BJean

Beth for the zillioneth time, our laws distinquish between married and unmarried people in this country. That's what it's about. If we do not allow gays to get married, we are discriminating against them because of the distinction that our laws make between married and unmarried people. Keep at it, you'll get it. I have confidence in you.

patty: "But, I am sure that there are many individual people who are not religious who 'know' deep down inside themselves that 2 people of the same sex having sex together is wrong, and would vote against it for that reason. The bible says that God has placed within each man the ability to understand what is sinful or not. (I believe it's our own consciences) So even if you are not deeply religious and read the bible and know for yourself what God has to say on this issue, if you dig deep down into your own soul you will have to admit to yourself when you ponder it, that it is not right to have sex with the same sex. Therefore, I believe that there are many individuals who feel it is wrong and wouldn't vote for it for that reason. (even if they can't really understand there own reasons for voting against it)" What people do not seem to understand is that according to the law, this is not a religious issue at all. It is a proposed law that seeks to ban people from being married based on the religious views of some of our citizens. It would ignore the fact that people in this country are supposed to be treated equally under the law and that all individuals have the same rights. The government is not supposed to discriminate against a minority of people siimply because they are different than the majority of the people. This simple fact falls on the deaf ears of those who want to discriminate against others based on their personal beliefs and prejudices. It is for these reasons that there should be a distinct separation of church and state in this country. I'm not saying that we should not be able to pray, I am saying that one group of people should not be able to take away another group of people's basic rights, based on religious beliefs; ANY kind of religious beliefs, not just Christianity. To ensure that our form of government will always stand the test of time, we cannot have whatever religion may be popular at any given time, to infiltrate our laws and cause harm to any group of people who do not share that particular religious belief. If we did not work hard to preserve this feature that our government documents promise us, we might eventually become the kind of country that insists that we all must worship _________________ (fill in the blank with whatever religion is in power) religion. It should be obvious to Americans that this is actually not all that different than the human rights issues that we do not condone in other countries. We even go to other countries to intervene in the oppression and human rights violations that some governments impose on their citizens. We are very aware that religious beliefs are the bases for all kinds of discrimination throughout the world. These kinds of issues are the very things that separate us from being a government like they have in Iran and Afhganistan and so many others where people are unable to vote in an open election, women are made to cover their bodies or forced to have mutilation surgery and other even more horrible atrocities. Everyone of us Americans should work very hard to ensure that all our citizens are guaranteed the freedom to live their lives as free Americans, not oppressed victims of unfair laws.

Thanks, rodriguez for the Mother's Day wishes. You deserve a huge Happy Mother's Day!! I hope you are having a beautiful day with your family - God knows they are very fortunate to have YOU!

Oh and Jack, I am sorry that you are a man without a party. That well and truly sucks Maybe one day the Republicans will find out that extreme right wing conservative tactics are not supported by the majority of good-hearted, well-intentioned Americans, and they will reorganize and regroup and give us some practical conservative political choices.

Oh I almost forgot. Happy Mother's Day to all you mo-fo's out there.

Well Jack, thanks for the generous non-wish for a Happy Mother's Day. I have been overwhelmed by the amount of right wing data and declarations of knowledgeable insight offered up by a handful of you posters. If I have allowed it to get under my skin, my sincere apologies. I just can't manage to be quite as magnanimous as you charming Republicans, especially under the circumstances in which I find myself at LBT. You obviously cannot and do not intend to understand my way of thinking about this topic (as well as several other topics) and I admit that I am totally confounded by yours. You say you would like for me to spend the time to give you links and quotes to explain why I believe the way I do on several topics. However, I do not believe that any of you are open to seriously considering opposing literature or even willing to spend your time reading it, so I certainly do not believe that it would make any sense for me to oblige. So here we are. You have your political outlook, I have mine and looks like never the twain shall meet. Interestingly, one of you suggested that I won't be happy in 15 years after going through this shake down, of sorts. But I assure you that I will happily give 15 years to the cause that this administration is undertaking in order to straighten out the mess that the people you support have put us in. And I was also asked (tongue in cheek I reckon) how we're going to pay off the debt. Well, tongue not so firmly implanted, we'll pay it off the same way we will pay off the astronomical debt of the Iraq war and the Bush administration debacle.

You peeps ever thought of broadening your horizons? I guess that is a silly question since you obviously know it all. TerriDoddle, you have no idea who I am or what I do or what socio-economic class I am considered to be in. I will tell you one thing, although it is none of your business, you are quite wrong about me. And I have a niece who works for a company that sounds much like yours. She's a little more honest about her company, its' profits, its' goals and the public relations behind the way they so nicely treat "their" landowners. (It really isn't all about how much they love them.)

rodriguez: "In the case of Euthanasia it should be the choice of the individual or the power of attorney (mother, spouse, father, whoever)... " How dare you suggest, rodriguez, that the person in pain or the loved ones of the person in pain have the right to make a decision of this kind! Gadget would rather that the government make that decision for all of us - and gadget and those who share her beliefs, are the ones who will tell the government exactly what the parameters will be for any decisions that the government will make for us. I'm so relieved that they'll be looking after MY best interests, aren't you?

Beth: "Everyone in life endures pain. I guess we should kill everyone to spare them?" Yes, everyone who has a stubbed toe should be eliminated. And I get to decide who has a real toe stub and who is faking it just because they want to die.

I hope patty that you and gadget appreciate the fact that the obvious reason that Sarah and Bristol are doing what they are doing is to further the Palin's agenda - which is political promotion and economical gain. I know it is in your own interests to support them and to praise them for endorsing what you believe, but they are just people with all the shortcomings and sins that everyone else has to deal with. Is it Beth who keeps accusing people of drinking the Obama kool-aide? Well same could be said for people drinking the Palin kool-aide.

rodriguez: Aging is a huge problem in this country. And it is only going to get worse, unless someone comes up with a sane way to take care of our aging population. It makes sense to me that if someone is terminally ill, in pain, and there is no hope for survival, if they want to end their life they should definitely be allowed to do so legally. In fact, I believe that there should be a reasonable way for people in that condition to do it painlessly and with dignity. Again, in the most strong terms that I can muster, I believe that it should be the individual's right to make a choice like that - not the government's. I can't believe that we treat animals better in this country than we treat human beings. And why do we? It's all in the name of God and because some people believe that any life is better than no life. I just think that is insane and I believe that it is terribly selfish of us to force people to suffer the way we make people suffer when they are terminally ill and in incredible pain.

Gonna Lose It: I respect the fact that you are consistent in your beliefs.

It is absolutely amazing. Just amazing. Beth there IS plenty of blame to go around, but you and others who think is is smart to keep the corporations in America strong by allowing them to do things the greedy and ultiimately dishonest way is just amazing. People are not dishonest for taking advantage of credit cards or loans that have been offered to them. They may be stupid but most of them did not have any criminal intent and they had every intention of repaying the loans and/or credit card charges. They didn't think they were going to have to declare bankruptcy and have their home go into foreclosure and lose their job, all three practically in one fell swoop. The congress may have told the banks that they needed to make more loans, but the banks made the decision to come up with the dishonest way they constructed loans and solicited people whom they knew could probably not repay those loans. Yeah, I fault them. My amazement comes from why you do not. All this talk about feeding corporations more and more profits and allowing them more and more leeway to perform in whatever sleezy capacity they choose has not done what you folks are declaring it will do. We have already tried that! It has NOT helped America. Business has been done the way you're saying is the right way by not making them pay their fair share of taxes, not making them work within the confines of the United States, by not making them answer to Congress regarding fair trade and fair practices. In fact, it is exatly what has nearly brought the United States (and the world) to its' knees. How you can keep harping on how bad it is to make them operate in such a way that will help rebuild America, is quite the stunner. No one is proposing that we put corporations out of busines, now are they? Why in the world do you continue to believe that making corporations pay their FAIR SHARE is wrong?????

I have spina bifida (diagnosed as an adult) and I undoubtedly have the fat gene. If my mom and dad had been able to abort me, then I would never have known it, would I? And I darn sure wouldn't have been living through all the pain I've had to endure. Who are you to say that they shouldn't have made the decision to spare me?

It isn't the first time she's been caught talking out of both sides of her mouth (so to speak) and it won't be the last, I'm quite sure.

I commend you for your generous, laid back attitude.

DownIn: "I do see your point and have respect for you (really I do)" gadget: "I see your point as well -- I just disagree on the definition of the word and how it applies / how people perceive it." Aw this is really a sweet love fest. But I'm gonna call a bull$$it here. Cm'on. It's all about what Palin said. Did she or didn't she say she thought about (considered) not having her Down's Syndrome baby? Why is that such a bad thing anyway? Isn't that a normal reaction to such devastating news? Who wants to bring a handicapped child into the world knowing how difficult that child's life is going to be? What loving, responsible parent wouldn't think of all of the alternatives and do some serious soul searching (and considering) before they made a decision? It's similar in a way to her daughter's going out and stumping for unmarried kids to abstain from having sex. She's speaking from her own experience and that gives her a lot of credibility. But those kids are probably also listening to the father of her baby when he says that preaching abstinence to teenagers doesn't work. He also has a whole lot of credibility. In the first statement she made, I think Sarah Palin was being honest. She did some serious soul searching and considered the alternatives. In her conflicting second statement I think she simply wanted to have all the credit for not choosing abortion. She wasn't completely truthful, but she does get a lot of credit from me for walking the walk. Meaning she campaigned vigorously against women's right to choose and she didn't make a choice that would have been contrary to her political position. Interestingly, I wonder if she still would have "considered" it, even if for only a moment, if abortion were still illegal.

Heck Jack, you post enough for the both of us. I shouldn't be expected to come up with anything because no one can top the amount of stuff you and gadget bring to us and I can't find anything that is left wing enough to rebut all the extremely conservative claptrap you all are able to track down. Congratulations, you win. I'm sure everyone is happy to have it all so clearly spelled out for us. Our president hates his country. My goodness. If anyone is paying attention, it is easy to see the source of hatefulness being peddled in this country.

Beth: "I feel no heat, BJean." Well you're obviously a very strong and thick-skinned woman, eh? plain: "Is marriage a constitutionally protected right?" As I've said before, if we were JUST talking about the civil union that we call marriage on all of our government documents, it would be one thing. But what we're talking about is that marriage causes people to be treated differently than single people under our laws. It isn't really a difficult thing to understand, is it? Changing the terminology could solve the problem, but I don't see any reason to do that. My point is that to be fair under the law, gays cannot be banned from being married as things stand right now. If people want to change the word marriage to civil union on all government documents, then that's an issue that we should discuss and perhaps vote on. If they want to simply ban gays from being "married" as the term is used within our government documents, that's another question and that's what is being debated. Banning people because they are gay and exluding them from being able to have the same rights as other people is what is patently unfair. I really don't care if it is a religious issue or not. It's just that I have observed that religious people are funding the fight and doing the negative debating. If there is an organized group of folks who are against gay marriage, who are not religious in any way, I am unaware of them. Please, enlighten me.

rodriguezequal, that's fantastic news!!!! I am thrilled for you. I know you and your husband must be very happy. How far long are you, if you don't mind me asking? Wow. That is such a bright spot to bring to this thread. Yay you!!!

Enron was one company. You wouldn't expect the failure of one company to cause the economy to tank. The idea to encourage banks to make more loans so that people could buy houses wasn't a bad thing. It was the lenders who came up with the schemes that encouraged homeowners to get in way over their heads. Neither Barney Frank nor the other congressional members wanted that or encouraged it. The banks have to take responsibilty for their shoddy lending practices. What we learned from it is that there has to be some oversight to make sure things like Enron aren't common and that lenders don't pull the stuff they pulled that have affected our housing industry and nearly tanked our economy. I do not disagree that individuals must take responsibilty for their purchases and to know whether they can afford them. The fact is, this has become a credit card society. The banks have made billions on giving credit cards to people who really shouldn't use them. It's no different with the home lenders. They concocted programs that would appeal to people even though the people shouldn't be taking out such large loans. Banks and other lenders assure people that they CAN afford more credit cards and bigger houses and more luxury goods. Do you blame people for using credit cards when they are solicited to open new accounts day after day in the mail and on the phone? Banks love the customers who cannot pay their credit card bills off every month. That's where they make their money. We pay our cards off every month and they hate us. Of course they keep upping our credit card limits to ridiculous amounts. We could build a house just using our credit cards. It's crazy. I actually knew a doctor who did use his credit card when he built his multi-million dollar home in Orlando. His builder let him use a cost plus payment method where the doc paid the subs, and he raked in all the frequent flyer miles. Now that's what I call creative financing. Actually I did speak to the fact that capitalism works to protect workers also. And I do not believe that the people running the government want to run corporations in America. I believe they have had to take steps to reign in companies and banks that represent greed gone wild. I believe they want to get out of that business as quickly as possible, and I sure hope they do.

luluc: I'm sure it all depends on your perspective. I have some good friends, gay neighbors, who are committed to each other and wear wedding bands. They have made many friends in the neighborhood and everyone loves them. I believe that there's a good chance prior to getting to know our gay neighbors, these same people would be against gay marriage. But having witnessed, up close and personal, what it means to gays, they would now probably vote to allow them to have a real marriage with all the rights and privileges that heretosexual couples enjoy in America.

Aw Beth, get real! You have said some very personally hurtful things directly to me on other threads. And I have read things that you've directed at other people that were downright hateful. This is not an isolated case where you, uncharacteristically, used rough language. I'm not letting you off the hook either. Because by dang, you have been guilty many times of doing the very things that you accuse others of doing. Sometimes in fact, I wonder if you just write things really fast and don't proof read because you seem shocked when you are called on something you must not even realize you said. DownIn: I for one, knew darned good and well that you weren't actually insulting the good people of Virginia. You even qualified what you were saying by speaking to what you've seen on TV. Beth has a way of trying to turn things around instead of taking responsibility for what she's said. She is quick to jump on someone, and I find that fair enough, but she doesn't seem to be able to take the heat.

luluc: I think most Americans probably don't give a darn about the issue. I think a whole lot of Americans haven't given it much thought at all. If this issue were out on the table and there were pro and anti arguments for everyone to hear, an opportunity for there to be open debate on a regular basis, the outcome could change. It's like abortion rights in a way. It doesn't affect most people and so they might say they believe one way or the other, but when the real arguments get put forth, they surprise even themselves sometimes by realizing that they do not want to vote against women's right to choose on such a very personal issue. Gay rights are very personal - to gays. For other people, it just doesn't affect them in any way and won't ever affect them. So who's arguing against gay rights? The very religious folks who are doing it because they hear only one side of the issue and they have heard it all their lives and they continue to hear it often and loudly. It's an abomination. God says it's an abomination. So enter into the bedrooms of gay people and stand in judgment. Do not allow them their right to all the things that heretosexual people have in this country. God says it's the right thing to do. But in fact, IMHO, it is not. Nor is it the right thing to do to allow the government to intervene when a woman finds herself pregnant when she did not plan it and when she is not able to safely bring a child into the world. Nothing I have said states that it is good for people to be homosexuals. Nothing I have said states that it is good for women to have abortions. What I've said is that it is Constitutionally correct to allow gays and women all the rights (including the right to privacy) that they deserve in our this country.

Beth: "Socal, this isn't about me, and you have no power to keep me on any "hook". I know you want to MAKE it about me, but it's not." Wait just a damn minute... are you the same Beth who has raised hell with me for using angry sounding language?? If you're going to play the blame game and go on the record here calling homosexuals derrogatory names, you can't expect for others who find it ugly and distasteful to let it pass unnoticed. You don't allow anyone else to get away with it.