Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays from around the country are likely to flock to the state to be wed...
Arnold is the only (R) that the GOP could probably get elected.
However I notice both Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary & Obama claim they do not support same sex marriage.
They say no such thing. They believe the matter should be left to the states, and out of the Federal Government's rather incompetent hands. Anything else you want to misquote?
[snip]
Wow are they homophobes too?
Who called anyone a homophobe? Or are you just talking out of your rather unintelligent ass again?
LOL, I can certainly understand that since it goes against the people's will
Lets see how well gay marriage sells?
Wow are they homophobes too?
Given the current financial black hole it's sinking into.....I wouldn't recommend it
----------------------------
I doubt that living in a state whose government is in some sort of deficit is any sort of major problem for anyone not dependent on the state. All they can do is tax you.
I thought Arnold was going to save the day for California , being a fiscally responsible Republican and all...
A bad day on the beach in the winter in CA is better than a good day in ND, after all.
You might be a "homophobe", but you are not a "homophone".
Okay, this is not a spelling error.
A homophone is not the same thing as a homophobe.
I think all can agree that Plane is not a homophone.
If I want 15 wive's, and we're all agreeable, who the hell are you to stop me?
I believe it's a sign of judicial rule over the people. A small group of unelected kings and queens overrule the people with a wave of their hands.
Dangerous. For us, and them.
Well you're wrong. Just because they've been doing for "quite some time" certainly doesn't make it right.
Linking this abomination to interracial marriage is ridiculous.
What would Bob Barr say?
| Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded. Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work. |
A deaf couple want to make their child deaf , using invitro tecniques to ensure it.
Why not , what right does this child have ?
Does a prospective child have a right to the best body it might naturally get, or the right to parents that are sensible?
Has McCain had anything to say about this?
A deaf couple want to make their child deaf , using invitro tecniques to ensure it.
Why not , what right does this child have ?
Does a prospective child have a right to the best body it might naturally get, or the right to parents that are sensible?
Is being deaf inherently a bad thing? Obviously the parents do not believe so. Are they wrong? If they are, why are the wrong?
Not that I can find. I think he has said in the past that states ought to be allowed to ban same-sex marriage, but has also opposed a federal marriage amendment. But I could be wrong.
Protecting MarriageJohn McCain 2008 - On the Issues (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm)
As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America's families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress.
I would not be against a mentally handicapped person haveing a child , do parents indeed have a right to ensure that their children will be compatibly handicaped?
I would not be against a mentally handicapped person haveing a child , do parents indeed have a right to ensure that their children will be compatibly handicaped?
Is a deaf person handicapped? Many deaf people do not consider being deaf a disability. Do parents have a right to ensure their child has blue eyes or red hair? Does anyone really care if they try? Obviously some deaf people consider being deaf something that is not inherently a bad thing. You haven't explained why they should.
I would not be against a mentally handicapped person haveing a child , do parents indeed have a right to ensure that their children will be compatibly handicaped?
Is a deaf person handicapped?
QuoteIs a deaf person handicapped?
Yes
there is no right to normalcy protected in our law right now , should there be such a thing ?
QuoteIs a deaf person handicapped?
Yes
If they don't think so, why do you?
So if the loss of a sense is not a handicap what could the definition of "handicap " be?
So if the loss of a sense is not a handicap what could the definition of "handicap " be?
It's not a loss if one never had it. So again, if they don't think it is a handicap, then why do you?
and to want to impart a disabililty on a child is simply cruel
So, it's a disability because you consider hearing a normal bodily sense, and normal is good while not normal is a disability. Basically, because you say so.
Perhaps they have a different idea about what constitutes "normal".
and to want to impart a disabililty on a child is simply cruel
If we get to the point where disabilities can detected and fixed in the womb, is a parent then cruel not to have them fixed if found? Negligent if not having a doctor look for them?
And, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?
and to want to impart a disabililty on a child is simply cruel
And, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?
No, because science says so. Having all 10 fingers is normal. Having all your senses functioning is normal. Having all your synapses firing when they're supposed to is normal. Not having these isn't "abnormal" in the sense that that person is some freak of nature, it's simply not a 100% functioning body.
Your train of thought is why can't someone want a child with Down's syndrome?
Perhaps their idea of "normal", has been distorted by their disability. It makes perfect sense, because to a person born with a disability, that's "normal" to them
QuoteIf we get to the point where disabilities can detected and fixed in the womb, is a parent then cruel not to have them fixed if found? Negligent if not having a doctor look for them?
Depends on the risk of the procedure, to both the child and mother. also depends on what kind of procedures are being employed to look for disabilities, and the risk such procedures also have on both mother & child
QuoteAnd, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?
Since there is no scientific proof of such a "disposition" that question is largely moot, and completely speculative
QuoteAnd, getting back, sort of, to the original thread topic, what if the child has a genetic disposition to be homosexual?
Why wait for that?
What would be wrong with causeing the Child to be homosexual?
If theere is a genetic predisposition , then the genetic marker can be implanted or simulated with medications.
QuoteNo, because science says so. Having all 10 fingers is normal. Having all your senses functioning is normal. Having all your synapses firing when they're supposed to is normal. Not having these isn't "abnormal" in the sense that that person is some freak of nature, it's simply not a 100% functioning body.
So someone without an appendix is disabled?
QuoteNo, because science says so. Having all 10 fingers is normal. Having all your senses functioning is normal. Having all your synapses firing when they're supposed to is normal. Not having these isn't "abnormal" in the sense that that person is some freak of nature, it's simply not a 100% functioning body.
So someone without an appendix is disabled?
For that matter, what about someone who has had his tonsils removed?
Those procedures were done not because the parent or person for that matter didn't want them, it was because there was serious risk to the person if they weren't removed.
Weak, Prince
Probably because you didn't like the answer, or that it didn't fit your predisposition of what is, is supposed to be.
Being that I've been argueing from the side of science and functional abilites,
and you've been argueing from the perception of a disabled person believing they're not disabled, because they say so,
>>Why, because you say so.(?)<<
Actually, everybody says so. Deafness is a handicap. Blindness is a handicap. However, a handicap doesn't mean you are any less human or less able.
I'm still on the side of medicine.
Your arguement of "I say so" is about as valid as telling a Dr that their dx of someone's brain cancer is simply their "say so", or that an Audiologist's conclusions of hearing loss is simply their "say so".
That's why they have special schools, classes where families can learn to sign, all kinds of special...fill in the blank. They're there to help said person with their disability so they can better function, on as equal as terms of those with completely functional hearing.
So I presume you prefer the term "handicapable"?
Actually, everybody says so.
I'm still on the side of medicine.
Then let's see some medical argument rather than an unsupported assertion that someone not 100% functioning is disabled.
Your arguement of "I say so" is about as valid as telling a Dr that their dx of someone's brain cancer is simply their "say so", or that an Audiologist's conclusions of hearing loss is simply their "say so".
Not at all. No one is saying deaf people are not deaf. Not even the deaf people. The question is whether being deaf is a disability. You say it is. The deaf couple says it isn't. I ask, why should I believe you? And all you can muster is, basically, because you know it is. That is not good enough.
That's why they have special schools, classes where families can learn to sign, all kinds of special...fill in the blank. They're there to help said person with their disability so they can better function, on as equal as terms of those with completely functional hearing.
So it's a disability because we treat them as being disabled. That seems somewhat circular.
Then let's see some medical argument rather than an unsupported assertion that someone not 100% functioning is disabled.
Made it already.
Sorry if medical science isn't good enough for yas, Prince.
But trying to lay claim that because they don't believe it is for them,
And last time I checked, all those schools & classes were optional. So, basically your claiming that disabled people treat themselves as being disabled. Yea, that is circular
Definition of "Disabled" from a medical dictionary:
Thanks Ami....not that it'll get Prince to look past his already made up mind, but the supporting back up is appreciated
Definition of "Disabled" from a medical dictionary:
So a dictionary says deafness is a disability. The deaf couple says it isn't. So why should the medical dictionary, or the opinion of someone who thinks it is, have more weight than that of the deaf couple. The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.
QuoteThe deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.
Yea, your mind isn't made up........no, not at all
QuoteThe deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.
Yea, your mind isn't made up........no, not at all
Yes, exactly. Again, that your arguments are weak and flimsy does not mean my mind is inflexible.
Ah. Now see, there is a good start for an argument. So a dictionary says deafness is a disability. The deaf couple says it isn't. So why should the medical dictionary, or the opinion of someone who thinks it is, have more weight than that of the deaf couple. The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.
I doubt anyone's making that claim Xo. ::)
Ah. Now see, there is a good start for an argument. So a dictionary says deafness is a disability. The deaf couple says it isn't. So why should the medical dictionary, or the opinion of someone who thinks it is, have more weight than that of the deaf couple. The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.
I guess if words are to have meaning, then we must agree to a definition. If anyone can just say "that word means something different to me" then all discussion will break down.
A disability is when part of your body does not work as normal. If a person cannot hear, they are disabled. They are denied the use of a sense organ that other humans have.
Whether or not they consider it a disability is irrelevant.
I reference the medical support,
and Ami even provides dictionary back-up, and there you are questioning the dictionary.
Naaaaa, no inflexibility there
Just for my curiosity, what would it take to prove to you, that it's cruel and selfish to want to make a perfectly hearing child, hearing impaired?
I guess if words are to have meaning, then we must agree to a definition. If anyone can just say "that word means something different to me" then all discussion will break down.
A disability is when part of your body does not work as normal.
If a person cannot hear, they are disabled. They are denied the use of a sense organ that other humans have.
Whether or not they consider it a disability is irrelevant.
My god. . . this is silly.
Prince??
Homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder. It is not so considered today. At some point, someone has to question. That you are unwilling does not mean I am wrong or inflexible for doing so.
If you're a libertarian, you've probably heard of Dr. Thomas Szasz. He points out that the flaw in diagnosing mental disorders is that there's no objective standard for quantifying them. That is, a lab technician can identify cancer from a sample of a tumor without knowing anything else about the patient. You cannot diagnose a schizophrenic or a homosexual with a lab test, a diagnoses is purely the subjective opinion of the therapist.
I don't think that problem exists in this case. Deafness can be very much be objectively diagnosed. There's no "considered" about it.
My god. . . this is silly.
Prince??
Is it silly to challenge preconceived notions?
If you're a libertarian, you've probably heard of Dr. Thomas Szasz. He points out that the flaw in diagnosing mental disorders is that there's no objective standard for quantifying them. That is, a lab technician can identify cancer from a sample of a tumor without knowing anything else about the patient. You cannot diagnose a schizophrenic or a homosexual with a lab test, a diagnoses is purely the subjective opinion of the therapist.
I don't think that problem exists in this case. Deafness can be very much be objectively diagnosed. There's no "considered" about it.
But that is part of my point. Homosexuality is not mental illness that is subjectively diagnosed. At least, not any more it isn't. And no one is arguing that deaf people might not really be deaf. The question, at this point, is whether or not deafness is necessarily a disability. So far, Amianthus is the only one making a reasonable argument that it is. Anyway, I still say at some point someone has to question. Dr. Szasz did not reach his conclusions because he was unwilling to ask challenging questions.
You have challenged more than preconceived notions.
You are a rep for the very parents and you don't even know them.
Subjective as your posts are reading between the lines, if you are going to stand for the very truth that is the subject of this issue--the parent's "notions"
otherwise.....let people have their points here too.
I hear you challenge people here as if you are trying to get people off of death row.
shake loose, dude.
Oh, I see, so when Ami carefully brings in a dictionary definition, suddenly everyone elses opinions, even though they are valid as hell..matter not??
Are we going to turn this board into a prove it with WIKI, ENCYCLOPEDIA, ERIC ETC?
Then, we will become as disabled ----and not able to form honest thoughts and facts from experience (Sirs did that tonight, and well I might add)
I am not saying that the definition of the word Ami posted is incorrect, but we have become a venue of "**prove it with DICTIONARIES AND LINKS"**.??
This thread is diving into the surreal.
Chill and let others speak without resting your case on one definition to WIN a point.
It's folks like you guys who, frankly scare away others from posting here.
Fear of not reading the dictionary? Do they have fear of running up against the likes of the "is" and the definition of "is" factor?
Give me a break.
The discussion ended way back when Sirs made his point, Prince.
I am not trying to be meanspirited here, but you are beating the death out of the horse.
NOw, you are saying that Ami, (who i might add is brilliant) is the FINAL ANSWER?
sHEESH.....this gate has to offer more.
BUt your willingness to settle the entire debate on one set of defined lines. . . not so princely.
Not so priceless.
Oh, I see, so when Ami carefully brings in a dictionary definition, suddenly everyone elses opinions, even though they are valid as hell..matter not??
That is not remotely close to what I said.
Are we going to turn this board into a prove it with WIKI, ENCYCLOPEDIA, ERIC ETC?
I don't recall suggesting anyone had to prove anything with a dictionary or an encycolpedia.
Then, we will become as disabled ----and not able to form honest thoughts and facts from experience (Sirs did that tonight, and well I might add)
I'm not sure why Sirs honest thoughts and experience outweigh the honest thoughts and experience of the deaf couple.
I am not saying that the definition of the word Ami posted is incorrect, but we have become a venue of "**prove it with DICTIONARIES AND LINKS"**.??
I don't recall demanding anyone prove anything with dictionaries and links.
This thread is diving into the surreal.
Perhaps, but that would not be my fault.
Chill and let others speak without resting your case on one definition to WIN a point.
I am.
It's folks like you guys who, frankly scare away others from posting here.
You want me to take a weak and easily swayed stance so that other people won't scared away?
Fear of not reading the dictionary? Do they have fear of running up against the likes of the "is" and the definition of "is" factor?
Give me a break.
I don't know. Do they?
The discussion ended way back when Sirs made his point, Prince.
I am not trying to be meanspirited here, but you are beating the death out of the horse.
I see. So you think I should have shut up and been silent, regardless of what I think.
NOw, you are saying that Ami, (who i might add is brilliant) is the FINAL ANSWER?
No, Cynthia, that is not what I said.
sHEESH.....this gate has to offer more.
More? I thought you were just arguing it should offer less. Or maybe just that I should offer less. I confess, I was not aware that my expectations of something better than "because I say so" arguments was a threat to newcomers, or that such was an inferior position. While I certainly see no reason to sacrifice my standards for being persuaded, I will certainly be willing to sacrifice my presence here if it is an undue burden on the Saloon. I'll step aside and let the "better" members get back to important matters without my apparently grievous comments to drag the forum down and scaring people away.
I agree. But the deaf couple is not in disagreement about the meaning of "disability". They are in disagreement that deafness is a disability.
Those people are robbing the child of such potentials.---thus Criminals.
Okay, this is not a spelling error.
A homophone is not the same thing as a homophobe.
I think all can agree that Plane is not a homophone.
disabled means "less able" or in the case of blind "not able to see" or deaf "not able to hear".
I disagree that deaf parents have a right to assure that their child is also deaf. I question that such people actually exist as well.
Those people are robbing the child of such potentials.---thus Criminals.
Unfortunately, we've been told for years that until that bundle of cells makes the trip down the birth canal, it's not a human, and has no rights. Therefore, under the current climate, modifying it be born deaf is apparently not illegal or immoral. How can it be immoral to modify a bundle of cells which is a part of your own body and law has said that you can do anything you wish with it?
I agree. But the deaf couple is not in disagreement about the meaning of "disability". They are in disagreement that deafness is a disability.
So? If a color blind person says that he or she does not have to stop for a red light, because FOR THEM it's not red, is that a valid choice?
Regardless of whether or not the parents think they are disabled, they do not, in fact, have use of a facility that other humans do. They are, by definition, disabled. They might refuse to accept aid for the disabled, and they might refuse to be treated as disabled, but since they cannot hear, they do have a disability. And a potentially life threatening one at that.
Not hearing the car's blasting boombox next door is not as risky.
Color blind people really do not have trouble with traffic lights.
The lights are always in the same POSITIONS.
Do you actually keep a log of nonstandard traffic lights?
And it is true that the position of red, yellow and green lights is standardized nearly everywhere.
When I was young, I could hear whether a TV was on with the volume turned al the way down by a very high pitched sound that all TV's make, but apparently only I could hear. I seem to have lost this ability, or perhaps TV design has changed.
Not hearing the car's blasting boombox next door is not as risky.
Being deaf can lead to more life threatening situations than just not being able to hear your neighbor's boombox.
What about that deaf family that cannot hear the tornado horns in the middle of the night, sleeping on blissfully until their house is destroyed and they are killed?
Do you actually keep a log of nonstandard traffic lights?
Not a log. I just have a memory and have noticed - in a number of places both inside the US and in other countries - where the "standard" was not followed.And it is true that the position of red, yellow and green lights is standardized nearly everywhere.
Except, of course, for places where it's done differently for a reason. Just outside of Baltimore there is an intersection where the lights are mounted horizontally, because you couldn't see the red or yellow lights when approaching due to a very low bridge just before the intersection.
I guess I have to make my point more explicitly. Everyone being able to define words based on their own viewpoint could lead to a situation where a color-blind person gets a ticket for running a red light, and in court successfully defends himself by saying that FOR HIM the light was not red, and therefore the law does not apply.
And here is just one example of a "non standard" traffic light.
(http://www.backpackingmalaysia.com/images/gallery/malaysian-moments/traffic-light.jpg)
If one travels abroad and has to acclimate to the new environment, I would think if the person is responsible enough to prepare ahead of time, perhaps through researching the new surroundings . . this traffic light issue would not be a big deal.
If one travels abroad and has to acclimate to the new environment, I would think if the person is responsible enough to prepare ahead of time, perhaps through researching the new surroundings . . this traffic light issue would not be a big deal.
Never considered Baltimore and the various other US states where I have seen horizontal and otherwise skewed traffic lights to be "abroad".
Guess you learn something new every day...
But, if a disabled person can be smart enough to get a license to drive in any place in the world, then he/she is smart enough to find out how to read the signs. (safety first, they always say) ;)
But, if a disabled person can be smart enough to get a license to drive in any place in the world, then he/she is smart enough to find out how to read the signs. (safety first, they always say) ;)
But as I said, that was not my point anyway.
"Everyone being able to define words based on their own viewpoint could lead to a situation where a color-blind person gets a ticket for running a red light, and in court successfully defends himself by saying that FOR HIM the light was not red, and therefore the law does not apply."
It was more a comment on allowing people to make up their own definitions for words.
But, if a disabled person can be smart enough to get a license to drive in any place in the world, then he/she is smart enough to find out how to read the signs. (safety first, they always say) ;)
But as I said, that was not my point anyway.
"Everyone being able to define words based on their own viewpoint could lead to a situation where a color-blind person gets a ticket for running a red light, and in court successfully defends himself by saying that FOR HIM the light was not red, and therefore the law does not apply."
It was more a comment on allowing people to make up their own definitions for words.
Sure, I agree. Your point, and your comment. I was also stating my opinion based on a bit of experience.
However, in a traffic violation court arena, I doubt that a colorblind disabled person who runs a red light is going to "successfully defend himself" as you state here. Your definition of the word "could" is more to the point. The definition of the word disabled is not necessarily a get of ticket free card in this red light case. But, the law is the deciding factor in terms of definitions. Your opinion of disabled and my opinion in such a case may differ, but in the courts----no room for debate.
So you're against abortion. That's good.