E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-04-2013, 12:42 PM   #81
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
And "gays doing what they want" includes them using the term marriage, right?

You want a military to defend the land, sea, & air? Fine, but don't look to me to pay for it. I'll take my chances on my own.

You want any public roads, or water quality standard, or any recourse to legal action against someone? Fine, but don't expect me to pay for your use of them. Cough up the money yourself.

Face it Chase. If you want any semblance of something which is not complete anarchy? You have some variant of a nanny state. The question is not "do we need a nanny state?" The question is "how much of a nanny state should we have?"
Precisely.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 12:47 PM   #82
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,024
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
And "gays doing what they want" includes them using the term marriage, right?

You want a military to defend the land, sea, & air? Fine, but don't look to me to pay for it. I'll take my chances on my own.

You want any public roads, or water quality standard, or any recourse to legal action against someone? Fine, but don't expect me to pay for your use of them. Cough up the money yourself.

Face it Chase. If you want any semblance of something which is not complete anarchy? You have some variant of a nanny state. The question is not "do we need a nanny state?" The question is "how much of a nanny state should we have?"
I fully agree with everything above and am all for SOME government. That's why I believe the political battle needs to be "more or less government" rather than "life as it was in the 50's or progress"... Conservatives are losing because they have a crummy message soiled with bigotry. Time to move away from oppressing anyone (gays for example) and towards an argument on less government and more individual choice.

As for gay marriage, let them do what they'd like so long as their is a clear definition around marriage being between two human beings. There is no room for the term including three or more individuals nor a relationship between a human and animal... And I think it's fair to rule that off the table now.

On the definition of marriage though, there is an underpinning that the definition, as understood by the church, is NOT being altered. It is not the place of the government to determine how a private institution defines a word or bond.
__________________

Everything you need to know on muffler deletes : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=745244
Wrapping an E46 in Vinyl : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...ghlight=bronze
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 12:49 PM   #83
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
On the definition of marriage though, there is an underpinning that the definition, as understood by the church, is NOT being altered. It is not the place of the government to determine how a private institution defines a word or bond.
But we're not asking the church. We're asking the government. If you decide not to get married in a church, you're married by the government. The church can call it whatever they want. It doesn't apply to me if I elect not to get married in a church.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 12:52 PM   #84
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
Just because he states that lack-of-marriage-definition-changing-authority is something they have in common doesn't mean he's saying they are otherwise the same.
Yet he fails to mention that throughout the history of the english language, words have changed or modified their definitions to adapt to the times. Why is it he never mentioned the social and religious conservative groups which pushed to change the definition of marriage at a legal level in the first place when DOMA was enacted? In his bleeped-up and historically inaccurate view of the english language only groups "that are attempting to change the definition of a word" are valid when they are groups he disagrees with. Where is his outrage over the change that was enacted in 1996 when DOMA was put on the books.

It is a statement of fact that "the gay agenda" is not attempting to change the legal definition of marriage. It was the "anti-gay agenda" that changed that definition in the first place. The "gay agenda" is trying to undo the very action that he is saying can't be done in the first place.

The "they are trying to change the definition" is the weakest of the arguments used to defend DOMA, socio-linguistically speaking.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 12:54 PM   #85
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,024
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
But we're not asking the church. We're asking the government. If you decide not to get married in a church, you're married by the government. The church can call it whatever they want. It doesn't apply to me if I elect not to get married in a church.
Correct. I'm simply spelling out the differentiation. You and I agree on this (gay rights).
__________________

Everything you need to know on muffler deletes : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=745244
Wrapping an E46 in Vinyl : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...ghlight=bronze
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 12:55 PM   #86
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
On the definition of marriage though, there is an underpinning that the definition, as understood by the church, is NOT being altered. It is not the place of the government to determine how a private institution defines a word or bond.
Have you seen any legal action or legislation to do so? If so, I would really like to know about it. I would be more than happy to rally troops against any such potential legal action or legislation.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 01:09 PM   #87
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
But we're not asking the church. We're asking the government. If you decide not to get married in a church, you're married by the government. The church can call it whatever they want. It doesn't apply to me if I elect not to get married in a church.
And let us be quite clear on this. Even if one is married in a church and/or by a religious institution. It is not a legal marriage. It is only a legal marriage if the the parties involved have a marriage license and have it signed (in california in black ink only, at least back in 92 when I got married) by those parties, a witness, and a person authorized to perform a marriage "ceremony". Which need be no ceremony at all. This authorized person acts more like a notary public. Now virtually all states allow so-called "members of the clergy" to act such authorized persons. There have been issues in the past with certain states recognizing certain church "pastors/ministers" as members of the clergy. Universal life church (send us $35 and we will ordain you) and The Moonies are probably two of the best examples. However, who is an "authorized person" is a state's rights issue. For example anybody in Alaska is an authorized person. Yep, one can be married by a bartender in Alaska, so careful about the Jager shots when on holiday up in Alaska.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 04:11 PM   #88
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,432
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
And "gays doing what they want" includes them using the term marriage, right?

You want a military to defend the land, sea, & air? Fine, but don't look to me to pay for it. I'll take my chances on my own.
The constitution states that the government will provide for the common defense.

It does not, however, specify that the federal government has any say in who may or may not get married.
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 04:14 PM   #89
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 104
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
And let us be quite clear on this. Even if one is married in a church and/or by a religious institution. It is not a legal marriage. It is only a legal marriage if the the parties involved have a marriage license and have it signed (in california in black ink only, at least back in 92 when I got married) by those parties, a witness, and a person authorized to perform a marriage "ceremony". Which need be no ceremony at all. This authorized person acts more like a notary public. Now virtually all states allow so-called "members of the clergy" to act such authorized persons. There have been issues in the past with certain states recognizing certain church "pastors/ministers" as members of the clergy. Universal life church (send us $35 and we will ordain you) and The Moonies are probably two of the best examples. However, who is an "authorized person" is a state's rights issue. For example anybody in Alaska is an authorized person. Yep, one can be married by a bartender in Alaska, so careful about the Jager shots when on holiday up in Alaska.
Which all is a compelling argument of the value of a strict separation of church and state, a line way too many on the religious right have been all to eager to blur at the least or essentially eliminate if they thought they could. I think such efforts are highly naive and idealistic on their part, ignoring the immense corrupting influence of each, government and religion, upon the other.

Ideally I would leave secular "civil unions" with all their civil legal ramifications purely up to the state and leave religious "marriage," with all its sacred ramifications, purely up to whatever faith organizations to adminster as they see fit.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 04:19 PM   #90
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
=
Ideally I would leave secular "civil unions" with all their civil legal ramifications purely up to the state and leave religious "marriage," with all its sacred ramifications, purely up to whatever faith organizations to adminster as they see fit.
This is the correct answer. You get a gold star
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 04:48 PM   #91
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
The constitution states that the government will provide for the common defense.

It does not, however, specify that the federal government has any say in who may or may not get married.
Actually it doesn't. It states that "we the people" will.

However, let us say, for the sake of argument, it is the federal govt which will provide this common defense.

Of course it also states the govt will "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

Surely justice, domestic tranquility, general welfare, & the blessings of liberty (including the liberty to equal access to words in the english language) includes gays as well as straights. Or do gays "not count" and should not be allowed justice, domestic tranquility, liberty, & are not include in the general welfare of this country?
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Last edited by rdsesq; 04-04-2013 at 04:55 PM.
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 04:54 PM   #92
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Which all is a compelling argument of the value of a strict separation of church and state, a line way too many on the religious right have been all to eager to blur at the least or essentially eliminate if they thought they could. I think such efforts are highly naive and idealistic on their part, ignoring the immense corrupting influence of each, government and religion, upon the other.

Ideally I would leave secular "civil unions" with all their civil legal ramifications purely up to the state and leave religious "marriage," with all its sacred ramifications, purely up to whatever faith organizations to adminster as they see fit.
It is such a pity that people, the vast majority political and/or religious conservatives, have worked so hard to keep marriage a function of the state.
I have said for years, I would be very glad to see the govt get out of the marriage business all together. Make it all legal civil unions and leave the marriage stuff to religious institutions. The sad and humorous reality is that is but a dream. It is not going to happen. If the pro-DOMA camp had pushed for this years ago, their precious "marriage" would not be under fire today. But, they just couldn't let it go. They wanted special treatment under the law, not equality.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 05:46 PM   #93
pancakes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: awesomeville
Posts: 86
My Ride: BMW M, VW GTI, BIKE
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
It is such a pity that people, the vast majority political and/or religious conservatives, have worked so hard to keep marriage a function of the state.
I have said for years, I would be very glad to see the govt get out of the marriage business all together. Make it all legal civil unions and leave the marriage stuff to religious institutions. The sad and humorous reality is that is but a dream. It is not going to happen. If the pro-DOMA camp had pushed for this years ago, their precious "marriage" would not be under fire today. But, they just couldn't let it go. They wanted special treatment under the law, not equality.
I actually like this idea
pancakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 10:03 AM   #94
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 104
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
It always befuddled me how many, though not all, on the right on one hand decry the size and influence of government in our personal lives then on the other hand demand the heavy hand of government to legislate, regulate and punish those most personal and private aspects of our lives (sexuality, marriage, relationships, insinuating Christian religious dogma, etc.).

I've always said that I wish the GOP showed as much deference to issues of the bedroom as they do the boardroom. The corollary being, if you really want "small government," start with the bedroom first and the boardroom last.

Last edited by Rhumb; 04-05-2013 at 10:06 AM.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 10:56 AM   #95
217Bimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: not Illinois
Posts: 146
My Ride: 2001 BMW 330i
Does he believe in interracial marriage?
217Bimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 03:37 PM   #96
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
Yet he fails to mention that throughout the history of the english language, words have changed or modified their definitions to adapt to the times. Why is it he never mentioned the social and religious conservative groups which pushed to change the definition of marriage at a legal level in the first place when DOMA was enacted? In his bleeped-up and historically inaccurate view of the english language only groups "that are attempting to change the definition of a word" are valid when they are groups he disagrees with. Where is his outrage over the change that was enacted in 1996 when DOMA was put on the books.

It is a statement of fact that "the gay agenda" is not attempting to change the legal definition of marriage. It was the "anti-gay agenda" that changed that definition in the first place. The "gay agenda" is trying to undo the very action that he is saying can't be done in the first place.

The "they are trying to change the definition" is the weakest of the arguments used to defend DOMA, socio-linguistically speaking.
While I wholehearted disagree with the anti-gay marriage POV, I understand it, and the actions they take make sense in the context of what they believe.

Although they go largely unstated, there's a strong gross-out factor in a lot of anti-gay sentiment, along with just a basic fear of the unknown and anything different. However, setting those aside for a minute, so many that object to gay marriage on religious grounds feel like their religion invented and owns the concept of monogamous heterosexual marriage.

You say that DOMA changed the legal definition, but they don't see it that way. They feel like the definition was laid down in Eden 6,000 years ago, and they see themselves as trying to preserve it in it's original form.

And FWIW, Prop 8 passed and is law. So in the case of Prop 8, the gay agenda IS trying to change the legal definition of marriage. The ruling has been stayed and appealed and so on, but for the moment, it does represent the legal definition of marriage in CA, and they're trying to change it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
It always befuddled me how many, though not all, on the right on one hand decry the size and influence of government in our personal lives then on the other hand demand the heavy hand of government to legislate, regulate and punish those most personal and private aspects of our lives (sexuality, marriage, relationships, insinuating Christian religious dogma, etc.).

I've always said that I wish the GOP showed as much deference to issues of the bedroom as they do the boardroom. The corollary being, if you really want "small government," start with the bedroom first and the boardroom last.
Anytime anyone from any political camp says they want "family values", they always mean their family, not yours. And if they can't get your values to line up with theirs, they'll want the govt to do it for them.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 01:58 PM   #97
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
While I wholehearted disagree with the anti-gay marriage POV, I understand it, and the actions they take make sense in the context of what they believe.

Although they go largely unstated, there's a strong gross-out factor in a lot of anti-gay sentiment, along with just a basic fear of the unknown and anything different. However, setting those aside for a minute, so many that object to gay marriage on religious grounds feel like their religion invented and owns the concept of monogamous heterosexual marriage.
But, that is the part of the issue. While I do understand that a majority of pro-DOMA object on religious grounds. Certainly none of "the big 3" religions invented marriage. Depending on the evidence you look at: Marriage either predates recorded history or the earliest known existence of the institution is Codex Hammurabi from about 1772 BCE. These are not judeo-chrsitian-islamic sources. So when the pro-DOMA camp uses the "marriage is ours, we invented it and you can't change it." argument. It falls on deaf ears, simply because that statement is not true. The "religious grounds" folks took the term and modified it to suit their particular social beliefs at the time and now they want to b!tch when some other group is (according to them) doing the same damn thing. That is complete and total

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
You say that DOMA changed the legal definition, but they don't see it that way. They feel like the definition was laid down in Eden 6,000 years ago, and they see themselves as trying to preserve it in it's original form.
That may be what "they feel", but the facts don't back them up. And if they are going to use genesis as the source of their definition and Chapter 4 verse 16 cannot simply be ignored. Nor can other elements in their same texts which allow for polygamy. If they want to say "we are going to use our religious texts to define what marriage means." OK....but, that definition includes incest and polygamy. Both of which violate the marriage definition the DOMA laws put forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
And FWIW, Prop 8 passed and is law. So in the case of Prop 8, the gay agenda IS trying to change the legal definition of marriage. The ruling has been stayed and appealed and so on, but for the moment, it does represent the legal definition of marriage in CA, and they're trying to change it.
FYI: Prop 8 passed and currently is ruled as unconstitutional. (See the ruling of the 9th circuit) What has been stayed is California being able to issue more marriage licenses to same-sex, pending pro-prop8 supporters appeal to the USSC to overturn the 9th circuit ruling.

So at the moment it does not represent the legal definition of marriage in CA. You are thinking of Prop 22, from 2000. Which was the Cali DOMA statute. And at that time, in 2000 when prop 22 was passed, the DOMA camp changed the legal definition of marriage from what it had been in Cali for over 120 years, which was non-restrictive. Those are the facts.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Last edited by rdsesq; 04-07-2013 at 02:01 PM.
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use