AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-09-09, 21:58   Link #301
Urzu 7
Juanita/Kiteless
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
It's a movie; that's all I need to know to pass judgement. If you want facts you have to do your own research, films are for spoon feeding. This applies to both GOP and Dems.

Frankly the anti-Obama stuff just isn't convincing. His only crime is governing as a moderate Republican wile calling himself a Democrat.
Sure, Obama and his administration aren't perfect, but I think many (probably most) of the anti-Obama people are just over the top with their criticism. Usually they don't have the facts straight, or they will stretch things (usually by a lot), or they will accuse him of things that aren't completely true, or only have a little bit of truth to them, or are just flat-out false.
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic38963_5.gif
Urzu 7 is offline  
Old 2012-09-09, 22:19   Link #302
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
And sometimes it's good to ask questions or "stir the pot" so to speak. It tends to make people think and ask those hard questions and not just follow the popular crowd. Independent thought is a good thing!
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-09-09, 22:33   Link #303
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Just to illuminate to our non-USA posters that tricky minefield of "state's rights" versus federal domain, several states are challenging the DOMA (the misnamed "Defense of Marriage Act") that Congress passed as unconstitutional in that the regulation of marriage is a state's domain. They assert the federal law is illegal basically.

In jurisprudence, normally the federals set the minimum standards to protect the rights of citizens and the state may exceed them. The feds telling state's to restrict rights? Well, several states are calling bullshit on it legally.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ng-battlefield
I loled when Kluwe, a reference in the article was quoted :

Quote:
......they won't come into your house and steal your children.....
Really, for a moment I thought when passing DOMA would rescind any laws imposing minimum age of marriage. Apparently it is just another useless law thay forcibly enforces male-female marriage only.

Same-sex marriage is not widespread enough to cause some major damage to the morality of society or survival of human species, why the need for such laws anyway?

Since the Big Religion that was fostering and pushing this through the legal system, shouldn't they, with their business acumen shown being able to milk millions from thier followers, sweeten the deal and make marriage as tradtional as possible, complete with marriage sacks, bethrohals and bride buying regardless of age?
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2012-09-09, 22:43   Link #304
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Same-sex marriage is not widespread enough to cause some major damage to the morality of society or survival of human species, why the need for such laws anyway?
The rules were once created and applied to tiny tribes in the Middle East where the local population can possibly be affected if some people don't pull their weight to generate new offspring. It's effectively martial law to enforce population stability when infant mortality is high.

Doesn't apply now. And frankly it is not illegal to be childless. But so many people are stilling living in the B.C. era.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 09:42   Link #305
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
So, on the issue of same-sex marriage and homosexuality.. As someone that leans left, I thought I'd share a conversation with my very close friend who is a a gay lawyer that grew up in a very wealthy conservative part of town in Vancouver, B.C. (Canada). His family is quite wealthy and he is only halfway out of the closet with his coworkers and his family.

I learned two things due to my somewhat a-hole style devil's advocate type queries:

1) I asked him after watching X-men 3, if a "cure" for gayness was discovered or if he could otherwise get "turned" would he do so? He admitted that based on his socio-economic status, his personal and business circles, he's ashamed to say he would. He admits it would make his life much easier.

2) Secondly, I asked whether he would be OK if instead of allowing same-sex marriage, a new status was created that was identical in every way but was labeled differently, like "committed union" -- that way marriage could continue to be defined as between a man & woman, and we'd just have to "ctrl+f" "find and replace" our existing legislature. His response "lawyered" me a little.

Rationally he wouldn't have any issues with it, and he can understand why conservative religious types who believe "marriage is an institution directly tied to their beliefs of faith and his rules regarding behaviour and morality" but his point (which I agree with) is that the create of a status that is "different" works well when people are reasonable, rational, educated and tolerant. When they are not, the "different but the same" argument won't work and would continue to result in future discrimination.
willx is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 10:12   Link #306
Mr. DJ
Schwing!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 30
Romney and Ryan do the worst job of hating things ever...

Romney supports Obamacare provisions like pre-existing condition coverage and keeping young adults on parents plan...but a campaign aide says he does not support those things? *boggle*


Quote:
A Romney campaign aide sends a statement to BuzzFeed stating that Romney “will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited.” This does not mean he supports the protections in Obamacare and would leave millions uninsured.
Ryan apparently didn't vote for the defense cuts he voted for...

Mr. DJ is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 10:49   Link #307
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
2) Secondly, I asked whether he would be OK if instead of allowing same-sex marriage, a new status was created that was identical in every way but was labeled differently, like "committed union" -- that way marriage could continue to be defined as between a man & woman, and we'd just have to "ctrl+f" "find and replace" our existing legislature. His response "lawyered" me a little.

Rationally he wouldn't have any issues with it, and he can understand why conservative religious types who believe "marriage is an institution directly tied to their beliefs of faith and his rules regarding behaviour and morality" but his point (which I agree with) is that the create of a status that is "different" works well when people are reasonable, rational, educated and tolerant. When they are not, the "different but the same" argument won't work and would continue to result in future discrimination.
See, the only reason you would have something that is "same but different", is for the purposes of discrimination. It would be like saying Obama can be the POTUS only if his title is deliberately changed to "Black President". Obama is POTUS; this isn't up for debate. But if you decide that he needed to be specifically labelled differently from all the other POTUS in history, because of the colour of his skin, then that is discrimination by default.

Labelling is discriminatory. Here is another example: what if only couple who have children can be considered "married", and all other couples are called "Pseudo-married", all other things remain the same?

The impossible part, is the justification that somehow separate labelling is necessary. That married people who are the same sex needed to be isolated from those who are hetero, to keep marriages pure and untainted.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 11:29   Link #308
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Frankly, just labelling everything "civil union" should be the logical outcome, but then labelling traditional marriages as civil unions will cause quite a bit of backlash.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 11:44   Link #309
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
Frankly, just labeling everything "civil union" should be the logical outcome, but then labeling traditional marriages as civil unions will cause quite a bit of backlash.
You just have to sell it right. Start off by making it seem like the Government is trying to control all marriages (which they are kind of doing already). Then have a religious personality step in to tell the masses that marriage is a religious institution before the eyes of god, not before the government. Finally, get the masses to start chanting "keep your hands off my marriage". Once all this has occurred, marriage will be left up to which ever religion you are a member of, and everyone will be issued civil union certificates. .

Honestly, I hate to say this, but the whole marriage issue can wait for another day. There are more critical issues at hand than the various social issues that always seem to drive these elections.
james0246 is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 11:51   Link #310
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
Honestly, I hate to say this, but the whole marriage issue can wait for another day. There are more critical issues at hand than the various social issues that always seem to drive these elections.
If the GOP voters care about critical issues, they would have demanded more details on how Romney is going to balance the books. The Republican Convention is proof that their supporters just don't care.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 13:01   Link #311
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
If the GOP voters care about critical issues, they would have demanded more details on how Romney is going to balance the books. The Republican Convention is proof that their supporters just don't care.
Of course. It is within the Republicans best interest to focus on these issues, and as long as we are forced to focus on these issues, especially in the debates, the American people will never be confronted with the reality that the current Republican economic, health care, military, energy and environmental plans are absent or woefully lacking.
james0246 is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 13:22   Link #312
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Thought some of you would find this interesting: http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/308517...-or-is-there-a

Also, for further interestingness:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Cato-...Lenin-Plan.pdf

Enjoy, comrades!
__________________
Solace is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 13:44   Link #313
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
Thought some of you would find this interesting: http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/308517...-or-is-there-a

Also, for further interestingness:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Cato-...Lenin-Plan.pdf

Enjoy, comrades!
Yeah, I saw the art on facebook. I'm half convinced the artist did this on purpose, the idiots had no clue (having failed history), and the artist walked away with their money laughing.

And yeah, this is the end-game of a 30 year effort by essentially the same people who brought us the 1870s, the 1890s, the 1910s, the 1930s (all depressions from reckless speculation and manipulation by unregulated banks/corporations and international trading companies). They want to return to those "good old times" where they made a lot of money and the other 90% of us took it in the backside.
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 14:13   Link #314
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
Thought some of you would find this interesting: http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/308517...-or-is-there-a

Also, for further interestingness:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Cato-...Lenin-Plan.pdf

Enjoy, comrades!
I did mention earlier that technically, China is modern GOP's ideal role model.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 14:25   Link #315
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
2) Secondly, I asked whether he would be OK if instead of allowing same-sex marriage, a new status was created that was identical in every way but was labeled differently, like "committed union" -- that way marriage could continue to be defined as between a man & woman, and we'd just have to "ctrl+f" "find and replace" our existing legislature. His response "lawyered" me a little.

Rationally he wouldn't have any issues with it, and he can understand why conservative religious types who believe "marriage is an institution directly tied to their beliefs of faith and his rules regarding behaviour and morality" but his point (which I agree with) is that the create of a status that is "different" works well when people are reasonable, rational, educated and tolerant. When they are not, the "different but the same" argument won't work and would continue to result in future discrimination.
This sounds similar to back in the day with Civil Rights. The whole "Seperate but equal" thing which obviously wasn't right.
GDB is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 14:57   Link #316
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Well the hang up seems to be the word "marriage" and its modern religious meanings. The logical approach would be to take the religious part out and make that the seperate but equal section. Everything else would be civil and secular, the only added feature for a "marriage" would be religious based and that varies by religion already anyway.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 15:08   Link #317
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Well the hang up seems to be the word "marriage" and its modern religious meanings. The logical approach would be to take the religious part out and make that the seperate but equal section. Everything else would be civil and secular, the only added feature for a "marriage" would be religious based and that varies by religion already anyway.
People don't need to be religious to get married. So there is no grounds to give the word "marriage" to the religious organisations. The ceremonies are purely decorative these days anyway, and not legally binding.

So no, "marriage" is not religious no matter what anyone say. Not unless you want only those who have a registered religion could marry. There is nothing to separate. Religion can disappear tomorrow and it would still change nothing of legal marriage.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 15:45   Link #318
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Actual meaning and what it means to the public are not always the same thing. You can have a word that officially means one thing while it is used in public to mean something totally not related to the meaning of the word...and have that public meaning being the generally accepted meaning even if the actual definition of the word has not changed.

The ones caught up in the ideology and making the largest amount of noise are those that want to keep marriage as "sacred", thus religious.

That might mean more in the United States than in other countries. We have a fairly large population that still has religious ideals in mind without being directly involved with their own religions anymore. These are the people that still hold on to the ideal or tradition of a church wedding. Regardless of what it means or doesn't mean.

Some of this is just tradition. Some of it is the older style "girls dream" of the wedding dress. Some of it is that they hold a god (or gods) as a higher authority than the government and thus it is the legal paperwork that is the formality while the ceremony is the real deal.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 19:18   Link #319
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Presidential campaigns will pause to mark September 11
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8891DL20120910
__________________

ganbaru is offline  
Old 2012-09-10, 19:54   Link #320
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Actual meaning and what it means to the public are not always the same thing. You can have a word that officially means one thing while it is used in public to mean something totally not related to the meaning of the word...and have that public meaning being the generally accepted meaning even if the actual definition of the word has not changed.

The ones caught up in the ideology and making the largest amount of noise are those that want to keep marriage as "sacred", thus religious.

That might mean more in the United States than in other countries. We have a fairly large population that still has religious ideals in mind without being directly involved with their own religions anymore. These are the people that still hold on to the ideal or tradition of a church wedding. Regardless of what it means or doesn't mean.

Some of this is just tradition. Some of it is the older style "girls dream" of the wedding dress. Some of it is that they hold a god (or gods) as a higher authority than the government and thus it is the legal paperwork that is the formality while the ceremony is the real deal.
You can say the same thing about sexual and racial discrimination being tradition and religion based. My question is does the law of the land pander to such people or actually be truly follow justice and fairness.

The "Higher Authority" already spoken thousands of years ago. Then again as the West Wing TV show pointed out, people still see football players touching the skin of a pig when they watch the Superbowl.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:13.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.