Big Surprise - MTV Supports Terrorism

[Nathan Brazil]

Just overheard a bit of propaganda on MTV (college brat home for the summer). I never realized that Hezbollah was a "Lebanese muslim militia". I always thought the word "militia" was an evil concept that should bring to mind people like Tim McViegh. But nooo...when the word "muslim" is used as an adjective, "militia" suddenly becomes a warm fuzzy protective word.

Eff'n MTV can't call Hezbollah a TERRORIST organization, and be factually correct? They could have striven for total accuracy and called it a muslim terrorist organization, but that would have required deeper wells of honesty than MTV could plumb.

They still call Janet Jackson's superbowl stripper act a "wardrobe malfunction".

Then the left wonders why we hold them in such scorn.

[Churchel]

I always thought the word "militia" was an evil concept that should bring to mind people like Tim McViegh.


Then what changed your mind? Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, he killed 167 people and injured hundreds. He was also a militia member.
The branch dividians were a militant religious group, who he "avenged" by blowing up the oklahoma city federal building. When that happened, before we knew what happened I was hoping that it was a foreign terror orginization but knew from the date that it was something domestic. Our local newstalk radio had us convinced in the coming weeks that the "jackbooted thugs" would be kicking our doors in and searching our houses because we were republicans.

[Mayberry]

MTV merely parrots the twisted views being force fed to our young people by the left wing universities. That's their demographic, so they cater to them. And this is the reason I never went to college. Saw too many friends get brainwashed. I didn't wish to waste $40,000 to get brainwashed, and land the same $30,000 a year job that I got without an expensive piece of paper. Many of my stronger of mind conservative friends dropped out of college in the first year or two, because the atmosphere was openly hostile towards them (you know, disapproving of homosexuality, socialism, supporting free enterprise, minimal government, it's all against the grain of "higher education")

[Nathan Brazil]

I always thought the word "militia" was an evil concept that should bring to mind people like Tim McViegh.


Then what changed your mind?Â*Â*Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, he killed 167 people and injured hundreds.Â*Â*He was also a militia member.
The branch dividians were a militant religious group, who he "avenged" by blowing up the oklahoma city federal building.Â*Â*When that happened, before we knew what happened I was hoping that it was a foreign terror orginization but knew from the date that it was something domestic.Â*Â*Our local newstalk radio had us convinced in the coming weeks that the "jackbooted thugs" would be kicking our doors in and searching our houses because we were republicans.


HINT: The Minutemen of Revolutionary War fame were a militia. The Minutemen protecting our borders today since the politicians won't are also a militia, even though they eschew guns. Those are both organized to good purpose, as are the various state national guards.

In the context of the MTV propaganda report it was plain that they were using the word "militia" to gloss over the fact that the Hezzies are a terrorist group. One can't whip up sympathy for the poor little Lebanese when you call those whom they support terrorists, can you?

Do you see no problems with "news" programs aimed at the young, impressionable, and mostly stupid future voters that distort the simplest of truths to shape their world view?

[kanyon40]

The issue is that pretty much only Jews and American Conservatives see radical Islam as terrorists. The left in our country, academia, the media, plus the predominant world sentiment is that Israel is the problem in the middle east, and that if Israel were gone, then there wouldn't be any terrorism at all. It is sad that Israel is merely fighting for the right to exist while its surrounding nations are all Muslim and hostile. Some are actual nations with governments, others are terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. It is beyond me why we give the same clout to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, as we do to the government of a nation.

Why would those on the left in this country want to downplay that Hezbollah is a terrorist group? If we admitted that they (and Hamas, and Al Qaeda, etc) are terrorists that want to kill all who are different from them, then it is hard to make the case against military action in the middle east by the US. For example, how many people have argued that we don't belong in Afghanistan? The reason? They are supposedly a sovereign nation who did nothing to us; nevermind that the Taliban has given safe haven to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and that they enable these terrorists to attack America. The point, then, is that if we call a terrorist a terrorist instead of "insurgent, militia, resistance fighter, etc.", then we have to admit that they need dealt with militarily. Since the left are notoriously uber-weenie when it comes to defense, it is easier to pretend that the threats aren't out there.

[Nathan Brazil]

The issue is that pretty much only Jews and American Conservatives see radical Islam as terrorists.Â*

The issue is that Hezbollah IS a terrorist organization. That's it. When the left can't call a terrorist a terrorist, they're helping the terrorists.

End of story.

Why would those on the left in this country want to downplay that Hezbollah is a terrorist group?Â*Â*If we admitted that they (and Hamas, and Al Qaeda, etc) are terrorists that want to kill all who are different from them, then it is hard to make the case against military action in the middle east by the US.Â*Â*For example, how many people have argued that we don't belong in Afghanistan?Â*Â*The reason?Â*Â*They are supposedly a sovereign nation who did nothing to us; nevermind that the Taliban has given safe haven to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and that they enable these terrorists to attack America.Â*Â*The point, then, is that if we call a terrorist a terrorist instead of "insurgent, militia, resistance fighter, etc.", then we have to admit that they need dealt with militarily.Â*Â*Since the left are notoriously uber-weenie when it comes to defense, it is easier to pretend that the threats aren't out there.


I see you've been a professional carpenter, and can drive a nail home with one blow. Very good.

[lily]

Eff'n MTV can't call Hezbollah a TERRORIST organization, and be factually correct? They could have striven for total accuracy and called it a muslim terrorist organization, but that would have required deeper wells of honesty than MTV could plumb.
It explains a lot, when people consider MTV a news source.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I haven't actually watched MTV for years. When I used to watch it it was still loaded with music and pauly shore was hosting spring break.

Is kurt loder still on there?

[BoogyMan]

I haven't actually watched MTV for years. When I used to watch it it was still loaded with music and pauly shore was hosting spring break.

Is kurt loder still on there?


Pauly Shore?? Egads Zo, thats been a while! LOL :)

[Labrocca]

Eff'n MTV can't call Hezbollah a TERRORIST organization, and be factually correct? They could have striven for total accuracy and called it a muslim terrorist organization, but that would have required deeper wells of honesty than MTV could plumb.
It explains a lot, when people consider MTV a news source.



Exactly my thoughts...what else did you expect from MTV? They have more gay liberal left-nut conspiracy thinking views than any other media. I don't allow my kids to watch it at all and I stopped watching it long ago when they starting showing those dating shows with same sex dates. They obviously have a left-wing liberal agenda.

[Mayberry]

They obviously have a left-wing liberal agenda. MTV merely parrots the twisted views being force fed to our young people by the left wing universities. That's their demographic, so they cater to them. Uh, yeah.

[Nathan Brazil]

Eff'n MTV can't call Hezbollah a TERRORIST organization, and be factually correct? They could have striven for total accuracy and called it a muslim terrorist organization, but that would have required deeper wells of honesty than MTV could plumb.
It explains a lot, when people consider MTV a news source.


People consider CNN a news source.

[Mayberry]

People consider CNN a news source.:D:P:D:P:D

[Old Corps Gunny]

Actually, a militia is a group of citizens to defend their community and was necessary during the pre-Civil War period when settlers were moving westward and no Federal armed forces were available to protect them against Indian attacks. It is only over the last 30 years or so that anti-Federal organizations have decided to adopt the term "militia" as a title, primarily to give themselves a pseudolegitimacy. Any organization that preaches hate, kills innocent civilians in protest to government policy, robs banks for funding, and kills children at a day care center because it is run by a Jewish temple is nothing more than a terrorist organization, not a "militia" in the original meaning of the word.

That being said, I have to agree with Kanyon40 and Nathan Brazil: it's just semantics. A terrorist by any other name is still a terrorist, and anyone who declares otherwise either supports terrorism or is deluding himself.

[Rider]

MTV is a cesspool. I have zero tolerance of that network. It is a cancer eating at the most impressionable, not to mention vital segment of our society. MTV is the strongest case yet for the argument that our Founders were talking ONLY about political speech in the first amendment.

[Cobra]

It is a cancer eating at the most impressionable, not to mention vital segment of our society. MTV is the strongest case yet for the argument that our Founders were talking ONLY about political speech in the first amendment.
I think your exaggerating the danger and horror of MTV bit, it is not truly harming kids or anyone else. Its entertainment and representing our current culture not the other way around. I would also argue the founders meant freedom of speech to be more than just political speech. We don't need government censorship of things they think are bad for us to see/hear.

[Mayberry]

We don't need government censorship of things they think are bad for us to see/hear. I totally agree with that. If some people had their way, they'd be burning Harry Potter books for crying out loud.

[Rider]

Cobra- "I think your exaggerating the danger and horror of MTV bit, it is not truly harming kids or anyone else. Its entertainment and representing our current culture not the other way around. I would also argue the founders meant freedom of speech to be more than just political speech. We don't need government censorship of things they think are bad for us to see/hear."

I couldn't disagree more. The moral decay in this country over the last several decades cannot be blamed on any one source, but it seems that the left can't imagine what the cause is because it certainly hasn't been due to anything THEY'VE done! Just entertainment? How about psychologists advising young teenage girls to experiment with having sex with their girlfriends? When queried as to whether it was OK to go to an S&M bar the good shrink said fine, just make sure the whips have no blood products on them...AIDS ya know! Complete and utter self destructive trash! It reflects a small, amoral, pitiful, self-destructive segment of our society.
As for the first amendment; I have yet to hear any historical argument that indicates that it is refering to commercial speech of any kind. As far as government censorship is concerned, don't forget that we are the government, not "they". Are you saying that we should have no decency standards at all? I truly believe that if it meant more money to Hollywood (OK, let's say MTV) they'd have 10 year old children having sex with baboons. They have absolutely no scruples whatsoever.

[lily]

Rider.......I'm sure you've got some proof to back up all those accusations?

As for the first amendment; I have yet to hear any historical argument that indicates that it is refering to commercial speech of any kind.

On this one I have to agree........that head on commercial should be banned!:P

[Nathan Brazil]

I think your exaggerating the danger and horror of MTV bit, it is not truly harming kids or anyone else.

Nonsense. It promotes a liberal viewpoint, which harms everyone.

[Rider]

Lily- I'm afraid I have no proof to offer, but I saw the program myself. These are just two examples. This was about ten years ago. I can only imagine what they show now.

Your second comment whizzed right by me??

[Cobra]

I couldn't disagree more. The moral decay in this country over the last several decades cannot be blamed on any one source, but it seems that the left can't imagine what the cause is because it certainly hasn't been due to anything THEY'VE done!
Our country has advanced, I would say our country has become more moral in many areas and somewhat less in others over the last several decades. I'm sure some wish for the days of old when woman had no rights or freedoms, blacks were lynched, and gays were outcasts or far worse if they even dared express openly who they were at all which most did not but times have changed and for the better and I wouldn't call that moral decay.

Just entertainment? How about psychologists advising young teenage girls to experiment with having sex with their girlfriends? When queried as to whether it was OK to go to an S&M bar the good shrink said fine, just make sure the whips have no blood products on them...AIDS ya know!
Never seen that or anything much like it on MTV. Yes MTV is mostly entertainment, Cribs and Pimp my ride would be some shows I watch.

Complete and utter self destructive trash! It reflects a small, amoral, pitiful, self-destructive segment of our society.
I disagree, MTV is pretty mainstream not a very small segment of our society. As for the show you mentioned even that wasn't so bad as to blame MTV for destroying society in our country.

As for the first amendment; I have yet to hear any historical argument that indicates that it is refering to commercial speech of any kind.
Well I don't know a whole awful lot about constitutional law so I won’t spend much time arguing this except to say the SC has ruled on free speech many times and I've never heard of it only covering political speech.

As far as government censorship is concerned, don't forget that we are the government, not "they". Are you saying that we should have no decency standards at all?
Most people in this country do not even vote for their government and the rest is made up almost solely special interests so I am actually comfortable referring to them as they. They do not represent the majority of this country. As for decency standards I believe you control what you expose yourself and your family to. No one forces you to watch MTV, or any other radio or TV station but you should not take that right away from others through the government because of your decency standards. It’s is not the governments role to impose a certain groups of peoples morals on everyone but to protect the safety and rights of the people through reasonable laws.

I truly believe that if it meant more money to Hollywood (OK, let's say MTV) they'd have 10 year old children having sex with baboons. They have absolutely no scruples whatsoever.
Bull, just because MTV shows sexy "consensual" music videos does not mean they would condone child rape and bestiality for a buck. Many of these Hollywood Executives you talk about have children of their own and would be horrified by that suggestion.

[Rider]

Cobra, as usual you make some good points. I imagine you do see MTV as reflecting mainstream culture. Not having been around fifty years ago you lack the perspective of my years. That's not a put down. It's just a fact.

I graduated from a fair sized high school in the late sixties. In our senior class of about 400 students we knew for sure that one girl had gotten pregnant. Maybe a couple others did, but none that we knew. Today at that same high school they have an entire night curriculum in place for all of the young single mothers who want to finish their education.

In the early sixties the James Bond movies started hitting the theaters. My friends and I really wanted to go of course. None of our parents would allow that. Way too much flesh! Now these same movies are shown Sunday afternoon and evenings for all to see. I suppose that must seem hillarious to you.

When I was in my 20's I went to a film festival that featured the first "x rated" , "banned in Boston" movie- "The Diary of Fanny Hill". It was the memoirs of a prostitute. Not only did it not have any nudity, partial or otherwise, it didn't even have any profanity! Now the television industry is courting the "xxx" movie moguls in an attempt to mainstream their work. All that it will take is some more softening up of the public's sensibilities. The comment about the children and baboons thing was a deliberate exaggeration, but there was a time not so long ago when no broadcaster would have even considered showing a woman in a bra on primetime TV. Now we have Victoria's Secret.

It's this creeping decline of morals that I speak of, not issues like civil rights, lynching or voting rights for women. No offense, but you are a perfect example of the old adage about slowly boiling the frog by degrees. What is shocking to someone of my age is blase' to someone of your age. It's always that way, but remember, all societies eventually collapse. You may think that moral standards are just arbitrary rules thought up by religious party poopers, but there are solid justifications for them all.

[Nathan Brazil]

Pat Moynihan said it all, and he was always a flaming liberal Democrat:

"Defining deviancy down"

MTV is repsonsible for Janet Jackson's deliberate flashing of her old and flabby tit on a live Superbowl broadcast, and everyone laughed it off.

Ten years before, heads would have rolled, and rightly so. Was there any warning that an R-rated event was going to happen? No.

MTV is nothing but trash TV, and mainstreaming that culture will do nothing but damage. People are free to do all the drugs they want, or they can become bull dykes and pretend they're men, I don't care. But lets not force society into pretending those aberations are either normal or healthy, because they're neither.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Rider, I'm pretty sure you and I have vastly different morals when it comes to secondary (ie. not murder, theft, rape etc.) issues. But, as far as I'm concerned, many of those things you view as immorality are responsible for issues of civil rights. Societies become tolerant through being more open, which leads to increased respect for the rights of others, and increased "immorality" in other issues.

Hell even look at things like divorce rates, MA has the lowest rate in the Nation, the Bible Belt is at the other end.

[Nathan Brazil]

Hell even look at things like divorce rates, MA has the lowest rate in the Nation, the Bible Belt is at the other end.


Wait and see what happens when gays really can get married in Boston and Provincetown...

[AlonzoMourning23]

Wait and see what happens when gays really can get married in Boston and Provincetown...


Psst..... they're been doing that since 2004.

[Nathan Brazil]

Wait and see what happens when gays really can get married in Boston and Provincetown...


Psst..... they're been doing that since 2004.


Psstt...I'm talking about real marriages, where it's no longer a political issue and hence not a prize to steal away from the normal people.

When it's common place and no one cares, the divorce rate among the limp wristed crowd will pull Massachusetts over the top.

[AlonzoMourning23]

hence not a prize to steal away from the normal people.
Ummm...... Nathan, that makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying interracial marriage steals from marriage involving the same race.

[Nathan Brazil]

hence not a prize to steal away from the normal people.
Ummm...... Nathan, that makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying interracial marriage steals from marriage involving the same race.


We're discussing homosexuality AND you want it to make sense of their motivations?

[Cobra]

Well since we're discussing homosexuality now, legalize gay marriage in all fifty states is my stance. Of course I don't see it happening for the next few decades but will get there eventually and I suspect gays will have about the same divorce rate strait couples. Hopefully divorce rates will lower in the next few decades as well.

[AlonzoMourning23]

We're discussing homosexuality AND you want it to make sense of their motivations?Â*Â*


:rolleyes: I'm sure that made sense to you.

[lily]

Rider



Your second comment whizzed right by me??

It was another attempt at humor.........you said commercial speach should be banned. There is this one commercial that grates on my last nerve. It's for a product called head on, it's for headaches. They just keep repeating head on......it gives me a headache

[Cobra]

All boring TV commercial should be banned, they are indecent, causing moral decay throughout this great country, and go against everything I stand for/my moral values.

[Rider]

Lily- Oh yeah, I know that commercial. It is annoying.

[Nathan Brazil]

Rider



Your second comment whizzed right by me??

It was another attempt at humor.........you said commercial speach should be banned. There is this one commercial that grates on my last nerve. It's for a product called head on, it's for headaches. They just keep repeating head on......it gives me a headache


Oh, is that what that stuff is for? I couldn't figure it out from the annoying commercial. I don't think I'll ever buy it if it's for headaches. I've got a wife, I don't need to buy a product to give me headaches.

[Mayberry]

legalize gay marriage in all fifty states is my stance Not in Texas, sister. It'll be a cold day in hell before that happens here. Also, a sweeping 50 state law would mean that the states lost their right to decide for themselves, which would mean yet another constitutional ammendment taking power from the states and giving it to the federal government, and we don't need that, just on principle if for no other reason.

[Nathan Brazil]

legalize gay marriage in all fifty states is my stance Not in Texas, sister. It'll be a cold day in hell before that happens here. Also, a sweeping 50 state law would mean that the states lost their right to decide for themselves, which would mean yet another constitutional ammendment taking power from the states and giving it to the federal government, and we don't need that, just on principle if for no other reason.


No, it would mean that the 14th Amendment is being applied correctly.

Again, why does anyone care if two people get married or not?

[Rider]

Nathan wrote:"No, it would mean that the 14th Amendment is being applied correctly."

I just re-read the 14th amendment and I couldn't find anything in it about marriage, gay or otherwise. Little help here?

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan wrote:"No, it would mean that the 14th Amendment is being applied correctly."

I just re-read the 14th amendment and I couldn't find anything in it about marriage, gay or otherwise. Little help here?



You must have missed the part where it says all "persons" shall have equal protection under the law, and the part where it defines a person as practically anyone inside the country.

[Rider]

Sure, I read that part, but I still don't understand your point. I, a heterosexual male have a right to marry. Any homosexual male also has a right to marry. Neither of us have a right to marry another male, homosexual or heterosexual. Both of us may love our sisters or brothers, but neither can marry any of those persons.
Marriage is a matter of state law. The constitution prevents discrimination under the law and was intended to address discrimination against former slaves. Women had to wait for an additional amendment to gain the right to vote.

[lily]

Nathan Brazil




No, it would mean that the 14th Amendment is being applied correctly.

Again, why does anyone care if two people get married or not?
I must say, Nathan........my jaw hit the floor, when I read that. I think I've been reading you wrong all this time. No offense, but I really never expected you to be for gay marriage. I see you in a whole new light..you're not as far to the right as I thought!;)

[Nathan Brazil]

Sure, I read that part, but I still don't understand your point. I, a heterosexual male have a right to marry. Any homosexual male also has a right to marry. Neither of us have a right to marry another male, homosexual or heterosexual. Both of us may love our sisters or brothers, but neither can marry any of those persons.
Marriage is a matter of state law. The constitution prevents discrimination under the law and was intended to address discrimination against former slaves. Women had to wait for an additional amendment to gain the right to vote.


What do you care what two other men decide to do with their bodies or their lives? Did you get appointed by some secret morals board to do the winnowing, or is it just some unnatural desire you have to control others?

[lily]

Sure, I read that part, but I still don't understand your point. I, a heterosexual male have a right to marry. Any homosexual male also has a right to marry. Neither of us have a right to marry another male, homosexual or heterosexual. Both of us may love our sisters or brothers, but neither can marry any of those persons.
Marriage is a matter of state law. The constitution prevents discrimination under the law and was intended to address discrimination against former slaves. Women had to wait for an additional amendment to gain the right to vote.


Why would a homosexual man, want to marry a woman?

If a marraige is allowed in one state, the people getting married can never move to another state, their marriage won't be accepted. It would have to be taken out of the state's hands.

Like slavery and women's rights, though.....it will have to be done state by state before it accepted in all 50 states.

I don't see what the big problem is.....no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, it just allows those that are homosexual to have the same rights as you and I have.

[Rider]

Lily-
"Why would a homosexual man, want to marry a woman?"

Don't ask me. The point was that the law treats all equally.

"If a marraige is allowed in one state, the people getting married can never move to another state, their marriage won't be accepted. It would have to be taken out of the state's hands.

Like slavery and women's rights, though.....it will have to be done state by state before it accepted in all 50 states."

Not at all. It would require a constitutional ammendment.

"I don't see what the big problem is.....no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, it just allows those that are homosexual to have the same rights as you and I have. "

It would open a pandora's box and further dilute the marriage contract which forms the basis for the nuclear family which is the cornerstone of all civilizations.
For example: One of my best friends is, for lack of a better term, a bum. The social security benefits he has accrued wouldn't amount to much. But, if he and I were rooming together in our old age, we could marry and upon my death he would be supported by my benefits which are more substantial. As a matter of fact, I imagine a deluge of "convenience" marriages would occur.
Changing an institution as ancient and critical to society to cater to a tiny group of sexually disfunctional people in indeed a pandora's box that should be left closed...and locked by constitutional ammendment.

[Nathan Brazil]

It would require neither a state-by-state change of law, nor a new Constitutional Amendment.

It would require that the emphasis the 14th Amendment applies to equal treatment under the law be actually applied.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it's been determined that sex-based job discrmination is a no-no. Ditto that for housing, loans, and restaurant service. That the Federal government doesn't have any business interfering in what private businesses do is irrelevant, that's how the Fourteenth reads. What is relevant is that it IS perfectly applicable to sex-based marriage discrimination, since marriage is a state function, not a private commercial enterprise.

[Rider]

Nathan wrote:Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it's been determined that sex-based job discrmination is a no-no. Ditto that for housing, loans, and restaurant service. That the Federal government doesn't have any business interfering in what private businesses do is irrelevant, that's how the Fourteenth reads. What is relevant is that it IS perfectly applicable to sex-based marriage discrimination, since marriage is a state function, not a private commercial enterprise.

No, sex is not mentioned in the 14th amendment, so it doesn't read that way. Judicial activists have made their preferences into law. There is not a shred of evidence that gender was accidentally left out or implied in this amendment. It was clearly meant to prevent discrimination against freed slaves and their descendants.

And, if what you imply is true, then why did women not immediately have the right to vote?

Also, as I stated before- homosexuals have the same marital rights as anyone else. Men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. Their orientation is irrelevant.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan wrote:Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it's been determined that sex-based job discrmination is a no-no. Ditto that for housing, loans, and restaurant service. That the Federal government doesn't have any business interfering in what private businesses do is irrelevant, that's how the Fourteenth reads. What is relevant is that it IS perfectly applicable to sex-based marriage discrimination, since marriage is a state function, not a private commercial enterprise.

No, sex is not mentioned in the 14th amendment, so it doesn't read that way. Judicial activists have made their preferences into law. There is not a shred of evidence that gender was accidentally left out or implied in this amendment. It was clearly meant to prevent discrimination against freed slaves and their descendants.

And, if what you imply is true, then why did women not immediately have the right to vote?

Also, as I stated before- homosexuals have the same marital rights as anyone else. Men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. Their orientation is irrelevant.



Isn't the question I asked earlier more relevant? Why do you seek to deny basic freedoms to people? Why do you care? How are you harmed?

[Rider]

Nathan wrote:Isn't the question I asked earlier more relevant? Why do you seek to deny basic freedoms to people? Why do you care? How are you harmed?

More relevant than judges snatching constitutional rights out of thin air? Step back a moment and consider what you just asked.

I don't wish to deny basic freedoms to anyone, Nathan. By all means, lets introduce bills in congress that legalize homosexual marriage. I wonder why I haven't heard of that being done? Could it be that it would be political suicide? Referendum put on ballots in many states specifically limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and woman have passed with crushing majorities. Should the will of the people be overturned by an unelected activist judge? If the courts "find" constitutional protections for homosexual marriage, it will make marriage meaningless. Group marriage, marriage between siblings, even interspecies marriage (don't laugh, it's already been done) cannot be stopped; equal protection, ya know.

Specifically, for societies to exist children must be "socialized", or raised in a manner that allows them to function as citizens in their society. The traditional nuclear family provides a secure and stable environment for children to be raised effectively. The nuclear family in our society has been dealt repeated blows in the last century and has been critically weakened, possibly terminally so. The striking down of laws prohibiting adultery, no fault divorce and the removal of any social stigma on extramarital sex and out of wedlock child bearing have fractured the foundations of our society.

Like governmental welfare programs, do ya? With a 30% out of wedlock birthrate it's gonna take plenty of tax dollars to support all those little bastards.
If that is what Americans want for our future, by God let's vote on it and live with the results; but a vote it deserves, not judicial fiat.

[Nathan Brazil]

[quote]Nathan wrote:Isn't the question I asked earlier more relevant? Why do you seek to deny basic freedoms to people? Why do you care? How are you harmed?

More relevant than judges snatching constitutional rights out of thin air?

There's something wrong with the government declining to restrict freedom?

At least we get to see where the Republicans stand on the concept of liberty. They believe in limited freedom, and they get to approve what those limits are.

Step back a moment and consider what you just asked.

I don't wish to deny basic freedoms to anyone, Nathan. By all means, lets introduce bills in congress that legalize homosexual marriage. I wonder why I haven't heard of that being done?

Since marriage falls under state law, I'd be surprised as hell if Congress enacted any such legislation.


Could it be that it would be political suicide?

Are you trying to say that our elected representatives are pansies and don't have any balls? I know that. How does that invalidate the philosophical underpinning of my argument? You're hiding behind their political motivations rather than defending your own position.

Referendum put on ballots in many states specifically limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and woman have passed with crushing majorities.

And now you're hiding behind the mobocracy, which still isn't a defense of the moral precepts you're espousing.

Should the will of the people be overturned by an unelected activist judge?

Yes, when the will of the people wrongly limits the freedom of others, you bet your sweet ass the judges should intercede. Since the government ran the public schools, it was perfectly correct for the courts to invalidate the popular discrimination laws wrongly keeping darkies out of whitey's schools.

If the courts "find" constitutional protections for homosexual marriage, it will make marriage meaningless.

How so? Marriage is an emotional commitment between two loving people. You rely on the opinions of others to hold your marriage together, assuming you're married?

Group marriage, marriage between siblings, even interspecies marriage (don't laugh, it's already been done) cannot be stopped; equal protection, ya know.

There's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, polyandry, line marriages, and the like. There's many advantages. The principle opposition for such constructs in this country come from religious prudery and legal considerations such as the division of community property in divorces and the allocation of minor children.

The ban against sibling marriage has a scientific basis in genetics, and can be supported rationally, unlike bans on homosexual marriages. Interspecies marriages are a farce, since, unlike Alonso, I don't believe non-human animals can give consent.

Specifically, for societies to exist children must be "socialized", or raised in a manner that allows them to function as citizens in their society. The traditional nuclear family provides a secure and stable environment for children to be raised effectively. The nuclear family in our society has been dealt repeated blows in the last century and has been critically weakened, possibly terminally so. The striking down of laws prohibiting adultery, no fault divorce and the removal of any social stigma on extramarital sex and out of wedlock child bearing have fractured the foundations of our society.

And in homosexual marriages the chances of a natural conception are zero, making this line of argument irrelevant. Not only that, but today a lesbian couple can generate babies and raise them with no questions asked, and a bisexual father choosing to swing deeper into left field can have custody of his children.

Like governmental welfare programs, do ya? With a 30% out of wedlock birthrate it's gonna take plenty of tax dollars to support all those little bastards.

My you're getting excited. And yeah, homosexuals are well known for their fecundity, aren't they?

If that is what Americans want for our future, by God let's vote on it and live with the results; but a vote it deserves, not judicial fiat.

And you've gone back to hiding behind the mobocracy instead of explaining why you feel you have the authority to tell others how to live their lives.

That's why I'm no conservative.

[lily]

Rider



It would open a pandora's box and further dilute the marriage contract which forms the basis for the nuclear family which is the cornerstone of all civilizations.

Total bunk.


For example: One of my best friends is, for lack of a better term, a bum. The social security benefits he has accrued wouldn't amount to much. But, if he and I were rooming together in our old age, we could marry and upon my death he would be supported by my benefits which are more substantial. As a matter of fact, I imagine a deluge of "convenience" marriages would occur.

I don't see what this example has to do with gays getting married....but if you don't think old people get married, just for the reasons you mentioned above, then you're living in a bubble. Old people, women especially are getting married just for the benefits they can't or weren't able to earn. Especially medical benefits.

Changing an institution as ancient and critical to society to cater to a tiny group of sexually disfunctional people in indeed a pandora's box that should be left closed...and locked by constitutional ammendment.

Why are you so afraid of change, especially this? What scares you so badly?

[Rider]

Nathan, you're a piece of work. Just when I think I've got you figured out, you wriggle out of my neat little pidgeon hole. I can see why you chose the moniker you use on this forum.

Let's see; where to begin? I'm with you in being very wary of a pure democracy. The founders wisely sidesteped that with a very neat constitutional republic. Sort of by definition the whole concept revolves around the constitution itself. Agreed?
What I don't get is that as pragmatic as you seem to be, you appear to be unconcerned about the constitution being "ammended on the fly" by unelected judges that are not answerable to the people (as in "we the people"). Let'sÂ*Â*set aside the issue of homosexual marriage for the sake of this discussion, OK?
One issue that concerns me is the tribunal set up for the combatants at Gitmo. Now, I'm no scholar or expert on the Geneva convention, but from what I've read I don't see how the convention applies to those people, or any other terrorist group. I think that you probably agree with that, but if you don't, I know you'll let me know. The ruling was a little vague from what little I read of it, but I believe that the court ruled that the administration would have to follow the dictates of the convention. If that's right and I'm pretty sure it is, I have a giant problem with the court. I know that I'm no lawyer let alone some sort of constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the court just usurped the power of the presidency and the senate, no?
Does that not give you just a tad bit of heartburn? My point is that no matter how one feels about any one issue, giving judges the power to do an "end run" around the constitution, even for an ostensibly good cause sets the stage for abuse.

Now for a second point; one that I doubt we'll agree on.
I believe that what has made our constitutional republic work as well as it has is the fact that the founders and the majortiy of the electorate have been raised according to the moral framework of the Judeo Christian ethic. Regardless of whether or not one believes in a supreme being, the moral dictates laid out by this ethic are thought of (by the majority of the population) as absolute, objective standards. I will agree that this is changing as we "advance" into the 21st century.Â*Â*I suspect that most liberals see these standards as arbitrary rules put in place by a bunch of religious "goody two shoes" to make everyone as miserable as they are. I know that in my younger atheistic period that's exactly how I felt.
I have now come to realize that these standards are:

Either commandments handed to mankind by a supreme being
or, if no god exists, they are a distillation of what mankind has learned about societal survival over 30,000 or so years of trial and error. Either way I am convinced that it behooves us to stay as close to them as possible.

OK, I'm off the soapbox for now and I eagerly await comment from you Nathan as well as from everyone else on the forum.

[Nathan Brazil]

What I don't get is that as pragmatic as you seem to be, you appear to be unconcerned about the constitution being "ammended on the fly" by unelected judges that are not answerable to the people (as in "we the people"). Let'sÂ*Â*set aside the issue of homosexual marriage for the sake of this discussion, OK?

Nope, let's stick to only one side track off the topic of MTV, and not create a bush of branching tracks.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution say:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That pretty much rescues the concept of marriage from having to be specifically listed in the nation's governing document. However, the Civil War introduced some basic changes, via amendment, and on in particular counts:

Fourteeth:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See that? The states can't deprive any person liberty without due process of law, which is meant to be a criminal trial.

So, why is it you want to violate the private lives of people again?


One issue that concerns me is the tribunal set up for the combatants at Gitmo.

Oh, you mean the people being held indefinitely without charges or trial? Yeah, granting the president the power to declare individuals as terrorists and then have them locked away forever on Devil's Island is sure comforting, ain't it? I mean, I can't wait to see what happens to all those nasty conservatives when a Democrat gets elected.

duh.


Either commandments handed to mankind by a supreme being or, if no god exists, they are a distillation of what mankind has learned about societal survival over 30,000 or so years of trial and error. Either way I am convinced that it behooves us to stay as close to them as possible.

Yes, we should implement the First Commandment forthwith.

We should rewrite the First Amendment so it becomes possible to put people in jail for carving statues of God.

Perhaps we can start pulling people's tongues out for saying "God damn it!".

Now, is the Sabbath Saturday, or Sunday, or would Wendesday be a better choice for a day to ban all labor on? And does "labor" include driving motor vehicles, as some of my more devout Jewish friends believe, or would the sweating causing by intense sexual activity be considered laborious, too?

Also, we should codify in law filial piety. Oh, wait, we do, it's called "socialist security". What's wrong with parents earning their child's respect? Demanding it disrepects the child, does it not?

Not murdering. That's a good one. I think all societies have that, though they define "murder" in different ways.

Think we should hack off pee-pee's if they're used to commit adultery? There's better reasons than god for not doing committing adultery.

Not stealing. What an amazing concept. Doesn't go well with government though, and religion is all about stealing from the suckers.

Not committing perjury. Yeah, right. Tell it to Sick Willy.

What the hell is wrong with coveting, anyway? But yeah, let's pass a law against people having desire.

Needless to say, the Ten Commandments as such are bunkum mostly unsuitable for American culture.