Guitartricks Electoral College

Originally Posted by: SPLIt's just a matter of semantics really. Only thing left is to agree to disagree.

Like I said...

Well, it seems America is split down the middle, and the rest of the world knows what it wants. No new info so far...

Sometimes I think this nation has multiple personality disorder.

Originally Posted by: SPLLike I said...

[font=trebuchet ms]See Definition 1a of semantics. Based on history, there is only one acceptable meaning.[/font]

But language is an evolving thing not a bunch of absolutes !

Oh me oh my thats gone and torn it !


Example...
Awesome like the expanse of the universe laid out before you or awesome like a hot dog when you are hungry !

or WMD

that has recently made it into the Oxford English Dictionary and it seems to mean many different things to many different people !

Originally Posted by: ekstasis16Well, it seems America is split down the middle, and the rest of the world knows what it wants. No new info so far...

Sometimes I think this nation has multiple personality disorder.

[font=trebuchet ms]The rest of the world (which does not have America's best interests at heart) wants you become indecisive and ineffectual under Kerry.

Even President Putin in Russia has a better understanding of the consequenses. The enemy will not shrink from killing 'nice guys'. They have not declared war against the Western democracies because of anything you or we have done. They hunger to kill us simply because our very existence offends their sense of the way things should be. I worry about when and how they will make our spineless wussies in Ottawa recognise that fact. There is no 'if' to be contemplated here; there is only 'when' and 'where'.[/font]

And brave sir George he ran away !

SO mr Bush where were you on 9/11, in a bunker, that funny Tony Blare was in London expecting to be attacked !

Vietnam, where was he, hiding Stateside, absconding from fitness tests and disobeying direct orders if the press is to be believed !

I'm sure we've all seen the stickers "Three purple hearts trumps two DOI's."

Originally Posted by: Lordathestrings[font=trebuchet ms]See Definition 1a of semantics. Based on history, there is only one acceptable meaning.[/font]

So you've done research on the history of marriage? If you had, you would realize that, just like language, the institution of marriage has gone through many, many changes throughout history. And since that's the case, how can there be only one acceptable meaning for the term "marriage"?

I wasn't even talking about the war on terror, just homeland policies in the US. Bush does not have America's best interest in mind, he has HIS best interest in mind, and that's shown clear as day through his failed and poorly executed acts and policies, as well as shamless connections to immoral campaign tactics.

Originally Posted by: SPLSo you've done research on the history of marriage? If you had, you would realize that, just like language, the institution of marriage has gone through many, many changes throughout history. And since that's the case, how can there be only one acceptable meaning for the term "marriage"?

[font=trebuchet ms]Experiments in any western society with alternative definitions are inevitabley abandoned. The last attempt at formalised polygamy was abandoned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints over a hundred years ago. The 'open mariages' practiced by some hippies in the 60's never gained formal acceptance. There are many practicing swingers now who openly promote their lifestyle, but this does not validate any change in the definition of marriage.

The problem with leagal recognition and institutionalising of gay unions as marriage is mainly in the language proposed for enacting that agenda. Most particularly the phrase "sexual orientation". This nebulous buzzword has been adopted by members of the lib-left who are too squeemish to say the word "homosexual" as if it is somehow demeaning. It is, in fact, a perfectly proper description of the people whose lives we are discussing. The word "gender" actually refers to the classification of nouns in the Romance laguages, but has been so extensively missused by ignorant lefties, that the distinction is becoming meaningless. For that matter, "discrimination" is the ability to recognise differences, and assess the desirability of various characteristics. That's something you do every time you choose one food over another, but the word has been turned into a pejorative by the loony left. These are examples of perversion of the original meanings, another phrase and concept that has been banished from public view for no good reason. The phrase "sexual orientation" removes society's ability to make any judgement or distictions at all. There is nothing noble or saintly in refusing to condemn bad behaviour. The Christian admonition against throwing the first stone was a warning against killing people for minor offences. It was not a blanket denial of the need to make moral judgements. Refusing to say where to draw the line does not reduce the need for lines to be drawn.[/font]

What it comes down to is that it's all a matter of opinion. Both sides can spin whatever arguments they like to their advantage. Wether those arguments are valid or sound can be debated for a long long time.

More people should have an attitude like PRSplaya:

Originally Posted by: PRSplayaAs long as it doesn't affect me then I don't really care.

...since the only people it affects are the two consenting adults that agree to sign the contract.

Can you really put an amendment, on Love?? I think that is completley wrong. If it is a man and a man, or woman and a woman, so be it. BUT, i do feel that marriage should be between a man and woman, but this does not stop the love between, people, it just means that they cant get married. letting Gay people marry would just cause more hate in this world.

Think of a little boy adopted by a Gay couple, that boy would grow up proabably being tormented by his peers, it is a sick world, and i do not support making fun of any because of thier race/color/ or love affars, but there are kids who do, and i'm just saying, there will be tons of controversey if Gay marriages were permitted

Originally Posted by: SPLWhat it comes down to is that it's all a matter of opinion. Both sides can spin whatever arguments they like to their advantage. Wether those arguments are valid or sound can be debated for a long long time.

More people should have an attitude like PRSplaya:

...since the only people it affects are the two consenting adults that agree to sign the contract.

[font=trebuchet ms]That statement is obviously false. It is false to same extent that Criminal, Tax and Civil laws at the National, State, and Municipal levels hinge on who is, and who is not, married.

A very necessary survival skill in the face of spin and lies from all sides is the ability to discriminate. That involves thinking critically, identifyiing differences, and making judgements about the desirability of various characteristics. It is instructive to note that the socialists in our societies moved quickly to demonize that particular word.

Anyone who tries to impose politically correct values on society is inherently suspect. The very concept of political correctness imposes a brain-freeze on the people of the world, and does so with blatantly socialist phraseology.[/font]

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsThat statement is obviously false. It is false to same extent that Criminal, Tax and Civil laws at the National, State, and Municipal levels hinge on who is, and who is not, married.[/QUOTE]

Ok, and could you explain what effect exactly it would have if/when same sex couples are allowed to get married?
Of course it's going to have it's affect on society, but nobody personally will be affected by it in a negative way. That's what I meant.

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsAnyone who tries to impose politically correct values on society is inherently suspect. The very concept of political correctness imposes a brain-freeze on the people of the world, and does so with blatantly socialist phraseology.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by this though? That the idea of thinking that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is wrong? I'm not assuming that's what you meant, but whatever you are trying to say is rather unclear.

[QUOTE=DreamRyche2112]letting Gay people marry would just cause more hate in this world.

Not letting them get married is only proof of the hate that already exists.

[QUOTE=DreamRyche2112]Think of a little boy adopted by a Gay couple, that boy would grow up proabably being tormented by his peers, it is a sick world, and i do not support making fun of any because of thier race/color/ or love affars, but there are kids who do, and i'm just saying, there will be tons of controversey if Gay marriages were permitted

Gay couples have, are, and will be raising kids... and not only by adoption either. Kids get teased about having red hair, about being short, tall, black, Asian, about not having a mom, about not having a dad, about the clothes they wear, etc... Should genetic manipulation take care of some of those? You know what, kids are cruel, if they want to pick on someone, they'll find something to pick on about.
If you want some examples about the results allowing same sex couples to get married, do some research on Belgium and the Netherlands.
Opening up civil marriage to same sex couples would only be beneficial to same sex families. Not only the parents, but the children benefit from it too.

For me it comes down to an issue of rights. When a couple gets married they are granted certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities by the government. These rights should be granted, not denied, to gay couples as well. Whether you want to call it a marriage or a civil union or whatever, for me you are just mincing words.

Say your a man and your wife is in a horrible accident, you would be allowed to see her in the hospital. If you're gay and your partner was in an accident, you might not be allowed in to see him (or her) since you don't have any documented relationship with that person. These are just some of the rights I'm talking about, not to mention tax breaks (or burdens) etc...

IMO gays and lesbos shouldnt be able to get married..Marriage is a union betrween MAN and WOMAN...do what they want but dont call it marriage..Being of Christian faith, I also look down upon the ideas of homosexuals and them getting married

The bible condemns homosexuals to death. Christains shouldn't be allowed to speak in these debates.

and y not?

blah "they have longer relationships" blah "there usually richer"... I still dont care and beleive that they should be able to get married.. marriage as someone stated before is a union of a man and a woman...they can do want they want..call it what they want , but dont call it marriage...in my eyes (my opinion) its not marriage
Im not married, so there no relationship problem for me to worry about
even if i wasnt tryin to be of christian faith, i still think its wrong.

you know what hammurabi... I think its dumb because I try to be of christian faith that I have no say in this. (thanks eggman for makin my post less threatening *sigh* )

Muslims who follow the Shariah (sacred law... :eek: )believe that
Musical instruments are unlawful;
Slavery is permitted;
Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;

so If im gonna follow ur reasoning..then muslims shouldnt have any say on this either (if there are any muslims here), considering that lesbians are homosexuals and are to be killed

the point is you aren't being objective when you use a religious text or what someone else says as grounds for your argument. you can cite it as support for your argument, but since no one religious text is agreed upon worldwide as truth, we need to go to plan B. the problem is that you run into an intellectual wall when you use points like "Well Jesus says..." or "Buddha says"...

yes its your belief that what that text says is true, but you aren't really citing an a priori reason for it, you're just using someone else's logic and aren't going past it to figure out why that text says what it says or why that religious figure said what they said. and if you can't go past it then there's really no point to get into the argument because you aren't saying anything new that takes the argument in a new direction.

(i'm not directing this at you ketsueki15, just in general, sorry for the obscene use of pronouns)

also, i wish i had a magic talking donkey. that's all.