better him than me

[Danzig]

they say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. a better saying would be hell hath no fury like a parent who feels their child is being attacked....

so, better wolf than me being in this situation! like him or not, cheney should get no more questions about his family than anyone else.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246715,00.html

[SniperSB23]

I'm sure he'll just shoot the guy anyways. If you are part of a group determined to impose their moral beliefs on the masses then you have to expect questions like this to come up when a family member of someone in that group isn't within the moral beliefs they are trying to impose.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

What moral belief(s) is(are) Cheney (or his "group") determined to impose as it relates to the question posed by Blitzer?

That homosexuality is morally wrong and that there should be constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

The amendments would actually prohibit gay marriage entirely?

It would define marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, that seems a bit different than a "ban" (your word).

If you say so. I don't come on here to argue politics, I come on to talk racing. Just didn't think the question was that out of line considering the stance of Cheney's party on gay rights issues.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

OK. I am just not seeing the connection between providing a legal definition of "marriage" and an actual ban.

Also, I fail to see why pressing a public official on his family when it is clear that he doesn't want to talk about them is justified. Regardless of political affiliation, it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to want some semblance of a private family life.

For the sake of clarity, legal definitions by proxy create bans. If you decide to create a law that legally defines citizens as "caucasian men and women born in America," then only caucasian men and women can be citizens. It immediately bans Asians and anyone of any African descent from being a citizen. Legally stating that something (marriage) is ONLY something (between a man and a woman) then bans any recognition of gay marriages through use of the language.

I don't personally care what D.C. thinks about anything at all in the entire world, however I enjoyed how defensive he got about it. If his daughter were to murder someone, it would be the same to ask him what he thought about that, because after all, Republicans are against murder. So because Republicans are, by and large, so vehemently opposed to anything homosexual, and have pandered to their base with the ridiculous amendment thing (and in doing so, used without fail the argument that children should be raised in only heterosexual families with two parents), it seems like a perfectly legitimate question to ask of Cheney what he thinks about his homosexual daughter raising a child with her lesbian partner.

Slightly ironic how that works. But nonetheless entertaining.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

You are confusing privileges with rights. They are two very distinct concepts.



I'm not making a moral argument any more so than you are. Furthermore, this is not a proper analogy to the topic at hand. The fact that (im)morality was used to object to interracial marriage is not the same because the circumstances are not the same. For example, banning/prohibiting is not the same as legally defining marriage...eg, a gay couple would still be free to make any life long commitment they want - they just don't get the same legal benefits/privileges/entitlements that a hetero couple would, etc.



Again, we're not talking an outright ban. See above as well as my previous post(s).

Also, why just two? Just curious as to why that limitation seems ok to you.

What if they are father-daughter (both being consenting adults)? Brother-sister? Mother-son?

What if its two straight males who want to marry for the tax benefits, family leave, health care, inheritance, etc.?



You admit that you feel that the law can and should be used to encourage behavior beneficial to the nation's economic and political health. So, giving benefits to those in a committed relationship that often and naturally result in children is certainly in line with that view. Moreover, not all married hetero couples get every benefit - eg if they have no children, they don't get the tax break, etc. IOW, there is a natural tie between "traditional" marriage and procreation, and marriage is what it is even if its essential purpose is not always actualized - so let's encourage it as it is more beneficial to the state than not.

Furthermore, what if giving all committed relationships the same benefits was detrimental to the nation's economic and political health? For example, a new, sudden and massive burden on family courts (as well as the appellate courts), a new, sudden and massive burden on employers and insurance companies, etc.

Also, if you don't "buy it", so what? You're for forcing your moral views (ie sex should be irrelevant wrt two consenting adults who want to committ to each other) on others. Moreover, forcing those views on others would likely have a greater and more tangible burden on those who disagree with you than the opposite.



Don't get all high and mighty on me, sister. Especially not when you admit that you're arguing from a moral standpoint as well.



Do you really believe all people should be treated equally? Really? If you are against incestuous committed relationships between two consenting adults receiving the same privileges/benefits as “traditional marriage”, then you are not. If you think that an occasional orgasm should be involved in order for committed relationships between two consenting adults to receive the same privileges/benefits as “traditional marriage”, then you are not.

If you are in favor of progressive taxation (like most leftists), then you are not for across the board equal treatment. Far from it, actually.

Oh my stars and garters, the progressive taxation thing again. Again (I said this in an earlier thread)-- people in a progressive tax system are all taxed equally. What is not taxed equally is the money. Bill Gates' first $30,000 of income is taxed at EXACTLY the same rate as my first $30,000 of income. And I don't make much more than $30,000. It's the increase in income that gets taxed more heavily, not the individual. Don't want your upper level income to be taxed at 37 percent (or whatever it is now)? Then don't earn that much. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around?

Bababooyee, c'mon- "traditional" marriage was about assets, land and stuff. So why is it wrong for two same-sex people to get married for assets, land and stuff?

Frankly, if twelve consenting adults want to get married together, I don't care. Freaking weird, if you ask me, but they're not hurting anyone. But I don't think that's likely to ever be a real issue in this nation, as the polygamists in this nation seem prefer getting "married" to girls who have barely started menstruating. I'd hardly call that consent. People who yell that gay marriage will be a downward slope to polygamy (not you; you've never said that) fail to take into account the jealousy factor. Fact is, monogamy has nothing to do with how many people you want to sleep with; it has to do with how many people you want your spouse to sleep with. in the majority of cases, that number is one, you. I can cheerfully envision myself sleeping with any number of men (Daniel Craig at the top of the list) and still adoring my husband. But the thought of him sleeping with anyone else makes a red film descend over my eyes. So, I give up my dreams of stalking Daniel Craig and choose monogamy, trusting that he'll keep his thing for Kate Winslet confined to his fantasies.

I don't think I'm confusing privileges with rights at all. Fact is, you can choose to consider anything a "privilege"- it's up to a society to decide what a "right" is. Do you consider freedom from slavery a right or a privilege? Our founding fathers described our inalienable rights as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"- denying someone the right to be viewed as married in the eyes of the state is, to me, a pretty obvious denial of the pursuit of happiness.

Seeing as how the Bush administration spent millions of our tax dollars on its "marriage initiative" I don't think anyone in government is concerned about the effects of additonal marriages on appellate courts or on businesses, so I don't buy that argument. Though you can make an argument that marriage is discriminatory against single people.

Bababooyee, without the LEGAL right to marriage, a gay man or woman has no, none, nada protection when their partner dies. So, a person who has spent 50 years of his or her life with another person has no rights about making end-of-life decisions, and if the birth family chooses to contest a will, the partner can be left with nothing. They don't get the pensions given to a widow or widower. It's wrong.

And here's my other question- how is getting married forcing one's views on anyone? You don't like the idea of gays men and women getting married? Don't go to their weddings. It's not your business. I think one can make a very strong argument that something that causes pain and suffering should be handled by law, but I don't see how gay marriage causes any kind of pain and suffering, other than what one can find in heterosexual marriage. So it offends you. Is it hurting anyone?

And I also don't buy the "but the kids, the kids" argument. I've seen many a child raised by gay parents here in the city (working at a cultural institution's educational department, you meet a lot of children), and they're just like any other kids. And hey, every gay person on this planet is the result of a heterosexual union, so go figure.

[Downthestretch55]

Can't we all just cut the wonderful Vice President a break!
Geesh! He's under such pressure! His mind must be on other things besides a daughter whose lifestyle demonstrates his hypocricy to his biggest supporters...GEESH!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0126-03.htm

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Can't we all just cut the wonderful Vice President a break!
Geesh! He's under such pressure! His mind must be on other things besides a daughter whose lifestyle demonstrates his hypocricy to his biggest supporters...GEESH!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0126-03.htm

Did the commondreams site add that photograph of Cheney or was that originally from the LA Times also. It is quite flattering.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Did the commondreams site add that photograph of Cheney or was that originally from the LA Times also. It is quite flattering.

Pgardn,
I don't know. That photo makes him look handsome, doncha think?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Can't we all just cut the wonderful Vice President a break!
Geesh! He's under such pressure! His mind must be on other things besides a daughter whose lifestyle demonstrates his hypocricy to his biggest supporters...GEESH!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0126-03.htm

YOU want to explain to me how Mary Cheneys' life demonstrates D Cheneys' hypocrisy? Just another typical shotgun blast,eh?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

YOU want to explain to me how Mary Cheneys' life demonstrates D Cheneys' hypocrisy? Just another typical shotgun blast,eh?

i was just thinking the same thing....i could see if dick cheney had a gay lover, now that would be hypocrisy.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

YOU want to explain to me how Mary Cheneys' life demonstrates D Cheneys' hypocrisy? Just another typical shotgun blast,eh?

Timm,
I really must be totally misinformed. There must be no truth to the funding of the Bush/Cheney ticket by the Christian fundamentalists, and they must not have anything to say about the "gay marriage" issue, the proposed constitutional amendment.
There must be abosolutely NO connection...none!
btw...the only guy that's fast with his trigger on a shotgun is vp DC, and he didn't report it...the hunting club did...24 hours later.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Timm,
I really must be totally misinformed. There must be no truth to the funding of the Bush/Cheney ticket by the Christian fundamentalists, and they must not have anything to say about the "gay marriage" issue, the proposed constitutional amendment.
There must be abosolutely NO connection...none!
btw...the only guy that's fast with his trigger on a shotgun is vp DC, and he didn't report it...the hunting club did...24 hours later.

AGAIN...what does Dick Cheney(his job and policies) have to do with his grown daughters' lifestyle decisions??? I'll help you out...Nothing at all! The Christian fundamentalists have no gontrol over Marys' decisions...and Your conspiracy theory/suspected coverup is total mindmeld. You can't just put a few accusations down and hope it flies!

[SentToStud]

Wasn't there a television "Dream" episode where Wilbur actually married Mr ED?

I say, if they want to get married, let them get married.

It's not as if hetero marraiges all work great; what 50+% wind up in divorce? So, chances are they'll wind up miserable anyway.

All this gay marriage stuff is just nonsense brought to you by evil political strategists and religious zealots in order to get people to not focus on real issues.

I do wish the Republicans would stop the political religious pandering angle. I don't think it's going to work any longer but it sure looks like Huckabee is gonna give it a try.

When Bush eulogized Gerald Ford as a "good man who put his hand on the Ford family Bible and swore an oath..." it was pure Christian Republican politics at it's worst.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

If Cheney drops dead at any time before November 2008,then I am handing out free $100 gift certificates.


"There's a party goin on right here,
A celebration, to last throughout the years,
So bring your good times, and your laughter too,
We gonna celebrate your party with you, come on now

Celebration...Let's all celebrate and have a good time.
Celebration...We gonna celebrate and have a good time."

[GenuineRisk]

[quote=Bababooyee]Ahh, you disappoint me...

Oh, my heart bleeds. I've disappointed Bababooyee! How WILL I sleep at night?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "but the income is what is taxed"...whose income and who is actually responsible for payment of the tax? A person.

Then why do corporations pay tax? They aren't people; they're corporations. And yet they're recognized as entities for the purpose of taxation.

B, the money is still being taxed equally. Yes, a wealthy person will pay more in tax. They'll also have earned more. If given the choice, which would you take? Earn 30,000 that you pay 15 percent on, or win $1,000,000 which you'll pay 45 percent on, as winnings? I know which I'd take, and I'm happy to pay the tax on it. I'm paying more, and I'm getting more.

Honestly, to be fully fair, all rights that married couples enjoy should be abolished. No sharing health benefits, no inheritence rights (and, though it does vary state to state, it's untrue that a married person can lose all monies left by a spouse, and I think very untrue that they can be denied a spouse's pension, or Social Security death benefits. Look how many times the courts found for Terri Schiavo's husband over her parents for an example of how courts favor the spouse. The legal spouse.) So truthfully, even as a legally married woman, I would see abolishing all spousal benefits as fair, and require people to make out all their bequests, etc. in writing. And then I'd support an increase in income tax to cover the non-working spouses who would be thrown into poverty when they could not collect on a deceased spouse's pension and Social Security.

Maybe different treatment is ok...as long as it is not against common liberal sensibilities.

The thing I find amusing with conservatives is their intense need to see everything in black and white. Black and white, there should be no benefits to being married because it discriminates against single people. Black and white, you shouldn't be allowed to get married if you can't have kids, if kids are the reason for marriage.

But we live in this extraordinary place called the real world, and what conservatives often accuse of being moral relativism is, in fact, I think an understanding that society and people are not fixed; we evolve and learn, and as our understanding of human nature increases, we have to be willing to reexamine our "standards." And some will stand the test of time, and some will no longer be deemed appropriate (slavery, child labor and forced sexual encounters come to mind). And then it becomes the job of those who truly feel that a universal truth has been uncovered (slavery bad) to attempt to move society at a whole to believe that. The anti-slavery movement was once considered a bunch of leftist religious lunatics, you know.

And so, we live in a society where the majority people pair off two-by-two, not for procreation, or even preserving stuff, but because they want to be together. And our society, recognizing marriage as a stabilizing and wealth-building state (married people tend to be better off, economically and emotionally speaking, than single people). And a sizeable enough proportion of those people are gay that I feel it's unfair to not permit them to join with someone they want to be with.

The main thing was procreation. Assets, land, etc. flowed through progeny. Was a man who was likely impotent due to smallpox or whatever considered a suitable mate? No.

Why don't you find me some specific accounts of a landowner being turned down for marriage on account of sterility? Elizabeth I was still rejecting marriage proposals at age 54. You really think King Philip thought he'd be getting a kid out of her at that point?


Fine.

For the second time:

What about the consenting incestuous brother-sister?

What about the straight man-man couple who want to marry for the legal benefits?

Please answer. I won't let you avoid them!

Rather rude of you to demand, seeing as how you never bothered to go back and answer my questions about Israel, the Religious Right and the Second Coming on the other thread. As you've said beefore, gander, goose? Though I will answer your questions, even though I think I can assume your laptop has a new battery by now (wasn't that your reason?).

Truthfully, I myself don't really care if a consenting, adult brother and sister marry each other. I personally find it really, really weird and kinda gross, but you know, it was common among the Egyptian pharoahs, and the Egyptian Empire had a pretty good run.

And I really, really don't care if two straight people marry for the benefits. I know people who married for green cards, for health benefits, for all kinds of reasons having nothing to do with love, or kids. What I care about is whether I think a portion of the US population is being denied legal privileges with genuine advantages that is being made available to another group for no reason other than a sexual preference, most likely determined before birth, that has been deemed normal since the early 1970's.

So, as I struggle to find the point I can live with in this nation, I think it's fair and just to permit gay men and women to marry, and I can live with a nation that chooses to not permit siblings to marry, because I think the number of siblings that would choose to marry is very small. The gay marriage movement has been going on for a while now, and I don't see a comparably strong First-Cousin marriage movement (though that is legal in New York and some other states). I think, as one sorts out what should and should not be in society that one can't help but look at the number of people who would be affected. Inter-racial marriages were once considered wrong and immoral, you know. Would you be opposed to them being made illegal again? After all, a person could just find someone else of their own race to marry, right? And who cares if they want to marry them, or love them, right? It's just about having kids, right? After all, that's the way things have always been, just like slavery and child labor and beating your wife to save her soul. Why change?

OK fine, just for fun. As you said, denying someone a right (or privilege...doesn't matter for this part) that they want really, really bad is a denial of the pursuit of happiness...think about it. I want to be viewed by the state as an otter. I mean really, really bad. If they won't view or treat me as an otter, my pursuit of happiness is being denied!

I fail to see the comparison- as otters have no rights under human law, I don't think the government would object to you trotting out to a river and living off raw fish and mussels for the rest of your life. Unless you are a nuisance, in which case they could treat you like an otter and shoot you or remove you to a location where you could live in captivity for the rest of your life. (They might call it an asylum, not a zoo, but I bet if you yelled enough, they'd even call it a zoo in your presence)


That can and does happen to straight folks who are legally married. So, it is hardly a problem that legally recognizing gay marriages will solve.

Not often and they have legal recourses. Gay couples have NONE.

By defining marriage more broadly to simply include "committed couples" as a taxpayer, employer and employee, I am being forced to accept this view - and by being forced to accept such I will have to pay greater taxes, insurance premiums, etc. by the additional burdens on the courts and economy.

And I'm fine with that, just as I'm fine with paying Social Security taxes though I'm not retired and school taxes, even though I don't have kids. Because I think I have an obligation to the rest of society and because these things are good- they keep the elderly from dropping dead of starvation in front of me on the street and seriously bumming out my walk to work and they (hopefully) give the kids some skills so that they don't grow up to be hooligans stealing my purse. And I'm fine with any additional costs gay marriage would put on me- married people experience better health and are generally more financially secure than single people. Which translates to lower Medicare costs and fewer people on Medicaid. And, I'm hopeful, a larger group of people looking to adopt, which means less of my money going to support foster care.

Not to mention, by making it a socially acceptable state, gay bashing will also become less socially acceptable. Which will save money in court costs for hate crimes.

In all fairness, I don't pay school taxes now, because I'm not a homeowner (and that's something I find discriminatory and inherently unfair because it means kids in poor areas will always have crappier schools, but that's a rant for a different thread). But I wouldn't object to it.

Oh my God, I've gone over 10000 characters. I'll finish this in one more post.

[GenuineRisk]

As I've said on other threads, we all have our lines in the sand. I know lots of Christians who are divorced for reasons other than the wife cheating on the husband (which, technically, is the only reason Jesus saw as acceptable). And I know a miserably married Christian couple who won't ever split up because they have both been faithful and believe what Jesus said about marriage. Same religion, different lines in the sand. Where marriage is concerned, mine is consenting adults. And if we're living in a society that chooses to reward marriage, we can't withhold that reward based on sexual preferences. It's discriminatory. And, like those early leftist, religious lunatics who got it in their craw that slavery was bad, even though they themselves were not slaves, I'll passionately continue to advocate for gay marriage, even though I'm not gay. In the end, as society evolves, I believe if an idea is right on a universal scale, you will eventually convince society of it's rightness. Not an instant process, because many people fear change, but if it's right, it'll happen.

And to finish, I apologize for the stupid light blue lettering I put your quotes in. For all that I can install memory chips and replace lithium batteries and edit video on computers and blah blah blah, I CANNOT figure out how to break up someone else's quotes so they stay in those nice shaded boxes while I type new stuff in between. Help?