Good ol' MSNBC, utterly dependable as the voice of what the Left is *really* thinking. Why is it that the Left reserves some of it's most vicious ankle-snapping for *females* that dare to disagree with them? Palin, Coulter(rape/murder fantasies), and now a who-cares beauty contest entrant who *didn't* win? There's a new Lexus for a shrink in that question somewhere. And there are none so bitter as a bitter old queen, proven so many times over. That's two Lexuses(Lexii?) now. Then there is the *profound* relevance of fake boobs to one's opinion on marraige.(???) Three Lexii? These bozos are on a roll! Oh yeah, where are the "feminists"? Har!! Hello?...hello?...hello?
I don't care about Ms. Prejeans breasts, they are her business. I don't care who paid for her implant surgery, that's her business. I also don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom nor do I care if they get married, that's their business.
IMO If Ms. Prejean and others don't like people sticking their noses in their personal business.... they only need get their noses out of other peoples personal business.
"IMO If Ms. Prejean and others don't like people sticking their noses in their personal business.... they only need get their noses out of other peoples personal business."
Damn! I thought she was ask a question on national TV and was responding by giving her answer and her opinion to that question...I guess that makes it alright in the leftist world to attack her personally and with such hate and venom? Verbally assault her today...who knows, in the future maybe you can burn people at the stake that don't see you views as you see them....or possibly "really" torture them first to see if you can persuade them to "your" way of thinking! Seems the left has always had a knack for doing just that....but what's a few tens of millions dead especially when they couldn't get their minds right!
The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.....Aneurin Bevan
You are right when she was asked a question she had right to give her opinion , but when she put her body on display in a pageant she should have expected comments either positive or negative about her body. It's all part of the game that she decided to plau.
I guess Sandee liked the part where the Village Voice "reporter" mentioned that she had cut off her penis and shaved her Adam's Apple, just more liberal snobbery.
Ms. Prejean doesn't need to lie, she and everyone else only need to understand that in a Country that extols "freedom for all" .... if two consenting adults should want to be legally married it is none of her business.
Ms. Prejean did not try to take anything away from anybody. She was asked a question and gave an opinion.
On the other hand, she may have grounds for a lawsuit against Shanna Moakler and the Miss USA organization. By releasing information regarding a medical procedure, if their names are not on Ms. Prejean's HIPA consent form, she may be able to take legal action against them.
""freedom for all" .... if two consenting adults should want to be legally married it is none of her business."
I don't give a damn if you want to marry a frog...just as long as your marriage to a frog or a chicken or to another human of the same sex as yourself...as long as it doesn't cost me or anyone else a penny! You are free to do anything within the law...and the founding fathers added the bill of rights just to make doubly sure...but your rights cannot impose on the rights of others and for the sake of argument...cost are rights!
All that said...IF someone insulted my daughter or sister or anyone in my family the way she's been insulted there would be the use of another law Newton's Third Law...I'm sure if it were imposed there would be less insults and lies....words have meanings and meanings have repercussions that are all a part of "Lessons In Life".
The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.....Aneurin Bevan
You are right when she was asked a question she had right to give her opinion , but when she put her body on display in a pageant she should have expected comments either positive or negative about her body. It's all part of the game that she decided to plau.
I see, so you do consider it national news to report that "second-place in a beauty contest has fake boobs!"?
Ms. Prejean doesn't need to lie, she and everyone else only need to understand that in a Country that extols "freedom for all" .... if two consenting adults should want to be legally married it is none of her business.
Ms. Prejean holds the same opinion as that of the majority of the citizenry in this country, the voters of California, and the current President. Is that enough "everyone else"? "Look dear, everyone in the band is out of step except our Johnny!". pffttt....
My wife asked the sensible question: If performance enhancing drugs are wrong for athletic competitions, then why are presentation enhancing plastic implants ok for beauty pageants?
The Idea is the same, one should win of lose with what God gave them and what they made of it, not what Medicine could add.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
By releasing information regarding a medical procedure, if their names are not on Ms. Prejean's HIPA consent form, she may be able to take legal action against them.
Didn't they PAY for her "procedure" ? That gives them the right to all of her medical records concerning the procedure....just like an insurance company would have.
This message has been edited by pphhrogg on May 3, 2009 4:03 PM
Ms. Prejean doesn't need to lie, she and everyone else only need to understand that in a Country that extols "freedom for all" .... if two consenting adults should want to be legally married it is none of her business.
***************
only if her tax money goes to "benefits" bestowed on "married people"
i have no problem with them calling themselves married
hell, you can marry a tree....who cares...
what the lib eral community is asking(demanding) is that the rest of society call them married too.....
that's different than just calling themselves married and having a ceremony with a witch doctor presiding and shaking a chichen's foot at their "matrimony"
I don't give a damn if you want to marry a frog...just as long as your marriage to a frog or a chicken or to another human of the same sex as yourself...as long as it doesn't cost me or anyone else a penny! You are free to do anything within the law...and the founding fathers added the bill of rights just to make doubly sure...but your rights cannot impose on the rights of others and for the sake of argument...cost are rights!
So far so good with skippy, until we come to the proposition: "costs are rights" is that meant to be read as: "your exercise of your rights should impose no special costs on anyone else? or "the cost of you exercising your rights should be borne by society as a whole"?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Ms. Prejean doesn't need to lie, she and everyone else only need to understand that in a Country that extols "freedom for all" .... if two consenting adults should want to be legally married it is none of her business.
Ms. Prejean holds the same opinion as that of the majority of the citizenry in this country, the voters of California, and the current President. Is that enough "everyone else"? "Look dear, everyone in the band is out of step except our Johnny!". pffttt....
gus.
ONE MORE TIME: she and everyone else... including GUS... only need to understand that in a Country that extols "freedom for all" .... if two consenting adults should want to be legally married it is none of her ..... nor Gus's..... business. You see Gus, it has nothing to do with religion.... nothing to do with what the majority of people "think" or "feel" about same sex marriage. It has to do with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
liberty: 1: the quality or state of being free:a: the power to do as one pleasesb: freedom from physical restraintc: freedom from arbitrary or despotic controld: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privilegese: the power of choice
Including the freedom to marry whom ever you choose to marry as in various social privileges.
You can extol freedom for all until your head explodes, but until you move beyond simplistic bromides, it's meaningless. Clearly the nation doesn't embody unrestricted "freedom", for absolutely "all". So grow up...
Including the freedom to marry whom ever you choose to marry as in various social privileges.
No, not "including"! Obviously, if one opens their eyes, any number of traditional indicators have shown that this is *not* "the will of the People". So you can stomp your little feet, and demand your head off, and that isn't going to change *reality*! Sorry...
So if the "will of the people" decided they didn't like your cigarette smoke and thought you should stop smoking, guess you should just conform, eh?
In a word, yes. I honor the laws regarding smoking, and I honor the property rights of business owners to regulate their establishments. Outside of these restrictions, smoking is still a perfectly legal activity. So since we honor other "alternative" lifestyles, meaning outside the "norm", why don't we do the same with smokers? Where are the "smokers bars"? Where are the "smokers restaurants"? If gays were as restricted as smokers, they would all be dead from tantrums!
ONE MORE TIME: she and everyone else... including GUS... only need to understand that in a Country that extols "freedom for all" .... if two consenting adults should want to be legally married it is none of her ..... nor Gus's..... business. You see Gus, it has nothing to do with religion.... nothing to do with what the majority of people "think" or "feel" about same sex marriage. It has to do with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
liberty: 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
Including the freedom to marry whom ever you choose to marry as in various social privileges.
*****************
again, no one !!NO ONE!!!
is saying that gay people are not free to marry
they are free to call themselves married if they want....
what they are not free to do is force the rest of their community to stand and cheer and agree that what they call marriage is what the rest of the community calls marriage
you can declare red to be forever blue and walk around calling your pants red-jeans worn under a red sky if you want...you are free to do that all day long...what you are not free to do is to force everyone else to call red blue...the rest of society will decide for themselves what we call things in our society and which things we recognize as legitimate ...like the stop sign you place in your yard....until we as a society decide we should necessarily stop there....we are not under any obligation to stop at your sign
IMO If Ms. Prejean and others don't like people sticking their noses in their personal business.... they only need get their noses out of other peoples personal business.
Then maybe the asshole should not have brought that into the pageant and asked her the question....sheesh!?!
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
Ms. Prejean doesn't need to lie, she and everyone else only need to understand that in a Country that extols "freedom for all" .... if two consenting adults should want to be legally married it is none of her business.
Yet you refuse to understand she is entitled to her opinion (especially when asked) without attack. Does "freedom for all" preclude those who disagree with you?
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
Yet you refuse to understand she is entitled to her opinion (especially when asked) without attack. Does "freedom for all" preclude those who disagree with you?
She is entitled to her opinion, but she is not guaranteed any protection from whatever reaction her opinion happens to cause.
again, no one !!NO ONE!!! is saying that gay people are not free to marry
Sorry to be the one to point out the obvious to you but there are many states in which same sex couples are NOT allowed to marry. And I ask you, why not let two consenting adults marry, legally just like other adult citizens?
they are free to call themselves married if they want.... what they are not free to do is force the rest of their community to stand and cheer and agree that what they call marriage is what the rest of the community calls marriage
Great... then why do away with slavery? Slaves were free to call themselves anything they wanted... they may have chosen to call themselves "free" but why should the rest of society be forced to stand and cheer and agree that what slaves call "free" is what the rest of the community calls free?
Sorry to be the one to point out the obvious to you but there are many states in which same sex couples are NOT allowed to marry.
they can marry in those states
they just can't get the state to recognize their "marriage"
they can go to a minister and get married....no one is stopping them...the state won't prevent it....in any state...
they just won't be recognized by the community...
they can still call themselves married all day every day
Great... then why do away with slavery? Slaves were free to call themselves anything they wanted... they may have chosen to call themselves "free" but why should the rest of society be forced to stand and cheer and agree that what slaves call "free" is what the rest of the community calls free?
***************
slavery involves forcing someone to give productive capacity involuntarily and requires others to participate (slave master)...that is the definition we (community ) agreed on .you can call soaping your private parts "slavery " if you want...the rest of the community will not prevent that...but it will prevent their own definition of slavery
with marriage...no one in the community has to participate but you...you can get married to a tree
no one else has to be there.....the definition for you can be whatever you want ....the rest of the community has not agreed to that definition...and does not have to recognize it as you see it
The real question isn't about whether they can get married but whether that marriage is legal and binding, whether it will be licensed and recognized by the government, and whether it will be transportable throughout the entire nation (and the world eventually). And it's about all the rights and obligations that go with that government recognition. They want it to be exactly what hetero couples have, including in name.
The real question isn't about whether they can get married but whether that marriage is legal and binding, whether it will be licensed and recognized by the government, and whether it will be transportable throughout the entire nation (and the world eventually). And it's about all the rights and obligations that go with that government recognition. They want it to be exactly what hetero couples have, including in name.
The current President, the voters of California, given an opportunity, and the vast majority of the general citizenry in poll after poll have said no, we don't think so. Which part of that is so difficult to process? And what possible "progress" can come from the brutal public savaging of a beauty contestant for doing nothing more than giving an honest answer to a direct question? Who dresses these bitter, crazy bastards in the morning? Their "partners"?
My wife asked the sensible question: If performance enhancing drugs are wrong for athletic competitions, then why are presentation enhancing plastic implants ok for beauty pageants?
My answer is that the two of you are probably made for each other. Now go ahead and curse me for that assumption.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
Non responsive to the question Susan. Are you ok with athletes using drugs to drag more out of their bodies than God put in? Why should beauty be in the bag of saline or silicone instead of in the physical joy of the presenter?
As for suited. Well we've passed 37 and are enjoying year 38. May you know the same stability.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
This message has been edited by j2saret on May 5, 2009 8:20 PM
So, indi if marriage is such a desired state and with many advantages, why haven't you and your girl friend taken the plunge?
I didn't make any such claim about marriage, in my opinion marriage has some advantages and some disadvantages. The desirability of marriage depends on the individuals involved and how those advantages outweigh the disadvantages. While I don't see how your question to me is pertinent to the question of why gays want the right to marriage my answer to you about why my girlfriend and I haven't married is simple, we are happy with our relationship as it is. I have been married once before and that was enough for me, she has several marriages behind her, the last resulting in leaving her a widow, and going on what she has told me that has been enough for her. Neither of us see any advantage to marriage that we feel outweighs the disadvantages.
The current President, the voters of California, given an opportunity, and the vast majority of the general citizenry in poll after poll have said no, we don't think so. Which part of that is so difficult to process? And what possible "progress" can come from the brutal public savaging of a beauty contestant for doing nothing more than giving an honest answer to a direct question? Who dresses these bitter, crazy bastards in the morning? Their "partners"?
What do any of those question have to do with what I wrote? Go look for a fight with someone that gives a shit about your questions. My own opinion of ms california is that people are making way too much of a big deal about it, she lost and now she's whining because one of the judges was mean to her, they all need to get over it. The judge was out of line (probably shouldn't have been a judge for that type of contest anyway, in my opinion), the whining is over the top, and the whole ordeal is ridiculous.
The current President, the voters of California, given an opportunity, and the vast majority of the general citizenry in poll after poll have said no, we don't think so. Which part of that is so difficult to process? And what possible "progress" can come from the brutal public savaging of a beauty contestant for doing nothing more than giving an honest answer to a direct question? Who dresses these bitter, crazy bastards in the morning? Their "partners"?
What do any of those question have to do with what I wrote? Go look for a fight with someone that gives a shit about your questions. My own opinion of ms california is that people are making way too much of a big deal about it, she lost and now she's whining because one of the judges was mean to her, they all need to get over it. The judge was out of line (probably shouldn't have been a judge for that type of contest anyway, in my opinion), the whining is over the top, and the whole ordeal is ridiculous.
You wrote this: "And it's about all the rights and obligations that go with that government recognition. They want it to be exactly what hetero couples have, including in name." And I answered it. What else?
It wasn't a question, gus, what they want is what they want, that is despite what you or I or anyone else thinks. You're wasting your time telling me what the people of california or the polls say not only don't I care but I don't even matter.
It wasn't a question, gus, what they want is what they want, that is despite what you or I or anyone else thinks. You're wasting your time telling me what the people of california or the polls say not only don't I care but I don't even matter.
^^^^^^
It wasn't a question, gus, what they want is what they want, that is despite what you or I or anyone else thinks.
***********
what libertarians want is a retail sales tax
what pedophiles want is freedom to rape children
what environmentalists want is socialism
what liberals want is re-distribution of wealth
people don't always get what they want (right or wrong)
there is already equal protection under the law
and the majority of people and their representatives don't want to call gay civil unions "marriage"
but gay political lobbies are trying to force it on America by making the changing of a word ...a civil rights issue...(my question is why is "civil union"- and adjusting the law to fit that rights and benefits /privileges difference -not enough?)
people don't always get what they want (right or wrong)
Exactly!!
Perfect then, we can leave things the hell alone. The howling petulant gays can stuff a sock in it(no pun), and the God Bubbas can get back to their burgers and ball games. Sounds like a plan...
Even though my statement to Indi was off topic of this thread. The question was legit, being unmarried and living together should be given the same rights and priviledges as those that have marital rights and priviledges. If homosexuals, friends, lovers, partners, individuals really wanted supposed equal rights, thats what they really should be advocating.
The question was legit, being unmarried and living together should be given the same rights and priviledges as those that have marital rights and priviledges. If homosexuals, friends, lovers, partners, individuals really wanted supposed equal rights, thats what they really should be advocating.
Well, that's essentially what I've been arguing for years. Government should not be in the "marriage" business at all. Attach any and all legal status, rights and responsibilies to "civil unions" which are issued equally and without prejudice to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Marriage would be the province of the church or nonreligious institution of your choice, and have no legal standing whatsoever.
Even though my statement to Indi was off topic of this thread. The question was legit, being unmarried and living together should be given the same rights and priviledges as those that have marital rights and priviledges. If homosexuals, friends, lovers, partners, individuals really wanted supposed equal rights, thats what they really should be advocating.
I do not want my relationship with my girlfriend treated like a marriage, if that is what I wanted I would get married. The question is not legit because being unmarried and living together as a hetero-sexual couple is our choice where being unmarried and living together is the only choice that gay couples are given, my girlfriend and I chose our lifestyle but it is forced upon gays, we accept by choice that there are limitations while gays are forced by sexual orientation to accept those limitations with no choice.
Well, that's essentially what I've been arguing for years. Government should not be in the "marriage" business at all. Attach any and all legal status, rights and responsibilies to "civil unions" which are issued equally and without prejudice to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Marriage would be the province of the church or nonreligious institution of your choice, and have no legal standing whatsoever.
Although I disagree with your environmentalists want socialism---another wingnut lie, they just want you to stop shitting where they live.
And that Liberals want to redistribute wealth----not so simple they want a check on the amassing of wealth and property to the degree that leads back to feudalism.
I agree 100 percent that the government should recognize unions and the church sanctify marriage.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
And that Liberals want to redistribute wealth----not so simple they want a check on the amassing of wealth and property to the degree that leads back to feudalism.
Pffttt. You can't have feudalism without a class society, general, and only Liberals still believe in one. And wealth is not a zero-sum equation. If I dig up a rock, and go sell it, I have done so at the expense of no one else. Sorry, but you *still* can't be King.
I see you take no notice of the general movement of wealth to the upper third of the upper class during the Reagn to Bush looting and destruction of America. Putting your head in the sand does not keep events from happening gus. Bishop Berkeley was refuted long ago.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
I see you take no notice of the general movement of wealth to the upper third of the upper class during the Reagn to Bush looting and destruction of America. Putting your head in the sand does not keep events from happening gus. Bishop Berkeley was refuted long ago.
No, I don't. Tracking the movements of wealth is a particular obsession peculiar to the class-envious Left. If anyone is picking my pocket, or "oppressing me under the yoke of poverty", it's your beloved Uncle Sugar.
You can't have feudalism without a class society, general, and only Liberals still believe in one. And wealth is not a zero-sum equation. If I dig up a rock, and go sell it, I have done so at the expense of no one else. Sorry, but you *still* can't be King.
***********************************************
Uh, gus... you happen to be the one who believes in a Class Society.
Your "only liberals" crap is just that, crap. There are rich liberals, middle class liberals, and lower class liberals.. They are all welcome in our tent.
So, who is welcome in your tent?
[and, I don't want to be "king" ... that is some fantasy that you've dreamed up, and put in the place of honor in your stable of strawmen arguments]
No, I don't. Tracking the movements of wealth is a particular obsession peculiar to the class-envious Left. If anyone is picking my pocket, or "oppressing me under the yoke of poverty", it's your beloved Uncle Sugar.
Uh, gus... you happen to be the one who believes in a Class Society.
Nope, I'm a Populist, just not a Populist putz who thinks govt. or unions are my salvation.
Your "only liberals" crap is just that, crap. There are rich liberals, middle class liberals, and lower class liberals.. They are all welcome in our tent.
Yep, and *all* of them consider themselves enlightened, entitled, and superior, or they wouldn't be Liberals in the first place.
So, who is welcome in your tent?
I don't have one, I'm not a collectivist.
[and, I don't want to be "king" ... that is some fantasy that you've dreamed up, and put in the place of honor in your stable of strawmen arguments]
I never said you did, nor do I think you put on an old bus-driver's uniform, and conduct Wagner in front of your full-length mirror. Nor do I call you "the general".
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)