Explain this one to me

[bootle]

Re: Explain this one to me

Come to think of it New York and DC both suck, what a bunch of cry-babys.

 

[CJY]

Re: Explain this one to me

I'm whining, but it's because I don't understand what the two issues CJY has brought up have to do with each other .

Relation between the two, are you kidding?<br /><br />Did you read my original post? I did not ask you to compare the two issues. I asked you to determine priorities based on W's actions. Poor attempt at diverting the issue at hand. I guess I am one who believes actions speak louder than any words ever will.<br /><br />You went on to tell us your view on gay marriage...again, off topic? Another diversionary tactic. You said very little about the security cut except to say it was a "tough" decision. How do you know how "tough" it was?<br /><br />I think I understand your continued use of diversion. It's must be tough to be critical of W when you are in his back pocket.

 

[QC]

Re: Explain this one to me

I was serious CJY. I even made an analogy that I thought explained my thoughts. Here's another: I can play on iboats and still take my job and family priorities seriously <br /><br />Sorry for going OT, it was not an attempt at "diversion", it was an opportunity to explain my views. I think it is a huge issue despite the appathy by many. Go ahead and call me homophobic as has been said on the other threads by others trying to "divert" the discussion . . .

 

[CJY]

Re: Explain this one to me

I understand your use of analogies. However, to correctly use your analogy, would you miss work or remove yourself from family time to play on iboats and then tell both parties(family and job) of your decision to lower them on your list of priorities? Your job/family is to security as iboats is to gay marriage in your analogy.<br /><br /><br />The relationship between the two is that the same person(W) has prioritized them loud and clearly. I think the nation's majority would agree that security should be a much higher priority.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Explain this one to me

Originally posted by txswinner:<br /> I believe that marriage is and must remain between a man and woman.... but I think a federal law is a real stupid idea and waste of time with all we have on our plate.

I am going to disagree with you because I agree with you.<br />(Sounds like something Kerry would say, doesn’t it? )<br /><br />I disagree with you in that I think there needs to be a fed law defining the union (i.e. marriage) between two people. What happened in Calif was that the voters approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being one man + one woman. (That’s the part where I agree with you.) But the amendment also overstepped the boundaries of Calif’s borders; it says any same-sex marriage, even if legal in the jurisdiction where the marriage was performed (i.e. another state like Mass or another country), shall not be recognized as “marriage” in Calif. This is was a HUGE mistake. It set the precedent for one state to outlaw the approved and sanctioned prerogative of the peoples in another state. This is a tremendous danger to the cohesiveness of these United States.<br /><br />Marriage has traditionally/historically been something between a man and a woman. There is absolutely nothing going on in the universe that requires that to change. Anyone that thinks diff needs to seek professional help for their personality disorder. Where we failed was in allowing a governing entity to assume the authority to determine which people will have more rights than others with respect to personal choices. We allowed the gov’t to muck around in our lives and tell us as a married couple, you have these rights, those privileges, these obligations, those ... <br /><br />No, same-sex marriage should not be allowed, but neither should same-sex unions be any less binding or any less fulfilling than a traditional marriage. The gay community needs to get their act together, get out of the face of the day to day person and call their pursuit of a same-sex unions anything else other than ‘marriage’. The populace as a whole would back it; but call it ‘marriage’ and there will forever and always be a problem.<br /><br />And fwiw, you can’t have same-sex unions (marriages) without ushering in polygamy as well. Whatever argument is used to justify a same-sex marriage will equally justify plural marriages.