How Can George Bush Represent the People if.......

[revprez]

I think you might find that the crux of most arguments is that the term "inappropriate relationship" is not justifiable when discussing homosexual couples, so I would dispute that special pleading is in action.

 

That is special pleading. Where's the standard for delineating between an appropriate or inappropriate relationship? What's so important about consent? Why isn't the minimal self-contained capacity for reproduction in a pairing an equally valid delineator? There is no doubt that the preference for consensual heterosexual coupling is the most enduring aesthetic in human reproductive relationships. If the traditional--secular and religious--reasons for providing special recognition to relationship on the basis of sexuality, then what is the defense for consent?

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

You are, of course correct about that. It is a silly quote that has no underlying principle that can be used to justify the miscegenist's position. Which is why such a claim makes for a poor defense of banning interracial marriage, or in the case of today, homosexual ones.

 

The above quote is no justification at all. It is a challenge to proponents of miscegenation. Likewise, its a challenge we can throw at advocates of pedophilia, bestiality and same sex marriage. What it does not do, as the poster who provided it intended, is dismiss opposition to same sex marriage as the product of bigotry. Whether or not the basic structure of the assertion is morally offensive or not depends on the context.

 

Rev Prez

[DreamLord]

That is special pleading. Where's the standard for delineating between an appropriate or inappropriate relationship? What's so important about consent? Why isn't the minimal self-contained capacity for reproduction in a pairing an equally valid delineator? There is no doubt that the preference for consensual heterosexual coupling is the most enduring aesthetic in human reproductive relationships. If the traditional--secular and religious--reasons for providing special recognition to relationship on the basis of sexuality, then what is the defense for consent?

 

What are you trying to say? That all recognised marriages are supposed to be for reproductive purposes? I think you need to make your point a bit clearer. Because that would make no sense.

 

Likewise, its a challenge we can throw at advocates of pedophilia, bestiality and same sex marriage.

 

How can you classify those things in the same category? They are in no way similar. Bestiality and pedophilia should not be classified with same sex marriage.

[blike]

Proving only that their criminal activity was premeditated and lengthy.

 

An unprecedented purge of Florida's voter registration when the governor's brother is trying to win a swing state is just plain wrong!

Jeb Bush was not governor of the state of Florida when the decision was made.

 

The other networks jumped on Fox's bandwagon' date=' not wanting to be scooped. By declaring such a close vote for Bush without firm results Bush's cousin unduly influenced voters on the West Coast who hadn't voted yet. It's a shame that some people waited until the last minute and felt it was more important to be on the "winning team", but that's America for you. Everything's a competition, especially in a two-party system.[/quote'] Fair enough, but Fox news did not declare Bush the winner until 2:16AM EST, which is 11:16 PST. California polls close at 8pm PST.

 

Most Florida polls were open until 8pm EST time, but there are portions of the panhandle in the central time zone. All the national news outlets (including FOX) reported that the polls for all of florida had closed. Some research indicates Bush may have lost as many as 7,500 to 10,000 votes in the pan handle. Bob Beckel concluded that Bush lost as many as 8,000 votes. McLaughlin put the number of votes lost by GW at close to 15,000. Another study puts it at around 12,000 for Bush and 7,000 for Gore.

 

[DreamLord]

Most Florida polls were open until 8pm EST time, but there are portions of the panhandle in the central time zone. All the national news outlets (including FOX) reported that the polls for all of florida had closed. Some research indicates Bush may have lost as many as 7,500 to 10,000 votes in the pan handle. Bob Beckel concluded that Bush lost as many as 8,000 votes. McLaughlin put the number of votes lost by GW at close to 15,000. Another study[/url'] puts it at around 12,000 for Bush and 7,000 for Gore.

 

So what you're saying is that no-one actually knows. It could've worked for or against Bush. Most things I've seen say it worked for Bush.

 

Wrong. Fox news did not declare Bush the winner until 2:16AM EST, which is 11:16 PST. California polls close at 8pm PST[/url'].

 

Since when were we talking about California? It is Florida's votes that are in question.

[blike]

Read the quote I was responding to DreamLord.

[DreamLord]

OK right. But the network had announced Bush as the winner of Florida before all votes had been cast.

[Sayonara]

I don't know why you're all bothering to argue over this. These are the facts:

 

1) Enough people voted for Bush to get him into office, which ought to be disturbing enough to get you all more politically involved.

 

2) Texas is frightful.

 

3) Florida is fickle, but nice.

 

 

There. Glad we got all of that sorted out.

[DreamLord]

I don't know why you're all bothering to argue over this. These are the facts:

 

1) Enough people voted for Bush to get him into office' date=' which ought to be disturbing enough to get you all more politically involved.

 

2) Texas is frightful.

 

3) Florida is fickle, but nice.

 

 

There. Glad we got all of that sorted out.[/quote']

 

lol. I agree with all of that. Very true.

[Sayonara]

I'm telling you, white wine on top of lager never lies.

[AL]

Where's the standard for delineating between an appropriate or inappropriate relationship? What's so important about consent? Why isn't the minimal self-contained capacity for reproduction in a pairing an equally valid delineator?

Capacity for reproduction is not the current delineator in light of the fact that sterile or old people with no reproductive capacity are allowed to marry. Would you disallow an Rh-incompatible couple to marry simply because they cannot have babies together? It seems that love and consent are the factors here, not baby-making.

There is no doubt that the preference for consensual heterosexual coupling is the most enduring aesthetic in human reproductive relationships.

Isn't that begging the question? Heterosexual relations are the only ones that can reproduce, so trivially gay relations cannot be the "most enduring aesthetic" in human reproductive relationships. If you meant to say that heterosexual coupling is the most enduring human relationship, that's clearly not an absolute truth -- the very existence of gay couples disproves it.

[drz]

1) Enough people voted for Bush to get him into office, which ought to be disturbing enough to get you all more politically involved.

 

This is precisely what got me involved. Not so much at the time of election, but after a few years when I noticed what a bone head he is.

[jordan]

Sorry to dredge this up again, but I thought of something last night. This is a serious question, not just an attack on gays. I was wondering about how much of it is a mental problem? We see people who talk to themselves all the time are put in an institution to either correct or isolate their problem. People who have numerous other mental problems go to a psychiatrist. What is different about this one that we feel we don't need to correct it at all, but rather should even encourage it?

[Phi for All]

I was wondering about how much of it is a mental problem?...What is different about this one that we feel we don't need to correct it at all, but rather should even encourage it?

Because it's not THEIR problem, jordan. It's YOUR problem with the way they've chosen to live their lives, based on what their hearts have told them about who they love. It's not like someone who has chosen to go around setting fires as a lifestyle choice. A gay person obeying the rest of society's rules is doing you no harm, just like the lady who decides she likes cats better than people and has 20 of them that she lovingly cares for, or the 45-year old man who is shy around women and still lives with his mother, or the woman who gets together with her friends and passes out leaflets about conspiracy theories at the mall and wants to talk to you about it if you'll only stop for a few moments, or the fundamentalist Islamic who pulls out a small rug at certain times of the day even in public and kneels on it to pray.

 

These may all be people who make you uncomfortable and whose lifestyles you would not wish for yourself, but they are all examples of people who abide by the laws and don't hurt anyone with the choices they've made, and when you allow the lawmakers to restrict these people, ask yourself what it is that YOU do that makes someone else uncomfortable.

[DreamLord]

This is a serious question, not just an attack on gays. I was wondering about how much of it is a mental problem? We see people who talk to themselves all the time are put in an institution to either correct or isolate their problem.

 

It is not at all a mental problem. It is simply biological. They cannot choose their sexuality. And they can no more easily become heterosexual than you could become homosexual. They are born they way they are, they do not choose it.

[jordan]

Phi, the point wasn't who makes me uncomfortable. It's that there are certain people you see walking down the street and you say they should be taken somwhere to be treated by a professional. There are people who just have mild mental conditions and go seek help. They don't really have much choice over whether they'll grow up hearing voices just as gays appearently can't help being gay. Why is one locked away while the other is encouraged?

 

1) The caps in your post make is seem as though you're annoyed with my questioning. I'm only looking for answers, not trying to prove my point right. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them though.

2) I wouldn't say a Muslim kneeling to pray has a mental condition.

 

It is not at all a mental problem. It is simply biological. They cannot choose their sexuality. And they can no more easily become heterosexual than you could become homosexual. They are born they way they are, they do not choose it.

Noted, but it's still rather similar. Either way it is out of their hands and that's what I was getting at.

[DreamLord]

A person talking to themselves in public, obviously has some issues that they need to work through. Much like people who are depressive, schizophrenic, etc. they will lead happier lives if they are helped with their problems. Whereas, homosexuals obviously can lead perfectly happy lives the way they are. Those two things are in no way similar.

[atinymonkey]

Sorry to dredge this up again, but I thought of something last night. This is a serious question, not just an attack on gays. I was wondering about how much of it is a mental problem? We see people who talk to themselves all the time are put in an institution to either correct or isolate their problem. People who have numerous other mental problems go to a psychiatrist. What is different about this one that we feel we don't need to correct it at all, but rather should even encourage it?

 

It is not at all a mental problem. It is simply biological. They cannot choose their sexuality. And they can no more easily become heterosexual than you could become homosexual. They are born they way they are, they do not choose it.

 

I'm not sure it is correctly defined as Physiological or Genetic tbh. It could be either or a combination of both. But, as it's been said, it's not important what defines a person but how they are accepted.

[Sayonara]

Phi, the point wasn't who makes me uncomfortable. It's that there are certain people you see walking down the street and you say they should be taken somwhere to be treated by a professional. There are people who just have mild mental conditions and go seek help. They don't really have much choice over whether they'll grow up hearing voices just as gays appearently can't help being gay. Why is one locked away while the other is encouraged?

Even if you have a mental condition you still have to be a serious threat to others to be "locked away". Civilised countries that respect freedom have laws about that kind of thing - over here it's the Mental Health Act (Reform) 1983, which you can learn about here:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/MentalHealth/fs/en

[Sayonara]

I'm not sure it is correctly defined as Physiological or Genetic tbh. It could be either or a combination of both. But, as it's been said, it's not important what defines a person but how they are accepted.

Your physiology is determined by your genetic makeup, so I'm guessing you read that as "psychological"?

 

[atinymonkey]

Stupid spellcheck, I'll kill you!

 

[Phi for All]

It's that there are certain people you see walking down the street and you say they should be taken somwhere to be treated by a professional.

Today, jordan says they should be taken somewhere and treated. Tomorrow, gordan decides they'd be much better off on an island away from normal people. The day after, mordan decides they all need to be lined up and shot to save everyone the time and expense.

1) The caps in your post make is seem as though you're annoyed with my questioning.Maybe I'm misinterpreting them though.

I'M NEVER ANNOYED! I capitalize for emphasis. I dislike the word "annoyed". I am a PASSIONATE person who takes life as it comes' date=' joys and heartaches alike. Annoyance is petty and beneath me. Sorry if that sounds conceited but I really enjoy life, imperfect as it is, and when I hear people say, "That's annoying!" it sets my teeth on edge. Try losing a leg or having a child born with Downs Syndrome or losing your retirement fund to Enron. Then talk to me about being "annoyed". I'll set you straight.

2) I wouldn't say a Muslim kneeling to pray has a mental condition.

But the cat lady and the mama's boy and the leaflet lady should all be forced to seek professional help? And when you define them as needing mental facilitation, who gets it tomorrow? It's like burning books. You start with the really bad ones, and then it gets easier to move on eventually to the merely "annoying" ones.

[Sayonara]

Sorry if that sounds conceited but I really enjoy life, imperfect as it is, and when I hear people say, "That's annoying!" it sets my teeth on edge. Try losing a leg or having a child born with Downs Syndrome or losing your retirement fund to Enron. Then talk to me about being "annoyed". I'll set you straight.

What? That's grandma talk.

 

Clearly the generalised lack of griping from people who lost legs has nothing to do with whether or not we should be able to complain about matters that are orders of magnitude less severe.

 

An annoyance is trivial - comparing it to a tragedy does not compute.

[jordan]

Today, jordan says they should be taken somewhere and treated. Tomorrow, gordan decides they'd be much better off on an island away from normal people. The day after, mordan decides they all need to be lined up and shot to save everyone the time and expense.

That's wasn't what I suggested (though I'm not saying it's a bad thing either). It's what society mandakes to remain stable and functioning.

 

I'M NEVER ANNOYED! I capitalize for emphasis. I dislike the word "annoyed". I am a PASSIONATE person who takes life as it comes, joys and heartaches alike. Annoyance is petty and beneath me. Sorry if that sounds conceited but I really enjoy life, imperfect as it is, and when I hear people say, "That's annoying!" it sets my teeth on edge. Try losing a leg or having a child born with Downs Syndrome or losing your retirement fund to Enron. Then talk to me about being "annoyed". I'll set you straight.

No problems. I was just checking because we have bold and italic tags for emphasis. Caps are usualy reserved for screaming. I was just wondering whether you wanted the screaming effect (I wouldn't have thought so) or if there was a reason you chose not to use the tags.

 

But the cat lady and the mama's boy and the leaflet lady should all be forced to seek professional help? And when you define them as needing mental facilitation, who gets it tomorrow? It's like burning books. You start with the really bad ones, and then it gets easier to move on eventually to the merely "annoying" ones.

True, but again, I wasn't implying anything needed to be done. I was thinking about the issue and I came up with the question I asked. I myself couldn't come up with a reasonable answer. I thought I'd ask and I think it might have been Sayo who said that gays don't endanger the comunity simply by being gay. Someone who's crazy can endanger the comunity simply be being crazy, and there is where my answer was found.

[Sayonara]

Someone who's crazy can endanger the comunity simply be being crazy, and there is where my answer was found.

With the operative word being "can".