Fahrenheit 9/11

[Atari]

Trying to see it from the other side, I guess one argument would be that those people would not have had regular marriages or children anyway, so it's not gonna affect anything really.

Still.. it all just seems a bit too liberal for my liking. Actually not liberal.. sorry to say I just don't think it's taking society in the right direction. I guess there's no point in saying no offense since that probably would offend those it concerns. Oh well.

 

[rubysoho]

actually, there is a type of pygmy chimpanzee (sp???) that regularly performs acts of homosexuality (is there a problem with this word? I am not using it negatively). I understand from the viewpoint of the church, and I am assuming you guys are talking about the religious form of marriage, however state marriage is something completely different, and I do not agree with the fact that church and state are not remaining seperate on this issue. There are many legal issues that require marriage which same sex couples are being denied. These are rights, and they deserve them. I guess my basic argument is:

every person is human
according to our society, humans have rights which shouldn't be denied (minus criminals, etc...)
therefor, every person has rights which should not be denied

Just because someone practices something you do not beleive in (and it is an act that is not causing you or others harm) then it should be allowed. So far as I can tell, a person's choice in who they end up loving doesn't hurt me or anyone, so I say let it be legalized by the state. In my opinion, religion can do whatever they want in banning it, although I know many same sex couples want to be recognized in God's eyes, but that is the church's decision. There, I'm done with that. I hope this topic doesn't explode because I know people are very passionate about it, more so than MM's movie

 

[bungle]

good call on the chimps, ruby. just wanted to add dolphins to that same list.

 

[Atari]

FWIW, none of my opinions are based on religious beliefs.

And I do have pretty strong views about this topic, which if stated would make a lot of people hate me.. so I'll leave it at : I'm against it.

 

[RocketSeason]

I have seen the movie (downloaded off of the internet. I am not going to make that man any richer. If he likes making money off of the war and turning around and scolding others for doing the same, fine. But he won't get a cent from me.)

I have done the research.

and I have listened to the discussions by political experts on both ends and I can tell you that fishfinatic is correct in her statements.

I do not mind an anti Bush Film. I welcome political and social diversity, But if you are going to make such a film. Please make sure you don't lie to your audence. they will find out.

There are intellegent people out there and they do pay attention.

Don't forget. Kerry had the same information as everyone else. And he voted "yes" to go to war.

 

[deli_conker]

Was it Machiavelli that said "all democracies are doomed to end in a military state"? We can't really protect ourselves unless we close our borders, but if we close our borders we're not America anymore.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but my boss has. He's a big time liberal but not a blind follower. His advice on the movie was this...

"You have to know what you're getting into before you watch the movie. He puts his spin on things so you'll see what he wants you to see. I mean, you don't go to an Adam Sandler flick and expect to see Shakespear do you? It's the same type of thing."

on a little side note to the marraige issue, I believe that two people coming together in love should all have equal rights (i.e. child legality, spouse benifits) unregarding MM,MF,FF, because the only argument I have heard against it relates only to religious beliefs, which the separation of church and state should prevent.

Marriage is based in religion; how could it not be argued under religious beliefs? The way I see it, this isn't about "I want to be married.", this is about "I want something for free". Everyone wants something for free. Free rides, free food, free benefits. Companies have traditionally given benefits to the families of workers as a way to entice employees to work for them (usually in lieu of higher wages). Since most companies are in business to make money, they are going to put as many limits on what they spend on employees as possible. When a group of people suddenly say "I want free stuff too", this is going to make companies who have to foot the bill for the "free stuff" either...

a) make it so they don't have to give for free (i.e. deny benefits), or
b) pass the bill to somebody else (usually the employees)

I already can't afford health insurance (even with the percentage that my company is willing to pay). So this only makes it more un-affordable; not only for me, but for everybody else as well. It's like there's a hundred people in the middle of the ocean with a ten man life raft. Instead of a small group making it in, everybody is going to try to get in and the whole thing is going to sink...

BTW, has anybody ever attended a wedding for a chimp or a dolphin or seen either with an insurance card?

 

[ambulocetus]

Great post there deli_conker, you stated what everyone seems to forget in the debate, marriage is not something that can be extracted from its religious roots. It is a religious event, and so if you want 'marriage' you will have to obey the rules regarding marriage!

As for Fahrenheit 9/11 - we all saw the events unfolding, we all made assumptions and connections on our own. We all know that Michael More is a skilled producer of controversial documentaries (Bowling for Columbine was outstanding). What he does is stand up and say 'look I have linked all these events in this way'.
Now the ball is in the opposing court, it is up to someone else to stand up and make a documentary with a differnent spin on it. - imo if you can't do that, then that adds more credibility to him

 

[fishstixs05]

I was not talking about religious marraiges at all, just saying that gay couples should be have some of the same rights as another coup[le. Such as this: If a gay couple adopts a child, it can only be in one person's name. Therefore, it that person dies, the child is under the protection of there family, not their spouse. Alll i am trying to say is that, it seems wrong to prevent these people from being married. The have orientation of which are not controlled (i.e. i could not turn gay) so they are only doiing what feels natural to them. oh and deli, i dont believe that marraige is nessesarily based on religion. It simply two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I realize you can put the religious spin on it, but to break it down it is a legal contract between two people. But do you feel this is not the same kind of love?
Oh and ambulocetus, I would love to see someone make a documentary opposite MM, i would run out and see the first day. Not because I agree with them, but because I want to be informed in how some americans feel. But until then, it seems like only "liberal"(open minded) views have been pieced together.

 

[RocketSeason]

here is a film from a different angle... Haven't seen it yet myself but it looks promising.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

very funny trailers.

 

[Atari]

I have to disagree with the views on marriage and religion.. I'm pretty sure atheists get married too. Why does there have to be a religious (or financial) element to a man and a woman wanting to get married? It's sounds like a pretty normal way to start a family to me...

 

[fishstixs05]

Thank you atari, exactly what i was trying to say.

 

[quarryshark]

every person is human
according to our society, humans have rights which shouldn't be denied (minus criminals, etc...)
therefor, every person has rights which should not be denied

Just because someone practices something you do not beleive in (and it is an act that is not causing you or others harm) then it should be allowed. So far as I can tell, a person's choice in who they end up loving doesn't hurt me or anyone, so I say let it be legalized by the state. In my opinion, religion can do whatever they want in banning it, although I know many same sex couples want to be recognized in God's eyes, but that is the church's decision. There, I'm done with that. I hope this topic doesn't explode because I know people are very passionate about it, more so than MM's movie

The church recogized marriage long before the US or any state government did I believe the true definition of marriage should be left to that institution. Some things should be left alone. Whats wrong with the civil union idea?
Also I have a huge problem with a small minority of people having such a big effect on sure an important issue. We are getting away from the concept of the majority rules to pander to these small but LOUD groups. Why not let the people vote on this issue? I'll answer that. Because it would be shot down so fast it would make you head spin. They would rather cheat by using liberal judges and the media to further their unrealistic cause. Personally I liked it better when they were in the closet. At least I didn't have to attemt to explain to my 5 and 6 year old why 2 grown men were kissing passionately in public. I don't care what they do in private just like I don't care if people engage in other strange behaviors, just keep it to themselves.
It is not normal behavior. I don't care what anyone says, it simply isn't for the reason I stated before. I hear your argument in reference to the chimps and the dolphins, but are they able to create life and continue their species by this? Like I said there are anomalies.
We are a country that has a huge problem with the decay of morals and of the family institution. It is tough enough to raise out children in todays society, we don't need to bastardise our most sacred institution just to please a segment of the population that is less than 10%.
If they want health benefits and life insurance then fine. That should be taken up with the private sector. I'm sure the insurance companies would gladly take their money.
Thats all I'm gonna say on this. It has the potential for getting ugly.

 

[fishstixs05]

yah, we should vote on wheelchair ramps to, cuz, that is a really small portion of america, and people get scared if they need to decide stairs or ramp. The thing is, even though it is a small group, they are still americans, and it wont affect other people. oh well off to school. BTW, im 14.

 

[quarryshark]

Don't tell Quarryshark, but I have the same views as him on everything he's mentioned on this page (page10).

Hmm.. suddenly my feet are feeling colder.. *looks down and sees ice forming on the floor*

Ok, I won't tell him. Put some socks on.
Atari, you crack me up.

 

[quarryshark]

yah, we should vote on wheelchair ramps to, cuz, that is a really small portion of america, and people get scared if they need to decide stairs or ramp. The thing is, even though it is a small group, they are still americans, and it wont affect other people. oh well off to school. BTW, im 14.

That is total apples and oranges. It will affect other people. You need to think about this further.

 

[ambulocetus]

Why not let the people vote on this issue? I'll answer that. Because it would be shot down so fast it would make you head spin.

exactly, rather than playing some leaglistic game through courts, appeals etc, drag the issue out and see how the whole of America feels!


From the previous page: -

here is a film from a different angle... Haven't seen it yet myself but it looks promising.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Why does it have to drop to this, MM film wasn't entitled in such a slanderous manner. Perhaps it is people like MM who acctually love America and all that it stands for, and who actually think about events in the world, rather than just towing some party line on the issues, which is definelty not how this country came into being!!

Well, i think that is that for me (but i might have said that a couple times in this thread already lol!). FWIW enjoy the debate, just keep it clean as politics and relgion can get ugly pretty quickly

 

[deli_conker]

I have to disagree with the views on marriage and religion.. I'm pretty sure atheists get married too.

Marriage is a religious institution. Doesn't matter who does it, it's still based in religion. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist (that's a whole different topic though).

Why does there have to be a religious (or financial) element to a man and a woman wanting to get married?

religious: because it's based in religion (read the texts of different religions and find out for yourself). financial: because we're capitalists . jk I'm not sure I follow what you mean on that one. Are you talking about combining assets or paying for the wedding?

It's sounds like a pretty normal way to start a family to me...

I have a family and I'm not married. Does that make me abnormal?

yah, we should vote on wheelchair ramps to, cuz, that is a really small portion of america, and people get scared if they need to decide stairs or ramp. The thing is, even though it is a small group, they are still americans, and it wont affect other people.

There are several laws that were voted on for accessibility for handicapped individuals. These vary from municipality to municipality and are paid for by taxpayers. Ever go out to the middle of nowhere and see a bait shop that has a van accessible handicapped parking space? Chances are no, you haven't. It's not required by law for that proprietor to have one. I think a popular vote is the best way to solve these popular issues. Let the people choose the laws that govern them. If the law (or absence of) isn't what you want then either deal with it or move away.

oh and deli, i dont believe that marraige is nessesarily based on religion. It simply two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I realize you can put the religious spin on it, but to break it down it is a legal contract between two people. But do you feel this is not the same kind of love?

You need to read about religion (not just Christianity BTW). Marriage is based in religion. Let me put it to you like this. I was with this girl for ten years. We lived together, have a kid together, but never got married. Did we have some sort of ceremony before we got our first apartment together? No. Did we have any type of ceremony at all at any point in our relationship? Again, no. Were we two people that loved each other and wanted to spend the rest of our lives together? Yes. Why didn't we get married? Think about it. I'm interested in your response. Marriage has legal implications because it usually ends up with one person changing thier name (i.e. identification). This changes tax information and many other things that the government is involved in. It also rears it's ugly head when people get divorced as they generally have to have some form of legal mediation (to keep things "fair" <-- not that it always plays out that way). Contrary to popular belief, marriage isn't about love alone. If it were, I'd be married and people wouldn't be getting divorced as often as they are.

 

[Atari]

Deli, you do realise two people can get married and never once set foot in a church, temple or whatever... there doesn't have to be any words spoken about God... their vows don't have to have any kind of religious element... it can come down to nothing more than a pact between two people ( not three ). So tell me how that is a religious event... and if it's not then are these people not really married in your eyes?

I refuse to accept the notion that ALL marriages are based in religion.

BTW - I'm not atheist but I probably have very different views about God than most, so I don't agree with your statement on that issue either - but I really don't think we should steer the debate in that direction 8O

 

[ferret]

I'd just like to point out everyone keeps saying "the church" and "the religion" ... In the United States, having multiple wives is illegal, but there are some religions that hold this belief. So should this practice be legal or illegal? To some religious groups, its practically a command from God to take many wives and bear many children. (And no, I'm not refering only to the guys out in Utah)

You're basing your arguments on "Marriage is religious" but "religion" is not any single entity. There are several religions that allow same-sex marriages, at least, religious/spiritually.. Obviously they can't overrule the goverment, two ministers from one of these Churches have had charges filed against them earlier this year.. So what makes your religion the defining leader of society? Why should your beliefs take precedence over the beliefs of others?

 

[ferret]

I'd also like to point out, that long long ago, thousands of years ago, marriage wasn't necessarily about love or religion. It was a dominance thing, almost a form of slavery. That is to say, it was how a man laid claim to a woman. Things have obviously changed, but long ago, women had no choice in the matter.