|
On August 31 2011 13:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 13:38 TOloseGT wrote:On August 31 2011 09:49 JingleHell wrote:http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/new-texas-traffic-laws-scheduled-to-hit-the-road-in-september-231471.phpIn fact, a bill that was also set to take effect in September would have banned text messaging while driving for all Texans. While the anti-texting bill passed in both houses of the state legislature, it was killed by Governor Rick Perry's veto on June 17. Safe driving, of course, is intolerable. Given how many times drivers dicking around with their phones around here have tried to kill me, I wouldn't mind having this law in place. Call it what you will, most people can't manage driving and texting at the same time. It's also one of those things that can endanger children, since people may have their eyes off the road and both hands on their full qwerty keyboard... To be fair, his reasoning for it is sound: http://www.kltv.com/story/14944611/texting-and-driving-gov-rick-perry-vetoed-bill"Governor Perry said the bill was an overreach and it was a government effort to micro manage the behavior of adults. Governor Perry said in his veto statement that he recommends additional education on the issue of texting and driving in driving safety and driver's education courses, public ads, and announcements." You won't get rid of texting and driving just from a state law, and it's not exactly easy to pick up who's texting and who isn't. The "Insert Children's Name" laws aren't always the best reaction to a tragedy, and I think he made the right call on this one. I just wish he would stop acting like such a bigot. On August 31 2011 12:56 nukeazerg wrote:
Democrats are sexist. They make laws that take away mans rights. An only give financial assistance to women Go back to Stormfront. Maybe it's just me, but I'd say some things need to be laws. If he's willing to let the ban on people under 18 using cell phones while driving pass, what's the difference? Don't say experience, not everyone has a license before 18. Don't say maturity or responsibility, those don't handily line up with chronological markers. The laws we need are laws that protect people from other people. Driving and texting is dangerous, with the capacity to harm people besides the offender. That's the sort of laws we should have.
Deaths and injuries caused by negligence are, in the majority of circumstances, handled appropriately. Of course, nothing can absolve the person responsible for killing a loved one. However, by instating a law banning a certain activity, it could just as well give judges a tool for dishing out undeserved and harsh penalties.
Would a law banning this girl from texting have saved her life? Kids either don't care or are ignorant of the many street laws. She was obviously too ingrained in the conversation to worry about the legality of the situation.
|
On August 31 2011 13:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 13:38 TOloseGT wrote:On August 31 2011 09:49 JingleHell wrote:http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/new-texas-traffic-laws-scheduled-to-hit-the-road-in-september-231471.phpIn fact, a bill that was also set to take effect in September would have banned text messaging while driving for all Texans. While the anti-texting bill passed in both houses of the state legislature, it was killed by Governor Rick Perry's veto on June 17. Safe driving, of course, is intolerable. Given how many times drivers dicking around with their phones around here have tried to kill me, I wouldn't mind having this law in place. Call it what you will, most people can't manage driving and texting at the same time. It's also one of those things that can endanger children, since people may have their eyes off the road and both hands on their full qwerty keyboard... To be fair, his reasoning for it is sound: http://www.kltv.com/story/14944611/texting-and-driving-gov-rick-perry-vetoed-bill"Governor Perry said the bill was an overreach and it was a government effort to micro manage the behavior of adults. Governor Perry said in his veto statement that he recommends additional education on the issue of texting and driving in driving safety and driver's education courses, public ads, and announcements." You won't get rid of texting and driving just from a state law, and it's not exactly easy to pick up who's texting and who isn't. The "Insert Children's Name" laws aren't always the best reaction to a tragedy, and I think he made the right call on this one. I just wish he would stop acting like such a bigot. On August 31 2011 12:56 nukeazerg wrote:
Democrats are sexist. They make laws that take away mans rights. An only give financial assistance to women Go back to Stormfront. Maybe it's just me, but I'd say some things need to be laws. If he's willing to let the ban on people under 18 using cell phones while driving pass, what's the difference? Don't say experience, not everyone has a license before 18. Don't say maturity or responsibility, those don't handily line up with chronological markers. The laws we need are laws that protect people from other people. Driving and texting is dangerous, with the capacity to harm people besides the offender. That's the sort of laws we should have.
Texting while driving is dangerous and stupid but it doesn't need to be made illegal explicitly. There is already a laundry list of violations that a person can be stopped for if they are distracted if they cross lanes improperly, speeding, driving recklessly, not stopping at a light.
Doesn't texting just make you more likely to do those things? Someone could run a light while fiddling with their radiio or scratching a mosquito bite on the back of their leg. I think it would be better to have police enforce laws that already exist and punish people who drive unsafe regardless of what the reason is. It doesn't make sense to enumerate all of the possible things that can cause distractions and then decide which of those should be legal or illegal. if you cause damage, injure or kill someone while driving negligently there are already penalties for doing that.
Anyways how is a cop supposed to tell if you were texting or if you are pushing the required buttons to dial someone on your contact list. Will the cop pull them over and accuse them of texting, and maybe he saw the person briefly cross over the yellow lane while looking at the screen. Then it turns out the guy was just dialing a number and not texting. Does he not get charged with a crime or ticketed because texting has been specified but dialing has not?
|
i think you're misunderstanding junglehell.. you mention how a cop might be confused with someone dialing someone to call; but as jinglehell points out, he allowed a law to pass that states you cannot use your phone while driving.
i see it as covering up a whole in a present law if anything (don't know anything about texas road laws so whatever if i'm wrong.. i assume they're similar to california/whatever with strict rules about that sorta thing)
|
1) Christian with 'family values'
2) Anti-gay
3) Anti-abortion
4) Pro-war (GO USA!)
5) Laissez-faire Free market
I dont get this party.
On one hand they say they are christian. But christians are against beeing rich and making money "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
On one hand they proclaim freedom for everyone, on the other hand the are against sexual freedom and freedom of women choosing wherter they want to abort or not.
This party is toatal bullshit in my eyes (yes I am a foreigner) just because of the massive contradictions.
The christian theme is full of bullshit, because the first thing christ would do if he came back onthis earth is to kick the rich mens asses. This is so much cheat it is unbelievable.
And even if you let the christ act dropp, even their sense of "freedom" is faulty.
And Bachman should lean to spell hear name correctly, everytime I hear it when US says it I have to laugh. Bachman is a german name and should be spelled accordingly. If someone with an english name decides to live in germany I would prefer the english name and vics versa.
|
On August 31 2011 15:16 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +
1) Christian with 'family values'
2) Anti-gay
3) Anti-abortion
4) Pro-war (GO USA!)
5) Laissez-faire Free market
I dont get this party. On one hand they say they are christian. But christians are against beeing rich and making money "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" On one hand they proclaim freedom for everyone, on the other hand the are against sexual freedom and freedom of women choosing wherter they want to abort or not. This party is toatal bullshit in my eyes (yes I am a foreigner) just because of the massive contradictions. The christian theme is full of bullshit, because the first thing christ would do if he came back onthis earth is to kick the rich mens asses. This is so much cheat it is unbelievable. And even if you let the christ act dropp, even their sense of "freedom" is faulty. And Bachman should lean to spell hear name correctly, everytime I hear it when US says it I have to laugh. Bachman is a german name and should be spelled accordingly. If someone with an english name decides to live in germany I would prefer the english name and vics versa.
These kinds of arguments disturb me. You quote scripture yet don't understand its meaning other than to serve your argument. Christ is basically saying you can't buy your way into heaven. How does that have anything to do with obtaining material wealth? You can be rich, and be a good person. You don't have to be poor to get into heaven.
Sexual freedom? You have sexual freedom. You can be gay and that's fine. You have your freedom. What gays want are the handouts and benefits of a state recognized marriage. To get to the heart of the problem, government shouldn't be in the business of wedding people. It should be a religious practice, and if someone who is not religious wants some certificate that says they've made a civil contract to one another, they should be granted some recognition by the state, but it shouldn't be regarded as marriage, in the traditional (and religious) sense.
Freedom of women choosing abortion? What about freedom of the child's right to life? Who are we to give women the power to take a life? It's murder, plain and simple. Arguing otherwise assumes we have set some relative value to human life.
Please stop telling people how to pronounce their own names, and if you're going to insult their spelling, you might as well take a look at your own post.
|
if you think marriage should be entirely performed by religion, then atheists are unable to wed... you say atheists get civil unions? you're absolutely backwards.. would they then NOT get the benefits of state sanctioned 'marriage' then? so then.. in that case.. gay marriage and atheist marriage are on equal footing.. interesting.
i've always wonder if anyone were stupid enough to put that line of logic together, as i though it would; but there you go.. good job.
fuck your marriage then. it's till death do you part anyway. not worth it in your long run. go get laid
|
On August 31 2011 15:48 tso wrote:
if you think marriage should be entirely performed by religion, then atheists are unable to wed... you say atheists get civil unions? you're absolutely backwards.. would they then NOT get the benefits of state sanctioned 'marriage' then? so then.. in that case.. gay marriage and atheist marriage are on equal footing.. interesting.
i've always wonder if anyone were stupid enough to put that line of logic together, as i though it would; but there you go.. good job.
fuck your marriage then. it's till death do you part anyway. not worth it in your long run. go get laid
You call him stupid and yet you are the one who completely misunderstood his argument.
He only brought up civil unions for the fact that we have certain benefits in taxes and other programs for people who are married.
He can clarify himself but I think the argument is that to the government everyone should be an individual. There should be neither civil unions nor marriages. Let people get married in their churches, or where ever they want to. Gay people can get married with whatever kind of ceremony they want. Whoever recognizes a marriage can recognize it but people also have the right to not recognize them and it doesn't matter because if they do or they don't because it is a personal thing between the people getting married.
And regardless I don't get the big stink about civll unions. The civil union represents the legal and contractual aspect of a marriage. The "marriage" part is the traditional part and where religion comes into play. If you are either gay or an atheist then it shouldn't really matter so long as you get the legal status.
This is where the gay rights movement crosses the line from wanting their individual freedoms to do what they want in spite of what other people think about it, to wanting to force everyone else to have to accept their customs as equal. I don't have a problem with gays and I think individuals should be able to do what they want with each other in their personal lives but I also respect the rights of other people to not acknowledge gay marriage as legitimate or equal.
~edit~ I was thinking of how this really ties into the larger issue I was trying to get at in an earlier unrelated topic in this same thread. The whole debate gets reduced into one side who wants gays to be able to get married vs people who want to stamp gays right out of society. The more neutral position is always ignored even though it is the one that does the most to protect the freedom of everyone as a whole.
|
On August 31 2011 15:16 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +
1) Christian with 'family values'
2) Anti-gay
3) Anti-abortion
4) Pro-war (GO USA!)
5) Laissez-faire Free market
I dont get this party. On one hand they say they are christian. But christians are against beeing rich and making money "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" On one hand they proclaim freedom for everyone, on the other hand the are against sexual freedom and freedom of women choosing wherter they want to abort or not. This party is toatal bullshit in my eyes (yes I am a foreigner) just because of the massive contradictions. The christian theme is full of bullshit, because the first thing christ would do if he came back onthis earth is to kick the rich mens asses. This is so much cheat it is unbelievable. And even if you let the christ act dropp, even their sense of "freedom" is faulty. And Bachman should lean to spell hear name correctly, everytime I hear it when US says it I have to laugh. Bachman is a german name and should be spelled accordingly. If someone with an english name decides to live in germany I would prefer the english name and vics versa.
Mahatma Gandhi said it best. "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Republicans claim to be Christian, but their policies have NOTHING to do with the gospel teachings of love, charity, non-violence, and respect for others. Instead, they preach hatred for gays and Muslims, protect the rich at the expense of the poor, propagate the use of guns, and think that anything non-American is evil (e.g. Russia, China, Mexico, Europe, etc...). Go Republicans!
|
It's bullshit that Christianity somehow thinks it has a monopoly on marriage. Various cultures predating Abrahamic Religions recognized the concept of marriage. I bet people in caves even knew the concept. Bringing up "traditional" marriages is completely insane. Wives used to be property, you want to go back to that tradition? What a joke.
Marriage right now is a contract which gives the couple certain benefits. Gay couple are entitled to those benefits as much as straight couples are. Now, whether those benefits should stay or go is irrelevant, as long as all couples have the same rights under the law. Civil unions are lacking in many of those rights, so civil unions don't count.
Yet you have these Republican candidates stating outright that they want amendments specifically outlining what a marriage should be? Hey Perry, Bachmann, what happened to small government? One thing I shudder at more than an ineffective President is a bigoted President. It's the 21st Century now, lets grow up some.
|
On August 31 2011 16:47 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 15:48 tso wrote:
if you think marriage should be entirely performed by religion, then atheists are unable to wed... you say atheists get civil unions? you're absolutely backwards.. would they then NOT get the benefits of state sanctioned 'marriage' then? so then.. in that case.. gay marriage and atheist marriage are on equal footing.. interesting.
i've always wonder if anyone were stupid enough to put that line of logic together, as i though it would; but there you go.. good job.
fuck your marriage then. it's till death do you part anyway. not worth it in your long run. go get laid You call him stupid and yet you are the one who completely misunderstood his argument. He only brought up civil unions for the fact that we have certain benefits in taxes and other programs for people who are married. He can clarify himself but I think the argument is that to the government everyone should be an individual. There should be neither civil unions nor marriages. Let people get married in their churches, or where ever they want to. Gay people can get married with whatever kind of ceremony they want. Whoever recognizes a marriage can recognize it but people also have the right to not recognize them and it doesn't matter because if they do or they don't because it is a personal thing between the people getting married. And regardless I don't get the big stink about civll unions. The civil union represents the legal and contractual aspect of a marriage. The "marriage" part is the traditional part and where religion comes into play. If you are either gay or an atheist then it shouldn't really matter so long as you get the legal status. This is where the gay rights movement crosses the line from wanting their individual freedoms to do what they want in spite of what other people think about it, to wanting to force everyone else to have to accept their customs as equal. I don't have a problem with gays and I think individuals should be able to do what they want with each other in their personal lives but I also respect the rights of other people to not acknowledge gay marriage as legitimate or equal. ~edit~ I was thinking of how this really ties into the larger issue I was trying to get at in an earlier unrelated topic in this same thread. The whole debate gets reduced into one side who wants gays to be able to get married vs people who want to stamp gays right out of society. The more neutral position is always ignored even though it is the one that does the most to protect the freedom of everyone as a whole.
The problem is civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage does in many states. Also, if it's the same as marriage in a different name, why not just call it marriage?
People are not going to be asking if you are unioned. They will ask if you are married. Religious people need to realize marriage has already transcended their limited view.
|
On August 31 2011 19:57 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 16:47 macil222 wrote:On August 31 2011 15:48 tso wrote:
if you think marriage should be entirely performed by religion, then atheists are unable to wed... you say atheists get civil unions? you're absolutely backwards.. would they then NOT get the benefits of state sanctioned 'marriage' then? so then.. in that case.. gay marriage and atheist marriage are on equal footing.. interesting.
i've always wonder if anyone were stupid enough to put that line of logic together, as i though it would; but there you go.. good job.
fuck your marriage then. it's till death do you part anyway. not worth it in your long run. go get laid You call him stupid and yet you are the one who completely misunderstood his argument. He only brought up civil unions for the fact that we have certain benefits in taxes and other programs for people who are married. He can clarify himself but I think the argument is that to the government everyone should be an individual. There should be neither civil unions nor marriages. Let people get married in their churches, or where ever they want to. Gay people can get married with whatever kind of ceremony they want. Whoever recognizes a marriage can recognize it but people also have the right to not recognize them and it doesn't matter because if they do or they don't because it is a personal thing between the people getting married. And regardless I don't get the big stink about civll unions. The civil union represents the legal and contractual aspect of a marriage. The "marriage" part is the traditional part and where religion comes into play. If you are either gay or an atheist then it shouldn't really matter so long as you get the legal status. This is where the gay rights movement crosses the line from wanting their individual freedoms to do what they want in spite of what other people think about it, to wanting to force everyone else to have to accept their customs as equal. I don't have a problem with gays and I think individuals should be able to do what they want with each other in their personal lives but I also respect the rights of other people to not acknowledge gay marriage as legitimate or equal. ~edit~ I was thinking of how this really ties into the larger issue I was trying to get at in an earlier unrelated topic in this same thread. The whole debate gets reduced into one side who wants gays to be able to get married vs people who want to stamp gays right out of society. The more neutral position is always ignored even though it is the one that does the most to protect the freedom of everyone as a whole. The problem is civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage does in many states. Also, if it's the same as marriage in a different name, why not just call it marriage? People are not going to be asking if you are unioned. They will ask if you are married. Religious people need to realize marriage has already transcended their limited view.
Because people will think they're forcing them to marry gays. You know, gay sex being forced down their throats. They don't realize marriage was originally not a religious thing, but oh well, that's the way semantics have changed over thousands of years. The point we need to drive home is that there should be no legal preference for people in certain religions(giving christians certain legal rights if they get marriage vs state civil unions). Something like DOMA is quite strange and perhaps unconstitutional.
By the way, I don't believe for one second that some of the front runners would like sexual freedom. Take Perry or Bachmann's dominionism for example, it's something akin to Al Qaeda trying to take over Arabia and restoring the faith based empire. Huntsman makes a good argument on this subject: we should keep government from meddling with religion, while making sure that all citizens have equal rights.
|
On August 31 2011 15:16 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +
1) Christian with 'family values'
2) Anti-gay
3) Anti-abortion
4) Pro-war (GO USA!)
5) Laissez-faire Free market
I dont get this party. On one hand they say they are christian. But christians are against beeing rich and making money "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
There are many bible quotes about poverty and how the rich should give their property away. From this also stems the many mendicant orders who rose to prominence in the middle age. I find these principle of poverty one of the most interesting things about Christianity as a whole. also many of the Church Fathers (whose writings are to Christianity as important as the bible) wrote about poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant_orders
Obviously modern christian parties have not much to do with theological philosophy and christianity is faked. This isn't constricted to the republican party, but also to the european christ-socials.
|
On August 31 2011 15:48 tso wrote:
if you think marriage should be entirely performed by religion, then atheists are unable to wed... you say atheists get civil unions? you're absolutely backwards.. would they then NOT get the benefits of state sanctioned 'marriage' then? so then.. in that case.. gay marriage and atheist marriage are on equal footing.. interesting.
i've always wonder if anyone were stupid enough to put that line of logic together, as i though it would; but there you go.. good job.
fuck your marriage then. it's till death do you part anyway. not worth it in your long run. go get laid
I honestly don't care if gay people get 'married'. The only problem I see, as an LDS Christian, is that if we can legally change the definition of a marriage from a man and woman to whatever we want, will religions be forced to accept this definition? Will churches be ridiculed for choosing to stick with their traditional values? Will the state eventually force the churches to adhere to state policy, thus overstepping its bounds?
I honestly don't think government should have any place in it. Gay's just want state recognized marriages for benefits and handouts that married people enjoy, and for social acceptance. I think we need to back away from being a welfare state anyway, so I say remove the benefits, and make it a religious practice entirely, and if you want your contract recognized by the state, so be it, but benefits shouldn't be the goal, and social acceptance cannot be given by government, society has to do that.
And to your last personal attack, I am engaged to be married in April, and for your understanding, an LDS marriage performed in a Temple of God is believed to have the authority to perform eternal marriages, sealing the marriage beyond the grave. This practice enobles marriage, and makes the ordinance that much more special and meaningful. I am getting married with the understanding that I will be with this woman for eternity, which gives me greater reason to weigh the factors, and to truly commit myself to her and our marriage. It's a beautiful thing.
I feel sorry for those who get married with the full intent of getting a divorce if "things don't work out." It's a sorry excuse for not being willing to work through any challenge with the one you've committed to love and cherish.
Forgive the slight rant, there are still principled people in this world and your attitude towards them is saddening.
|
On August 31 2011 19:57 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 16:47 macil222 wrote:On August 31 2011 15:48 tso wrote:
if you think marriage should be entirely performed by religion, then atheists are unable to wed... you say atheists get civil unions? you're absolutely backwards.. would they then NOT get the benefits of state sanctioned 'marriage' then? so then.. in that case.. gay marriage and atheist marriage are on equal footing.. interesting.
i've always wonder if anyone were stupid enough to put that line of logic together, as i though it would; but there you go.. good job.
fuck your marriage then. it's till death do you part anyway. not worth it in your long run. go get laid You call him stupid and yet you are the one who completely misunderstood his argument. He only brought up civil unions for the fact that we have certain benefits in taxes and other programs for people who are married. He can clarify himself but I think the argument is that to the government everyone should be an individual. There should be neither civil unions nor marriages. Let people get married in their churches, or where ever they want to. Gay people can get married with whatever kind of ceremony they want. Whoever recognizes a marriage can recognize it but people also have the right to not recognize them and it doesn't matter because if they do or they don't because it is a personal thing between the people getting married. And regardless I don't get the big stink about civll unions. The civil union represents the legal and contractual aspect of a marriage. The "marriage" part is the traditional part and where religion comes into play. If you are either gay or an atheist then it shouldn't really matter so long as you get the legal status. This is where the gay rights movement crosses the line from wanting their individual freedoms to do what they want in spite of what other people think about it, to wanting to force everyone else to have to accept their customs as equal. I don't have a problem with gays and I think individuals should be able to do what they want with each other in their personal lives but I also respect the rights of other people to not acknowledge gay marriage as legitimate or equal. ~edit~ I was thinking of how this really ties into the larger issue I was trying to get at in an earlier unrelated topic in this same thread. The whole debate gets reduced into one side who wants gays to be able to get married vs people who want to stamp gays right out of society. The more neutral position is always ignored even though it is the one that does the most to protect the freedom of everyone as a whole. The problem is civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage does in many states. Also, if it's the same as marriage in a different name, why not just call it marriage? People are not going to be asking if you are unioned. They will ask if you are married. Religious people need to realize marriage has already transcended their limited view.
No the problem is that Civil unions and marriages get any additional rights at all.
The Civil portion of the marriage should simply be a contract between two people. There need not be any state subsidies, and etcs.
The Religious part of the marriage can obviously be whatever people want it to be, but it shouldn't give or take away any rights either. A Christian church should be allowed to refuse gays marry if they don't want to "bless" such a marriage, but this shouldn't stop gays from being able to sign a legal marriage contract.
Marriage needs to be between two people both spiritually and civilly. That way there will be no discussion about who's getting rights from the government, and who's not. All our rights are inalienable and we should have them regardless of whether we're gay straight, or don't want to be married ever.
|
They dont want hand outs they want equality under the law. Besides tax breaks there are a slew of other rights married couples have, such as ability to make medical decisions when the other party is incapacitated, have next of kin rights, inheritance in lieu of a living will, etc. These things are common sense to grant to all married couples gay or straight. Government must be involved in provisioning these things to prevent corporations, hospitals, lawyers and other entities from denying benefits to gay couples. Having marriage completely religious and unrecognized or protected by government would severely discriminate against gay couples in many instances.
|
On August 31 2011 14:26 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 13:42 JingleHell wrote:On August 31 2011 13:38 TOloseGT wrote:On August 31 2011 09:49 JingleHell wrote:http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/new-texas-traffic-laws-scheduled-to-hit-the-road-in-september-231471.phpIn fact, a bill that was also set to take effect in September would have banned text messaging while driving for all Texans. While the anti-texting bill passed in both houses of the state legislature, it was killed by Governor Rick Perry's veto on June 17. Safe driving, of course, is intolerable. Given how many times drivers dicking around with their phones around here have tried to kill me, I wouldn't mind having this law in place. Call it what you will, most people can't manage driving and texting at the same time. It's also one of those things that can endanger children, since people may have their eyes off the road and both hands on their full qwerty keyboard... To be fair, his reasoning for it is sound: http://www.kltv.com/story/14944611/texting-and-driving-gov-rick-perry-vetoed-bill"Governor Perry said the bill was an overreach and it was a government effort to micro manage the behavior of adults. Governor Perry said in his veto statement that he recommends additional education on the issue of texting and driving in driving safety and driver's education courses, public ads, and announcements." You won't get rid of texting and driving just from a state law, and it's not exactly easy to pick up who's texting and who isn't. The "Insert Children's Name" laws aren't always the best reaction to a tragedy, and I think he made the right call on this one. I just wish he would stop acting like such a bigot. On August 31 2011 12:56 nukeazerg wrote:
Democrats are sexist. They make laws that take away mans rights. An only give financial assistance to women Go back to Stormfront. Maybe it's just me, but I'd say some things need to be laws. If he's willing to let the ban on people under 18 using cell phones while driving pass, what's the difference? Don't say experience, not everyone has a license before 18. Don't say maturity or responsibility, those don't handily line up with chronological markers. The laws we need are laws that protect people from other people. Driving and texting is dangerous, with the capacity to harm people besides the offender. That's the sort of laws we should have. Texting while driving is dangerous and stupid but it doesn't need to be made illegal explicitly. There is already a laundry list of violations that a person can be stopped for if they are distracted if they cross lanes improperly, speeding, driving recklessly, not stopping at a light. Doesn't texting just make you more likely to do those things? Someone could run a light while fiddling with their radiio or scratching a mosquito bite on the back of their leg. I think it would be better to have police enforce laws that already exist and punish people who drive unsafe regardless of what the reason is. It doesn't make sense to enumerate all of the possible things that can cause distractions and then decide which of those should be legal or illegal. if you cause damage, injure or kill someone while driving negligently there are already penalties for doing that.
You do realize that this brilliant line of reasoning could be applied to drunk driving? So now drunk driving should not be made illegal either because "it doesn't make sense to enumerate all of the possible things that can cause distractions and then decide which of those should be legal or illegal - if you cause damage, injure or kill someone while driving negligently there are already penalties for doing that"?
|
On August 31 2011 23:16 j0k3r wrote:
They dont want hand outs they want equality under the law. Besides tax breaks there are a slew of other rights married couples have, such as ability to make medical decisions when the other party is incapacitated, have next of kin rights, inheritance in lieu of a living will, etc. These things are common sense to grant to all married couples gay or straight. Government must be involved in provisioning these things to prevent corporations, hospitals, lawyers and other entities from denying benefits to gay couples. Having marriage completely religious and unrecognized or protected by government would severely discriminate against gay couples in many instances.
Some like tax breaks shouldn't exist, and others like next of kin rights should be a contract between two people.
Government doesn't have to be involved in this at all.
There should be no benefits in the first place, so gay couples will be denied them and so should straight couples as well.
|
If you want gays to have civil unions but not marriage, same rights and everything, what other reason can there be besides not wanting to offend a group of bigoted religious people.
|
On August 31 2011 23:25 Kiarip wrote:
There should be no benefits in the first place, so gay couples will be denied them and so should straight couples as well.
Justify your position. Take every benefit conferred to marriage and explain why it should not exist.
Here's a short list:
As to property:
1. Joint income tax filing
2. Tenancy by the entirety (a form of ownership that provides certain protections against creditors and allows for the automatic descent of property to the surviving spouse without probate)
3. Extension of the benefit of the homestead protection (securing up to $300,000 in equity from creditors) to one's spouse and children
4. Automatic rights to inherit the property of a deceased spouse who does not leave a will
5. The rights of elective share and of dower (which allow surviving spouses certain property rights where the decedent spouse has not made adequate provision for the survivor in a will)
6. Entitlement to wages owed to a deceased employee
7. Eligibility to continue certain businesses of a deceased spouse
8. The right to share the medical policy of one's spouse
9. Thirty-nine week continuation of health coverage for the spouse of a person who is laid off or dies
10. Preferential options under State pension system
11. Preferential benefits in the State medical program
12. Access to veterans' spousal benefits and preferences
13. Temporary and permanent alimony rights
14. The right to bring claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium, and for funeral and burial expenses and punitive damages resulting from tort actions
Other exclusive marital benefits that are not directly tied to property rights include
1. The presumptions of legitimacy and parentage of children born to a married couple
2. Evidentiary rights, such as the prohibition against spouses testifying against one another about their private conversations, applicable in both civil and criminal cases
3. Qualification for bereavement or medical leave to care for individuals related by blood or marriage 4. Automatic "family member" preference to make medical decisions for an incompetent or disabled spouse who does not have a contrary health care proxy
5. The application of predictable rules of child custody, visitation, support, and removal out-of-State when married parents divorce
6. Priority rights to administer the estate of a deceased spouse who dies without a will, and the requirement that a surviving spouse must consent to the appointment of any other person as administrator
7. Right to interment in the lot or tomb owned by one's deceased spouse
|
On August 31 2011 16:47 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2011 15:48 tso wrote:
if you think marriage should be entirely performed by religion, then atheists are unable to wed... you say atheists get civil unions? you're absolutely backwards.. would they then NOT get the benefits of state sanctioned 'marriage' then? so then.. in that case.. gay marriage and atheist marriage are on equal footing.. interesting.
i've always wonder if anyone were stupid enough to put that line of logic together, as i though it would; but there you go.. good job.
fuck your marriage then. it's till death do you part anyway. not worth it in your long run. go get laid You call him stupid and yet you are the one who completely misunderstood his argument. He only brought up civil unions for the fact that we have certain benefits in taxes and other programs for people who are married. He can clarify himself but I think the argument is that to the government everyone should be an individual. There should be neither civil unions nor marriages. Let people get married in their churches, or where ever they want to. Gay people can get married with whatever kind of ceremony they want. Whoever recognizes a marriage can recognize it but people also have the right to not recognize them and it doesn't matter because if they do or they don't because it is a personal thing between the people getting married. And regardless I don't get the big stink about civll unions. The civil union represents the legal and contractual aspect of a marriage. The "marriage" part is the traditional part and where religion comes into play. If you are either gay or an atheist then it shouldn't really matter so long as you get the legal status. This is where the gay rights movement crosses the line from wanting their individual freedoms to do what they want in spite of what other people think about it, to wanting to force everyone else to have to accept their customs as equal. I don't have a problem with gays and I think individuals should be able to do what they want with each other in their personal lives but I also respect the rights of other people to not acknowledge gay marriage as legitimate or equal. ~edit~ I was thinking of how this really ties into the larger issue I was trying to get at in an earlier unrelated topic in this same thread. The whole debate gets reduced into one side who wants gays to be able to get married vs people who want to stamp gays right out of society. The more neutral position is always ignored even though it is the one that does the most to protect the freedom of everyone as a whole.
The idea of having the government stay out of marriage altogether is fine and good, but that's not what the Republican Party wants (except Ron Paul and a very few others). The GOP wants state-recognized marriage for heterosexual couples but not for gays. Most of the party wants either
a) Separate but Equal (ie civil unions for gays) -or-
b) no legal recognition of any kind for gay couples (ie Prop 8)
Choice b seems far more common in the politicians that Republicans elect and the ballot measures they pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
