Mortui

Adequate consideration doesn't have a time limit. You can never predict every possible outcome of every situation. When it is a matter of human rights, I would argue that it very much should be treated with haste. Yes, I would assume that. But try to word it that way next time please. The Declaration of Human Rights was made by the UN. Marriage is a very big part of a majority of societies I would say. While I have mentioned the US. You failed to bring something like this up when I have spoken about the US policies before. If you can't think of an argument, admit that. Don't try to hide behind 'I wasn't talking about the same place'. It would make gays equal to straights? I have been reading it, and I don't understand what logic could make those assumptions. So, because full equality is absolutely impossible to ever reach, we should give up. We should not strive to make the world a better place for all people to live. Right.

How...I was agreeing with you that some people haven't thought out all of their arguments. I certainly have. Plus, being able to see that there are some fallicies in every argument is not a misunderstanding. It is understanding. Don't try to say that I don't understand what I'm saying. The institution of marriage itself can't deny anything, because it doesn't have a mind or voice or body. It is people that are denying other people their 'ability to belong'. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Marriage is a bit more than a 'certain segment of society'. It is a huge part of society, a part of culture. A huge part of culture, EVERYWHERE. To deny a certain group to be a part of their country's culture is ridiculous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act Read that and then try to tell me that bullshit again. Civil Unions are legal in six states. Six. Domestic Partnerships are legal in five states, and only one of those(California) gives rights equal to mariage. Two states allow same-sex marriages, one of which is in with Civil Unions. So, 8/50 with full benefits. Equal my ass. Women's suffrage come about quickly The greater benefit of the redefinition of marriage between two persons, not a man and woman, was equality in the United States. That is the idea of the United States. What you mentioned earlier was untrue. Either way, to expect them to establish their own traditions for unions, expecting them to not participate in a huge part of American Culture, of World Culture, is absurd. It had absolutely nothing to do with 'conquering an ancient bastion of their enemies'. Where did you get that it even remotely appears to be that from? I'll say it once more. The belief that everyone is equal, regardless of wealth, race, religion, past, and culture is uniquely American. It is what this country was founded on. To now take away that equality because your beliefs don't sit well with someone else's beliefs is uniquely unAmerican. And I'll not stand for you saying that the Gay's desire for equality is 'little more than political showmanship' and purely to so they can 'conquer one of the ancient bastions of their enemies'.

Rube - 1 : an awkward unsophisticated person 2 : a naive or inexperienced person By the way, 'rubby' is spelled ruby. Thank you for admitting it too. The US is not a criminal organization. Thanks for playing though.

Let's see what you have to say about that. Huh? Another history lesson for you. The two party system developed under George Washington. The Federalists and the Antifederalists. With Jefferson it became Democrat-Republicans and Federalists. Then Jacksonian Democrats and Whigs. After that it became Republicans and Democrats. There are also numerous other political parties. Let's be clear. Bi-partisanship is exactly that. Bi. That means two.

Sorry, must have missed your question there? I figured I should help you out so you didn't make another uneducated post.

You do realize that the dictionary is constantly being updated....new words being added, old words being taken out...

I don't quite understand why approaching the matter with haste is a bad thing. To ask gays to shoulder repression of their beliefs for an unspoken amount of time is ridiculous. I admit there may not have been adequate consideration of arguments on both sides. Also, to the civil union thing. The US Supreme Court has already decided on this. "Seperate but Equal". Ring a bell? While I have no real justification for an all-woman institution, an all-woman gym isn't quite the same thing as a gay marriage. There is no legal benefit to being a member of a gym, nor a societal recognition of your commitment towards it either. I would also question why anyone would be against any potential redefinition of marriage. It has already been done. By American women. In the 1800's women began redefining marriage as a thing of love, not of business, to be decided by the father of the bride.

The communits party in China was definitely NOT funded by capitalists-the US especially. The US funded the Nationalist party in China. The Communist party gained power through resistance to the Nationalist government in China. The Nationalists came to power through resistance to the British because of the Opium Wars. In the last 10 years the US has become more friendly with China and become immensely interested in the Chinese labor force. Quick question. Have you heard of the Red Scare?

Apparently you don't have very much perception. Socialism is not fascism. Fascism is a form of socialism. Communism is also a form of socialism. You aren't calling America commies. Don't call us Nazis. Yes, if you define a socialist as anyone having even one socialist view, Obama is socialist. The majority of America is then socialist. There is nothing wrong with innovation. It's called being open to change that helps the majority, not the minority(the rich 'elite'). Usually socialists are the lower class, the poor people. I don't understand how you even come up with it being the rich that benefit from socialism. The very idea of socialism is eliminating the upper class and making everyone the same.

Gays do not 'force' themselves on people any more than straight people do. Probably less actually. To say that marriage is only valid when you have a child is ridiculous. A marriage is between two people that make a commitment to each other. To say that gays shouldn't be allowed to be married is prejudiced. There is no valid argument that can be made that would justify such intolerance. It is a matter of time until gays receive their rights as citizens of the United States. By the way, a church can't be forced to marry anyone? The pastor has a choice to marry the couple or not.

Really? You just made a thread a week or so ago saying that American socialism is dying and that capitalism is being reborn. You seem to have forgotten about that thread though since you haven't responded to my post. Now, according to your definition you just proved yourself completely wrong. "a one party system without competitors, resistance, or opposition of any sort" What do you call the election 2 weeks ago? There was definitely MORE than one party involved. There was plenty of opposition(look at the popular vote for God's sake). And if there is no allowable cooperation between the two major parties in multi-party government, how the Hell do you expect to get anything done? It's called working together for the country. Give me proof of the Clintons being communist? Now for this church and state thing. There is NO constitutional seperation of church and state in the US. There is freedom of religion, and the US won't adopt a national religion. Plus, it is completely unrealistic, and, quite frankly, undemocratic, to expect people to seperate the government from religion. You can't tell someone they can't feel the way they do about a certain issue just because they base their feelings on their religious views(which is a part of them). I've already addressed that party bullcrap. Pardon my language...but where the fuck did you get the Nazis from? America is now Nazi? Americans are now not free? I fail to see any logic whatsoever anywhere here. And if this is a 'new buld old order taking place' then how is it in its last, dying attempts? This is just like the death of the American National Socialists? Another nonexistant group that has dominated America and is now apparently dying out. But this time it's dying out while gaining power?

For agreeing with me. Israel is a modern construct.

Yes, thank you.

How would interacting with the individuals of a society everyday for years not give you a better outlook on how they feel than talking to 3 of their leaders? Sir Louis Cavangnari. Lord Elphinstone. Brigadier Shelton. Brigadier Anquetil. Lieut.. Hardyman 5th L.C. http://chimera.roma1.infn.it/ANDREA/brydon.txt Happy? Have the conviction to stop eating your foot. Hehe, you can be funny! List them again for me please. I must have missed them. He does know what he's talking about, thank you.

The Jewish state had been more or less eliminated by the Romans. They regained some freedom under the Byzantine empire, but lost it when the Persians took control. The Byzantines took it back, and still the Jews were oppressed. The Arabs took control of the area in 638 AD. Blah blah blah, more and more oppression of the Jews. Basically, they lost their land. Their country was no more. Period. A Jewish state of Israel was NONexistant. The modern Israel is a modern construct.

I didn't say you did? I asked where you got that they were labeled oppressors (seeing as you said it in your post). And English is my first language. I live in the U.S. Oh, of course, because nationalist feelings are completely out of the question. The people all WANTED to be dominated by the USSR.

The point is still the same.

Deleted double post.

Yes, it is. They were countries thousands of years AGO for a reason. They ceased to exist. Israel as it is is a modern construct. That is knowledge, not ignorance. jbg, who labeled the Jews(they weren't Israelis at that point?) oppressors? It may be said that the land given to them was inappropriately dished out. Like when Europe was building empires in Africa. The territory was drawn up without regard to the people already there. The 'stans' wanting self-determination was completely different. The people in that area are determining their future as a nation. The people IN THAT AREA.

Did you really just say that? Your ignorance astounds me. Shut the hell up dude. You just made an ass of yourself. Go back to your mother and ask her to teach you some manners. Also, see Vietnam Wall. You're right! Canada should get rid of its armed forces! Sounds like a fantastic idea! Until you wake up. But you MUST have some HUGE balls to trash an army member that is fighting to defend your country and your life, and on the internet no less. By the way, do you know him in real life? Have you seen him having a conversation with someone face to face? Your inflated ego is annoying. My girlfriend is a pacifist. She makes her arguments based on morality and substance, not personal attacks. Again, talk to your mother.

What military attacks? You mean from Big Bush? When we left, because it wasn't a priority? Germany and Japan didn't happen 2 years apart. The two situations are too different for that comparison.

I would say that we are civilized. By the way, giving them access to new technology so they can better treat illnesses and better their quality of life is a good thing? Apparently all of them don't wish to live in another era. The ruling party(the Taliban) have held them back. Why are you so against being there?

If they would be allowed to be open about their sexuality it might not be like that. There's a thought for you; let them be themselves. By the way, how much of the armed forces are you suggesting is homosexual?

*sigh* There is no heirarchy of American National Socialists. If there were, do you really want to say that Bush and Cheney are a part of it? They're definitely NOT Socialist. You even quoted him saying that LESS government involvement is better. I assume you're refering to the Bailout Plan? That mainly went to banks. Here's a list of who got what http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/ba.../12/150364.html That may be government involvement, but it isn't total What restrictions did they put on businesses? What could possibly make you think they're Socialist? If you're so certain Socialism is dying in America, why have you been shouting about Obama being Socialist, and now that he's going to be president, America is going to hell? Now you've reversed your position?

Might I ask who runs the military 'detention centers'? Who is the person in charge of the troops in Iraq? Who is in charge of the troops in Afghanistan? Are you suggesting that the Officers there weren't running the troops? Who do you think is?