Facepalm

[Little Faerie]

Now look what you did, I have a cactus-cunt fetish and now I can't stop from wanting to have my way with O'Donnell. Now I'm gonna have to go and masturbate - and then she'll never want me. *cry*

[Bettypooh]

I'm Jeffersonian in my politics: "The best government is the least government." And if everyone is created equally, why does the government treat some unequally? If you want to get married then do so- to whomever you want, and keep the damn government out of it It's nobody elses business who you marry. The "Tea Party" is a bunch of discontents who don't agree on what they are discontent about, don't discuss anything more than superficially, and gather together just because it makes them feel good about themselves The other parties are no better. "Us versus them" mentalities are immature and can produce no good but they are pressed on us for a reason- they allow the creation of a power-base of votes for politicians to use so they can get in office and rule over you I've asked many people to explain just what the "Defense of marriage act" was defending against- and nobody has that answer. All they can say is that they don't believe in Gay marriage. Then I ask them why didn't they just say the truth and call it the "Anti-Gay marriage act"? Those whose minds still functioned replied that it didn't sound as good and that it wouldn't have had as good a chance of passing if they called it that. In other words they supported a mistruth knowing it was a mistruth and saw nothing wrong with doing that And then they expect me to give them any credibility or respect after that? Come on, get real and be honest here! What they wanted was to make rules for someone else to live by never realizing that allowing that to occur also allows others to rule over them likewise!

The entire issue of Gay marriage arose because the government gives married people advantages over unmarried people- decreed inequality which is unconstitutional and inherently wrong. In the same way, they give parents with children advantages over those of us who are childless- again decreed inequality which is unconstitutional and inherently wrong. This is why "less is best"- the government has no place in these matters because when it steps in things go wrong and someone innocent always gets hurt You want to marry someone of the same sex? Fine- that has no effect on me or anyone else. You want to have kids? Fine- you raise them and pay for them, not me! You want equal rights? Fine- you deserve them so long as you give everyone else the same thing You want to pay less taxes and have more control over your life? Fine- quit supporting more government and politicians who try to make you feel good just to get your vote You don't like that? Too bad- I know why you don't like that and if you were honest with yourself then you would too Until you are honest with yourself you can't be honest to others. If you don't like something that's OK so long as you're honest about your motivation and you don't force your likes and dislikes on others. If you think it's OK to force others to fit your beliefs then let me force my beliefs on you- that would be fair and equal wouldn't it? But that's not what you want, is it?

OK, I'll end my rant before people's heads explode as the easy understanding of basic truth sets in and turns their whole lives upside down like it's supposed to Join me in the search for the truth and embrace it when you find it and then you'll understand what this life is really all about. Only then can we make this a better world.

Bettypooh

[diapered_jeff48801]

Wow, according to her my Fiance' and I are BOTH guilty of adultery, sometimes you just have to masturbate!

People like that have such small minds and it's why there's so much hate and intolerance in this world. Being a non christian has opened up my eyes to how we treat people who are different, Now I'm not saying all christians are closed minded, but theres that vocal minority who give that religion a bad name. Isn't it supposed to be love thy nieghbor and judge not lest ye be judged?

Hopefully I haven't offended anyone, but I had to get my opinion in on this.

[PArms]

To hopefully clarify what I've written above:

Government should not recognize marriage AT ALL. If a couple (hetero or homo) wants to be joined by their respective religions, then they have all the freedom to do so. No involvement by the government. There wouldn't even be "civil unions." If a religion allows polygamy, then so be it. The only difference in social matters would be the religious connotation when a couple says that they are married. Otherwise it's just like dating.

No law says that you can't move in with or make love to someone that you recognize as a significant other, but today's law does punish those that have extramarital affairs (which the judicial system doesn't need to be burdened with). This means no divorces either.

As far as taxes are concerned: Each individual will be taxed separately. There will be no "married filing jointly." I also like Bettypooh's idea to stop crediting children. As a community, we're already taxed for their education (which I think is fair even for those without children because of the real benefit to society when education is involved).

[dprtodd]

As far as taxes are concerned: Each individual will be taxed separately. There will be no "married filing jointly." I also like Bettypooh's idea to stop crediting children.

Taxation and Custodial issues are only a portion of 'why' the Government is involved in marriage - the other biggie arises from property issues ala inheritance. The fact that there is a recognized spouse facilitates what happens when someone dies without a will. This removes a huge burden from the courts and allows the vast majority of inheritance cases to be dealt with a minimum of resource. In fact were I to guess, I would say this is the issue itself that led to government being involved in marriage from the outset. Taxation as we understand it today, income tax, started in 1913 so it is 'new' in terms of our government the same with Divorce which was so stigmatized that divorce was fairly rare. (Modern medicine - RH Factor in particular and industrial revolution contributed to rise in divorce rates - couples had fewer children which led to decreased mortality when giving birth.)

That was the reason I advocated civil unions to give the framework needed for inheritance, that fact that it can also support our current tax system (Boo - get rid of it I say) means that this could be implemented now and with comparative ease versus having no recognition of marriage what so ever.

[PArms]

As it stands now, probate court divides the decedents property as fairly as it can among the surviving family members. It does this without regard to friends or charities.

If marriage is taken out of our laws, then if two people live together (married or not) both names should be documented as co-ownership. This will leave most property to the "spouse." If both names don't appear, then there's no proof of ownership. The "spouse" will miss the inheritance unless family intervene and vouch for him/her in court.

OR

Probate court will use religious marriage certificates as proof of kinship to the decedent.

[The All]

I've been saying this for years. Glad someone else sees it that way, too.

If the government wants separation of church and state, then they need to get out of the business of marriage.

I couldn't agree with you more. I am an atheist and cannot understand why a fundamentally religious institution, such as marriage, has any form of legal grounding. So far as I'm concerned, marriage/civil unions should be for everyone or for no one.

[diaperpt]

I don't know diddly about some of the details of Christianity, never having been one. If I'm missing a point somewhere there, let me know. I know most sects are against homosexuality but I didn't think their bible said anything about it being adultery.

Please note I am merely ranting... I do not expect responses really.

Well, the Bible says LOTS of things - Jesus says you shouldn't divorce either. I am a very serious Christian who believes the Bible is far too rich to try to twist yourself inside out and read it exactly as it says...otherwise, I'd have stoned my 'unruly' children to death long ago, I'd eat no shellfish, pork, etc, I'd be stoned to death myself for having been divorced...

SO...I'm not trying to convert or preach - all of you have your own position on this sort of thing...but to answer the comment (and it wasn't a question, was it?) it does say a LOT of things about homosexuality, but there really are a lot of Christians who do NOT interpret the words as to mean that gays are evil. I think God loves us all. I believe in and have officiated gay marriage.

And I think the responses (not expected nor requested by the OP) have been very respectful. Politics is SO volatile and polarized in the public arena. I'm pleased when I see a thread that could be full of flames turn out as respectful as this one has! Yay for us!!!!

[Little Faerie]

I am quite pleased we've been able to discuss all this civilly. I've seen way too many posts involving political opinions that got flamed to death. I do have some very strong opinions on a few things, and I keep the more controversial ones to myself usually. This lady really riles me up some days though.

[Missy Q]

I am quite pleased we've been able to discuss all this civilly. I've seen way too many posts involving political opinions that got flamed to death. I do have some very strong opinions on a few things, and I keep the more controversial ones to myself usually. This lady really riles me up some days though.

It's not hard to have debate or discussion with maturity. Both ends of the debate just have to understand that you cannot sway another persons view by shouting.

If only politics could grasp this.

[DailyDi]

Is it a bad thing when the audience at a debate can't stop laughing at you?

[Missy Q]

Is it a bad thing when the audience at a debate can't stop laughing at you?

Yes, continuous laugher can be quite exhausting.

[Marcuss]

The tea party is funny. Most of the members dont agree with the republicans who claim to speak for the "party" on most issues. they just act like they have this huge grass root support behind them and ... in the end will be the death of the party. Honestly if 30% of this nation thinks Sarah Pailen speaks reality we are all doomed.

On another note has anyone seen any non negative political adds? I travel everywhere and have yet to see one. I think a law should be passed so that any candidate or agency running adds for politics can only have 30% of the adds against a person the rest need to be permoting a candidate. All negative adds do is make you not want anyone running to win and stops people from voting.

[KittenAB]

The tea party is funny. Most of the members dont agree with the republicans who claim to speak for the "party" on most issues. they just act like they have this huge grass root support behind them and ... in the end will be the death of the party. Honestly if 30% of this nation thinks Sarah Pailen speaks reality we are all doomed.

On another note has anyone seen any non negative political adds? I travel everywhere and have yet to see one. I think a law should be passed so that any candidate or agency running adds for politics can only have 30% of the adds against a person the rest need to be permoting a candidate. All negative adds do is make you not want anyone running to win and stops people from voting.

First, no, we do not need anymore laws telling people what to say, that's what made this mess in the first place.

Thing is, the negative ads speak on how far we have fallen and should not be suppressed for one VERY important reason, do you really want someone in a position of power who thinks that social standing is that important and who thinks people are really that ignorant not to find out the facts? On the flip side, do you really think people who believe all these ads should really be voting in the first place?

Democracy has one major flaw, it's based on the idea that people will be intelligent enough to question authority, not based on authority protecting people in any way from misinformation.

[Bettypooh]

....Democracy has one major flaw, it's based on the idea that people will be intelligent enough to question authority, not based on authority protecting people in any way from misinformation.

Bullseye Our founding fathers were civicly minded, knowing and caring about their world and their neighbors I don't think they envisioned the possibility of people not giving a dam# about their world and their neighbors such as we see a lot of today Originally only landowners had tthe right to vote, because they had a vested interest in the area and were likely to remain there They were also more likely to be educated or at least literate- back then education wasn't freely given so only better-off family's were educated Personally I have to admit wondering if we shouldn't go back to something that would weed out those who don't know or don't care somehow That's the real core of the problems we have; the small percentage who vote do so based on campaigns and what is said- not on what the people they're voting on have actually done- and as we know actions don't often match words when it comes to politicians

Bettypooh

[Marcuss]

I once had a comic strip cut out that had a boy walking by a brick wall. On the wall someone said "Question Authority!" In the second scene the boy was past the graffiti and had added "Ses Who" .... Has to be one of my favorites of all time so simple so perfect.

[KittenAB]

I once had a comic strip cut out that had a boy walking by a brick wall. On the wall someone said "Question Authority!" In the second scene the boy was past the graffiti and had added "Ses Who" .... Has to be one of my favorites of all time so simple so perfect.

The funny thing about "question authority" is it actually sums up what the founding fathers of the US did and told everyone to do, just they liked to use a lot of words.

[randominterestedperson]

Totally ignoring everyone else in this thread (sorry, but I just wanted to get to my point):

Normal people are morons. Seriously. It seems to me, that anyone who has a decent brain in their heads has at least one very weird thing in their head. It also works the other way around, everyone who has a decently weird thing in their heads, has a brain. I think it's a causal link, but I can't be sure. It's probably not that simple anyway. The point is, if you have something weird in your head, you've no doubt thought long and hard about it, and thus exercised your brain enough to actually use it. Other people don't seem to do that, most of the time. All good rules have an exception, and mine is: catholic priests. There's definitely something weird about them, with their abstinence, but they still can't think too well, in general.

But yeah, that's just my opinion.

[sarah_ab]

ohhhh you joined on my birthday!!!!!

that is all.

[curiositykilledthecat]

The two parites aren't the problem, it is the brain damaged kool-aid drinkers that support them.

[babyscoot]

i will refer to 1965

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAxl9V9jqD0

that is all.......

call me old fashioned i dont care. im my eyes marriage is a man and a woman. end of story. but other people have their own vies and opinions and i respect that. at least they speak up when they get pissed off!

this country has been taking it in the ass so to speak by dumbshit politicans sucking the life out of it. world trade is just one of the things thats gotten us where we are today.

i am not religous. i lean right and to the libertarian. but feel abortion is should be pro-choice and that the country has much better things to worry about then whos jacking off where, with who, and aborition among many other things.

people seem to worry about shit that really doesnt needed to be worried about at the present time.

and if your going to feel the need to nitpick my grammar of spelling you can

that is all

[AlliR]

Politics and a fetish have at least one thing in common. If you discuss either with someone who shares your opinion, you champion a just cause.

In the reverse situation, open up the same dialog to one who is adamantly against your point of view and you hit a brick wall. How many times did one side convince the other that they were not correct, caring or compassionate or what ever else you might call it? The only thing I'd like to add here is that the members of this board are (mostly) here because they have a fetish. To all those vanilla people out there, we are not considered textbook normal. I for one have a hard time seeing a conservative point of view when I would like others to consider that I can be included in the mainstream of American life. If my choice is to enjoy fetish life, I do not expose or force this on others. I'd expect them to permit me the same consideration.