We're being sidetracked, the issue was marriage. And the fact is, marriage offers tax breaks and other benefits, marriage is and always has been between 2 people that love each other. i don't care what gender they are, the government should have no say in it, what-so-ever. It's none of their business, that's the simple truth.

People get married every day just to stay in our country, at least these homosexuals actually respect the communion of marriage unlike those immigrants.

Hehe, quick back-offtopic. Well, imo, by the strict definitions this country was set up under, ie declaration and constitutuion, drugs should be legal as well as a number of other currently illegal activities. Basically if you are able to do something without depriving any other citizen of thier rights, you should be able to...

Would you be against same-sex unions, with the same benefits of marriage? Something like that would seem more likely to appease both sides.
I think history might argue with that oversimplification, but anyway..
I am not talking about you here specifically, but when I hear this I have to wonder what one's view on polygamy, beastiality (not to be too graphic), etc, is. Just about everyone has certain moral lines that they hold to, but those lines differ between us. It is okay for them to say one is bad, and another is not, but then to turn and say that it is not okay for someone else to say one is bad, and another is not?

And there is plenty of domestic violence between couples. Does poor behavior justify any other behavior, good or bad, soley on the fact that it exists? At least those immigrants respect marriage enough not to marry someone of the same sex. Anyway, soto, you know I love you, but sometimes I feel inclined to be the opposition. :D

Now I am going to simplify with my own little tangent, and since it's a political season -- There are two factions, the right and the left.

The right compares past and present, noting values that have been lost through time. They look to the future, and see one with a confused direction. Many of our new freedoms are not freedoms at all, but vices.

The left compares past and present, and sees how far we have come with acceptance, freedom, and diversity. There is always a line that must be crossed, or a goal that must be obtained, in order to progress.

There is always talk of partisans coming together, uniting the country. Does anyone believe this will happen, under any leadership? Woof, a longer post than intended. Sorry!

Well, since we're trying to come up with a solution...

Why don't we propose that the government come up with it's own form of marriage? I mean, for tax purposes/death benefits/etc... Let 'marriage' fall under the definitions and bounds of religion, and the 'legal' binding of two orgainisms (that way Adam West can still hitch his right hand) fall under sole government jurisdiction. That way religionists don't feel like thier marriage vows are being mocked or cheapened, and everyone else gets thier tax breaks/citizenship.

eq_addict_08: we can't have total freedom in this country. I believe that falls under the chants and vows of Anarchists. We have the courts to establish a standard of morals: what will be considered right and wrong, since we don't all adhere to the same belief system (ie. the various religions and sciences). But the beautiful thing about democracy (or a republic, as we reside in) is that the people ultimately choose what those standards are. Its when the minority has the say that democracy has failed (minority as in those who yell the loudest, or those who have the biggest payoff to the lawmakers, or those who can force thier will on the majority - not so much as in the minority races/cultures/lifestyles).

If America as a whole feels that homosexuals deserve an equal standing as the heterosexual family, then I personally feel we've let down the human race that has sacrificed so much to bring us to this point. We already allow them to live together, so I don't care if they're allowed the same tax benefits as myself - but I just feel that my heratige and family are mocked if homosexual marriage, in the fullest sense of the word, is constitutionalized.

Daeath, we are in agreement. I would also say best solution is to get government completely out of marriage and let the churches etc have it. The government would only issue something else.

And, as far as second paragraph goes, anarchy is only "bad" because we have been programmed to think so. Red scare 1950s? I am not an anarchist, nor a socialist, but I do believe that many of those two "sects" thoughts are more in line with how a government should be, than the corporate payoff government that has 22 billion laws for every little friggen thing, that we currently have.

Edit- also, democratic morals would be a VERY bad thing. You can NOT legislate morality upon anyone.

The best rule/law set would be one that is only based upon ones actions harming another. Anything more is taking away a bit of what America was supposed to be in the first place.

Edit #2-

Moon, it is my belief (most likely true :D ) that values have remained fairly constant throughout history, if not have goten better over time. There have been select gorups, pilrims, mormans, etc who have fled areas that had values and whatnot that they did not believe in. They fled to "uncharted lands" to start "their" way of life. But enough time has passed that the world is becoming more homogenized, thus we are seeing things that we had sheltered ourselves from. Though those things have ALWAYS occured. Imo, there are just some people who haven't ever evolved into as state of acceptance of others. They have no choice any more. WE all will need to evolve, myself included; seeing how there are plenty of things which I have been sheltered from within my life.

So gays that are currently paying the taxes that are covering your tax benefits for marriage should be denied the same right? If u want to make some new marriage thing thats controlled by govternment then stop making gays pay for straight people's marriage benefits.

Anarchy doesn't mean 'no rules', it means 'no rulers'. One of the closest societies to a real anarchy was medieval Iceland, and they still had agreed rules of conduct (e.g. if you killed someone in self-defence you had to announce it soon after the killing or be treated as a murderer): you could break the rules, but then you became an outlaw and no-one had to obey the rules when dealing with you.

Of course there's also left-wing 'anarchy', which isn't much different to other kinds of left-wing authoritarianism, giving the state^H^H^H^H'workers councils' total control over individuals.

Big government and big business are indispensable comrades: you can't have one without the other. Within limits, the less government you have, the less you need to worry about that government stealing your money to give to their cronies in big business. Socialism and communism are the worst offenders in that sense, since big government and big business become pretty much the same thing.

Fine, provided that straight people are no longer expected to pay for AIDS treatment for gays.

Of course in a rational world the government wouldn't be interfering with marriage at all, and this wouldn't be an issue.

Uh, AIDS is not a gay disease.

Yea dumbfuck more straight people have AIDS then gays

Anarchy is not a practical solution to our modern age of civility. It doesn't matter how you define it - be it no rules or no rulers - society cannot thrive if there are no people who are generally accepted as the rule makers/intrepreters and the rule enforcers.

To say that there should be no law except the general rule of don't hurt your fellow man is fine and dandy - but being too generalistic is a quick recipe for disaster. I could intrepret that to mean that I can't hurt anyone on a physical level - but I can steal, lie, cheat, or trespass all I want. In an anarchy, who would intrepret the specifics of acceptable behavior? Who would enforce it? Who would punish violators?

One of my favorite philosophers, an ancient American Indian, once said: "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not, there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Now weither you accept the religious aspects or not, without the law and those who interpret/enforce it we have no justice. If you can't keep the law you can't break it. And if you can't break it, you can't be punished (nor condoned for keeping it).

I'm proud of our form of government. It's not perfect, but it could be MUCH worse. IMHO it's the best system on the face of this planet (currently). It sucks that the citizens of Afghanistan are more democratic than us, in that they have a direct vote in thier Commander-in-Chief whereas ours is picked thru electorial vote (I feel bad for all you Democratic-Party Texans!). But I do live in the most 'free-est' of nations on this planet. How cool is that?

asd
 

my god... what have i created?

i should never had made this topic heh..

Im sick of those stupid "Vote for the president" things interrupting my MTV shows...Make's you want to stab someone!

You know, i might actually listen to Kerry if he actually said anything that was worthless dribble. I watched the debate for a few minutes before getting up and leavnig when Kerry started.

I have a plan for this, that will make the world perfect yadda yadda, better than bush, really, i promise.

"How does this plan work?"

My plan will make the world perfect and give everybody millions of dollars, people will live in happiness forever.

"But how does it work?"

It's better than bush's take my word.


Yes its an exaggeration, but it gets the point across. if he would just EXPLAIN one of his plans in detail, i and many others might go, hey that sounds pretty good. But since he won't he most likely has no plans at all and just wants to sound good to get elected.

vote bush

Yup, thats exactly the same issue I have with Kerry. I dont agree with a lot of the stuff Bush does/did and I would be willing to vote for someone else. The only problem is, like you said Kerry is just telling the people what they want to hear. He hasnt mentioned any of the specifics of his "plans". I'm not going to vote for someone unless I know what they stand for and Kerry has YET to convince me that he stands for anything I believe in. He reminds me of a used car salesman, just trying to sale himself by exploiting the unsuspecting voters. He is blaming all of the voters problems on the "current administration", but he doesnt have any details about how he will fix their problems. The sad thing is that most people will vote for him not knowing anything about his no called "plans" just because they either dont like Bush or they are fooled by Kerry's exploits. I would rather vote for someone I know versus someone who is just feeding the voters deceipt with a side of uncertainty.