Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1.    #1  
    My avatar used to be a pic of Bruce Springsteen, but after reading his op ed in the NYT today, I can't consider myself quite the devoted fan that I used to be.

    I find it loathsome that someone of Bruce's talent and obvious popularity would court the hearts and minds of the apparently apolitical audience that worships him and attempt to subvert their political identities and cause them to follow the partisan and, in my opinion, deluded opinions he has regarding the direction this country should follow. To advocate is acceptable; to lure with mis-information is despicable.
    Last edited by Gasmeister; 08/05/2004 at 10:04 PM.
  2. #2  
    Hasn't Bruce always had political views? I don't really know anything about him TBH. What did he say in the article?
    Animo et Fide
  3. #3  
    Actually, given the Boss' lyrics, its quite clear that his vision of America and the world is quite different than that of the current President's. Did you think Bruce was a right winger and hate monger based on his lyrics? I thought his NYT piece was consistent with his past views (as expressed in his lyrics), and that, given those views, his decision to support Kerry made absolute sense. Not sure how you can claim he has somehow mislead anyone.
  4. #4  
    The fact is he stayed out of partisan politics...until now. He said as much.

    TreoFan, btw I do not appreciate you calling the President's "vision of America" hate mongering.
  5. #5  
    As far as I can tell, respect and rights are to be granted to everyone. It is simply the title of "Marriage" they want to withold. For the record, I don't care what it's called and can't see how it makes a difference either way. Accordingly, I was pleased the amendment has gone nowhere.
  6. #6  
    No Kurt, civil unions are under attack as well, which cannot be had in most states anyway. Civil unions are not the same as Marriage, and don't afford the same protections that marriage does. They are not the same thing with a different name.

    I found a link explaining differences if anyone was just the first link of a google search, but is generally ok.


    still both would be considered "left" viewpoints -there do appear to be differences.
  7. #7  
    If we are talking about individual state actions that is one thing, but it seemed to me you were speaking of national action.
  8. #8  
    You're right, Kurt. These are different issues both state and national. I originally brought up civil unions as that is the name they would call it Of course that appears to be largely a state issue right now.

    I hope you can see that there is a difference between the two, and thus the distinction should be and is made. Banning marriage in favor of civil unions (to be determined by the state) is not the same thing with a different name. Of course there is the matter of banning marriages at the national level, and then leaving it up to the states to determine what is allowed. Why not let the states do such banning as well then?
  9. #9  
    Wasn't it just this morning that some US city had a referendum about if they should ban gay marriage - and it had over 70% voting yes..? That's a pretty large majority.

    The definition of marriage has always been man & woman. I am for a gay marriage ban only if civil unions are created with similar rights.

    I would be open to the possibility of changing that definition, if there was a legal way to do it so that it can't be further changed to merge 3 people, or person and animal, or adult with child, or adult with machine... (some people do love their treos!)

    If there are gay couples screaming about this being a civil rights issue, then it won't be much longer when bigamists will use that card, then pedaphiles, then 'animal-lovers'... heheh

    If I was gay and wanted to be an official couple, I think I would take the civil union - and then when there are enough couples merged that way - I would as a group petition to make them marriages.

    Who knows... I do know that the Boss is still a great singer, regardless of his views.

  10. #10  
    I thought it was St Louis, but am unable to find info to corroborate that 70%+ referendum claim I mentioned above... Sorry. Ignore that part until I can.

  11. #11  
    I think there are many confusing points to this issue that most folks just don't know about. It is a common misconception that civil union and marriage are the same thing -they aren't, but people vote based on that premise.

    The animal lover, pedaphile issue has been brought up as an arguement, but those are illegal activities, and not between two consenting adults. Really it is a ludicrious arguement if you think about it. Of course committing gay acts was illegal in some parts until fairly recently, so what can you say

    If you were gay you would take the civil union, but where? Will the next state recognize your status? Still this issue can't be resolved in a day...these things take time, and all parties know this. Women weren't allowed to vote or own property at one time. You can probably come up with other such examples.

    The boss is a great singer We got way off topic here.
  12. #12  
    Good, we can all agree that the Boss is a great singer. That's a start...

    Just as the women's voting rights issue wasn't solved quickly and the Black's civil rights issues not solved quickly - the gay marriage issue won't be solved quickly either.

    Depending on what poll you look at though, it does appear that a large sized majority of people do not want gay marriage to be legal. It's not an overwhelming majority though.

    I know a good handful of gay couples and they love each other as much as any hetero couple. I wish there was an easy answer.

    I think that many hetero people that don't know a few gay people assume and think of most gays being the type to go to bathhouses or hang out at public bathrooms looking for friendly interaction...

    Like I said, wish there was an easy answer. I do know that the arguement about this opening the door to other marriage types is not a ludicrous one. You don't think other 'deviant' groups will make their cause a civil rights one?

    As for the civil union, I would take it - once it gains a foothold in my state I would work with other states that have the same foothold and work from there to change national or constitutional law. Maybe I am being naive though.

  13. #13  
    The reason I think it ludicrious is I can't imagine a Pedaphile publicly announcing his intention to marry someone. Where would he live? I know of a couple recent cases in my area of pedaphiles being 'run out of town' with death threats and constant media coverage. They seem NOT to want any spotlight whatsoever. Children have rights, but not to make decisions of such matters. Animals are considered property. In both instances the laws would need to be changed first giving animals rights of people to make decisions (and they aren't talking), then they must be able to consent to such marriage. Same with property (treo) ...they just can't say, "I do." If all that happened, then you would have to repeal laws making such actions illegal. Don't you think that is rather far-fetched?

    Children aren't adults either, but give them the right to marry then you're giving them rights of adults, and they can vote, buy cigarettes and drive cars (regardless of the fact they're 10 and can't reach the pedals.)

    Bottom line is both parties in a same sex marriage are asking for it and are adults. That isn't the case when the other party is a goat, treo, or child.
  14. #14  
    Never really been that impressed by the boss. Has a few songs I like but I can take him or leave him.

    What is an overwhelming majority? By definition a majority is overwhelming of the other point of view is it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by freudov23
    The majority rules argument always makes me uneasy. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."
    How would you like it to work? Everyone does what they want regardless of how it effects others? Anarchy?
    The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. And if you dont have a majority of somekind how do you suppose your boy will get elected?

    Your comment made no sense at least to me. This country is based on a majority vote, whether it be of the populace or our representatives or the judical body. What about it bothers you?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by freudov23
    The majority rules argument always makes me uneasy.[/I]
    So I trust you have no problem installing a president who did not garner the most votes in the previous election?

    (Ignore any and all issues relating to the actual counting process--that isn't the question ;-))
  16. #16  

    What about situations where a "marriage" only involve consenting adults. Father & Daugher (grown), polygamy etc. You can say "these are illegal" but so was sodomy up until very recently. Would you deny someone the right to their civil rights and marriage just because you think there version of marriage is wrong. You uncompassionate hate monger. Who are you to say they are wrong.

    I see you made some moral judgements that gay marriage is good, compassion is good and hate is bad. What do you base this on? Are you refering to some objective morality or are these your opinions? The reason I ask is that without objective morality all we have is majority rule, you can't have it both ways.
  17. #17  
    Your bottom line is a pretty good one. You left out bigamists in your break down though. If gays successfully make this a civil rights issue, then bigamists will use the same arguement. Then I really think groups like NAMBLA will have their way paved for them.

    If you don't believe it, check out their webpage. Or if that disgusts you, just googling for that term will pull up this in the description:
    "NAMBLA's goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually
    consensual relationships"

    This is not a civil rights issue. No one is being oppressed. Gays can do everything heteros can do. If you are looking for rights such as what married people get at times of divorce or death in family - then I am pretty sure the union idea would cover those, right?

  18. #18  
    Also, the popular vote vs electoral vote thing is just a quirk in the system. Now that technology is as it is, I wish they dumped the electoral system - but isn't it law to do it that way?

  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by freudov23

    Since you asked, I make no judgement based on morals. I am guided by ethics.
    So why not answer the rest of the questions?

    And the idea that your judgements arent morally biased is silly. Our morality influences all aspects of our lives whether you'll admit it or not.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  20. #20  
    This is not a civil rights issue. No one is being oppressed. Gays can do everything heteros can do. If you are looking for rights such as what married people get at times of divorce or death in family - then I am pretty sure the union idea would cover those, right?


    Can gays visit their respective loved one in the hospital? Maybe, it's really up to the hospital tho. Can they make the decision to pull the plug? If a mother/father steps in and says, no, don't pull the plug -who will the hospital listen to? Can they enjoy the same tax benefits? No-and that's over 1000 different federal benefits. The union idea indeed doesn't cover all of those. Take a look at the links I provided, they spell out the differences. I know I only glanced very briefly at them myself. The differences become compelling and is why the Mass. decision called it seperate yet unequal, or something similar to that. Remember, wills can and are contested all the time, but if you're a spouse, you are most entitled by the courts. Civil Unions exist in only 1 state -1 state, and there is no federal law being pushed forward to extend even civil unions that I am aware of. Of course it is said that should be left to the states, yet circumventing that with a federal ban on marriages so that states such as Mass., cannot have their law?

    In the end I am still left with many questions ...that is why I'm trying to look to facts to find solutions.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions