NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, as the marriage involved an opposite-sex couple.

Ah ha, now we're getting somewhere. So where does the right to marriage stem from then?

:eek:

"Where tha white women at?"
No, I have no idea where that's from.

justices of the peace who perform marriages are paid for through taxation, is the first one I can think of.

This is not support for marriage.

A marriage certificate is a state-requirement and as such, a representative of the state should officiate.

Yes, as the marriage involved an opposite-sex couple.

two problems:

1) what difference does it make, and don't give me the "marriage is defined by man and woman" as up until very recently, and only changed by force of law, marriage was defined as between man and woman of the same race. Law went against social definitions. Law trumps social definitions

2) how? I asked if rights were being denied, you said yes. I thought you said marriage wasn't a right.

"Where tha white women at?"
No, I have no idea where that's from.

blazing saddles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

There, happy?

A marriage certificate is a state-requirement and as such, a representative of the state should officiate.

You can't have a marriage without a certificate and the certificate is officiated by the government, which is supported by taxes.

So taxes are used to pay the salary of those who are involved in the creation of a marriage.

so tax payer money is going to support marriage.

Gotcha.

Then, Websters is obviously unfamiliar with the meaning of the Greek suffix.

Obviously, you are, because while phobos means fear, phobia means fear of or hatred of. Where the fuck did you think the meaning of xenophobia (an irrational hatred of outsiders) came from?

Obviously, you are, because while phobos means fear, phobia means fear of or hatred of. Where the fuck did you think the meaning of xenophobia (an irrational hatred of outsiders) came from?

owned.

Obviously, you are, because while phobos means fear, phobia means fear of or hatred of. Where the fuck did you think the meaning of xenophobia (an irrational hatred of outsiders) came from?

No dammit, evolution is just a THEORY, that's all!

Thank you, Cyrian, that's what I'm trying to say.

I'm just trying to show the political transition from "British colony" to "American states," which looks like it went right over Arthais' head.

OK, Arthais, the British crown held very little influence over their American colonies, which is why they all had their own constitutions. Now, those damn Yankees were used to running things themselves, and, for a long time, Britain didn't care. That is, until Parliament decided to break their own laws and tax their American colonies, even though they weren't represented in either house of Parliament (House of Commons and Lords, for those that didn't know). So, we have revolution, revolution succeeds.

Now, colonies are seperate from England, but each ex-colony's constitution still existed, and they still handled their own affairs...

Wait, that sounds a lot like it was before the revolution took place. Which means, the ex-colonies, as a governmental body, didn't cease to exist, but continued on. Please, this is simple governmental history...

It didn't "go over my head" your analysis is overly symplistic, to whit:

Wait, that sounds a lot like it was before the revolution took place. Which means, the colonies, as a governmental body, didn't cease to exist, but continued on.

This is where you make your mistake. You said the colonies continued to exist. Query. They were the colonies...of whom? To what nation did they belong to?

A colony is by definition a territory owned by a parent nation. If there was no parent nation that owned them, they were not colonies. And if the colonies were no longer colonies, the colonies...

ceased

to

exist

If the colonies stopped being colonies they aint colonies no more. The colonies no longer existed.

Please, tell me. Once Britain capitulated and gave the colonies independance...where were the colonies? Tell me where on the map there were colonies in this territory. Where in that geographic area could you find "the colonies".

You couldn't, they weren't there. And if they weren't there, where or where did the colonies go? They ceased to be colonies. They weren't colonies no more. The colonies went away, ceased to be.

After the Revolution, the colonies became independent States. I referred to them as "ex-colonies" so that you might see the flow of what I'm trying to say. You still don't get it.

After the Revolution, the colonies became independent States. I referred to them as "ex-colonies" so that you might see the flow of what I'm trying to say. You still don't get it.

No, you don't get it. Did the colonies exist after independance, or not?

By your own admission, calling them "independant states" you recognize that the colonies DID NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

Now you're changing the argument, now you're saying "the government of the united states early on operated very similarly to the government of the colonies just prior to independance".

That is factually not the same thing as "the colonies became America".

The colonies did not "become america". The colonies ceased to exist. They weren't colonies no more. The GEOGRAPHIC AREA that the colonies occupied were the geographic areas of independant states, for a time. Then later, the geographic areas that the independant states occupied were then under the authority of the United States.

But the colonies didn't become the united states. They ceased to be colonies. The colonies stopped existing.

"the independant nation states opererated very similarly politically to the way that the British colonies operated" is EXTREEMLY different than "the colonies continued on".

The colonies didn't continue on, they couldn't, they weren't colonies anymore. And you're just not understanding that.

No, you don't get it. Did the colonies exist after independance, or not?

By your own admission, calling them "independant states" you recognize that the colonies DID NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

Now you're changing the argument, now you're saying "the government of the united states early on operated very similarly to the government of the colonies just prior to independance".

That is factually not the same thing as "the colonies became America".

The colonies did not "become america". The colonies ceased to exist. They weren't colonies no more. The GEOGRAPHIC AREA that the colonies occupied were the geographic areas of independant states, for a time. Then later, the geographic areas that the independant states occupied were then under the authority of the United States.

But the colonies didn't become the united states. They ceased to be colonies. The colonies stopped existing.
The colonies were before beholden to the British Parliament. If the British imposed a Tax, a law, an arrest, a policy, whatever, the colonies had to do what they said. Then they got rid of that and instead established a unifying federal government, to keep watch over the interests of the individual states. At first, the federal government had little power, as people were used to operating independently from each other, instead depending on Britain. But as time progressed, the people invested more in the centralized federal government. This was especially true after the war of 1812, when the need for a unified defense was made incredibly clear.

Do you deny I quoted you improperly?



You refered to them as ex-colonies.

Did the colonies exist after independance, or not?

By your own admission, calling them "independant states" you recognize that the colonies DID NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

Now you're changing the argument, now you're saying "the government of the united states early on operated very similarly to the government of the colonies just prior to independance".

That is factually not the same thing as "the colonies became America".

??? Yes, it is the same thing as "the colonies became America." Now, of course, after independence, they were no longer colonies, but made an instant transition to being independent states soon to be united under a single government, which happens to be my point.

And no, I'm saying that the governments within the states acted the same before the revolution as they did after, which means that they simply changed from one state of being to another, which is another way of saying that... they always existed! They just went from being colonies to being States.

??? Yes, it is the same thing as "the colonies became America." Now, of course, after independence, they were no longer colonies, but made an instant transition to being independent states soon to be united under a single government, which happens to be my point.

just to maybe make things clear, are you referring to the Articles of Confederation?

The colonies were before beholden to the British Parliament. If the British imposed a Tax, a law, an arrest, a policy, whatever, the colonies had to do what they said. Then they got rid of that and instead established a unifying federal government, to keep watch over the interests of the individual states. At first, the federal government had little power, as people were used to operating independently from each other, instead depending on Britain. But as time progressed, the people invested more in the centralized federal government. This was especially true after the war of 1812, when the need for a unified defense was made incredibly clear.

thank you, I am well aware of american history. All this is true. However the fact remains that the colonies didn't "become" america. The colonies stopped being anything at all.

The colonies as legal entities ceased to be.

St Jello Biafra;11977275']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
Great list!

"Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act"

Man, I learned something new today!

And no, I'm saying that the governments within the states acted the same before the revolution as they did after, which means that they simply changed from one state of being to another, which is another way of saying that... they always existed! They just went from being colonies to being States.

That's just it. A political entity doesn't "become" anything. A political entity exists as a matter of the legal framework. When that framework ceases to be, that political entity ceases to exist.

The colonies couldn't "become" anything. The minute the colonies weren't colonies anymore, the colonies stopped existing. A political entity can't "become" something else, that's nonsensical. A colony can only every be a colony. When a colony stops being a colony, it simply stops being.

That's the whole point. A colony can no sooner "become" an independant nation then you could "become" another person.

You are you. A colony is a colony. The minute you stop being YOU, YOU no longer are. The minute a colony stops being a colony, the colony no longer is.

A colony can't become something else because it ceases to exist the moment it stops being a colony.

Point to me on the map where the colonies are. Point to me on the map where the city of east berlin is. Point to me on the map where the USSR is. Point to me on the map where the Roman empire is. Point to me on the map where the Holy Roman Empire is. Point to me on the map where Prussia is. Point to me on the map where the British colony of Hong Kong is. Point to me on the map where the Spanish colony of Cuba is.

You can't, because they NO LONGER EXIST. Other political entities have replaced them. Other political entities now exist in the geographic area where they used to exist. They didn't CHANGE into anything, they no longer exist.

The same thing can be said for the United States. The colonies didn't "become" the united states. The United States occupies the same geographic area that the colonies used to exist.

Now, of course, after independence, they were no longer colonies

Thank you, you just agreed with me. After independance the colonies no longer existed. Since they no longer existed they couldn't "become" anything.

That's just it. A political entity doesn't "become" anything. A political entity exists as a matter of the legal framework. When that framework ceases to be, that political entity ceases to exist.

The colonies couldn't "become" anything. The minute the colonies weren't colonies anymore, the colonies stopped existing. A political entity can't "become" something else, that's nonsensical. A colony can only every be a colony. When a colony stops being a colony, it simply stops being.

That's the whole point. A colony can no sooner "become" an independant nation then you could "become" another person.

You are you. A colony is a colony. The minute you stop being YOU, YOU no longer are. The minute a colony stops being a colony, the colony no longer is.

A colony can't become something else because it ceases to exist the moment it stops being a colony.

Point to me on the map where the colonies are. Point to me on the map where the city of east berlin is. Point to me on the map where the USSR is. Point to me on the map where the Roman empire is. Point to me on the map where the Holy Roman Empire is. Point to me on the map where Prussia is. Point to me on the map where the British colony of Hong Kong is. Point to me on the map where the Spanish colony of Cuba is.

You can't, because they NO LONGER EXIST. Other political entities have replaced them. Other political entities now exist in the geographic area where they used to exist. They didn't CHANGE into anything, they no longer exist.

The same thing can be said for the United States. The colonies didn't "become" the united states. The United States occupies the same geographic area that the colonies used to exist.



Thank you, you just agreed with me. After independance the colonies no longer existed. Since they no longer existed they couldn't "become" anything.

This has been a lengthy semantic argument that has begun to stray from the point. Whether it is more proper to say that the colonies ceased to exist and America formed in their place, or that the colonies became America, the end point is that the colonies (and any principles they may have espoused) are no longer in existence. When America was founded, they set down the principles by which they wanted the nation to live. Those principles had little to do with Christianity.

This has been a lengthy semantic argument that has begun to stray from the point. Whether it is more proper to say that the colonies ceased to exist and America formed in their place, or that the colonies became America, the end point is that the colonies (and any principles they may have espoused) are no longer in existence. When America was founded, they set down the principles by which they wanted the nation to live. Those principles had little to do with Christianity.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics, this is true. However as a matter of proper political theory, the version of events is "the colonies ceased to exist and America forme in their place". The colonies didn't "become America" as the colonies didn't exist anymore.

Though you are right, regardless of how it came about (but I'm still right) when the supreme law of the United States was written, it was written for america to be a secular nation. Any degree of history to that point is irrelevant, and bends to the will of the supreme law.

just to maybe make things clear, are you referring to the Articles of Confederation?

yep

Myseneum, you have been using a kind of circular logic throughout this thread. You basically are telling us "Marriage is defined as the joining of a man and a woman because that is the definition of marriage." Do you have any reasons why that should be the definition of marriage? Do you have any good reason why gays should be denied the ability to marry members of their own sex (Or civilly unionize with, if you must have it that way) Is there any good reason?

Myseneum, you have been using a kind of circular logic throughout this thread. You basically are telling us "Marriage is defined as the joining of a man and a woman because that is the definition of marriage." Do you have any reasons why that should be the definition of marriage? Do you have any good reason why gays should be denied the ability to marry members of their own sex (Or civilly unionize with, if you must have it that way) Is there any good reason?Don't be silly, don't you know we speak a dead language? I have no idea why you all are blathering on about gay marriage. So what if happy people want to get married?

Did anybody notice that when they took prayer out of the schools, the school shootings started and now the pledge of allegiance is being fought against and for and again school shootings are increasing?

Did anybody notice that when they took prayer out of the schools, the school shootings started and now the pledge of allegiance is being fought against and for and again school shootings are increasing?
Perfect example of why correlation does not prove causation. But your implication it does goes to show your educational deficiencies. Apparently we should be spending more time teaching our students this stuff. I think a good old philosophy course could do wonders. (was not required at my high school 6 years ago)

Luckily in Italy we don't have to pledge loyalty or allegiance to any flag. Except state officers (like teachers, ministers, the President of the Republic, policemen, soldiers, judges), who must pledge loyalty to the Republic and the Constitution.

The Italian flag is just one of the symbols of the Republic, and the highest military rank (so even the President has to salute the flag). That's all. It is a crime to defile or insult it. Umberto Bossi, parliament member and leader of the right-winged xenophobical movement "Lega Nord", was sued and sentenced for insulting the flag - he told a woman who was waving the flag that she could use the flag in the bathroom. He got six months and a fine for it , but didn't go to jail because he was a member of the parliament.

Luckily in Italy we don't have to pledge loyalty or allegiance to any flag. Except state officers (like teachers, ministers, the President of the Republic, policemen, soldiers, judges), who must pledge loyalty to the Republic and the Constitution.

The Italian flag is just one of the symbols of the Republic, and the highest military rank (so even the President has to salute the flag). That's all. It is a crime to defile or insult it. Umberto Bossi, parliament member and leader of the right-winged xenophobical movement "Lega Nord", was sued and sentenced for insulting the flag - he told a woman who was waving the flag that she could use the flag in the bathroom. He got six months and a fine for it , but didn't go to jail because he was a member of the parliament.

Thank god we have more freedom then that over here, at least in that aspect

What do those words mean to you?


They mean to me that America has a very one dimentional view of itself

Perfect example of why correlation does not prove causation. But your implication it does goes to show your educational deficiencies. Apparently we should be spending more time teaching our students this stuff. I think a good old philosophy course could do wonders. (was not required at my high school 6 years ago)My college freshcritters could use it also. I explained the difference using the old Pirates/Global Warming theory. Didn't take them long to catch on--they're not stupid, just uninformed.

My college freshcritters could use it also. I explained the difference using the old Pirates/Global Warming theory. Didn't take them long to catch on--they're not stupid, just uninformed.

Lol ok I got to hear this example if you have time :) ARRRR

And agreed we have the same problem around here, thankfully we have a required philosophy the first semester or two (or thats when they normally hit it)

Yes, as the marriage involved an opposite-sex couple.
I thought you said nobody had a right to marraige ;)
Did anybody notice that when they took prayer out of the schools, the school shootings started and now the pledge of allegiance is being fought against and for and again school shootings are increasing?
See below.
My college freshcritters could use it also. I explained the difference using the old Pirates/Global Warming theory. Didn't take them long to catch on--they're not stupid, just uninformed.

Curses, beaten too it.

St Jello Biafra;11977251']Ah ha, now we're getting somewhere. So where does the right to marriage stem from then?

Marriage, itself, was - nor is - a right. But, it is a contract that opposite sex individuals may enter into. The right to enter into that contract is not restricted to certain races, but is restricted to certain sex combinations.

Marriage, itself, was - nor is - a right. But, it is a contract that opposite sex individuals may enter into. The right to enter into that contract is not restricted to certain races, but is restricted to certain sex combinations.Why is that?

Marriage, itself, was - nor is - a right. But, it is a contract that opposite sex individuals may enter into. The right to enter into that contract is not restricted to certain races, but is restricted to certain sex combinations.

So the right to enter into that contract is restricted in some way. So we're restricting the rights of some people.

Myseneum, you have been using a kind of circular logic throughout this thread. You basically are telling us "Marriage is defined as the joining of a man and a woman because that is the definition of marriage." Do you have any reasons why that should be the definition of marriage?

Tradition and common usage. It is reasonable to assume that an average person, if asked to define marriage, would specify an opposite sex couple.

Do you have any good reason why gays should be denied the ability to marry members of their own sex (Or civilly unionize with, if you must have it that way) Is there any good reason?

I've already defined my opposition to gay marriage. But, as I have posted earlier, I do not oppose - I support, actually - civil unions for homosexuals with all the attendant benefits - and responsibilities - derived therefrom.

But, we heteros got the dibs on "marriage."

Tradition and common usage. It is reasonable to assume that an average person, if asked to define marriage, would specify an opposite sex couple.



I've already defined my opposition to gay marriage. But, as I have posted earlier, I do not oppose - I support, actually - civil unions for homosexuals with all the attendant benefits - and responsibilities - derived therefrom.

But, we heteros got the dibs on "marriage."
Why if it is but a title? What right do you have to control a word? And in wanting that selfish control of a word allow a "Separate but equal" stance

I thought you said nobody had a right to marraige ;)

Then, let me clarify, if I have been unclear; no one has a right to be married.

Why is that?

"Why is" which?

Has anyone ever heard the song "The Trees" by Rush?

So the right to enter into that contract is restricted in some way. So we're restricting the rights of some people.

Not at all.

The restriction applies to all. It is not discriminatory.

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
One nation under God
Indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.

What do those words mean to you?

To me they mean "thank you America.

for your strength, your courage, and for our freedom

to do what we want and say what we want

a freedom that has been the world's beacon for over 200 years

The flag, whose bright stars are 50 states, each bearing its own stamp of individuality

A people 300 million strong

These are people who have come to work from all the corners of the globe

A land of laws and an ingenious system of checks and balances that allows no man to become a tyrant and lets no group prevail unless their power is tampered by real concern for welfare of those they govern.

A land where the right of free speech and dissent is jealously guarded.

Where the ballot box is the sword and the people its welders. Our revolutions are fought at the ballot box and the voters determine the outcome.

America is a land where freedom of worship is a cornerstone of her being,

A land graced with temples and churches, mosques, synagogues and alters of all faiths. Showing that America welcomes all the religions of the world.

A land touched by hot steel and raw courage of its men and women in the armed forces.

America was purified by the awful crucible of civil war.
a land where people can move about without hindrance or fear

America is a land where a determined man who seeks an honest life cannot be denied his chance.

a land whose citizens move freely within her borders without hindrance or fear.

America is a land brimming with opportunities for everyone.

America is a land where freedom of choice is the guideline for all.

The courts of our land are open to all.

It's wheels of justice grind onward for all causes and for all peoples.
They look to every avenue for justice.
To every concern of the law.
And they temper their reasoning with mercy for all.


What does the Pledge of Allegiance mean to you? Non Americans can weigh in too. Do your countries have a pledge of allegiance?

Your pledge of allegiance means nothing to me as I am not american, though who ever takes the pledge of their own free will should take it seriously. In the UK for various positions (such as MPs and the armed forces) there is an oath or affirmation of allegiance. I am not quite sure what the difference is between oath and affirmation.


Here is the one for MPs:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/images/work/oath.cfm

After election to the House of Commons, an MP must swear an Oath of Allegiance before taking their seat. Members who object to oath swearing may make a Solemn Affirmation instead. In the House of Lords the Oath of Allegiance must be taken, or Solemn Affirmation made, by every Lord, on introduction and at the beginning of every new Parliament, before he or she can sit and vote in the House of Lords.

While holding a copy of the New Testament (or, in the case of a Jew or Muslim, the Old Testament or the Koran) a Member swears: "I…..swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God." The text of the affirmation is: - "I …… do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".

Why if it is but a title? What right do you have to control a word? And in wanting that selfish control of a word allow a "Separate but equal" stance

Because, as I stated, of tradition and common usage. I do not want the term diluted or watered down by letting it encompass that which it was not comprehended to encompass.

Not at all.

The restriction applies to all. It is not discriminatory.

The restriction applies to only homosexuals. Only they are denied their choice of whom to enter into contract with.

"Why is" which?Why is it okay for the contract to be restricted to certain sexes but not certain races?

Because, as I stated, of tradition and common usage. I do not want the term diluted or watered down by letting it encompass that which it was not comprehended to encompass.

Why are you more devoted to a term than your fellow humans?

Has anyone ever heard the song "The Trees" by Rush?

Awesome song.

Because, as I stated, of tradition and common usage. I do not want the term diluted or watered down by letting it encompass that which it was not comprehended to encompass.

I think people are smart enough to handle a change in definition. Almost every word we use has undergone some change

I don't have a high estimation of public intellect but I think they can handle it

Thank god we have more freedom then that over here, at least in that aspect

Do you mean that in your country it is legal to desecrate-defile-insult the national flag? (or any other national flag: in Italy, the article of law against insults to the flag applies also to the flags of any other country that is recognised by the Republic).
I guess this comes from a broad free-speech policy.

Marriage, itself, was - nor is - a right. But, it is a contract that opposite sex individuals may enter into. The right to enter into that contract is not restricted to certain races, but is restricted to certain sex combinations.

Then, let me clarify, if I have been unclear; no one has a right to be married.
So they don't have the right to be married, but they have the right to enter into the contract of marraige, and in doing so become married? And two people of the same sex do not have this right?
Tradition and common usage. It is reasonable to assume that an average person, if asked to define marriage, would specify an opposite sex couple.
Not if that average person came from a country that has legalised same-sex marraiges.

I've already defined my opposition to gay marriage. But, as I have posted earlier, I do not oppose - I support, actually - civil unions for homosexuals with all the attendant benefits - and responsibilities - derived therefrom.

But, we heteros got the dibs on "marriage."
No you don't. I called dibs on the whole English language this morning, so nyah.
St Jello Biafra;11979085']Awesome song.
Damn right.

The restriction applies to only homosexuals.

No, it doesn't.

Only they are denied their choice of whom to enter into contract with.

Not at all. No one may enter into a same-sex marriage.

Gays can marry; just not someone of the same sex.

The ex-governor of New Jersey was married and gay, thus gays can marry.

Why is it okay for the contract to be restricted to certain sexes but not certain races?

It isn't restricted to certain sexes.

Males can enter into the contract, females can enter into the contract. Both sexes are able to enter into the contract.

No, it doesn't.



Not at all. No one may enter into a same-sex marriage.

Gays can marry; just not someone of the same sex.

The ex-governor of New Jersey was married and gay, thus gays can marry.

Ahhh so you are going to be one of those people who purposefully choose a obtuse POV to prove a point

Looking at it from another point of view (the one of the people EFFECTED)

They do not have the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice while hetrosexuals do
Thats discrimination.

St Jello Biafra;11979081']Why are you more devoted to a term than your fellow humans?

I didn't know the existance of my fellow humans depended upon a word.

Is that the case?

I didn't know the existance of my fellow humans depended upon a word.

Is that the case?

Their right to be treated as equals under the law is at stake ...

Ahhh so you are going to be one of those people who purposefully choose a obtuse POV to prove a point

No, I'm going to be one of those people who take words for their meaning to prove a point.

They do not have the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice while hetrosexuals do
Thats discrimination.

And, I will go back to my original statement - It ain't a right.

You want to get hitched? This is the only way you can express your love? Fine, but call it a civil union, not marriage.

Or, is your motivation merely based in materialism?

Their right to be treated as equals under the law is at stake ...

Under law, they are.

Every state law that I have examined in arguing this point elsewhere, has had a stipulation that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Thus, equal under the law.

It does not stipulate that only a hetero-male or hetero-female may be married.

No, I'm going to be one of those people who take words for their meaning to prove a point.



And, I will go back to my original statement - It ain't a right.

You want to get hitched? This is the only way you can express your love? Fine, but call it a civil union, not marriage.

Or, is your motivation merely based in materialism?

No its based on the idea that separate is never equal, and that every human has the right to be treated as an equal in the eyes of the law

Under law, they are.

Every state law that I have examined in arguing this point elsewhere, has had a stipulation that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Thus, equal under the law.

It does not stipulate that only a hetero-male or hetero-female may be married.

Not equal under the law

Every person does not have the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. That is a right denied to homosexuals.

I have one real question. Why should gay couples, the government of the United States, and society at large care about how you define marriage?

Every state law that I have examined in arguing this point elsewhere, has had a stipulation that marriage is between a man and a woman.


And once again this line of argument has failed.

Luckily in Italy we don't have to pledge loyalty or allegiance to any flag. Except state officers (like teachers, ministers, the President of the Republic, policemen, soldiers, judges), who must pledge loyalty to the Republic and the Constitution.

The Italian flag is just one of the symbols of the Republic, and the highest military rank (so even the President has to salute the flag). That's all. It is a crime to defile or insult it. Umberto Bossi, parliament member and leader of the right-winged xenophobical movement "Lega Nord", was sued and sentenced for insulting the flag - he told a woman who was waving the flag that she could use the flag in the bathroom. He got six months and a fine for it , but didn't go to jail because he was a member of the parliament.

The highest rank in the military is held by an inanimate object :eek: . That is the first time I have heard of anything like that.

Do you mean that in your country it is legal to desecrate-defile-insult the national flag? (or any other national flag: in Italy, the article of law against insults to the flag applies also to the flags of any other country that is recognised by the Republic).
I guess this comes from a broad free-speech policy.

Pretty much yeah. Several years ago a supreme court cased declared it a legal exercise of free speech to burn the flag in protest, never been overturned.

I pledge allegiance not to any nation, group, or men. Rather I pledge allegiance to the King, whose mercy endures forever.

Tradition and common usage. It is reasonable to assume that an average person, if asked to define marriage, would specify an opposite sex couple.


And it would have been reasonable, in the 1800s, to assume that the average person, if asked to define black people, would describe how they are less than white people and actually benefited by slavery. That doesn't make it true.

And it would have been reasonable, in the 1800s, to assume that the average person, if asked to define black people, would describe how they are less than white people and actually benefited by slavery. That doesn't make it true.

Yes, and he (it would have been a man) would have said that women don't need to vote or own property, that 21 was a perfectly good age at which a man be allowed to vote. He might have made some less than polite remarks about the Irish and the Italians, depending on when in the century you asked him.

Times change, the law changes with it. Someday, not in my lifetime, but someday people will say, "Yes, and once upon a time people thought same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, too."

They aren't, thanks to a lawsuit brought decades ago by the Jehovah's Witnesses, of all people. No one can force you to say the pledge. All they can do is keep you from disrupting it.

Jehovah's Witness? Go figure. :rolleyes:

Jehovah's Witness? Go figure. :rolleyes:

I'd delete that right quick if I were you.

Here's a good example of the type of argument being used:
"Christians can worship Jesus, and non-christians can worship Jesus. Both have an Equal right to worship Jesus. I don't see how any rights are being infringed upon."

Yes, and he (it would have been a man) would have said that women don't need to vote or own property, that 21 was a perfectly good age at which a man be allowed to vote. He might have made some less than polite remarks about the Irish and the Italians, depending on when in the century you asked him.

Times change, the law changes with it. Someday, not in my lifetime, but someday people will say, "Yes, and once upon a time people thought same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, too."

Not to mention that you must own property to vote, as was commonly thought of during the time. Of course, it is difficult to hammer home the point that times change, and traditional thoughts change.

But oh well, here I am on the road again...

I would much prefer they had children recite American’s Creed.

I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the People, by the People, for the People; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; A democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many Sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Humanity for which American Patriots sacrificed their Lives and Fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to Love it; to Support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to Respect its Flag; and to defend it against all enemies.


But since we have strayed so far off topic...

However, married couples do not need to have these papers. Homosexuals do.
This has me thinking...
Maybe we should force homosexuals to carry papers at all times. Sounds like a good idea to me. Actually, come to think of it, it might be a good idea if we had them sew rainbows onto their shirts so we could easily tell who was a homosexual and avoid such disgusting individuals.




(the truly sad thing is that some people just wont get that this is a reference to 1930's Germany and not a serious comment).

This has me thinking...
Maybe we should force homosexuals to carry papers at all times. Sounds like a good idea to me. Actually, come to think of it, it might be a good idea if we had them sew rainbows onto their shirts so we could easily tell who was a homosexual and avoid such disgusting individuals.

Think of how festive and well-decorated the concentration camps would be!

I did not just type that.

Maybe we should force homosexuals to carry papers at all times. Sounds like a good idea to me. Actually, come to think of it, it might be a good idea if we had them sew rainbows onto their shirts so we could easily tell who was a homosexual and avoid such disgusting individuals.

Pink Triangles might work better.

Pink Triangles might work better.

And us dykes should be given Marine-style crew cuts so straight men won't confuse us with, you know, willing females.

I can't believe we're honestly having this conversation.

I can't believe we're honestly having this conversation.

I move we let this one fade away.

...and the US has the highest illegal immigration rate. But what do either of those have to do with flawless???
Is the highest illegial immigration rate not a flaw?


I'll grant you a quarter point for this. Our high school graduates are among the stupidest of the first world. However, if our educational system is that bad, why does the rest of the world flock to our colleges and universities to get educated? *again, rhetorical question* And why does everyone use the "welfare argument?" We don't have an extensive welfare system because we don't need it. Americans have always wanted to stand on their own two feet, as opposed to their Eurpoean counter-parts, who, for the most part, want the government to be their crutch in almost every aspect of their lives (I blame this on centuries of monarchy, but that's an argument for another day).
I'm talking about public education, education run by the government. Our government eductation is so sub-par that we're ranked below Veitnam and Korea in terms of Math adn Literature. Also, the reason why immigrants run to America for education is because it is among the cheapest, and has the most varietyy.


...All I have to say is "..."
So you have nothing to say?


*GASP* A WHITE CARD! HOW DARE S/HE?? OK, what's the big deal with standing up and saying, as many people here say, "just a few words?" I mean, you people say it means nothing, then turn around and complain about having to say it. It boggles the mind.
I'm complaining about having to say it because I don't want to, and its my right not to. How about if someone made you pledge alliegance to Britian or Russia or the Democrats everyday? Yes, I know its my choice to be in America, but America was foudned on Freedom of Choice, and one of those freedoms involve not having to honor an outdated pledge.


I'm not denying we could use some work (starting with kicking the Dems out, but again, that's another discussion), but a lot of countries could use a lot more work than we could. As for good qualities, you must really be living under a rock. We give more money per capita than any other country, including your precious France; we contribute more money, again, per capita, to the UN than any other country (still including France), etc etc. The list goes on. Get your head out of the mud and maybe, just maybe, you'll see something other than dirt.
I'm not saying we're all bad, but we're not flawless or the closest to flawless either. We can debate on and on about the qualities of America and France and get nowhere, because the fact is, there's no cut and dry answer to the question "Which is the best country on Earth.". So it's pointless to argue and say "ZOMG MY COUNTRY IS BETETR!"


lol, I never said you couldn't say that. That's what's so ^%$#@%$@ GREAT ABOUT THIS COUNTRY! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN SAY SO! I won't like you for saying that, but hey, if that's how you feel, it's your right to say so.
I'm saying that we should change it so its legaly written as "Rejecting God" that over the loudspeaker every mourning in school/work they say "Rejecting God" as opposed to "under god". And, everyone else around you was reciting "rejecting god" as you were sitting there saying "I believei n God... this can't be consitutional that they honor athiests over me..."


Now, don't make me pull out the Constitution. This isn't hard. First of all, we weren't founded by the Constitution, we were founded by pilgrims (history class, people) who happened to be deeply devout. They made laws to govern themselves, and eventually everything grew until we have... THE UNITED STATES!
It doesn't matter who we were founded by It matters the principals on which we were foudned on. It doesn't matter the producer of the product, it matters the product itself.



...And Merriam-Webster is the law of the land? That's news to me. And just because something is recognized by the state doesn't mean it's accepted or promoted by the state. For example, the state acknowledged that there was a sovereignty called the USSR. However, we never really supported them, did we?

And yes, the government is inclined to treat all these homosexuals equally by, as Myseneum put it, letting them marry people of the opposite sex. I mean, isn't that what's granted to heterosexuals?

THe first half was a good point. However, nothing (except our outdated traditions) give the state the right to deny rights to a group of its citizens. How would you like it if we only gave the rights of marriage to homosexuals and not hetros?

However, nothing (except our outdated traditions) give the state the right to deny rights to a group of its citizens. How would you like it if we only gave the rights of marriage to homosexuals and not hetros?
I'd be pretty happy about that, actually. I don't want to government fiddling with my personal life. They should just deregulate marriage entirely.

Is the highest illegial immigration rate not a flaw?

No, actually, it's not. Matter of fact, this forces us to ask the question, "Why are so many people that determined to get here?" Which of course, leads to an obvious answer: They want to come here because simply BEING in this country is far, far better than being in their own.


I'm talking about public education, education run by the government. Our government eductation is so sub-par that we're ranked below Veitnam and Korea in terms of Math adn Literature. Also, the reason why immigrants run to America for education is because it is among the cheapest, and has the most varietyy.

Yes, and I believe that I agreed: our government-run education sucks. I don't remember the details, but our fourth-graders are among the smartest in the world, but by the time they reach the twelfth grade, they're the stupidest, beating out only a third-world countries. Unfortunate, but true. This is what happens when the government butts in too much; you get sub-par outputs (the Soviets learned this all too well).

And yes, it is the cheapest. Are you saying that's bad? I'd consider those to be good qualitites.


So you have nothing to say?

No, I do, I just don't feel like replying with the enormous amount of time and energy that an answer would require.


I'm complaining about having to say it because I don't want to, and its my right not to. How about if someone made you pledge alliegance to Britian or Russia or the Democrats everyday? Yes, I know its my choice to be in America, but America was foudned on Freedom of Choice, and one of those freedoms involve not having to honor an outdated pledge.

True. If "under God" bothers you that much, you can simply skip over it. Or, if you're as zealously opposed to it as you sound, you can simply not say it, should you feel so inclined. If a teacher tries to make you, do what my government teacher makes us do if we don't want to say the Pledge: look up the court case that says we shouldn't be forced to say it, and inform said teacher of your Constitutional right. Not that hard.


I'm not saying we're all bad, but we're not flawless or the closest to flawless either. We can debate on and on about the qualities of America and France and get nowhere, because the fact is, there's no cut and dry answer to the question "Which is the best country on Earth.". So it's pointless to argue and say "ZOMG MY COUNTRY IS BETETR!"

Ok, but all I ever meant was, I'm far better off living in the US than in France.


I'm saying that we should change it so its legaly written as "Rejecting God" that over the loudspeaker every mourning in school/work they say "Rejecting God" as opposed to "under god". And, everyone else around you was reciting "rejecting god" as you were sitting there saying "I believei n God... this can't be consitutional that they honor athiests over me..."

You're kidding about the whole "rejecting God," right? Cuz if you were, I'd just exercise my right to not say that


It doesn't matter who we were founded by It matters the principals on which we were foudned on. It doesn't matter the producer of the product, it matters the product itself.

Not necessarily. I mean, let's look at the t-shirt market. Is there a truly discernable difference between the many brand names in t-shirts, and the generic t-shirts? No, not really. But, it's the name (producer) that sells the shirts, and the bigger the name, in general, the bigger the sales, despite the lack of serious difference in quality. So, the producer does matter.


THe first half was a good point. However, nothing (except our outdated traditions) give the state the right to deny rights to a group of its citizens. How would you like it if we only gave the rights of marriage to homosexuals and not hetros?

Outdated traditions? Ya, good point. Let's get rid of ALL traditions that have been around for awhile, like eating. I mean, eating's been around for so long, and the animals were doing it before we were. Plus, barbarians eat! So, to prove that we are no longer barbarians, let's all stop eating and let our elitist culture shine forth!

:rolleyes:

OK, how many times have people said this? PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! NOT EVEN HETEROSEXUALS HAVE THAT RIGHT! Plus, the government doesn't have the right to give rights, only to protect them.

Don't even try to bring up the civil rights movement. That was caused by certain people mis-defining what black people were (sub-human) and thus were not to be granted equal rights as non-sub-humans (white people). Obviously, this is a flawed theory, and the government stepped in and said so, protecting (key word: protecting) minorities' civil rights. You can't do the same with the homosexuals because they aren't mis-defined as anyone. Their lifestyle choices disclude them from certain actions that, ironically, even straight people can't do (marry somebody of the same sex). They can, however, marry someone of the opposite sex, without fighting a monumental legal battle.

No, actually, it's not. Matter of fact, this forces us to ask the question, "Why are so many people that determined to get here?" Which of course, leads to an obvious answer: They want to come here because simply BEING in this country is far, far better than being in their own.

If the way you define our great America is "hey, at least we're not Mexico" we got some problems.

No, I do, I just don't feel like replying with the enormous amount of time and energy that an answer would require.

Considering everything you say just makes you look like an idiot, it's probably a wise idea to apply that principle to just about everything you feel like saying, k?

True. If "under God" bothers you that much, you can simply skip over it. Or, if you're as zealously opposed to it as you sound, you can simply not say it, should you feel so inclined. If a teacher tries to make you, do what my government teacher makes us do if we don't want to say the Pledge: look up the court case that says we shouldn't be forced to say it, and inform said teacher of your Constitutional right. Not that hard.

How about since the first amendment has this thing about establishment of religion, we just take it out all together, and if you feel like saying it, you can. Hows that?

You're kidding about the whole "rejecting God," right? Cuz if you were, I'd just exercise my right to not say that

How about since the first amendment has this thing about establishment of religion, we just take it out all together, and if you feel like saying it, you can. Hows that?


Not necessarily. I mean, let's look at the t-shirt market. Is there a truly discernable difference between the many brand names in t-shirts, and the generic t-shirts? No, not really. But, it's the name (producer) that sells the shirts, and the bigger the name, in general, the bigger the sales, despite the lack of serious difference in quality. So, the producer does matter.

You know, the last time I checked, political systems weren't tshirts. But if you really do want to talk about how the producer matters, ok.

You know those puritans? Those religious folks who wanted a christian nation? When the constitution was producted...they were dead. Jamestown folks? Dead. All the religious people who came here in the 1600s? Dead.

So, if you want to say the producers DO matter, then who were the producers? Not the puritans or other religious pilgrims, they were dead. The producers were folks like James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, folks who didn't believe in state sponsored religion.

So if you really want to argue "the producers matter omg, the constitution is a tshirt!" then ok...the producers disagreed with you. You lose.


Ya know what? EXTREMELY GOOD POINT. In fact, I suggest we apply this to ALL aspects of our lives. Like, eating. Eating is soooo primitive, it's been around since before mankind, and has been around ever since. I mean, barbarians eat! So, to show that we are different than the barbarians, let's not eat.

While you're off learning the difference between "tshirt" and "government" I suggest you also grapple with the differences between "social" and "biological" k?

Doesn't mean much of anything at the moment, since the whole 'liberty and justice for all' bit - the redeeming quality of it - isn't doing so hot.

Also reminds me that the christianist "under god" addition separates "one nation" and "indivisible."

If the way you define our great America is "hey, at least we're not Mexico" we got some problems.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is, there's a reason that they're coming in droves over here, and it can't possibly be because they're worse off here. Which means, they're better off here, and better off than most any other place they could possible move to.


Considering everything you say just makes you look like an idiot, it's probably a wise idea to apply that principle to just about everything you feel like saying, k?

Hey, I'm entitled to express my opinions, and everyone else is entitled not to care. Sound good?



How about since the first amendment has this thing about establishment of religion, we just take it out all together, and if you feel like saying it, you can. Hows that?

That's fine by me. Believe it or not, it's not that big a deal to me.



You know, the last time I checked, political systems weren't tshirts. But if you really do want to talk about how the producer matters, ok.

You know those puritans? Those religious folks who wanted a christian nation? When the constitution was producted...they were dead. Jamestown folks? Dead. All the religious people who came here in the 1600s? Dead.

So, if you want to say the producers DO matter, then who were the producers? Not the puritans or other religious pilgrims, they were dead. The producers were folks like James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, folks who didn't believe in state sponsored religion.

So if you really want to argue "the producers matter omg, the constitution is a tshirt!" then ok...the producers disagreed with you. You lose.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
OK, did you even read his post? He said that the producer didn't matter, and I was proving him wrong. And, as is the case almost every time, such parables, if you will, are apt not only to the applied example, but in many other areas.

Yes, people die. Sad fact of life, but all that lives, dies. However, those Puritans, ya, they had children. And those children had children. A group does not simply disappear when one generation dies off; their children live on, and, for the most part, continue on their parents' way of thinking. Therefore, even though the original Puritans died off, their children, who grew up Puritan, continued on.

And yes, they were opposed to a state-sponsored religion. I agree, which you might take as an insult, I don't know. That, however, doesn't change the fact that virtually all of the people in the colonies were God-fearing men and women, so, obviously, the Puritans' (and Christians', in general,) faith didn't die out like you try to claim it did.



While you're off learning the difference between "tshirt" and "government" I suggest you also grapple with the differences between "social" and "biological" k?

...

Look, if that were the way that our culture was, I'd seek an alternate to marriage because, apparently, the homosexuals had monopolized marriage. Oddly enough, homosexuals do have an alternative to marriage, the civil union, which basically gives them all the benefits of being married, but minus the title. So, basically the argument is "I want my social status to be called the same as yours," which, in my book, seems petty.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
OK, did you even read his post? He said that the producer didn't matter, and I was proving him wrong. And, as is the case almost every time, such parables, if you will, are apt not only to the applied example, but in many other areas.

You "proved him wrong" by comparing a political system governed by legal framework and bound by both statutory, regulatory, and commonlaw system to tshirts.

There is no example you can give, no parable you can frame, no analogy you can draw where the process of political governance can be acceptably exchanged with Nike. "Parables" (which by the way is an improper word, I think "analogy" is more proper) is only valid if the comparison is in some way related. It's only valid if what happens in one scenario in some way reasonably closely mirrors what happens in the other scenario. And what goes on in the wild and crazy world of fashion isn't important to how a system of governance operates, no matter how many "parables" you draw between them. You heard of comparing apples to oranges? You're comparing apples to space ships here kiddo.

If you want to get good at this whole "debate" thing, you should start making arguments that actually have some SENSE to them, and the minute you start comparing political theories of governance to T SHIRT PRODUCTION, you've basically shown yourself to be pretty incompetant at the whole thing.


Yes, people die. Sad fact of life, but all that lives, dies. However, those Puritans, ya, they had children. And those children had children. A group does not simply disappear when one generation dies off; their children live on, and, for the most part, continue on their parents' way of thinking. Therefore, even though the original Puritans died off, their children, who grew up Puritan, continued on.

Whether that is true or not THEY did not draw up the supreme law of the land. What THEY happened to FEEL about it is absolutly irrelevant. Supreme law is supreme law, it supercedes all else. Even if the puritan babies happened to not like it.

And yes, they were opposed to a state-sponsored religion. I agree, which you might take as an insult, I don't know. That, however, doesn't change the fact that virtually all of the people in the colonies were God-fearing men and women, so, obviously, the Puritans' (and Christians', in general,) faith didn't die out like you try to claim it did.

Whether true or not (which you have provided no historical evidence for) THEY didn't write the constitution, THEY didn't ratify it, THEY have no say in the matter. The supreme law is supreme.


Look, if that were the way that our culture was, I'd seek an alternate to marriage because, apparently, the homosexuals had monopolized marriage. Oddly enough, homosexuals do have an alternative to marriage, the civil union, which basically gives them all the benefits of being married, but minus the title. So, basically the argument is "I want my social status to be called the same as yours," which, in my book, seems petty.

Homosexuals have an alternative to marriage which is the civil union, which grants all the benefits of being married minus the title?

OK kid, I'll bite, there are 50 states and a federal government, which makes 51 places where this could be true (ignoring territories).

51 places with various marriage laws. You say homosexuals have an alternative to marriage which is a civil union granting all the benefits of being married. OK, 51 places...name 5 where this is true.

[QUOTE=Brachiosaurus;11972043
A land graced with temples and churches, mosques, synagogues and alters of all faiths. Showing that America welcomes all the religions of the world.
[/QUOTE]

all religions? what about islam?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is, there's a reason that they're coming in droves over here, and it can't possibly be because they're worse off here. Which means, they're better off here, and better off than most any other place they could possible move to.
What he's saying is that we're better than Mexico, the place where almost 70% of all our illegal immigrants come from (source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/illegal.immigration/) and that the immigrants don't have much of a choice; it's either run across the border to America or buy a ticket to London, Paris or some other country.


That's fine by me. Believe it or not, it's not that big a deal to me.
But it was a big deal to you until we proved you wrong.

No, it doesn't. If you really pay attention, the only reference to a religion is the phrase "under God," which, oddly enough, isn't a specific... unless Godism is a new religion . OK, seriously, come on now, how many religions worship someone who is called "God?" All of the major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam (translate Allah into English and you get... GOD!)), and literally hundreds of sects and divisions. So there, not one specific religion included.
Remember that? You were defending "Under God" a few days ago.


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
OK, did you even read his post? He said that the producer didn't matter, and I was proving him wrong. And, as is the case almost every time, such parables, if you will, are apt not only to the applied example, but in many other areas.
You used a faulty example. You have to use an example that at least somewhat applys to what you are saying.


Yes, people die. Sad fact of life, but all that lives, dies. However, those Puritans, ya, they had children. And those children had children. A group does not simply disappear when one generation dies off; their children live on, and, for the most part, continue on their parents' way of thinking. Therefore, even though the original Puritans died off, their children, who grew up Puritan, continued on.

And yes, they were opposed to a state-sponsored religion. I agree, which you might take as an insult, I don't know. That, however, doesn't change the fact that virtually all of the people in the colonies were God-fearing men and women, so, obviously, the Puritans' (and Christians', in general,) faith didn't die out like you try to claim it did.
Yes, the puritans were God fearing men and women, and no, Christianity has not and will not die out for a long while. Basically I agree with your post, now that I think about it. They were against a state sponcered religion, and the fact that we have "under god" in our money and pledge would probably sicken them. Good Job
...

Look, if that were the way that our culture was, I'd seek an alternate to marriage because, apparently, the homosexuals had monopolized marriage. Oddly enough, homosexuals do have an alternative to marriage, the civil union, which basically gives them all the benefits of being married, but minus the title. So, basically the argument is "I want my social status to be called the same as yours," which, in my book, seems petty.
It may seem petty, but its not about the title, it's about the concept that you're still treating homosexuals differently because of their orientation. They deserve to be married and they deserve for that marriage to be reconized by the state.

i'm against homo marraige. it doesnt serve me. why should gays get benifits that single straight people?
why would care about people in love? should you get points for loving more than one person?

i'm against homo marraige. it doesnt serve me. why should gays get benifits that single straight people?
why would care about people in love? should you get points for loving more than one person?

Because they're human too. They have emotions and they are capeable of loving too, just because its not with the people who you want it to be with doesn't mean you can deny them the right.

i'm against homo marraige. it doesnt serve me. why should gays get benifits that single straight people?
why would care about people in love? should you get points for loving more than one person?

It it does not affect you why dont you get your nose out of their business and let them get married?

meh, well I am sure glad I don't have to pledge allegiance to a bit of colored ribbon every day. To be honest I think us Australians are far so cynical of government to be able to do something like that without cracking up, I find the whole idea undemocratic.

It it does not affect you why dont you get your nose out of their business and let them get married?

isnt necassary for government to monitor whp loves whom. waste of time and money. if they want to express thier love, they should get tatoos. or write poetry or something.

isnt necassary for government to monitor whp loves whom. waste of time and money. if they want to express thier love, they should get tatoos. or write poetry or something.

or...heaven forbid...get married like everybody else?

isnt necassary for government to monitor whp loves whom. waste of time and money. if they want to express thier love, they should get tatoos. or write poetry or something.

All good and fine but what about the other thousand rights associated with marrige?

Such as the ability to see your partner if they go in the hospital?

and I'm still waiting for the list of 5 or more places in this country where one can get a civil union that has all the same benefits of marriage...

isnt necassary for government to monitor whp loves whom.
Why would it be?

Such as the ability to see your partner if they go in the hospital?

thats grand.
hopefully we wont be legalising homo marraige in my country anytime soon.

Alright, I concede.

As you can tell I haven't given this a great deal of thought, while you obviously have.

You haven't changed my mind, but I understand where you're coming from, which is the whole point of these kinds of debates; to discuss, not to change minds.

So, I hope to join in in the future, when I'm better prepared to discuss these matters.

thats grand.
hopefully we wont be legalising homo marraige in my country anytime soon.

And I hope we do ... I like being from the land of the free ... hopefully we work on making it more free

Alright, I concede.

As you can tell I haven't given this a great deal of thought, while you obviously have.

You haven't changed my mind, but I understand where you're coming from, which is the whole point of these kinds of debates; to discuss, not to change minds.

So, I hope to join in in the future, when I'm better prepared to discuss these matters.

No worries this is about the thousandth time we all have argued about this ...

And I hope we do ... I like being from the land of the free ... hopefully we work on making it more free

freedom is for saps.

freedom is for saps.

Wow. Your reasoned response has led me to abandon the concept of freedom!
What country are you from, anyway? I'd guess Nazi Germany, but your location seems like it might be the Vatican.

Alright, I concede.

As you can tell I haven't given this a great deal of thought, while you obviously have.

You haven't changed my mind, but I understand where you're coming from, which is the whole point of these kinds of debates; to discuss, not to change minds.

So, I hope to join in in the future, when I'm better prepared to discuss these matters.

Good debate, my friend.

freedom is for saps.

What a quality argument :rolleyes:

there isn't anything similar in the UK/


but we have an established church and a monarchy, so if there were a pledge to honour the institutions of the UK i'd be boned as a republican atheist.

Doesn't help that nationallity is an accident of birth and something to be grateful and not proud of.

Under God shouldn't be in there, tho definately. Also i'm against all forms of indoctrination, particularly doesn't give a kid a great start in life to pledge undying allegiance to a country that won't even provide them or their parents with healthcare.


W

thats grand.
hopefully we wont be legalising homo marraige in my country anytime soon.If it wouldn't be considered flaming, I'd nominate him for biggest idiot on NS.
Read the whole thread. He had absolutely nothing remotely intelligent to say, just spouted off random little bits of idiocy.

@ Arthais- good job.

It isn't restricted to certain sexes.

Males can enter into the contract, females can enter into the contract. Both sexes are able to enter into the contract.But it is restricted to certain sexes. Males cannot enter into the contract with males. Females can. In other words, only some people can enter into the contract with males. The same goes with entering into the contract with females; only males can do that. Given the fact that the contract requires another person to be able to enter into it in the first place, the person you're entering into the contract with matters.

Look, if that were the way that our culture was, I'd seek an alternate to marriage because, apparently, the homosexuals had monopolized marriage. Oddly enough, homosexuals do have an alternative to marriage, the civil union, which basically gives them all the benefits of being married, but minus the title. So, basically the argument is "I want my social status to be called the same as yours," which, in my book, seems petty.I realize you've conceded, but I wanted to point out for the benefit of the rest of the viewing audience that the reason that homosexuals want the word marriage is because a homosexual's social status is the same, and therefore it's petty to use a different word to try to pretend it isn't.
Or is that the point of using a different word, so people can pretend it isn't?

Or is that the point of using a different word, so people can pretend it isn't?That's it. They don't want their precious word defiled.:rolleyes:
My ex, who I usually consider a reasonable person, is one of those people. Bah!

It's not a law. In fact, the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that no one may be compelled to say it or even to stand.

What's the point of having kids say it, then? :confused:

What's the point of having kids say it, then? :confused:
Do you mean if they aren't forced to say it, there's no point in saying it?:confused:

thats grand.
hopefully we wont be legalising homo marraige in my country anytime soon.

As it happens the High Court is still out on recognising the marraige of two Canadian women who moved here.
See Same-sex Marraige In Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Ireland)

Not being an American it means nothing to me, but living in a free country like the UK its interesting to note that we don't need this garbage. A flags is a flag...get over it. ;)

there isn't anything similar in the UK/


but we have an established church and a monarchy, so if there were a pledge to honour the institutions of the UK i'd be boned as a republican atheist.

Doesn't help that nationallity is an accident of birth and something to be grateful and not proud of.

Under God shouldn't be in there, tho definately. Also i'm against all forms of indoctrination, particularly doesn't give a kid a great start in life to pledge undying allegiance to a country that won't even provide them or their parents with healthcare.


W

*clapclapclap* Well said, W. I plan on moving to the UK as soon as I'm old enough and have the money. The US is great is some areas and totally crappy in others but meh, the UK has national healthcare (have they always had NHS? I remember getting sick while I was still living over there and me mom was about to get a private doctor because I was with kids that had chicken pox, etc.). And in their schools you don't have to pledge allegiance to anything (and I take it that it hasn't changed in the last 8 or 9 years I've been back in the States).

Not being an American it means nothing to me, but living in a free country like the UK its interesting to note that we don't need this garbage. A flags is a flag...get over it. ;)

I agree. The pledge might as well be "All my will is belong to teh US flag".

To me it means "All my will are belong to teh Government"

I agree. The pledge might as well be "All my will is belong to teh US flag".

>.>
<.<

>.>
<.<

Fine, I did rip that off of Posi, get over it! :mad:


:p

Fine, I did rip that off of Posi, get over it! :mad:


:p

ZOMG, conspiracy! Pancake=Posi!

ZOMG, conspiracy! Pancake=Posi!

:rolleyes: You'd think that after Trinityness.....

Haven't said it since I graduated high school, because, frankly, primary and secondary education are the only places one ever comes across it. (That and rodeos, but that's a whole different matter.) As such, I haven't thought much about it.

Haven't said it since I graduated high school, because, frankly, primary and secondary education are the only places one ever comes across it. (That and rodeos, but that's a whole different matter.) As such, I haven't thought much about it.

Ah, I remember the bit where Borat went to the Rodeo. People were unhappy.

a freedom that has been the world's beacon for over 200 years
Until people got scared and decided safety was better than freedom.


A land of laws and an ingenious system of checks and balances that allows no man to become a tyrant and lets no group prevail unless their power is tampered by real concern for welfare of those they govern. Even if it takes 5 years of tyrany before the population wakes up.

A land where the right of free speech and dissent is jealously guarded.
Except when you talk against anything covered by the "Patriot Act".


Where the ballot box is the sword and the people its welders. Our revolutions are fought at the ballot box and the voters determine the outcome.
If the people would actually study the issues beyond listening to talk radio.

America is a land where freedom of worship is a cornerstone of her being,
As long as it's the Christian God of the most radical and hateful of "Christians".


A land graced with temples and churches, mosques, synagogues and alters of all faiths. Showing that America welcomes all the religions of the world.
Not welcomes,---maybe tolerates until we can convert them to the "true" God

America is a land where a determined man who seeks an honest life cannot be denied his chance. Or a dishonest can swim the river.



America is a land where freedom of choice is the guideline for all.As long as you aren't homo.

The courts of our land are open to all. As long as you have the $$ to buy justice