Religious devotion in the United States

[metadigital]

ROFL!!!  It could be worse.  I could be a USA president informing a cheering German populace that, "I am a jelly donut!"  (Edit:  Which is exactly what President John Fitzgerald Kennedy did in the late 1960's, while making a speech in Berlin, Germany!... for those who were unaware of this embarassing facet of USA history. )

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is an incredibly literal and particularly pedantic tranlation of JFK's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" statement of comraderie. And quite funny. At least Clinton did a better job.

[cewekeds]

But when we've already decided the level of strength we wish the government to have in the form of a constitution, should we let it attempt to strengthen itself?

 

However the goverement not choosen to make its self stronger but the country. The goverment is ran by the people for the people and to maintain our freedom and life style the people we choose have to make chooses that will keep the country growing and allow it to protect the people who run it. Nobodies force to go to church past the age of 18. If you are unable to get a job in your town because you don't belong to the local church call the ACLU. Churches also tend to feed the and help the poor another reason its ok not to pay taxes. Beside churchs are not the only ones not payin taxes.

 

http://www.eaa.org/chapters/resources/refe...%20Chapter.html

 

 

 

That strikes me as just as arbitrarily unfair to polygamists as a male-female only rule is to homosexuals

 

I don't polygamist could still get married but the goverment would only reward two in that marriage. If you had for males married together then you could have two sets of union. So uneven couples might have problem. but the Civil union was design for two people. I really wouldn't care but things come in small steps.

 

If you don't think the goverment should do things to secure itself and plan for the future then I guess your againest public schools also.

[Reveilled]

But when we've already decided the level of strength we wish the government to have in the form of a constitution, should we let it attempt to strengthen itself?

 

However the goverement not choosen to make its self stronger but the country. The goverment is ran by the people for the people and to maintain our freedom and life style the people we choose have to make chooses that will keep the country growing and allow it to protect the people who run it. Nobodies force to go to church past the age of 18. If you are unable to get a job in your town because you don't belong to the local church call the ACLU. Churches also tend to feed the and help the poor another reason its ok not to pay taxes. Beside churchs are not the only ones not payin taxes.

 

http://www.eaa.org/chapters/resources/refe...%20Chapter.html

 

The problem is that the government often takes powers under the guise of protecting our freedom, when in fact it often takes our freedom away. As such I am wary of any attempt on the part of a government to grant itself more powers, even if it is claiming it is doing that to protect our freedoms. I'm a firm believe in the "chains of the constitution" approach to Government.

 

And I still don't see the argument for legislating marriage. How exactly does the government legislating marriage make the country stronger?

 

That strikes me as just as arbitrarily unfair to polygamists as a male-female only rule is to homosexuals

 

I don't polygamist could still get married but the goverment would only reward two in that marriage. If you had for males married together then you could have two sets of union. So uneven couples might have problem. but the Civil union was design for two people. I really wouldn't care but things come in small steps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you using the term "civil union" as a term for the special "sepearte but equal" kind of gay marriage, or as a catch all term for marriages legislated by government? If the former, then what that was designed for is rather irrelevant to a discussion on marriage specifically, I think. If the latter, well, government-legislated marriages were designed to be between a man and a woman, and a change to that is already being advocated.

[cewekeds]

And I still don't see the argument for legislating marriage. How exactly does the government legislating marriage make the country stronger?

 

If two people choose to join forces they tend to do better then if they work alone. many things are likly to happen.

 

Kids the couple most likly will raise which will give the country a population and pay for your SS medicare in the future. They also will be the people incharge of the country to makes sure iit exsist in the future. the kids will also be needed to join are military to help protect us from threats that might come when we're to old to fight.

 

Stablity in a town, state and country. Couples are less likely to move which gives towns and cities a steady flow of money coming in. This pays for roads, firefighters, police, schools, military, etc... Couples are more likly to buy a house in town which is why they don't move as much.

To have steady trade you need towns and cities to make and recieve goods. this will bring in more money then the goverment would lose from the taxes.

 

I'm using "marriage" as civil union for that is what they are. I never say gay marriage because with over %50 divorce rate it doesn't seem that happy.

 

If the goverment gives a break to one couple then they should allow any human couple group set the same break.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

PS: To other poster.

 

Geeee if Martin was that clear as you make him out to be 34 of his party members wouldnt be up in arms about it now would they? Gawd I hate liberal fanbois! Use some common sence man. Blind devotion always leads to problems!

 

Read the freaking bill and NOT Martins press clippings for the facts before you speak. Why take the word of a known criminal and liar over the actual writting on the bill. (for Americans: Sadly Watergate has nothing on our current Canadian Government..sad time for Canadian Politics). 

 

And besides, nice of you to bring up Alberta and NOT mention that regardless what the federal government mandates, Ralph Klien has already said clearly and with out any political double talk Martin famos for that he will use the NOT WITHSTANDING clause of the Canadian Constitution to VOID any and all marriage rights for gays in Alberta. So in Alberta its a non issue anyways as Gay marriage, civil union, what ever will not be recognized as legal plain and simple and gay couples will not be able to get married there.

 

As has 2 other provinces in Canada (maritime provinces).

 

Hold a freaking referendum, let CANADIANS themselves decide and be doine with it all is what I say.

 

PPS: Attomic Space Vixen

"Different but equal" is not equal

 

Well there you go, you just said it yourself. You said you dont want this forced on churchs yet you then turn around and say this?

 

TRADITIONAL marriages are preformed IN CHURCHS!!! So you dont want or accept civil union, WHAT DO YOU WANT??????? The churchs dont want you, you dont want JoPs and such, where is the middle ground??????

 

(shakes head) this is why (RESPOINCIBLE ) government is required (which Canada doesnt currently have so this issue will come back regardless what Martin forces on people) to come to the solution.

 

Anyways, Im done with topic,. This thread shows why this topic so hot everywhere. People just look past facts and create fiction to try and validate their own opinion. ASV is such a clear example of "forget logic, give me what I want" its scary to me. Terrifying really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off, I'm the "other poster", and I'm not a man. That said, the 34 Liberal MPs are up in arms because they want to defeat the bill. Pat O'Brien, the most vocal and the one who left the party, has said he will take every opportunity to defeat the bill. They're upset that they're not getting more time to do this and are hoping to get enough people to speak against it to make Martin change his mind because tyranny of the majority is always the way to go. Try to do a little reading. Here, start with this... A link just for you. Religious groups are specifically protected from being forced to perform weddings. The bill states it, the courts insisted on it. Hate Martin all you want ("known criminal"? Give me a freakin' break, no laws have been shown to be broken by him yet), but in your own words, "read the freaking bill." You obviously haven't yet.

And speaking of reading, hi! I'm from and in Alberta! And you know what? "Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens conceded this week that the province will be powerless to block same-sex marriage once the new federal law is in place." Here's another link. The definition of marriage is in the federal jurisdiction. Ottawa can use the notwithstanding clause on it, Alberta can't. They've threatened to do so to please the Tories' constituents, but it was all empty bluster.

Hmmmm... Hold a referendum. Yes, because letting the majority decide the rights of a minority is always a good thing. Should slavery have been put up to a referendum? Should women's sufferage have been put up to a referendum? How about the decriminalization of homosexuality in the first place? Give me a break.

 

PPS: Attomic Space Vixen

"Different but equal" is not equal

 

Well there you go, you just said it yourself. You said you dont want this forced on churchs yet you then turn around and say this?

We're talking legal marriage vs. civil unions. That has NOTHING to do with who performs the ceremonies. You're the one reading stuff into it that isn't there. Opposite-sex couple currently don't have the right to get married anywhere they want. Catholic churches are free to say no to marrying Baptists and vice versa.

 

TRADITIONAL marriages are preformed IN CHURCHS!!! So you dont want or accept civil union, WHAT DO YOU WANT??????? The churchs dont want you, you dont want JoPs and such, where is the middle ground??????

We're talking LEGAL marriages here! READ THE ACTUAL POSTS! Don't create strawman arguments! For example, where the hell did I say I don't want justices of the peace? No where in any post did I say or even insinuate it. I haven't seen that said or insinuated anywhere except from homophobes trying to stir up fear. As for churches, did you know there are many who will perform ceremonies? Many United Churches. Metropolitan Churches. The Anglicans may or may not, they're arguing that amonst themselves and not being forced to by anyone outside. Myself, I'm an atheist. If I ever get married, it sure won't be in a church no matter if I'm marrying a man or a woman. But really, please, stop making up stuff people aren't saying.

 

People just look past facts and create fiction to try and validate their own opinion. ASV is such a clear example of "forget logic, give me what I want" its scary to me. Terrifying really.

(See what a difference quotes and sources make? It's probably a good thing for you that you're finished with this thread. (w00t) )

[metadigital]

Vixen, I think that smoking corpse was once Kalfear. You probably should have let him live ... "

[Reveilled]

And I still don't see the argument for legislating marriage. How exactly does the government legislating marriage make the country stronger?

 

If two people choose to join forces they tend to do better then if they work alone. many things are likly to happen.

 

Kids the couple most likly will raise which will give the country a population and pay for your SS medicare in the future. They also will be the people incharge of the country to makes sure iit exsist in the future. the kids will also be needed to join are military to help protect us from threats that might come when we're to old to fight.

 

Well, I have several problems with this assertion:

1. You don't have to be part of a couple to have a child.

2. You do not have to be married to be a couple.

3. You gain the legal benefits of marriage even if you have no children. Since having marriage will not necessarily lead to children, legislated marriage places a burden on the taxpayer for no forseeable gain here.

4. If two people intend to have children together, they will form a couple regardless of whether or not they have a bit of paper that makes them legally married. Thus legislation of marriage is uneeded.

5. People have been getting married and having children for as long as human civilisation has existed. What makes the government think that it actually needs to legislate marriage in order for people to get married?

 

Stablity in a town, state and country. Couples are less likely to move which gives  towns and cities a steady flow of money coming in. This pays for roads, firefighters, police, schools, military, etc... Couples are more likly to buy a house in town which is why they don't move as much.

To have steady trade you need towns and cities to make and recieve goods. this will bring in more money then the goverment would lose from the taxes.

 

First off, could you prove the assertion that couples are less likely to move? Second, I would ask you how the legislation of marriage affects this. People will form couples regardless of whether the state makes marriage an offical status.

 

I'm using "marriage" as civil union for that is what they are. I never say gay marriage because with over %50 divorce rate it doesn't seem that happy.

 

If the goverment gives a break to one couple then they should allow any human couple group set the same break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. If the government gives a break to one couple, then there are two options: either take the break away from that one couple, as no one is entitled to that break, or give that break to absolutely every law-abiding citizen regardless of their sexuality, gender, skin colour or status in a relationship. Consider, for instance, hospital visitation rights. As it is, aside from Blood relatives only your spouse can be with you outside of visitation hours, correct? So, gays wish to be able to marry in order that their partner can stay with them out of visiting hours if they are hospitalised. What I ask you is why the hell gay couples deserve this but not some old childless widower with no one he cares about left alive but his lifelong best friend? Why does a gay woman deserve to have her wife with her, but a girl can't have her boyfriend of three years with her?

Giving the break to all couples is not the solution (aside from the fact that you're not advocating giving the break to all couples, since unmarried couples are still being discriminated against). You either give it to everyone regardless of their marital status, or you don't give it to anyone. You don't advocate giving some rights to whites and others to blacks. You don't advocate giving some rights to straights and some to gays. Isn't it just as discriminatory to advocate giving some rights to couples and others to singles?

[Cantousent]

Secondly, I agree with the Commissar. The whole "separation of Church and State" is not really about keeping religious people out of politics; it is more about keeping religious organisations from boosting candidates into office with their support.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point, and do me the favor of actually understanding my post in the way I mean it, is that religious organizations should be treated no differently than anyone else. If the Christian Brothers of Islam decides to back a candidate, then it should have every right to do so. It's not likely folks will be able to keep candidates from citing religious beliefs while campaigning, nor should folks be compelled to refrain from citing religious beliefs.

 

The thing is, if we say it's okay for Neo-Nazis to express their beliefs politically, why should the same opportunity be denied Neo-Christians? ...Or Muslims? ...Or the Death knights of Kryn? All of the above should have the right to express an opinion regarding a candidate or measure. Why should Neo-Nazis, who have a far more damaging message for our democracy, be given free reign just because they don't include God in their message? For that matter, why should atheists have free reign to speak against religions in a political format while religions should be denied a voice? This is the sort of thing that irritates me. The Christian Coalition, with whom I disagree as often as I agree, should have the right to support candidates and advocate a political position. They just shouldn't enjoy tax exempt status while they do so. On the other hand, I don't know if the Christian Coalition is tax exempt or not. They don't factor into my decisions at all. I know more about what the Christian Coalition advocates because of the uproar from their enemies than I do from the organization itself.

 

Here's my take on it, however. Tax exempt status should be rescinded for those organizations who actively campaign either for or against any candidate or party. This would really put a damper on religious organizations to the right and left.

 

Separate church and state. That's all well and good. ...But don't make religious folks second class citizens. ...Or simply place hard-core religious organizations on the left and right in a category separate from religion. After all, some of these organiztions really don't appear to be all that spiritually motivated in the first place. They appear to be solely political organizations in religous clothing.

[cewekeds]

1. You don't have to be part of a couple to have a child.

True however most people believe children are raise better in a two parent home. I'll take a guess but I bet there is more children that started out in a two parent home then not.

 

2. You do not have to be married to be a couple.

True by couple in then context is two people that have choose to marry or comment themselves to each other for life(plans are fliting things. Not just boyfriend and girlfriend who have not decide to live their futurn together.

 

3. You gain the legal benefits of marriage even if you have no children. Since having marriage will not necessarily lead to children, legislated marriage places a burden on the taxpayer for no forseeable gain here.

True some couples don't have kids but that just means more money to spend which creats jobs and make up for the tax we lost.

 

4.

If two people intend to have children together, they will form a couple regardless of whether or not they have a bit of paper that makes them legally married. Thus legislation of marriage is uneeded.

However two people probably won't have kids together unless they are planning to live and share their life together which is civil union. True they don't piece of paper but they don't have to be couple either with a kid.

 

5. People have been getting married and having children for as long as human civilisation has existed. What makes the government think that it actually needs to legislate marriage in order for people to get married?

And every since their been a goverment in history its been giving breaks to married people and making it easier for them to have children because that would equal followers. Thats why many goverments gave wifes very little rights so the men could force sex on their wives without worry.

 

First off, could you prove the assertion that couples are less likely to move? Second, I would ask you how the legislation of marriage affects this. People will form couples regardless of whether the state makes marriage an offical status.

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-12.pdf

 

If you choose to live your life together then your less likely to turn somebody you love life upside down.

 

No. If the government gives a break to one couple, then there are two options: either take the break away from that one couple, as no one is entitled to that break, or give that break to absolutely every law-abiding citizen regardless of their sexuality, gender, skin colour or status in a relationship. Consider, for instance, hospital visitation rights. As it is, aside from Blood relatives only your spouse can be with you outside of visitation hours, correct? So, gays wish to be able to marry in order that their partner can stay with them out of visiting hours if they are hospitalised. What I ask you is why the hell gay couples deserve this but not some old childless widower with no one he cares about left alive but his lifelong best friend? Why does a gay woman deserve to have her wife with her, but a girl can't have her boyfriend of three years with her?

Giving the break to all couples is not the solution (aside from the fact that you're not advocating giving the break to all couples, since unmarried couples are still being discriminated against). You either give it to everyone regardless of their marital status, or you don't give it to anyone. You don't advocate giving some rights to whites and others to blacks. You don't advocate giving some rights to straights and some to gays. Isn't it just as discriminatory to advocate giving some rights to couples and others to singles?

 

The status of the relationship is important. Reason they have not become a union yet or never. Couples that have choosen to join their life and income and hardwork together have more rights then just a boyfriend and girlfriend. Not all couples are equal. would you allow the court to give control over to person you only been dating 2 weeks? that person then gets to choose where your money goes, if you live or die.

 

The old men can and should have the paperwork which would allow his best friend to visits same with the girlfriend and boyfriend.

[metadigital]

Secondly, I agree with the Commissar. The whole "separation of Church and State" is not really about keeping religious people out of politics; it is more about keeping religious organisations from boosting candidates into office with their support.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point, and do me the favor of actually understanding my post in the way I mean it, is that religious organizations should be treated no differently than anyone else. If the Christian Brothers of Islam decides to back a candidate, then it should have every right to do so. It's not likely folks will be able to keep candidates from citing religious beliefs while campaigning, nor should folks be compelled to refrain from citing religious beliefs.

 

The thing is, if we say it's okay for Neo-Nazis to express their beliefs politically, why should the same opportunity be denied Neo-Christians? ...Or Muslims? ...Or the Death knights of Kryn? All of the above should have the right to express an opinion regarding a candidate or measure. Why should Neo-Nazis, who have a far more damaging message for our democracy, be given free reign just because they don't include God in their message? For that matter, why should atheists have free reign to speak against religions in a political format while religions should be denied a voice? This is the sort of thing that irritates me. The Christian Coalition, with whom I disagree as often as I agree, should have the right to support candidates and advocate a political position. They just shouldn't enjoy tax exempt status while they do so. On the other hand, I don't know if the Christian Coalition is tax exempt or not. They don't factor into my decisions at all. I know more about what the Christian Coalition advocates because of the uproar from their enemies than I do from the organization itself.

 

Here's my take on it, however. Tax exempt status should be rescinded for those organizations who actively campaign either for or against any candidate or party. This would really put a damper on religious organizations to the right and left.

 

Separate church and state. That's all well and good. ...But don't make religious folks second class citizens. ...Or simply place hard-core religious organizations on the left and right in a category separate from religion. After all, some of these organiztions really don't appear to be all that spiritually motivated in the first place. They appear to be solely political organizations in religous clothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't particularly taking issue with your comments, just agreeing with Commissar's point and expanding a little myself. Further, I have no problem with any (non-)religous body making any recommendation of a particular candidate, I have a big problem with a religious body backing a party, which seems to be developing in the South, viz. comments like "A vote for Kerry is a vote for the Devil". That is just not acceptable.

 

Otherwise, free market. (But normal competition rules apply; no Watergate-type tactics, or other third-party "non-associative" quasi-political parties' dirty argumentum ad hominem campaign strategies that seem to be flourishing in the US currently.)

[Cantousent]

Ah, well, I tend to find a way to argue with folks who have the same opinion. It's a rare gift, I assure you.

[metadigital]

Yep, I think we're in violent agreement here.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Vixen, I think that smoking corpse was once Kalfear. You probably should have let him live ...  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[the khanster]

Hillary Clinton signalled that she was literate in the Republican rules by firing a shot across their bow wrt abortion. Instead of taking the traditional pro-choice stance, a trap that normally befalls those in opposition to the standard pro-life arguments, she instead hit the ball back into the Republican's court by suggesting that more needs to be done to prevent pregnancy in the first place; like education and free wide distribution of condoms. This had the immediate effect of causing the usually united strong anti-Democrat religious groups shiver with the beginnings of a schism, as the Roman Catholics railed against condoms, in addition to their episcopal partners' lack of revulsion to the method.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

We wouldnt have to spend money on all of this if people stuck to the biblical principle of no extra-marital intercourse.

 

Your point was very eloquently put though.

 

On the point of gay marriage (to continue the debate), notice that Marriage is never mentioned in the constitution at any point.

 

Whether or not you believe homosexuality is right or wrong is your deal, but we're all going to stand before god someday and give an account of outr lives, whether we like or not.

[Archmonarch]

We wouldnt have to spend money on all of this if people stuck to the biblical principle of no extra-marital intercourse.

 

Your point was very eloquently put though.

 

On the point of gay marriage (to continue the debate), notice that Marriage is never mentioned in the constitution at any point.

 

Whether or not you believe homosexuality is right or wrong is your deal, but we're all going to stand before god someday and give an account of outr lives, whether we like or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In other words, all must follow the exact law of the Bible or be damned to the pit of eternal hellfire!

 

You seem to forget religion is optional, and not everyone is Christian.

 

Besides, the bible is pretty f'ed up at times. I remember being told of one particularly insane passage by a former rabbi of mine. Basically, it told the story of a traveler who stopped at a certain village to rest for the night. A kind man took him in. The other men of the village wanted to "get to know" the guest. But his host sent out his virgin daughter instead because "sodomy was wrong." The young girl proceeded to be gang-raped by every man in the village.

 

Tell me this is not a clear indication that some crazy folk contributed to your holy writings. Obviously, a perfect being like God would not condone such an act. Yet it was done in his name. Makes you think, hmm?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Tell me this is not a clear indication that some crazy folk contributed to your holy writings. Obviously, a perfect being like God would not condone such an act. Yet it was done in his name. Makes you think, hmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Makes you thing what was that writer smoking.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

1 - We wouldnt have to spend money on all of this if people stuck to the biblical principle of no extra-marital intercourse.

 

Your point was very eloquently put though.

 

2 - On the point of gay marriage (to continue the debate), notice that Marriage is never mentioned in the constitution at any point.

 

3 - Whether or not you believe homosexuality is right or wrong is your deal, but we're all going to stand before god someday and give an account of outr lives, whether we like or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1 - As it's been pointed out, not everyone believes in the Bible. I personally have no moral issues with non-marital sex as long as everyone involved is of age and fully consensual (e.g. anyone has anything, their partner/s better be aware so they can take proper precaution or choose not to participate). Suppressing sexuality has the unfortunate effect of twisting it more.

 

2 - There are a lot of things not in many constitutions. However, they do tend to lean towards equality and fairness for all citizens. At least in civilized countries.

 

3 - No we're not.

[Reveilled]

True however most people believe children are raise better in a two parent home. I'll take a guess but I bet there is more children that started out in a two parent home then not.

So What? If two people believe a couple is the best environment to raise a child in, then they should raise the damn child themselves, not tell me how to do it, or force me to give them tax breaks or benefits.

Also, if most people believe children are raised better in a heterosexual parent home, is this sufficient reason to limit the benefits and tax breaks to only heterosexual couples?

 

True by couple in then context is two people that have choose to marry or comment themselves to each other for life(plans are fliting things. Not just boyfriend and girlfriend who have not decide to live their futurn together.

Being married to someone doesn't necessarily mean you will spend the rest of your life with someone. By the same token, you could spend the rest of your life with someone even if you didn't have a bit of paper that made you legally married. Why does the bit of paper matter? If I whisper my vows to a girl when we are alone on a mountainside, should that have less meaning than if I say them in a church or a registry office?

 

True some couples don't have kids but that just means more money to spend which creats jobs and make up for the tax we lost.

Well, that's a completely different argument to the one about kids. And I don't see how that argument doesn't apply to single people with no children. They;ll have more money to spend which creates jobs, so why not give the tax break to everyone?

 

However two people probably won't have kids together unless they are planning to live and share their life together which is civil union. True they don't piece of paper but they don't have to be couple either with a kid.

I don't see how that answers the argument that since they'll do it anyway, they don't need tax breaks to encourage them to do it.

 

And every since their been a goverment in history its been giving breaks to married people and making it easier for them to have children because that would equal followers. Thats why many goverments gave wifes very little rights so the men could force sex on their wives without worry.

But the institution of marriage probably predates the institution of organised government, as well as the institution of taxation, and you still haven't explained why legislation of marriage is necessary for people to form lifelong couples, nor why if the legislation is removed, people will all of a sudden stop doing it.

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-12.pdf

 

If you choose to live your life together then your less likely to turn somebody you love life upside down.

 

From your link:

Percentage of the Single and College Educated who were movers: 75.0%

Percentage of the Married and College Educated who were movers: 72.3%

Percentage of the Single non-College Educated who were movers: 63.2%

Percentage of the Married non-College Educated who were movers: 60.9%

 

Now, is it just me or do those number seem surprisingly similar? If anything, I'd say that supports my argument that married couples are likely to move. Not only that, the figures show that married couples are more likely to immigrate, than singles are. Should we then give tax breaks and special priveliges only to singles to encourage them to stay in their country?

Also from this data we see that almost everyone here is moving around within the United States. Since wherever they go within the States they will still be taxed by the federal government, their moving does not affect federal taxation much at all. Thus, I fail to see how something such as marriage would be a federal issue on the basis of taxation. At best, marriage is something you would leave entirely up to the states, and it would be entirely their perogative how to deal with the issue of marriage (not that I'm all too comfortable with that, but I'm far hapier with it than the federal government forcing other states to accept the marriage licences of other states).

 

The status of the relationship is important. Reason they have not become a union yet or never.  Couples that have choosen to join their life and income and hardwork together have more rights then just a boyfriend and girlfriend. Not all couples are equal. would you allow the court to give control over to person you only been dating 2 weeks? that person then gets to choose where your money goes, if you live or die.

No, but by the same token I wouldn't like the court to give control over to a person I've been in a long-term relationship with for 50 years. I'd like to have that control myself. I'd like to be able to decide who will have control over me in the event I am unable to do so myself. If I wish that to be the person I have lived with for ten years and choose to call my wife, then I should be able to do that. If I wish that to be my friend Bob despite the fact that I have three children, I should also be able to do that. The government should not take this right away from me and give it only to people who have promised to spend their lives together until they fall out. The ironic thing is that while I am single I actually do have this right, in the form of power of attorney, and the right is taken away from me when I get married. So by the same token, the government should not take this right away from me and give it to my spouse without my consent.

 

The old men can and should have the paperwork which would allow his best friend to visits same with the girlfriend and boyfriend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then require all people to get this paperwork, rather than grant the right by marriage. If a man wants his husband or wife to visit outside of hours, make him have the paperwork.

[Commissar]

Separate church and state.  That's all well and good.  ...But don't make religious folks second class citizens.  ...Or simply place hard-core religious organizations on the left and right in a category separate from religion.  After all, some of these organiztions really don't appear to be all that spiritually motivated in the first place.  They appear to be solely political organizations in religous clothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you writing to us from the future or something? Do religions really get knocked around so much that they end up a hunted minority, rather than the dominant, all-powerful majority that they are in my poor little 2005 version of America? Please tell me if that's the case, because I just might quit smoking to try and make it long enough to see it.

 

Seriously, where do you get the idea that religious folks are second-class citizens? You can't get elected in this country anymore without doing at least sixteen stump speeches on how much you love Baby Jesus, and it's only getting worse. Which is great for all you guys who enjoy religion; for my part, I'd rather not have to buy my new lungs from South Korea because my government was pretty sure the Gospel according to Luke had something in it about stem cell research.

[WITHTEETH]

An Absolute prison. No abortion, or stem cell researchare allowed, but I know one christian with a bear stuffed in his living room. where does life begin? I think its kind of selfish to say that life begins when a human becomes an embryo. what about when a when a egg is laid from a fish? Or how about the smallest living organism being a nanobede.

"No life starts with a HUMAN embryo"

why?

"because we have souls"

what about my dog?

"what about him?"

So what makes humans so special that they are the only ones to go to heaven? Wait a minute, only about what, 12% of the world is christian, so the rest of the 88% go to hell. I have doubts about his god guy. Who is he again? Oh thats right the all powerful, who created us and destined us all for sin. who stayed in the tree laughing as adam ate the apple. who flooded the world killing everybody but one family and 2 of each animal. and who led a crusade. also he likes to burn bushes and talk through them. Schizophrenic?

Indeed the Lord does work in mysterious ways.

But the christians can hold on to whatever they want. They are free, which is ironic since i thought freedom is what was going to kill religion, but it has sentimental value, maybe its the addiction called love. but why does god get all the love in the world when the world should get that love. where will man kind be without it? Yea i know the stars look brighter, the sky looks clearer when you beleive in such a entity, but doesnt it look that way in fairy tales also?

[metadigital]

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Cantousent]

Separate church and state.  That's all well and good.  ...But don't make religious folks second class citizens.  ...Or simply place hard-core religious organizations on the left and right in a category separate from religion.  After all, some of these organiztions really don't appear to be all that spiritually motivated in the first place.  They appear to be solely political organizations in religous clothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you writing to us from the future or something? Do religions really get knocked around so much that they end up a hunted minority, rather than the dominant, all-powerful majority that they are in my poor little 2005 version of America? Please tell me if that's the case, because I just might quit smoking to try and make it long enough to see it.

 

Ah, but this is exactly what I mean: "Please tell me if that's the case, because I just might quit smoking to try and make it long enough to see it." Will it be worth it to see such times because this is the reality for which you wish the most? I don't want to see such a reality. I wouldn't want to see a time where atheists are denied office because they don't believe in God. It's not a matter of persecuting atheists that interests me. On the other hand, as a believer, I don't want to see religious people treated shabbily. ...And my biggest worry is that so many religious people have treated atheists shabbily that many of the atheists would like a little payback.

 

We're all here arguing about what we foresee. I don't see religious people ending up being hunted down and destroyed. I don't worry about some later day Nero feeding Christians to the lions. ...But there are atheists outraged by being marginalized or downright persecuted, and the depth of their hatred does scare me. Maybe partly because, while I completely disagree with their position, I understand very well what drove them to such an extreme view.

 

You can't get elected in this country anymore without doing at least sixteen stump speeches on how much you love Baby Jesus, and it's only getting worse.  Which is great for all you guys who enjoy religion...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is where you misunderstand me. I see the current landscape as a way of promoting false faith. What I'd like much better is intellectual honesty. I'd like folks to profess only the faith they genuinely possess. I'm willing to take folks at their word, and I truly believe both Kerry and Bush are honest adherants to their resepctive faiths. I suspect, however, than many making the so-called "baby Jesus" stump speeches are using religion rather than believing in it.

[cewekeds]

So What? If two people believe a couple is the best environment to raise a child in, then they should raise the damn child themselves, not tell me how to do it, or force me to give them tax breaks or benefits.

Also, if most people believe children are raised better in a heterosexual parent home, is this sufficient reason to limit the benefits and tax breaks to only heterosexual couples?

 

It depends on the studies and the ones I read a kids grow up and more succecsful that are raised by two parent households.

 

Being married to someone doesn't necessarily mean you will spend the rest of your life with someone. By the same token, you could spend the rest of your life with someone even if you didn't have a bit of paper that made you legally married. Why does the bit of paper matter? If I whisper my vows to a girl when we are alone on a mountainside, should that have less meaning than if I say them in a church or a registry office?

 

it doesn't but how is the goverment, doctors, lawyers, family and friends to know you choosed to spend the rest of your life with this person. Sure you can tell them but people lie. what if your injured and your parents hate the girl and say she has no rights to you. If you had that paper making the claim then she has something to show people.

 

Well, that's a completely different argument to the one about kids. And I don't see how that argument doesn't apply to single people with no children. They;ll have more money to spend which creates jobs, so why not give the tax break to everyone?

 

However i said there are more then one reason the goverment encourage marriage and kids are only one part.

 

I don't see how that answers the argument that since they'll do it anyway, they don't need tax breaks to encourage them to do it.

 

Kids cost money so the tax break might be enough extra for two people to have one.

But the institution of marriage probably predates the institution of organised government, as well as the institution of taxation, and you still haven't explained why legislation of marriage is necessary for people to form lifelong couples, nor why if the legislation is removed, people will all of a sudden stop doing it.

 

no since the first tribe a form of goverment has been around. Even animals herds have a form of goverment and ways to decide who mates.

 

Percentage of the Single and College Educated who were movers: 75.0%

Percentage of the Married and College Educated who were movers: 72.3%

Percentage of the Single non-College Educated who were movers: 63.2%

Percentage of the Married non-College Educated who were movers: 60.9%

 

But it still true single people are more likely to move. theres 3% different but that eqauls a couple million people. I never said married people don't move but less likely to move.

 

No, but by the same token I wouldn't like the court to give control over to a person I've been in a long-term relationship with for 50 years. I'd like to have that control myself. I'd like to be able to decide who will have control over me in the event I am unable to do so myself. If I wish that to be the person I have lived with for ten years and choose to call my wife, then I should be able to do that. If I wish that to be my friend Bob despite the fact that I have three children, I should also be able to do that. The government should not take this right away from me and give it only to people who have promised to spend their lives together until they fall out. The ironic thing is that while I am single I actually do have this right, in the form of power of attorney, and the right is taken away from me when I get married. So by the same token, the government should not take this right away from me and give it to my spouse without my consent.

 

However if your married its not your stuff it belongs to both of you.

 

Then require all people to get this paperwork, rather than grant the right by marriage. If a man wants his husband or wife to visit outside of hours, make him have the paperwork.

 

They have they paperwork its called marriage certificate that is used for many things when two people form as one unit. They have let there family, goverment, lawyers, doctor and friends know they want to live together for this life and have the paperwork to prove it. You can do lot paperwork and get alot of the same rights married people have but you have allot more paperwork to do and keep track of. Gay people should have the right to that marriage certificate if they are making the same statement.

 

I agree people don't do what the goverment plans or encourage with the tax break but as whole it seems to work.

I also think some of this ideas are outdated and reasoning. But I can see the thinking behind the ideas.

[Reveilled]

It depends on the studies and the ones I read a kids grow up and more succecsful that are raised by two parent households.

 

So, if the studies show kids are more successful in a heterosexual household, should we ban gay marriage? If the studies show kids are more successful in a single race household, do we ban interracial marriage?

 

it doesn't but how is the goverment, doctors, lawyers, family and friends to know you choosed to spend the rest of your life with this person. Sure you can tell them but people lie. what if your injured and your parents hate the girl and say she has no rights to you. If you had that paper making the claim then she has something to show people.

 

It's no one's business but that of the people being married whether you are spending your life with someone else. If I'm injured and I want my spouse to be able to make decisions for me and stay with me, I can assign her springing power of attorney.

 

However i said there are more then one reason the goverment encourage marriage and kids are only one part.

 

So, are you then dismissing this argument, or carrying it to its logical conclusion and advocating assigning the tax break to everyone?

 

Kids cost money so the tax break might be enough extra for two people to have one.

 

I hardly think that if the tax breaks are removed, people will all of a sudden stop having kids. Besides, this has nothing to do with marriage. We already give tax breaks for having kids. That's got nothing to do with marriage.

 

no since the first tribe a form of goverment has been around. Even animals herds have a form of goverment and ways to decide who mates.

 

When I said organised government, I meant things such as fixed states with ordered transfers of power. I am willing to bet that monogamous relationships predate tribal government. And you have ignored what I said about taxation. Oh, and you still haven't explained why legislation of marriage is necessary for people to form lifelong couples, nor why if the legislation is removed, people will all of a sudden stop doing it.

 

But it still true single people are more likely to move. theres 3% different but that eqauls a couple million people. I never said married people don't move but less likely to move.

 

It's still a tiny percentage. A difference of less than 3% is hardly sufficient to base a whole argument on. Said figure is easily within a fluctuatable margin.

 

However if your married its not your stuff it belongs to both of you. 

 

It should not. It is not for the government to decide what belongs to whom, that's for me and my spouse to decide. And my life certainly does not belong to my wife.

 

They have they paperwork its called marriage certificate that is used for many things when two people form as one unit. They have let there family, goverment, lawyers, doctor and friends know they want to live together for this life and have the paperwork to prove it.  You can do lot paperwork and get alot of the same rights married people have but you have allot more paperwork to do and keep track of.  Gay people should have the right to that marriage certificate if they are making the same statement.

 

But why should all of these things come as a package deal? Why does the old widower have to marry his best friend for him to visit? It's not fair. If I'm single, I should be able to specify whoever the hell I want to have visitation rights. Maybe I'm not interested in a life-long monogamous relationship right now. Why should I then be discriminated, just for my choice of lifestyle? After all, it's wrong to discriminate against gay people for their choice of lifestyle, but if the person is single, or in an unmarried couple then it's perfectly fine.

 

Every law abiding citizen is entitled to the same rights. Everyone. You cannot give people special treatment because of their race. You cannot give people special treatment because of their gender. You cannot give people special treatment because of their sexuality. You cannot give people special treatment because of thier marital status. It's wrong.

[cewekeds]

So, if the studies show kids are more successful in a heterosexual household, should we ban gay marriage? If the studies show kids are more successful in a single race household, do we ban interracial marriage?

 

No. However this very arguement is reason Texas has stop gay people from adapting adn also trying to remove the kids of gay couples. There is studies that support both groups.

 

It's no one's business but that of the people being married whether you are spending your life with someone else. If I'm injured and I want my spouse to be able to make decisions for me and stay with me, I can assign her springing power of attorney.

 

But it is because you go into coma you wife you told nobody about has very little rights. You assign Springing power of attorney however power of attorney has limits and your family could possible take your unknown wife to court. equals years of suffering for her and the family.

 

So, are you then dismissing this argument, or carrying it to its logical conclusion and advocating assigning the tax break to everyone?

 

No there are more then one reason for encourage marriage. which you are unable to think of.

I hardly think that if the tax breaks are removed, people will all of a sudden stop having kids. Besides, this has nothing to do with marriage. We already give tax breaks for having kids. That's got nothing to do with marriage.

 

True but we only give that tax break after the kid is born. Since most people judge there furture by their present take home income. Plus the tax break you get for a kid does not eqaul the money you would spend on a kid.

 

When I said organised government, I meant things such as fixed states with ordered transfers of power. I am willing to bet that monogamous relationships predate tribal government. And you have ignored what I said about taxation. Oh, and you still haven't explained why legislation of marriage is necessary for people to form lifelong couples, nor why if the legislation is removed, people will all of a sudden stop doing it.

 

There was probably a form of tax in those tribe. I'm bigger and stronger and leader I get first choice of the food and women. You will guard the tribe at night if you want to stay. taxation is just the supplies put in to make organised government work. we use money but other things have worth also.

 

It's still a tiny percentage. A difference of less than 3% is hardly sufficient to base a whole argument on. Said figure is easily within a fluctuatable margin.

 

Its still true. Are you saying its easier for married people to move then single

people? I've been single and I only worried about myself however when you get involved with person you care about you think of them also when I make choices. I

 

It should not. It is not for the government to decide what belongs to whom, that's for me and my spouse to decide. And my life certainly does not belong to my wife.

 

What happens if you two don't agree. Your secert wife sol while you give your house life savings over to other secert wife. What if the house is in your wife's name and she dies your kids hate you and kick you out of the house you help pay for. what if it happens before you two sit down and make a will?

 

 

But why should all of these things come as a package deal? Why does the old widower have to marry his best friend for him to visit? It's not fair. If I'm single, I should be able to specify whoever the hell I want to have visitation rights. Maybe I'm not interested in a life-long monogamous relationship right now. Why should I then be discriminated, just for my choice of lifestyle? After all, it's wrong to discriminate against gay people for their choice of lifestyle, but if the person is single, or in an unmarried couple then it's perfectly fine.

 

Your not being discriminated against for being single. You have not made a commentment to anybody yet. If your the doctor how can they decide what status of relateship your in with a person. Its easy to presume your parents love you and your family have strong bonds with you. They could be wrong but its a safe call. Instead you want bob to hang out with you and they can only go with bob word. Bob could be lying and really just showed up for other reason or you don't want bob there how is the doctor to know?. If you have a know wife and there is a paper stating the fact the doctor can presume that there is a good bond between you two. the doctor could be wrong but its a safe call.

 

Every law abiding citizen is entitled to the same rights. Everyone. You cannot give people special treatment because of their race. You cannot give people special treatment because of their gender.

How come there two restrooms?

 

You cannot give people special treatment because of thier marital status. It's wrong

 

Really what does it mean to be married to you? For me it means the joining of two life who will work as team and build their future together. For right or wrong the goverment think tanks believe married people are needed and willing to help couples. I tend to agree that marry people are good thing to have and don't mind giving them a small break. I also think its important to protect your love one from heart aches and make thing easier for people in love who choose to share their life together. I disagree with the goverment saying only man and woman are allowed to choose to build a life together. I really don't have problem with people having many husband or wiives. However it doesn't look good when most of the spokepeople is one man with 10 wives and 30 kids all on welfare. I don't mind goverment helping people down on their luck but I don't like blanten taking advantage of.

 

If you really think its unfair then sue and the courts can decide.