I Hate Being Political
Comments
Oh, and something I forgot to mention that I saw on the Daily Show that was brilliant (as always.) Jon Stewart asked Steve Colbair (who was doing a mock piece on how bad his marriage was thanks to the gays in San Fran) if the Republicans are so in favor of safeguarding the morals of Americans, why haven’t they made a Constitutional amendment outlawing adultery?
ooooh, wait....because that would affect them. 
dood, dont lay this on republicans… there are plenty of republicans against it and plaenty of democrats for it. Its just stupid regardless of who thinks it. Its opression. Protestants came to this country to worship freely… now they are trying to force otehrs to thier ways? two doods getting married doesnt hurt me in any way. The only persons marraige you can control the “sanctity of” is your own..
Stupid polotitions… not stupid republicans.
If you’ll notice, Derek was simply relating something that was said on the Daily Show. I’m sure there are plenty of “republicans” who are against the idea, just as there are no doubt plenty of “democrats” who support it. As far as I’m concerned, this isn’t about political parties so much as it’s about politics itself and the (IMO) flawed ideas behind this proposal.
As Derek and I discussed a bit over ICQ, it would probably be best to separate the religious connotation of “marriage” from the political/economic benefits of having “civil unions” between people (which, of course, is where the whole debate comes up). I don’t see that happening anytime soon, unfortunately.
Incidentally, Card does have some really interesting things to say on the subject and, like Derek, it’s given me something new to think about. Of course, I haven’t even finished reading his essay yet since it was a bit long. But I will.
ah, my misread.. i get antsy when people point towards parties… they are all guilty of stupidity and greed… not just one party.
But i agree with you on the relgion thing. This is a religious issue and has NO place in the courts… marraige should be difined legally… no sprirtually. and on a stricrtly legal basis… it makes NO sence not to allow ANYONE to get married to anyone else.
Actually Greg, the whole issue is the ease of governmental protections to marriage license holders. Things such as having automatic Power of Attorney if one spouse is severely hospitalized, property inheritence, etc. Currently, any gay or heterosexual couple can secure these legal rights (which is termed as a civil union), but it takes a lot of time, money, and effort to get all of the proper paperwork filled out and filed with the various governmental bodies; as opposed to the walk to the courthouse with a bloodtest and pay a small fee for the marriage license.
The protections are available, they’re just ridiculously easy for one group of people and not the other. One of the two methods just needs to go.
right… thats what im saying. It should be the same. it doesnt matter morally… you cant make it illegal to be gay. I dont think you should make it illegal to get married to the person you love. It doesnt matter how many people dont like it. Its a civil right.
Well I have to disagree with it being a civil right. If that were the case, then why not allow polygamy? Child marriage? Familial marrying?
The only purpose that laws serve is to help ensure civiliation’s survival. There are some impositions that have to be made. You should print out and read Card’s essay tonight. It’s a good argument for keeping the laws from supporting civil unions with reckless abandon.
well, im not condoning child marraige, polygamy… well i can see paperwork reasons not to allow that, but nothing other than that. Marrying within the family? well. disgusting yes. chances of birth defect higher? yes. But i dont see how that sort of thing hurts the people around you. The same with gay marraige. I think it IS a civil right of an adult to marry who they love. This does not voice my spiritual or natural views on the subject. But those dont matter as they change from people to people. What does matter is that they are being denyed marraige becuase its not done in a conventional way, and i dont think we have the right to tell them they cannot do it.
this DOES raise many questions about the ability to adopt and as you metioned before, right of attorny and so forth.
Regardless of future disussions on how to handle it, i simply cannot see this as anything else except people trying to force others to thier views. Its the very same reason it used to be illeagal to engage in sodamal sex. It was not to protect the body, it was to for a religious belief. In that line, i dont think religion has ANY place what so ever in the govenrment except to say people are free to do thier own thinking as long as it doesnt hurt other people.
I do not see this as an abstract union as you mentioned it along side those others, as they have many other problems that go with them. This is a union of two people who allready have lives together, live together and love each other.
Whether one wants to admit it or not. It all comes down to what is right and wrong. Politics is just an unfortunate bedfellow. The problem is that everyone’s view of what is right or wrong differs. Every single person alive today has a personal “moral” threshold. Whether or not they are religious or not. Everyone senses internally and interprets differently what is right or wrong. Everyone says in their own hearts “this is allowable, that is not”. Every human being is a walking judicial system. That’s why you get the bird for accidently cutting someone off in traffic - You broke one of their laws and must be punished! But my point points to a standard. What is that standard? When is enough enough? Where do you draw the line when it comes to “civil rights”? Any activity under the sun can be ‘claimed’ as a civil right, including marrying your dog or your sister. And their are plenty of people out there who think that is okay too. Who is gonna stand back and tell ‘em “wait a minute! Those things aint right friend”? Who is that authority? Who has that final say? Who is the one who can draw that line in the sand? And who the hell are you to tell them no? Or yes for that matter?
Just a thought.
Caesar, as usual, that’s ridiculous. This speed limit of 65 is too inhibiting for my personal views. I don’t like the price they put in this, but I’d barter my pocket knife for it, so I’ll just leave the pocket knife on the shelf and take the bagels. It’s more than fair. Babies taste good, dang it, and if I want to make Baby Stew from my own babies, that’s my business, I’m not hurting anyone else. You just described anarchy. And that works well to preserve civilization...not.
Derek, as usual, you totally missed the point.
Enlighten me, I’m thrilled to find out that you don’t support anarchy. Instead of waxing poetic, say what you mean to say.
^---- agreed. Theres a huge difference between what people want to do, and what humanity will accept as a whole. So, it does not boil down to each issue ebing personal. There has to be a governing society. They with the help of the army and the policing bodies WILL tell you what to do, and have the right to becuase you took yourself into that clause by remaining in this region of the earth under thier rule.
and… as usual.. “just a thought” is not equal to “a point”.
You guys obviously make up all the rules here. Rule number one: Think the absolute worst when someone speaks a point other than your own. And just a thought “is” equal to a point. You don’t own me or my ideas. Who are you to tell me what is or is not valid. Your just a intellectual bully who can’t take a half a second to understand what is being presented. You guys are just interested in controlling the conversation all the time. That sucks. Why don’t you look at a point, even if you don’t agree with or understand it and ask questions. But no, you automatically go for your view point, cancelling out anything you might learn. And stop playing “name the game” with me and everyone else who posts here. Just because you “declare” that I have described anarchy does not make it so. You just have not nor cannot understand the simplicity of what I stated. People like you are what makes it a drag to talk about politics in the first place. And though I am sure insults or wise condescention will ensue. I am merely stating that this site was alot more interesting before you guys started in with all your judgemental agenda. Grow up. I will no longer post here.
Uh, well I’m still waiting to figure out what you were intending to say.
“Who is gonna stand back and tell ‘em “wait a minute! Those things aint right friend”? Who is that authority? Who has that final say? Who is the one who can draw that line in the sand? And who the hell are you to tell them no? Or yes for that matter? ”
It *sounds* like you don’t think that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what to do. If you meant something else than that, sorry, I missed it. Which is why I asked for a clarifcation instead of just gainsayingly telling me that I’m wrong in my interpretation.
And for what it’s worth, your constant foul mouth and beligerent insults have been a equally nausiating on this side of the screen, buddy. A quick glance through the archives will show that you’re more insterested in stirring things up than contributing to a conversation, like you’re doing now.
“You automatically go for your view point, cancelling out anything you might learn.”
Explain how that is true, when I gave, not only my opinion on the matter, but also a link to an opposing viewpoint that I happened to find quite educational and had deep respect for?
Wil’s thoughts are largely my own. What other people do is not any of my business, and it’s not like I expect government to solve any of society’s problems or divisions, and as some of you know, I don’t even vote, maintaining complete neutrality with concern to the political powers. I obey the law and pay my taxes. That’s about as far as my politics go.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t stay informed, or pretend that everything that the government does is ok. I’m just not on the big activist train.
At any rate, there is one part of this line of thought that does have another side that is not seeded in bigotry or hatred, and anyone interested in the issue would do well to read it. To at least see another viewpoint on how it could possibly “hurt” heterosexual marriages. Or more accurately, civilization. It’s a very heady debate, and this particular viewpoint is not one that most on that side of the debate would understand or even claim to adhere to. I doubt that Bush and cohorts are thinking anything along these lines, but it’s not hard to see why this sci-fi author heads that way. Orson Scott Card wrote this article recently, and there is an included response to a letter that later criticized his article. I say without hesitation that his article has forced me to look at the issue from one I had not considered before: the global humanity perspective as opposed to the individual’s rights perspective.
I do find it humerous that both sides claim that “the majority” support their view. As OSC points out, that’s never come up under a democratic vote before, and likely never will. And even if I don’t agree with his argument in its entirety, I certainly agree that the courts have too much power in what is supposed to be a balanced, three-part government. All the more reason for me to neither put my trust in or expend efforts towards governmental solutions or politics in general.
By Derek Jones on February 29, 2004 at 10:36pm link