Yes, we can. - Page 129

innerSpaceman · 06-30-2008, 12:16 PM

Including mine. Don't think that doesn't piss me off when my finances are so tight.

The fundies owe me a living.

scaeagles · 06-30-2008, 12:18 PM

If it is a non issue then why fight about it on either side? Seriously. Couldn't it be said as well that it's a divise tool used by the LGBT? I'm not sure why saying you are against something is more devisive than saying you are for something.

Gemini Cricket · 06-30-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If it is a non issue then why fight about it on either side? Seriously. Couldn't it be said as well that it's a divise tool used by the LGBT? I'm not sure why saying you are against something is more devisive than saying you are for something.

It is a non-issue if it weren't embraced by religious wingnuts as a divisive tool. But since it is, then we should fight back. How is marriage equality being used as a divisive issue by the LGBT community?

scaeagles · 06-30-2008, 12:25 PM

I'm not saying it is. I'm just wondering why it isn't seen as a divisive tool on both sides.

Understanding I am not speaking of this in terms of right and wrong (I am libertarian on theis issue and think government should stay out of the marriage issue all together), if the majority of Americans are not for gay marriage (which I believe the numbers say), then why is it divisive to be on that side of the issue? It would seem like those being divisive are the minority who begins to demand something that hasn't been there before and most people oppose.

JWBear · 06-30-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'm not saying it is. I'm just wondering why it isn't seen as a divisive tool on both sides.

Understanding I am not speaking of this in terms of right and wrong (I am libertarian on theis issue and think government should stay out of the marriage issue all together), if the majority of Americans are not for gay marriage (which I believe the numbers say), then why is it divisive to be on that side of the issue? It would seem like those being divisive are the minority who begins to demand something that hasn't been there before and most people oppose.

By that logic, blacks shouldn't have gotten "uppity" in the 60's, and demanded equal rights.

Moonliner · 06-30-2008, 12:33 PM

Interesting Article in the Washtington Post...

"An Attack That Came Out Of the Ether"

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Washtington Post

The e-mail landed in Danielle Allen's queue one winter morning as she was studying in her office at the Institute for Advanced Study, the renowned haven for some of the nation's most brilliant minds. The missive began: "THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO."

Laid out before Allen, a razor-sharp, 36-year-old political theorist, was what purported to be a biographical sketch of Barack Obama that has become one of the most effective -- and baseless -- Internet attacks of the 2008 presidential season.

Allen had been obsessing about the origins of her e-mail at the institute

The use of the Internet made it possible to launch anonymous attacks that could reach millions of voters in weeks or even days.

it made her angry. And curious.....

It's an intesting read, althought I did laugh at one part:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hype

She boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the institute, the only African American and one of a handful of women at the elite research center, where she works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don't have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe.

Followed by:

Quote:

Originally Posted by heh

She had another thought: What if she took some of the unusual phrases from the text of the e-mail and Googled them?

Yup! She used Google to find something on the Internet. Bloody brilliant!

scaeagles · 06-30-2008, 12:35 PM

No, no, no, no, no......I didn't say diviseness is wrong. Not at all. Sometimes it is necessary to achieve what is right.

All I'm saying is it isn't just one side of the same sex marriage issue being divisive. That's all.

JWBear · 06-30-2008, 12:36 PM

I would say that the issue is divisive, not the sides.

scaeagles · 06-30-2008, 12:38 PM

Well, GC said the fundies use it as a divisive tool. I'm saying that both sides use it as a divisive tool.

innerSpaceman · 06-30-2008, 12:42 PM

The entire concept of the rights of a minority being decided by the majority is worthy of Thru the Looking Glass, and anathema to the principals of the U.S. Constitution.

But homosexuals did not put that issue on the ballot in California (and other states) to be decided by a tyranical majority. Don't pretend that gays made this a political issue by pleading for justice in courts of law, or that blacks made a political issue by demanding equal rights under the law, or that women made it an issue by struggling for the right to vote.

In all cases, it was their oppressors who made it a political issue ... and it's a shame that such things had to be fought for, tooth and nail, and that such things still need to be fought for ... when they have been enshrined in the introduction of our American Constitution since our nation was formed.

It's disgusting.

But in no sense are gays using their quest to be equal with everyone else as a divisive tool. Nor did blacks yearning to be equal seek to divide. Nor did woman fighting for equality want to divide. In each case, the oppressed have sought to unite all Americans, all humanity, in the enjoyment of inalienable rights.

06-30-2008, 12:16 PM	#1281
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Including mine. Don't think that doesn't piss me off when my finances are so tight. The fundies owe me a living.
	Submit to Quotes

06-30-2008, 12:18 PM	#1282
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	If it is a non issue then why fight about it on either side? Seriously. Couldn't it be said as well that it's a divise tool used by the LGBT? I'm not sure why saying you are against something is more devisive than saying you are for something.
	Submit to Quotes

06-30-2008, 12:25 PM	#1284
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I'm not saying it is. I'm just wondering why it isn't seen as a divisive tool on both sides. Understanding I am not speaking of this in terms of right and wrong (I am libertarian on theis issue and think government should stay out of the marriage issue all together), if the majority of Americans are not for gay marriage (which I believe the numbers say), then why is it divisive to be on that side of the issue? It would seem like those being divisive are the minority who begins to demand something that hasn't been there before and most people oppose.
	Submit to Quotes

06-30-2008, 12:35 PM	#1287
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	No, no, no, no, no......I didn't say diviseness is wrong. Not at all. Sometimes it is necessary to achieve what is right. All I'm saying is it isn't just one side of the same sex marriage issue being divisive. That's all.
	Submit to Quotes

06-30-2008, 12:36 PM	#1288
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	I would say that the issue is divisive, not the sides. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

06-30-2008, 12:38 PM	#1289
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Well, GC said the fundies use it as a divisive tool. I'm saying that both sides use it as a divisive tool.
	Submit to Quotes

06-30-2008, 12:42 PM	#1290
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	The entire concept of the rights of a minority being decided by the majority is worthy of Thru the Looking Glass, and anathema to the principals of the U.S. Constitution. But homosexuals did not put that issue on the ballot in California (and other states) to be decided by a tyranical majority. Don't pretend that gays made this a political issue by pleading for justice in courts of law, or that blacks made a political issue by demanding equal rights under the law, or that women made it an issue by struggling for the right to vote. In all cases, it was their oppressors who made it a political issue ... and it's a shame that such things had to be fought for, tooth and nail, and that such things still need to be fought for ... when they have been enshrined in the introduction of our American Constitution since our nation was formed. It's disgusting. But in no sense are gays using their quest to be equal with everyone else as a divisive tool. Nor did blacks yearning to be equal seek to divide. Nor did woman fighting for equality want to divide. In each case, the oppressed have sought to unite all Americans, all humanity, in the enjoyment of inalienable rights.
	Submit to Quotes