Miscellaneous > The Lounge
A civilised political discussion
WMD:
First of all, I support gay marriage, since, IMO, they won't be affecting my life. But...
quote:Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:
Whether a 'traditional' marriage should be allowed is up to the religious institution, not the state. If two consenting adults wish to engage in a secular marriage, then the state has no authority to refuse or discriminate. This is another example of separation of church and state.
--- End quote ---
Wasn't marriage created by religious institutions? If so, then the state shouldn't be marrying people anyway. Why? Separation of church and state.
cahult:
Luckily enough I don
Laukev7:
quote:Originally posted by WMD:
Wasn't marriage created by religious institutions? If so, then the state shouldn't be marrying people anyway. Why? Separation of church and state.
--- End quote ---
Come to think of it, I'm not religious, and I don't really believe in marriage in the first place. However, there is such a thing as civil marriage, which is universal and is not exclusive to religion. My main concern is the legal recognition of the couples, where there should be no discrimination.
[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
worker201:
If the state is going to provide a tax shelter for married couples, and insurance companies are going to provide family insurance to spouses, then gay marriage is a secular issue. Combine that with the fact that marriages can be performed by a dog (if that's the sort of thing that interests you) as long as the licenses are in legal order, and we have a secular problem. This forces us to wonder why marriage is rewarded in this way. I see three possibilities:
1. Rewarding people for providing children with a stable home environment. Studies have shown that gay couples are just as capable of raising children as straight couples are. So if this is the case, there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage.
2. Rewarding people for becoming monogamous. In theory, this would prevent people from whoring themselves all over town, because you supposedly quit being a horndog when you get married. This is stupid, since we all know that marriage does not stop rampant "sinning". If this is the case, then everyone needs to wake the fuck up.
3. Rewarding people for not indulging in homosexuality. In theory, married people are not gay. So encouraging people to pair off in hetero couples prevents gayness. If this is the case, we live in a very fucked up society.
Now, you might wish to vote for Bush because he represents your interests. However, he does not represent mine. In fact, current polls show that neither political party can gain greater than 50% of the voters, which means that Bush is only representing 50% of American interests (assuming that Bush does in fact represent the interests that they think he does, which is another issue altogether). And to be perfectly legit, Bush only had 50% of voter support in the last election. Considering that there was only like 20% voter turnout, then George W Bush only "represents" the interests of 10% of the American population.
These numbers are unacceptable. Someone that only 10% of the people even like should not have this kind of power. But there's no real solution, since neither Kerry nor Gore is showing the ability to get more than 10% of the vote either.
I think it is pretty obvious right now that America is divided. Clearly, we are not one nation, because approximately half of us are opposed to the policies of the other half. The United States, as it is currently set up, will never have a successful and/or popular governing body again.
Back to the trees, everyone. Time to start over.
Xeen:
Here's my view:
I am 100% convinced that the attacks of 9/11/01 were staged by the United States government. I have not seen any proof by the government for their story. Yet I have seen countless proof showing an inside job. If anybody is up for a CIVILIZED AND MATURE pure-factual debate about 9/11, I would love to participate in one.
At the same time as I see the Republican party becoming the 21st century party of fascism, I see the Democratic split into 2 parts: 1)accomplises to the coverup who take advantage of the fascist acts, and 2)pussies who are afraid to reveal the truth.
And so having said all that, I am voting for John Kerry. Now John Kerry is a douchebag. I am the first to admit that. I don't believe he is any better than Bush, but just as corrupt. However with Bush we know exactly what we're getting. With John Kerry there at least is some chance we'll be surprised with something decent or even good. As for John Edwards, I honestly don't know. He seems like a good man from a good family, but you never know...
I am all for getting rid of the 2 party system of corruption in our government. Under normal circumstances I would vote for Ralph Nader or one of the other candidates for president who are actually discussing the truth behind 9/11 now. But I feel getting rid of Bush is the first step. Then while Kerry is president, the thousands of newly formed truth communities nationwide will take the next step.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version