| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 1:34:18 PM
|
| Court, you've just touched on another of the few areas I part with President Bush. Spending is not only out of control here in the City of Everett. The Feds are draining us dry as well and pork, as you have pointed out, is a major problem. The president has added to the entitlement program Medicare with his prescription drug program. While the elderly are a large voting block we simply cannot afford this addition in the current financial condition of this program. If a fund is set to go bankrupt in 2013 how do you add an additional benefit no matter how well intentioned? Sometimes you just have to say no. There have been some increases such as war funding and the establishment of the TSA that I feel are necessary increases for our national security. These are expensive things no doubt but I don't see how they can be avoided. I agree there is plenty of things in the federal budget that can be cut. The famous bridge to nowhere in Alaska comes to mind not to mention the boondoggle that is the Big Dig. Neither party has the moxie to stop the madness. The Republicans the like of Ronald Reagan did but sadly they are nowhere to be found now. A viable third party would be a wonderful thing in my opinion. Both the Dems and the GOP do not appear to be able to get the job done currently. |
 |
|
|
citizen
Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 3:58:19 PM
|
Let the gays marry... who really cares. As if the non gays have done such a great job with marriage.. give me break..
Let the conservatives and liberals who do not vote in electons go to Iraq and fight the war and see what their inactions have caused...
Let the people who are blaming everyone else around the world for higher gas prices vote for "W" one more time.. the guy made a war happen with improper information.. he has more of a stain on his shirt than Clinton could ever have!
Let the people who think the illegals getting kicked out of the US will help poverty, literacy and the lack of respect people have for each other, go fight the fight in Afghanistan and see what real torture is like... if they are here give them a chance to survive.. why hurt them more. Unless of course they hurt others.
Everyone has a reason why things are so bad... but no has an answer that doesn't hurt some part of the population we live in.
|
Edited by - citizen on 06/11/2007 4:01:59 PM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 5:57:56 PM
|
| Apparently a lot of people care. Constitutional amendments have swept across the nation the past couple of years to avoid the mere possibility that the high courts in other states might have the audacity to over rule thousands of years worth of what the definition of marriage is like the fools on the Massachusetts state supreme court did here. I voted for "W" only because nobody ran against him in the Republican primary last election. Besides what choice did we have? It was the lesser of two evils. I'd rather undergo Chinese water torture than vote for John Forbes Kerry. As bad as Bush has been lately, thank God he won. As far as illegals they were not invited to come to this country. They broke in. If they broke into your house would you let them stay and give them a chance to survive there? The Uninted States of America is my house. Get the intruders out of here ASAP by any means necessary. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/11/2007 6:00:04 PM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2007 : 8:29:09 PM
|
| I disagree with you on gay marriage Middle-Man 1, but you're on the money as far as the illegals are concerned. We're all expected to obey the laws of this country. They did not. Send them back where they came from and let them do it the right way. What they're going back to is not my problem. I can't agree with rewarding them for thumbing their noses at our laws. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 9:07:39 PM
|
| Anyone can disagree. I just feel this is an issue in which everyone should have their say in the outcome. If nobody cares, as citizen says, and others such as yourself disagree with me then why are supporters of this twisting of the definiton of marriage so afraid to put it to a vote? Surely my position will be proven to be wrong by the results of the ballot question. Why does Massachusetts have to be the laughingstock of the country once again? I don't feel a 4-3 vote of 7 people should decide what a marrige is or is not for the rest of society. If it goes on the ballot and they win I promise to accept the decsion of the people. Why are they unwilling do the same? |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/12/2007 08:42:52 AM |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 07:04:04 AM
|
Middleman - I do see it as an issue of rights, and while I would have preferred to call the union of gay people a 'civil union" with all the rights and benefits afforded to married people, I can't believe that the Commonwealth should be engaging in removing people's rights. Up until the 1960's, inter-racial marriage was banned; When a young couple was jailed after marrying out of state, the incident sparked the movement to do away with anti-miscegenation laws. This is our shameful history, and it occurred in our lifetimes.
What would you have the Commonwealth do to protect those rights accorded to married heteros? You know - the right to file taxes, adopt, medical/health benefits, inheritance, etc. How do you get around the "separate but equal" feeling of second class citizenry? In terms of the ballot box - do we really want to get in the habit of putting basic human rights there? If we put anti-miscegenation laws on the ballot, do you think banning them would have passed in all 50 states?
I really don't care if the "rest of the country" considers us a "laughingstock." Even conservative New Hampshire is recognizing the rights of gay people. And don't forget - the rest of the country put that buffoon in the White House.
|
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/12/2007 07:06:26 AM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 08:19:27 AM
|
| Once again Court, we can have a great debate here. That's what makes this board a great place to have a conversation. I would take issue with your comparison of inter-ratial marrige and gay marriage. In the first instance people were being denied the same right that all others had, namely the right of a man to marry a woman and vice versa. These unions have the ability to procreate. To replentish the population if you will. It is necessary for the survival of the human species. In order to encourage this, the government has come to the conclusion that it would be prudent to offer some benefits to people who enter into this arrangement. For the most part, I'll leave religion out of this, only saying that no major religion in the entire world allows or condones gay marriage. I would not have the Commonwealth do anything to protect these so called rights you wish to bestow ( file taxes, adopt, medical health benefits ) on these couples. The behavior they engage in, while it is their buisness, is not something that the majority of society wishes to encourage. You see, they have a right to enter into these relationships and should not be persecuted for doing so, but also should not derive any benefits from it because society gets no benefit from it in return. For the record, I do not support their, again so called right to adopt, which was again established by arrogant judicial fiat. It is unnatural and abnormal for a child to be subjected to this lifestyle. They'd be better off in boys town if the birth parents are incapable of being responsible custodians of their children and no blood relative can take that responsibility in my opinion. Calling it a civil union instead of marriage does nothing for me or the record 170,000 others who used the citizen initiative process to get this ban put on the ballot. If the results are the same, what you choose to call it does'nt matter. I don't agree that "marriage" is a basic human right. Maybe a "relationship" could be considered a basic human right but they already have those don't they. As far as Bush goes, I'm on record as growing increasingly dissatisfied with his performance. The problem is, the only other option for me and the rest of the country was John "the gigolo" Kerry. I'll still take Bush in that case. In closing, those who feel differently, I respect your opinion. You should voice it when it reaches the ballot box if these so called representitives keep their backbone and allow us our right to vote on it. This right is in the Massachusetts state constitution. Gay marriage is not. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/12/2007 08:22:39 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 10:33:44 AM
|
Although the arguments for both sides are indeed informative and intelligent, I tend to lean more to Middle-Man's opinion. I think the issue should be brought before the voters and let the majority decide.
I also voted for "W" only because we were lacking any other choice. I did not vote for him his first time running but was thankful he was our President when 9/11 happened. Now, I'm not happy with any of them, Democrats or Republicans. Have no clue who I will vote for in the next Presidential election. However, I do know a few I will not vote for. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 2:54:02 PM
|
While you may object to the comparison of inter-racial marriage and gay marriage, the issue is far more simiilar that you're willing to acknowledge.
In it's opinion in throwing out the State of Virgina v. Loving, the Supreme Court opined: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
So for one thing - we've established that marriage is a basic human right.
I also recognize that you would argue that by its very nature, gay marriages do not "create" children, and somehow this negates the "fundamental to our very existence and survival" description. I would argue, Middleman, that marriage, hetero or gay, is fundamental to an orderly society. People, regardless of race, color or creed, (etc. etc.) in monogamous relationships are a "civilizing influence" that society would want to influence and support. (I'm borrowing that phrase; marriage has long been considered a civilizing influence)
As for whether gays should adopt....allow me to assure you, that I would rather have had my gay sibling adopt my child than a certain other of my siblings....or have had my child placed in a "boy's home." Without the empirical evidence to support your "beliefs" in what's in the best interests of the child, then with all due respect, this argument is about as seaworthy as a collander in the Atlantic. I have had the honor of knowing gay people who are good, kind and caring people...as have you. You just may not know of their preference, which is a misnomer. I fully believe (and science bears it out) that people come into the world hard-wired for sexuality.
Perhaps I missed the response to my argument about inheritance and medical benefits, but it's a real concern. Right now, a gay person in a long-committed relationship can pass away, and their family, who may have scorned their very existence, can swoop in and take their worldly possessions in the absense of a will. Nice. Try that within the framework of a marrage and a judge will award no less than 30% to the spouse.
In closing: what you forget is the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If we, in fact, "do hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are created equal," - who are we to take away a "basic civil right of man?" |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 9:51:55 PM
|
I just love a lively debate on the issues with a knowledgeable rational individual. Let me respond to the last post one part at a time.
1. The Loving v. Virginia decision. - What I would argue is that the justices were referring to procreation when they said existence and survival. The existance and survival of the species not of the individual. It is quite obvious to me that the individual can exist and survive alone if need be. I do'nt think the decision means what you take it to mean on this point. It also states quite clearly that the freedom of choice to marry may not be restrcited by racial discriminations. There has been no addition or subsequent decision of the Uninted States Supreme Court that I am aware of that has extended this ruling to gays. If they are so confident that they have this " right", then why not put a case before the US Supreme Court and see if they agree? It was a rhetorical question. They know they would lose the case if the court even took the time to accept it, that's why.
2. Adoption - You may have rather had your gay sibling adopt your child rather than another sibling who you clearly think is not up to the task for whatever reason. Your child in that instance would have had the benefit of your wisdom in making that choice and would be placed with a blood relative. Other children up for adoption do not have someone as wise as Court4Fred to make sure their best interests are front and center. I'm far from a voice in the wilderness when I say I believe it is unhealthy and unnatural for a child to grow up in a male/male or female/female household.
3. Collander in the Atlantic - We both know that we can find studies done by professionals that say anything we want them to say. Do you really think there are'nt studies done by psycologists that would suggest children should not be put into these households? Studies that say people make this choice and are not hard-wired? For the record I believe they are hard wired also. I'm just trying to make a point about "empirical evidence". You can find it one way or the other. There is no absolute way to prove which is correct.
4.Knowing gay people - I certainly have met gay people who are good, kind and caring people. One of them is my cousin (a male) and one of them is a close friend (a female). They both know my position on the issue of gay marriage and it has not changed my feelings for them or theirs for me.
5.Medical benefits & Inheritance - The inheritance issue already has a solution to it in place. If you are in a long term committed relationship and you wish to leave your possesions to a same sex partner then get a will so there will be no swooping by unscrupulous family members. Just put it in writing. It is'nt that much of a burden that we should change the definition of marriage to allow people to avoid this simple task. As far as health benefits go, I did answer that indirectly in a previous post. The government bestows certain benefits on arrangements they feel are in the best interest of the country and our society. Just as they allow joint filing of taxes etc., the policies are in place to encourage certain behaviors and to discourage others.
In closing let me say that this " basic civil right" was given by a 4-3 vote of the judges in one of the most liberal states in the nation. It was'nt even unanimous among these 7 people. I don't believe 4 people have the right to make this decision for all of Massachusetts. That is why we have a citizen petition process as a means to amend the Constitution. This is being done all across the country. Is the entire country wrong? Not a single state has said they want to mimic what was forced on the people in this state. Despite the threatening undertones of the Know Thy Neighbor website attempting to intimidate people in to not signing the petition it still received a record ammount of signatures. I will not change my opinion or postition on this issue. I do not expect you to change yours either. I just want my argument heard. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 10:29:41 PM
|
Engardez, Middleman. Let's take this a piece at a time.
1. The Supreme Court established that marriage is a fundamental right of man, and that our survival and very existence depends on it. You may choose to assume it means soley for procreational purposes...but children are born out of wedlock each and every day, ensuring the propagation of the species. "Marriage as a civilizing influence" rings true here; is there any question that children and parents live better and healthier within the framework of the commitment of marriage?
As for putting the issue before the Supreme Court...I would suggest to you, that it would depend on what Court heard the case. After all, Dred Scott was the law of the land at one point. The Supreme Court is not above "politics," as we have witnessed in the past.
You may not be the only "voice in the wilderness" who believes that children should never be raised in gay households, but just because you think so doesn't make it "unhealthy" or "unnatural." I don't believe that gays or lesbians have any more prediliction for pedophilia than a hetero. Dateline NBC seems to do a fine job catching plenty of very "straight" heterosexual pedophiles. Talk about unnatural? And some of these guys are (gag) married.
As for having a gay cousin and friend, and everyone being fine with your position on their civil rights...you're lucky that they're so open-minded.
Your "solution" to the inheritance problem leaves all those who die suddenly in the lurch. What happens then? Why should only heteros be deemed worthy enough to have a fallback but gay couples must plan ahead or go without. Is this fair or reasonable?
Another challenge is to define gay relationships as "behaviors." If you truly believe that gay people are "hard-wired," how can you define something that is involuntary as a "behavior" that should be discouraged by giving benefits to heteros? Additionally and pardon my libertarian streak, but is this really the business of the government? As for mimicing us...you seem to forget that New Hampshire, our crusty conservative neighbor to the North, has recognized gay relationships in law, and Vermont has long had civil unions on their lawbooks.
As for tossing the "Know Thy Neighbor" travesty to muddy the argument, need I only point out the very morally squalid tactics of the anti-gay preacher and his family from Kansas, who are picketing the funerals of dead soldiers over the gay marriage issue? Please - there are extremists on both sides...there is no need to use them to cement a point.
You're wrong about this basic civil right being given by a 4-3 vote. The Supreme Court has already stated that marriage is a basic civil right of man, and that, Middleman comes from the Fourteenth Amendment. You should also note that our founding fathers were greatly concerned about the "tyranny of the majority" - which is why they created the Senate, which gives two votes to each state regardless of its population.
You really don't want to ask me if I think the entire country can be wrong, even rhetorically. Peruse your history if you don't think its feasible. |
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/12/2007 11:13:06 PM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 08:29:57 AM
|
Court as always you have the ability to make a great case on your side of a debate. I like to think I also have that ability to some extent. I would say the recent metamorphisis in New Hampshire may have something to do with the invasion of that state by the liberals fleeing the great state of Massachusetts but that's just my opinion. As far as the Loving decision goes, let me ask you a question. I realize this is not possible but I wish to hear your opinion on this. If we could bring those members of the court back right now and question them on this very decision and ask them whether they would apply their rationale to the current topic here what do you think their answer would be? I know what I think the answer is.
I never did mention pedophilia as the reason I would'nt place children with them. I don't feel they are all that much more predisposed to this than anyone else . I just prefer the influence of Ozzie & Harriet, Ward & June, Mr. & Mrs. Brady et al to Joe & John or Ellen & Anne. Children should have the influence of a man and a woman in their upbringing. It's been that way since the dawn of time. Just because gays wish it to change does not mean that it should or that their relationships provide a healthy model for children. Pedopilia has nothing to do with it.
Heteros who are not married also must have a will if they wish their inheritance to go to a friend , girlfriend or boyfriend. I don't feel this is such a big deal. If they care that much about it they'll get the will. It's a simple process and is not an undue burden on them.
My cousin and my friend accept my position because they know me and realize my positions are always well thought out and reasonable. I did'nt say they agree with me on this if you noticed. For the record one does ( my friend ) the other does not ( my cousin ). We can agree to disagree and not let it come between us as family and friends.
Know Thy Neighbor was only mentioned to show exactly how great the opposition to this is even in our state which has a track record for tolerance of almost anything. If this petition broke a record in spite of the threatening undertones of that site this must be an issue that many people feel strongly about. They are not all bigots. They just do not want the rules of civilization turned upside down to suit the wants of a small segment of society. No one is suggesting we go back to the days of yore where these people had to "stay in the closet", got harrased mercilessly, beaten and sometimes killed. That was a travesty. When it comes to marriage and raising children that's where a great many people including myself draw a line in the sand.
Once again, I know this is impossible to prove but the founding fathers you mention would never support you on this and I think you know that.
|
|
|
|
citizen
Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 11:39:08 AM
|
When all is said and done... does anyone suffer from 2 people making a comittment to each other?
The issue of Gay Marriage is just not important to me as is the price of gas or the inability for me to get past paying my bills month to month without fearing now what will go up.
If the majority always votes for the minorities there would never be change or the ability for a minority to be free and equal under the law. Let the people vote.. I agree.. but on issues of much major consequnce to the survival of our paychecks and our ability to respect everyone equally. Imagine how many people could have been given a free meal or a warm blanket with all the money we have wasted on 2 people wanting to protect each other. I just think the focus is on the wrong thing.
|
Edited by - citizen on 06/13/2007 11:39:56 AM |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 1:30:48 PM
|
Je riposte!
Middleman, I decided to test whether or not your hypothesis surrounding NH's recent recognition of gay relationships had anything to do with "those damn liberals" escaping Massachusetts.
You must be logged in to see this link. I actually found nothing that would suggest that...what I did find was a legislature with a representative sampling of republicans, democrats and independents. I would suggest that the recent law has more to do with the strong libertarian background that is prevalent in New Hampshire there than anything else.
Relative to the question whether the Court which decided Virginia v. Loving would make the intellectual leap from inter-racial marriage to gay marriage, let me state that I could not presume to know that, and nor can you. I can surmise, however, that if the basis for throwing out anti-miscegenation laws was found in the 14th amendment, and the court insists that "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State..." then it's not hard to draw lines. If you acknowledge that people are hard-wired for sexuality, and can no more change than one can change their race...and the freedom to marry or not marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State....I'm hard pressed to assume otherwise.
While you may prefer the influence of "Ozzie and Harriet" or "Ward and June" - you need to acknowledge that they are a) television characters and b)not representative of society and c) Ozzie and Harriet had their own issues...are you sure you want that replicated? There's an excellent book on that topic, called "The Way We Never Were: The Nostalgia Trap" And to be brutally honest, nuclear families are a figment of a very short time in history. It was not uncommon, even in Everett (get thee to the library!) for intergenerational family and non-familial boarders to reside together. During times of war, women (related and unrelated) banded together to house, clothe, feed and raise children. There are a number of excellent books on that topic, particularly from the Civil War. If you really want to take this to the dawn of time...I don't think nuclear families were the "norm," the world was far too dangerous. In short, the family benchmark to which you're doing a comparative analysis existed for a short time, and may not be an accurate benchmark to boot.
I'm glad that you're not presuming a higher incidence of pedophilia amongst our gay brethren.
No one is suggesting that all people who signed the petition are bigots. There are people who feel this is a deeply spiritually held conviction, and that's that. While you may feel quite comfortable "drawing the line in the sand," on someone else's rights...I don't know that it's your "right" to do so.
Relative to the founding fathers, I have a fairly good understanding of their thinking courtesy of the "Federalist Papers." (Good reading for everyone) Their notion of "liberty" and "freedom" was a dramatic shift the cultural thinking of the day; it was radical to say the least. John Stuart Mill's piece "On Liberty" can provide some insight into the liberty philosophies of our early days. He was the first one to understand the "harm principle" out of which evolved "the right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose."
On closing...I leave another favorite of mine:
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." Thomas Paine
|
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/13/2007 9:37:03 PM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 9:57:27 PM
|
Love the fencing jargon Court. I hope your use of these terms does'nt suggest you wish to make mince meat of me with a long, sharp, pointy weapon LOL. I gotta tell you, you may have caught me with the Ozzie & Harriet reference. I'm not old enough to have seen it and pulled it out as a cliche. I'm not sure what their issues were you would'nt want to replicate. I guess I'm more of a Leave it to Beaver and Brady Bunch guy. While you may not want to admit the migration Northward of our fleeing residents had any effect on the civil union issue, you would have to acknowledge the fact of a growing Democrat party up there since this began occurring. Methinks there is some cause and effect kind of thing going on here. In any case they, along with 48 other states do not sanction gay marriage. Only the state I am increasingly embarrassed to call home does that. There are a number of issues causing my pain in Massachusetts not just the one we are discussing presently. I'm not sure I'm drawing a line on someone else's rights. After all, who said it was a right in the first place? In a previous post you seemed to feel decisions by courts were not immune to politics. Why then would this dubious 4-3 decision in a left leaning state not be subject to that same analysis? Margret Marshall's bunch just invented a new "right" out of thin air as far as I can tell. The people are just using their right to ammend our constitution to make clear to the Massachusetts State Supreme Court that we disagree. I don't begrudge people on the other side of this issue the right to fight for what they believe in. I agree they must "undergo the fatigue of supporting it". I just object to their underhanded method of attempting keep the issue out of the hands of the voters. The founding fathers also said " Governments are institued among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed ". A favorite columnist of mine wrote in the Boston Herald today on the matter. Joe Fitzgerald closed with " Tommorrows decision of allowing Massachusetts citizens a voice in defining marriage has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with civics. Anyone who would take away your vote on this issue has no buisness asking for it when re-election time rolls around. I think Fitzgerald was spot on with that finish. Stat Smith, this means you my friend. He will not get my vote again if he votes against moving the question to the 2008 ballot.
Court, you are a great debater. I can normally bring a lot of people around to my way of thinking by having an intellectually superior argument to theirs. Not so with you. I greatly enjoy having a discussion partner willing to take me on to the finish. I hope you enjoy it as well. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/13/2007 11:12:43 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Safe Haven
