Do the race baiting, gay bashing political tactics of your party rub you the wrong way, but you stay with your party because they are they are the fiscally responsible ones?

Does the recent rampant deficit spending of your party leaders annoy you?

If so, YOU are a Dean Republican! Yeah, he's a social lefty, but at least he's a fiscally responsible social lefty, so if you feel your party is betraying the Newt Gingrich revolution of the mid nineties, you should be voting for Howard Dean this November!

so if you feel your party is betraying the Newt Gingrich revolution of the mid nineties, you should be voting for Howard Dean this November!

The Republican party today is a result of the Newt Gingrich revolution.

YYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH H!

By the way. For those Deaniacs who think Dean talks a good fiscally conservative game.

Add up the costs of all his programs, including the $87 billion/year health program, education spending, and aid to states for homeland security, and you'll find that he's spending every bit of the money he'd save.

So you're back to where you are now. Nice, eh?

You COULD make a calculated bet. You could vote for Dean on 2 assumptions: Iraq will be handed over on schedule, and his health care program WON'T get passed in any way, form, or fashion.

Nobody cares how much they spend as long as our taxes are lower and the economy continues to improve.

It's the economy stupid, stop changing the subject.

Vote for Dean, get a tax increase and a return of the recession. Yipeee.

Assuming the economy, expecially the expansion of available jobs, continues on a steady pace, Dean's tax increase would occur far enough in the future that it most likely would not cause a recession. Remember - a recession means 2 quarters in a row of downward trend, not a small 1 quarter hit.

Sorry i'm a free market conservative. THanks but i'll be voting Bush.

What I want to know is how many people are going to vote for John Edwards because they think that he's that charlatan who claims to talk to dead people on TV... ;)

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Nydia - finding new ways to lower my expectations of humanity every day.

I swear I still double-take every time I hear his name.

Dear Mukaz:

Rofl!

Did anyone catch what my erstwhile MT edited out, by any chance? ;)

Warm regards,
Nydia

P.S. Imho, Bush's 'fiscal responsibility' is a joke. But I don't think even fiscal conservatives who loathe Bush's deficit-digging (or pandering to the fundamentalist 'lunatic fringe')would touch Dean with a 10-foot pole, because of his stance on the Iraq war if nothing else...

Bush has never said he's a conservative. He's a "compassionate conservative" and I'll get to that in a second.

Real conservatism didn't need a fuckin adjective in the name. When they said the govt should spend less of our money, they cut taxes. This grew the economy and theoretically, the govt spent less. In reality, revenues increased so much the govt ended up spending more anyway. But hell, everyone had a job and the poorest people in our country actually had a higher standard of living than the average European. That's cool with me.

Now Bush is a compassionate conservative, blah blah. He's spending probably less than any Democrat would now anyway, but that's besides the point. He's increased all this stuff going to the social system, but he's TRIED to inject some real conservative values into them. Argue that stuff all you want, I've not honestly paid much attention to any of t in the news. School vouchers, medicare, ... hell I don't know what else he's blowing money on except the mission to the moon and mars, but whatever, he's tried to get competition to work this stuff out with the govt's money. I personally don't like it but that's what's being done.

So anyway, that's the difference. I'll take this so-called compassionate conservatism anyday over a limp wristed liberal's socialism though.

I gotta be honest and this is going to get me in to trouble again but ...

Im a republican in almost everyway and I have yet to understand why a party that claims to want less government control wants to make it illegal for me to love another man. Bush is doing a good job and I would have no issues with him but he constantly expresses hate for me cause Im gay.

He can dodge the issue and claim he is "compassionate" all he wants but that means nothing when he is willing to change the constitution (not very conservative if you look at it) with legislated bigotry and hate. My vote is hanging.

I agree, Bowler. That whole "Gays are bad" thing is a load of shit. However, I don't think that there will be the first attempt by ANY party that has any throw around here to touch the constitution in relation to that. Not that our govn't really follows the document as it is. I think that was just a little powerplay snip at the judiciary trying to play the part of legislature with a threat to put the rules in the upper part of the closet to prevent them from playing with it.

Personally, I think marriage should not even be recognized by the govn't at all. (To include marriage tax penalties, albeit allegedly temporarily suspended.) I figure that marriage should be between two or more people and their church, god, sect, group, etc. If govn't just treated each person as an individual, and let religions, etc. handle the marriage thing this would be a non-issue.

That way the polygamists could be married to their 14 wives, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the govn't. I figure the whole reason that they are against it is very sound...people take advantage of it for govn't benefits, and that's wrong no matter how you cut it. They should quit trying to find work-arounds to the problem and just remove the problem entirely by only recognizing individuals, and letting religion (or whatever) handle the marriages. Gays could be married to their significant others, and those inclined could be happily married to their sheep, or whatother barnyard animals they felt tickled their fancy. They could all do their thing, and it wouldn't make a difference in how the govn't handled each individual. Five women and one man, plus a St. Bernard? Great! As long as they are happy, more power to them. That's still six individuals that have to pay taxes as individuals, and one that needs a flea-collar.

If I'd have thought about it 11 years ago, I'd have straight told the govn't to get fucked instead of getting a marriage license. It's not up to them to get involved between my wife and I. That's between her, me, and our respective religious beliefs; not someone with a (D), (I), or (R) after their name.

Man, I need to be elected dictator. ALL sorts of shit would be straightened up...

I hate that being "gay" has to interfere with my voting opinion. Really the only reason that I think state sponsored marriage rights matter is for things like inheritance, hospital visitation, death benefits etc. I dont want to be told "O sorry your a fag so you cant be at your partners death bed".

On the other issues I dont like aspects of the "War on Terror". Fear blinds people and turns them into sheep. The threat has always been there and 1000s of people have been killed in terrorist attacks against american targets long before 9/11.

I believe in tax cuts. You can complain about "the rich" all you want but sorry thats who makes jobs. My company just announced plans to expand and offer 100s of new jobs in light of the tax cuts. Thats several 100 people who will make more money than they did. Will the owners have MORE money? Yes and they deserve it.

I hate this social stuff, because it should be handled by our States, not the Supreme Court or the president or our Congress. The states are far more capable in handling these matters, and are given the authority to do so:

Amendment 10 -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The supreme court has always stuck its nose where it didn't belong, sometimes it forced society to change for the good (women's suffrage and others) and sometimes it totally mucked it all up. Abortion, gay marriage, ... all should be handled by our states, not a few select people on a bench somewhere with an agenda.

I agree with you Bowler, your vote for the president shouldn't have to be affected by it, but it's being forced to because of the liberal justices. "Oh nos, Bush is going to pass a marriage amendment!" LOL

Anyway, even if there is a marriage amendment (Which Bush really didn't say, he just hinted at it) It would first have to pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds and then the states would have to ratify it and that's no certainty. It takes three-fourths of the states to approve it within seven years. That's certainly one tough thing to do.

Get conservative justices who only interpret the Constitution, not those who want to pass their agenda, and we won't have this problem. (maybe) :p

Im a republican in almost everyway and I have yet to understand why a party that claims to want less government control wants to make it illegal for me to love another man.
This is a political irony that has always turned me away from voting Republican. The party claims a laissez faire attitude, but pressure from the religious right invariably prompts them to attempt to legislate our morality. I agree with Faust on the marriage issue; it's really no one's business but the happy couple (or couple a' dozen, in Utah).

But pressure from the religious right invariably prompts them to attempt to legislate our morality
Amen

Part of my problem is Im a Christian/Republican that happens to be gay. Im what they tell you doesnt exsist. The "religious" right aggrivates me. They hold the mentality that caused the witch burnings.

I dont know if this makes me a Dean republican. I wont know until I see who wins the Dem Nomination. Im not gonna run around and investigate a bunch of people till I might have to vote for them.

wants to make it illegal for me to love another man

On the one hand, I really have no problem with gay marriage. On the other hand, I think hetero marriage has existed for an awfully long time. I imagine if gay marriage is around for the next 2000 years it will be pretty generally accepted.

(edit: spelling error)

It isn't that homosexuality hasn't been around for forever, it's just now that the gay community is trying to legitamize it. In the past it was a fetish, as sinful but as common as dressing in leather or as Feur pointed out, giving sparky the ol' heave ho'.

It's only a matter of time before homosexuality becomes an accepted norm, along with Yiff, furry, vore, beastiality, inanimate-object-iality, etc..

It's only a matter of time before homosexuality becomes an accepted norm, along with Yiff, furry, vore, beastiality, inanimate-object-iality, etc..
That was clearly the most ignorant statement ever.

Can we not spiral into an "I hate gay people" thread. It was a voting issue just drop it jesus.

Dear Zehn:

If it's 'been around forever', as you freely admit, and involves two consenting adults, what's not to legitimize? (and unfortunately St. Bernards, and children for that matter, can't give informed consent, so it is *not* the same thing, sorry Sparky ;) )

You and I have already gone around on this a few times, so I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it's fair to say that homosexual unions (sexual, or legal) span the range of being just as sacred and nurturing (or as base or abusive) as heterosexual ones. However, I agree with Faust that I'd just as soon the government get out of the business of 'legitimizing' marriages period. All they need to know is how many people are in that household, who are minors, who are elderly, and who are disabled for tax purposes...

As a pretty flaming liberal, I have to say that I derive a small amount of amusement, however, at some of the Log Cabin Republican guys who, belonging to the traditionally 'priveleged' class in every other way (white, male, affluent, educated, able-bodied), just don't get, and have a really hard time getting their minds around/dealing with, being discriminated against by their chosen party because of their sexual orientation... ;)

I'm not saying such discrimination is valid, btw, by any means!
My Republican partner is thoroughly disgusted as what has happened to the 'fiscally responsible', freedom-loving Republican party as a result of their pandering to the religous extremists. I try to tell him that it was his hero, Ronald Reagan, who consummated the current love affair of the Republicans with invoking God and attempting to legislate morality, but he fails to see the connection...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

P.S. I don't particularly like any of this year's crop of Democratic canditates this year; my first choice, Dick Gephardt, has dropped out of the race, so I'll be watching and waiting here...

Getting back on the thread's subject, Dean is the only Democrat running that I haven't heard lie or flipflop on a decision. That's not saying he's right, but at least he doesn't look at the latest polls before making a decision or rewriting his voting record.

Sorry, but same sex unions are not the same "nuturing" environment for children as traditional.

For one thing the "divorce" rate for same sex unions are even higher than standard ones. Which is just flat out horribly hard on the rearing of a balanced child.

This alone nails that liberal illusion to the wall.

But, I agree, the government has no business making this call.

Now, I have nothing against those that dabble in their own gender. But I've been alive and exposed far too much to hear that mistruth spoken so often.

Saying a thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

Now back on topic....

Dean can't control his own emotional outbursts. And you want to salute this man as some sort of potential president?

Gods, I'm just happy Dean is losing ground/endorsements/credibility almost as quick as Weasely Clark...

Fandros

Gods, I'm just happy Dean is losing ground/endorsements/credibility almost as quick as Weasely Clark...

Amen to that.

much heart fanny, much heart!

Dean is the only Democrat running that I haven't heard lie or flipflop on a decision.

Well DUH. His experience is governor of a very small state. If you don't live in Vermont.....

Most people's experience with Dean are the news/sound/video bytes his team have carefully choreographed.

I just have to ask myself "would I want Dean to be the man with his finger on the button?" and I have my answer.

Since I am not a democrat or a republican, I can't vote in their primaries (not that my state really has one anyway). I'll wait for the dust to settle and listen to both party's candidates when they are decided. I'll probably vote for whoever I think will screw up the least. Did I mention that I don't like politicians in general?

Vote for me! :evil

I will be voting Bush this year...

Dean is a total joke.

All I hear Dean say is Bush lies about this Bush lies about that...

Yesterday after noon he was asked if he would be dismissing anyone in his campaign, he said no body was leaving if anything they would be adding people on..

Last night he fired his campaign manager and hired someone from Gore's staff (when will people learn that Gore "helping" you is a curse)

He also asked his staff to take a two week pay loss, to make up for losses in Iowa.

I also wouldn't want a President that would hyper-ventilate when something like 9-11 happens, as he did when he found out he was the next Governor

And can ANYONE tell me his fascination with Rush Limbaugh? In 90% of his speeches he says "we are gonna take the flag back from Rush Limbaugh" WTF is he on !?

Sorry for my rant. I digress

Rush is simply a convenient target that most Dems despise.

They should quit trying to find work-arounds to the problem and just remove the problem entirely by only recognizing individuals, and letting religion (or whatever) handle the marriages

The only real issue with this is that people without fair (such as myself) have only one other option to get married: a civil union, as performed by the government.

Remove the government from this equation, and you'd have to find a replacement for it. If no replacement could be found a HOST of laws would have to be examined and (most likely) changed.

The *only* reason I got married was so that I could get health benefits for my wife. In a huge twist of irony, if we had been a same sex couple, I could have gotten her benefits without being married; however, since we are in a heterosexual relationship, that option was unavailable.

Now, after reading that, one of two things should have happened to you:
1) Your Head Exploded
or
2) You started laughing like a demented hyena

Anyhow...

The institution of marriage and our child support laws really need a top to bottom revision to bring them in line with current needs.

Esbat
blah blah blah

What about if I want to be married to a man AND a woman at the same time? In fact, my dog and I have lived together happily for many years and he should be considered my commonlaw partner.

Retired Shaman

you'd have to find a replacement for it.
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
I don't think that's true. I don't know the exact answer, but I know that friends in countries where the religious/government parts are separate explained to me at one time in the past that this <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

Dear Winterworg:

(and apologies all for the /hijack on :) )

Imho, it's nobody's damn business who or how many people you're committed to (as Faust said), as long as the parties are all consenting adults. One of the more prevalent urban phenomena of this last fin-de-siecle (turn of the century) has been the emergence of 'families' consisting of small groups of close friends, which may entail considerable financial and emotional involvement and last for a decade or more. Ever wonder why that insipid show 'Friends' is so popular? It's a reflection of the times...

But more to your specific point, about 10 years ago, I was the local president of a bisexual support/social group in Texas, and came face to face with this issue under what were unusual (to me) circumstances. Groups like that usually have a core membership of 'chatty Cathy' type people, the occasional folks who come to 'cruise' the group and then, when they realize you're not running a dating service, leave, and folks who come for a short while because they are working through a particular crisis in their lives (most often, men in midlife who have hidden their sexual orientation from their wives until the kids are grown), and when it is resolved, move on. Anyway... One Tuesday night a rather plain looking couple in their late 50s came to the meeting and listened quietly to us talking for a couple of hours before finally summoning up the courage to speak.

As it turns out, they were two-thirds of a triad that had lasted *thirty-six* years; their third partner (female) had died of cancer just weeks ago and they literally had noplace else to go where they could freely share both their experience and their grief. They were, of course, closeted. Their third partner had bought a house next door to theirs, they had raised their children together, and no-one had ever known that 'Clara' had been more than a friend and neighbor to both of them.

I've got a friend in Arizona who is part of a MFM triad. They are 12 years and going strong and have two darling little boys (she has had one with each 'husband'); he is fortunate that his work situation is such that he is able to be somewhat open about his relationship.

I realize that you were being sarcastic in your post, but the point of mine was to inform you that plural 'marriages' do exist, whether they are recognized by any legal entity or not, and that the practical definition of a 'household' is highly arbitrary and doesn't always (or often) mesh with the 'heterosexual legally married couple, two kids' these days.

/hijack off

Regards,
Nydia ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective.

P.S. yeah yeah, fever, work overload, end of the week, procrastination, etc... is it that obvious? :)

If you spread peanut butter on your balls and the dog begins to lick, that's pretty much as consenting as waking up the guy you went to bed with by giving them head while they sleep.

No, legitimate is a man and woman of proper age who share no direct blood relation in a consenting relationship. That's it, end of story. Or do you condone incenst as well? After all, both consenting adults, why the fuck not, right?

No. It's all a fetish, harmless or otherwise. Fuck, I don't even care what you pork. I just don't want to hear about how much you want to fuck your spirit animal and I want to hear about how much you want to dick Stanley or throw on your strapon and go to town on Sally even less.

Just because you happen to fall in love with the object of your desire doesn't suddenly make it legitimate. As much as I want to, I doubt the state's gonna let me marry my couch and suddenly get all the insurance benefits that come with it.

If you want exceptions to be made for your fetish, then exceptions have to be made for everyone. In which case looks like Dart can realize his dream and finally ask his 3 year old niece to the prom so they can both go down on the family goat dressed in leather outfits.

Or is it okay to discriminate against beastality but not homosexuality?

Add up the costs of all his programs, including the $87 billion/year health program, education spending, and aid to states for homeland security, and you'll find that he's spending every bit of the money he'd save.

So you're back to where you are now. Nice, eh?

Yep, just with the difference that you have a nice health program running, you raise education and the overall (at the moment terrible) condition of your schools, and so on...

You do have to spend the money in some way anyways. For me the question is never how much money someone spends. Its always just about "for what".
Are you aware of how many peole's lifes you could save with the money spent in Iraq? Or how many schools could be made a great and successful daily place for your children? Or how many people could simply live for a whole year from it?
Try this for some idea about it. www.costofwar.com/ (http://www.costofwar.com/)
Now think about what is more important: A president that will ask maybe 200$ less from you each year for taxes, or a president that puts this money in a useful use.

Are you aware of how many peole's lifes you could save with the money spent in Iraq?


Are you aware of how many people's lives are saved not having him in power?

Sorry, thought for a minute there I was responding to someone with common sense that lived in the real world.

As far as making our schools a better place..heh I can only speak of the area schools I see around me here.

In the town of 27,000 I live in, we just upgraded all our schools..21 million dollar project. The things available versus what was available when I was a kid is amazing. The programs, tools (computer labs, hands on training centers, ect..) In fact our company has a program were highschool students can come to our facility and learn the Graphic Arts Trade (Printing with in a high tech company www.qg.com) Same can be said of the schools and community I once lived in. Thats just in this small area of the Midwest. I am sure same can be said about all areas around the US. Yes we do have some shaddy areas in the inner cities but they are working on it..things take time and sure as hell shouldn't use those facts to think the entire United States needs some sort of overhaul of its schools..it just needs some tweeking.

Screw all of 'em. Vote Libertarian! :evil

Prunaar D`Jol
Overlord of PRISM
(my sig is busted)

My school isn't inner city (quite the opposite, high economic class area, very conservative population, rich kids, high property tax) but my classroom leaks every time it rains. I have rats, roaches, and a power system that is "iffy" at best. I have no AC/Heat control, and my room tends to be VERY cold. No desks, and ALL of my chairs are broken or wobbly. One of my classroom doors won't open any more (warped frame), I'm on a restricted budget for paper use, and the computers we have access too are so old their hardware components fail on a weekly basis. I have classes of 40+ students.

Don't base educational spending on a national level. I WISH it was on a national level. Our state legislature has handled funding poorly, and our school board even more so. End result is we rank 49th or 50th as a state in educational spending.

Taino has a point, mired in anti-war sentiments. A politician mutters "tax cuts" and everyone gets excited. The American people have always wanted more government services for less cost. Nearly every domestic program, including education, would benifit more from better spending and organization, I have yet to see a candidate that offers that (NCLB is NOT that).

Eh, I think the two party system is silly anyway. I'd rather hear a primary candidate tell me what they really think, than have to tip toe around appeasing their party. Not everything falls into Democrat or Republican.


-Kanyli

For me the question is never how much money someone spends

You're not a voter here.

"How much" is EXACTLY the problem.

Taino, get a clue:

Cost of War LESS THAN Cost of Containment (http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/steven.davis/research/War%20in%20Iraq%20versus%20Containment,%20Weighing %20the%20Costs%20(March%202003).pdf)

If you can't bother reading it, let me know and I'll summarize it for you.

I have to admit that my views of gay marriage and raising kids are entirely different. I think there is a point in having a mother and a father for kids. I dont think this issue has anything to do with kids. The political issue at hand is gay marriage.

Having sex with donkeys does not equate to 2 men or women falling in love and wanting to share their lives. Your the one obsessed with sex, my relationship with my BF is not bound by sex. In fact he was on blood pressure meds that made sex pretty rare for a while but I love him and thats what matters.

Why do I have the sudden urge to throw up?

Just to clarify, since this thread now seems to be all over the place ;) , I *wasn't* advocating some sort of legal recognition of multiple partner marriages; I merely stated that they do exist (just go to southern Utah or northern Arizona if you want to see large numbers of folks in polyglot households :) ), living mostly under the radar. As I said, my feeling is that it's nobody's business. As far as protecting the assets, etc, of a multiple partner arrangement, well, that's what corporations are for :) .

In fact, one of the best arguments that I can think of for nationalizing basic health care is it would take a lot of pressure off of the argument on *both* sides with respect to the gay marriage issue, and the issue of what constitutes a 'household' in general. A big part of what drives this issue (on both sides) is the very real financial burden associated with providing insurance coverage for one's partner and/or offspring. If basic health care is nationalized, voila! Now it doesn't matter what the gender of your partner(s) is; you can go to the doctor when you get sick instead of sneaking across the Mexican border for antibiotics (/innocent look ;) ). If you then want to buy private insurance on top of that, you can deal with whatever rules that private insurer has decided to set re coverage, etc.

Some months ago, Faervas and I were chatting about what constituted a 'domestic partnership'. His concern regarding the whole issue of civil unions for same sex couples (for insurance, will, etc purposes) was: "Well, if gay civil unions are legallized, why couldn't my best friend 'Jerry' and I move in together and get a civil union (even though we're not gay) then for financial reasons?" If you think about it, this is a non-trivial issue. In some parts of the country (New York, LA, the Bay Area, etc), the cost of living is so high that nonrelated adults frequently share households for a significant portion of their adult lives. Are we very far away, socially and culturally, from a Heinlein-esque future of the family-as-corporation?

Sorry for the ramble, but I'm actually very curious about these things. Anyway, to reiterate my original point, I think it would be best if the government got out of the business of trying to sanctify marriage, period. (I *love* the term 'marriage penalty', btw ;) . If your household is bringing in enough money to catapult you into a higher tax bracket, cough it up please, or file at the single rate; no-one cares that you're hitched. You're still getting that deduction for any little bundles of joy you generate, etc... :) ). That's (marriage) something between you and your partner's own beliefs and religious tradition, and makes a poor overlay with civil government, for the reasons I mentioned above...

If it seems that I've 'flip-flopped' on the issue of 'legitimizing' gay marriages, it's not so; given the *existance* of marriage as a civilly-recognized legal entity, I feel that same sex couples should be afforded the same rights currently granted to opposite sex ones.

Regards,
Nydia

Oh, and /agree Kanyli. Don't even get me *started* on misguided 'priorities' regarding educational spending by state and local school districts (including the state higher education systems). I live in a very *poor* area, and even though we can't afford many basic supplies, are on 4 1/2 day weeks (to save the costs of keeping the buildings running on Friday afternoons and staff around, were on 4 day weeks last spring), they saw fit to buy us a new 70 foot bell tower complete with a custom-cast bell made in France for it for the campus that has labs that can't be opened due to not meeting basic safety standards /rolls eyes ;) . I gotta say it looks pretty spiffy...

And the two party system... sucks. As Mark Twain once said: 'Deciding whether to vote Republican or Democratic is like deciding which of two similar looking bottles of patent medicine to pick off of the shelf. But it doesn't matter which one you pick, because they're both empty...'

I sometimes wish we had a parlimentary system, where candidates didn't have to appeal to such broad constituencies and could speak more freely about their stance on the issues, and where differing positions would actually be able to garner relative amounts of support, and be worked out, as messy as that process sometimes is...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Our state legislature has handled funding poorly, and our school board even more so. End result is we rank 49th or 50th as a state in educational spending.


The key words both here and in Nydia's posts are "state"..education really isn't a national issue, it's something best left up to state and local government.

If there are problems with your schools that is where you need to work the change.

Nydia, isn't your school a community college?

Unless it is a state college isn't it run on grants/tuition?

I'm not exactly up on how colleges and universities are funded, but I'm operating under the(possibly false) assumption that the only tax funded schools at that level would be state universities.

If it seems that I've 'flip-flopped' on the issue of 'legitimizing' gay marriages, it's not so; given the *existance* of marriage as a civilly-recognized legal entity, I feel that same sex couples should be afforded the same rights currently granted to opposite sex ones.

Gay couples used to legally adopt each other to circumvent a bunch of hurdles and wind up with legal rights that came very close to accomplishing what was desired (health care, death benefits, etc.)

-Esbat

Gods, I'm just happy Dean is losing ground/endorsements/credibility almost as quick as Weasely Clark...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Amen to that.

2nd.

I'm a republican and I'm kindof interested in Kerry atm...I honestly havent done much research specifically on him, but if right this second I had to give the nod to one of the dem guys I think i'd pick him.

I think Clark has about as much integrity as an Indiana Jones rope bridge...

Kerry will have to flipflop more than a slinky going down a spiral staircase to overcome that voting record of his.

Clark is a joke .. well, all of'em are for that matter.

Got Joe-mentum?!

Dear Cristo:

Yes, I teach at a community college, but, like most community colleges, the amount of tuition that a student actually pays is nominal; almost all of our money comes from the state. Some of our state funding is tied to tuition (that is, we get more money if we have more students enrolled, but it still comes from the state), and some is independent of enrollment. Most of our infrastructure is also state-funded, but our new Science laboratory building is the result of a Title V (federal) grant designed to promote science education in underserved areas, that we applied for; other departments also have some grant-funded programs and equipment.

I don't have time to respond at the moment with my feelings on some of the insane things the school does here to boost enrollment while cutting staff and equipment; but I'll rant about it sometime, I promise ;)

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Why do I have the sudden urge to throw up?
Because apparently you cant have an adult conversation. Welcome to the real world where not everyone thinks like you or acts like you. Grow up and stop playing little school yard games.

Sorry but people who are openly gay and especially you disgust me. I can't help it..call it wrong, call me what you like, but its just not right. We have beat this into the ground over and over..I don't prade around talking about how I love my wife (who is the opposite sex btw) and think its anyones buisness but my own. You homo's should do the same.

I don't prade around talking about how I love my wife (who is the opposite sex btw) and think its anyones buisness but my own.
Thats because you don't have to in order to have a wife- Homosexual people simply don't have that luxury. If you were told you couldn't have a legal marriage to the person you love, theres no way in hell you'd shrug your shoulders and go about your own business. You're homophobia is beyond pathetic.



I just love this part though:
(who is the opposite sex btw)
Whew! Thank god you threw that in so we know you're not gay! I take it back- your homophobia is wayyy beyond pathetic.



Sorry but people who are openly gay and especially you disgust me.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us why it disgusts you?


but its just not right.
You aren't going anywhere with this argument. If you have any sort of rational justification whatsoever for this, please share it- If not, take your pathetic drivel elsewhere, it disgusts me. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us why it disgusts you?

Probably because it's two guys, and despite what anyone says, most straight men are indeed disgusted by that thought.

As an afterthought, I don't care about their homosexuality, as long as they don't always bring it up. I don't talk about how straight I am every 5 minutes, I feel no need to hear about your preferences.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us why it disgusts you?

Ah nice pair of hairy legs wrapped around me with some bearded guy touching me...oh see I did it again ...im gonna throw up. I could go on and on.
Its not that 2 homos walking down the street disgust me its the whole HOMO thing ..Man and another Man.


EDIT: By the way DaidaltheMinstrel
.. I dont need an argument to say what I personally believe is right or wrong. Makes no difference if you support my belief or not..but tell ya what lets see the up and comming president say hey "IM GAY'...bet that will get him an election..rofl. I mean if im so wrong..bet he be welcomed with open arms.

Back to the topic at hand.. BUSH all the way.

Ludicrous

I personally don't give a crap what you fuck.

But when you say your marriage to your goat, same-sex life-mate, craftmatic adjustable bed, etc... is as sanctified as the bond between man and woman, that's where I draw the line.

The question becomes who's values are more important? The religious who's values have stood for thousands of years, or the fetish who wants to be able to apply for an insurance discount?

The question becomes who's values are more important? The religious who's values have stood for thousands of years, or the fetish who wants to be able to apply for an insurance discount?

Actually, that's not what's been discussed here, to this point. What *is* being discussed is whether it is appropriate for a civil government to support, promote, or subsidize religious institutions (specifically, in this case, the 'institution' of marriage). Last I checked my Constitution, nope, ours was a civil government...

If we are going to grant inalienable *civil* rights (in this case, a sizeable marriage discount in the form of tax breaks, insurance and social security eligibility, etc...) to couples (of adult citizens and resident aliens of opposite sexes) who wish to form a household, then that same civil right should extend to adult citizen and resident alien couples of the same sex. I can appreciate that heterosexual marriage has religous significance to *you*, and that is what a marriage ceremony in the church of your choice is for - for your relationship to be recognized and sanctified by your community of faith.

Drive through please, or find another justification. If you want to take the tack that promoting heterosexual marriage by providing a subsidy in the form of tax breaks, etc, helps subsidize the rearing of children, and should be encouraged by the government, I'll listen, but what about the millions of heterosexual couples who choose not to, or are unable to, procreate? What about the homosexual couples who have children, either from previous marriages or during their union?

If you are suggesting that the currently existing civil institution of marriage be something limited *by law* to opposite sex couples (i.e. the proposed 'marriage amendment'), can you come up with a non faith based (i.e. civil) argument for supporting such?

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

It is the weakness of a constitutional republic that it has no defense against moral decay. Step one, step two, step three and pretty soon the ACLU will be arguing in court that "who are we to decide that 10 year olds can't decide who they have sex with?"

If you are suggesting that the currently existing civil institution of marriage be something limited *by law* to opposite sex couples (i.e. the proposed 'marriage amendment'), can you come up with a non faith based (i.e. civil) argument for supporting such?

The laws of a country reflect the ethics of the people they represent; if the people of the us *at large* feel that it is unethical to have same sex unions.... there is your civil reason right there.

It doesn't matter if the people who make the law create it for religious reasons or because they view same sex marriage as theft or if the voices in their heads told them to vote yes.

As annoying as it is, unless our country were to eradicate religion, it is going to play a part in our lives, even if we don't want it to. Part of the payoff of living in a free country, really.

then that same civil right should extend to adult citizen and resident alien couples of the same sex. I can appreciate that heterosexual marriage has religous significance to *you*,

IMO, there's a bit more than simply religious significance to heterosexual unions.

While I understand the gay/lesbian side of this, the simple fact remains: they cannot produce children. Same sex unions have zero impact on the growth/expansion of a societal group.

While I understand the gay/lesbian side of this, the simple fact remains: they cannot produce children. Same sex unions have zero impact on the growth/expansion of a societal group.


!!!

Show me why lesbians can't have children? I can name two off the top of my head who have had children. (Judy Gold and Melissa Etheridge) Their biology isn't broken.

Now... two men... it gets a bit more tricky. However, I'm sure that there are gay men who have had children, or may even act as sperm donors.

Myth Busted!

Show me why lesbians can't have children?

you know, I'm not even sure how to address this except to send you back to junior high, or whatever grade they teach this in these days.

Did you even read the rest of the post?

Lesbians CAN and DO have children.

Dude. Stop. Think.

A woman bearing a child via artificial insemination != a lesbian couple producing offspring

However, if a lesbian has a child, it does counter your statement above:
Same sex unions have zero impact on the growth/expansion of a societal group.

It doesn't really matter how the lesbian came to be with child.

And what's so great about societal groups that they need expansion, particularly at this point in history? We have more than enough people.

hah. Sure. Why maintain the basic building blocks of society if that society doesn't need more building blocks?

I think I saw this in a Star Trek:TNG episode.

Overpopulation and how we can possibly reduce our rate of growth is a debate that could merit another thread on it, but as it stands, more people=bad.

A woman bearing a child via artificial insemination != a lesbian couple producing offspring

Ah, we are saying two different things. You are trying to say that the same sex couple can not (with our current technology) mingle their genes to create offspring without outside influence or the donation of sperm/eggs.

However, what you SAID was this: "While I understand the gay/lesbian side of this, the simple fact remains: they cannot produce children." Which is wrong. They can and DO produce children.

Same sex couples also sometimes adopt the children of other unions- but I think that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.

They can and DO produce children.

Make up semantics all you want, dude.

"They" don't produce children. "They" acquire children. The woman who isn't the birth mother had nothing to do with the conception - except for the possibility that she paid the bill.

I'm not making up semantics.

If a baby comes out of a woman's body, you really can't argue that they didn't produce it.

In the case above (Judy Gold) both her and her partner have borne children (see what you learn when you watch Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn?)

Both women have passed on their genes to the next generation.

<--- Dated a woman with a 3 year old (spoiled ;) ) son. Oh nos!

On a more serious note: Mirdorr, your previous point (about people having the right to legislate whatever the heck they want to) is well taken; my point was is that if certain groups want to legislate something that affects my pocketbook (or my freedoms) 'because the voices in their head tell them to', I want them to own up to that :) . Then we can discuss the relative costs-vs-benefits of such proposals based on their intrinsic value to the society, without the heavy hand of a predominant religious faith attempting to impose 'divine sanction' where it doesn't belong (at least in this particular constitutional republic), and on the backs of folks who may not subscribe to that particular faith.

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

P.S. Tough Crowd owns :) . Best thing (along with the Daily Show) to come along on TV since the demise of Bill Maher's showon ABC...

Thanks for clearing all of that up as far as funding. I agree with you incidently, the morons running the state college in my town put up a brand new clock tower a couple of years ago as well. Overall the school itself isn't as lacking as yours is from your description, but still a waste of money.

That's government for you though. They like to do stupid things with our cash - my state government just spent an assload of money to put a large bronze indian statue on top of our statehouse for no apparent reason for example.

As far as the marriage bit..I have some problems with the republicans on this one even though I have some pretty conservative leanings. Republicans are usually for less govt involvement, and this really isn't a place for them to make an exception.

The woman produced a child. There is no "they" in a lesbian relationship when it comes to child bearing. Two women can raise a child, but two women cannot both contritube to the DNA of a child.

You can get married to whatever you want if that's your fetish, but there's no legal bind to it, no benefits, no nada, unless it's a heterosexual marriage condoned by the state.

Now why is this? Oh yeah, it's because the voter majority says so. Homosexuality is nothing more then a fetish or even an aberration of nature. Don't believe me? Remind yourself that less then 5% of the U.S. adult population has had same-sex encounters, and less then 1% are exclusively homosexual.

Wow, that's some real voting potential there.

I'm curious to know what your stance is on incest Nydia. Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife and marry his daughter provided she's over 18? Afterall, there's more a chance of them having children then two men, which is the ultimate goal of all living things afterall.

OK this thread just took a turn for the weird

Increasing amorality is inevitable in this system all we can do is fight it as much as possible until it destroys us then start over.

I think the moral decay of society is bullshit...society has *always* been this way. The difference is that now we are deluged by it in nearly every single way. It used to be possible not to know every single sex offender in your neighborhood...now they're fucking EVERYWHERE!!! Wait...is it because they all just moved into your neighborhood...or is it because you can go on the Internet and see every one of them?

Plenty of bad stuff happens in countries that are supposed to be moral high grounds. (ie, the Middle East where even in the most religiously conservative parts it is possible to legally kill your wife...in fact you can be considered a good Muslim for doing so by certain far right aspects...a woman recently avoided death by stoning for having a baby out of wedlock...the man walked away scott free without even a "trial"). Christianity throughout time has done many immoral acts. I have a lot of respect for the Catholic church that has come out and asked for forgiveness for some of the evil stuff they've done.

IMO, you never know what agenda/true morality is lying underneath that thin veneer of "apparent morality." Basing a government on morality instead of civil law is a mistake. One man's morality is not another's. How extreme does your morality have to be to be true morality? Should a woman or man be burned alive for infidelity? Are these other countries more moral than us because they believe this? Should we let our goverment be as moral as they are?

I believe that by living a moral life, others see you living it and can decide for themselves if that is they way they should live their life. Lead by example. If you can't lead by example don't lead (/glare Rush Limbaugh)...you end up weakening society's morals much moreso than some random shmuck being immoral.

Hey bud... where do you think civil law comes from?

From more than the Church (tm)...

It comes from an expected way to behave in society that in some ways matches what the Bible says, but should not be practiced under the Bible. I say that because the Bible is interpreted many, many different ways. In the past...disagreeing with one interpretation of the Bible in favor of another could get you killed. I have no desire to go back to that. This is the history of Christianity (and most religion).

Actually civil law is based on Roman Law which was largely unaffected by Christianity. However, the US and European and Latin American versions adjusted accordingly.

Morals are the very reason for our "morals to decay". But that would lead way too much for you to understand.
I live a life without any morals, without ny fear of a wrath of god or punishment and I am absolutely happy nor do I commit any sins or "wrong things". BUt as I said.. that's too deep for you.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Now why is this? Oh yeah, it's because the voter majority says so. Homosexuality is nothing more then a fetish or even an aberration of nature. Don't believe me? Remind yourself that less then 5% of the U.S. adult population has had same-sex encounters, and less then 1% are exclusively homosexual.<hr></blockquote>

I strongly believe it is a much higher percentage then the one you tell us here.
I have as much proof as you, but I remember having heared completely different (higher) figures.

Lyrik got some great inputs there Wintwerworg. Want to look into it.
Just one general note. The more morals and harsh unnatural laws a culture has, the more unhappy they tend to be. And the more they brake their own morals and laws and then become even more unhappy and then put up even more rules and morals so they can remain a bit good and then brake even more and are even more in a prison they built up by themselves.

Moralists are the poison of a free and happy (and positive) mind.

I live a life without any morals

Please define the term "morals" a bit.


Are you "amoral"?

Or are you just rambling?

I am free of morals. I don't judge anything unmoralic, I don't judge anything moralic.
The very idea of a moral does not exist in my daily life. I am neither amoralic nor moralic. I live my life following my needs, my desire, free of the judgement of whether thoese are moralic or amoralic. And trust me, it is a very very revealing and free way of living.

No Taino... you are fooling yourself.

On one hand you crow and prate about the reputation you've earned and "what Jokers stand for".. then on the other hand you say you live your life with your personal needs as the only guiding factor for your actions.

Nigga Pleeze..

Even though you dont admit to "morals", I believe you have a personal code of action that you feel is right and wrong.

Lemme give you an example.
My wife is a nurse in the pediatic intensive care unit at a Hospital.
A couple nights ago they had a baby that was dying. It was on its last few hours of life. They called the parents of the baby to come down and be with the infant because it really wasnt doing well. The Parents answered they were "Getting married today and would be down in about an hour" A little weirded, my wife said "ok" and hung up.
One hour past.
And another
And another
and another.
The doctors called.. sounds of partying in the background.
"Oh we will be down in a little bit.
another hour.
child dies alone, surronded by strangers.
The baby is brought down to the mourge.

At some point during the next day the people show up at the hospital. The baby is brought up from the mourge and nurses try to warm up the body and make it look nice for the parents.
The parents are laughing and joking.. they pick up the body and take pictures with it.. then passing to each of their living children to have pictures taken with it.
Only one child looks affected, an 11 year old girl has a horrified look and seems to be in shock at her life.

That, Taino, is the purest example of being "amoralic", Those people didnt care about anything. They followed their own needs and desires and didnt care who thought what.
Are you that?
No, you arent that.. You are more than an animal. I refuse to belive that you are capable of that type of action. I may disagree with you on many issues but I dont think that of you.

When you claim something.. put some thought into the logical end of the thought.
The end of amorality is ugly, its hideous, its the worst that humanity is capable of.

You confuse two entirely different things dear L2.
Leading a life without morals does in no way equal "not to care about anything". I care about lots of things and I certainly care about other people.

You L2, like a typical "westerner", does equal moarls with "right and wrong". You believe that morals are what makes good people out of us. You bhelieve that thanks to moral standards and moral laws and values, we push ourselves to be good people. We want to be good christians and god tells us whats moralic and whats amoralic. So in order to be a good christian and to not be punished when facing the judgement of god, we are following those morals that we have been taught. Its a fear driven behaviour. You act "good" and "moralic" not because you truly want to, because you truly are this way, but because you have been taught, been raised this way, you have been threated with punishment if you don't do it. Be it by christian rules or simple "if you don't fllow those rules, you are a bad man" statements. Now I am making a generalization here of course and you may not work exactly like this. But those are the reasons behind our morals.
A deep belief that human beings are naturally bad. A strong belief that without morals, we are all animals, bad ugly monsters, natural born beasts. And only morals and rules, harshly put upon everyones will can eventually make us "good".

So if you do follow this all, how "good" are you? Do you purposely and truthfully act within your personal feelings and desires? No, you follow the things you have been told. You don't act out of free will, but out of "whats expected from me".

Lets look at your example.

- A moralic person will not joke and laugh. Why? Because its not moralic. Because its not "good to behave this way". Its not how you are told to act.
- I will not joke and laugh. Why? Because its my nature. Because it is my will and decision that I don't feel like laughing at such a view.

This is worlds of difference.
I need no threats, bad conscience, rules, laws, morals and fear, punishment, "wrath of god" in order to behave natural and human.
I just am.

Now this of course requires me to not want to do anyhting "bad" in the first place. And yes you are right, I don't feel liek doing anything bad. Now you may say that in the moment I decide not to do anything wrong, I do at the same moment also judge between good and bad. And this means that this is also some sort of morals. Good point. HOwever, I don't consciously decide between good and bad. I dont consciously decide not to do anything bad.
I do what I feel like. Now the whole idea is based on the belief that a human being is naturally good. I do not believe that anyone truly and within their true self WANTS to do anything bad.
The one and only result of "bad" is pain.
Thisis how I define (and maybe judge) bad things. You cause pain. Physical pain, mental pain, you hurt someone.. maybe just yourself.
And I don't want to do this. I want to enjoy life and make other people's lifes more enjoyable, too. There is no motivation whatsoever in my life why I would cause pain to anyone or anything. Because there is simply no possible benefit in causing pain. None. Nada.

So tell me, who is generally the "better" person, the one that forces himself to be moralic and follow all morals and requirements of the society or his religion and always forces himself to "say no to sin".. or the one that simply doesn't force himself at all and just is?

I don't have a bad conscience, I don't hurt anyone, I don't judge, I am not selfish nor unselfish, I am not following any morals nor do I have to fear anything, because "i have been a sinner". Still I only act the way I want, and I want to act good, on a positive way for me and everyone around me.
This is my free will to act good.

To be really honest L2....
This family with the dead child...
The only reason why their behaviour is wrong is because it hurts and influences other people. Lets say they loved and treated their child fair and as fantastic parents at all times. lets say they gave their daughrter a great life. Due to a bad accident the child died. The parents couldn't do anything about it...

Morals expect us to cry and freak out and to be shocked and behave in a certain way.
But, if the parents do feel like not crying and not be shocked but simply accept this death.. then why not?
I could not act liek this. I could not take the death of my child lighthearted. But lets just say this family can. Lets say they DID act great and fantastic to their kid before... who are you to judge their "lightheartedness" in their reaction?

If this is the right way for them, if they don't hurt anyone, if they treat their children right and love them.. then they are perfectly rightfully acting as they please facing the death of their child.

Morals are nothing else but brute force upon our will and freedom. The more moralists preach and yell, the more people feel bad, feel treatened, force, punished and are scared. And this all leads to nothing else but people acting badly more then they would naturally do.

it is the same principle as with geting sick.
If you constantly are afraid of being sick, you are paniced about it, you eat vitamins like shit, you keep your hands off anything that is dirty, you keep yourself clean and you keep talking about it, htinking about it and you do everyhting to NOT get sick.. then you can bet that you will be the first person to be sick.

The person that does not think about being sick or not, the person that just lives and enjoys, the person that does not purposely fight against being sick and does not eat vitamins like mad and and and.. this person will hardly ever be sick at all.

Still I only act the way I want, and I want to act good, on a positive way for me and everyone around me.
This is my free will to act good.

Ergo, you have a moral code. You say its self-defined and that's all well and good but its still a moral code.

Now we need to discuss the definition of morals then.
I don't consciously ask myself whether the things I do are good or not. If I did so, then I'd agree. But I don't ask myself this question, ergo I don't follow any rules or morals. I just act. Free from morals, rules, fear and the intention to be good. I don't intend to be good.
If you intend to be good, then you follow morals. I don't intend to be good or act good. I just do.

Do you think murder is wrong Taino?

Yes I am baiting you......


If you do you have a moral code you live by. All nice words about not judging others, but if think walking to someone you don't know and blowing their heads off is wrong, then you have morals.

I don't intend to be good or act good.

Then you are making decisions on actions based upon values. the basis of values is morals. Call it semantics or whatever, but no matter what you want to call it, to the vast majority of people, what you are saying is that you act on values and morals that you believe in. If you didn't, you couldn't even attach the word good to your actions, because if you were truly ammoral, you wouldn't have a clue what good or evil is.

I call it FAKE and talk about patting your self on the back../golf clap Taino. You the man.

Now we need to discuss the definition of morals then.

No we don't. I think the only person on these boards who lacks any concept of what "morals" are is you.

There is a term used to describe your concept of I don't consciously decide between good and bad. I dont consciously decide not to do anything bad.
I do what I feel like.

Its called moral relativism. Whatever moral decision you have to make to satisfy your needs at the moment is the "correct" decision.

There's another term I know to describe people who feel this way. Selfish asshole.

Dear Ailwon,

no you are not baiting me, you're merely discussing with me. I of course must expect picky questions when bringing up such a for you all, completely irrational idea of the world (or morals, in this case).

It is hard for me to explain my thinking with you all just seeing good or bad, right or wrong, like and dislike.
What I am trying to explain you is that I do not follow "my own version of morality", nor do I just live by "my own values". I have no morals nor values. I even deny their existence! This may be a lucrious statement, but maybe makes my point a bit more clear.

To answer your question about murder.
I don't judge murder. I don't think its right and wrong. Touchy eh? But this is what I must tell you in order for you to understand.
I do not want to kill anyone. Simple as that. This is the whole truth and my "morals" about it. To murder someone involves causing pain. And there is (as explained above) no good at all comming from pain.

However, the taoistuc htinking behind this answer is simply that I would not think about murder at all. I do not think about "so do I want to commit a murder or is it morally wrong?!". No I simply.. don't do it. I naturally do not commit a murder.

I do not need a moralist in my back yelling at me for being a sinner, telling me what to do, telling me about the 7 death sins so I don't commit them! I just don't do it. Free.

My whole point is not so much about the denial of all morals at hand, but moreso about the negative and actually controversal and unnatural influence of moralists. Of course I have morals if you break it down to "see you do some things and some things you don't do, so you do have morals based on this". But this is the entirely wrong angle to look at it.
MOrals as a matter of fact are something we define, we think about, we consciously decide to "put them in stone". And then the moralists tell everyone to follow those rules, they tell everyone to be a good christian, baptist, jew, moselm, buddhist.... and if you don't follow those morals, you are a bad person, you will be punished, you will not reach heaven, nirvana, satori, or you will be reborn (hindu). It all involves punishment. Punishment caused by not following morals you have been forced to follow.
This is not only so in religions. The same goes for our overall culture. Especially conservatives are very eager to tell us all how bad we are. How morals are being hit, falling apart, how the human race is being full of sinners. They are very eager telling us how to behave, how to think, how to act and what morals mean.

My very point is easily explained but hardly understood.
I will blatantly generalize and use simple words like "you" and "I". Don't feel attacked.

You follow rules. You learn what morals you have to follow. You are being told and punished, taught and formed so you fit in whatever moral model your family/culture wants. You do not act out of free will and just natural "goodness". You act the way you do because of everyone putting pressure on you telling you how you have to be, what you have to do. And you know feelings like bad conscience, you are afraid that you may not be allowed in heaven, you are in constant fear to commit a sin even if you don't want to! You don't want to commit a sin because you want to be a pure christian (muslim, buddhist, jew...). You follow rituals and morals because you a) are told that this is the way to be a good person and b) because you don't want to be punished (by the law, society, god, allah...).

I don't follow rules. I do not consciously decide between good and bad. I do not decide to follow any morals or not. The whole idea of "following morals" is nonexistant in my life. The whole idea of doing good or not is nonexistant in my life. I just act. I just do. I do not "try to do good", I just do whatever I naturally do. Am I aware that everything I do is good? No I am not. I just act the way it makes me happy. And since I like being happy and since I like to make people happy, I tend to say that, when thinking about it, I do mostly do good.
I know no bad conscience (unless I happen to hurt someone by accident, I do also make errors and treat people poorly sometimes. Not consciously, but it happens). I know no morals and I don't know any fear, any sins. The whole discussion and thinking about being good or bad does not exist in my life. And this is so very freeing and revealing. You no longer have to think about whether you are good or bad, whether you are a good person or not, whether this is right or wrong, whether god will punish me. You just are.

I have explained this before.
Who do you think its the "better person":
1. The person that follows morals and rules, that is pushing himself very hard to be a good person, that is driven by fear and punishment, by his huge will to "go to heaven"
2. He that only is. That only does and acts the way he feels like. And the good thing about it is, this guy actually likes and prefers and enjoys doing positive things. Why? Because negative things are exactly that, negative. So why in the world would he want to do this?

Who's the better person? The one that forces himself to be good or the one that naturally is?

Am I better then you guys? No. I believe that everyone is naturally good. Everyone is naturally good.
And this is my big point, the only point, in which I disagree with moralists.

Moralists say that everyone is bad! And this is why we need morals because else everyone is bad!
I say everyone is good and therefore we don't need morals at all! And especially no moralists that never get tired of giving us all a bad conscience. Just let us all act naturally the way we want to, the way we are. Noone purposely wants to do bad! Why? because it is exactly this: Bad.



Besides all this....
Dear moralists, how can you seriously tell us that morals are needed and good and that only following morals makes us a good person if you face millions of different morals and cultural rules and laws all over the world?
What we consider moralic and good is considered amoralic and bad in another part of the world.


The whole idea of morals is doing nothing else to us then telling us all that we are bad persons and sinners. And wherever you are on this planet, you other morals and values count. How shitty is that? You constantly and at all times feel bad and act wrong! Because you never can fulfill everyones requirements on morals! HOw bad a person you are! Shame on you!

Utterly useless and a purely and solely negative thing in itself, isn't it?

I swear, Taino. The only thing I can think of that goes further than your wackyness is your opinion of yourself.

Its fun how I am by now called a selfish asshole. So I tell you that I act free from punishment and judgement, that I just act the way I am and this is it, and you judge me as a selfish asshole.
Did you ever see me acting? Do you know how I act? Maybe I just want to act completely and utterly unselfish! Maybe this is how I act every day! See how absolutely out of any context your argument is?

To say that I am the only person on this forum that denies the morals and their need is a vague statement at all. If there is any follower of Taoism or Zen on this forum, you're wrong.
However, lets assume you are right. Then I can explain you this with reasoning that we only have christian (or at least purely westerner) people on this forum. Eastern philosophies, the whole thinking of millions and millions of people on this planet are free from morals.
Just because you have been raised in a way, because you have been told, have made experiences yourself.. doesn't mean that yours is the one and only truth and the way universe works.

Pity that we couldn't keep up a philosophical discussion for more then 3 hours without insults.

Explaining you basic eastern philosophies is like expecting truly western christians, that already dislike you by default and think you're full of shit, to openly listen to you and even give you the slightest credit and maybe would just for 1 minute thinking about what you wrote.

Oh wait.. that's what I actually did!
It was of course a sad try of mine to tell you about how eastern philosophies work and millions of people are happy in life, no matter what they have and do. Of course you don't even think about it one second. And it was a bit too much asked actually from my poor writing skills, on an EQ forum, to make you guys think about my words.

Pity.

The only problem is Taino is that you are looking at morals as laws, or connected to religion. I'm looking much higher than that.

positive things. Why? Because negative things are exactly that, negative. So why in the world would he want to do this?

But if you had no morals, no beliefs, no idea what is postive and what is negative....you couldn't make a decision to act. To act, in any way shape or form, is to act on a moral.

You are equating moralists to certain religions, talking about going to heaven and following codes. I believe you when you say you do not follow any religious code of morals and laws, I'll take you at your word this is true.


Webster's dictionary defines a moral first and formost as
"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior".

The whole idea of morals is doing nothing else to us then telling us all that we are bad persons and sinners. And wherever you are on this planet, you other morals and values count. How shitty is that? You constantly and at all times feel bad and act wrong! Because you never can fulfill everyones requirements on morals! HOw bad a person you are! Shame on you!

No, No it is not.

If you judge any action to be good or bad, right or wrong...you are by definition applying a moral.

Why? because it is exactly this: Bad.

If you have no morals you can't make this statement, good and bad do not relate to you. You cannot say anything anyone does is right or wrong, because you have nothing to base it on. You do not know what right or wrong is.

Good point Ailwon.
You have proven that my actions can be related to morals. Lets call them "Taino's morals".
However, my point of discussion goes further then this.

I do not argue about my actions following a moral or not. Since I DO act, you may aswell relate them to a form of morals. Taino morals.

But the main point for me is the "reason why I act the way I do".

So lets take Webster definition of morals:
"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior".

See, in my daily life, I do not consciously define whether my actions are right or wrong. They just are my actions. Point out. No more thing behind it. To say it again, moral thinking does in no way exist in my life. For me, my actions are neither good or bad, right or wrong. They just are my actions.
This very thinking frees me from the daily "stress" of being moralic or amoralic, of acting right or wrong.

Lets put this away from religion. I just used religions to make it more understandable since religions but so damn many moral laws in our ways. But of course morals exist also besides religions.

An extreme moralist is unable to say, do, feel, think, write, express anything at all without continuously and endlessly asking himself "Is this right or wrong?". He is at all times busy, in fear to do something amoralic. he is constantly afraid of "doing the wrong".

A person without morals never is in this stress. He never has to ask himself this utterly useless question. He never is trying to do right or wrong. He is never afraid of doing the wrong. This whole thinking does simply not exist in his life!

(My whole addition about the fact that I do good is only done to explain that, out of my personal experience, by not judging, not valuing, not following any morals, I still do act positive and good, when trying to apply morals to my behaviour. This was solely said to express that I believe that human beings are naturally good and not (as moralists say) naturally bad).

I say everyone is good and therefore we don't need morals at all! And especially no moralists that never get tired of giving us all a bad conscience. Just let us all act naturally the way we want to, the way we are. Noone purposely wants to do bad! Why? because it is exactly this: Bad.

If you, Taino, have no morals you have no foundation upon which to make the statement "everyone is good". Good doesn't exist in an amoral evironment. Evil also doesn't exist.

IF that is true then an adult having sex with a child of any age is ok, rape is ok, murder is ok. All of it bears no significance because they are all acts performed in an environment where " I choose what is right for me ". The moment you decide any of those acts is inappropriate for anyone to commit against another person you have made a moral decision. At that time you have defined 'right' and 'wrong'. Even if you yourself would never have sex with a child or rape or murder your "we don't need morals at all!" view makes this acceptable behavior to those people who would choose to do those things.

Dear Mukaz, in order to not repeat myself a thousand times, please read my answer to Ailwon as it explain exactly my point of view and what I would have written in response to your post. Especially the very last part.

Again Taino you keep going back to relate to what you term as "Moralists".

For me, my actions are neither good or bad, right or wrong.

Your again relating the basic word moral back to someone else code of ethics or morals. If you have any forethought of an action that you take, you have made a decision based on morals...albiet, Taino's Morals...but morals none the less. If you didn't have morals you couldn't an opinion on anything. All your actions would be without the malice of forethought, ie.e like an animal reacts. Animals have no morals, their behavior is governed by instinct.

A Bear attacks you in the woods, not because it thinks...hmmm, I don't like Ailwon I think I'll kill him. It says I'm hungry there's food let's eat. If there's another bear there already feasting on poor Ailwon (this in no way is meant to relate to the way I played the game EQ no matter how close to it comes to reality :'), and the bear was weaker, I would chase that bear off and feed on poor chewy Ailown :')

I believe when you say you follow no one elses moral code, I believe you when you say you don't worry about whether actions you take are right or wrong. But, when you take an action, whether you like it or not, you are making a moral decision...right or wrong, postive or negative, 1's or 0's.

A person without morals never is in this stress.

Is a person that was raised by wolves and lives in the wild.

utterly useless question

If you think about an action, and you do, you make a moral decision, based on your own code of ethics.

I still do act positive and good

Then you have morals.

Actually, the gay propaganda would have us believe that the figure is much higher, but the figure is actually less. I was giving homosexuality the benefit of the doubt. One in ten adults may have thought about homosexuality, but only in the catholic church does thinking about killing someone make you a murderer. But ultimately we know how useful polls are. The fact of the matter is that the gay population has less voting power then the hispanics.

I've always felt that ethics was the globally accepted moral code that nobody has quite pinned down yet and so it all becomes squares(ethics) and rectangles(morals). Everybody has morals, it's just not garunteed that they match up with anybody elses morals or match up with the grand scheme of things, ethics.

Basically, ethics are morals, just like a square is always a rectangle, but our morals aren't always ethical, just like a rectangle is not always a square.

So you are not amoral Taino, you're just not ethical.

Which you may have touched on, but whenever your post is past 2 paragraphs and not directed at me I tend to nod off and go stare at the pretty snow in my backyard.

I already read it Taino.

Moralists do not say "humans are naturally bad". A large part of christianity starts from that basis but that is religious dogma. The discussion of morals is much larger than just religious teachings though and not confined to just religion. Civil legal systems are socialized morals. If you choose to live by the civil laws of the country you live in you allow morality to be imposed upon you which is the same thing you complain about religious or spiritual moral systems doing.

Similarly, you can't say "humans are naturally good" and still maintain that you don't have morals. You have a system of moral values that is fluid and designed to reinforce your own desires. You believe that left alone, every person will act in a manner that is similar to the way you believe you live your life now. I am pointing out that if everyone lived the way you think you do then invariably someone will do something that will cause a negative reaction for others around that person.

Let's use a less offensive example than the ones I used before.

A person wakes up late one day. They have an extremely important meeting. On the way to work, even later than before due to congested traffic, our person runs a red light at an intersection. They don't get hit but they do cause someone who had the green light to slam on their brakes resulting in them getting rear-ended and causing 250 other people to be late for work who would otherwise have made it on time. But our person gets to work unharmed and ontime.

To me, the person who ran the red light light did something wrong.

The way you present your beliefs, to you the person who ran the red light didn't do anything wrong at all because either a. They did what was right for them at the time (getting to work on time) without concern for the consequences of their actions or b. Running the red light isn't wrong because right and wrong don't exist in a world without morals (but then there wouldn't have been a red light at all in that case, would there?).

Now you'll respond with your interpretation of that scenario and call it "Taino's morals". You can do that until the stars fall from the sky. It doesn't change the fact that if you declare that person who ran the red light right OR wrong for any reason you have extended your morals beyond yourself. Ergo, you have a moral code.

It's possible to live a "moral" life and not feel tethered to some specific religious belief. Sure...their ideas of "morals" may not be exactly the same as yours, but I don't believe any one religion has the copyright on "true morals." IMO, if you believe and work on treating people decently and respectfully and try to avoid hurting people unnecessarily, then you're doing what you can in a flawed world. You're never going to make every organization that believes they have the moral monopoly happy...listen to what they have to say...compare it with what you believe and make the best judgement call you can.

Morality and Religion...2 totally differen't subjects. Don't confuse the two.

Its possible to be morale and not have any belief in god what so ever or be totally religious and belive in mortality of some sorts.


Every thoughtful person has an opinion on which premise is correct. But the split is not, as popularly supposed, between religious believers and secularists. It is between transcendentalists, who think that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind, and empiricists, who think them contrivances of the mind. In simplest terms, the options are as follows: I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists.

www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm)



Ibudin

Come on, Mukaz, ignore him. He's just making up stuff to make himself feel unique. It's all an ego trip that we're not capable of understanding because we're inferior Western Christians.

And it's OK to look down on everyone because he just does it, he doesn't think about whether it's right or wrong.

I always find it pretty funny when people try to brush homosexuality off as a fetish that only recently surfaced.

Look back in history. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all three known to have had male "interns" that put out more than a mean cup of java. This was circa 500BC. In fact, Plato got in trouble with the church, for describing homosexual love as "a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety." in his Symposium.

Perhaps it has been more socially taboo in the past, but to say that it didn't happen frequently is pretty hard for me to believe. If those guys that were cornerstones of the era's pop culture were writing about it, you can damn sure bet that a lot more people were doing it. Primarily the educated, rich, and powerful too; not the unclean deviants.

Doesn't it seem ridiculous to bring the majority's beliefs to bear on a minority, when this nation was established for the sole purpose of escaping that type of persecution?

Doesn't it seem ridiculous to make up a problem with his point, even though he said nothing about a time period?

Don't confuse "majority rule" with "persecution." Majority rule is exactly what we have, and it doesn't automatically, magically translate to "persecution."

Majority rule is exactly what we have, and it doesn't automatically, magically translate to "persecution."
In this case, it depends on how you view denial of equal rights. Btw... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage.ap/index.html)

Mirdorr, I was mainly pointing out the time period because of Zehn's points along these lines:
The question becomes who's values are more important? The religious who's values have stood for thousands of years, or the fetish who wants to be able to apply for an insurance discount?
I probably should have quoted that to begin with.

Majority rule is fine, but that doesn't diminish the fact that we live in a society that was founded on the idea that everyone would be free to do what they so desired. Yet, you see people on this thread trying to justify trivializing groups of people as "wrong" because they aren't the vocal majority.

I just read all of Taino's posts and the replies....

It seems our swiss friend Taino is trying to explain some Eastern thought processes (kind of like a moral Mu-Shin).

The thing about a lot of the processes involved is that they are the end result of a lot of work- you strive to shape your thought processes and actions to perfection, so that you don't have to decide what to do or worry if you are doing the right thing- you just do the right thing.

Trying to say that these actions are outside the bounds of morality is laughable. In fact, this state would represent the pinnacle of moral and ethical behavior- ethics and morals that have become so strong and so refined that they are reflexive.

To say that there is no peer pressure involved in this might be being too simple. To find out the answer, one needs only ask themself: Am I civilized?

If the answer is yes, you at least moderate your behavior to the particular standards of your civilization. You elect to conform to the standards of those around you (and this can differ greatly from place to place).

Ugh.. .very busy at work. I wish I could devote more time to this.
(edit: While the rest of this page looks like bunk, here is an explanation of what Mu-shin is that isn't terrible:
www.skhquest.com/Articles/mushin.aspx (http://www.skhquest.com/Articles/mushin.aspx)

********, I'm not saying that homosexuality hasn't been around for a very long time. It has. I'm just stating that "Christians" have been around alot longer then "homosexuals who want tax breaks".

'Persecusion' from religious groups opposed to homosexuality is no different then persecution from religious groups opposed to beastiality. Essentially from a religious viewpoint, they're both fundamentally the same. You're having sex with something/someone you shouldn't.

Also

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Majority rule is fine, but that doesn't diminish the fact that we live in a society that was founded on the idea that everyone would be free to do what they so desired.<hr></blockquote>

You have taken history courses beyond high school right? The society we live in is founded on the idea that we hated England and especially the Church of England.

I don't doubt that soon enough same-sex marriages will be allowed in every state of the US. It's a losing cause for those of us who view homosexuality as either wrong or not something worth caring about because, essentially, homosexuals can play the "You're discriminating against me" card which always wins. Always.

I'm just stating that "Christians" have been around alot longer then "homosexuals who want tax breaks".
But you seem to be suggesting this actually means something other than political/social power garnered by force of arms makes for a durable religious influence.

The society we live in is founded on the idea that we hated England and especially the Church of England.
And from the (over-simplified) sentiment, "we" (the fellows who set up the Constitution) decided that citizens of this country should be permitted considerable freedom in the pursuit of happiness, part of which originates from personal security.

I don't doubt that soon enough same-sex marriages will be allowed in every state of the US.
Eventually, perhaps, but don't underestimate the powerful influence Christianity has on our politics. A lawmaker that doesn't at least pay lip service to religion will find himself an ex-lawmaker, and Christian belief does indeed find homosexuality an abominable practice (one can cite Jesus' compassion to all as much as they wish, but the Bible is clear on this point). It'll come down to who files a lawsuit that makes it to the Supreme Court at a time when the court is dominated by liberal judges.

Twice in your post you make the comment that... in effect.... your thinking is way to deep for me. How do you know that? It seems your beliefs follow the logic....

I am me
I am best
Therefore
All others since they are less than me know less
Therefore
If they have a different opinion they have not attained my perfection
Therefore
They should be insulted

To be really honest L2....
This family with the dead child...
The only reason why their behaviour is wrong is because it hurts and influences other people. Lets say they loved and treated their child fair and as fantastic parents at all times. lets say they gave their daughrter a great life. Due to a bad accident the child died. The parents couldn't do anything about it...

You dont get it Taino..
Its WRONG because an innocent child was allowed to die in loneliness and fear and pain without any comfort. Its WRONG because it belies an intense selfishness that disregards all other concerns but individual happiness in that moment.

Do you think you live in a Vacuum? Do you not think that your actions have an impact on the world about you? Do you REALLY live that way?
What you do MATTERS. An act of kindness or an act of cruelty effects and shapes the world you live in. YOU.
Goddamn it.. what the fuck is wrong with you that you FEAR taking a stand? Why is standing up for what you believe in and drawing a line in the sand and saying "THIS IS RIGHT" a bad thing??
EVERYTHING IS NOT OKAY. THERE IS GOOD AND EVIL. THERE IS RIGHT AND WRONG.
Goddamn moral relevatism.
Be something.. stand for something.. Be a man.
Your life has impact. How you live it is important. DOnt EVER believe that it isnt. You matter. Your actions Matter, how you live your life FUCKING MATTERS.

Principle, Honor, integrity... the worth of a man. Beyond wealth, beyond anything you can buy or sell.
When at the end of your days it may not matter if there is or isnt a God or an afterlife.. but what DOES matter is how did you live your life.
There is no "meaning of life"
We give our own lives meaning.

You are better than that Taino. Dont fall for the bullshit neo-Existentialism that trys to strip a man of what makes him a man.
It Dehumanizes you.
It makes you easy to control.
because nothing matters, and nothing is really right or wrong.

I would have to say Thormir's point was nearly the exact opposite. He's basically saying "Who are we to say what's wrong or right for people other than ourselves?". I think that's the fundamental issue here.

Some people seem to have this idea in their heads that they should be authorities on other people's lives. Just like the church is. When, in reality, it's none of your or their damn business.

I am me
I am best
Therefore
All others since they are less than me know less
Therefore
If they have a different opinion they have not attained my perfection
Therefore
They should be insulted
This sums up the so called "moral majority" to a T.

Actually that was meant for Taino... I just forgot to put his name in it.

Interesting argument. Personally either viewpoint can be taken to extremes IMO.

IMO in some cases intervention into another person's life is pretty justified. If , for example, I see an adult punishing a child with a hot iron I am likely to intervene. If I notice somebody mixing explosives in their back yard, I am going to intervene. If I see a guy sexually molesting a sheep, I am gonna puke, then intervene. Am I right for doing so? In the society we live in, absolutely. Because all of those activities have been made illegal by the majority through the passage of laws which we all are expected to obey.

Now take the other side. Should I intervene when I learn the couple next door has been engaging in oral sex? Even though it is proscribed in some states, I surely don't think so. Not all laws are meant to physically protect someone. Some are attempts to impose a particular cultural/religious viewpoint and are highly subjective in nature at that. I don't feel it is any of my business if no one is in danger of physical or psychological harm. Homosexual couples fall into this category IMO. They are not presenting a threat as far as I can see, so I stay the hell out of their business. If they want to get married, it is no particular concern of mine.

Well, I apologize for bringing up my eastern view of life / philosophy. It was utterly stupid.
See, trying to explain you about eastern philosophies was bound to fail in the firts place. Until now, noone of you has understood what I want to say. Of course you can say that all my actions are based on morals. However this is not the point. It goes deeper.
You would be required to
a) be openminded about entirely different way of thinking, free from your conventional way of seeing the world
b) read up about the basic eastern philosophies
c) give my words some thought, free of prejudice

Of course there is no way I can explain you those things on an EQ Forum, nor are you in any way motivated about getting a glipse or even introduction into taoistic / eastern philosophies when reading / posting here.

Trying to make you understand my point here is as if I would tell you to count in binary codes or lets say octavian system. You know...1 - 8, 10 -18, 20... This is something our brain would have huge troubles to understand or even to live up to. Because its compeltely controversal to how we work and live, how we understand the world.

When I say that you do not understand me dear Winterworg, it does not mean that I am superior to you, that I am better or more intelligent. It only means that you are not able to see my point, because of the way you think, the way you work and see the world. The simple thought of completely denying morals in your life is my daily life, for you its completely unimaginable. This does not make you less intelligent.
But I do tend to say that I have more chance of leading a turly happy life.. and I wanted to share the way a little.

The only person that got the clue is amhorach.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The thing about a lot of the processes involved is that they are the end result of a lot of work- you strive to shape your thought processes and actions to perfection, so that you don't have to decide what to do or worry if you are doing the right thing- you just do the right thing.<hr></blockquote>
This is the very main point. But I completely understand how this is not working inside your brains. it is not within the possibilities of your "way things work".
It is as if I said bananas are blue. Bananas may absolutely be blue! But it requires to reshape the way you see the world in order to make a banana blue.

So anyways.. excuse my enthusiasm and my tries in making a point about morals and how one can also understand things. it was bound to fail.

No insults needed, I just tried to hold a philosophical discussion.

Trying to make you understand my point here is as if I would tell you to count in binary codes or lets say octavian system. You know...1 - 8, 10 -18, 20...

Octal uses digits from 0 to 7. Does that, by analogy, mean you're trying to tell us that we have difficulty grasping your concepts, which just happen to be inherently erroneous? ;)

Bleh! :P
You get my point. Don't play stupid now. You got me on the octal system tho. :)

When I say that you do not understand me dear Winterworg, it does not mean that I am superior to you, that I am better or more intelligent. It only means that you are not able to see my point, because of the way you think, the way you work and see the world. The simple thought of completely denying morals in your life is my daily life, for you its completely unimaginable. This does not make you less intelligent.

so because nobody has changed their way of thinking after 5 or 6 posts by you we are unable to see your viewpoint? Its so much easier to brush it off as an inability to be open minded because then it relieves you of the burden of explaining your views adequately eh Taino?

If "completely denying morals" is your daily life (your words, not mine) then you should have no problem recanting your claim that President Bush was wrong for declaring a second war on Iraq as that statement was obviously a moral judgement made by you at a time when you were less enlightened.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>so because nobody has changed their way of thinking after 5 or 6 posts by you we are unable to see your viewpoint?<hr></blockquote>
No, it was and is not possible for you to see and understand my point of view with 5-6 posts. Thisis wherre it starts. I don't say you are not able to see my point becuase you are not openminded nor narrowminded idiots. I say you cant see it because this is neither the place nor the situation to start this all up.
I have posted what it would take for you to understand. Stop fucking seeing all my words as insult.

And the reason I dislike Bush is not based on morals. Ahh nevermind. Its all STILL the same point. I didn't consciously decide that Bush is an idiot because of my morals. I just knew he is a dumbass without applying my decisions on morals.
Geez forget it, ok? Just forget it.

You can't come here and say you want to have reasonable discussions and then quit the moment someone asks for clarification of your statements. I'm not seeing all your words as insults. I guess I'll have to add smileys to every sentence so you are aware of that. I want you to state more clearly what you mean so that people don't get confused by the apparent attitude behind your words.

This is exactly the time and place to start all this up. The free exchange of ideas in a civil discussion is where people form, test, reform and refine their ideas of how the world works. How am I supposed to judge for myself if your way makes more sense to me if you're not willing to discuss it the first few times you are challenged? If you're not even willing to try and explain what you think, in depth, why bother at all?

The reason you dislike Bush IS based on morals based on the things you've said here in these very forums. You've declared his actions wrong. What makes them wrong? Who or what determines that? How can you dislike Bush ( as a person or a leader ) without making some sort of moral judgement?

When its all said and done Taino, this isn't about you, its about the concept of living amorally and that being a good thing. I think its a flawed philosophy but you claim to live, or aspire to live, that way. What makes that viewpoint a desireable state? Upon what basis do you form your claim that "all people are good" ? When is the right time or place to discuss a better way of life (if thats what it is)? Is there an obligation to share that point of view with other people if you sincerely believe you can help them achieve a happier more fulfilling life?

Damn...all those hard questions that people have been trying to answer since we became self-aware. You think you have at least some of the answers but you want me to just forget it?

edit: punctuation is da debil! and i probably still screwed it up.

Tao my ass. You've blown at least ten canons just by posting here and arguing with people. Go nurture your ch'i and come back to us later.

Let me try Taino talk.

Taino I could explain things to you to make you understand but you are too closed minded and you're not capable of understanding such things. It's not because you are stupid but even though I do not know you I am saying that you do not have the brain to comprehend such things. I did not just insult you. I'm just trying to explain to you because I have the best chance of being happy in my life and I want to help you poor people even though I'm talking out my ass 90 percent of the time.

Having done a bit of studying of the easter mindset, coupled with knowing a few folks who truly adhere to that way of life I can safely state this.

Taino, you are either lying or simply shaming your own sensei, teacher, prophet.

Please drop the psuedo intellectual bit bud. Aside from the fact that you have never made a decision on your own, you simply don't have the stones to stand on your own.

You might want to ask for your money back from that College prof that told you who you are...

You are so far from the centered self assured man you claim to be it's painful. The illusion you try to paint yourself as is as thin as Dean's chance to obtain the Presidential office.

Fandros Finglaflin

And the reason I dislike Bush is not based on morals. Ahh nevermind. Its all STILL the same point. I didn't consciously decide that Bush is an idiot because of my morals. I just knew he is a dumbass without applying my decisions on morals.

this is great stuff, if for no other reason than the comedic value.

I like the way Zehn likes to look at it by trivializing what's going on as simply "tax breaks for homosexuals." Currently, there are no rights or respects for the wishes of the individual in matters of children, estate, or medical decisions for homosexuals. I don't care what side of the fence you stand on...this is not right. Whether I am straight or gay, I should be able to make medical decisions regarding my partner if that is what they wish. I should be able to transfer my estate to my partner if I wish in the same way that a straight couple does. And, I should be able to let my partner disconnect me from life sustaining equipment if that is my desire.

I am not necessarily for gay marriages because I believe that marriage is a religious function that should have nothing to do with the government. As far as the government goes...anyone should have the right to have a "civil union." Straight or gay...for legal purposes.

The religious right is pushing to strike down the notion of "civil unions" and say that only "marriage" is the valid way for the government to recognize the rights of partners. The religious right knows that they cannot fight a civil union law because it has no basis in morality...only legality. The argument I've heard from the religious right is that since nearly all legal terminology refers to "marriage" and not "civil unions" then letting straight couples have "marriages" and not letting same sex couples have "marriages" is an inequality of the law...really it's just an attempt to subvert and gum up the entire issue. The effect is that the religious right believes people are MUCH more willing to fight "gay marriages" than "civil unions."

I have no desire to see same sex civil unions declared "moral." IMO, legislating morality is not the job of the government...it's the job of the Church and the family. Legislating civility is the job of the government.

Whether I am straight or gay, I should be able to make medical decisions regarding my partner if that is what they wish. I should be able to transfer my estate to my partner if I wish in the same way that a straight couple does. And, I should be able to let my partner disconnect me from life sustaining equipment if that is my desire.

Since you don't need a "marriage" for any of that, I assume you're happy with the status quo. I think this can be handled by relatively simple legal documents.

Currently, there are no rights or respects for the wishes of the individual in matters of children, estate, or medical decisions for homosexuals. I don't care what side of the fence you stand on...this is not right. Whether I am straight or gay, I should be able to make medical decisions regarding my partner if that is what they wish. I should be able to transfer my estate to my partner if I wish in the same way that a straight couple does. And, I should be able to let my partner disconnect me from life sustaining equipment if that is my desire.
All can handled for $300 and a cheesy lawyer.

anyone should have the right to have a "civil union." Straight or gay...for legal purposes.
How about bigamy? Or how about ten men and three dogs getting married?

You can't take morality out government. Well you can, but then there's nothing left but allowing a marriage of ten men and three dogs. That would be civil, but not moral no?

Follwing what akipt stated, if as Lyrik and others have suggested, there should be no restrictions on "civil unions" then there could be a civil union of a Father and his Daughter/Son. When a person dies, under tax law your spouse inherits without being subject to estate taxes. Is this a way to avoid estate taxes? Hmm.....

So really, this all boils down to a conspiracy by lawyers to make more money.

What a shocker that would be.

No its part of a social agenda to force issues down the throat of those with dissenting viewpoints.

I'm going to go out and marry my couch right away. I love my couch. We spend so many evenings together just lying there, staring at the ceiling. Our love transcends human knowledge.

That would explain that stain on your couch.

www.humanplague.com/archi...urbate.jpg (http://www.humanplague.com/archive/pissoff/pics/masturbate.jpg)

I'm going to go out and marry my couch right away
Did your couch consent?

Hopefully, you and your couch can get the insurance and tax breaks you deserve. After all, married people have them, so you deserve them, too.

Did you know the Mississippi delta extends itself 50 yards every year? Before we know it, Cubans won't have to swim to Florida to escape Castro.

www.humanplague.com/archi...aslman.jpg (http://www.humanplague.com/archive/pissoff/pics/aslman.jpg)