|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:31 pm
@Minielf - why is it so sacrosanct? I mean, if a gay couple found a woman who was willing to carry a child conceived by one of them, would you deny them the chance to have that child? And if you're going to give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, why not allow them the official term 'marriage'? I think the ID theory (yes, I did a little research on it) says that the earth and science and stuff is all correct, but that it was also all designed by an intelligent being. Not necessarily 6k years ago in 6 days type thing. But still.. all the 'evidence' they have is purely a lack of evidence for big bang, evolution, etc which do have flaws and in some cases insufficient data... but then, they are at least based on science - literally what we know - instead of guessing at this and that..
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:11 pm
Niphredil Ithilmir @Minielf - why is it so sacrosanct? I mean, if a gay couple found a woman who was willing to carry a child conceived by one of them, would you deny them the chance to have that child? And if you're going to give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, why not allow them the official term 'marriage'? I think the ID theory (yes, I did a little research on it) says that the earth and science and stuff is all correct, but that it was also all designed by an intelligent being. Not necessarily 6k years ago in 6 days type thing. But still.. all the 'evidence' they have is purely a lack of evidence for big bang, evolution, etc which do have flaws and in some cases insufficient data... but then, they are at least based on science - literally what we know - instead of guessing at this and that.. I don't mean Gays and Lesbians shouldn't be allowed to have access to sperm or egg donors. Obviously they must have them if they want to have children of their own, but still I think such IVF and sperm/egg donation must be strictly monitored by government authorities. A homosexual couple who accesses a sperm or egg bank should obtain the consent of the donor(s) first, more so for gays, who will need to have a consenting surrogate mother carry their baby. These donors of sperm or egg cells are basically contributing half their genetic material to two anonymous people so that they can raise a child. They should have a right to maintain close contact with they gay/lesbian couple. Apart from this certain condition I do sort of agree with allowing gay and lesbian couples to be married. But frankly, anti-homosexual marriage lobby groups dominant most of the government positions in the US and here in Australia. Our Health Minister is a devout catholic, and both the Treasurer and our PM are both arch-conservatives. It's highly unlikely Gay marriage will ever be legalized unless we have a radical government elected to power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:13 am
Minielf It's highly unlikely Gay marriage will ever be legalized unless we have a radical government elected to power. I propose the Official Monster Raving Loony Party! blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:23 am
Minielf Niphredil Ithilmir @Minielf - why is it so sacrosanct? I mean, if a gay couple found a woman who was willing to carry a child conceived by one of them, would you deny them the chance to have that child? And if you're going to give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, why not allow them the official term 'marriage'? I think the ID theory (yes, I did a little research on it) says that the earth and science and stuff is all correct, but that it was also all designed by an intelligent being. Not necessarily 6k years ago in 6 days type thing. But still.. all the 'evidence' they have is purely a lack of evidence for big bang, evolution, etc which do have flaws and in some cases insufficient data... but then, they are at least based on science - literally what we know - instead of guessing at this and that.. I don't mean Gays and Lesbians shouldn't be allowed to have access to sperm or egg donors. Obviously they must have them if they want to have children of their own, but still I think such IVF and sperm/egg donation must be strictly monitored by government authorities. A homosexual couple who accesses a sperm or egg bank should obtain the consent of the donor(s) first, more so for gays, who will need to have a consenting surrogate mother carry their baby. These donors of sperm or egg cells are basically contributing half their genetic material to two anonymous people so that they can raise a child. They should have a right to maintain close contact with they gay/lesbian couple. Apart from this certain condition I do sort of agree with allowing gay and lesbian couples to be married. But frankly, anti-homosexual marriage lobby groups dominant most of the government positions in the US and here in Australia. Our Health Minister is a devout catholic, and both the Treasurer and our PM are both arch-conservatives. It's highly unlikely Gay marriage will ever be legalized unless we have a radical government elected to power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darkaznstargoddess Captain
|
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:06 pm
Just continue..
Australia and the usa's stand on homosexual marriage are about the same. The topic being disscussed has become homosexual marriage anyways..
Anyways my state legislative is considering banning homosexual marriage recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:10 pm
Well, in Canada same-sex marriage is already legalized... because of a Supreme Court decision... sweatdrop
There had been some talk how about the Conservatives will revise the legislature once they get elected, but I really doubt it if they actually have the guts to propose a bill like that.
Edit: I just realized that this is a U.S. politics discussion thread. Opps!
Well, U.S. and Canada have very similar political systems anyways. The major difference between the two is probably the fact there are only two major parties in U.S., so sometimes voting in a U.S. presidential election is really about choosing the lesser evil... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:03 pm
Legendary_ONE Well, in Canada same-sex marriage is already legalized... because of a Supreme Court decision... sweatdrop There had been some talk how about the Conservatives will revise the legislature once they get elected, but I really doubt it if they actually have the guts to propose a bill like that. Edit: I just realized that this is a U.S. politics discussion thread. Opps! Well, U.S. and Canada have very similar political systems anyways. The major difference between the two is probably the fact there are only two major parties in U.S., so sometimes voting in a U.S. presidential election is really about choosing the lesser evil... sweatdrop the difference between canada and the us is that the us is banning same-sex marriages, which i believe is completely wrong. the goverment should NOT have the power to decide that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:03 am
Well, in Cannada the Conservatives opposed to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage, while the Liberals remained netrual.
Then, in a court case the Supreme Court of Cananda ruled the sections of the Marriage Act (the law that defines marriage) as unconstitutional. Only then, the Liberals, who were in power at the time, started to support the idea.
In general, the Supreme Court of Canada has relative more power in shaping the law compared to its counterpact in the United States. If a similiar case happens in the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm sure the decision will soon be overrided by the House of Commons and the Senate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:46 pm
Legendary_ONE Well, in Cannada the Conservatives opposed to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage, while the Liberals remained netrual. Then, in a court case the Supreme Court of Cananda ruled the sections of the Marriage Act (the law that defines marriage) as unconstitutional. Only then, the Liberals, who were in power at the time, started to support the idea. In general, the Supreme Court of Canada has relative more power in shaping the law compared to its counterpact in the United States. If a similiar case happens in the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm sure the decision will soon be overrided by the House of Commons and the Senate. many states have already outlawed same sex marriage... its horrible. goverments SHOULD NOT have a say in how citizens run their lives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:07 pm
Darkaznstargoddess Just continue..
Australia and the usa's stand on homosexual marriage are about the same. The topic being disscussed has become homosexual marriage anyways..
Anyways my state legislative is considering banning homosexual marriage recently. Australia's High Court has pretty much the same powers as the Canadian Supreme Court, but the problem we have is that all of our judges are arch-conservative on homosexual rights. Our second problem is that the Howard Government has almost total control of the entire government, which means there's no chance of any gay marriage legislation being introduced. Some of the States have tried to introduce gay marriage legislation but then Howard could just quash them with a counter act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:13 am
Hmm.. well, they've just introduced 'civil partnerships' here.. hopefully the Labour gov't will be good for something..
@Minielf - I see now. But I think those rules should apply to heterosexual couples as well - fathers being allowed to track down their children etc etc.. but it is arguable that it's better if they never know each other..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 8:25 am
yesh.... what do u mean by civil partnerships??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:35 am
They're sort of like marriages with many of the same rights, just not called marriages and not religious..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:36 pm
Niphredil Ithilmir They're sort of like marriages with many of the same rights, just not called marriages and not religious.. ohhh see there arent any of those in the US
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darkaznstargoddess Captain
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:43 pm
Immigration reform
I've been wondering what people think about the latest big issue in the usa.
There are two verisions of the bill at the moment..
Quote: SENATE BILL PROVISIONS
Security
# Authorizes enhanced border security measures, including the addition of a 370-mile, triple-layer fence along the border.
# Authorizes President Bush's plan to send 6,000 National Guardsmen to the U.S.-Mexican border.
# Bars those convicted of felonies or three misdemeanors from becoming legal residents or citizens.
# Punishes employers who hire illegal immigrants with a fine up to $20,000 and three years in prison after an electronic verification system is established.
Guest workers
# Creates a guest-worker program that would allow workers to work in the country for three years and be eligible for a three-year extension. The number of temporary-worker visas would be limited to 200,000 per year.
Legalization
Establishes a three-tiered path-to-citizenship program, which divides the 11 million to 12 million illegal workers in the United States into three groups:
# Illegal immigrants here for more than five years could gain their citizenship after working for six years, learning English and paying a penalty and back taxes.
# Illegal immigrants here from two to five years would have to return to an entry point and apply for a guest-worker program.
# Workers here less than two years would have to return to their countries of origin.
Language
# Declares English the "national" language of the United States.
# Also declares English the "common and unifying" language of the United States
Why does it seem so ironic this happens.
Why isn't the Mexican president trying more to prevent crossing from his side? confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
