Last edited by a moderator:
Americans are still a bit stupid
- Thread starter Robder
- Start date
Morbyd
Moderator
Well if you're going to count civil unions as equivalent to marriage, then California was ahead of the UK and currently remains on par with Britain despite the recent marriage setback...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#California
Don Simon
Well-Known Member
Morbyd,you have to count civil unions/partnerships equivalent to marriage because they ammount to the same thing.
I think that some places have steered clear of using the M word for fear of a (still) majority backlash,and maybe to keep a distinction for whatever reason?
I think that some places have steered clear of using the M word for fear of a (still) majority backlash,and maybe to keep a distinction for whatever reason?
Well if you're going to count civil unions as equivalent to marriage, then California was ahead of the UK and currently remains on par with Britain despite the recent marriage setback...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#California
Surely that counters your argument that it's a legal rights thing, then.
Morbyd
Moderator
Maybe... I was just playing devil's advocate, really. But if you're saying that civil partnerships are just like marriage with the religious part removed, I could agree with that.
Which brings up the question of why some gays specifically want the right to be "married". Perhaps it's not a question of religion or law, just a moral desire for the exact same rights as hetero couples.
That raises the question, why? Is it agitating for civil rights just for the sake of civil rights? (when, functionally, it makes no difference) Is it, in the end, counter-productive?
Which brings up the question of why some gays specifically want the right to be "married". Perhaps it's not a question of religion or law, just a moral desire for the exact same rights as hetero couples.
That raises the question, why? Is it agitating for civil rights just for the sake of civil rights? (when, functionally, it makes no difference) Is it, in the end, counter-productive?
Another point worth considering...
Religion (particularly the new testament) has adapted according to times in ways that suit modern society.
If we were fundamentalist Christians, it would be illegal for men to shave - everyone without exception would have long beards.
It would also be illegal to have sex with a woman who is menstruating OR touch anything she's been near at particular times of the month...in fact, we'd have to shut them away in a separate room during the ordeal.
Funny how the more inconvenient things are overlooked eh?
Christianity was stolen from pagan traditions with the intent to control people anyway...but realise that's a completely separate debate.
Religion (particularly the new testament) has adapted according to times in ways that suit modern society.
If we were fundamentalist Christians, it would be illegal for men to shave - everyone without exception would have long beards.
It would also be illegal to have sex with a woman who is menstruating OR touch anything she's been near at particular times of the month...in fact, we'd have to shut them away in a separate room during the ordeal.
Funny how the more inconvenient things are overlooked eh?
Christianity was stolen from pagan traditions with the intent to control people anyway...but realise that's a completely separate debate.
LagunaBeachCA
New Member
Morbs, as always thanks for stepping up and looking at things from a logical perspective. The first purpose of my initial post on this issue was to make The Divine Rob realize that European poop stinks as much as American poop.
Americans to our “open-minded” European counterparts, come across to the world as folks drunk on religion, but as much as Europeans state that Americans are hung up on religion, unlike some European countries we do not have to finance religion. We do not have to pay taxes for the “church” like in Germany as an example. If Europeans do not believe that religion should have a role in government, then why agree to pay a percentage of one’s hard earned money towards any religious establishment?
The second purpose (in my humble opinion) was to show how the judicial process can be used to dictate laws on the people, and to illustrate the power the people have if they decide to exercise it.
It is up to “We the people” to step up and dictate what we want the government to do. We the people need to make sure that if the government does not do what We the people, have put them in office to do then We the people have the power to replace them.
It is critical to realize that any government depends on the people it governs for survival and not the other way around. The natural opponent of any government is the people it governs. In order to control any opponent, one must create a form of dependency.
The more of a dependency that a government can create (and the more the people give in to this “dependency”) the more control it has over the people it governs. Government produces nothing; it is a parasite dependent upon those that it "governs" to provide it with sustenance. Our forefathers knew this and warned us about it time and again.
Sorry for going a little bit off topic. Here are a couple of thought provoking quotes by Thomas Jefferson:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Last but not least, I personally believe that there is no such thing as a natural “right(s)” that exists for anyone. The rights to free speech, pursuit of happiness, liberty, for countries to exist, etc. are all rights that have been established by the blood, sweat and guts of people who came before us. Over the years the percentage of such warriors has declined significantly (in the US and in Europe) and the percentage of folks living off the toils of those warriors has increased exponentially. What I am trying to emphasize is for people to realize that their rights are dependent on how much they are themselves willing to fight for them. Freedom is not free.
realize that European poop stinks as much as American poop. Americans to our “open-minded” European counterparts, come across to the world as folks drunk on religion, but as much as Europeans state that Americans are hung up on religion, unlike some European countries we do not have to finance religion. We do not have to pay taxes for the “church” like in Germany as an example. If Europeans do not believe that religion should have a role in government, then why agree to pay a percentage of one’s hard earned money towards any religious establishment?
The second purpose (in my humble opinion) was to show how the judicial process can be used to dictate laws on the people, and to illustrate the power the people have if they decide to exercise it.
It is up to “We the people” to step up and dictate what we want the government to do. We the people need to make sure that if the government does not do what We the people, have put them in office to do then We the people have the power to replace them.
It is critical to realize that any government depends on the people it governs for survival and not the other way around. The natural opponent of any government is the people it governs. In order to control any opponent, one must create a form of dependency.
The more of a dependency that a government can create (and the more the people give in to this “dependency”) the more control it has over the people it governs. Government produces nothing; it is a parasite dependent upon those that it "governs" to provide it with sustenance. Our forefathers knew this and warned us about it time and again.
Sorry for going a little bit off topic. Here are a couple of thought provoking quotes by Thomas Jefferson:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Last but not least, I personally believe that there is no such thing as a natural “right(s)” that exists for anyone. The rights to free speech, pursuit of happiness, liberty, for countries to exist, etc. are all rights that have been established by the blood, sweat and guts of people who came before us. Over the years the percentage of such warriors has declined significantly (in the US and in Europe) and the percentage of folks living off the toils of those warriors has increased exponentially. What I am trying to emphasize is for people to realize that their rights are dependent on how much they are themselves willing to fight for them. Freedom is not free.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well done on such an emotional all-American speech complete with formatting.
I didn't mean to offend - hense my earlier divine disclaimer that read 'not all Americans obviously'.
...I also never said that Europe (or Britain) is in any way superior to its American counterpart. There's no need to take personal responsibility for the mistakes of your government or the votes of middle America (California in this case) - unless you want to of course.
Lastly, I still don't really understand your explanation as to why you'd reverse your decision on section 8 if it wasn't for your circle of gay friends.
Why should the poor gayers bear the brunt of anyone's misdirected anger towards a government decision?
Have you told your 'friends' this and do they still send you Christmas cards?
I didn't mean to offend - hense my earlier divine disclaimer that read 'not all Americans obviously'.
...I also never said that Europe (or Britain) is in any way superior to its American counterpart. There's no need to take personal responsibility for the mistakes of your government or the votes of middle America (California in this case) - unless you want to of course.
Lastly, I still don't really understand your explanation as to why you'd reverse your decision on section 8 if it wasn't for your circle of gay friends.
Why should the poor gayers bear the brunt of anyone's misdirected anger towards a government decision?
Have you told your 'friends' this and do they still send you Christmas cards?
Last edited by a moderator:
LagunaBeachCA
New Member
Thanks Rob, I aim to please. Presentation skills are important to me, and hence, the formatting.
Your divine disclaimer of “not all Americans obviously”, does come across that the American voting along the lines of the liberal factions of Europe the only ones with brains, and the rest of the Americans are a bunch of imbeciles. All I am trying to say is that prior to branding us as like a bunch of clowns just look around how things are in your neck of the woods. Even then if we Americans are branded (directly or via insinuations) as intellectual retards, then realize that there will be times when someone will step up and challenge that position.
I know you never mentioned that Europeans were superior to Americans, but it does come across as if you did. Then again, that is not a problem as long as you realize that there will be times when you will be challenged. Some folks might challenge with no substantive backing and just rants, but I promise you that will never come from me even if you were sitting in front of me.
BTW, middle America starts from 15-20 miles inland from the West Coast and goes pretty much all the to the East Coast. The people are good at heart, honest, leading simple lives providing for their loved ones, extremely patriotic, religious, without a sense of entitlement. Their one fault is that they expect the same level of honesty and integrity from others, especially from their leaders who they trust them with their votes.
I agree that it is harsh (and my frustration was misdirected) as I am accepting “collateral damage” just to send a message. In retrospect, my frustration and efforts should be directed towards ensuring that a Proposition is put on the ballot so that people have the chance to voice their opinion. In that way, it is making a clear statement that the people are will not settle for judicial decisions shoved down their throats. Placing a Proposition on the ballot that allows the people to vote on it is quite different than voting in the opposite direction out of spite. I do agree with that and I thank you for pointing it out to me.
I did tell my gay friends about how I felt and they were cool with it after I explained to them my reasoning. I did have a conversation, yesterday, with them in light of what I mentioned to you in the previous paragraph and they totally understood. However, understand that these are the same folks who know that I have stood by them and will stand by them whenever, things got rough for them. My actions have been the proof for them. They know very well that I personally do not shy away from controversial subjects (no new news here for you folks) and let people know my viewpoint loud and clear. They also know that I am not afraid to say that I was wrong when I am wrong. I think honesty matters more to them than being a double-faced diplomat. I do not blame them. I would think someone lacks some serious moral fiber if they cannot stand up for what they believe in and cannot admit their mistakes; especially on the internet.
BTW, instead of X-Mas cards, I am going for X-Mas dinner! The invite came after me voicing off on Radio Laguna, so I think I am still OK in their books.
Your divine disclaimer of “not all Americans obviously”, does come across that the American voting along the lines of the liberal factions of Europe the only ones with brains, and the rest of the Americans are a bunch of imbeciles. All I am trying to say is that prior to branding us as like a bunch of clowns just look around how things are in your neck of the woods. Even then if we Americans are branded (directly or via insinuations) as intellectual retards, then realize that there will be times when someone will step up and challenge that position.
I know you never mentioned that Europeans were superior to Americans, but it does come across as if you did. Then again, that is not a problem as long as you realize that there will be times when you will be challenged. Some folks might challenge with no substantive backing and just rants, but I promise you that will never come from me even if you were sitting in front of me.
BTW, middle America starts from 15-20 miles inland from the West Coast and goes pretty much all the to the East Coast. The people are good at heart, honest, leading simple lives providing for their loved ones, extremely patriotic, religious, without a sense of entitlement. Their one fault is that they expect the same level of honesty and integrity from others, especially from their leaders who they trust them with their votes.
I agree that it is harsh (and my frustration was misdirected) as I am accepting “collateral damage” just to send a message. In retrospect, my frustration and efforts should be directed towards ensuring that a Proposition is put on the ballot so that people have the chance to voice their opinion. In that way, it is making a clear statement that the people are will not settle for judicial decisions shoved down their throats. Placing a Proposition on the ballot that allows the people to vote on it is quite different than voting in the opposite direction out of spite. I do agree with that and I thank you for pointing it out to me.
I did tell my gay friends about how I felt and they were cool with it after I explained to them my reasoning. I did have a conversation, yesterday, with them in light of what I mentioned to you in the previous paragraph and they totally understood. However, understand that these are the same folks who know that I have stood by them and will stand by them whenever, things got rough for them. My actions have been the proof for them. They know very well that I personally do not shy away from controversial subjects (no new news here for you folks) and let people know my viewpoint loud and clear. They also know that I am not afraid to say that I was wrong when I am wrong. I think honesty matters more to them than being a double-faced diplomat. I do not blame them. I would think someone lacks some serious moral fiber if they cannot stand up for what they believe in and cannot admit their mistakes; especially on the internet.
BTW, instead of X-Mas cards, I am going for X-Mas dinner! The invite came after me voicing off on Radio Laguna, so I think I am still OK in their books.
letsgetdownanddirtybaby
Active Member
Gawd,
I'm and Amercian and the previous poster is boring me to death.
We're not all like that dont worry.
I read the first two sentences and fell to sleep.
Gay, straight, presidents, politics...yawn..
What's Britney doing today?
Where is Lindsey clubbing?
Now that's news!
Sorry, got to go, commercials in the middle of Springer are over and someone's NOT the father!
I'm and Amercian and the previous poster is boring me to death.
We're not all like that dont worry.
I read the first two sentences and fell to sleep.
Gay, straight, presidents, politics...yawn..
What's Britney doing today?
Where is Lindsey clubbing?
Now that's news!
Sorry, got to go, commercials in the middle of Springer are over and someone's NOT the father!
Emma_1983
Active Member
I
icebaer69
Guest
wtf is the dirty+rotten beerbloke in the background doing ?
(attention: annoying voice !)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8
(attention: annoying voice !)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8
Don Simon
Well-Known Member
Brilliant!! show's off her usual insensitivety perfectly...
Well dressed milkybloke in the background is,I believe decapitating turkey's...