Topic awaiting preservation: Election Thread (Page 2 of 5)

U__U

This is even a sadder day than one can think. 11 states approved constitutional amendments to outlaw gay nuptials.

The only good point of W2 ( I tried hard to find one ) is that the world will have a monkey to bash for the next 4 years.

Like you care at all, you live in france.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

Like you care at all, you live in france.

---

I own Nike shoes. I eat at KFC and McD's. I watch Friends.

I read my papers. I even check the New York Times. When I wake up in the morning it's with a daily dose of CNN (although I find the BBC far more reliable).

My government supports the war in Iraq, where a relative of mine serves.

These are only the obvious examples.

So, in short, America influences a lot of my daily life, and I keep track of what happens there.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

Like you care at all, you live in france.

---

Most of what mahjqa said.

Regarding the gay marriage, I'm sad/disgusted that my own government cancelled a gay mariage though our law do not specify the need for a sex difference. The single positive point about gay union in France is that there's a legal recognition called the PaCS ( Pacte Civil de Solidarité ), but it doesn't provide the same advantages as the marriage. Whatever, I find it outrageous that 11 states take constitutionnal amendements to ban same sex marriage.


Regarding W2, I care because the US have an impact on the whole world, and latelly they didn't seemed to give a shit about the opinion of the other countries.



(Edited by poi on 11-03-2004 21:23)

mahjqa, I think InSiDeR directed his comment to poi. France is a special case because of its anti-American policies over the last several years. There is zero love lost between the US and France. That dynamic is not the same for any other Western European country it would seem.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugimus: Why on earth couldn't mahjqa answer if he feel concerned ?
And please stop confounding reluctancy to the BUSH administration and anti-americanism.


[edit] One day, I'll manage to write a post without a typo. [/edit]

(Edited by poi on 11-03-2004 21:42)

Thank you America for making us a global stain. I can only pray that my country learns from its mistakes.

Ruski, you don't like it here you are welcome to go back to Puerto Rico. Should have known as soon as you went to college you'd just be another brainwashed dumbass. Didn't take long at all.

God, are you all gonna whine for another 4 years?

poi, I was just pointing out that he had no reason to feel concerned. He can answer anyway he wants to, I wasn't trying to say otherwise.

Please understand me. I specifically pointed out France's policies, in other words, the position of France's government being anti-American. I was not referring necessarily to you or France's population. I do not think I am confused in the least about the situation.

I would hope that you would also understand that we are not obliged to follow your government's wishes. If we don't do as you wish, it does not mean that we don't give a sh*t about your opinions. It simply means we *disagree*.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:
If we don't do as you wish, it does not mean that we don't give a sh*t about your opinions. It simply means we *disagree*.

---

Yes, "disagree" is a more polite word, but I doubt it matches the reality when 75% of the world *disagree* with the foreign and environmental policy of one country, especially when the this country and its administration has the biggest amount of WMD and Nuclear weapons, does not follow the Geneva convention, refused to sign protocols to limit the amount of anti-personnal mines, ditto for the protocol of KYOTO ...

I don't need the approval of my government to make my own opinion.

Again, about my "... don't give a sh*t ..." expression, notice that english is not my mother language therefore it's not always asy to know the strength of one expression. So if that expression is really really strong and offended you, please excuse me.

[edit] You talked about Western European countries. The governments of countries like Poland, Spain, Italy and UK approved the BUSH administration, but their nations did not. [/edit]



(Edited by poi on 11-03-2004 23:30)

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

God, are you all gonna whine for another 4 years?

---

yep...

This isn't such a bad thing.
...Really, it's not.

From the view of someone living outside of the United States, I can say, even though I'm disappointed with the turnout in favor of Michael Badnarik, I'm pleased to have Bush remain in power rather than Kerry assume control.

Let's start with the world economic issues.
Canada and Mexico already enjoy a very beneficial (to all three parties) free trade agreement with the United States (NAFTA). The result is more than just money, it has a lot to do with the products and services, there is more goods, better goods, cheaper goods, and quicker development of new goods. Obviously this has also greatly, and positively affected the economies of all three countries. So it's easy to see why more countries want the borders opened wider, let jobs flow between countries, and let the exchange of goods flow freely. Next year the FTAA is set to be ratified, Canada will sign, Mexico will sign, all the Central/South American countries will sign, it'll be up to the United States to ratify it. It's clear that Bush will be onboard, it is after all a very beneficial treaty, freeing up billions and billions of dollars in trade to flow across the two continents. But had John Kerry won yesterday, we very well could see the start of his 'keep American jobs in America' policy, as the refusal to ratify the FTAA. This would obviously make it very difficult for Canada to freely trade with the South American countries, because we would not be granted free access through the U.S. boarders to do so. Even after the FTAA, it appears that Taiwan and Japan will very shortly be ready to negotiate a free trade agreement, and China is inching closer and closer as well. We could very well see a Pacific Rim Free Trade Agreement proposal before 2008. Again, this agreement would benefit greatly all the involved countries, through both the removal of tariffs and trade barriers, as well as ease of specialization. Could we really trust John Kerry to break his promise to the American labor workers, and pass an agreement like this that virtually ensures that manufacturing jobs will go to whoever can do them the most efficiently? From a purely economic standpoint, I can say I'd rather have Bush.

Are economic issues really enough? I mean, Bush did declare war in his first term. This isn't exactly something we should just overlook. He actually invaded another country...
I'd agree that these reasons would justify someone in suggesting that Bush shouldn't be president. These reasons however, are not enough to suggest that John Kerry should have been. So lets look at:

Where the Democrats went wrong.
It's easy for us to look at the red and blue map of the United States, and say that "the banjo pickin' hicks decided this election." Is that really the case, however? Republican country didn't vote 100% in favor of Bush, not even 65%, he did better in 2000 in the south than yesterday, but he came away with a decisive win this time, the largest since the 1980's, even with a huge voter turnout. What is happening isn't that Bush "rallied his base" better, or that the religious fanatics/*insert whichever typical conservative group* came out strong. The truth is, the democratic party is slowly losing it's base. Not necessarily to the republicans, but in the last quarter century, there has only been one democratic president, and he was more of a fiscal conservative than Bush. This election, Bush gained huge in states like Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, Maryland, New England, California, Washington, and even New York. (He didn't win all these states, but he gained a much larger share of the vote in each of them when compared to 2000) These are states that one wouldn't describe as "conservative." So what's wrong with the democrats? Well, it most relates to their economic policies, which can at best be described as tired, and dated, and are probably more accurately described as medieval. As John Kerry so articulately pointed out over his campaign, labor and manufacturing jobs in the Unites States are disappearing. He was dead wrong on how to handle this issue, but that's not really important. What's important is we must begin to realize that the U.S. is morphing from what used to be a country with some small 'white-collar' areas, into an entire 'white-collar' country. The economic policies have to change to reflect this. No longer will government sponsored programs be an effective campaign, no longer will tax hikes on business be acceptable. As Americans take on their new identity as suit-and-tie business people, they will demand more and more economic freedom from their government, and quite frankly, if the Democratic Party of America is not willing to shift to the right of center (or even the far right) on economic freedom issues, then it very well may be that there are 0 democratic presidents in the next quarter century.

All in all, regardless of your position on social issues, the United States' social policy will not have an effect on those of us outside the U.S., however having a strong foreign economic policy is currently, and will always be beneficial to the entire world.

I would've posted this earlier but my net has been down since election day so I'm sorry if this has already been said but I'm saying it once again.

Well, it's official. President Bush will remain the President of the United States for another four years! This is a very satisfying outcome for me. First, Id like to thank everyone who voted this election. Id like to quickly give a couple of facts for this election.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-The majority of the population that voted this election voted for President Bush (R). A broad nation-wide victory for Bush.

-President Bush won the biggest number of popular votes in American/USA history!

-Record turn-out of voters!

-The majority of congress and majority of senate are now held by Republicans by an overwhelming number. Democrats lost more seats than they recieved. (Now the Democrats can't stand in the way of Bush)

-Gay Marriage was struck down in eleven states (major blow to gay rights).

-The Three Strikes Policy in California was slaughtered (thank god, Arnold rules!).

-Marijuana was legalized in Alaska (small ammounts anyhow).

-Medical Marijuana was legalized in 3 states I believe. (sweet!)

-Stem Cell Research was approved 3BILLION/yr in California (Thanks Arnold!).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now for awhile I supported Kerry. The night before elections, I was thinking about both candidates. Their pros, and of course, their cons. I agree with a majority of things that Kerry supported. However after careful consideration - I really didn't trust him. He "flip-flopped" too much on topics. It seemed like he would change his position on every subject to better fit public opinion. At least Bush does what he says he'll do and has for the most part, been honest. I didn't/don't believe Kerry was and I definately didn't/don't trust Edwards.

I was really surprised at how this election turned out - it was pretty amazing how much of the country actually supported Bush. I was honestly expecting Kerry to walk away with this election but I'm extremely happy he didn't. I know most of the democrats around are throwing a fit right now.

Hilary Clinton is currently nowhere to be found (MSNBC). Bill Clinton has vanished into the shadows (MSNBC).

Now I was very impressed with the concieding speech by Kerry. I thought he handled himself really well considering he just lost such a close (and when I say 'close', I mean it) race. I stayed up all night on election day and was present when every vote came in except for Nevada (my home state) because I already knew where Nevada would swing.

Again, thanks to everyone who voted this election! I do hope however that once you all hit 18, you all become politically active. The 'youth vote' in this election was pretty identical to the one back in 2000 meaning that a lot of the teenagers didn't vote. I just want to say:

"This is our generation. It is time for us youth to take control. Our parents, grandparents, ect, they have already had their turn. It is now time for us to make the decisions". Register to vote as soon as you turn 18 and I really hope that in the 2008 election, the youth vote will take up a good portion of the vote (instead of just 17% like during this election 04').

President George W. Bush's victory speech was awsome BTW!

To the countries that don't really care for President Bush - The MAJORITY here in the United States don't care what you think. We do like President Bush and that is why he was re-elected. He is a damn'd good president! So to those countries who "put the champaign" back in the fridge when the final results came in - might as well drink it! Alcohol makes all your problems go away; if only for a short time! You're stuck with Bush for another four years! Live with it. Deal with it!

Republicans control this country for another four years. They control the senate. They control congress. Then still control the presidency. This term, the next four years for President Bush - anything he does will meet with little to no resistance by the senate and by congress!

Oh yeah, and Osama Bin Laden, if you are reading this - your attempt to influance the elections in America [color=RED]FAILED[/color]; or at least the way you had planned! If nothing else, it influanced the vote of the public! You threatend us in your latest video by saying "Any state that doesn't attack you will be safe by default". Well guess what? The majority of the population told you where to shove it by voting for Bush so go ahead and attack us! When we find you (and we will find you), it'll be slow! The American people promise you that!

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery



(Edited by Black Hat on 11-04-2004 00:34)

Ramasx if you are aware...Puerto Rico is part of USA, and going back there won't mean any difference.

Now, before you start insulting me on whatever is going on with me in college. Let me clarify, you don't know shit. Before you shriek your stupid mouth of calling me democrat/liberal or pushing me to which ever political side you hate...just keep in mind. You don't know shit about me, or where I stand on politics...Way to go you homophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-abortionist hypocrite. Don't forget how full of bitching your posts are.

As for me being brainwashed...yeah, go ahead read the book of revelation, it will sure provide you with some useful "prophecies".

=)


{edit}:typo

(Edited by Ruski on 11-04-2004 00:55)

Im sorry but Ive seen a lot of bitching in this thread and it really is irritating.

Bush is president. He is republican. Congress is run by the republicans for the next four years. So is the senate. Face it. Republicans beat the democrats into the ground dis round. Deal with it. You are stuck with it. Stop bitching. jesus christ.

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

quote:

---

Im sorry but Ive seen a lot of bitching in this thread and it really is irritating.

---

Unless Bush passed his "Force Black Hat to Read Irritating Threads on the Asylum Act" earlier than planned, I don't see anyone forcing you to read this thread.

I am Republican. I voted for Kerry and Republican on most everything else. I just don't like Bush. I simply do not have faith in his ability to run a prosperous America. I am however interested to see what becomes of the next 4 years.



(Edited by Thumper on 11-04-2004 01:49)

quote:

---

poi said:
11 states approved constitutional amendments to outlaw gay nuptials.

---

w00t++;

My faith is starting to be restored in the citizens of this monster of a country.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 11-04-2004 02:34)

You and me both, bugs, about time we got around the fillibuster, or do we? Anyway, wether or not people like the results we have consistency in the White House when changing leaders could have been very dangerous. Especially when the opponent kept saying he had a plan but never said what it was.

~allewyn

Anyway, you'll have to change the leader in four years. Why wait so long while one offered his services ?

Iron Wallaby: I prefer when you code, rather than when you agree with homo-phobic amendments.

Black Hat, you are incredibly ignorant of the politics of the Bush Administration. If a corporate executive did his/her job as poorly as Bush, they'd be fired instantly.

quote:

---

poi said:

homo-phobic amendments

---

poi, that is inaccurate to call them that. They are not designed to hurt gays but to defend marriage. There is a *huge* difference between those two concepts. The government has one, and only one, reason to get involved in sanctioning marriage between a man and a woman and that reason is to have a say how children are raised. If it were not for that one concern, I would advocate the government staying out of the business of defining marriage at all.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Id like to quickly give a couple of facts for this election......

-Marijuana was legalized in Alaska (small ammounts anyhow).

---

Blackhat, I would just like to point out that your "fact" is wrong. The measure was not passed. You can see the results on the Juneau Empire Newspaper.

Also, another interesting bit:

quote:

---

Alaskans have a varied history with marijuana. In 1975, a state Supreme Court decision made it legal to possess small quantities in the privacy of a home.
In 1990, voters chose to make possession a crime, a law that stayed in place until last year when the state Court of Appeals ruled that Alaskans had the right to possess up to four ounces of pot in their homes for personal use.
Marijuana advocates in 1998 used the initiative process to win passage of a medical marijuana law.

---

Even though the court of appeals made a ruling, the majority of troopers will still bust you for any amount unless you carry a medical exemption card.

As for the results of the election.... *sigh*
On the up side (if there is one), Bush can't run again. Though, I'm still considering defecting to Canada

Don't get me wrong. I hate Bush. I hate Cheny. I hate Edwards. I hate Kerry. They are all dumb. But Bush has this country on a set course and during wartimes - I trust Bush to finish the job, not Kerry.

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

quote:

---

Before you shriek your stupid mouth of calling me democrat/liberal or pushing me to which ever political side you hate...just keep in mind.

---

I don't believe I used those terms. I believe I used the term dumbass-brainwashed-college-student, just to clarify. And I highly disagree with the other side on many issues, but there is no hate. And another thing, I don't shriek.

quote:

---

You don't know shit about me, or where I stand on politics...Way to go you homophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-abortionist hypocrite. Don't forget how full of bitching your posts are.

---

Your statement above and another recently in the silliness forum tells me all I need to know of where you stand on politics. And don't forget, we have had conversations in the past off this board. Homophobic, no. I am actually ok with gay unions, just not marriage because it means something to me, and according to the 11 states which voted on it, it means something to them as well. Can one be called homophobic because they want to protect something they hold value to?

Anti-Muslim. No. Anti-Muslim-Extremist, yes. My posts are not full of bitching, I make thoughtful statements oft times. Isn't that right poi?

I was not the one who just referred to the majority of the American people as rednecks. That is why I responded harshly. Had Bush lost, I would have been highly disappointed and lost faith in the people of this great nation, but I would not have whined about it. However sad, I would have respected the will of the people like a grownup.

The fact that you would threw the anti-abortionist comment in there when you know what you know about my past was pretty low. Or do you forget why I am so against abortion?

quote:

---

As for me being brainwashed...yeah, go ahead read the book of revelation, it will sure provide you with some useful "prophecies".

---

Who has the phobia? Anyway, if you want to throw some more insults at me go right ahead, you can't ruin my victory celebration.

Has anyone seen the county by county results map? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Now what do you suppose all those blue areas are?

Bugimus: I understand your point. But I don't see how two men, or two women couldn't raise children, or would do worse than a man and a woman. Homosexual couples can already have/raise some children aside a real and recognized union. Therefore I don't consider the marriage as a sanction to raise children, but as the recognition of a couple in love ( whatever the sex of both persons ) and the responsabilities and duties of each other. In the lack of marriage, if one of the parent of an homosexual couple have a severe problem ( disease, accident, handicap, death, ... ), the other parent has no right on the children. Add to that that it's not right that the gays and lesbians do not have the same right as the heteros. This is the 2 reason why I see the refusal of the right to gays and lesbians to marry with a bad eye.

Ramasax: the blue areas are urban areas with über high ( though not enough apparently ) population density.



(Edited by poi on 11-04-2004 04:21)

poi, I understand your point of view and I respect your right to advocate it. What I very much dislike is hearing people lumping all defense of marriage efforts into the "homo-phobic" label. I think that is unjustified and inaccurate. I hope you can appreciate that. Take Ramasax and myself as examples and proof that we want to keep marriage as is but also don't want to government to prevent gay unions.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

The whole argument between Bush and Kerry and their stance on homosexual civil unions is ridiculous. Kerry said many times that he opposed a federal ban on same-sex civil unions and Bush was in favor of them. That's a given.

However, Kerry had no plans to oppose state mandated constitutional bans. Of course, the spin doctors never really let you hear about that part of his stance.

:::11oh1:::

Bugimus has it right on the head.

I'd prefer the government stay out of it entirely, but look: the family has been (and currently is) the atom of human societal structure. If the family is changed, or worse, destroyed, society as it is will disintegrate.

I have seen it a number of times, in fact -- I know people who have been raised by gays/lesbians and are emotionally worse (sometimes to the point of suicide) for it. It's better to ban a self- and socially- destructive tendency than to allow it, if the government indeed MUST be involved at all.

If, poi, you prefer that I stay to coding, perhaps I can oblige.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 11-04-2004 04:45)

poi: Yep, I realiazed that, was just being slightly sarcatic.

What is it about cities that causes people to lose touch with mainstream America...cough...err I mean vote socialist...cough...err I mean democrat? Could it be the concentration of poor people in these areas that want handouts from the public coffers? Could it be a lack of proper upbringing, instillment of traditional values and education? Those are my initial thoughts, though that is hardly covering everything, as New England is a semi-wealthy area. What is it?

As the map above shows it is the cities vs. everyone else.

If it weren't for that shithole of a city Philadelphia, my state would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for LA and SanFran, California would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for NYC, New York would have gone to Bush. You take the cities out of any of these states and the entire map would be red, except maybe Mass.

Colorado was talking about splitting the electoral votes into districts, Maine has already done so, and by the looks of that map above I am all for it because Democrats, unless they did an honest rethinking of where their party is heading, would not have a prayer.

And hey, everyone who voted for Kerry...you still have an '08 Hillary run to look forward to.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 11-04-2004 04:55)

Bugimus: Your intention to provide a legal status to gay unions is noble. Nonetheless I find it useless and discriminant to create a new status that mimic the marriage to legalize the gay unions while it could be fairly easy to specify that the "classical" marriage can be sanctionned whatever the sex of the 2 persons is. Not recognizing the same right as the heteros to the gays is a specific discrimination and has a name : homophobia. Sorry, I know this is a strong and bad word, but it's appropriate. Obvsiously I don't mean you're homo-phobic. What I say is that your position on gay union is discriminating this community.

[edit] Ramasax: Btw, do you have the results of the election in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania aka the cities touched by the 9/11 attacks ?

Educated people live in big cities. my turn to be sarcastic. Ok, that was easy. [/edit]



(Edited by poi on 11-04-2004 05:03)

Yes, that clarifies it...I am a"dumbass brainwashed college kid" and you are an adult who still lives with parents ...

poi, if you redefine marriage to include 2 men or 2 women, why would you stop there? On what possible grounds could you go on to discriminate against 3 person unions? On what possible grounds could you discriminate against polygamy?

And I still cannot accept your use of the term homophobic because they are NOT based in a "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men". I understand that many people are homophobic according to the definition you provided, but the defense of marriage initiatives themselves are just that, a defense of marriage as it currently stands and not an attack on gays.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Marriage is simply a legal contract that binds ("marries") the two individuals together for better or worse. Traditionally, it's a ceremony meant for two individuals of the opposite gender; however, considering this is the year 2004--we're way past the year of the End of the World--don't you think tribalistic traditions are a bit too primitive for such a technologically advanced society? You can attach all the emotional crap you want to marriage but in the end it always comes down to taxation and law. On what possible grounds could a government deny polygamy? Fairness in taxation and costs of change. In order to allow polygamy, there'd need to be a whole set of laws enacted to balance taxation of polygamic families and taxation of monogamic families. There would also need to be significant restructuring of society and organizational policies. If we set out to demolish our current government and establish a new one, it is only then could polygamy be introduced.

"No taxation without representation."

By the way, those eleven states are Bible Belt states.

(Edited by metahuman on 11-04-2004 05:47)

poi: Out of curiosity, where does the average French person stand on gay marriage? Are you all so progressive, or is what I experience here and elsewhere on the internet just a small sampling (primarily young, tech savvy types)? Are there many conservatives left over there?

Homophobia:Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.

Well, here is the thing. I feel neither fear nor contempt for gays and lesbians. I say to each his own, I ain't gonna try and change anyone, especially one that is doing no harm. If a couple of men or women fall in love, that is their business. Love is something that can cross the gender barrier obviously, so I have to accept it in the society in which I live.

What I do have a problem with is a small minority of people trying to unravel what I and many others consider a vital piece to the fabric of our society. There is also tradition, you may find it hard to believe, but some people still value this. Is that so wrong to want to hold onto to some things, things which mean a lot to us? Call it civil union or union, better yet make up a new name for it and define it as a union between a couple of the same sex. The tradition of marriage need not be altered, it is what it is, a tradition, just create a new tradition and have the government treat it equally to a marriage. Every facet of society needs its traditions, so perhaps the gay and lesbians should start creating some of their own. I pretty sure you won't agree, but I think that is a reasonable solution to this entire argument.

You cannot redefine the constants of our society.

Ramasax

quote:

---

By the way, those eleven states are Bible Belt states.

---

Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oregon are in the bible belt? North, South, East and West, If you think that makes a belt, you're one fat fucker. Not to mention it was both Democrat, and Republican carried states.

quote:

---

If it weren't for that shithole of a city Philadelphia, my state would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for LA and SanFran, California would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for NYC, New York would have gone to Bush. You take the cities out of any of these states and the entire map would be red, except maybe Mass.

---

Yes I guess if you got rid of half the voters ...

quote:

---

There is also tradition, you may find it hard to believe, but some people still value this. Is that so wrong to want to hold onto to some things, things which mean a lot to us?

---

Tradition? It seems like you're just making up these traditions as you go along.

(Edited by Jestah on 11-04-2004 07:00)

right...that silly marriage thing that's only been around for a few millenia. no tradition there.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

metahuman said:

...however, considering this is the year 2004--we're way past the year
of the End of the World--don't you think tribalistic traditions are a bit too
primitive for such a technologically advanced society?

---

If we're so advanced, why do we still speak words, write letters to people, construct houses from stone, eat using pointy pieces of metal, and do the same things people did thousands of years ago -- learn, grow, procreate, earn a living for one's family, die? To be honest, everyone is thoroughly grounded in so-called tribalistic traditions that we will never give up, because they define us as a species.

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying this specifically in reference to heterosexual marriage alone, but don't presume for a second that technology has changed humanity in any way. Our purposes and pursuits are the same today as they always have been; only the means of accomplishing those goals have changed.

Things are made "primitive" by their lack of scientific progress. Science's goal is not (and has never been) to change humanity's purpose, but rather, to strengthen it.

[edit: I tend to take things quite off-topic, don't I? Sorry about this, if it is a problem! ]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 11-04-2004 07:13)

homophobia : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.


Bugimus: Let's start with same-sex marriage. We'll see later for polygamy if you want. As a side note, has a 3+ persons union of persons, for who polygamy is not in the culture, already asked the right to marry ?


Ramasax: I have no stats about the French people in average. Every person I know but 3 ( who actually are rather racists U_U and more religious than the others ) either don't care about or agree with gay marriage.

There's still some conservatives in France. The proof being that the gay wedding proclaimed in last july has been cancelled though the definition of the marriage in the French laws does not specify the sex of both persons. Few other gay marriages were scheduled but the mayors cancelled them by fear of legal pursuits after the affair surrounding the first one.

I agree that gays and lesbians should have their own tradition. But, if it is to recreate a type of legal union absolutely equal to the marriage with another name to please the heteros don't you think it would be a complete waste of time ? People linked to the tradition of the marriage should be proud that the gays and lesbians envy them and ask the same rights.

In France since october 2000 there is the "PaCS" which is a civil union between 2 persons whatever their sex. It gives some rights and advantages and is one step in the right direction but still the gays and lesbians does not have the same rights as the heteros and many consider the civil union as a second-rate marriage. The gays and lesbians don't want to be "registered partners" or "living with". They want to love and grow old with their other half and that thing already has a name : marriage.

The society is evolving. It's time to make the laws match the reality without creating second rate citizens.