а кто тебе сказал, что я буду голосовать за что-то другое?!
Но просто если на все это нет другой управы, да еще группа придурков в мантиях под кодовой кличкой Верховный суд тоже не дует куда надо - нужна поправка. И церковь тут не при чем.
Устал уже спорить с Люсей на эту тему! Сейчас она меня валенками закидает опять.
Tima, I don't even know how to respond to this. :) Our views on our Supreme Court are fundamentally the opposite of each other (I don't think of them as "pridurki v mantiyax"--also, some of them, I think, would be quite up your alley...). The church has very much to do with this--Bush's viewpoint is influenced by his religion. He cannot view this issue without leaning on his religious values.
I am rather curious why is it that you even give a fuck. I think it's a deeply personal matter, and it's not for you or me to say who can and cannot get married. :(
мое мнение, которое я многократно отстаивал в спорах с Люсей,- я, будучи сам в браке, НЕ ЖЕЛАЮ, ЧТОБ ТО, ЧТО СОБОЙ ОРГАНИЗУЮТ ОДНОПОЛЫЕ ОСОБИ, НАЗЫВАЛОСЬ ЭТИМ ЖЕ СЛОВОМ, потому что по моему мнению здравого рационального человека то, что они собой организуют, отличается от того, в чем я участвую. И именно поэтому, а не почему-то другому, я хочу, чтоб эти два понятия называли двумя разными словами. Мне наплевать на юридическую казуистику, на то, что кто-то в 17 веке под словом man ВОЗМОЖНО подразумевал что-то иное, на то, что КТО-ТО ДУМАЕТ, что не разрешая заключать браки однополым особям он нарушает их права (КАКИЕ???!!!). Для меня есть пара простых вопросов и ответов - может ли кто-то в этой "семье" назвать вторую половину мужем? Женой? Может ли эта "семья" иметь детей без внешней искусственной помощи (не по причине женской бездетности, не надо смешивать беду и постоянную реальность)? Нет?! Все, извините, для меня это не семья. Это что-то иное. Оно вполне может быть приравнено в правах к семье (я - за), но называться должно по-другому.
1. Кто хочет называться мужем, тот пусть и называется. Вам-то какое дело? Различить не можете? Так вас никто и не просит. 2. А может ли семья, в которой мужчина или женщина бесплодны, иметь детей без внешней искусственной помощи? Причём тут дети вообще -- у вас нет женатых знакомых без детей? В клятве, дающейся при свадьбе, про детей ни слова не сказано. Почему государство должно иметь право решать, кто имеет право заводить семью, а кто нет? 3. И наконец, вопрос, почему два любящих друг друга человека, живущих вместе, не имеют права сознательно создать семью? Потому что вам не нравится? Потому что вы выросли с другими убеждениями и моралью?
Зря, конечно, Буш затеял эту заваруху с поправкой, только противодействие вызывает. Но голосовала бы я все таки за Буша, он относительно честен и порядочен, что в политике редкость :)
Pardon my English. I don't vote for a "decent guy" (and Bush's "decency" is of the kind that probably wouldn't spread to someone like me). I want someone in office who will not institute particular policies, and will institute others. I CERTAINLY want someone in office who doesn't stick his sickening religiosity into every available hole.
Well, that's one way to look at it. I personally think that with Bush one knows what to expect, and he's not the worse case. For the record, I'm against the amendment. Kerry seems to me a lying bastard, we can not predict what he would do even concerning this issue. After all, we're making whole lot about nothing. Bush is making a stupid move, the amendment will never pass, that' the end of the story.
Well, this is my mother's argument. "At least we know about this one." Sorry, I can't think that way. I don't think that "znakomoe govno luchshe neznakomogo." I don't think that Kerry could be worse than Bush--or rather, thaat he could be worse FOR ME than Bush. Also, forgive me, but I think that your belief in Bush's "honesty" is a tad bit naive.
Tanya, the Constitution was written by a bunch of deeply religious Christian men, who took the Old Testament very seriously. America is still a Judeo-Christian society. Otherwise, you will get France or Holland. I don't support the concept of making amendments. However, I support this one. I don't want to raise my kids in a society with ambiguous definitions of family.
And I don't want to raise my kids (ha) in a society where a president finds it acceptable to bluntly stick religion into the constitution, despite the Establishment clause prohibition on same. Regardless of what you or I might wish, the definition of family IS changing. You cannot ban a lesbian woman from having a child, nor can you forbid motherhood to a divorcee or a single girl. And who's to tell me that a woman and a child don't make a family without a father? Single motherhood is far more acceptable now than it was thirty years ago. Bush is trying very hard to streamline the society's mentality into what he's comfortable with (gee, that was an awkward phrase)--a statistical mother-father-2.5 kids-dog-white-picket fence family. But what he's doing is absolutely unconstitutional.
As far as the founding fathers... well, it can be both ways. On the one hand, Constitution IS changing. The definition of "man" is different from what it was in 1776 (namely it includes all races and both sexes, which it did not at the time). I don't think that the founding fathers viewed Constitution as static--they were reasonable thinking men, and I absolutely cannot believe that they would not provide for some changes. On the other hand, even THEN, they put in measures respecting separation of Church and State--regardless of their own faith--for which they have my deepest respect. Not so our president. :(
First of all, Bush is not imposing anything on anyone. There is a difference between trying to influence and imposing. I believe all he did was ask the Congress to vote on the issue. And the Senate voted against it. On the other hand, all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges. All the polls consistently state that the majority of americans are against same-sex marriage.
Second of all, part of growing up is recognizing that the world is not the perfect place that we would like it to be. We are forced to choose our battles. The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians.
To your point, various lifestyles have become acceptable these days. However, they were not proven good for the kids. Yes, it is acceptable for parents to get divorced or place their sexual desires above the welfare of their children. It is even acceptable to talk about it on day-time TV.
I couldn't get over my parents' divorce until recently. Nor could my husband or my friend's wife.
Well, divorce is a necessary evil, I suppose (though I don't view it as evil at all, for personal reasons). But you are making it about personal issues, and if so, I can tell you that I LOVED the fact that my parents got divorced. I found it absolutely a blessing. What follows? Absolutely nothing. It's a personal view, you cannot craft the entire country in a particular way because you were scarred as a child (though I can bet you a body part--most likely, had your parents stayed together "for the kids", like mine did, you, too, would have something to get over. Divorce does not break up a GOOD marriage, in most cases).
As to relative importance of issues. "The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians." FOR YOU! TO YOU! I could not give a flying fuck about protecting someone else's children (not to mention that as your child's parent, you can limit her exposure to gay-ness in this society by, for one, not letting her watch the TV). I care a lot more when a fundamental right is being denied to someone. I don't like it. I don't even know what galls me about it, but I don't like it at all.
What Bush is trying to do is to influence a definition of a fundamental right, which would then officially deny that fundamental right to a group of people, thus precluding the courts from ever allowing gay marriages.
"all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges"--Well, courts have been at the forefront of the social change in this country, like it or not. They ARE the vehicle for changing the law--in cases of abortion, death penalty, miscegenation laws, etc. I don't see anything wrong with it--I think it was meant that way from the beginning.
I don't want to raise my kids in a society with ambiguous definitions of family.
1. If your kids are heterosexual, they will stay this way, don't worry about this. If your kid(s) is homosexual, you won't change that even if same-sexual marriage will be banned.
2. Why would a definition "union between two human beings" be too ambiguous?
So how far would your union of 2 human beings go? 2 men? 2 women? A man and a 6-year-old girl? Can we re-classify apes as human beings? Will the liberals allow Bush to stay married because they don't think he is a human being.
Btw, I don't view homosexuality as a disease. I have had many gay friends and I never had any problems with them. I just don't like the idea of taking one of the oldest and most sacred traditions and twisting it into something else.
I really don't understand why the gay marriage is viewed as a proverbial "slippery slope." Where does it say that gay marriage must necessarily lead to legalization of child molestation or beastiality? Neither children, nor animals are viewed as marriageable on principle because they are NOT COMPETENT HUMAN ADULTS. I fail to see how allowing gays to marry would endanger 6-year-old girls. I think it's a monster-in-the-closet argument. And as for "will the liberals allow Bush to stay married because they don't think he is a human being"--ha. ha. ha. Funny.
And if I say it's not, there's, of course, no proof one can offer. What if I say it's a secular humanist society, though giving enough due to Judeo-Christian beginnings.
And, Mrs.Paramon, ask Mr. Paramon to explain to you just exactly how Christian was Mr. Jefferson...
I don't want to raise my kids in a society with ambiguous definitions of family.
Mrs. Paramon, I'd call you a cunt were it for not my deep respect for the term that also, unfortunately, refers to that black hole that, contrary to all laws of gravity, managed to spawn forth supposedly independent beings, whose future, though, is still to be determined by the hole, with all the brains ever located therein.
In one thing, we agree, Mrs. I don't want you to raise your kids. At all.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 05:29 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 05:48 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 06:30 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 06:29 am (UTC)Но просто если на все это нет другой управы, да еще группа придурков в мантиях под кодовой кличкой Верховный суд тоже не дует куда надо - нужна поправка. И церковь тут не при чем.
Устал уже спорить с Люсей на эту тему! Сейчас она меня валенками закидает опять.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 09:49 am (UTC)I am rather curious why is it that you even give a fuck. I think it's a deeply personal matter, and it's not for you or me to say who can and cannot get married. :(
Here, throwing a broom at you.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 10:05 am (UTC)мое мнение, которое я многократно отстаивал в спорах с Люсей,- я, будучи сам в браке, НЕ ЖЕЛАЮ, ЧТОБ ТО, ЧТО СОБОЙ ОРГАНИЗУЮТ ОДНОПОЛЫЕ ОСОБИ, НАЗЫВАЛОСЬ ЭТИМ ЖЕ СЛОВОМ, потому что по моему мнению здравого рационального человека то, что они собой организуют, отличается от того, в чем я участвую. И именно поэтому, а не почему-то другому, я хочу, чтоб эти два понятия называли двумя разными словами. Мне наплевать на юридическую казуистику, на то, что кто-то в 17 веке под словом man ВОЗМОЖНО подразумевал что-то иное, на то, что КТО-ТО ДУМАЕТ, что не разрешая заключать браки однополым особям он нарушает их права (КАКИЕ???!!!). Для меня есть пара простых вопросов и ответов - может ли кто-то в этой "семье" назвать вторую половину мужем? Женой? Может ли эта "семья" иметь детей без внешней искусственной помощи (не по причине женской бездетности, не надо смешивать беду и постоянную реальность)? Нет?! Все, извините, для меня это не семья. Это что-то иное. Оно вполне может быть приравнено в правах к семье (я - за), но называться должно по-другому.
That's why I give a fuck.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 03:08 pm (UTC)2. А может ли семья, в которой мужчина или женщина бесплодны, иметь детей без внешней искусственной помощи? Причём тут дети вообще -- у вас нет женатых знакомых без детей? В клятве, дающейся при свадьбе, про детей ни слова не сказано. Почему государство должно иметь право решать, кто имеет право заводить семью, а кто нет?
3. И наконец, вопрос, почему два любящих друг друга человека, живущих вместе, не имеют права сознательно создать семью? Потому что вам не нравится? Потому что вы выросли с другими убеждениями и моралью?
Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 07:21 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 07:49 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 08:24 am (UTC)After all, we're making whole lot about nothing. Bush is making a stupid move, the amendment will never pass, that' the end of the story.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 09:31 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 08:10 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 09:36 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 09:46 am (UTC)As far as the founding fathers... well, it can be both ways. On the one hand, Constitution IS changing. The definition of "man" is different from what it was in 1776 (namely it includes all races and both sexes, which it did not at the time). I don't think that the founding fathers viewed Constitution as static--they were reasonable thinking men, and I absolutely cannot believe that they would not provide for some changes. On the other hand, even THEN, they put in measures respecting separation of Church and State--regardless of their own faith--for which they have my deepest respect. Not so our president. :(
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 10:10 am (UTC)Second of all, part of growing up is recognizing that the world is not the perfect place that we would like it to be. We are forced to choose our battles. The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians.
To your point, various lifestyles have become acceptable these days. However, they were not proven good for the kids. Yes, it is acceptable for parents to get divorced or place their sexual desires above the welfare of their children. It is even acceptable to talk about it on day-time TV.
I couldn't get over my parents' divorce until recently. Nor could my husband or my friend's wife.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 10:34 am (UTC)As to relative importance of issues. "The battle of protecting children is more important than the rights of adult gays and lesbians." FOR YOU! TO YOU! I could not give a flying fuck about protecting someone else's children (not to mention that as your child's parent, you can limit her exposure to gay-ness in this society by, for one, not letting her watch the TV). I care a lot more when a fundamental right is being denied to someone. I don't like it. I don't even know what galls me about it, but I don't like it at all.
What Bush is trying to do is to influence a definition of a fundamental right, which would then officially deny that fundamental right to a group of people, thus precluding the courts from ever allowing gay marriages.
"all of the gay activists are trying to ignore the voters by taking the matter to courts with sympathetic judges"--Well, courts have been at the forefront of the social change in this country, like it or not. They ARE the vehicle for changing the law--in cases of abortion, death penalty, miscegenation laws, etc. I don't see anything wrong with it--I think it was meant that way from the beginning.
Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:59 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 03:15 pm (UTC)2. How EXACTLY would gay marriage endanger your children?
Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 03:18 pm (UTC)1. If your kids are heterosexual, they will stay this way, don't worry about this. If your kid(s) is homosexual, you won't change that even if same-sexual marriage will be banned.
2. Why would a definition "union between two human beings" be too ambiguous?
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 11:52 pm (UTC)Btw, I don't view homosexuality as a disease. I have had many gay friends and I never had any problems with them. I just don't like the idea of taking one of the oldest and most sacred traditions and twisting it into something else.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:23 am (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:bottom line:
From:Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 03:14 pm (UTC)And if I say it's not, there's, of course, no proof one can offer. What if I say it's a secular humanist society, though
giving enough due to Judeo-Christian beginnings.
And, Mrs.Paramon, ask Mr. Paramon to explain to you just exactly how Christian was Mr. Jefferson...
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 03:18 pm (UTC)Mrs. Paramon, I'd call you a cunt were it for not my deep respect for the term that also, unfortunately, refers to that black hole that, contrary to all laws of gravity, managed to spawn forth supposedly independent beings, whose
future, though, is still to be determined by the hole, with all the brains ever located therein.
In one thing, we agree, Mrs. I don't want you to raise your kids. At all.
Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-16 05:39 pm (UTC)Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
From:Re: частично из-за этого
Date: 2004-07-15 04:16 pm (UTC)Вообще непонятно за кого голосовать... одно дргого пахучее.