Yes, we can.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex

Can't watch YouTube at work. Will confirm tonight.

It could be that one or this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlY9HFRNUHs

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

But he's not going to try to tell the rest of the country they have to think the same way he does.

In which case, I want him to marry me ... that's how in love with him I am.


I think that's the best example for leadership this country needs right now ... along the lines of my personal views do not need to be imposed on everyone else.

[innerSpaceman]

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


The fundies owe me a living.

[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.

[Gemini Cricket]

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?

[Moonliner]

Interesting Article in the Washtington Post...

"An Attack That Came Out Of the Ether"

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:

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:

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]

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]

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.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by JWBear

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

That was my first thought- things were just hunky dory in America until those darned blacks started stirring the **** with 'Brown VS the Board of Education'. I'm very grateful for that decision on a personal level, as it opened the door for kids like mine (hearing disability) to attend the same schools as their peers. An unintended consequence, but certainly a positive one. Who knows what peripheral positives might occur when we stop denying a very large segment of our citizenry the same rights afforded to the majority?

[scaeagles]

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.