future generations.  From what I can tell they will be bigger dumbass's than us, but with better mp3 players.

That's not all.  Allow me to pimp Running on Empty, a rather good read.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

created by a religion whose deity hurled fire and brimstone at two cities because they were overrun by gay men.

Incorrect.  The sins committed in Sodom and Gomorrha weren't carnal, they were sins of inhospitality (when the mob accosts the house, demanding that they send the strangers, the two angels in human form, out).  Remember that you're talking about an ancient middle eastern religion, not showing hospitality to a guest is just about the worst thing you can possibly do.

On the contrary, they wanted to gang rape the 'fresh meat' - "send them out so that we may know them."

In the old english translations, "know them" is what we refer to as "..in the Biblical Sense."

So I guess we can all meet halfway on this issue and declare that the two cities were fireballed for being a collective of wanton rapists - which I still believe is a univerally 'bad thing.' YMMV.

PS: this thread is offically dead now, yes? Its gone from a cross-party comedy gold mine that is the Bush/Kerry "your land" cartoon, to a discussion of the Old Testament. LOCKABLE.