If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1021
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-05-04 07:32:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2010050323505427544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... On 2010-05-03 23:09:54 -0700, "Bill Graham" said: "Savageduck" wrote in message news:2010050218325643658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... Certainly I am ranting in the heat of debate. I recognize there are those who get much from their faith. However we are talking of a group who are held in distain by their religion, and are denied the sacrament of marriage within that religion because their own religion deems them "sinners." Their own religion does not tolerate them in anyway. Once that faith betrays them in that way, why should they continue to follow that faith if it leaves them in emotional and psychological torment. The question remains. If they are betrayed by a faith which will not support them, why not consider leaving that religion? ...and I know many people of faith, Christian, Jew, Muslim, who are disappointed in the lack of tolerance in the upper echelon, and fundamentalist elements of their religions. I also know many followers of those faiths who believe themselves to be tolerant of all others, but who are blind to their own bigotry. I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one religion over another. -- Regards, Savageduck At least you have a home, since many of your political brothers are also atheists, and tolerant of same. But I am truly a, "Man without a country". My conservative heroes, like Rush, are intolerant of atheists, and insult us on a regular basis. To me this is the one place where their normal ability to think logically breaks down. I can listen to, and agree with, their point of view for hours, and then, seemingly out of nowhere, they will reach out and insult my intelligence by calling me a, "bad citizen", because I don't accept their stupid Christian myth, and believe the whole universe, (with more galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth), was created by some mean looking old bearded man in the sky that created man "in his own image". This is sure a crazy world......... Bill, I think the time has come for you to consider the torment, those of your own political leanings are subjecting you to by not allowing you to find peace in your atheism. So let me rephrase two paragraphs of what I wrote above; Their own crazy right wing group, led on by Goebbels, posing as a radio GOEBBELS?! I'm reasonably sure that Goebbels, like his leader, was left wing. In other words, YOUR kind of people, Duck. Not even close. I don't really think you are, no. Yet you describe yourself as left-leaning, and seem to feel some obligation in that direction. talk show host, with a low center of gravity, does not tolerate them (them in this case being atheists) in anyway. Once that crazy right wing group betrays them in that way, why should they continue to follow that crazy right wing group, if it leaves them in emotional and psychological torment? I am not really a Rush fan myself, don't often listen to him, but I'm thankful for him anyway. Like Ann Coulter (whose column I read faithfully every Thursday), he drives leftist-liberals nuts, infuriating them all the more by raking in millions while aggravating them. Ann is really much better at it, though. She gets the liberals foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down and flapping their arms, which is a delight to see. However much of what she sprouts is so off the wall, one can only be left scratching one's head in bewilderment. Then you're missing something. She is a bit uneven at times, not surprising for someone who has to do a column a week, but when she's on her game she's absolutely matchless at making her point. And some of her one-line zingers are the best you will ever see, though obviously not much appreciated by leftist-liberals. The question remains. If they are betrayed by that crazy right wing group, which will not support them, why not consider leaving that crazy right wing group? Because the right wing, some peculiarities aside, is still a much saner side to be on than the left wing. Define saner. I give you Hannity & Beck as a counter argument. (and maybe Coulter, but she is crazy like a ...er fox.) I have nothing much to say for Hannity, though I think his heart is in the right place in a general way. I'm not really that familiar with Beck, and I've already said I'm not a big Rush fan though I'm glad he's there. I've seen Beck make some good points on the few occasions I've watched him, though I don't much care for his manner of presentation, especially when he's in mugging-for-the-camera mode which is just annoying. On your side you have Olbermann and some other foaming-at-the-mouth loonies. My kind of conservatives are Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. Neither is a NEOCON, which is the important thing. Neocons have been far too successful in insinuating themselves into what can loosely be called the conservative movement. We need more Buchanans and Pauls, fewer of the others. (And who wants to be in the middle? That'd be boring and dull.) ...but sometimes warm and fuzzy can be so comforting. And safe, I suppose. |
#1022
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
Peter wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2010050409111538165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... On 2010-05-04 07:32:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said: I am not really a Rush fan myself, don't often listen to him, but I'm thankful for him anyway. Like Ann Coulter (whose column I read faithfully every Thursday), he drives leftist-liberals nuts, infuriating them all the more by raking in millions while aggravating them. Ann is really much better at it, though. She gets the liberals foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down and flapping their arms, which is a delight to see. However much of what she sprouts is so off the wall, one can only be left scratching one's head in bewilderment. But she is one good looking woman. Even better looking is Monica Crowley. She's usually on O'Reilly's show Tuesdays, doing the good fight against the liberal Alan Colmes -- who is actually her brother-in-law, though this is rarely mentioned. Monica is also a regular on The McLaughlin Group, weekends. (I get it Sundays on a couple of different channels, though I understand it's Saturdays elsewhere. These are PBS channels and evidently each station arranges its own schedule.) Monica is really a knockout, as well as being very knowledgeable, articulate and quick on her feet in an argument. Try to catch her some weekend. She also does a regular column Wednesdays in the Washington Times. |
#1023
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Art Warner" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 May 2010 18:58:31 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: What EXISTING right is denied homosexuals? They have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Inheritance rights. Visitation rights. Insurance rights. Adoption rights. Patient-care rights. Tax rights. Alimony rights. Custody rights. Divorce rights. Pension rights. Etc. etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc. .... Wow, all those "rights"! They sure do go waaaaaaaaay beyond the good old "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," don't they! Let's take a look at a few of them. "Inheritance rights"? If a homosexual leaves his property to his partner in his will, that works all right, doesn't it? Where's the problem? You obviously know nothing about family law. I don't, and that's a fact. Look up rights of dower & courtesy. Hint, most states have laws codifying these rights. Check community property states. Maybe then, you will know what is referred to. |
#1024
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
Chris H wrote:
In message , David Ruether writes "Savageduck" wrote in message news:201005031719258930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... [...] ...and as far as using the word "marriage" I'm just fine leaving that to the religious conservatives stuck in the dark ages. Call it what you will, just provide equal protection under the law to all regardless of sexual preference. -- Regards, Savageduck My first inclination was to accept "civil unions" in lieu of "marriages" for homosexuals, but that lasted less than a day. Anything less than full "marriage", *both* legally and in name, represents (and is) less than full equality. Of course, if "civil unions" became the standard for everyone, and "marriage" were bestowed by an *additional* religious ceremony (but only if desired), then this would be acceptable... --DR That is the way to go... state recognises "civil unions" and the religions can do what they like with their rituals None of which have any bearing on the state. That sounds sensible to me. |
#1025
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
David Ruether wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... [...] But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal protection under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether they should be given some new "right" that didn't exist before, and a redefinition of "marriage" to mean something it didn't mean before. It is this desire to corrupt the language, and to trash an important concept in traditional values, that is bothersome. ["NH" just keeps repeating this nonsense...] The IRS did that when they added a tax table for "married couples". It is an indisputable fact.....This table has to be available to all citizens in good standing....Homosexual couple so qualify. It may take a little time, but eventually the US Supreme court will have to allow gays to marry. It is chiseled on the wall....Sorry about that..... Unfortunately, the court has a way out, and that is to question the "legitimacy" of homosexuality as an inherent characteristic rather than as a choice. Given the lineup presently on the court, it could go either way, but my guess is that it would go against equality now (a couple of more "decent" justices are needed for this to change, I think...). By "decent" you mean more ACTIVIST justices who will manage to discover things in the Constitution that no one who understands plain English can find there, in order to support their political agenda. You've surely got one in Sotomayor, of course. When this happens (as it has happened in the past), there goes the vitally important system of checks and balances -- you will have, once again, justices effectively legislating from the bench, which is not the function judges are supposed to have. The damage this sort of judicial activism has already caused has been monstrous. |
#1026
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
Peter wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... You need to get around more, Bill. At least half of my friends and relatives are thoroughly non-religious, and I think most if not all of them would balk at any same-sex relationship being regarded as a "marriage." I am not "against" homosexuals doing whatever they want to do with each other, as I thought I'd made clear before. They can call any relationship "marriage" that they like, and have some officiating person "now pronounce them husband and husband," or whatever, and have husbandmaid boys in pretty pastel suits -- whatever they like. The same goes for the fellow who wanted to marry his television set. I just do not accept something as "marriage" that is not marriage in the standard and traditional meaning of that word, unless the reference is clearly to something entirely different, such as in pinochle. And in that I think I am with the majority of American people (the pecularities of this newsgroup notwithstanding) and beyond the slightest doubt with the majority of people the world over. I am generally against other misusages of language also, such as calling cartridges "bullets" or magazines "clips." Those annoy me a lot more than calling same-sex unions "marriage" as a matter of fact. In photography (sorry if this is getting off topic) I have always been against the (now almost universal) misuse of "prime" and of course the silly term "crop factor." Words MEAN THINGS, and this is a principle that should be respected. this has nothing to do with mere words. It deals with rights duties an obligations. Bering married includes: visitation rights when one partner is sick; the right to participate in vital medical decisions,\; the obligation in many cases, to pay significantly higher income taxes; the obligation to take care of your partner when sick; the obligating to be responsible for the care and feeding of your partner. No, it is far more than words. A significant legal effect is what gay people are entitled to an they are willing to assume the requisite legal obligations. All of those things can be arranged in the law, at least as easily as trying to get all the states plus the Federal government to recognize same-sex "marriage." Really? Gee, the power of one word! I guess it is a pretty powerful word at that, or perhaps "sturdy" would be the better term. Look at all the immense effort that has gone into trying to change it, and to what little effect. There is progress, which is all too slow. Drops of water carved the Grand Canyon. BTW how would it hurt you if gay people were permitted to marry each other. It would not hurt me in the least. My objection is simply to the misuse of the word, not to whatever homosexuals may or may not be permitted to do. |
#1027
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
In message , Neil
Harrington writes Chris H wrote: In message , Neil Harrington writes "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal protection under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether they should be given some new "right" that didn't exist before, and a redefinition of "marriage" to mean something it didn't mean before. It is this desire to corrupt the language, and to trash an important concept in traditional values, that is bothersome. You would have a stronger argument if you wanted to deny giving a gay person a driver's license, except for business driving. I most States driving is a privilege, not a civil right. I'm not getting into any narrowly defined "civil rights." I'm saying that homosexuals, generally speaking, should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals (or people with no sexual preference at all), and I would include a driver's license among such rights. I completely agree. Such rights include the right to participate in medical decisions with a partner, the right to inherit from a life partner and the right to visit a sick partner in a hospital, the right to co-won a home and obtain a joint mortgage, and the right to be a co-tenant under a lease. Did you notice I made a similar statement earlier. The rights are exactly the same for all, yes. This is as it should be. No need to create any special "rights" for any group, nor should that ever be done. I'm glad we agree on this. SO we can relax the recent restriction that some people put on the word "marriage" in recent years. So all groups get the same rights. All groups already have the same rights, yes. They have for quite some time now. So that's all settled. So same sex marriages are now permitted. Good That's settled then. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#1028
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
In message , David Ruether
writes "Chris H" wrote in message ... In message , David Ruether writes "Savageduck" wrote in message news:201005031719258930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... [...] ...and as far as using the word "marriage" I'm just fine leaving that to the religious conservatives stuck in the dark ages. Call it what you will, just provide equal protection under the law to all regardless of sexual preference. -- Regards, Savageduck My first inclination was to accept "civil unions" in lieu of "marriages" for homosexuals, but that lasted less than a day. Anything less than full "marriage", *both* legally and in name, represents (and is) less than full equality. Of course, if "civil unions" became the standard for everyone, and "marriage" were bestowed by an *additional* religious ceremony (but only if desired), then this would be acceptable... --DR That is the way to go... state recognises "civil unions" and the religions can do what they like with their rituals None of which have any bearing on the state. This does require, though, that a religious marriage ceremony alone can no longer be considered legally binding... It never has been in the UK It can't be both ways for equality - either all must have the civil union (with an optional religious "marriage"), That is the case in the UK. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#1029
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
"Chris H" wrote in message ... In message , Neil Harrington writes Chris H wrote: In message , Neil Harrington writes "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal protection under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether they should be given some new "right" that didn't exist before, and a redefinition of "marriage" to mean something it didn't mean before. It is this desire to corrupt the language, and to trash an important concept in traditional values, that is bothersome. You would have a stronger argument if you wanted to deny giving a gay person a driver's license, except for business driving. I most States driving is a privilege, not a civil right. I'm not getting into any narrowly defined "civil rights." I'm saying that homosexuals, generally speaking, should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals (or people with no sexual preference at all), and I would include a driver's license among such rights. I completely agree. Such rights include the right to participate in medical decisions with a partner, the right to inherit from a life partner and the right to visit a sick partner in a hospital, the right to co-won a home and obtain a joint mortgage, and the right to be a co-tenant under a lease. Did you notice I made a similar statement earlier. The rights are exactly the same for all, yes. This is as it should be. No need to create any special "rights" for any group, nor should that ever be done. I'm glad we agree on this. SO we can relax the recent restriction that some people put on the word "marriage" in recent years. So all groups get the same rights. All groups already have the same rights, yes. They have for quite some time now. So that's all settled. So same sex marriages are now permitted. Good That's settled then. The same sexes as always, yes, man and woman. I think that's pretty much a complete list of the available sexes. |
#1030
|
|||
|
|||
a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:12:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: What do you believe to be the basis for the state having an interest in marriage? The basis is the law of the state. To be married, the couple must apply to the state for a license to do so. If the state won't grant a marriage license, then the couple cannot legally marry. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dog portrait | Cynicor[_6_] | Digital Photography | 9 | January 16th 09 02:07 PM |
Portrait Pro now Mac/PC | David Kilpatrick | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | July 25th 08 01:41 PM |
Portrait with 5D + 135 mm f/2 | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | January 11th 07 05:00 PM |
portrait | walt mesk | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | December 20th 04 02:55 PM |