End of the Bush Era

[pilferk]

perceived being the key word I take it.

We accept gays as full citizens just as you do,
but you cant call it marriage, thats just fuckin ridiculous.

we support a womans right to abortion, we just dont think the government ie 'me' should pay for it.
OR that a 13 year old girl should be allowed to have one without geting her parents involved.

What you liberals do is 'spin' what we say to fit some sort of hate scare tactic for votes.
And its NOT WORKING.
you will continue to lose elections because 'foundation' America is not as stupid as you think, nor do they want to be told what 'we' said..they can hear just fine.

Why not call it marriage? It's just a fucking word.  Why must we call it a "civil union", if they can have all the benefits (they don't yet, fyi, through the federal govt) of a "marriage"? 

As for your statements on abortion and the party line on it...you're wrong.  Many of the high level Repub party members want Roe V Wade overturned.   They don't JUST want to end medicare/medicaid funding of it, or restrict it.  They want abortions made illegal, again.  If you'd like, I'll point you to the vast number of articles and comments on the subject from within the Repub party.

And we'll see what happens, if the current trend continues, at the mid-term elections coming up.

[shades]

because two men or two women cant be 'married'

Do you allow anybody to just come in and change the entire meaning of a legal institution because they want to.
Something thats been that way since the beginning.
Why even get married in the first place, its 'just a word'?
Marriage vows, legal ramifications and everything it stands for is an established union.
You dont just change it because a squeaky wheel wants some grease. No pun intended.
Where does it end, boys want to join the girlscouts, girls want to join the boys club.

Two gay people can live together, rasie children, share benefits, leave estates to each other, whatever, but its not 'marriage'. 'If its just a word' then what IS the big deal.
Your asking to change a respected institution that people entered with the understanding that there was a defined meaning.

And no one is trying to overturn Roe Wade,
just clarify that there needs to be a law stating a young child needs to involve her parents with a decision that only an adult can understand the consequences vs options.

And you are overestimating your 'team' if you think the mid terms are going to speak your message across the board.

[pilferk]

because two men or two women cant be 'married'

Do you allow anybody to just come in and change the entire meaning of a legal institution because they want to.
Something thats been that way since the beginning.
Why even get married in the first place, its 'just a word'?
Marriage vows, legal ramifications and everything it stands for is an established union.
You dont just change it because a squeaky wheel wants some grease. No pun intended.
Where does it end, boys want to join the girlscouts, girls want to join the boys club.

Two gay people can live together, rasie children, share benefits, leave estates to each other, whatever, but its not 'marriage'. 'If its just a word' then what IS the big deal.
Your asking to change a respected institution that people entered with the understanding that there was a defined meaning.

And no one is trying to overturn Roe Wade,
just clarify that there needs to be a law stating a young child needs to involve her parents with a decision that only an adult can understand the consequences vs options.

And you are overestimating your 'team' if you think the mid terms are going to speak your message across the board.

And why can't 2 men or 2 women be married?? Because you say so??

Marriage, as a legal concept, wouldn't change a WHIT if men were allowed to marry men, or women were allowed to marry women.? Only the "allowable participants" would be changed.? And so what if they were.? Explain to me, seriously, what the fucking difference would be?? Who, exactly, would be harmed by it??

You? Because it would somehow "cheapen" your marriage? How?? How would it make the love and commitment you show to your spouse any more or less meaningful?? How would the legal benefits that you get from your marriage be any different?

It would simply allow people who want to be in a long term, committed relationship to enjoy the same sort of FEDERAL (as in filing joint tax returns, sharing Social Security benefits, etc) benefits that you enjoy with your wife.? I just don't see what the big deal is...unless you turn it into a religeous argument.

As for boys being in the girlscouts and girls being in the boys club...it's a different ball of wax.? There exists (the boy scouts and the girls club) a DIFFERENT, yet EQUAL, opportunity for them.? ?It's almost like the Title 9 rulings in regards to sports that allow girls, who are so inclined, to play football or wrestle on what is traditionally an all guys team if there IS no girls football or girls wrestling team.? There IS no federal equivalent to "marriage".? And, given it's just a stinking word, of what benefit is it to invest the time, energy, and resources into recreating an exact duplicate of an existing institution, under a different name, just because "the squeaky wheel", as you so elequently put it, doesn't like the existing terminology to be applied to gay people? Sorta assinine, ain't it?? All stemming from the fact some people are, for some weird reason, offended when their relationship MIGHT share a term with a gay relationship.? ? And that, right there, is the crux of the matter, with all the bullshit stripped away.

And again, to add to your "education", two gay people can absolutely NOT enjoy, right now, the same rights, in the eyes of the federal government, as two married adults.? Can not.?

As for not wanting to overturn Roe v Wade....again, some education on the subject:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-24-abortion_x.htm

Listen closely to Bush's speech to the crowd (which is an included audio link)

http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3191

There's many, many, many more articles on the subject, from a variety of sources, and quotes abound from a variety of high ranking Repub party members, all saying they want RvW overturned, or that they disagree, greatly, with the RvW ruling.?? Use google...I'm getting sort of sick of having to "educate you" in thread after thread after thread.


Now, I'm not saying they want to make abortion illegal.? They want it returned to a states rights issue, which is different.? But would still necessitate RvW being overturned.?

And I don't surmise to know WHAT the midterms will bring.?

And, once again, for posterity, the Dems are not "my team".? However, if things progress as they are now, the Repubs are either going to distance themselves HUGELY from the president and his policies OR the Dems are going to walk all over them.? In either case, IF THE CURRENT CLIMATE CONTINUES, it's going to need to be a vastly different landscape come the midterms than it is now.? So it looks like there WILL be a very different message being sent than the one that was sent during the '04 elections...at least as things stand today.

[gilld1]

Sgades, your queston was " do you allow anybody to just come in and change the entire meaning of a legal institution because they want to?"  Blacks sure wanted a change and they remade educational system and society as whole.  Were they out of line like the gays?
A few women changed our entire system.  You are full of crap.

Republican should know all baout using the scare tactic to get votes, it's been your meal ticket lately.

[pilferk]

Sgades, your queston was " do you allow anybody to just come in and change the entire meaning of a legal institution because they want to?"? Blacks sure wanted a change and they remade educational system and society as whole.? Were they out of line like the gays?
A few women changed our entire system.? You are full of crap.

Republican should know all baout using the scare tactic to get votes, it's been your meal ticket lately.

Good points!  Women's suffrage changed the entire system (as much as shades suggests marriage would change by allowing gay people to marry) in which we elect our leaders.

[Jamie]

That's exactly the reasons I just don't get Conservative views. I mean if the whole world remained Conservative throughout history with absolutely no opposition or argument. The world would still be "flat", still be the "centre of the universe", Europe would never have discovered the Americas, as a result the world would be split into several seperate entities, we would still have public execution, children would still work in coal mines, every race except for white males would be "evil", women would still be "owned by their father at birth and their husband at marriage", still wouldn't be able to vote, wouldn't get an education. There would be no rights for black people, corporal punishment (which would only have boys) would still exist in schools, landlords would still have political control over their tenants, slavery would not have been abolished, I could just keep goin if I wanted to.