quote Originally posted by Formula88: *snip* I think there should be 2 different unions - a government regulated Civil Union and a religious regulated Marriage. *snip*

Awesome post. I completley agree.
How would we go about implementing this?

It seems like a great compromise, and I feel like most level-headed people would agree with it. The problems always come from those at the far opposite ends of the spectrum, who think if they compromise on their ideals, they've lost.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I do realize we have a few states which allow it but I can't think of another country which does, though I am ignorant about it.

quote Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and recognized in Mexico City and parts of the United States. Some jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere: Israel, the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, parts of the United States, and all states of Mexico. Australia recognises same-sex marriages only by one partner changing their sex after marriage.[2] As of 2012, proposals exist to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Abortion, I left my religious views out of my opinion as I did not feel they were needed. Gay marriage, it's harder to do but I will try. Marriage has deep rooted tradition. No, I am not in favor of government regulating religion/religious ceremonies. Government has already co-opted marriage such as people who get married do not even have to be religious if they get married by a judge. Still, marriage, government or church, shared the deep rooted tradition of being between a man and a woman. This tradition started as a purpose. To create families.

Yeah, I won't throw down about abortion, I tend to think there's no right answer to that subject.
As for marriage, it may have been created for that purpose, but certainly it has evolved way beyond that. There are a lot of married couples who don't have kids. I tend to think that whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is something people trot out when they don't really have a "logical" reason for opposing same sex marriage. And again, I'm not criticizing you for having that opinion, nor am I saying your "wrong" (it's an opinion anyway), I'm just saying, I think you might benefit from taking a good hard look at why you might feel that way. Many beliefs are born of social conditioning, and if you are comfortable with your belief, then stick with it, but realize that the arguments just don't really make sense.
But either way, if you say you don't approve of the government regulating religious practice, how do you reconcile that with claiming marriage is a religious ceremony, and then proclaiming same sex marriage (as a religious ceremony) should be illegal? I think you have to pick a side, which is more important, complete religious freedom, or government regulated religious practice in order to satisfy some agenda?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: "Why would they want to get married (?)" was not an argument, it was a question. One that I know the answer to. They want to be considered normal. Fact is, they are an aberration and I say that with no insult implied. Why are they not just advocating for a civil union which affords them all the rights of married couples including man/woman couples who just live together ?

I disagree completely with regard to your classification of gays as aberrations. I also disagree that they want to marry in order to be "normal". (whatever that is) I listed but a couple of reasons why they would want to be married, that have nothing to do with being normal. I know two women who have been together in a loving monogamous relationship for over thirty years. If one of them goes to the hospital, her partner can't see her because they aren't considered immediate family. How is that fair or reasonable? To deny them that is to try and state that their love isn't genuine because they are of the same sex. That's reasonable to you? It's normal that people can love their car, or their pet, or their job, but somehow romantically loving someone of the same sex is irrelevant or invalid? How does that at all make sense? Same goes for medical benefits, "domestic partners" aren't generally allowed medical benefits through their partner's employers. There are some companies who do, but very few. Why should they be denied that? The reasons are countless. As for the concept of a "civil union", I can't really comment on that, I know there are some who feel strongly that they should be allowed to be "married", but some just want to be able to legally join no matter what it's called. I may have to ask my friends about that.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I also did not comment that they "do yearn for religious values". I asked if that might be why. I know of no churches which condone same sex marriage yet do realize that just because one calls themselves a church does not make them a church. Other religions have mosques, temples, synagogues, and perhaps the spaghetti bowl for those that worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, . I know of no religion which condones same sex marriage. I do realize we have a few states which allow it but I can't think of another country which does, though I am ignorant about it. My step sister is gay and has a life partner. Like divorce, she is on her third one. Whatever. I also have known other gay couples and gay individuals. I am not a homophobe but gays being married is no more necessary than it would be me to want to be considered black (or brown or aisian ...).

No insult intended here, but just because you may not be aware of them, doesn't mean they don't exist. The church I attend for example openly welcomes gays. We have no prejudices against anyone, all are welcome, hence the name. No, we don't worship flowers or spaghetti bowls, we consider ourselves a Christian church, following the teachings of Jesus, just without all the confusion of conflicting ideals. ( http://www.unity.org/about-us )
And see, there you go again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the real issue. You're trying to decide what's right for someone else- "no more necessary...." Who are you or anyone to decide what's right or even "necessary" for another person. I assume that you would like to be left alone, to be free to express yourself, and to live your life as you see fit, provided you don't harm another person. So why aren't people who just happen to be gay entitled to the same freedoms and liberties that you are? (OK, that might have been a little argumentative) But from what I know of you on here, you're generally a pretty objective open-minded person. I'm just really surprised by some of your response.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Yes, I think it's murder. Have enough people disagreed with your theory for you to second guess it, yet?

Not yet!

Do you consider yourself a member or supporter of the Tea Party? And if so, is banning abortion one of your top priorities?

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Not yet! Do you consider yourself a member or supporter of the Tea Party? And if so, is banning abortion one of your top priorities?

Supporter.
No.

Next time you quote me, please either quote it all, or quote my point in full at the least.

I know you've already made up your mind... About pretty much everything in your life. But you're assumptions are not always right. In fact, I find most of them laughable.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Supporter. No.

Well, that's good to know. At least one religious Jesus freak is not a supporter of the Tea Party.

Maybe I just might start throwing my support back to the Tea Party after all. I keep my mind open all the time about such things.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Not yet! Do you consider yourself a member or supporter of the Tea Party? And if so, is banning abortion one of your top priorities?

I consider myself Lutheran. I am a supporter of the Tea Party. And no. (I think you might also want to note the age group Brennan and I are in - early 20's, there's hope for the future. )

Just finished watching all 7 episodes. I particularly liked the Creating Wealth episode but they were all brilliant. It is gratifying to see these very fundamental concepts explained with such clarity. I wish more people would take the time to watch them.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: cliffw if you are neither a Tea Party member or supporter, that means you oppose the Tea Party?

No. I am also neither a member or supporter of the republican party or the democratic party. I don't oppose them either.
I support and vote for a candidate.

the tea party members are the descendants of the john birch society
with a mix of KKK and fascist ideals aka angry old white guys
aka nut-con's who hate new ideas and are regressive not progressive
their social values are very repressive nut-christian
and are traitors to the american way of truth justice and equality
as they put self interest before national interest every time
and simply donot care about their fellow citizens

very sad really that such people exist
let alone want to rule our nation

quote Originally posted by ray b: the tea party members are the descendants of the john birch society with a mix of KKK and fascist ideals aka angry old white guys aka nut-con's who hate new ideas and are regressive not progressive their social values are very repressive nut-christian and are traitors to the american way of truth justice and equality as they put self interest before national interest every time and simply donot care about their fellow citizens very sad really that such people exist let alone want to rule our nation

ray, when are you going to stop repeating this BULLSHIT? Huh? When? The stuff you post is nothing other than unsubstantiated, made up CRAP.

quote Originally posted by ray b: the tea party members are the descendants of the john birch society (but not really) with a mix of KKK (founded by the Democratic Party) and fascist ideals (like freedom from government domination over our lives) aka angry old white guys (as stated by an angry old white guy)aka nut-con's who hate new ideas (if they don't work) and are regressive not progressive their social values are very repressive nut-christian and are traitors to the american way of truth justice and equality (Like supporting the US Constitution as written)as they put self interest before national interest every time (hallelujah brother, No "Group Think" or "Big Brother" for us nut cons) and simply do not care about their fellow citizens (when they have their hands in our pockets at gun point)very sad really that such people exist let alone want to rule our nation

Fix that fer ya

quote Originally posted by fierobear: ray, when are you going to stop repeating this BULLSHIT?

Do we need to put you on meds ? He's not gonna stop, .

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-01-2012).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: the tea party members are the descendants of the john birch society with a mix of KKK and fascist ideals aka angry old white guys aka nut-con's who hate new ideas and are regressive not progressive their social values are very repressive nut-christian and are traitors to the american way of truth justice and equality as they put self interest before national interest every time and simply donot care about their fellow citizens very sad really that such people exist let alone want to rule our nation

You are free to disagree. This thread was started to tell people what the Tea Party stands for, from the Tea Party perspective. Not to listen to Tea Party haters tell us what they think it stands for.

If you'd like to share what you believe and what you stand for without it having to be an attack on someone else, please share. We may not agree, but we'll listen to your point of view. What we don't need is people only looking to talk trash about others.

Tell us about you and your beliefs, not what you think others believe.

Well there is some truth to what he says. Obviously not everyone in the tea party has the same views, so we can't paint them all with the same brush.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 06-01-2012).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: Well there is some truth to what he says. Obviously not everyone in the tea party has the same views, so we can't paint them all with the same brush.

"Truth" is difficult to prove when you're talking about what someone else believes.
That's why I'd prefer to hear people comment about their personal beliefs, not what they've decided someone else believes. Pretty much every other political thread does that.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You are free to disagree. This thread was started to tell people what the Tea Party stands for, from the Tea Party perspective. Not to listen to Tea Party haters tell us what they think it stands for. If you'd like to share what you believe and what you stand for without it having to be an attack on someone else, please share. We may not agree, but we'll listen to your point of view. What we don't need is people only looking to talk trash about others. Tell us about you and your beliefs, not what you think others believe.

that is exact why the teabaggers are a problem
they will not listen to any other ideas
they are lock steped in to their program
never mind where or why or even if it works

they are me me me people
only out for their selfish self
and willing to trash our nation
if they can save a buck

and completely fail to know the roots of their movement
they are 100% the new john birchers
but the supporters donot care about history
or they would understand
all the teabaggers ideas
have been proven to FAIL
this is just a rerun of BuSh2 nut-conned ideas
why are you so sure failed ideas need to be rerun harder ?

quote Originally posted by ray b: that is exact why the teabaggers are a problem they will not listen to any other ideas they are lock steped in to their program never mind where or why or even if it works they are me me me people only out for their selfish self and willing to trash our nation if they can save a buck and completely fail to know the roots of their movement they are 100% the new john birchers but the supporters donot care about history or they would understand all the teabaggers ideas have been proven to FAIL this is just a rerun of BuSh2 nut-conned ideas why are you so sure failed ideas need to be rerun harder ?

I looked up the word "Irony". Ray's nickname and avatar showed up.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Do we need to put you on meds ? He's not gonna stop, .

Nah. Got a bottle of decent scotch, instead?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: No. I am also neither a member or supporter of the republican party or the democratic party. I don't oppose them either. I support and vote for a candidate.

Cool. So you vote for the most anti-choice and anti-freedom candidates. Yeah! I can see both major parties are like that.

Don't worry, you're in good company. Most people are just like you, so don't feel like you're odd.

quote Originally posted by ray b: all the teabaggers ideas have been proven to FAIL this is just a rerun of BuSh2 nut-conned ideas why are you so sure failed ideas need to be rerun harder ?

Hey, dipshit, why don't you look up what has happened in Wisconsin since REPUBLICAN governor Scott Walker has implemented conservative, Reaganomic-type ideas. You asked me once where they ever have worked. Go look it up and prove me wrong.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Hey, dipshit, why don't you look up what has happened in Wisconsin since REPUBLICAN governor Scott Walker has implemented conservative, Reaganomic-type ideas. You asked me once where they ever have worked. Go look it up and prove me wrong.

one governor in office 18 months and facing recall now
lets see if he is even there in 5 days
Reaganomic-type ideas aka voodoo failed when raygun was governor
super failed 1980 to 1988 + bush1 as the national debt went nuts
clinton balanced budget but the nut-con BuSh2 undid that with voodoo reruns

walker has trashed civil service in his state
lowering workers pay is not a good idea
but is a core GOP value
cut the workers BUT let the rich get richer
but I guess no one should be surprised
so many GOP core values
are very bad ideas for the 99%

that is the point you fail to get
the nut-con's support so much that benefits only the 1%

ray, I asked you to share what you believe, but your posts clearly show you only believe in trashing others.
Would you even know what you believe if you didn't base it against people you don't like?

quote Originally posted by ray b: walker has trashed civil service in his state lowering workers pay is not a good idea

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. He did NOT lower their pay. All he did was get them to pay more of their own benefits. If you want to call that a pay reduction...yeah, right. NO teachers lost their jobs. Not one. No layoffs. State budget went from a huge deficit to a surplus. All while LOWERING TAXES.

If balancing the state budget from a deficit to a surplus, and not laying any public workers off is a bad idea, then you are certifiably nuts.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You don't know what the hell you're talking about. He did NOT lower their pay. All he did was get them to pay more of their own benefits. If you want to call that a pay reduction...yeah, right. NO teachers lost their jobs. Not one. No layoffs. State budget went from a huge deficit to a surplus. All while LOWERING TAXES. If balancing the state budget from a deficit to a surplus, and not laying any public workers off is a bad idea, then you are certifiably nuts.

you do know local teachers DO NOT WORK FOR THE STATE
they work for local school boards
walker cut 900 million in state aid to schools
are you sure not one teacher was cut by those local boards ?

state workers saw a 8% reduction in pay
I call that a cut

walker did raise tax rates at the bottom
just as the GOP loves to do
tax those with the least
give cuts to the top

let hope this guy is voted out in a few days

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The thing I've never understood about the abortion argument is, how can you have a law that says if someone murders a pregnant woman, they are charged with 2 counts of murder, but abortion is legal?

I don't have a good way to put it into words, but there is a difference.

( not comparing people to animals, just an example of where it seems conflicting when its not ... ) Consider its legal for you to euthanize your pet if its no longer 'wanted', but if i come and shoot it when you want to keep it, its a crime.

quote Originally posted by ray b: I do not work for you nor do I feel I need to explain but when nut-con propaganda is posted as fact yes I will dispute the smoke and mirrors your side mis uses sorry if you confuse facts and truth with trashing but lies need to be trashed you tea party is a creation and controlled by the 1%'s funding [koch bro's] they do not have the 99%'s interests at the heart

As I said, you're free to disagree, like you always do. However, complaining about people not being willing to listen to your point of view while refusing to offer your point of view is comically hypocritical. You are the living embodiment of irony, ray. Thanks for the laughs.

Bad analogy. I can dispose of my property if I like but you cannot come and take the same item without my consent - that's theft. Your reasoning would imply that an unborn child is the sole property of the mother.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I don't have a good way to put it into words, but there is a difference. ( not comparing people to animals, just an example of where it seems conflicting when its not ... ) Consider its legal for you to euthanize your pet if its no longer 'wanted', but if i come and shoot it when you want to keep it, its a crime.

quote Originally posted by ray b: you do know local teachers DO NOT WORK FOR THE STATE they work for local school boards walker cut 900 million in state aid to schools are you sure not one teacher was cut by those local boards ? state workers saw a 8% reduction in pay I call that a cut walker did raise tax rates at the bottom just as the GOP loves to do tax those with the least give cuts to the top let hope this guy is voted out in a few days

Ray, you must be INSANE. If all the teachers were employed locallly, then why the big statewide problem with Walker? If control over their contracts was local, then why recall the governor?

You simply CANNOT acknowledge that a Republican, using conservative principles, had success, can you?

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Bad analogy. I can dispose of my property if I like but you cannot come and take the same item without my consent - that's theft. Your reasoning would imply that an unborn child is the sole property of the mother.

Excellent point on the bad analogy of User00013170. Without permission or an agreement of the person, it will always be a crime. That is the basis of basically all laws be it criminal or civil law.

But you really have me thinking on this one. An unborn child would be the sole property of the mother as it is still tethered to the mother's body.

As there is no law against doing anything to our own bodies, then a pregnant woman does have the right to do what she wants to the unborn.

Once born, separated from the mother biologically, then the born child now will become an individual and the mother can no longer do what it wants with that child, but abide by the agreements of the law. (One reason why I never got why people mutilated the penises of baby boys )

So these religious Christian men who are hell bent to use the police power of government to stick a gun to the head of a pregnant woman to force them to give birth to an unwanted unborn child is just madness.

quote Originally posted by ray b: <snip> you tea party is a creation and controlled by the 1%'s funding [koch bro's] they do not have the 99%'s interests at the heart

I love it when liberals scream about the Koch brothers. It opens the door to exposure of their hypocrisy. The NEVER, NEVER whine about George Soros.

quote Patriot's Lament In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), which serves as the flagship of a network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder's agendas. Those agendas can be summarized as follows: promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left advocating America's unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending opposing the death penalty in all circumstances promoting socialized medicine in the United States promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is "not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization" bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand advocating stricter gun-control measures advocating the legalization of marijuana So - review this list and then take a look at the organizations he throws millions of dollars to and you will see his agenda surfacing through these multiple non-profits. According to Discover the Networks, all told, Soros' foundation network made an estimated $5 billion worth of grants between 1979 and 2007. PBS broadcaster and Schumann Center for Media and Democracy President Bill Moyers is a trustee of the Open Society Institute's Board of Directors. His tentacles reach far and wide and understanding his vast network, you can begin to uncover the true agenda of ALL of these groups that take Soros money. Take a look at the Open Society Institute's IRS Form 990 for 2006 (most recent year reported) here.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: As there is no law against doing anything to our own bodies, then a pregnant woman does have the right to do what she wants to the unborn.

It is against the law to kill yourself. (rather, to make the attempt, as if you're successful it's difficult to prosecute)
Based on existing law, the case can be made a woman having an abortion is the same as someone purposely injuring a woman in such a way as to cause a miscarriage.

The abortion argument will never be resolved as long as the two sides aren't arguing the same topic. Pro-Life says the fetus is a person and has the right to life. Pro-Choice says a woman has the right to choose what happens with her body. Neither argument addresses whether it agrees or disagrees with the other. People can be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It is against the law to kill yourself. (rather, to make the attempt, as if you're successful it's difficult to prosecute)

Not in the US today: "By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification."

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Not in the US today: "By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification."

Perhaps not a criminal offense, but if you attempt to take your own life, or if it's believed you might harm yourself or others you will surely lose your freedom. So you end up in a mental institution instead of jail and it's not a criminal offense, but it does rob you of your freedom and label you as mentally defective for the rest of your life, with a loss of some rights even after treatment is finished, much like ex-con felons lose some rights.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Perhaps not a criminal offense, but if you attempt to take your own life, or if it's believed you might harm yourself or others you will surely lose your freedom. So you end up in a mental institution instead of jail and it's not a criminal offense, but it does rob you of your freedom and label you as mentally defective for the rest of your life, with a loss of some rights even after treatment is finished, much like ex-con felons lose some rights.

That would depend. You can be involuntary committed if you fail to commit suicide, but that would be determined by a psychologist and it also depends on your method you try to employ to kill yourself as well.

But the "ACT" of trying to kill yourself isn't illegal.

So are you going to retract the statement you made that suicide and attempted suicide is illegal or do we chalk that up as one of your fails?