Guitartricks Electoral College

I've been inspired by the "Bush" thread to further investigate the demographical information of our global guitartricks community. What better way than to hold our own election! I hope I make the choices clear enough and that there aren't and cyber-chads left hangin'. :cool:

And for your enjoyment check out this link for a funny flash video of Bush and Kerry singing "This Land". I felt bad for the Indian when the Best Buys and Wal-marts started popping up, a great laugh though.

Pardon the triple post...


We're gonna have to have some discussion on this thread in order to rescue it from archived oblivion. Hmmm, how should we do this.... well writing down what song your currently listening to is surprisingly effective. I guess we'll go that route until someone comes up with something more pragmatic.


Metallica - Orion

Originally Posted by: LeedoggPardon the triple post...


. well writing down what song your currently listening to is surprisingly effective.

Some hip hop crap

Korn- Thoughtless.

This poll is a great idea, I'm very curious to see the results of the four options. What's really interesting is that there are only 15 votes so far when we have over 68,000 members....

Yea, I guess people really hate voting. Kinda like the real vote on November 2nd...

Hey, I've thought of a nice decisive issue we can argue about while the votes trickle in... Gay Marriage. I'll go first.

Sure, why not. It doesn't offend me. I definately don't support an amendment to the constitution that takes away rights. Divorce rates nationwide hover around the 50% mark, so don't go telling me about the sanctity of marriage, especially when talking on a nationwide and civil (not religious) level as this issue most certainly is.

to me marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, that should not be disgraced by same sex marriage. A marriage consists of a husband and a wife, nuff said. But, if being homosexual is what makes you happy, then so be it. Come up with something new to call it. Personally, it disgusts me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to treat a gay person different, you're still a human being.

Note: I did not, nor do I intend to offend anybody by the above statements. They are my personal opinions, and we all know what opinions are like ;)

Originally Posted by: PRSplayaPersonally, it disgusts me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to treat a gay person different, you're still a human being.

In the same post, you say that you don't treat them differently, yet, you think they should be given different civil rights. You see the contradiction?

Many people are still disgusted by interracial couples, yet, interracial couples have been allowed to get married(CIVIL marriage) in all American states since 1967.

I'm all for opening up civil marriage to same sex couples, it's a shame that something like this is still an issue in 2004.

Where did I contradict myself? I never said they should be treated differently. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or woman and a woman.

Originally Posted by: PRSplayaWhere did I contradict myself? I never said they should be treated differently. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or woman and a woman.

So basically you'd grant them the exact same rights, just under a different name?

The word "marriage" has several definitions, everyone interprets it the way they want.

Originally Posted by: SPLSo basically you'd grant them the exact same rights, just under a different name?

The word "marriage" has several definitions, everyone interprets it the way they want.

That's the problem - that abmbiguity should not exist. My brother had a lovely ceremony in a park, surounded by friends and family. His partner is a wonderful man, and I'm thrilled that he and my brother have a relationship worthy of such publicly-declared commitment and celebration. But that relationship is not a marriage.

Basically, but as long as it doesn't affect me then I don't really care. I'm out of this conversation. Have fun...

BTW...what you said about interracial marriages has nothing to do with same sex marriages. It's still between a man and a woman. Unless you're talking about same sex interracial marriages.

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsBut that relationship is not a marriage.

Exactly, a marriage comes with 1,049 federal, and several hundreds more state rights and responsibilities, that's what the difference is.
Should same sex couples not be granted those same civil rights, since after all they pay taxes like anyone else?

Originally Posted by: PRSplayaBasically, but as long as it doesn't affect me then I don't really care. I'm out of this conversation. Have fun...

BTW...what you said about interracial marriages has nothing to do with same sex marriages. It's still between a man and a woman. Unless you're talking about same sex interracial marriages.

It is exactly the same issue, it just depends from what persepective you look at it.

Btw, what about an opposite sex couple, where one of the individuals goes through a sex change operation, and legally changes his/her gender. You realize that couples like that are allowed to remain legally married? Then why not allow couples that start out as being same sex/gender to get married?

Originally Posted by: PRSplayaI'm out of this conversation.

like I said ^

Originally Posted by: SPLExactly, a marriage comes with 1,049 federal, and several hundreds more state rights and responsibilities, that's what the difference is.
Should same sex couples not be granted those same civil rights, since after all they pay taxes like anyone else?

[font=trebuchet ms]So grant the same rights and obligations, but don't call it a marriage just because you're too lazy to amend the existing statutes.

We got into the same crap because it was found that common-law relationships were leaving people without inderitance or claims to assets during a breakup. Too bad! These people were not married because, for whatever reason, they were unable to agree to be married. The State stepped in and declared that all live-in situations of more that 12 month's duration would carry the ssame rights and obligations as marriage! What a crock! By that logic, money I print in my basement should be just as good as the stuff I get from the bank. :p[/font]

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsSo grant the same rights and obligations, but don't call it a marriage just because your too lazy to amend the existing statutes.

If it would cover the exact same rights, why would there be need to give it a different name? The dictionary does not even give one definite definition of the word marriage.
You can, however, claim that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. In that sense it's only a matter of opinion.

Not so long ago, the legal description of a civil marriage mentioned nothing about sex/gender, it'd be very easy to reverse the change that was made to make it exclusively for straight couples(with the afformentioned exception of course). It's only a couple of words.


Conclusion: It's just a matter of semantics really. Only thing left is to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by: SPL... You can, however, claim that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. In that sense it's only a matter of opinion...

[font=trebuchet ms]Marriage has only been the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, since before recorded history. The notion that two people of the same sex should be able to form a similar monogamous relationship is a different concept, and certainly does not fit the existing definition of marriage. That does not mean that the definition of marriage should be thrown out. It does not mean that the definition of marriage should be diluted to the point that it becomes meaningless. The gay community has proven to be very inventive in creating new terms to describe the situations they experience. They get around the potential confusion about who is 'wife' and who is 'husband' by referring to each other as partners. There is no excuse for attempting to co-opt the definition of marriage, nor is there any need to.[/font]