Reply With Quote
yonivore doesn't give a about anything
yonivore doesn't give a about anything
Money doesn't provide a good education. This has been proven over and over again since Johnson't war on Poverty was started.
So Edgewood provides the same quality education as Reagan? Of course money makes a difference, but Yonivore is right about one thing, it's not just money that makes a difference, it's parental involvement in the kids education. Turn off the TV and read to your kids, talk to your kids teachers about their class progress and monitor the district training policies for teachers. It does a world of good.
Back then Kids didn't have Nintendo, or Playstation360, or Nickelodeon, or god knows what else competing for their time. Reading a good book was welcomed entertainment and edumakational at the same time. Today, the traditional skills of reading, writing and arithmetic are being replaced with Power-point, Excel, and Word. The real challenge today is adapting school-houses and training teachers to educate kids ready to compete in business in the 21st century, not the 20th. That's exactly what Bill Gates has been saying lately., our schools are churning out sub-standard students now. Where are the bright minds produced by the small schoolhouses of the early 20th century?
If it were just about receiving the benefits married couples yet, this would not be much of a controversy. That would be easy to do using something similar to Section 2 of the proposition.
The sexual activists want to use the coercive power of government to force public affirmation of gay relationships as "marriages." It's about changing the culture and destigmatizing their lifestyle, not about visitation rights and whatnot.
I imagine the religious activists are upset about Section 2. For them, it's about using the coercive power of government to stigmatize and punish sexual relationships.
My opposition to the concept of gay "marriage" comes from my belief that 1) heterosexual monogamous marriage is a highly desirable social construct, 2) it is subject to erosion in our society because the impetus for it has been partially abrogated by the welfare state, so 3) the state should avoid further social engineering with regard to the ins ution of marriage.
Don't hold back man. I get the sense you are trying to say something but are too shy to do so. We are all friends here, so go ahead.
Looks like the trendy crowd will lose this round.
Money has no conscience.I guess then, for those who don't have wills written before they pass away, it will just be too bad, so sad for those who would have otherwise inherited their property, as economic opportunists swoop in to make land claims and displace families? That sounds like excellent public policy.
It's not like we're talking about welfare or some subsidy program. I'm simply saying that if you do away with the ins ution of marriage (however it is defined) you create significant problems with things like the disposition of real and personal property. At the very least, in instances in which there are not wills, your idea will contravene the whole "less litigation" notion, since you'll be doing just the opposite in requiring people to go through litigation to resolve le and other property disputes. That sounds like a great idea.
This dog-eat-dog mentality that you appear to profess doesn't seem to account much for the real-world consequences that it creates.
Yonivore probably thinks that those silly lifeboats are a waste of money too.
Airbags?
Unneeded governmental intrusion.
Child car seats?
We can't afford the police to enforce that.
Food inspectors?
Pork barrel politicing at its worst.
Federal Aviation Administration?
Airlines can be trusted not to cut corners. I mean if people have to die before we do something that is too bad...
i don't agree with it. it saddens me, as a matter of fact.
BUT, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman wants to marry a woman, that's their choice. the law should LIMIT to 2 consenting adults though.
Does that include the Texans voting against it?ing ignorant Texas hick -kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.
Can I catch "the gay" if one of them coughs on me?
boutons calling others ignorant...that's rich...
true followers in Christ know that all sins are forgiven, except blasphemy against your own holy spirit.
now, if a couple is just lusting after each other and not loving, God help them.
but if a couple is in love, however sexually deviant society may percieve it, the may God Bless them.
contrary to popular belief, Gay society is welcome in the House of the Lord.
i do not believe that being 'straight' is a requirement for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.
We should observe what happens in Canada before we plunge headlong into redefining marriage in this country.
At the risk of nitpicking - marriage has never been "defined" before - and the opponents of gay marriage are just as guilty as the proponents at trying to define anything.
^^^are you that stupid. you mean to tell me if you were living in the 1900's you wouldnt have a clue that marriage is between a man and a woman? Please pull your self out of URANUS and come back to earth.
Find me that 1900 statute or cons utional provision and we can talk. Scott's right: the government had never defined marriage until the last 5 years or so; society and religious groups had, but government had not.
Just another for the gtownspur greatest hits collection.
If the State only sanctioned ceremonies between a man and a woman by officials certified or recognized by the State doesn't that cons ute a definition?
I understand that challenges to the tradidional definition of marriage call for a redefined or more concise definition as aberrational challenges attempt to dilute or amend that definition.
Any projections on how the vote is going on this issue?
People voted overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition. Supposedly gays getting married threatens marriage. I am married and gays getting married doesn't threaten my wife or myself or our marriage. Go figure.
There was no need to clarify marriage back then. Everyone knew it was a union between man and woman. Marriage has always been defined as marriage between man and woman. By that same pathetic logic, we now have women thinking they're men and vice versa. DO we need a law to explain that a man has a penis and a woman a vagina???
just another collection of greatest hot air by scott.
Thanks for the update Samikeyp
Again, show me some sort of legislation saying that the State only sanctioned one-man/one-woman unions. If there was no statute, then there was no definition, just a custom. The recognition that states were discriminating brought challenges to the custom, and the challenges have begotten cons utional amendments across the nation.
Those amendments aren't the end of the story, since there will, inevitably, be a challenge in federal court concerning whether those provisions are violative of the United States Cons ution.
I don't know that the challenges are "aberrational." It seem so me that the are pretty much pervasive inasmuch as they are occurring (and are likely to occur) in virtually every state.
I don't understand why some are so quick (and joyous) about limiting liberty, but that appears to be a growing agenda.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
