Easy there hoss. I'm viewing your list here, and while I may agree with the spirit and invocation, we have wildly different views on the process and implementation.


Agreed. But I think it needs to be extended further. Women in combat. There is very little hand-to-hand fighting going on anymore. With the right training, man, woman, gay and straight alike can stab and shoot and kill equally.
That being said, I am against a federalized standing army. Everyone that is able should know not only how to fight, but why to fight.

If they exist, sure. It doesn't occur to most, but I question the supposed powers of the executive, and often ponder the need for the branch at all.

A feel-good measure. It rings close to legislating intent, and we can't have that. If you assault or murder someone, it shouldn't matter what your thought process was when you did it. Everyone should be treated equally. Victims and perpetrators alike.

I think this would go without saying if everyone is treated equally.

Communicable diseases are tough, but I agree. But I also think if you have one, you should be held criminally and civilly liable for the consequences of you placing others in danger. That means failing to notify a tattoo artist that you have HIV, or breathing in a crowded room if you have TB. And etc.

I'm not sure this was an issue federally or even at the state level, but I agree. That being said, the FHA shouldn't exist.

No way. The census has gotten out of hand with questions. If it must exist, take a name, tab a number.

Absolutely not. If an agency exists, it shouldn't exist to meddle. Unfortunately, that is precisely the State Department's raison d'etre. It has to go. No aid. No joint military operations. Peaceful trade with all, entangling alliances with none, etc.

What do you mean by support? I hope you don't mean money.


If the covenant of the states is to exist, they all must abide.
For them to abide, they have to look at the intent and the history of the documents that bind them.
Which means equal rights for everyone. If the federal government is to exist, it should exist only to protect those rights.
I'm pretty much anti-state at this point; I see it as the biggest threat to people that currently exists. At every level it intrudes and invades and imposes.
It compels. It has devolved to and is complicit in theft, rape, and murder. But if it can be fixed, I'm willing to give it a shot.
I could go on and on with my thoughts, about individuals and armies and agencies and ideas about teaching children warfare, but I won't. For now.
Good talk though.

Marriage should be extended to gay people. Marriage is much more than just a religious unity of a man and woman. It also has consequences in terms of taxes and other financial circumstances that married people can utilize. It even doesn't have to be called a marriage, call it a domestic partnership with the same rights. It's 2012, not 1890.

You're right, it is the 21st century. But I'm not a fan of marriage in general, legally it's a fiction, like a corporation.
Except marriage is two people becoming one person in the eyes of the state, whereas a corporation is many people hiding behind a created and state-recognized entity.

All that said...marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, semantics.
Taxes?

Might be a throwback to agrarian society, but if it's your thing, should be legal. Why shouldn't LGBT folks have the chance to be as unhappy as everyone else?

You know, gays already have the right to marry and gain all of the legal benefits of that institution. In fact, they have EXACTLY the same right to marry as everyone else. A gay man has the right to marry any woman of legal age who he can persuade to agree, and vice versa. He may not particularly LIKE that that is his option, but it IS exactly the same as everyone else.

Just words.

The faux acceptance of gays by straight society is probably still the biggest obstacle. It's a fetish for a lot of people; that's not really acceptance. It's a kink.

Are you suggesting this is just a fad? Like it is a fashionable and trendy the "in" thing to do now with the acceptance of gays and lesbians?

I don't think so...

I believe it is a part of the continious change down the slippery rope of society's moral standards...not just accepting gays/lesbians but embracing all types of alternative lifestyles such as bisexuality, transgender, etc.

If same-sex marriages becomes law throughout the land you know full well that other groups like avocats for multiple partners, polygamy..even bestiality and pocession of child pornogaphy books and material are just waiting in the wings to push for thier rights and acceptance.

So how far as a society are we willing to go in the name of progession and enlightenment? How far are we willing to push the envelope of what is considered acceptable?

I thought marraige is a solemn declaration between two people who have commited to one another for better or worse, in sickness or health regardless what they can get out of it financially speaking.

Is this the real reason why straight couples as well as same-sex couples are rushing to get married these days?

No, it's not a fad. A fad might actually have some conviction behind it.

Have you ever noticed that much of the support for Gay equality from the hetero community appears to based on the sexual aspect of the relationship?
There is much, much more to any relationship than sex, but that is what it boils down to for straight folk. It's very rarely about the emotional connection, but about the
voyeuristic quality. Finding two women making out to be hot doesn't mean you support gay rights. Until society gets passed that Gaze aspect, it's all just wordplay and a political talking point.

A good solid sexual relationship is only a part of what makes a solid partnership even between same-sex couples...otherwise any relationship is not going to last on sexual relations alone.

I never understood the attraction of two women making out btw...but I do think that society is a lot more accepting towards alternate lifestyles not just homosexuality.