Here we go again

[capsulecorpjx]

The conservatives found another story to distract their sheepish Christian constituents from the real problems:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/06/01/batwoman.uncloseted.ap/index.html

So lets kind of keep track of what stories they have used so far:
1) Stem Cell research
2) Gay Marriage
3) "The war on Christmas"
4) Abortion
5) Terry Schiavo

Mind you, nothing has been changed regarding their stupid issues (that hardly affect anyone). The issues are just bits of cheese used by the conservatives to get them into power so they can make their friends rich.

[baja_yu]

Regarding the "getting rich", american politicians have a lot to learn, especially from italians. Like the prime mister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi who is the worlds 25th richest person with net worth over 12 billion dollars :)

[DeadEyes]

Regarding the "getting rich", american politicians have a lot to learn, especially from italians. Like the prime mister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi who is the worlds 25th richest person with net worth over 12 billion dollars :)
And managed to pass laws so that he couldn't get prosecuted with anything while still in power.

[FunkyDexter]

And managed to pass laws so that he couldn't get prosecuted with anything while still in power. And just got voted out of power. Settle back with the popcorn and watch the show, folks.

[szlamany]

None of those issues matter one bit to conservatives.

They are simply conservative - will vote republican - about 43% of the US

The liberals - same thing - do you think they really care about the environment (SUV driving trophy wives?) - or care about anything but money (the entire media and entertainment industry!). They will vote democratic - about 43% of the US.

The whole stupid election every 4 years is over the 10 to 15% undecided - in the few states that it actually matters.

They fully know what states are a guaranteed to come rep vs dem - they only ever care about the handful of states where the swing vote matters.

They want you to believe that there are issues - so that the guaranteed votes stay complacent - stupid non-thinking, could-care-less group of people.

Read a great article in the New York magazine the other day about Hillary and Gore. Hillary could try for the democratic nod - but no one in the party believes she can get that 15% swing group to go her way. When polled, people said they were ready to vote for a woman, but when asked if they though their neighbor was ready to vote for a woman they said no! Now that's a strong opinion based on a facsade.

So it's just a stupid political numbers game - can the dem's take Ohio over the rep's - what a silly way to run a country.

It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with any of the 5 points you think the conservatives make any decisions based on! That's just the smoke and mirrors they hide behind while trying to protect their grasp on the swing vote. The dem's have their own smoke and mirrors that mean just as little.

[DeadEyes]

And just got voted out of power. Settle back with the popcorn and watch the show, folks.
We won't be able to because he owns all the media in Italy.

[sevenhalo]

Is it really a surprise? Look at the thunder-thighs on her and tell me it wasn't coming.

[FunkyDexter]

We won't be able to because he owns all the media in Italy. Dammit! I was looking forward to the fall-out but thinking about it your probably right :mad: Still, at least I'll probably see a lot more of it in the UK that anyone in Italy will.

So it's just a stupid political numbers game How depressingly true. The situations slightly better in the UK... but not much. City = Labour, Country = Conservative... Students = Liberals.

[yrwyddfa]

I am embarrased that I even feel the need to contribute to this worthless drivel.

Surely the moderators could keep some sort of form of decorum around here. I mean, Ugly Batwomen?

On a day where there are numerous news stories worthy of a serious discussion . . . .

Nevermind, time to leave you lot to it, once again . . .

[szlamany]

I figured the link was wrong ;)

I replied to the list of 5 items that were represented as some kind of Christian/conservative mantra - as if those people actually think about these things more often then they think about what they are going to have for dinner tonight :rolleyes:

[demotivater]

The conservatives found another story to distract their sheepish Christian constituents from the real problems:
*** are you talking about?

[baja_yu]

I just now looked at the link... So the Bat Women is lesbian, wow. That is fascinating. It is going to occupy my complete attention for at least the next 15 seconds. After that it's back to, as Frank Zappa said, ******* 'n' beer.

Edit: Would you look at that. Who would have thought that the word ******* was in the word filter. That must be some mistake, unlike that deal with "electron" the sub-atomic particle from hell.

[grilkip]

I love ******* as well.

Politicians love to create hypes when their incompetence is starting to show, left or right.

[capsulecorpjx]

I love ******* as well.

Politicians love to create hypes when their incompetence is starting to show, left or right.

Bush is starting to reorganize against gay marriage now. I wonder why?
You know, the Democrats should just pass the ban on gay marriage so Bush can't use it as a distraction.

[szlamany]

Bush is starting to reorganize against gay marriage now. I wonder why?
Because 53% of the country agrees with him and finding those precious percentage points is what this whole stupid game is all about...

[visualAd]

You need a 2/3 majority to get it in the constitution, luckily (for the sake of the Americans) it isn't there.

[nemaroller]

Because 53% of the country agrees with him and finding those precious percentage points is what this whole stupid game is all about...

53% thought that gay marriages shouldn't be recognized like a traditional marriage.

When polled how many would support a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages (Bush's idea), the number significantly dropped to 42%. In fact, most thought the issue to ban or not should be kept at the State level, and not at the Federal level. (Which of course could make it easier to ban in strongly pro-ban States, and easy to legitimize in strongly pro-gay marriage States).

[szlamany]

53% thought that gay marriages shouldn't be recognized like a traditional marriage.

When polled how many would support a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages (Bush's idea), the number significantly dropped to 42%. In fact, most thought the issue to ban or not should be kept at the State level, and not at the Federal level. (Which of course could make it easier to ban in strongly pro-ban States, and easy to legitimize in strongly pro-gay marriage States).When made to think the people of this country can at least recognize that federal mandates over state rule are simply interfering in the soveign right of the state to make it's own choices...

[Shaggy Hiker]

In this case, this seems like it might be a federal issue. After all, if two guys get married in Vermont, then travel to Idaho, what is their status? For that matter, what is their status if they travel overseas? And while I'm on that subject, there are such varied ideas about marriage around the world, is the status of marriage for a hetero couple meaningful in all parts of the world?

[szlamany]

Not in Utah ;)

[System_Error]

How can you support two GUYS getting married? If you want to pork another guy, then do the world a favor and stay in the closet. If you do support two dudes loving on each other, then remember to support ALL the other weird alternative sexual preferences like pedophiles, incest, beastiality, etc... or else you're a hypocrite.

[grilkip]

That comparison is retarded, if I like to pork another guy I am not hurting anyone.

I am going to marry a hairless Filipino boy just to offend you.

[visualAd]

You need a 2/3 majority to get it in the constitution, luckily (for the sake of the Americans) it isn't there.
I never knewthat i knew that :confused: - what was I on when I posted that?

[szlamany]

@systemerror...

You talk like the real issue even matters!

This is politics - posturing and building a platform that seems strong and solid - but in the long run has nothing to do with what you do when you get into power.

No one wants to touch this issue - they talk like they support or don't support it - but no one wants to make a real effort to move on it.

[yrwyddfa]

I don't mean to interrupt but isn't this about an issue with the freedoms of an individual who is born equal Or don't you guys subscribe to that anymore?

[System_Error]

That comparison is retarded

Most f*g butthole loving gay supports are offended by it, which they should be....



I am going to marry a hairless Filipino boy just to offend you.


Good. More p**** for me and other normal people. Be sure to create a fagatopia for you and your new lover. Maybe the rest of you butthole bandits will move there.

[grilkip]

Most f*g butthole loving gay supports are offended by it, which they should be....

Good. More p**** for me and other normal people. Be sure to create a fagatopia for you and your new lover. Maybe the rest of you butthole bandits will move there.http://images.penagate.spiralmindsinc.com/smileys/gay.gif

[grilkip]

BTW I am not offended. I just don't care to what level I have to stoop to get under the skin of some narrowminded hick. If the p**** you get is just as numbskulled as you are then I predict more white trash youth in prison for the next few decades.

[penagate]

How can you support two GUYS getting married? If you want to pork another guy, then do the world a favor and stay in the closet. If you do support two dudes loving on each other, then remember to support ALL the other weird alternative sexual preferences like pedophiles, incest, beastiality, etc... or else you're a hypocrite.
How old are you? 10?

[szlamany]

BTW I am not offended. I just don't care to what level I have to stoop to get under the skin of some narrowminded hick. If the p**** you get is just as numbskulled as you are then I predict more white trash youth in prison for the next few decades.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

btw - I see your bovine image is starting to reappear...

[moeur]

I don't understand why he government has to even get involved with marriage.

Isn't marriage a religious issue that should be decided by your church?

[sevenhalo]

But they've adopted the policies and applied it into government. Being married changes your taxes, insurance rates and everything else. The issue is really a government one. People like System_Error bring up a good point (whether they realize it outside of their right wing, homophobic viewpoint or not). If the government supported an observed UNION between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and gave the benefits along with it... They'd have observe any union and offer the same benefits.

The last thing the government could do in a position like this is to say this union (i'm intentionally not saying marriage because it is two different things) is for a male and a female only. That's big government and it would not go over well. Instead, they passed the buck to a stronger arm. They let religion play off people's beleifs and sold them on the idea that a union like this would comprimise marriage. When infact, it would only comprimise the economy (because of the benefits and such; the snowball effect of changing the definition).

That's not to say that all gay people only want a union. Some actually want to feel "joined" in the eyes of a higher power (marriage). This is kind of my gray area as I'm not into church, but I do beleive that they are misguided. I'm not saying that the higher power objects to their decisions. I do, however, think that we were "given the gift of love" and that is the only marriage that the higher power would observe; regardless of titles.

[Shaggy Hiker]

How can you support two GUYS getting married? If you want to pork another guy, then do the world a favor and stay in the closet. If you do support two dudes loving on each other, then remember to support ALL the other weird alternative sexual preferences like pedophiles, incest, beastiality, etc... or else you're a hypocrite.

Frankly, I often find the best argument for gay marriage is how entertaining it would be to watch uptight right wingers have coniption fits. I've barely ever met any gay people, and don't feel particularly threatened by their lifestyle. Why should I? More women for me, at worst. I can't see how this would be so threatening unless you doubted your own orientation. Other than that, this issue can't really make any difference in your life. Why would you care?

As for the bogus argument about supporting ALL the other weird alternative preferences, the only response would be: Why? You mention pedophiles and beastiality. In those two, both partners are not consenting adults. As for incest, it depends a fair amount on what you mean by that. Incest laws have wandered more than marriage laws have in this country. What is incest now was not incest in all parts of this country not so very long ago. Parent-sibling relationships would violate the same consenting adult issue as the other two categories. Sibling relationships are the only sub-category that you can effectively use this argument on. As for etc., what is left, vegetables?

As for being 'normal', studies of marriage practices in this country show that they have changed quite a bit throughout the brief history of America, and are still quite variable in different parts of this country (look at the polygamy that is still practiced in Utah without persecution or prosecution). Normal is only defined as such by people who are ignorant of both the history of this country, and the current practices within this country.

[Moon Pie]

I think she's hot.

[nemaroller]

I don't mean to interrupt but isn't this about an issue with the freedoms of an individual who is born equal Or don't you guys subscribe to that anymore?

What does being able to get married under the eyes of the law have to do with being born equal?

It's not an issue stating 'You can't be gay', its an issue stating 'You can't get married and gain a higher tax bracket which was meant to help families with children' - which less than 1% of gay couples get married to do.

I of course concur with Shaggy, that just the fact it would piss off so many right-wing conservatives would be all the motivation I would need to vote for allowing gay marriages - then at least maybe organized religion wouldn't be so focused on trying to ruin other areas of society.

[moeur]

In the U.S. a married couple who both work will pay higher taxes than an unmarried couple living together.

The government should just say we don't care if you're married or not we are going to treat you the same regardless.

The only people who really care about this issue are religious people who don't want to be forced to have to accept gay marriages, and gay people (and their sympathizers) who are trying to make a statement. I'm put off by both sides.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I heard that the conservative christians were heavily against communism. Only when communism pretty much disappeared as a threat did they switch to the vitriolic attacks on gays. The interview I was listening to (I have no idea who was doing the interview, or who was being interviewed) was stating that the motivation behind this was that to maintain cohesion within the group, it was necessary to find an Enemy (with a capital E), and go after them.

I have no idea whether this is an intentional strategy, but it is certainly an effective one. In general, America has never done very well when we weren't challenged in some way. As an example, look at how crappy our cars were in the 70's. Along came Japan with really reliable cars, and while some American companies simply whined about the competition being too hard, every company began improving the quality of their cars to the point that there are now reliable American cars. Without the competition, there was no incentive to improve.

In the case of the gay marriage debate, the conservatives are claiming that gays are a threat to the very fabric of society. Of course, this is loony. Most people only know one or two gay people, if that. You would have to have some serious doubts about your own orientation to think that the existence of openly gay people would somehow threaten you. So why are they claiming this? Perhaps it actually is that they need an issue to keep their power base together and motivated. Gays are a pretty soft target, they aren't very numerous, and they aren't very focused, nor do they have a powerful voice in society.

[yrwyddfa]

OK, then: why not create a 'civil-partnership' that attracts all the cash incentives and tax brackets (and whatever) and leave marriage to those of a religious persuasion?

[nemaroller]

In the U.S. a married couple who both work will pay higher taxes than an unmarried couple living together.


If you're married, and both you and your spouse do not make more than $119k, you are collectively taxed at 25%.

If you're single, you can only make at most $71k to be taxed at 25%.

So there definitely exists an advantage for a man and woman to marry since most Americans will not collectively make more than $119k under marriage.

If I wasn't married right now, I would be getting hit with a 28% tax rate. Granted its only a 3% difference....

But if you look at the numbers, you will see that it encourages marriage, with one spouse working little or not at all (supposedly to spend time raising the children), while the other is the breadwinner.

http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/single/
http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/jointmarried/

[bobabot1]

I think for the sole reason that the word "marriage" is a really religious thing for most people, there should be another term for the homosexual equivalent. I saw equivalent because there are some benifits that come with marriage (i.e. tax breaks and whatnot). A "union" or "civil-partnership" should be made so that people with that preferance can have the same benifits as married people.

Like what Shaggy said so elequently, you cannot compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophelia. One has two consenting adults, the others do not. It's that simple.

[FunkyDexter]

I think for the sole reason that the word "marriage" is a really religious thing for most people, there should be another term for the homosexual equivalentThe thing is I don't think marriage really is a religious thing any more. Neither is it financial really. It's mostly emotional. Most people get married as a way of expressing deep love and commitment to someone rather than as a religious right or a way of gaining financial benefit. As such I think the word takes on emotional connotations that would be as important for a gay couple as a straight one.

[grilkip]

Let's not forget that there are religious gays as well. Obviously their interpretation of what constitutes marriage is different from those who opose gay marriage for religious reasons.

[demotivater]

http://images.penagate.spiralmindsinc.com/smileys/gay.gif

[grilkip]

And just got voted out of power. Settle back with the popcorn and watch the show, folks.Berlusconi indicted (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/07/news/italy.php)