Actually it was because the boyscouts did not allow gays into their ranks and Atheists had complaints with the scout oath. That's why the ACLU didn't want the Boy Scouts allowed on military bases.

Actually it was because the boyscouts did not allow gays into their ranks and Atheists had complaints with the scout oath. That's why the ACLU didn't want the Boy Scouts allowed on military bases.


If that is true, then they really will be trying to get the soldiers off military bases next. I just thought I was making a joke. :laughing:

Like wanting Homosexual Men being scout masters, sorry but someone would blow a gasket if we had a heterosexual man supervising a girl scouts troop, I think it's appropriate to not allow Homosexual men to supervise a boy scout troop.Sorry, but I don't understand what's wrong in either case? I mean, this kind of situation happens in everyday life constantly, doesn't it?

The idea is so that you don't have someone that is possibly attracted to the children in an inappropriate manner.

But by passing the laws that someone disagrees with, calling them anti-civil liberty and evil, you are disrespecting their right to speak out against the calls, you are silencing them.If they're against the rights that are implied in the Constitution, then they are indeed anti-civil rights. This does not prevent them from speaking their mind; it simply characterizes their actions. You can continue saying whatever you like. If enough people agree with you, perhaps you can change the Constitution so that civil rights are granted by the government, not inherent in the people. I'd be against you on that one though.

How can I argue if the ACLU laugh at me and term intolerant?In whatever way you wish, save for violence. No one is required to listen to you.

In this case, I'm worried about protecting my own right, the right to criticize and the right to have my viewpoint expressed, and the right to have my viewpoint help to influence the desicions the government. Such a branding of intolerance is wrong.Sure. No one argues with that. However, the government is run by the people. If the people don't like your viewpoint, don't be disappointed when people don't support it.

(Also a clarification: I do support the ACLU's aims, somewhat. What I dislike is their attempt to claim that they are correct, and thereby making Chrisitans pretty mad.)In what other way should they be correct, then? Protecting the rights of all is necessary for a just system. It's good to remember that not all ideas are equal.



1) People must be tolerant towards other people. If they are intolerant, then those people are not free, regardless of what ideology they claim to be, regardless of whatever civil liberties they are upholading. Without tolerance, society is dead. Tolerance is the only thing that stands between open war between the Right and the Left, and we need it now, more than ever. Without tolerance, free speech cannot happen. To me, Free Speech is the most important civil right ever...Tolerance is a term used by people to excuse their actions. It's 'good' to be tolerant - of course. But not so tolerant that your rights are eliminated. Destroying a group's civil rights in the name of 'tolerance' is a disgusting perversion of the very idea of tolerance.. It seems to me that tolerance must be practiced by BOTH groups in order to work. If the majority is not tolerant they try to pass things forcing their views on others. If the minority is not tolerant they end up being a fringe group that no one likes (and thus are less effective in communicating their desires).

So, if you succed in making the minority for the view of Jae, then your view should be law and religion must change. If the majority is okay for Jae's view, then your view should be law anyway, and prehaps religion must change as well.No one is forcing religion to change, except insofar as they are no longer allowed to dictate to other people how their lives must be run. Religion can be as strict as it likes, can say what it likes, can do (for the most part) what it likes. However, its authority only exists over people who choose that religion.

Your view should be law, regardless of whatever the people say. No. We as a country do not recognize the ability of religion to dictate people's lives against their will. We decided that in 1776 and it remains enshrined in our very Constitution. If you have problems with this particular clause of the Constitution, you can argue against it if you like. However, I think you might end up as a fringe group. Good riddance, I say.

This is quite similar to fanatics of religious sects, who claim that their country should follow whatever some artibrary being or standard says, regardless of what the people want. In fact, it is some artibrary being or standard that you are using. Is that standard vaild? I don't know, but it's quite artibrary...and therefore, there needs to be some backing for that standard. That backing should be the people.I've already been over arbitrary reasons with you, SS. I'm sure I won't have to again. This is irrelevant, however, because the people chose this particular law. The people of the ENTIRE United States, by the way.

America is a democracy. The people choose. Not the ACLU. Not Falwell. And certainally not me. They must have the right to choose, to decide for themselves what is right, otherwise this turns into a tyranny. And if that tyranny is led by the ACLU or Falwell's followers, you can bet I'd be mad. It is the people who decide the law, not YOU.Indeed. So let them decide. So far, I don't see the Constitutional amendment required. Good luck with that.

It's not factual, it's opinonated. You presupposes that there are civil liberties, and that they should be protected, and that religion disagrees with your inteprertion of civil liberties, and so religion is steppping on civil liberties, and therefore, you can make that statement and therefore punch my nose.You know what I've said about the existence of rights and I will not go over it again. If you can show that religion is not infringing on the rights (both enumerated and non-enumerated in the Constitution) of people to do as they please in some cases, particularly bits about not allowing gay marriage, then do so.
It's a slur, and it's a slur that says, "Since these people are lunatics, don't listen to them. Listen to me." And it's a very cursing and evil slur, and it acts as a silencing agnet, to silence debate, and to make people agree with you. You are attacking the man, and you are attempting to stop my right to express my views.I've never said they were lunatics. If people wish to make that judgment on their own given the information and actions supplied by those groups, fine. I simply think they are infringing on the rights of others. And as far as I can tell, they are. The ACLU is protecting the rights of the people involved - and all citizens - in the process.

So that excuses people being sued or called racist because they don't agree with something. Seriously, the ACLU may have been needed decades ago but they've kinda gone off the deep end now.

So that excuses people being sued or called racist because they don't agree with something. Seriously, the ACLU may have been needed decades ago but they've kinda gone off the deep end now.Sorry, I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean. Could you explain a bit more?

The idea is so that you don't have someone that is possibly attracted to the children in an inappropriate manner.So only homosexual men have the potential to be attracted to children in an inappropriate manner?

quote=GarfieldJL]someone would blow a gasket if we had a heterosexual man supervising a girl scouts troop,[/quote]I know of at least a few girl scout troops in my home town who had heterosexual men as supervisors. Not everyone in the world is a pedophile.

True, but if well over 80% of the Media is slanted to one side, then there is a problem.Making that number up off the top of your head? And as was pointed out by Achilles, are you sure that they're all slanted liberally, or perhaps just that they don't agree with your viewpoints so they are therefore liberal?

But it didn't do that...at all. All that source did was muddy the water with falsehoods and try to spin the facts in a way to make the ACLU appear to do the things you were saying it was doing.
The ACLU either filed suit against Christian activities/organizations/people or they did not. I don't take issue with the ACLU going after very specific religious issues if they're over the line. I just want to see them applying that same standard across the board for all religions _and_ for those organizations that are violating free speech of religious organizations. I see lots of cases involving Christian groups. I see no cases where the ACLU has decided to protect the free speech rights of Christians, and I have not heard of cases where the ACLU filed suit against any organizations of any other religion except Judaism.

So an hour of my time went into (hopefully) setting the record straight because you made the choice to use a blantantly anti-ACLU source.
Well, it's kind of hard to find a source that's 'only a little bit anti-ACLU'. It's about as easy as finding a source that's just 'kinda in favor of the ACLU but otherwise generally neutral on the issue.' It's kind of like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or aren't.

I cannot speak with any degree of certainty about your intentions, but I will point out that according to Kant and the categorical imperative, attempting to intentionally decieve another person (using spun sources rather than facts to support a position perhaps) is considered unethical. And since ethics is the system of morals, one could say that using poor quality sources isn't only unethical, but immoral as well.

Of the precious few times I've ever been accused of lying, that certainly was the most...creative.

Why do you think I stated up front that it was a conservative source? I could have said nothing, but I felt it was only fair for people to know about the bias. I may make mistakes, I may not pick the best sources in the world, I may have bad days and not write at my best, but I would NEVER intentionally mislead or deceive someone. Your assumption distresses me and I'm quite hurt by it.

Exactly. And who speaks for the little guy when the voting majority is in the wrong? That was my whole point. Maybe work on going through the legislature and try to work with the voting majority?


Did you click (and read) the link or did you just look at the section I quoted? You still seems to be operating from the "only using the bases as a meeting place" sentiment from your source while ignoring all of thisI was skimming and have just now had a chance to look it over in more detail. I'd have to go back and compare the time/dates on those to sort through a couple things that may have a bearing on this.

On a more general note on perceptions, not specifically the base issue--why go after the Boy Scouts, though? Why try to bleed a decent organization of badly needed funds by forcing them to pay lawyers instead of putting it into programs that benefit the boys? It just looks for all the world like the ACLU is a big bully picking on the little kids. And I understand the legal issues they're concerned about, but the image they're creating is 'We're the ACLU, if you so much as breathe the word 'God' or 'Christian' we're going to slap a lawsuit on you so hard your head will spin, regardless of if you're saying it in an entirely legal context. And we'll go after you because you might not have the resources to fight it, so we can force you to give up and do it our way, and that's as good as a court win to us." That may not be what they think they're actually _doing_, and if it's not, then they need to do a much better job of explaining themselves, because their PR sucks on this issue.


This diatribe is largely a red herring, Jae. You used a source that was blantantly conservative and had a blatantly conservative spin. It is an unfortanately reality that the "if not conservative than automatically liberal" doctrine appears to be so prevalent amongst conservatives.

I view sourcing on a continuum--it's not 'not conservative so automatically liberal' or 'not liberal so automatically conservative'. There's a huge range.

Perhaps you could try a non-biased source that has facts and/or both sides of an issue. Yes, you have to dig a little for them and sometimes you can't find one (aforementioned case 4 for example). This is such a polarized issue that it's going to be extremely difficult to find an unbiased source, and you are likely aware of that just as much as I am.

Pretty soon no one listens because your cause is the one known as those "lying-cheating guys" (not you specifically, your sources). :¬:
Not sure what I'm supposed to think of that in light of the comments above.

I don't know how one convinces themselves that this is journalism while not simultaneously conceding to let others do their thinking for them. This is general statement and is not necessarily directed at you specifically. I didn't necessarily view those as journalism. They don't claim to try to disseminate news in a neutral manner.

As for the general nature of liberal sources, all I can tell you is that I don't use them. I don't doubt for a second that you won't disagree, but before you do I'll draw your attention once more to the "not conservative = liberal" doctrine that I mentioned earlier. I do so to point out that it could be you view my sources as "liberal" because they don't agree with you viewpoints, not because they actually are.See comments above on the conservative-liberal continuum.

Again, I think you missed my point.
You say, "rushing in to defend child molestors" while what I said was "rushing in to defend free speech". Important distinction Jae.I am aware of that artificial distinction. There are plenty of places to defend free speech that don't involve defending monsters in the process.

Furthermore, I can only assume that you didn't take the time to click the link (or visit the ACLU site yourself at another time)
Did go to the ACLU site to see their opinion on it since I wanted to see how they spun it. I think it's a cop-out excuse.


I'm a member of several other forums where standards for sources exist (you can get banned for repeatedly posting without citing sources, etc). No one is asking the moderators to chase down every source. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to click on a link and recognize bias (if it is present). This is even easier if you set expectations ahead of time (you're less likely to have to chase something down if you can automatically see that it doesn't comply with the standards in the first place). So "Never legislate what you can't enforce" doesn't hold water for several reasons. If this is something that the moderating staff isn't interested in taking on that's one thing, and I'll have to live with that, but calling it impossible just isn't true.

What kind of forums are these? Adult forums dedicated to debate or research, history or philosophy? If so, I'd expect a different kind of standard than a Star Wars gaming forum. By 'can't' please take into account that our moderating time is limited--unable can mean 'unable to spend the required time' just as much as any other kind of 'unable'. I'd prefer to limit any accusations of 'conservative mod abuse' or 'liberal mod abuse', which I see easily happening, and I sure don't want to ban a teenager for not citing a source. However, I'll certainly present your request in the moderator forum.

If they're against the rights that are implied in the Constitution, then they are indeed anti-civil rights. This does not prevent them from speaking their mind; it simply characterizes their actions. You can continue saying whatever you like. If enough people agree with you, perhaps you can change the Constitution so that civil rights are granted by the government, not inherent in the people. I'd be against you on that one though.

The Consitution does not protect any right to marriage. It does protect the right to an abortion.

The right to happiness is inscribed in the Declaration of Indepedence, not in the Consitution. Anything the Consitution did not give power to the federal government over belong to the states to decide.

The Consitution is silent on the matter of what you say is correct. It is up to the people...

Sure. No one argues with that. However, the government is run by the people. If the people don't like your viewpoint, don't be disappointed when people don't support it.

Sounds a bit ironic when you realize that there is a lot of homophobia that would easily help protect my viewpoint. And, of course, this also means that if people disagree with your viewpoint, then don't be disappointed when people don't support it. It works both ways.


In what other way should they be correct, then? Protecting the rights of all is necessary for a just system. It's good to remember that not all ideas are equal.

Not all ideas are equal? I disagree.

Justice: treating like cases alike. What is a like case? What is an unlike case? If the case of a man and man marrying the same as the case of a man and a woman marrying?

Tolerance is a term used by people to excuse their actions. It's 'good' to be tolerant - of course. But not so tolerant that your rights are eliminated. Destroying a group's civil rights in the name of 'tolerance' is a disgusting perversion of the very idea of tolerance.. It seems to me that tolerance must be practiced by BOTH groups in order to work. If the majority is not tolerant they try to pass things forcing their views on others. If the minority is not tolerant they end up being a fringe group that no one likes (and thus are less effective in communicating their desires).

So are we left with a society where both the majority and the minority are intolerant? This destroys my faith within society.

And indeed, I do agree, once more, that gays should have the right to get married. However, I disagree with people who do say that because it seems intolerant to other people, by suppressing their viewpoints and calling them wrong. I want to be tolerant to all sides, I don't want to be tolerant to one group while at the same time be intolerant to another group. We need tolerance for everything, EVERY idea, otherwise society won't function.

No one is forcing religion to change, except insofar as they are no longer allowed to dictate to other people how their lives must be run. Religion can be as strict as it likes, can say what it likes, can do (for the most part). However, its authority only exists over people who choose that religion.

It's not about religion however. It's about viewpoints. The viewpoint Jae has is that gay marriage should not be allowed. Now, this viewpoint may have some religious arguments, but I am sure there is some secular arguments as well. It is this viewpoint that you are all saying is wrong, and it is a viewpoint that Jae does not want to drop.

No. We as a country do not recognize the ability of religion to dictate people's lives against their will. We decided that in 1776 and it remains enshrined in our very Constitution. If you have problems with this particular clause of the Constitution, you can argue against it if you like. However, I think you might end up as a fringe group. Good riddance, I say.

Incorrect. In 1776, there were few openly gay people in America. Why? Because there were lots of homophobia all over the world. Even in the 1890's, Wilde, in Great Britian, writer of The Portriat of Dorain Grey was sent to a labor camp...because he was a homosexual.

Even in Washigiton, D.C., the capital of the United States of America, there is a ban on kites that is still in existence. Why? Kites are bad, since they make people have fun and being unnatural, a religious law quite similar to the law that bans Kites in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is not enforced today, but it is there to show you that in fact, America followed had some aspects of religion, and it was not deeply secularized and insulated.

Religion plays no role in society, but it is the viewpoints that religion backs that does. Hostile views towards gay marriage has been present in 1776, which I suspect all the men who signed the Declartion of Indepedence believed in. Back then, people believed that gay marriage was wrong. Why put it in the Consitution after all, since nobody would ever do something like this in the near future?

It is now that we have this discussion about civil liberties for gay people, as well as other important issues. Back then, everyone probraly had the same viewpoints as Jae, who was semi-religilous, but focused more on secular affairs as well. So, I don't think they were actually thinking about gay marriage. This is an idea that has came up rather recently.

I've already been over arbitrary reasons with you, SS. I'm sure I won't have to again. This is irrelevant, however, because the people chose this particular law. The people of the ENTIRE United States, by the way.

The people of the ENTIRE United States, in 1776, would object to women's rights, ending of slavery, prohibiation, anti-prohibition, limits on wages, and ban on poll taxes. Even in that period, the people of the entire United States did not even get the chance to vote, only those who had property. The people who were voting in 1776 would surely object to the enfransching of all free white men (this was done on a state level with the presidental elections, and later, they started to get people to elect Senators as well), then later all free black men, and then all women...but they happened today. Amendments were needed to get the US in line with what Americans want today. It is a fluid documenation that sometimes, the people living under it want to change and modify because they see some faults.

Actually, religious people don't need to change the Consitution, since they can circle their ways around, by passing amendments in the states and figuring their own ways to solve the crisis. It's up to you to change the Consitution to fit your own views. I'd back you and support you in that struggle. I agree with your reasons, however aribtray. Let get this to a vote, get it passed, and end this cultural war once and for all. But until then, you're the ones living under their laws.

Indeed. So let them decide. So far, I don't see the Constitutional amendment required. Good luck with that.

But what if they pick 'wrong'?

You know what I've said about the existence of rights and I will not go over it again. If you can show that religion is not infringing on the rights (both enumerated and non-enumerated in the Constitution) of people to do as they please in some cases, particularly bits about not allowing gay marriage, then do so.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Since gay marriage, or even marriage at all, is not defined in the US Consitution, it is the matter of the states to decide. Also, check here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This now applies to the states as well, thanks to the 14th Amendment...

Note however that it never says that Congress should not pass any laws that happens to concide with and enforce religious teachings. That is why we got that kite ban in Washigtion, D.C. That's also why we got blue laws on the books as well that mandates that there must be days off from school, as well as bans of prositution. If a state bans gay marriage, that is, in no way, endorsing Chrisitanty. It is likely to be banning gay marriage for purely secular reasons (it's tradition).

I've never said they were lunatics. If people wish to make that judgment on their own given the information and actions supplied by those groups, fine. I simply think they are infringing on the rights of others. And as far as I can tell, they are. The ACLU is protecting the rights of the people involved - and all citizens - in the process.

I think I would be better off if the ACLU said that they were protecting the rights of people who had their rights being attacked. That, I can understand, due to the fact that gay people are discriminated against, and they are cursed upon, etc. Instead, however, they call to protect the rights of everyone, which means that the rights of one person (or even an entire population) will be severly curtailed.

And I am sorry for my outburst about "lunatics". I think I agree with Achilles when it is the usually "implied" messages associated with the spoken statements are very terrible, but maybe people really seriously do not imply it. I'm merely disappointed in what the ACLU is doing.

Using 'kites' in this manner is derogatory. Please use the appropriate terms. Thanks.

Using 'kites' in this manner is derogatory. Please use the appropriate terms. Thanks.

Uh. Jae. By kites, I mean ACTUAL kites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite). Like the flying ones, who fly in the air and have pretty things. I really didn't mean the other meaning for kites.

Here's the wiki definition for kite, just hopefully so that people don't misunderstand what I say:

A kite is a heavier-than-air, flying tethered man-made object. The necessary lift that makes the kite fly is generated when airflow over and under the kite creates low pressure above the kite and high pressure below it. In addition to the lift, this deflection generates horizontal drag along the direction of the wind. This drag is opposed with the tension of the one or more lines held by the operator of the kite.


Please forgive me, Jae for the misunderstanding.

Got it--that's one you may want to be extra-clear on in the future since it has taken on multiple negative meanings besides just that thing that Ben Franklin flew. --Jae

@GarfieldJL in post #40

http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?breve214How) about the two paragraphs that proceeded the section that you quoted (emphasis mine):

But his case is being continued by the American Civil Liberties Union, and if efforts to bring down the cross prevail, religious symbols at Arlington National Cemetery and Gettysburg will be in jeopardy.

That’s the view of attorneys defending Mount Soledad.Slippery-slope fallacy and blatant use of scare tactics. Why is it that no one seems to be able to mount an attack against the ACLU without resorting to fallacious thinking and sensationalism? Could it be because there is nothing to rally against and it's the only way these guys can get attention? Hmmmm...

What is the ACLU's involvement in this particular case?

The ACLU is challenging the legality of the special ballot that authorized the city to transfer the memorial to the federal government. It is also challenging the federal legislation transferring the land. Funny, I don't see anything about crosses in there. But they are continuing the case of the man that did file the original suit 17 years ago but died. All this from your own source.

-- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml)

Seems to me like they're catering to radical Islam. Wow, imagine that. The ACLU wanted some advice on how to set up guidelines for dealing with cases involving Islam, so they sought out recommendations from the American Muslim Council. Turns out the organization's leader is accused of terrorism and thrown in jail. For having contact with known terrorists? For having secretly undergone military training in an al-queda training camp? No, for this:

Alamoudi, founder and former executive director of American Muslim Council, was jailed last fall on charges that include taking money believed to come from a charity Libya has used to support terror, taking $340,000 in cash with the intent to bring it to Syria from London. It is also believed some of the money was to be taken to Saudi Arabia (or Saudi accounts) and from there to organizations of influence the United States. The charges include money-laundering, misuse of a passport and failure to report bank accounts. (Emphasis mine).

Hope this guy didn't spend any time on a waterboard for his alleged crimes.

EDIT: I just noticed that your source said "jailed last Fall" although the article was published in January. Does that mean he was thrown in jail, had his charges dropped, or went to court where he was found innocent? I don't know, but I bet you don't either. Journalistic integrity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign) at it's finest.

@everyone else: I just got the kids to bed so now I'm going to spend some quality time with Oblivion. Heh, if it does to you what it did to Jimbo, we'll see you sometime next decade. :D --Jae EDIT: Just finished the main quest. Time for a new character! Took 212 hours, FWIW :D

I'll respond to your posts tomorrow.

Thanks for reading.

Okay, I'm taking off the kid gloves now.
In Madison, Wisconsin
On Monday, October 8th 2001, liberals running the Madison Metropolitan School District voted three to two to ban schools from leading children in the Pledge of Allegiance.
They didn't just ban the Pledge, though. They also banned schools from singing the words to "The Star Spangled Banner." Instumental versions were fine, they said. But the school board made it crystal clear: using the words of America's national anthem, even during a time of war was forbidden--and that was final.

Before anybody starts off about Sean being a conservative, I'm well aware of that fact but in his book he devotes pages 297-326 just listing sources.

"We do have staff members...": Lee Sensenbrenner and Kathryn Kingsbury, "Pledge Banned in City Schools; School Board Also Nixes Anthem's Words," Capital Times (Madison, WI), October 9, 2001, p. A1.

He has quite a few things about left-wing idealogues, and several things about the ACLU, demonstrating about how they are anti-Christian and worse. Also he has sources in his book to back it up, quite a few from local newspapers. Also in this instance I mentioned he has two sources, both local papers, I just listed the first one. On several other things, he has 3 or more sources.

Okay, I'm taking off the kid gloves now.The real question would be why you were wearing them in the first place.

Maybe because this is supposed to be a friendly discussion forum rather than a strict debate forum. --Jae
Sometimes I forget that I'm not in the Senate, my apologies --ET

I think I'm either missing something or you aren't understanding the debate here. The question is if the ACLU is explicitly anti-Christian. The only things you've brought up have shown that they are more liberal than they are neo-conservative.

The idea is so that you don't have someone that is possibly attracted to the children in an inappropriate manner.
So, according to your logic, I should not allow a male school teachers into a school because there might be girls there at a teen or older age that the men might happen to find pleasing to the eye?

Pedophiles and homosexuals are different things. Please check your sources and info before you make unfounded accusations towards a group of people.

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, are all left wing.
Fox News would be considered right wing.
That means just over 80% of the national media outlets are slanted to one side.
Then we have the situations like Rather-Gate (also know as memogate).
True, but maybe they all agree because Fox News is the only one that is actually wrong? Maybe the majority of the population actually agrees that Fox News spouts complete right wing garbage, and even if the others are just as bad or worse left wing... perhaps they hold more truth or fairness that Fox ever has? Just a thought.

Ugh. Too much writing. I can't keep up, guess I'm out of watching this debate.

@ET--Or even conservative or moderate for that matter.

@True_Avery--More likely they all agree b/c the preponderance of people going into journalism identify themselves as liberals and or democrats. Doubtful that the "majority of population" views Fox as spewing right wing garbage as their ratings are much higher than their "more fair minded" competitors. Problem is that many of the news stations now seem to be merging from information to infotainment (yea, Fox is included too). Fact is, print media (also heavily liberal/lefty in it's slant) is also taking hits in circulation thanks to the internet and probably talk radio.

@ET--Or even conservative or moderate for that matter.Which is still irrelevant to the question at hand...

Pages 116-117 of Let Freedom Ring:

In late September 2001, the children of Breen Elementary School near Sacramento, California, were looking for a way to express their love of God and country and to help the families of September 11 victims. So with the help of parents and teachers they raised nearly $4,000, held a rally to honor the policemen and firemen who risked and lost their lives, and put up a sign on their school grounds that declared "God Bless America." This patriotic sign was a simple, heartfelt, and innocent expression of patriotism. But certain liberals didn't see it that way.

On October 3, 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to school officials demanding they take the sign down immediately. The ACLU called the sign a "clear violation of the California and United States constitutions, as well as the California Education Code" and communicated "a hurtful, divisive message."...


By the way Sean Hannity provided sources concerning this too.

Pages 116-117 of Let Freedom Ring:

In late September 2001, the children of Breen Elementary School near Sacramento, California, were looking for a way to express their love of God and country and to help the families of September 11 victims. So with the help of parents and teachers they raised nearly $4,000, held a rally to honor the policemen and firemen who risked and lost their lives, and put up a sign on their school grounds that declared "God Bless America." This patriotic sign was a simple, heartfelt, and innocent expression of patriotism. But certain liberals didn't see it that way.

On October 3, 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to school officials demanding they take the sign down immediately. The ACLU called the sign a "clear violation of the California and United States constitutions, as well as the California Education Code" and communicated "a hurtful, divisive message."...

By the way Sean Hannity provided sources concerning this too.

Yes, and on October 9, 2001 the ACLU said it was not going to sue the school district over this according to the Associated Press. They received a complaint, investigated and decide not to proceed with the case. This actually sounds like a case where the ACLU acted responsibly to me anyways.

Of course the decision of the ACLU not to sue may have had something to do with this:
On October the 16 of that year the House of Representatives approved a resolution 404 to 0 saying that public schools should be allowed to display patriotic messages such as “God Bless American.” Even those evil liberal democratic didn’t vote against it although 10 voted only “present.”

mimartin, they said that after the School District refused to back down and the specifics of the case went public. Otherwise the ACLU would have kept up the attack, they didn't bother to investigate, they demanded the sign be taken down and when the particulars of the case went public and the District wouldn't back down, the ACLU had to back down.

and put up a sign on their school grounds that declared "God Bless America."I am reminded of a post made in the Patriotism thread by Achiles...For instance, when I drive around and see bumper stickers that read "God bless the USA", I recognize the rest of the message which reads, "...and not your country". "God bless the world" or "God bless us all" is much more clear and uses the same number or words, so the "God bless the USA while we nuke your stupid country into the dark ages" interpretation is pretty clearly what was meant by that message (ok, I embellished a little).

In addition, the sign is a clear endorsement of religions which believe in the Judeo-Christian God displayed prominently. Trying to have it removed is not being biased against Christians, which is the point, it is simply enforcing a separation of church and state.

None of your arguments up to this point have addressed the topic of the thread, but have simply painted the picture that the ACLU is a liberal organization. Perhaps you should actually argue some of the points that have been raised, as opposed to just quoting snippets from a book. At the very least you could also copy the sources, as opposed to us taking your word for it that they exist.

With all do respect if someone has a problem with "God Bless America" that's just too bad. Seriously, it was the kids that came up with the sign, in this case you're advocating a supression of their first amendment rights.

I could go even further about how this library in Boulder, Colorado banned the American Flag, but put on display a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises. Pages 119-121 of Let Freedom Ring

@ET--you mean irrelevant like your comment about liberal vs neocon (rather than merely moderate or conservative)? Perhaps you could refrain from needless editorializing.

With all do respect if someone has a problem with "God Bless America" that's just too bad. Seriously, it was the kids that came up with the sign, in this case you're advocating a supression of their first amendment rights.Those same set of rights allow them to say that, don't they?

mimartin, they said that after the School District refused to back down and the specifics of the case went public. Otherwise the ACLU would have kept up the attack, they didn't bother to investigate, they demanded the sign be taken down and when the particulars of the case went public and the District wouldn't back down, the ACLU had to back down.

Yes and the ACLU are known for repeatedly backing down at the first sign of public pressure. Somehow I think there is more to the reason they back down than the school and Fox news standing up to them. The ACLU did not have to back down they choose to back down. I could not find any information as to why they backed down, other than Fox news claiming victory. My suspicion is it had something to do with Congress and this all happening so close to 911.

The Consitution does not protect any right to marriage. It does protect the right to an abortion.

The right to happiness is inscribed in the Declaration of Indepedence, not in the Consitution. Anything the Consitution did not give power to the federal government over belong to the states to decide.

The Consitution is silent on the matter of what you say is correct. It is up to the people...Article I, section 10, clause 1. The state may not impair the obligation of contracts. The test for violation of this clause is: "First, the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." If you can explain how denying such marriages remedies a "broad economic or social problem" go ahead. Until then, the state simply isn't allowed to do so. Of course, the people can change that if they feel like it - but they haven't so far, have they.

Sounds a bit ironic when you realize that there is a lot of homophobia that would easily help protect my viewpoint. And, of course, this also means that if people disagree with your viewpoint, then don't be disappointed when people don't support it. It works both ways.Thing is, I haven't been disappointed yet. Apparently the homophobia isn't strong enough to pass a Constitutional amendment.



Not all ideas are equal? I disagree.If someone says something that is untrue, and another says something that is true, then the latter has a greater truth-value and is more useful to me than whatever the first one cooked up. I'm not getting into what's "really" true because I have no use for that discussion.

Justice: treating like cases alike. What is a like case? What is an unlike case? If the case of a man and man marrying the same as the case of a man and a woman marrying?I don't consider someone's sexual orientation to be of interest whatever. If two men want to enter a contract between themselves, fine. Same with a man and a woman, etc. They are responsible for their own decisions. I'd say a like case is one that enters into a similar contract, and in this respect I see very little difference between M-F and M-M/F-F.

So are we left with a society where both the majority and the minority are intolerant? This destroys my faith within society.I simply don't expect people to be so tolerant (of the majority view, or whatever) that their own considerations are ignored completely.

And indeed, I do agree, once more, that gays should have the right to get married. However, I disagree with people who do say that because it seems intolerant to other people, by suppressing their viewpoints and calling them wrong. I want to be tolerant to all sides, I don't want to be tolerant to one group while at the same time be intolerant to another group. We need tolerance for everything, EVERY idea, otherwise society won't function.If they're wrong, then I have no problem calling them that. I don't see the need to be politically correct about something. Saying something false causes harm to everyone affected by it, and I consider it important that people know why I think so. You might even consider that a patriotic duty.

It's not about religion however. It's about viewpoints. The viewpoint Jae has is that gay marriage should not be allowed. Now, this viewpoint may have some religious arguments, but I am sure there is some secular arguments as well. It is this viewpoint that you are all saying is wrong, and it is a viewpoint that Jae does not want to drop.What secular arguments? I'm quite interested in these. Do explain.

Incorrect. In 1776, there were few openly gay people in America. Why? Because there were lots of homophobia all over the world. Even in the 1890's, Wilde, in Great Britian, writer of The Portriat of Dorain Grey was sent to a labor camp...because he was a homosexual.It's incorrect that the US is not supposed to control people's religious views, and that that opinion is in law?

Even in Washigiton, D.C., the capital of the United States of America, there is a ban on kites that is still in existence. Why? Kites are bad, since they make people have fun and being unnatural, a religious law quite similar to the law that bans Kites in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is not enforced today, but it is there to show you that in fact, America followed had some aspects of religion, and it was not deeply secularized and insulated.Well, I'm happy that we've evolved as a society which becomes more enlightened as time goes on.

Religion plays no role in society, but it is the viewpoints that religion backs that does. Hostile views towards gay marriage has been present in 1776, which I suspect all the men who signed the Declartion of Indepedence believed in. Back then, people believed that gay marriage was wrong. Why put it in the Consitution after all, since nobody would ever do something like this in the near future?I don't know if that was the reason. However, I am glad they didn't, since it's worked out well for people's freedoms.

It is now that we have this discussion about civil liberties for gay people, as well as other important issues. Back then, everyone probraly had the same viewpoints as Jae, who was semi-religilous, but focused more on secular affairs as well. So, I don't think they were actually thinking about gay marriage. This is an idea that has came up rather recently.Are you trying to say that, since people back then were homophobes, it's appropriate to protect that kind of discrimination today? Since people way back when owned slaves, it's appropriate to protect that ownership today? I disagree.



The people of the ENTIRE United States, in 1776, would object to women's rights, ending of slavery, prohibiation, anti-prohibition, limits on wages, and ban on poll taxes. Even in that period, the people of the entire United States did not even get the chance to vote, only those who had property. The people who were voting in 1776 would surely object to the enfransching of all free white men (this was done on a state level with the presidental elections, and later, they started to get people to elect Senators as well), then later all free black men, and then all women...but they happened today. Amendments were needed to get the US in line with what Americans want today. It is a fluid documenation that sometimes, the people living under it want to change and modify because they see some faults.And some parts haven't been modified because people recognize their value.

Actually, religious people don't need to change the Consitution, since they can circle their ways around, by passing amendments in the states and figuring their own ways to solve the crisis. It's up to you to change the Consitution to fit your own views. I'd back you and support you in that struggle. I agree with your reasons, however aribtray. Let get this to a vote, get it passed, and end this cultural war once and for all. But until then, you're the ones living under their laws.As far as I'm concerned, they are interfering with personal rights and that comes under the Constitution's current protections.

But what if they pick 'wrong'?Then I'd oppose it, just like anyone can in a democracy.

Since gay marriage, or even marriage at all, is not defined in the US Consitution, it is the matter of the states to decide. Also, check here:I would say that the states not giving equal rights to gay marriages are interfering with the fulfillment of the couple's personal contract.

Note however that it never says that Congress should not pass any laws that happens to concide with and enforce religious teachings. That is why we got that kite ban in Washigtion, D.C. That's also why we got blue laws on the books as well that mandates that there must be days off from school, as well as bans of prositution. If a state bans gay marriage, that is, in no way, endorsing Chrisitanty. It is likely to be banning gay marriage for purely secular reasons (it's tradition).If there are legitimate secular reasons for banning gay marriage, then do tell. If all you have is an appeal to "tradition", then I'm afraid you haven't got much of a case. It was traditional that many things we find immoral now were done. It's traditional for genital mutilation to be practiced in Africa. It was traditional for women to be property of their husbands. Etc, etc. I'm not buying tradition.

Yes and the ACLU are known for repeatedly backing down at the first sign of public pressure. Somehow I think there is more to the reason they back down than the school and Fox news standing up to them. The ACLU did not have to back down they choose to back down. I could not find any information as to why they backed down, other than Fox news claiming victory. My suspicion is it had something to do with Congress and this all happening so close to 911.


It had to do with it being so close to 9/11, because if they made too big of a deal over it, there would be a huge backlash against the ACLU, which is why they went skitish when it went public.

I could go even further about how this library in Denver, Colorado banned the American Flag, but put on display a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises. Pages 119-121 of Let Freedom Ring

I have not read anything about that, but I wonder if it's a public or a private library.

If public, then they have little reason to ban the American flag.

If it's private, they do whatever the hell they want.

As for ceramic penis, it seems that some Americans still cannot understand nudity for art. Then again, what do those who don't know anything about nudity in art know about art?

Sorry my bad, the initial flag being taken down issue was the Boulder Public Library in Boulder, Colorado.

Colorado Senate Democrats were responsible for:

Check out this headline: "DEMOCRATS KILL REQUIREMENT FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE."
I kid you not.
It was from the Associated Press--dateline: Denver--February 5, 2002.

Then it was followed by.

But that wasn't all. Nine days later there was more news from Denver: "FLAG-DISPLAY MEASURE KILLED."
That was a [i]Rocky Mountain News headline on February 14, 2002--a little liberal Valentine to the country. Sure enough, Colorado Democrats had killed a bill protecting the right of Coloradans to display the American flag in their workplaces and other public places.
The bill had been written in response to an incident in October, when the head of the Boulder Public Library prohibited employees from flying a 10- by 15 foot flag at one of the library's entrances...

Bleh it involved Denver but missed the bit about Boulder when I was reading back through.

What was particularly offensive about this incident was that days later the library had no qualms about displaying something a little less mainstream: a collection of "brightly colored penises attached to a clothesline."

Page 119 of Let Freedom Ring.

As for ceramic penis, it seems that some Americans still cannot understand nudity for art. Then again, what do those who don't know anything about nudity in art know about art?

I understand nudity and nudity in art. Rainbow-bright ceramic penises aren't art. They're about as kitsch as pink flamingos.


Let me clarify something--I'm not opposed to civil unions/partnerships/etc. There are a lot of situations where someone would like to be in a legal relationship with someone else, and not necessarily in a manner that includes hetero- or homosexual activities, e.g. two long-time friends who have no other family and want to have legal rights to make health-care and financial decisions as needed for each other. My mother-in-law got married to her second husband not out of love but out of friendship--she was taking care of him as a health-care aid, and he didn't have any family nearby. He married her so that she could make health and financial decisions if he wasn't able. A civil union probably would have been a better choice for them if that option had been available.

However, I think the term 'marriage' is very specific and involves a man and a woman coming together, usually to form a family unit. Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit, I think that model needs to be acknowledged and supported with sane private and gov't polices. For instance, welfare right now actually penalizes people for getting married--if you make too much as a household, you can't get welfare. Getting married often puts a couple above the threshold for aid but not necessarily out of poverty, so it sometimes makes more financial sense for them _not_ to get married. Sometimes it means someone with chronic health problems can no longer get Medicaid (US version)--if the couple makes too much money they lose the Medicaid benefits, but often times don't have enough money to afford their own insurance. Again, for them it's better financially if they _don't_ marry, or even forces them to get divorced. I think this is just crazy.

I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.

Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit

The studies I've seen actually show that children develop best in any situation where they have two parental figures instead of one, so long as the relationship between those two parental figures is a stable one. That can mean your mother and father, your aunt and uncle, the gay couple who adopted you, your godparents, your mother and her sister, or just about any other combination you can think of so long as it's a stable one.

The idea that only a man and a woman should be able to get married because of family stability is a dangerous one regardless. By the very same reasoning you're using, a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they plan on having children. Actually, scratch that: a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they have children. I guess that means infertile couples and couples who agreed to not have kids are SOL under the system you're advocating.

I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.


Are you also going to say that the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Associated Press, etc. are all making it up?


Furthermore, that's not what Jae was saying...

The studies I've seen actually show that children develop best in any situation where they have two parental figures instead of one, so long as the relationship between those two parental figures is a stable one.
I've not seen those studies so I don't have an intelligent comment. Of the studies I have seen or heard about from Jimbo who's done some research into the importance of fathers, they do _best_ with loving parents where they see people of both genders interacting appropriately with each other. Note that just because I say 'best' does not imply the others are 'bad'. Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal, but other situations may be 'good' or 'adequate', especially compared to some bad parenting situations.

The idea that only a man and a woman should be able to get married because of family stability is a dangerous one regardless. By the very same reasoning you're using, a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they plan on having children.
That's precisely why I specifically said it's not _exclusively_ that way. I'm saying the institution of marriage should be recognized and respected for the important role it plays in society, not that other things are 'bad', and that's a very important distinction.

The benefits of marriage are not exclusively limited to child-rearing. Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.

Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.

Don't you mean suffer longer? :xp:

That's precisely why I specifically said it's not _exclusively_ that way. I'm saying the institution of marriage should be recognized and respected for the important role it plays in society, not that other things are 'bad', and that's a very important distinction. Apart from child rearing, what important role are you refering to? What roles break down when the couple is not heterosexual?

The benefits of marriage are not exclusively limited to child-rearing. Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.But men and women can still get married and have those benefits if they choose. How does homosexual marriage hurt this? What if there are similar benefits to gay couples? Why should they be denied this?

I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.Easy tiger.

If you have alternate views about a source provided, please comment directly on that information (preferably with information that counters) or show with evidence why a source is untrustworthy. Comments like the above don't further the discussion any. Thank you.

Easy tiger.

If you have alternate views about a source provided, please comment directly on that information (preferably with information that counters) or show with evidence why a source is untrustworthy. Comments like the above don't further the discussion any. Thank you.

You're right. I'm better off doing myself and my panic disorder a service through judicious use of my ignore list instead. I'd advise others to do the same.

I'll add that anyone using a Fox News personality as a source of information has immediately started a conversation on the wrong foot. If the information in question is valid, then there should be another, reputable source you can cite instead. If the information isn't valid, you're just using Fox News as an excuse for being uninformed.

Actually, I've found it to be the opposite, simply because they are the only cable media source without a left-wing slant. The other media outlets would jump on them if they started spewing out rampant propaganda. Only Fox News will go after those media outlets if they start spewing propaganda, so Fox News is held to a higher standard.

All you've done is fired off blatent attacks at Sean Hannity about his credibility without anything to back it up. Whereas Sean Hannity had at least 2 sources in each thing I've mentioned.

You're right. I'm better off doing myself and my panic disorder a service through judicious use of my ignore list instead. I'd advise others to do the same.

I'll add that anyone using a Fox News personality as a source of information has immediately started a conversation on the wrong foot. If the information in question is valid, then there should be another, reputable source you can cite instead. If the information isn't valid, you're just using Fox News as an excuse for being uninformed.

Perhaps you can provide a list of "reputable" sources......or perhaps you mean anything BUT Fox is reputable by default?

Perhaps you can provide a list of "reputable" sources......or perhaps you mean anything BUT Fox is reputable by default?

I'd say that "anything but Fox" is a good start. We're talking about a news network that's made its name off of having a visible right wing bias to everything it reports.

And to GarfieldJL, I would advise you in the future to not buy into the generally anti-semitic "liberal media" conspiracy theory. You are on my ignore list, so please don't bother replying to my posts in the future.

I'd say that "anything but Fox" is a good start. We're talking about a news network that's made its name off of having a visible right wing bias to everything it reports.

And to GarfieldJL, I would advise you in the future to not buy into the generally anti-semitic "liberal media" conspiracy theory. You are on my ignore list, so please don't bother replying to my posts in the future.
You may want to be less aggressive in your posts or you may end up on the forum's ignore list.

Let me clarify something--I'm not opposed to civil unions/partnerships/etc. There are a lot of situations where someone would like to be in a legal relationship with someone else, and not necessarily in a manner that includes hetero- or homosexual activities, e.g. two long-time friends who have no other family and want to have legal rights to make health-care and financial decisions as needed for each other. My mother-in-law got married to her second husband not out of love but out of friendship--she was taking care of him as a health-care aid, and he didn't have any family nearby. He married her so that she could make health and financial decisions if he wasn't able. A civil union probably would have been a better choice for them if that option had been available.
Civil Unions and Marriage are different things. Why should same sex couples be denied the rights and privilages of opposte sex couples when all that is different about their love is the fact they have a few different physical traits?
Two of my favorite guys to be around are a couple and they have loved eachother for going over 20 years now. They consider themselves "married", but their jobs don't consider them because it is not legal. Thus, they lose out on a lot of benefits that could help them. One of them, because he argued, was fired from his job and is having a hard time finding another.

However, I think the term 'marriage' is very specific and involves a man and a woman coming together, usually to form a family unit. Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit, I think that model needs to be acknowledged and supported with sane private and gov't polices.
I've not seen those studies so I don't have an intelligent comment. Of the studies I have seen or heard about from Jimbo who's done some research into the importance of fathers, they do _best_ with loving parents where they see people of both genders interacting appropriately with each other. Note that just because I say 'best' does not imply the others are 'bad'. Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal, but other situations may be 'good' or 'adequate', especially compared to some bad parenting situations.
Please show me these studies done by legitimate doctors (Nothing against Jimbo). I know people who have same sex parents and they are just as loving and nice as other people, if not even more accepting of others lifestyes than kids with parents of the opposite sex. To my knowledge there is no proof that having a man and a woman as parents make you turn out better, as the majority of people I know have had terribly abusive parents, parents that didn't give a damn about them, and parents who even offered them drugs and alcohol.

In my personal opinion, the last thing this world really needs is mass amounts of babies. We are at over 6 billion people, 4 billion more than a little less than a hundred years ago. If people -really- want kids, then please. Please! Adopt kids who wants parents more than anything in the world instead of adding to the growing population. Orphanages are filled up, baby girls are killed everyday in China since their population is over 2 billion, and it is -almost- always better to grow up with parents (same sex or not) then to never have anybody to look up to in life as a father or mother figure.

interacting appropriately with each other.
But who is to say what is appropriate or not?

Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal
Why?

For instance, welfare right now actually penalizes people for getting married--if you make too much as a household, you can't get welfare. Getting married often puts a couple above the threshold for aid but not necessarily out of poverty, so it sometimes makes more financial sense for them _not_ to get married. Sometimes it means someone with chronic health problems can no longer get Medicaid (US version)--if the couple makes too much money they lose the Medicaid benefits, but often times don't have enough money to afford their own insurance. Again, for them it's better financially if they _don't_ marry, or even forces them to get divorced. I think this is just crazy.
I'd like to ask you a personal question. After writing that, would you go back in time and decide not to get married for financial reasons(This is assuming you are married, sorry if I am wrong)? I'm assuming you got married because you love your husband. Telling people, especially people who want nothing more than to be legally married, that they are better off because of money...

I can see your viewpoint and you have some good points, but I still have a hard time seeing the fact you don't seem to be opposed to them being together when you put so much evidence up saying that they should just live as roommates. Your opinion is good and has some good info in it and I respect it.

You may want to be less aggressive in your posts or you may end up on the forum's ignore list.

I wasn't aware that I was posting in an overly aggressive way. I'll try and tone it down.

I wasn't aware that I was posting in an overly aggressive way. I'll try and tone it down.
If I misinterpreted I'm sorry. Just seemed a little aggressive to me :P

I understand nudity and nudity in art. Rainbow-bright ceramic penises aren't art. They're about as kitsch as pink flamingos.

Why would it be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

I have a problem with this stupid argument about allowing ceramic penises and not the American flag. They shouldn't be linked at all. It's almost as if a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were inherently anti-American.

Why would it be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

I have a problem with this stupid argument about allowing ceramic penises and not the American flag. They shouldn't be linked at all. It's almost as if a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were inherently anti-American.


They were saying a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were less controversial than the American Flag in a Public Library in the United States... Excuse me but there is a problem.

Also shamelessposer, to be completely blunt I've provided evidence that the liberal bias in the mainstream media exists. I've yet to see you provide any evidence that it doesn't exist.

I'm referring the the study by UCLA, as well as the books Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity, and numerous other sources. There are ample examples of a left-wing bias in the media. Fox News is the only cable news network in the US that isn't slanted to the left which ticks off the Left-wing mainstream media, so therefore Fox ends up being held to a much higher standard than the other outlets, which is why I trust Fox News a lot more than networks like CBS (also known as Clinton Broadcasting Service), CNN (also known as Clinton News Network), New York Times, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC.

And now for my word, in my opinion the line about me being on the ignore list is an attempt to insult me and my intelligence, albiet a laughable attempt. You can attempt to try to make it sound like that you were overly agressive, but in fact you were going beyond agressive and attempting to insult someone because they had a different opinion. Now to get back on topic...

Please do not flame each other here. If you all have a problem with a post, contact one of us mods or use the report post function. Any further discussions on the ignoring thing should be done by PM because if it continues here, it will be considered flame-baiting and it will earn you a warning.

Garfield, anyone has the right not to read someone's posts, and frankly, I don't care if someone doesn't read what I have to say. It's not an insult if it's done because they recognize that they themselves are uncomfortable with reading something by someone.

shamelessposer, quit posting that you're ignoring people. You don't have to announce that--just ignore them quietly.

If you all have questions, PM me or one of the other mods. --Jae

Civil Unions and Marriage are different things. Why should same sex couples be denied the rights and privilages of opposte sex couples when all that is different about their love is the fact they have a few different physical traits?I never said deny same-sex couples (or other couple types that may not be involved sexually) legal rights. In fact, I wish they wouldn't. From a doc point of view, it's much easier on the family and staff if we don't have to deal with stupid legal crap (I hate HIPAA regs) when there's a medical emergency. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often in my field, and the gay/non-married couples I see usually are good about letting me know about the relationship so I make sure to include everyone appropriately.

but their jobs don't consider them because it is not legal. Thus, they lose out on a lot of benefits that could help them. In Cook county (Chicago, IL) civil unions and non-married couples are recognized and given the same legal benefits as married couples, and I think they're working on that for IL.


Please show me these studies done by legitimate doctors (Nothing against Jimbo). Kind of tough to find studies done by illegitimate doctors in reputable journals. I'll add it to my stack of medline searches. :) Jimbo will get me the titles of the books he's read, and I know one of them is Fatherless America.

I know people who have same sex parents and they are just as loving and nice as other people, if not even more accepting of others lifestyes than kids with parents of the opposite sex. I never said they couldn't, and was very careful to specify that.

To my knowledge there is no proof that having a man and a woman as parents make you turn out better, as the majority of people I know have had terribly abusive parents, parents that didn't give a damn about them, and parents who even offered them drugs and alcohol.
I specified loving parents. Abusive parents aren't loving. If I knew a parent was giving a child drugs and alcohol, I'd be on the phone with 911 so fast for abuse and neglect, their heads would spin.
Adopt kids who wants parents more than anything in the world instead of adding to the growing population. Orphanages are filled up, baby girls are killed everyday in China since their population is over 2 billion, and it is -almost- always better to grow up with parents (same sex or not) then to never have anybody to look up to in life as a father or mother figure.We actually looked at that. And at 20k and up, decided we couldn't afford it--we didn't have that kind of money. Orphanages in other countries have so many problems there'd be no guarantee that we'd get a healthy child, and at the time, both of us were working full-time and did not have the funds or time to be able to take on a special needs child. Frankly, with all the problems with Baby M getting taken from her adoptive parents after living with them for 3 years because the birth mother wanted her back, we didn't want to deal with that heart-wrenching possibility.

Interacting appropriately--in a loving way to each other that shows respect for each gender and teaches children how men and women should be treated. I used to think we could teach things in a gender neutral way, but after 2 kids, I've discovered that their different genetic makeups mean they really are wired differently as boys and girls. They do need to learn how to interact with the opposite gender and learn how to treat each other and what's acceptable and unacceptable treatment of themselves.


I'm assuming you got married because you love your husband. Telling people, especially people who want nothing more than to be legally married, that they are better off because of money...We got married for love, yes, but we didn't have the same issues some others have. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I'd been The I was speaking about live together a lot of the time. In fact one of my dad's good friends lives with a woman in a pretty platonic relationship, but they haven't gotten married for financial reasons (alimony I think in both their cases). I've seen more than one patient who's in a relationship with someone else, and they've told me they wanted to get married but couldn't because they'd lose their Medicaid (we talk about a lot of things in my office :) ). In fact it was one of the concerns of my sister-in-law when she was considering marriage a few years back, because she has some serious health problems that require a lot of care and medications that she couldn't afford.

I can see your viewpoint and you have some good points, but I still have a hard time seeing the fact you don't seem to be opposed to them being together when you put so much evidence up saying that they should just live as roommates. Your opinion is good and has some good info in it and I respect it.Having a civil union affords the same legal rights--I never said they shouldn't have rights.


Why would it [brightly colored ceramic penises] be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

Because it ranks right up there with brightly colored ceramic Chia Pets. It's something my kids would make, for heaven's sake. At least do something that has real artistic value. The human body is an amazing thing and deserves better than something you'd find in the picnic section of the dollar store.

I never said deny same-sex couples (or other couple types that may not be involved sexually) legal rights. In fact, I wish they wouldn't. From a doc point of view, it's much easier on the family and staff if we don't have to deal with stupid legal crap (I hate HIPAA regs) when there's a medical emergency. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often in my field, and the gay/non-married couples I see usually are good about letting me know about the relationship so I make sure to include everyone appropriately.
Hmm, that does bring up an interesting point.

In Cook county (Chicago, IL) civil unions and non-married couples are recognized and given the same legal benefits as married couples, and I think they're working on that for IL.
Thats great, only wish we had that here. Civil Unions are different from marriages here, but to what degree I'll look up and see. I know Civil Unions don't get marriage benefits from jobs and some other silly legal stuff.

Kind of tough to find studies done by illegitimate doctors in reputable journals. I'll add it to my stack of medline searches. :) Jimbo will get me the titles of the books he's read, and I know one of them is Fatherless America.
I never said they couldn't, and was very careful to specify that.
Fatherless America? I'll look that up then. Might be interesting. I think I might actually have it, but never read it.

I specified loving parents. Abusive parents aren't loving. If I knew a parent was giving a child drugs and alcohol, I'd be on the phone with 911 so fast for abuse and neglect, their heads would spin.
Good point, misread what you mean't.

We actually looked at that. And at 20k and up, decided we couldn't afford it--we didn't have that kind of money. Orphanages in other countries have so many problems there'd be no guarantee that we'd get a healthy child, and at the time, both of us were working full-time and did not have the funds or time to be able to take on a special needs child. Frankly, with all the problems with Baby M getting taken from her adoptive parents after living with them for 3 years because the birth mother wanted her back, we didn't want to deal with that heart-wrenching possibility.
Yeah, that is the rather unfortunate side of adoption. Always found it odd how adopting a child who needs a parents takes years of paperwork and thousands of dollars, but having a child yourself with no background check by the officals is perfectly legal...

Interacting appropriately--in a loving way to each other that shows respect for each gender and teaches children how men and women should be treated. I used to think we could teach things in a gender neutral way, but after 2 kids, I've discovered that their different genetic makeups mean they really are wired differently as boys and girls. They do need to learn how to interact with the opposite gender and learn how to treat each other and what's acceptable and unacceptable treatment of themselves.
Ah, gotcha. Makes sense completely, even though I'm more neutral than most people :P

We got married for love, yes, but we didn't have the same issues some others have. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I'd been The I was speaking about live together a lot of the time. In fact one of my dad's good friends lives with a woman in a pretty platonic relationship, but they haven't gotten married for financial reasons (alimony I think in both their cases). I've seen more than one patient who's in a relationship with someone else, and they've told me they wanted to get married but couldn't because they'd lose their Medicaid (we talk about a lot of things in my office :) ). In fact it was one of the concerns of my sister-in-law when she was considering marriage a few years back, because she has some serious health problems that require a lot of care and medications that she couldn't afford.
Yup, I'll agree with you that the medical stuff is a real pain. I'm more of, let everybody have the option of marriage and choose to have it or not. Nobody -has- to get married and a lot of people don't, but having the option out there for everybody is mainly what I want. Even if it was available to everybody, marriage really has no interest for me. Neither does having kids, so my personal opinion on this might be a little off.

Having a civil union affords the same legal rights--I never said they shouldn't have rights.
Maybe where you live, but not everywhere. And it's less of Civil union and more of Marriage for me. They are titles for sometimes the same thing, true, yet calling the "marriage" of another couple a civil union because it is "supposed to be male and female" seems rather absurd and possibly selfish to me. It's just a title, but the title means more to some than others. Hmmm, it's like saying (In some areas, not all) "that drink is soda!" and then turning to another can and saying "that is flavored bubbling water!". They are both soda, so why not call the second soda as well?

Anyway, sorry if I missread some of your posts. I understand what you are trying to say now... I think!

Fox News is the only cable news network in the US that isn't slanted to the left which ticks off the Left-wing mainstream media[/color]But it is very much slanted to the right, is it not? So you have an issue with organizations slanted in one direction but not the other?

Actually it wasn't slanted too far right, it was a lot closer to center than what some people would like to believe. Furthermore, Fox News has people from both sides of the Political Spectrum, also every mainstream media outlet would love for Fox to report something bogus so they could jump all over them and try to make a mockery of the network. However, when one of their own report something bogus they don't even report it.

Easy example is the memo-gate fiasco of CBS, the only cable media outlet that actually went after CBS on reporting false information (i.e. forged documents) to slander a sitting President is Fox News. NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc., all refused to acknowledge it.

Yet they all went crazy towards Fox News letting the Swift Boat Vets account their time with John Kerry, and Fox News invited Kerry on to refute it. Letting people who are whom they say they are, give accounts cannot even be compared to using fraudulent documents to slander someone. Bush could have and arguably should have, pressed charges against Dan Rather and the man that created those fraudulent documents.

When I get back the book Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg from a person I loaned it to, I'll have additional examples to further prove my point.

They were saying a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were less controversial than the American Flag in a Public Library in the United States... Excuse me but there is a problem.


In some country...it actually is. The comparison still is stupid. An art display has nothing to do with the American flag. Both can coexist peacefully and both can be separate without problem. In fact, the simple mention of the ceramic penises seems more like an attempt at making the entire thing sound more extreme to the eyes of good thinking Americans.



Because it ranks right up there with brightly colored ceramic Chia Pets. It's something my kids would make, for heaven's sake. At least do something that has real artistic value. The human body is an amazing thing and deserves better than something you'd find in the picnic section of the dollar store.

Wow, never thought there was a dollar store/sex shop somewhere in the world...

Seriously though. Still art and the brightly colored ceramic penises were obviously part of an art display. Whether you like it or not, whether you think of it as in good or poor taste, it still remains art.


Actually it wasn't slanted too far right, it was a lot closer to center than what some people would like to believe. Furthermore, Fox News has people from both sides of the Political Spectrum, also every mainstream media outlet would love for Fox to report something bogus so they could jump all over them and try to make a mockery of the network. However, when one of their own report something bogus they don't even report it.

Yeah..."commentators" from both side of the spectrum. "Journalists" too...

I have no doubt that every human has a bias, it is rather stupid however, to believe in plot theories, without serious proof. Also, every "mainstream" media outlet is out there waiting for Fox to report something bogus so they can bash it? Seriously. One of their own? An alliance of the "liberal" media? No offense, but this is either one huge joke or...well, one huge joke.

Frankly, this is hopeless. You have your mind set on it and to further things, you read and listen to media only reinforcing your belief. I doubt you even know what the word "liberal" even means. Before I get accused of being a leftist, I'm actually more center-right, but this is Canadian center-right, which probably means something like raging communist in the eyes of the "American conservatives". This discussion should never have even started...