The Hounds of Zeus  

Go Back   The Hounds of Zeus > Specialty Forums > Stang's Bitch Pit
Xbox Leaderboard FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-21-2004, 10:04 AM   #121
Gambit
Forum wh0re
 
Gambit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW area, TX
Posts: 744
Send a message via ICQ to Gambit Send a message via AIM to Gambit Send a message via Yahoo to Gambit
Default

Quite possible about the Communion misunderstanding.

And I realize that not everyone does or will believe as I do, and that any evidence that I would present to support those statements would probably start their own lively discussions. Still, I find it compelling enough to believe it is the truth, and put my trust there and to stand by it.
Gambit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2004, 11:53 AM   #122
Kaleban
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Age: 47
Posts: 64
Send a message via AIM to Kaleban
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambit
Quite possible about the Communion misunderstanding.

And I realize that not everyone does or will believe as I do, and that any evidence that I would present to support those statements would probably start their own lively discussions. Still, I find it compelling enough to believe it is the truth, and put my trust there and to stand by it.
Gambit, I'm asking this not to start another political argument, but just to know.

Assume for the moment that you are President. You seem to be a person of good moral character, and on top of that, a very fervent Christian. Would you, as President, sign into law a bill stating that gay marriage is illegal in totality, affirming your belief that marriage is for a man and a woman only?

The effect being that civil unions even between homosexual partners are outlawed, and anyone who is homosexual and in a relationship cannot be given the legal rights of a spouse, even if they live with each other for ten, twenty, or more years.

This same situation can be asked of many policies, but what it comes down to is do you make laws based on your religious beliefs, or what you think is fair and just for the myriad numbers of cultures, religions, orientations and sexualities that you preside over as leader of the free world?

JFK was an excellent example of a man who could draw the line between what was best for his beliefs, and what was best for the overall good of a country, and he was Catholic. My main concern with Bush is that ALL of his decisions are with religion at the forefront, and now so is it the same with the rest of the governmental branches.
__________________
"He Will Win
Whose Army Is Animated
By The Same Spirirt
Throughout Its Ranks"
-Sun Tzu The Art of War
Kaleban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2004, 08:04 PM   #123
Gambit
Forum wh0re
 
Gambit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW area, TX
Posts: 744
Send a message via ICQ to Gambit Send a message via AIM to Gambit Send a message via Yahoo to Gambit
Default

If I were the President - and it's not exactly an ambition of mine - yikes.

I'd probably, if faced with a situation like this, look for a solution that keeps the label "marriage" for man-woman unions, and try to figure out some way to allow insurance and tax status for "civil unions." I can't say I'm happy with that. I don't see how it makes any of the various groups with a stake in the issue happy, but it gives everyone a little of what they want. It's a politically expedient solution, and politics is the art of compromise. I'd like to be able to be in that position and say, no, this is wrong, it shouldn't be this way, but I might very well cave. Some things shouldn't be compromised, some things should, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

A President has to represent the whole country, whatever their beliefs or backgrounds. He also has to lead them, sometimes to a place they don't want to go. Some Presidents do the former, and are well-liked during their tenure but tend to let things "run down" on their watch because they're saying "yes" to everything and don't make the necessary tough decisions. Some do the latter, and are usually hated while in office and might be loved or hated in history. Some Presidents strike more of a balance.
__________________
XMEN member
Card-carrying DTM
OKL Fish-napper


Though a program be but three lines long,
someday it will have to be maintained.
-The Tao of Programming

Last edited by Gambit; 11-21-2004 at 08:15 PM.
Gambit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2004, 10:28 AM   #124
Ravok99
Forum Regular
 
Ravok99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 47
Default

I hit some of this stuff in my religion rant; so you know that if I was the Pres. I would look at what is best for the country, so that the definition of the institution takes into account a lot of issues.

Currently, the divorce rate is so sky high, marriage as an institution has completely deteriorated. It is extremely under-valued, and I have seen women use it as a means of self support. I.E. - they seek men that will impregnate them, then sue for custody, child support, etc - then use that money to sustain themselves with a single stay at home mother and a family of around 3 - 5 children; then - as the children grow older, they push the kids hard to support their loving mother.

So - in lieu of these sorts of manipulative uses of the law - what can define marriage? If I was President, I would have to say that a single family unit is the strongest possible use of the institution, and would most likely support that function - as it builds up consistency in the economy by supporting that. However, the populace - in its view of freedoms - has consistently worn down that approach. Do I, as President, accept the weaker definition of marriage, a definition that is economically less viable than the optimum of a single long-term family unit?

That is really the question to pose. How can society support an institution of marriage by law, when it - as a populace - has degraded the institution to the point that most marriages don't last?

Therefore, re-defining it for others that wish to be recognized as a part of that institution seems to me, as just another manipulation of law - because most of the populace does not adhere to their own marriage contracts.
__________________
*COMING SOON* Gorch and Zit -- WOW Orc Hunter and PUP
Ravok99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2004, 01:30 PM   #125
Kaleban
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Age: 47
Posts: 64
Send a message via AIM to Kaleban
Default

Unfortunately, the bigger question, apart from gold-digging spouses (and they're both male and female in my experience), and this concern is usually voiced by both hetero and homo groups with established long term relationships, is what benefits do the spouses have?

For example, a gay man cannot technically contest a family's claim of property as next of kin, since he cannot get "married" and therefore has no claim even if his partner willed it to him after thirty or forty years of co-habitation.

And it goes further. There are many benefits conferred upon married couples, from tax benefits, insurance benefits, and others that gay couples cannot enjoy simply because of a law that is being pushed by homophobic old white males. I can't imagine what a closeted gay senator must feel like right about now, especially if he's a democrat!

So the current regime has seen fit to make their views clear: gays will not be tolerated. Its the segregation attitude, and it makes gay people LESS than people, since there are laws specifically targeting their sexual orientation. What's next, making it illegal for gays to drink from public water fountains because homophobic senators believe you can get AIDS from the spigot? Its a crock.

And Gambit, let me give you a scenario that could act as a compromise, but I'll then tell you why it will never be accepted.

Eliminate the institution of marriage as a legally binding agreement. Establish civil unions as the basis for a legally bound co-habitation, and don't limit it. If some dude wants to "union" with his plant, then that's his business. Give all the rights currently under the purview of marriage to the civil union. Eliminate all terminology that causes the civil union to have religious overtones. Marriage, being a religious institution, is the purview of religion, not the state, so this means gays cannot get married, keeping the rabid gap-toothed hicks happy, but allows the gays to have the benefit and recognition they seek. Thus, everyone is happy, and everyone gets what they want.

Now the reason it won't happen. There IS discrimination in this country, not made more clear than by the overwhelming support of the gay marriage ban enacted in many states. That is segregation, discrimination, and a direct violation of civil rights. And now, with some of the most fire and brimstoney right wing nutjobs in office EVER, they will see to it that gays are "purged" if they could, and only public outcry will at least allow the homosexual community a shred of decency.

I am ashamed and appalled to be called an American these days, what with all the religious pomposity in our government, and the fake patriotism that is bred of fear of the system. I've said time and again, that John Carpenter is a visionary, and his vision of a future America where the President is a man who must pray before every decision is here... NOW. I don't mean to be rude to anyone, but this is unacceptable. America is a secular nation, populated by many different groups of cultures and belief systems. To eschew all others in favour of one is both wrong, and hypocritical, given the fact of the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, two documents lauded by politicians, but butchered at every turn to further political agendas.

/rant.
__________________
"He Will Win
Whose Army Is Animated
By The Same Spirirt
Throughout Its Ranks"
-Sun Tzu The Art of War
Kaleban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2004, 04:29 PM   #126
Gambit
Forum wh0re
 
Gambit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW area, TX
Posts: 744
Send a message via ICQ to Gambit Send a message via AIM to Gambit Send a message via Yahoo to Gambit
Default

You are, as I've said before, entitled to your opinion. I would, however, like to note something.

The United States is a representative democracy. A republic. (In a true democracy, everyone would vote on every issue.) But we DO get to vote on our leaders, choosing the one we think is the best one for the job. So, pretty much, the majority rules, but if a leader just follows the polls, he's not really a leader, is he/she?

You know what? I didn't much like eight years of Clinton. He said and did a lot of things that I certainly would be ashamed of, and I didn't want the head of my country doing. But NONE of what he did ever made me say "I'm ashamed to be an American." The United States is MUCH more than the presidency, or the legislature, or the Supreme Court, or the people who hold those positions. It's more than the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the New York Times.

If you don't like something about America, you're a citizen and have the right - perhaps the duty - to speak your mind and work to change it. That's one of the things that makes it a great country. Please understand that there's plenty of things I don't like about it too.

You need to realize that when you say you're ashamed to be an American, you're saying you're ashamed of all those orientations and ethnicities and cultures, the great melting pot, that you're griping about being stomped upon and have the same right to vote as everyone else.
If you're ashamed to be an American, then you have the right - and my invitation - to stop being one.
__________________
XMEN member
Card-carrying DTM
OKL Fish-napper


Though a program be but three lines long,
someday it will have to be maintained.
-The Tao of Programming
Gambit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2004, 07:26 PM   #127
Kaleban
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Age: 47
Posts: 64
Send a message via AIM to Kaleban
Default

As you said, the President represents for better or worse America as a whole. There's a mighty big difference between what I said and what you're interpreting, much like religion, there's always room for error.

What I meant, was that the principles upon which the country was founded, and all the struggles and birthing pains of a relatively new nation are consistently forgotten by Americans as a whole. I know many Americans who failed American history, and yet foreigners know more about both their homeland and their "adopted" homeland than anyone else. It makes me sad when I see natural born Americans grumbling about having to take time off to go vote, while the store clerk they're bitching to would give dearly to be able to exercise the same power in his or her own country.

What makes me ashamed is the palpable aura if you will of entitlement that many Americans share. The country is over 300 million people censused (word?) with many more not counted. Of that, how many have fought in wars, defended their country, raised their voice in political rallies, or done anything to distinguish themselves from the herd?

From my vantage point, a good portion of the country is covered in sloth. How many total votes were there? about 35 million? That means it only took 1/10th the country's population to elect its president. And that was accompanied by voting failures, discrepancies and problems just like the last election. What if EVERY American suddenly had a surge of civic duty and voted?

The point I was trying to make was that I'm not ashamed to be a part of something that stands for honor, truth, liberty, freedom, virtue, and other good qualities. What I AM ashamed of is that these values over time have been twisted and perverted to serve political and business expediency and to turn massive profits for the privileged few. What so many Americans were duped on is that ole G.W. is just as rich, if not more so than Senator Kerry, even with his wife backing him? But they showed him off as a good ole boy, and it worked, because the majority of people that vote are under-educated, ignorant, or elderly, which says wonders about our education system in itself.

Here's an article that is both very funny and terribly tragic in its poignancy:

http://www.theonion.com/election2004/news_4045.php

P.S. Again, Gambit, I'm not trying to be venomous or anything. But while America is more than its offices, and the laws of the land, those two things represent America to both the nation itself and other peoples. I suppose the best way to put it is this:

If YOU were unhappy with the way things were being run, what options do you have? So far, I've been told to like it or leave it, which as we civilized forum goers know is a very bad attitude. Especially in a democracy. Of which we're supposed to have a voice.

A list of things I'm ashamed of as an American:
1. The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton - nothing more than a high priced episode of Jerry Springer, with Ken Starr as the ringleader.
2. The outcry over Janet Jackson's slip - a bunch of uptight people taking a stunt far too seriously.
3. The FCC crackdown on radio, and the further censoring of public media.
4. The Iraq war - good people are involved and dying on both sides, while no concrete plans are made for elimination of threats or extraction.
5. The actual banning of gay marriage in several states, directly contravening the Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness guaranteed to every citizen. A secular law based of religious principle.
6. The downward plunge the country is headed for, culturally, economically, and heck every factor that matters. Freedom is not free, and we must all at one time make a stand against tyranny and oppresion, but what are your choices when your fight (such as gay marriage) is overwhelmingly unpopular? Should all homosexuals move out of the country if they don't like it? Rediculous.
7. The fact that even though we're an enlightened democracy, our leaders are still old white men groomed for office, who have no real care for their constituents beyond how much they can help pad their wallets.

I'm not saying America is the worst country, compared to many its the best, but if we're going to set ourselves as the moral and cultural bastion of the world, we should check to make sure our accounts are not bankrupt in those areas first.

[edit] P.P.S. I'm also pretty sure Clinton during his eight years never tried to pass legislation that would abolish the civil rights of a specific group of people. Which is what Bush and his cabinet of neo-conservative Christians are trying and succeeding at doing. There was another man in history, famous for his persecution of a certain group of people within his own country's population, but I won't mention the H-word out loud.
__________________
"He Will Win
Whose Army Is Animated
By The Same Spirirt
Throughout Its Ranks"
-Sun Tzu The Art of War

Last edited by Kaleban; 11-22-2004 at 07:31 PM.
Kaleban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2004, 03:30 PM   #128
DooMKitty
Registered User
 
DooMKitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In Yaks Butt
Posts: 56
Send a message via AIM to DooMKitty Send a message via Yahoo to DooMKitty
Default Well hmmm...

Down with bush eh? well who won the election?
__________________
People must be stalking me

~~+++i love yak =^.^= +++~~
DooMKitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2004, 03:59 PM   #129
Stang
Team Captain
 
Stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Everett, WA, USA
Age: 50
Posts: 3,859
Send a message via ICQ to Stang Send a message via AIM to Stang
Default

Again guys don't do the bashing in this thread. We are keeping it civilized and respectful. Make another thread if you need to bash like that.

If you watched the news or picked up a paper you'd know who won .

We still don't have a governor in our state .
__________________
Stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
38th General Election Aluscia Main Forum 7 07-02-2004 07:40 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:29 AM.




Since
April 6, 1999
The Hounds of Zeus Logo and all original content Copyright © 1999 - Gryphon, LLC All rights reserved.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft
Have a nice day!