The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Algol · 2004-07-09 07:05:57

Quote
All (Okay, most) of the pro-Bush arguments are weak, flawed, or both.

And there are no pro-Kerry arguments, only anti-Bush arguments. Rhetoric, mostly.

So we have a situation where we cant say anything positive about one candidate and we only have negative things to say about the other. Tough call, but i know which way id go.

Algol · 2004-07-09 07:22:34

No, it isn't. The primary reason for it is children. Certainly there are married couples who don't plan to have any, but that's the underlying purpose.

Cobra, next time you are invited to someones wedding, listen to the couples vows and count how many times they mention children. Next, listen to what the priest says and count how many times he mentions children and count how many times he mentions LOVE.

"will you have this woman as your lawful wedded wife, to live together in the estate of matrimony? Will you love her, honor her, comfort her, and keep her in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to her as long as you both shall live?"

If you look at marriages and why people marry, the common denominator is not children, money or even living together, its LOVE. Two people who love each other want to bind themselves together and show everybody that they love each other so much that they are prepared to commit to spending the rest of their lives together, no matter what. The fact that marriage is a loving environment and one that is both beneficial and conducive to bringing up children is a good thing but ultimately not the reason for the union.

If, as you assert, it is to show a union between two people who love each other, then again, gay marriage is pointless. They can already do that.

Yes, they can put an ad in the local newspaper and have it written in the sky if they like too, but marriage is the ultimate symbol of two peoples love for one another, why should people be denied that because of their sexuality.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-09 07:48:02

Cobra, next time you are invited to someones wedding, listen to the couples vows and count how many times they mention children. Next, listen to what the priest says and count how many times he mentions children and count how many times he mentions LOVE.

Marriage ceremonies are just that, ceremonies. They don't define the underlying social purpose of the union.

If you look at marriages and why people marry, the common denominator is not children, money or even living together, its LOVE. Two people who love each other want to bind themselves together and show everybody that they love each other so much that they are prepared to commit to spending the rest of their lives together, no matter what.

the key phrase being "are prepared to commit to spending the rest of their lives together, no matter what." That's the whole point, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of any children they might produce and from a wider perspective to the benefit of society as a whole. People get married for personal emotional reasons, marriage exists for practical social reasons.

Yes, they can put an ad in the local newspaper and have it written in the sky if they like too, but marriage is the ultimate symbol of two peoples love for one another, why should people be denied that because of their sexuality.

We aren't talking about denying rights to anyone. I'm not arguing that we should persecute homosexuals, I don't give a damn what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. The term "gay marriage" is misleading, intentionally so. Marriage means a union between a man and a woman, we all know this. Two men cannot be married bacause it doesn't fit the definition of the term in a legal or social sense. What is being proposed is not granting a small group of people a right that everyone else has, but redefining a concept to include something wholly different than it is understood to mean by creating a whole new "right" for that select group. It's like calling a dog a donkey.

So again, we can create something new with the same or similar benefits attached, or we can dump entirely the legal aspects of marriage, thus leaving the specifics open to individual interpretation. I actually find this the preferred option, given the erosion and corruption of the concept that has already occurred.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-09 07:55:46

I'm not American and I don't understand all of what you've been talking about. ("Breck" doesn't compute, for example.)
But, anyway, I just thought I'd mention a financial seminar I attended, where the speaker mentioned the upcoming U.S. election. Using various indicators from past elections, including how long a particular party has been in power, consumer confidence and spending, employment trends, etc., he reported that President Bush should be re-elected with 58% of the vote.

The speaker is purportedly seldom wrong about financial and/or political matters, so I'll be watching the situation with some interest come polling day.

Algol · 2004-07-09 07:57:13

It's not even an equal rights issue, a gay man has the same rights to marry a woman as I do. He just doesn't want to.

Granted you and i both have the right to marry Cindy, but apart from the fact that shes already married and wouldnt take us anyway, I want to marry someone i love (i love you in another sense). A gay man will want to marry the man he loves and should have that right.

Nothing against homosexuals, but they need to understand that theirs is a lifestyle that the majority of people look on as deviant. It will never be considered normal, to try and make it so is an exercise in fantasy. Grant them the priveleges, but call it something else. Expanding "marriage" will undermine it and lead to far more social division than is necessary.

Deviants comment aside, same-sex marriage is legal in the Netherlands and the divorce rate is almost 50% higher in the United States.

It always comes down to two real issues. One, they want insurance benefits, visitation rights, joint taxation and other such mundane practicalities. Fine, institute some sort of civil union, similar to marriage but not. But of course this isn't good enough, for the second reason, which is that certain segments of the homosexual community want to flaunt it. They aren't content with tolerance or even acceptance, they want to be in your face with it.

How many married homosexual couples have you met?

Algol · 2004-07-09 08:05:30

Marriage ceremonies are just that, ceremonies. They don't define the underlying social purpose of the union.

But you do? I suppose marriage doesnt symobolise anything and the exchanged vows mean nothing to the participants?

the key phrase being "are prepared to commit to spending the rest of their lives together, no matter what." That's the whole point, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of any children they might produce and from a wider perspective to the benefit of society as a whole. People get married for personal emotional reasons, marriage exists for practical social reasons.

So, by your logic once the children move out the marriage becomes pointless?

Marriage is about love, we arent changing anything, simply accepting that two people of the same sex are capable of loving one another.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-09 10:22:40

But of course this isn't good enough, for the second reason, which is that certain segments of the homosexual community want to flaunt it. They aren't content with tolerance or even acceptance, they want to be in your face with it.

"You know what the most disgusting thing is? When heterosexuals 'flaunt it'. I mean, there I was, just sitting at the bus stop minding my own business, when a heterosexual couple just strolls up holding hands and then, get this, he kissed her! Yes, I'm not kidding! He kissed her right on the lips! You know I don't care what those heteros do in the privacy of their own home, but can't they control themselves in public. They don't have to flaunt it like that." -- Annonymous Homosexual in a homosexual world.

Your argument has a big flaw, Cobra. If heterosexuals flaunt their heterosexuality (or even just their marriages), why can't homosexuals? How many people here have witnessed a newly engaged woman showing off her diamond ring? That sounds like 'flaunting it' to me. How many people have seen a heterosexual couple playing with their kids at the park? Looks like their flaunting their marriage and family life. Cobra, how would you react to a park full of homosexuals playing with their adopted children?

If for decades I were denied what I considered an inalienable right, and then I got the chance to marry my partner in San Francisco, I think I'd 'flaunt it' for a while.

and that some people actually have the gall to compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement is absurd.

Comparing homosexual rights to the civil rights movement is like comparing the civil rights movement to the Civil War. We didn't have to fight another war because blacks already had many freedoms, they just had to protest and use the court system to get more rights. Homosexuals don't have to protest as much as the blacks did in the '60s because they have more rights than the blacks did back then. They just have to use the court system. It's still a civil rights issue, it's just less dramatic.

We all know what marriage means, until we redefine the term to include something else.

Let's see, if I understand my history correctly, the Mormons were legally practicing polygamy until the U.S. government redefined marriage. And, this whole discussion proves that we DON'T all know what marriage means. At least we all don't agree with your official definition.

By the way, which definition are you using anyway?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search? … q=marriage
I don't see anything in there about marriage being made for bearing or raising children.

What is being proposed is not granting a small group of people a right that everyone else has, but redefining a concept to include something wholly different than it is understood to mean by creating a whole new "right" for that select group.

Exactly, nobody has the right to marry a person of the same sex, and if it takes redefining a whole concept to guarantee that right then we had better get started. After looking at the dictionary quoted above, it looks like we just need to adjust definition 1.d. to read: "A union between two persons having the customary and the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage."

C M Edwards · 2004-07-09 10:37:47

I know Kerry isn’t the best possible choice. But I know he’s better than Bush.
Judging by your post it seems you feel he's better than Bush. There's a difference.
All (Okay, most) of the pro-Bush arguments are weak, flawed, or both.
And there are no pro-Kerry arguments, only anti-Bush arguments. Rhetoric, mostly.

No, I can't give you as much as I'd like to in the way of pro-Kerry arguments. However, a sufficient number of anti-Bush arguments DOES make a pro-Kerry argument.

Personally, I'm going to cast my vote mostly on local issues, such as which candidate gives my favorite answer to questions like "How likely am I to be hauled in for checking out my local library's copy of BushWhacked! ?" and "How long can the cops throw me in the hole with a pair of panties on my head before they have to let the district attorney know where I am?" My favorite answer is an authoritative, unqualified "NEVER!", preferrably given from loudspeakers and later cast in a stone monument. But that hasn't been forthcoming from the Bush administration.

Palomar · 2004-07-09 11:34:33

*Some thoughts on the current hot topic (gay marriages):

Would gays settle for legally-sanctioned unions *instead of* marriage? If not, why? Just asking.

I -am- in favor of legally-recognized gay unions. I read a case story about a lesbian couple. One of them died of a long, complicated illness (not AIDS). When she died her family swooped in, made all the funeral and etc. arrangements, grabbed up her possessions and left the grieving partner out in the cold. I can't imagine my in-laws even TRYING to do that to me, should something happen to my husband. So I can empathize with this woman. Committed couples should be allowed to have legally recognized unions so as to allow insurance benefits (same as spouse/family), etc.

I'm not sure what percentage of gays are pushing for MARRIAGE though -- and why. Except perhaps for the added *social* recognition. Why wouldn't the term "legal union" be enough?

I do agree with some concerns expressed on the other hand, though. What if 2 men and a woman want to get married? Or a collective? I'm looking at this aspect from a PRACTICAL point of view -- imagine all the lawsuits and headaches for employers that'll pose! "Oh, Mr. Employer, husband #16 of the commune dropped out, so please take him off our insurance policy. And we've got 2 more women coming in; one wants Plan A and the other Plan C..." My head is spinning...

On the other hand, heterosexuals in the past couple of decades especially have generally turned marriage into a JOKE. Wedding day used to be a family celebration of VOWS taken. Now it seems little more for most folks than a frilly, silly Queen and King of the Prom "We Get To Play Dress Up!" party. I've seen bridal exhibits and "fairs" advertised on TV. I've often wondered if divorce lawyers aren't tempted to mill around the doors with their business cards. Growing up in the 1970s, I can recall only 2 couples in my hometown who divorced. It was shocking. Nowadays divorce is "ho-hum." The homophobic portion of the heterosexual community sure looks hypocritical in trying to put on like they're morally superior.

I'm for gay civil unions -- legally recognized and all that.

--Cindy

P.S.: As for Kerry (getting back on topic): At least he did dodge bullets and was in combat. Apparently Bush's military records are completely missing. :hm:

::edit:: Going back to the gay marriage issue thing: I wonder if another reason some of them (not all of course) are pushing the marriage issue so hard is more a matter of attempting to force societal acceptance of homosexuality. Acceptance can't be legislated.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-09 11:39:03

Quote
Marriage ceremonies are just that, ceremonies. They don't define the underlying social purpose of the union.

But you do? I suppose marriage doesnt symobolise anything and the exchanged vows mean nothing to the participants?

Look, this isn't really that complicated. There are individual reasons for choosing long-term mates, that is the result of emotional factors which themselves are the result of evolution. That tendency survived because it helps humans raise their offspring, who are completely helpless for a very long time. But due to other, counter tendencies in the species for other reasons, relying solely on that wasn't enough. The institution of marriage is a social construct for the express purpose of bolstering the tendency to form and maintain exclusive mating relationships while discouraging the opposite tendency to mate with others on the sly. The former is good for the offspring, produces more stable and generally better adapted adults, and thus is good for society as a whole.

People don't get married so their children will be productive well-adjusted members of society, but that is why the institution of marriage exists.

So, by your logic once the children move out the marriage becomes pointless?

From a social standpoint, yes. It has then served its purpose.

Marriage is about love, we arent changing anything, simply accepting that two people of the same sex are capable of loving one another.

Yes, and three people can all love each other, or a man can love three women who love him, or a man and a 14 year old of either sex, or countless other combinations. If we change marriage to include one, why not all? It's a legitimate question.

Your argument has a big flaw, Cobra. If heterosexuals flaunt their heterosexuality (or even just their marriages), why can't homosexuals?

Because heterosexual couples 'flaunting' their sexuality is A) meant more for each other than any audience and B) well within social norms.

Some homosexual couples 'flaunt' it for the express purpose of irritating and offending others. Certainly not all, but that segment is well-represented in the vocal push for homosexual 'marriages.' Such conduct offends a huge chunk of the population.

Certainly we can just say 'tough, deal with it' to those who don't want to be subjected to it. Fine, I can live with that. Prefer it, actually. But be ready to follow that road, it goes both ways.

Cobra, how would you react to a park full of homosexuals playing with their adopted children?

I certainly wouldn't expect them to change their social and legal framework to accomodate me.

Let's see, if I understand my history correctly, the Mormons were legally practicing polygamy until the U.S. government redefined marriage. And, this whole discussion proves that we DON'T all know what marriage means. At least we all don't agree with your official definition.

Some Mormons practiced polygamy (primarily in US territories) in fairly closed, isolated communites. They knew it wasn't accepted and the surrounding people were hostile to it because everyone did know that marriage meant one man and one woman. The US government bolstered the legal definition to support the social one in order to force Utah to prohibit polygamy as a condition for statehood.

We all know what marriage is, just some of us want to see it changed.

No, I can't give you as much as I'd like to in the way of pro-Kerry arguments. However, a sufficient number of anti-Bush arguments DOES make a pro-Kerry argument.

Well, it makes a pro-opposition argument, though a weak one. I get the distinct impression you don't really want to vote for Kerry, just can't abide another Bush term. I can respect that if it's admitted. Kerry is irrelevant. Anti-Bush arguments are reasons to support Kerry, or Dean or Chairman Mao's ghost. But Kerry offers nothing. Sad that we've come to this, really.

Personally, I'm going to cast my vote mostly on local issues, such as which candidate gives my favorite answer to questions like "How likely am I to be hauled in for checking out my local library's copy of BushWhacked! ?" and "How long can the cops throw me in the hole with a pair of panties on my head before they have to let the district attorney know where I am?" My favorite answer is an authoritative, unqualified "NEVER!", preferrably given from loudspeakers and later cast in a stone monument. But that hasn't been forthcoming from the Bush administration.

In fairness, the PATRIOT Act is a terrible piece of legislation, but terribly misunderstood. Already it has been abused by law enforcement agencies (not directly connected to the Administration) but it was written to address very real problems. There is no easy answer.

"Never will an American be locked away without charge!" And we'll expand "charge" to include suspicion, and 'gut feeling.' And 'never' is so exclusionary, so in the interest of fairness we'll redefine it to mean "exceedingly infrequently and not without good cause." For definition of 'good' see definition of 'charge' above.

Sorry, just felt like redefining some legal concepts there.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-09 19:16:47

But you know, the jokes Bush Sr. and Barbara got in D.C. about looking like mother and son will surely pale by comparison to the ribbing you and I would get (considering I am old enough to be your mother and undoubtedly we would look so as well!). And yep, Euler's right about the age minimum.

Good point, I suppose, but I do like the idea of Cindy in '04, Atkinson in '32. The only problem is, with the 20-24 year interim peroid, getting the whole conspiracy across would be difficult. :hm: All right, back to the real, serious world.

Ahem, Cobra, the whole point of getting married is to have children? Cindy (And all others married), can you back me up here (Man, this debate is getting more competitive than evolution/creationism)? There are plenty of couples that get married and never, ever intend to have children, just as sometimes couples that aren't married do have children (Although usually not intentionally). Children is not the reason couples get married, it's something called love. Who cares if the reason back in the cavemen days was to make offspring, that idea is bunk now that we've reached the point where it's not a strugle to survive.

Okay, so you claim that there are no pro-Kerry arguments. This is quite an overstatement, Kerry has pledged that he will mandate that at least 20% of all American power will come from alternative sources by 2020. That's a far cry from Bush's environmental policies, reduce clean requirements at coal plants and cut down trees to save the forest. Anyway, even if what you say is true, why would it matter? Bush has shown himself to be such an inept leader that the law of probability alone predicts that Kerry, even if he isn't that good, will almost defenately be a better leader than Bush was.

This debate is becoming quite a brawl, and not just here but everywhere I've seen people discussing politics. Ironic, isn't it, one of the most exciting years in decades for the space community is the same year that the country is tearing itself apart over politics (Remember '69). It just shows how history likes to repeat itself...

Palomar · 2004-07-10 06:34:55

Ahem, Cobra, the whole point of getting married is to have children? Cindy (And all others married), can you back me up here (Man, this debate is getting more competitive than evolution/creationism)? There are plenty of couples that get married and never, ever intend to have children, just as sometimes couples that aren't married do have children (Although usually not intentionally). Children is not the reason couples get married, it's something called love. Who cares if the reason back in the cavemen days was to make offspring, that idea is bunk now that we've reached the point where it's not a strugle to survive.

*Yes, it is a difficult debate. Especially more so since the heterosexual community dropped the morality ball beginning in the early 1980s IMO. If hetero marriages were generally stable and together (no pun intended) as they mostly were from the 1970s and back, that'd be wonderful. But that's not the case.

I do believe hetero unions were (initially at least) legally sanctioned and encouraged on the basis of family -- blood kin, the nuclear family, etc. This (initially at least) DID serve to create social stability and etc.

By the way, my marriage is -- to date -- childless. Hopefully that'll change.

A few years ago I saw a news story about gay male couple in Florida adopting children. These men are very devoted to the children, love them, etc. Children are the first priority; I'd rather see an adoptive child taken care of by these two gentlemen than placed in a hetero home where there's fighting, screaming, etc., between the adult couple. Stability is key.

Though I *prefer* the traditional nuclear family ideal (which is -not- saying or implying that gay unions are immoral or wrong, because I don't believe they are), it "just ain't happening" anymore. The hetero divorce rate, as we know, is over 50%.

It's far from a cut-and-dry issue, that's for sure.

What I'm curious to know is why the fabric of society has fallen apart. I couldn't have comprehended shows like "Jerry Springer" when I was a kid. Or nearly everyone's parents being divorced -- perhaps even multiple times.

--Cindy

Ian Flint · 2004-07-10 07:32:17

About devorce rates:
I read somewhere that since the feminist movement, more and more women have been taking jobs outside the home, but men aren't helping out in the home as readily as the women are getting outside jobs. Women aren't putting up with it.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-10 07:39:27

Cindy:-

What I'm curious to know is why the fabric of society has fallen apart.

I've often thought about this very point and wondered whether humans actually need at least some kinds of bigotry, in the form of rigid social structures, in order to avoid a descent into chaos.
That probably sounds crazy and contradictory in today's developed world, with its tendency toward liberalisation of everything, but maybe our logic is getting ahead of our primate instinct(?).
For a group to survive as a viable unit, at least in the primate world, there has to be a structure with a pecking order (someone in charge) and a set of taboos. While this certainly sounds like a primitive construct, I sometimes think humans are actually happier and more content in a society with definite boundaries of behaviour.
The human equivalent of a pecking order used to be social class structure, which, though stultifying and intellectually abhorrent to us today in our enlightened world, did bestow stability on society. People knew where they stood. (I'm not necessarily implying, by the way, that we return to that situation; merely making the point that things have changed.) Another of the bastions of western civilisation was marriage between a man and a woman; a powerful and almost irreversible institution not to be trifled with. Yet another foundation of western society was the grim spectre of severe punishment, including possibly execution, for transgressions against the law. This is by no means an exhaustive list, I'm sure, but should serve to make the point.

Political liberalisation, while eminently supportable, both logically and emotionally, has surely and consistently undermined these supporting structures of society. I hasten to add, again, that I'm not necessarily denigrating that liberal 'progress', merely pointing it out.
While, in the past, a suffocating marriage has been a virtual prison-sentence to many a woman - and, in many cases, men too(! ) - it did help to make life more predictable. Men and women who, after a few years of marriage, entered that period of doubt as to whether they'd done the right thing, were essentially forced to see it through. In the great majority of cases, perhaps more as a result of necessity than choice, they were obliged to reconcile and re-establish their relationship. Nowadays, a year or three into a marriage, if everything's not perfect, it's off to the lawyer for a divorce.
I don't know about America but here in Australia much of the population is aghast at the lenient sentences handed down to criminals. Young men, convicted of vicious assaults against the helpless and the elderly, or perhaps found guilty of aggravated rape, are given community service orders (mow the lawns at the local park every weekend for 6 months) or minimal suspended jail sentences. Much to the chagrin of the people they've attacked, these offenders are frequently back on the streets before the victims leave hospital! If you ask a lawyer why these people aren't given a public flogging or a lengthy real jail sentence, you'll be told flogging is brutalisation of someone who's already disturbed and that stiff jail sentences just produce worse criminals in the end.
I make no direct comment as to my feelings about this, though I'm sure you'll have little trouble guessing where I stand! :hm:

Anyhow, my point is simply to say that it may be possible we're running before we can walk with this personal liberty thing. We seem to be forgetting that every freedom comes with a little price tag with 'responsibility' written on it.
Am I the only one here who dares utter the heresy that not all men and women have the maturity and judgment to handle the freedoms modern western society has heaped so liberally upon us?

While I don't necessarily agree with the knee-jerk reactionary behaviour of right-wing people toward concepts such as gay marriage, and while their reasoning may be more visceral than cerebral, there may be an accidental wisdom in their reluctance to shift the boundaries still further.
The anguish of Cindy and others, including me, at the erosion of civil society, may be an indication we're moving too far too fast(?)
???

Ian Flint · 2004-07-10 07:40:07

About the fabric of society:
I think it has always been tattered and torn under the surface. These days people just have more freedom to expose that side of things. Freedom is good. But don't worry, Cindy. If you look around you'll see that most people are still good and decent, it's their lazy husbands that caused those devorces!

Shows like Cops and Jerry Springer just sensationalize the underbelly of society, which is in the minority.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-10 07:49:51

Shaun,
Your post brings to mind a couple of one liners:

A bumper sticker -- "Evolve"

Pecking orders are for apes, "Leave it to Beaver", and feudal society.

And here's the other one:
"Together we will bring order to the Galaxy!" -- Darth Vader.

Order and predictability ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Something else I heard once. From some study: Women in patriarchal societies have a higher rate of depression.

Palomar · 2004-07-10 08:10:32

Anyhow, my point is simply to say that it may be possible we're running before we can walk with this personal liberty thing. We seem to be forgetting that every freedom comes with a little price tag with 'responsibility' written on it.
Am I the only one here who dares utter the heresy that not all men and women have the maturity and judgment to handle the freedoms modern western society has heaped so liberally upon us?

*I agree with you 100% on this point, Shaun.

Yes...many people seem to forget the responsibility factor in freedom.

Everyone wants to be in the boat (so to speak) -- but nowadays hardly anyone wants to do the rowing. The boat's going to sink sooner or later. Freedom isn't free. And many folks seem to confuse privilege (for example, a driver's license) with freedom.

Divorce is now "okay" -- "who cares?" And you're right -- if everything isn't perfect, lovey-dovey 24/7, peaches and cream for breakfast, etc., people are screaming off to divorce court.

The onus is always thrown onto -someone else- to pick up the pieces of a messy life because the irresponsible person sure can't do it. The greater the abuse of freedom the greater the backlash.

We humans have an unfortunate knack of hanging ourselves. I just wonder if eventually some lessons might actually be learned and applied??

--Cindy

P.S.: I also agree that it seems the more freedoms and liberties a society has the more that society seems to degenerate into a chaotic mess (and if history is any indication, those societies then implode). And then social reinforcement rears its head again. Cause and effect.

C M Edwards · 2004-07-10 10:22:57

Hello All.

Yes, Cobra, I'll admit it. My primary motivations in deciding to vote the Kerry ticket in the US Presidential race are: 1) I believe that the conduct of President Bush's cabinet and administration in general has been reprehensible for no good reason too many times, and I can't just give approval for more of the same; 2) Kerry appears to be breathing OK and is officially registered to run for president; and 3) I can't abstain again and go another four years without any moral justification to complain about the president. I just can't do it! I don't side with the commies or the libertarians, and only agree with 8.5 out of 10 key Green Party values. That leaves Kerry.

If you have a better candidate-that's-not-Bush, I'm open to suggestions.

Shaun and Cindy, I agree that problems with social structure are increasing in the world at large, and not just in our own countries. The causes are related to overpopulation with a correspondingly increased ease of travel and communication. No, homosexual marriage isn't a symptom of overpopulation; society could adapt to one such change. But today we have billions of people requiring millions of such changes. It's no surprise that some institutions, like marriage, just can't change to keep up as smoothly as we'd like.

Rxke · 2004-07-10 12:28:23

Bit off topic: Shaun, 'bout the public flogging: ever read Starship Troopers? (Not the film, the book)
(Oh, wait... Flashback... You did...)

dicktice · 2004-07-10 13:50:42

Talk about the fabric of society in tatters: What about the feudal barons, loosing their clout of ignorance when the serfs began to get their hands on printed books and learned how to read (!) Things haven't been the same since.

Rxke · 2004-07-10 14:58:48

Rightly so, Dicktice!

In the pre-literate times, when oral tradition was the way to spread ideas, when a serf was getting too bothersome, you just cut of his tongue, and pierced his eardrums, he could work in the fields without one just fine...
But now, with that writing thing, you got to both poke out his eyes and cut off his hands... Making him totally useless on the field...

(Yes, I'm currently chewing coffee-beans, how'd you guess? :laugh: )

Palomar · 2004-07-10 15:08:09

*Actually I can't help but find some dark humor in the gay marriage situation -- on the "be careful what you wish for, because you might get it" basis.

A while back I read an article which speculates another reason for high divorce rates (among heterosexuals of course): Many people live together for a year -- or years -- prior to tying the knot. The vast majority of these unions end up in divorce rather quickly later. Sociologists figure it's because the couple became so "comfortable" and "used to" one another that they saw marriage as the next logical step...which was akin to stepping on a banana peel. Now there's in-laws, obligations and etc.

I know the dynamics between myself and my husband changed prior to and after we got married. Based on what I hear, lots of other people experience a change in the dynamics as well (not always for the better).

So I'll be watching the gay marriage/union thing with especial interest. I don't wish them bad luck. However, I can't help getting the feeling that many of them *might* be making the same mistake sociologists are seeing hetero "live-in" couples making: Assume your relationship is fine and dandy (when maybe it's more that "comfortable old glove" phenomenon than anything else)...mix in obligation and vows and...

--Cindy

P.S.: CM Edwards' response to Cobra was very good. Reflects my thinking quite a bit.

MarsDog · 2004-07-10 18:34:10

Government should not be in the marriage contract.
Leave it to the religious organizations and civil legal system.
-
Is Kerry for equal sexual orientation representation in space ?
-
Wonder how the Mars pioneers will be selected.
Heterosexual men and women, Lesbians only with a sperm bank; Homosexuals men only would not work. So the Homosexual men would have to take the place of the sperm bank for the Lesbians ?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-10 20:19:08

Some great comments here about this controversial gay marriage subject. And thanks for the responses to my two cents worth on personal liberties and society.

I think I tend to agree with Cindy's general drift about the practicalities of homosexual relationships and what happens to the property when one partner dies. It is definitely unfair that a bereaved lesbian, whose partner has died after, say, 20 years together, should be left with nothing because the dead partner's relatives are allowed to go in and clean out all the goods and chattels.
For this reason, I am immediately in favour of at least some changes to legislation to give homosexuals basic rights on a par with heterosexuals, as far as property goes.

Now, whether or not the majority of ordinary citizens feel that the institution of marriage, in its traditional sense, is the right vehicle by which to enact those changes, is where I have to say I'm not sure.
Not because I'm homophobic but because I haven't formed an opinion yet.
Perhaps, if the changes required are introduced in small increments over time, we'll comfortably arrive at a place where full church weddings of homosexuals, with all the trimmings, will be the accepted norm. Who knows? Is that what we want ... white weddings for gays and lesbians? Is that what gays and lesbians want?
I don't know enough to say.

I thought Cindy's point about homosexuals getting more than they bargained for, with full legal/church marriage and all the in-laws(! ), was an excellent one. "Be careful what you wish for ... " - exactly right!
:laugh:

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-10 21:51:44

I can't really think of anything else to say at this point except that I agree with virtually everything that was said after my last post here. Freedom is good, but we must accept responsibility with it. I'm afraid I might have come off a little too vehement in my last couple of remarks, after making them I kept thinking about one of Spock's lines in Star Trek 2, "You must learn to control your passions, they will be your undoing." While I do have quite strong opinions about this and other subjects, I've made them after a long time of careful consideration bsed on real facts, so I usually try not to look like an arm-waving lunatic screaming "I'm right, I have the truth!" I hope I didn't come off across like this.

Earlier in this thread the hot topic was global warming, and someone made an excellent comment, that global warming is a serious, threatening issue, and precisely because of that should not be treated with a fatalistic doomsday attitude. What good are you going to do if you run around like chicken little screaming "The sky is bruning! The sky is bruning!" I agree, we should be very passionate about the issues that matter to us in our hearts, there's no point in making opinions if you're not adamant about them. But that passion should be controled when we are out in the real world, it's the best way to get a point across.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-07-09 07:05:57

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#177 2004-07-09 07:22:34

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#178 2004-07-09 07:48:02

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#179 2004-07-09 07:55:46

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#180 2004-07-09 07:57:13

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#181 2004-07-09 08:05:30

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#182 2004-07-09 10:22:40

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#183 2004-07-09 10:37:47

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#184 2004-07-09 11:34:33

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#185 2004-07-09 11:39:03

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#186 2004-07-09 19:16:47

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#187 2004-07-10 06:34:55

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#188 2004-07-10 07:32:17

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#189 2004-07-10 07:39:27

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#190 2004-07-10 07:40:07

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#191 2004-07-10 07:49:51

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#192 2004-07-10 08:10:32

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#193 2004-07-10 10:22:57

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#194 2004-07-10 12:28:23

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#195 2004-07-10 13:50:42

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#196 2004-07-10 14:58:48

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#197 2004-07-10 15:08:09

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#198 2004-07-10 18:34:10

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#199 2004-07-10 20:19:08

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#200 2004-07-10 21:51:44

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Board footer