 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The political you... Who are you? |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Which political area are you? See what applies to you.| Liberal |
34.8%, 8 votes | Conservative |
47.8%, 11 votes | Libertarion |
13.0%, 3 votes | Statist |
4.3%, 1 vote | Multi-voting is disabled. 23 users have voted.
| |
| User | Post | ||
|
blackhole89 Moronic Thread Bodycount: 17 (since 2006-08-21 09:50 EST) F5 F5 F5 F5 F5                  Since: 12-31-69 From: Dresden/SN/DE Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I voted Liberal, though under certain circumstances, Libertarian would be much closer to truth for me. Particularly, while pretty much all current classical "capitalistic" countries' jurisdiction strongly impedes any form of financial entity that is not a joint stock company, I believe that particular concept has too grave flaws to work well under realistic circumstances while it really appears to be the optimal form of business on paper in how it practically encourages "quick money making without paying attention to the consequences" policies; if you, as say, an owner of 51% of shares in a corporation, invoke whatever action that will make company values rise temporarily but inevitably lead to a quick drop in the future (basic example is reorientating production entirely on a short-lived fad business, like if you started producing anti-Y2K protection helmets in 1999), you always will find some idiot who will gladly buy your shares unless you make it blatantly obvious; at the point the consequences actually become effective, the initial perpetrators all will long have passed on their shares and thus be out of responsibility. If a jurisdictional system was to pay mind to that in some appropriate way, I would fully advocate a more libertarian system among the lines of it. | |||
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite!   Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass God, why do you have to be such a self-centered jerk all the time? You don't care whether others have freedoms that you have? I've known people exactly like you who never reconsider ideas past the first glance. Get off your high horse. Silvershield posts: I have no problem with gays but, at the same time, I understand that marriage was originally (and should still be) a sacred institution. sa‧cred –adjective 1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated. NOTHING about US law should be sacred. Silvershield again: Their is a distinct life that is utterly snuffed out just so that the mother can live more conveniently; it disgusts me.< First of all, it's not "their", it's "there". If you can't use/spell even the simplest homophones correctly, who are you to say that a fetus is a "distinct life"? But, at least you aren't a hipocrit like a lot of "pro-life"-ers: I'm against war in general - being pro-life doesn't just mean anti-abortion, after all Yay. Illegalization would be an ideal, for me, if everyone followed it, but I don't know if that's realistic. Good. Everyone can have an opinion about what's wrong or not, and lying, for instance, isn't illegal. But alot more people should think about the consequences of what a law would do (that's you bass), rather than just saying "ABORTION IS WRONG AND IF IT IS ILLEGAL PEOPLE WON'T GET ABORTIONS". This is why the War on Drugs is failing, and prohibition failed before it. |
|||
|
blackhole89 Moronic Thread Bodycount: 17 (since 2006-08-21 09:50 EST) F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 Since: 12-31-69 From: Dresden/SN/DE Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwaker Have the distinct lives in mind before washing your hands with that anti-bacterial soap next time. 
Then again, this is a badly polemic thing to reply. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwaker Eyrony. |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerMarriage existed as a sacred institution long before the laws of America were a twinkle in the Founding Fathers' eyes, or before Columbus even stepped onto his ship to seek the Indies; we as Americans did not invent marriage, and we cannot alter its character by declaring it an entirely secular insitution. In any case, though, I made it quite clear that I don't have a set opinion on the matter, so don't jump all over me as if I'm your enemy. Originally posted by windwakerCongratulations on discovering probably the single spelling mistake that you will find in my 300+ posts. I'm glad you used it to your advantage. Originally posted by windwakerBecause the ability to spell correctly is a prerequisite for being able to make decisions regarding morality. Originally posted by windwakerAs stated, how "eyronic." Originally posted by windwakerFirst of all, don't patronize me. Secondly, lying isn't illegal because it does not directly murder an unborn child. Apples and oranges here. I only support the idea of instituting programs to offer alternatives to abortion, rather than simply outlawing it, because I'm not out to hurt pregnant women but to protect their unborn children. Outlawing abortion leaves a pregnant woman with no real alternative that does not injure the child, while improving the situation with birth control, adoption programs, etc can prevent or safely solve the problem. Originally posted by blackhole89I didn't know that millions of tiny humans lived on my hands. I'll never bathe again, because I might risk compromising those microscopic human beings whose lives are of value. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| "Marriage existed as a sacred institution long before the laws of America were a twinkle in the Founding Fathers' eyes, or before Columbus even stepped onto his ship to seek the Indies; we as Americans did not invent marriage, and we cannot alter its character by declaring it an entirely secular insitution."
this is very true, but it goes further than that. We in America are supposed to have freedom of religion. We are supposed to be free to decide on any religion we'd like. Most religions, including some which pre-date Christianity, have marriages in them. Not all of those religions have problems with Homosexuals marrying each other. Making the Christian concept of marriage a law violates the freedom of religion for people wishing to marry under a different religion. That is why marriage is a secular thing in the US for legal purposes, but people choose to have the ceremony in whatever religious setting they prefer to also give it sacred meaning to them. But its wrong to try to foist one religions version of marriage onto everyone else. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombIt would be best for the legal definition of marriage to be an entirely separate practice from the religious. The most fitting way, I would imagine, would be to simply name all gay marriages and all non-religious marriages as distinct from religious marriages. That is, a homosexual couple or a couple that does not wish to be associated with a religious ideal can enter into a civil union, while a couple that recognizes the religious implications can enter into a marriage; the two institutions would be identical in every respect except for name, but name can often mean a whole lot. But don't take what I say about this matter too seriously: as I've been trying to point out, it's not an issue that I'm especially interested in. |
|||
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6311 days Last view: 6300 days |
| ||
| What then, about Christian homosexuals? Should they not be allowed to perform their civil union in the house of worship they belong to? All because some Christians have taken it upon themselves to judge others and decide who is worthy and who is not worthy of belonging to their religion? | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SalmonThat would be at the discretion of the religious body that is hosting the ceremony, I suppose. Also note that, though most sects of Christianity cite Scripture in opposition of homosexuality, few of those sects will actively prohibit a homosexual from joining; it's more an issue of a homosexual probably not wanting to join a group whose Holy Book can be interpreted to condemn his lifestyle, not an issue of we terrible, self-righteous Christians actively judging and rejecting people (for the most part - not every Christian is exactly "enlightened"). |
|||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6311 days Last view: 6300 days |
| ||
| My point is, if you make it into a divide between civil unions for homosexuals and atheists outside of church and marriage for heterosexuals inside church, which is how I interpreted your previous post, how can homesexuals get a church marriage? They've already been given their option - civil union.
And you don't have to lecture me on how different Christians have different political and moral viewpoints. I was raised in a Christian Socialist tradition. Heck, my father is a Lutheran minister who votes for the Socialist Left Party. I'm fully aware that being a Christian doesn't automatically turn you into an evil conservative. 
I'm also fully aware of the situation with homosexuals joining Christian congregations (some have compared it with blacks wanting to join the KKK, a rather silly comparison, but I guess it gets its point across), and how nearly all Christian congregations allow homosexuals in their ranks. We're discussing marriage here, however, and the problem with homosexuals not being allowed to marry within church, mainly because it does not fit with the viewpoints of those withing that specific church (so I probably should have written something else than "belonging to their religion" in my previous post, for that I am sorry). |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SalmonFair enough...my proposed solution doesn't stand. I suppose I'd be better off leaving matters such as these to people who both have vested interest and who are informed enough to argue knowledgably. Originally posted by SalmonNo lecture intended  .
Originally posted by SalmonThe fact stands that, for better or for worse, many of the religious (and specifically Christians, of course) feel threatened by what appears to be something of an "invader." That is, marriage is a sacrament in many denominations and, in those for which is it not a true sacrament, it is at least viewed with great respect. The prevalence of divorce and infidelity in America and abroad is already a significant blight on the institution, and perhaps the perception is that allowing homosexuals to enter into marriage is something of the "last straw" and it should be prevented because it's the last bastion of matrimony that has not been infiltrated. |
|||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6311 days Last view: 6300 days |
| ||
| And that I guess, is sort of the problem with homosexual marriage and the debate around it. While I feel it is important to respect the rights of minority groups such as homosexuals, it does step on the beliefs and cheapens the religion of other people. One should respect people's code of religion, as well, however wrong one may think they are. You just can't make everyone happy.
And with that I shall step out of this discussion, as I am beginning to notice that I am getting into deep water here, that I am a bit tired, that it is a bit late, and that I'll start contradicting myself and make even less sense if I keep going any longer.  |
|||
Young Guru Snifit  Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6302 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Salmon I feel the need to point out what appears to be a severe misunderstanding of what the campaign for same-sex marriage seeks. Currently, if you are getting married as a heterosexual couple of a partiicular faith you have two distinct marriages (usually contained in a single ceremony). One of them is the religious sense, if you are Catholic you pledge to love, honor and serve your spouse till death do you part etc. The second marriage is a legal contract that the United States recognizes. The legal contract of marriage is what provides changes to how your taxes are handled, sets up a state where the two spouses cannot be compelled to testify against eachother and other such aspects of marriage. If you are getting married as a couple of no religious denomination you might have a ceremony with a judge or someone else who has been appointed by the government the right to certify marriage certificates. This ceremony would probably have no religious aspects to it at all but would still provide the exact same characteristics of marriage that a religious marriage would. This leads to the cause of the same-sex marriage campaign. We are fighting to make it so that the legal contract between homosexuals is equal and of the same name as heterosexuals. Currently, if you are a same-sex couple you cannot get a marriage liscence, only a civil union. No matter how similar these two contracts might be legally they still have seperate names which le ads to the whole seperate but not equall that we saw back in the days of segregation of blacks and whites. By allowing same-sex couples to have a marriage license this would get rid of the discrimination inherent in the current system of civil unions. The ceremony involved for a same-sex marriage would be no different than that for two heterosexual atheists being married. Though I strongly support same-sex marriage I could not claim to support same-sex marriages in churches. By this I mean that a church (or any other place of worship) is a private entity from the state and cannot be compelled to abide by the will of the state. It is in no way illegal for a private organization to exclude individuals from its practices and I do not believe that the government should attempt to force religious groups to allow same-sex marriage. I would love to see the Catholic church allowing same-sex marraiges because I am a member of that church and believe that it would be the right thing to do, but that is for me and my fellow Catholics to decide in regards for the Catholic church and not the government. And thanks to Pvt. Pinny for the Political Compass reference. Very interesting site, and I was plesantly surprised to see that the results of my questionaire turned out exactly as I pictured my political orientation. Usually those types of things end up with results that are different than what you would picture which can be quite surprising to find out that you're actuall a hyper conservative if you thought you were a bleeding liberal your whole life, which happend to one of my friends when he started college. (fyi, -2.5 economic, -6.75 social) |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Guys, Silvershield especially, you need to study up on marriage before you try and talk about it. Marriage was strictly civil until the 5th century (AD). If anything, the religious part of the marriage should have it's name changed, not the legal part. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Young GuruJust to play Devil's advocate, why is it necessary that a homosexual union be called a "marriage?" You talk about the idea of "separate but equal" being disproven during segregation, but was that not an entirely different idea? The fact of the matter is, black schools were hardly equal to white schools; on the other hand, a civil union would be exactly equivalent to a marriage, except for in name. Originally posted by Young GuruHow many gay Catholics do you know? And I mean real Catholics, not the homosexual equivalent to those people who just go to church on Christmas and Easter, if at all. It's not like they'll be beating down the doors of the church to get their turn to be married, because there aren't exactly a great many of them. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Which makes it... |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyWhich makes it different in the most superficial, irrelevant way.Originally posted by Silvershield |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| [insert a long rant about slippery slope that is full of paranoia]
You also seemed to miss my: Guys, Silvershield especially, you need to study up on marriage before you try and talk about it. Marriage was strictly civil until the 5th century (AD). If anything, the religious part of the marriage should have it's name changed, not the legal part. (edited by Pvt. Prinny on 10-07-06 09:36 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6307 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyNot sure I see where you're going with this. Originally posted by Pvt. PrinnyYou posted it while I was responding to something else. In any case, why does the origin matter? No matter how it started, the way it exists today is in a religious sense, generally, rather than a secular sense. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| So when you change it, it's fine, but if we want to change it, it isn't fine? That's really what I'm getting from you.
Marriage has always existed in a secular sense, always, this isn't a change to a religion, this is a change of the state. Get over yourself? |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The political you... Who are you? |
| Thread closed |
