Trooper_IHB
New member
Since we're on the subject, would you support her right to marry a same sex partner?
Palin
- Thread starter tmare_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Republicans are not all evil....and demos are not all correct...
do you know Palin veto the legislature that would have banned the benefit extension to domestic partners? She does against Gays to "marry", but ok with domestic union.
The government really should not be involved...I have many republican friends that have disagreed, but truthfully-it is not the Republican way to tell people who they can or can not marry. Way more Fascist than Rep... The answer is yes--support.
I've wondered why the government has any involvement in marriage. If two people feel the need to solemnize their union by a religious service, and they can find a church/mosque/temple/chapel willing to hold that service, go for it and invite me to the party. But I wouldn't expect a church to perform such a service for a gay couple if church doctrine opposes it. Find a different church. For two adults (regardless of sex, but legally able to enter contracts) who want the legal protections and obligations that are now provided by marriage, go to the county clerk and pay five bucks for a license and sign your name. Call the latter a "Civil Union" for everybody, not just those that can't get "married" because they don't meet the legal definition of a "couple". Keep the church and State separate.
I take a somewhat different view on this issue.
I don't think gay people have a "right" to marry. And I don't think that straight people have a "right" to marry.
In my copy of the Constitution, I don't see any mention of marriage at all.
To me that means that marriage belongs under the category of things that are left up to states and individuals. The 9th and 10th amendments should be more than just symbolic parts of the Constitution.
Good Point. Muslims are ready to dominate the political landscape. Hope that is fine with you. ;-)
How dodgy of you.
We keep separation of church/state by refusing to let Xtians take over courthouse buildings with the ten commandments. We keep separation of church/state so that the Koran will never become "required" course work in public schools. We keep separation of church/state so that our workplaces will not require us to pray to Buddah during our lunch breaks. I bet you'd agree to two out of the three examples.
Just because some vocal group wants to hijack things to support their own superstitions, doesn't mean that it should be allowed.
Why separate? Because my religious views are different from the majority of my fellow Americans. I don't want to impose my views on others, and don't expect to have other's views imposed on me.
Back to the thread: I saw portions of the CNBC interview with Governor Palin, and I'm impressed. If McCain was 8 years younger, I would not hesitate to vote for the Rep ticket. It isn't his passing that would worry me as much as a decline in health that would leave him still in charge, but not capable of handling the job. I don't think he is in that condition now, but, at age 72, you've got to be realistic on the future possibilities.
GoIllini, the quote about separation of Church and State is mine.
The reason I mention it is because there is widespread (mistaken) belief that the Constitution requires a separation of Church and State. This belief has a root in judicial legislation and is patently wrong.
There is a clause that prevents Congress from making laws that establish religion. But those laws have nothing to do with whether or not the words "under God" are part of a pledge of allegiance made in schools, nor do they have anything to do with inclusion or exclusion of any materials taught in public schools.
Simply put, the farther our government creates problems when it strays from the Constitution. And at the same time, your liberties are eroded.
With that out of the way, back to the conversation at hand.
In all honesty, I'm far more worried about what will happen if Obama is elected than what might happen if McCain is elected. The "idea" that tax cuts can be funded by confiscating money earned by corporations that are deemed to be too successful as judged by some unwritten standard sounds more like a proposal in Putin's (or Medeved's) Russia than something that could happen in America. But if this country makes a tragic mistake in November, it is possible that the road to complete socialism is unavoidable.
As for McCain's health, I can only assume that you are worried about senility. After all, nothing would prevent him from governing if he were to fall and break his hip or something. There are provisions in the Constitution that govern a transfer of power if the President were to become incapacitated. And those would apply to senility or something like a stroke occurring.
Liz, obviously having money makes a lot of things in life easier. But it is worth pointing out that Sarah and Todd Palin are ordinary working class people. When Sarah found out that Trig would be born with Down's Syndrome (approximately September 2007), she was making $81,648 as Governor of Alaska (source http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14239 ). According to campaign finance records, Todd made something like $46,000 last year in his oil field job. These are people with 5 children, 4 of which who are still living at home. (And one who is about to deploy to Iraq in service of his country)
These are not people of privilege.
Sarah didn't get the purchase of a mansion subsidized by a felon (Tony Rezko) convicted of influence peddling.
She was the darkest of all dark horses.
What you are seeing here is a reflection of her moral system.
Really? Where? I didn't even know that she had recently had a child, much less one with Downs, until Winex brought it up over here. So given that he is the one who said that giving birth to the child was the "strongest statement about her values" I assume that you mean to direct the following comment to Winex:
If you were looking for the person who politicized it, again, blame Winex, as he used for a compare and contrast as to Obama. In fact, I look forward to Republicans not discussing it all at the convention next week or afterward - but I won't hold my breath. I think many of them will engage in the same behavior as Winex.
Did I object? Where? Did I say it bothered me? Where?
Tropper you forgot to add. Child Number 5. At age 44.
As a Creationist.
She is every modern womans worst enemy. She would help overturn
Roe v Wade. Women would need to go to Mexico and Canada for a legal abortion.
Thats if this woman was able to influence chnge in the Supreme Court by some chain of events.
irvine123_IHB
New member
Trooper said:
Republicans are not all evil....and demos are not all correct...
do you know Palin veto the legislature that would have banned the benefit extension to domestic partners? She does against Gays to "marry", but ok with domestic union.
Trooper_IHB
New member
Yes, I learned that today 123. But again, anyone thinking they actually have the right to decide whether I can marry or not.....is beyond me. It's not your world hets. ;-)
BMP 309_IHB
New member
Trooper said:
The government really should not be involved...I have many republican friends that have disagreed, but truthfully-it is not the Republican way to tell people who they can or can not marry. Way more Fascist than Rep... The answer is yes--support.
GoIllini_IHB
New member
BMP 309 said:
I've wondered why the government has any involvement in marriage. If two people feel the need to solemnize their union by a religious service, and they can find a church/mosque/temple/chapel willing to hold that service, go for it and invite me to the party. But I wouldn't expect a church to perform such a service for a gay couple if church doctrine opposes it. Find a different church. For two adults (regardless of sex, but legally able to enter contracts) who want the legal protections and obligations that are now provided by marriage, go to the county clerk and pay five bucks for a license and sign your name. Call the latter a "Civil Union" for everybody, not just those that can't get "married" because they don't meet the legal definition of a "couple". Keep the church and State separate.
irvine123_IHB
New member
Personally, I am completely supportive of any two same sex adults tie the knot, and offering them the same social and legal benefit. I just believe "marriage" has long been reserved between the opposite sex union, and any same sex union should be make legal in all states but with name other than "marriage".
BMP 309 said:
I take a somewhat different view on this issue.
I don't think gay people have a "right" to marry. And I don't think that straight people have a "right" to marry.
In my copy of the Constitution, I don't see any mention of marriage at all.
To me that means that marriage belongs under the category of things that are left up to states and individuals. The 9th and 10th amendments should be more than just symbolic parts of the Constitution.
NoWowway_IHB
New member
Good Point. Muslims are ready to dominate the political landscape. Hope that is fine with you. ;-)
NoWowway_IHB
New member
How dodgy of you.
We keep separation of church/state by refusing to let Xtians take over courthouse buildings with the ten commandments. We keep separation of church/state so that the Koran will never become "required" course work in public schools. We keep separation of church/state so that our workplaces will not require us to pray to Buddah during our lunch breaks. I bet you'd agree to two out of the three examples.
Just because some vocal group wants to hijack things to support their own superstitions, doesn't mean that it should be allowed.
Nude_IHB
New member
Not to pick nits, but marriage hasn't been "reserved" for anyone; since the fall of the Roman empire, homosexuality has been taboo and the social stigma prevented them from living their lives openly. The lack of demand for legal sanction does not imply a surrender of rights, nor does it abbrogate the responsibility of society to see that all rights are guaranteed equally. If being gay were socially acceptable throughout history then "gay" marriage would also be considered normal. Your argument assumes that homosexuals have only recently decided they wanted to have something that heterosexuals have had since time began, but I can't see why homosexuals would be any different than heterosexuals when it comes to the desire to have a publically recognized, socially accepted, and state-sanctioned relationship and I doubt that this desire is a recent evolutionary advance in homosexuals. If homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals in everything aside from sexual preference, then why wouldn't they want to be married? In essence, this is like saying that brunettes can not have as much 'fun' as blondes because having "more fun" has long been reserved for blondes.irvine123 said:
GoIllini_IHB
New member
Winex: If I've messed up the quote reference above, and these are not your words, I apologize. But they were were not my words, as it appears in your post.WINEX said:
Why separate? Because my religious views are different from the majority of my fellow Americans. I don't want to impose my views on others, and don't expect to have other's views imposed on me.
Back to the thread: I saw portions of the CNBC interview with Governor Palin, and I'm impressed. If McCain was 8 years younger, I would not hesitate to vote for the Rep ticket. It isn't his passing that would worry me as much as a decline in health that would leave him still in charge, but not capable of handling the job. I don't think he is in that condition now, but, at age 72, you've got to be realistic on the future possibilities.
lawyerliz_IHB
New member
Down's syndrome does rise with age--including the age of the
father. But I have known very young couples with down's syndrome kids,
and my bestest friend had a kid at 44 who is perfectly normal.
I would abort a down's syndrome child in a minute. And I agree that
a person's developmental blueprint is set at conception.
I also point out that something like30% of all conceptions are naturally aborted.
In many cases it is obvious that there is something seriously wrong
with the child. So I regard the failure of mother nature (or whatever
you want to call it) to abort a down's syndrome child as a failure
of the natural systems to eliminate a child, which is a less forgiving
situation is bound for extinction anyway.
If somebody choses to take care of such a child, I give them lots
of points for courage and determination, but I, personally, couldn't.
So, anyone who discovers afterwards that she has bitten off more
that she would want to chew had she only known, gets no criticism from me.
And Palin sure isn't going to personally take much care of this kid if
she is elected vice prez, and will take virtually no care of the kid if the
old man dies and she has to be prez. Easier to make such of the
decision if you have lots of money to hire supplemental care-givers.
And you get fewer kudos. I have no objection to hiring such extra
people, but as I say, if you know you can do that, well you know that
the strain on you is going to be that much less.
father. But I have known very young couples with down's syndrome kids,
and my bestest friend had a kid at 44 who is perfectly normal.
I would abort a down's syndrome child in a minute. And I agree that
a person's developmental blueprint is set at conception.
I also point out that something like30% of all conceptions are naturally aborted.
In many cases it is obvious that there is something seriously wrong
with the child. So I regard the failure of mother nature (or whatever
you want to call it) to abort a down's syndrome child as a failure
of the natural systems to eliminate a child, which is a less forgiving
situation is bound for extinction anyway.
If somebody choses to take care of such a child, I give them lots
of points for courage and determination, but I, personally, couldn't.
So, anyone who discovers afterwards that she has bitten off more
that she would want to chew had she only known, gets no criticism from me.
And Palin sure isn't going to personally take much care of this kid if
she is elected vice prez, and will take virtually no care of the kid if the
old man dies and she has to be prez. Easier to make such of the
decision if you have lots of money to hire supplemental care-givers.
And you get fewer kudos. I have no objection to hiring such extra
people, but as I say, if you know you can do that, well you know that
the strain on you is going to be that much less.
GoIllini said:
GoIllini, the quote about separation of Church and State is mine.
The reason I mention it is because there is widespread (mistaken) belief that the Constitution requires a separation of Church and State. This belief has a root in judicial legislation and is patently wrong.
There is a clause that prevents Congress from making laws that establish religion. But those laws have nothing to do with whether or not the words "under God" are part of a pledge of allegiance made in schools, nor do they have anything to do with inclusion or exclusion of any materials taught in public schools.
Simply put, the farther our government creates problems when it strays from the Constitution. And at the same time, your liberties are eroded.
With that out of the way, back to the conversation at hand.
In all honesty, I'm far more worried about what will happen if Obama is elected than what might happen if McCain is elected. The "idea" that tax cuts can be funded by confiscating money earned by corporations that are deemed to be too successful as judged by some unwritten standard sounds more like a proposal in Putin's (or Medeved's) Russia than something that could happen in America. But if this country makes a tragic mistake in November, it is possible that the road to complete socialism is unavoidable.
As for McCain's health, I can only assume that you are worried about senility. After all, nothing would prevent him from governing if he were to fall and break his hip or something. There are provisions in the Constitution that govern a transfer of power if the President were to become incapacitated. And those would apply to senility or something like a stroke occurring.
lawyerliz said:
Liz, obviously having money makes a lot of things in life easier. But it is worth pointing out that Sarah and Todd Palin are ordinary working class people. When Sarah found out that Trig would be born with Down's Syndrome (approximately September 2007), she was making $81,648 as Governor of Alaska (source http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14239 ). According to campaign finance records, Todd made something like $46,000 last year in his oil field job. These are people with 5 children, 4 of which who are still living at home. (And one who is about to deploy to Iraq in service of his country)
These are not people of privilege.
Sarah didn't get the purchase of a mansion subsidized by a felon (Tony Rezko) convicted of influence peddling.
She was the darkest of all dark horses.
What you are seeing here is a reflection of her moral system.
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
BMP 309 said:
Really? Where? I didn't even know that she had recently had a child, much less one with Downs, until Winex brought it up over here. So given that he is the one who said that giving birth to the child was the "strongest statement about her values" I assume that you mean to direct the following comment to Winex:
If you were looking for the person who politicized it, again, blame Winex, as he used for a compare and contrast as to Obama. In fact, I look forward to Republicans not discussing it all at the convention next week or afterward - but I won't hold my breath. I think many of them will engage in the same behavior as Winex.
Did I object? Where? Did I say it bothered me? Where?
bltserv_IHB
New member
Trooper said:
Tropper you forgot to add. Child Number 5. At age 44.
As a Creationist.
She is every modern womans worst enemy. She would help overturn
Roe v Wade. Women would need to go to Mexico and Canada for a legal abortion.
Thats if this woman was able to influence chnge in the Supreme Court by some chain of events.
Trooper_IHB
New member
bltsrv, I am quite aware of that. There is no way we can allow Reeps anywhere near the SCOTUS appointments.
And for all of you commenting on gay marriage, thank you. FYI everyone, no church is required to participate if they don't want to. It's written into the law.
And for all of you commenting on gay marriage, thank you. FYI everyone, no church is required to participate if they don't want to. It's written into the law.