|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
vidar
|
|
response 13 of 293:
| 
Dec 2 17:59 UTC 2003 |
I'm getting tired of politicians making big deals out of what I see as
non-issues. Of course, I also know that they play to whomever is
giving them the most money. The Religious WRONG in Bush's case. I
also don't understand why people get so worked up about things that are
going to have absolutely NO impact on them.
Politicians need to focus on politics. My grandmother, a lifetime
Repiblican, stopped voting Republician because of making abortion the
major issue. One of the founding principles of this country is
religious freedom, and the Christian theocracy that the Religious WRONG
is pushing for makes me sick. After all, one of the reasons the
colonists left England was to escape religious oppression.
Again, why worry about things that don't affect you?
|
jep
|
|
response 14 of 293:
|
Dec 2 18:52 UTC 2003 |
re resp:11: I'm not sure what you want. Are you disputing what I said?
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 293:
|
Dec 2 19:26 UTC 2003 |
re: #8....the reason the GOP and Bush's folks will run hard on the gay
marriage issue is that polls consistently show that there is a distinct gender
gap on this. Younger voters, who grew up in a more accepting culture, are
far more likely to have less of an issue with legalizing gay marriage. But
older voters, over age fifty, grew up in a different time and a lot of them
see legalizing gay marriage as another instance of the world changing from
what they know and the world they grew up in.
The Bush people are making a big run at getting larger chunks of the senior
citizens vote next year. With a proposed consitutional amendment to outlaw
gay marriage, they figure they will not only rally their base, but also
attract a lot of older voters who might place extra importance on such
cultural issues. Also they figure such an amendment will play well in the
south, which is the region traditionally most resistant to cultural change
(see civil rights era) So if they think they have a hot button issue sure
to help them among older voters and in south, what does that add up to? ONe
word-- Florida. The state that decided the election last time. Also the Bush
folks presumably think they can use this issue to bring out rural white
voters-- who polls show strongly oppose gay marriage-- in key states like
Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
|
richard
|
|
response 16 of 293:
|
Dec 2 19:38 UTC 2003 |
Think about what happened when Clinton became president and he tried to
fulfill a campaign promise to change the rules so openly gay people can serve
in the military. There was a huge hue and cry, people-- military veterans,
older voters-- saying that you can't force cultural change on the military.
The reality is that you COULD have gays in the military now because younger
people aren't as homophobic as their parents or grandparents. But the old
guard that still runs the military couldn't see that, and they rallied a lot
of support among older voters, white male rural voters, conservative southern
voters. The result was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a sham of a policy which
encourages gay people to stay in the closet and doesn't promote acceptance
and understanding.
The same sort of factors are in play with legalizing gay marriage. The same
people who don't want to know that gay people might be in their troops, are
the ones who don't want to know that gay people are getting marriage licenses.
|
scott
|
|
response 17 of 293:
|
Dec 2 19:40 UTC 2003 |
Oh, I agree the Republicans will make an issue of gay marriage. Regardless
of what the Democratic position is, they'll be accused of supporting it.
|
slynne
|
|
response 18 of 293:
|
Dec 2 21:04 UTC 2003 |
If we ever find ourselves in a position where we have a draft, I have a
feeling that homosexuals will be allowed to serve openly in the
military. Either that or you'll have a whole lot of young men
pretending to be homosexual in order to avoid going to war. If they
drafted women and didnt allow lesbians in, I would be french kissing
some chick while waiting in line.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 19 of 293:
|
Dec 2 22:18 UTC 2003 |
can i have polaroids?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 20 of 293:
|
Dec 2 23:49 UTC 2003 |
(Apparently, homosexuality was NOT used to avoid the draft during the Vietnam
War. Of course, homosexuality was not as acceptable then as it is now.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 21 of 293:
|
Dec 3 03:01 UTC 2003 |
exactly my point
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 293:
|
Dec 3 03:36 UTC 2003 |
If you read historical accounts, you wouldn't believe how Harry Truman was
attacked when he ordered the military de-segregated. The old guard military
leaders screamed that it was against the military culture, that blacks had
to be in black troops and whites in white troops. Truman, to his credit, told
them basically, "get over it" Truman signed Executive Order #9981 in 1948
and unilaterally de-segregated the army. And you know what? the military DID
learn to live with it, and became more tolerant as a result. Sometimes people
WON'T accept cultural change unless it is forced upon them. That's just life.
There is no question that people would get used to gays in the military and
gays getting married, and after a while not even think about it anymore.
|
russ
|
|
response 23 of 293:
|
Dec 3 05:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #20:
If one guy comes in, sings a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walks
out, they'll think he's really sick and they won't take him.
And if two people do it... if two people walk in, sing a bar of
Alice's Restaurant and walk out, they'll think they're both
faggots and they won't take either of 'em.
-- Arlo Guthrie (errors mine)
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 293:
|
Dec 3 14:47 UTC 2003 |
Leonard Pitts, Jr. did a column about gay marriage recently, too:
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts28_20031128.htm
He thinks that the focus on gay marriage is a misdirection ploy by the
Republicans, meant to distract people from the war and the budget
deficit. He also thinks that Republicans will focus on "gay marriage",
not "civil unions", because including the word "marriage" gets more of a
visceral reaction from people.
|
bru
|
|
response 25 of 293:
|
Dec 3 16:31 UTC 2003 |
Being gay is illegal under the UCMJ, or has that regulation been changed?
|
vidar
|
|
response 26 of 293:
|
Dec 3 17:36 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
vidar
|
|
response 27 of 293:
|
Dec 3 17:39 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure if this is a politics or religion question: what does UCMJ
stand for?
|
flem
|
|
response 28 of 293:
|
Dec 3 17:44 UTC 2003 |
Uniform Code of Military Justice, maybe?
|
bru
|
|
response 29 of 293:
|
Dec 3 19:12 UTC 2003 |
exactly.
|
dcat
|
|
response 30 of 293:
|
Dec 3 22:30 UTC 2003 |
interesting to note that several american military leaders have, erm, "come
out" against "don't ask, don't tell" recently. . . . there was an article in
the NY Times recently, I believe, but I don't have the URL at hand at the
moment.
and, of course, some two dozen militaries around the world, including Canada,
Israel, and the UK, have lifted bans on homosexuals in their services with
no ill effects.
|
willcome
|
|
response 31 of 293:
|
Dec 3 23:04 UTC 2003 |
Maybe you didn't read the article about how Canada's military's going to be
disbanded.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 32 of 293:
|
Dec 4 03:20 UTC 2003 |
Re #25: My impression is that admitting you're gay is illegal, and engaging
in homosexual sex acts is illegal, but being gay itself is not.
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 293:
|
Dec 4 08:43 UTC 2003 |
In my personal opinion, the institution of marriage seems like a wonderful
thing, when it works out right. And everyone knows that the divorce rate
is going up and we are seeing fewer examples of good marriages now than
ever before. So if you have couples who love each other, and who want to
be part of this institution, and to be an example to others as to how to
have a succesful loving relationship, why not let them? Allowing gay
marriages would only IMPROVE the overrall marriage statistics. I know at
least two gay couples, who consider themselves married, and have been
together for many years, and who are like the best "examples" of marriage
and "committed relationships" that I know. They don't need a marriage
license or some church ceremony to tell them they are married, but
wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't even an issue. Wouldn't it be nice if
the government acknowledged that they are consenting adults and have the
legal right to share each other's lives?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 34 of 293:
|
Dec 4 10:14 UTC 2003 |
Some argue that the legitimate function of government is to provide
a basic set of circumstances (such as national defense) and serve
as the guarantor of basic rights for citizens.
Others seem to believe part of the proper role of government is to
discourage behaviors they find merely distasteful.
View with extreme skepticism anyone who loudly proclaims that they
want less government interference in people's lives while fighting
tooth and nail to maintain or even expand government involvement
in people's intimate private lives. What they usually mean is that
they want less government interference in their own lives but will
be happy to tell you how you must run yours.
|
klg
|
|
response 35 of 293:
|
Dec 4 17:18 UTC 2003 |
re: "#33 (richard): . . . Allowing gay marriages would only IMPROVE
the overrall marriage statistics."
Which "overall" statistics? And, your proof for that is . . . ?
(Not that we actually expect to receive a direct response.)
|
flem
|
|
response 36 of 293:
|
Dec 4 17:27 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I don't buy that either. I don't see any reason to believe that
gay people wouldn't mess marriage up just as often as straight people.
Of course, this isn't even close to being a reason not to legalize gay
marriage.
|
twenex
|
|
response 37 of 293:
|
Dec 4 18:08 UTC 2003 |
Re: #33 : You want gay marriage legalised just so you can gerrymander hte
statistics on lasting marriages.
Re: #34: Yes, exactly.
|