Daniel0 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 How are Denmark's politics in comparison? Denmark is pretty different in that respect. It's a constitutional monarchy and we have a queen and a prime minister. In reality the queen (or king) doesn't have a real power and is just for show and public relations so to speak. There are also quite a lot of parties in Denmark and it's virtually impossible for a single party to form the government. The government will often be composed of at least two parties and they will likely also need the support from other parties as well in order to get the majority of mandates so they can become the government. There are 179 seats in the parliament, two of which are reserved for Greenland and two of which are reserved for the Faeroe Islands. You'll also often vote for a party instead of an individual. The election for the prime minister and the members of parliament is a single election. Votes for an individual will obviously go to him/her while if you vote for a party then the party decides. It is possible to become a member of parliament entirely on your own without any affiliation with a party. Quite a few years ago a comedian got one mandate. He didn't really do anything, but he was in there for four years and got fully paid for it. The terms are four years, but there is no restriction on how long you can be in office. Technically speaking you can be the prime minister for the rest of your life if you keep getting elected. Our current prime minister is on his third term at the moment. He won the election last autumn. The individual party will decide internally who is running for prime minister and that person will also be the leader of the party. Elections are also very short compared to the American. Last election lasted, from the moment it was announced to the moment the outcome was public, one month tops. This means there is no time for smear campaigns and that the short time will have to be used on actual political debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamez Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Haha, i just got a funny text from a friend of mine, even tho im for obama, its still funny. All whites are to report to the cotton fields tomorrow morning for orientation. XD Someone said that in one of my classes today. Did you get that in a text or whatnot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakins Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Pretty good speech though, can't deny that. I was originally rooting for McCain due to Obama's lack of support to small business (correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't keep up with the election too much). But aside from that, I prefer Obama. If McCain won and dropped dead (he's and old and has brain cancer I believe, again correct me if I'm wrong) then Sarah Palin Would be president. Soon after, I would just move to Mexico and call it quits. Ya know, back in the day, we used to "surf" the internet. We would go to news web sites, political web sites, others, and we would read stuff. So, dude, I still surf and here is a link for ya, http://baja-relocation.com/loretobayrealestate.htm BTW, it's Ted Kennedy that has a brain tumor. Brother, you need to spend break time reading a little news. just sayin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Haha, i just got a funny text from a friend of mine, even tho im for obama, its still funny. All whites are to report to the cotton fields tomorrow morning for orientation. XD I got that last night from 3 different people. Didn't think it was very funny. Or logical. But, I can see why some people would mistake it as funny. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R4nk3d Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Medical Marijuana is now legal in Michigan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Euthanasia is now legal in Washington. In some state, the act to put a limit on the number of abortions one can have failed. Gay marriage was banned in California. Weird voting. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Considering the fact that two people of same gender would be happy if they married each other, if you oppose gay marriages, are you then not a real American? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Gay marriage was banned in California? That is weird... I thought California was one of those states that embrace everything under the sun. Considering the fact that two people of same gender would be happy if they married each other, if you oppose gay marriages, are you then not a real American? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Bible says being gay is a sin. It's pretty clear on that count. Well the whole conflict of interest comes in with that whole acknowledging of a creator part. And anyways, if you really want to argue that, we could use that logic to say you're not a real American if you try to keep me from being a serial killer or a pedophile or <insert anything else here that makes me happy>. Now you can argue that two people getting married does not harm me, but if it upsets me that it's allowed and recognized and something that now gets benefits that I have to pay for through my taxes, then yes, it does affect me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Bible also says that we should stone women who had sex before getting married, and we don't do that. I was raised a Catholic, but I don't think we should create law basing on Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 And anyways, if you really want to argue that, we could use that logic to say you're not a real American if you try to keep me from being a serial killer or a pedophile or <insert anything else here that makes me happy>. Now you can argue that two people getting married does not harm me, but if it upsets me that it's allowed and recognized and something that now gets benefits that I have to pay for through my taxes, then yes, it does affect me. Indeed, and that's, in my opinion, a fault in the declaration of independence and American mentality. No, you cannot have complete freedom. There are too many people who would abuse that freedom. Seeing as it's impossible to tell who would abuse it it's necessary to put restrictions on everybody whether they like it or not. There is, however, a significant difference in being happy about engaging in a gay marriage and being happy about being a serial killer. The former does not inflict harm on other people whereas the latter does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Bible also says that we should stone women who had sex before getting married, and we don't do that. I was raised a Catholic, but I don't think we should create law basing on Bible. Okay well thing is, most people look at the Bible as one whole book. Stoning women who had sex before getting married, along with a whole bunch of other things, was in old testament books that were more or list historical documents. It would be the equivalent of picking up an American history book 1000 years from now, and judging the whole of American history based on it's early years when slavery was okay, women had no rights, etc... Yes, things like that were part of the Bible, and it's not that God decided those things were wrong, it's that we couldn't save ourselves according to His laws. That's like, the whole point of Jesus coming down and dying for us. The point of Jesus coming down and dying for us is that we were incapable of living through the law, so Jesus did it for us. That's why we live through faith now, not the law (I'm not trying to preach here, I'm just explaining the belief). Does that mean doing wrong things is okay? No. It just means that we don't need to go around stoning each other for things any more. But that doesn't mean sin isn't sin. The old testament covers a lot of "what" is wrong. The new testament is more about starting with the assumption that you "are" a sinner, and where to go from there. It doesn't really go into specifics like the old testament. So I think it's worth noting that "being gay" is one of the few things that is specifically mentioned in both the old and new testament. Unforgivable and damning? No more than any other sin. IMO perhaps it was some kind of "fuzzy" thing that people didn't seem to be clear on, so it was an effort to be clear about it. I don't know. I do think it's interesting, nonetheless. Anyways... the point of all this is that this country was founded by a bunch of very religious people. In fact, that's one of the main reasons the founders moved here in the first place: so that they could be free to practice what they believed. Their beliefs happened to include what's in the Bible. So it really doesn't come as a surprise that the constitution acknowledged God and laws/ideals originally revolved around the Bible. As we can plainly see, that's changing over the course of time. In practice, God is not acknowledged at all. The only reason we see religious influence in laws is because the proverbial "majority" happen to follow it, not because the law itself is biased. And anyways, if you really want to argue that, we could use that logic to say you're not a real American if you try to keep me from being a serial killer or a pedophile or <insert anything else here that makes me happy>. Now you can argue that two people getting married does not harm me, but if it upsets me that it's allowed and recognized and something that now gets benefits that I have to pay for through my taxes, then yes, it does affect me. Indeed, and that's, in my opinion, a fault in the declaration of independence and American mentality. No, you cannot have complete freedom. There are too many people who would abuse that freedom. Seeing as it's impossible to tell who would abuse it it's necessary to put restrictions on everybody whether they like it or not. There is, however, a significant difference in being happy about engaging in a gay marriage and being happy about being a serial killer. The former does not inflict harm on other people whereas the latter does. There is a significant difference between those things, in your opinion. Serial killers and pedophiles and other people who do things that you feel are "bad" do not do those things because they feel it's wrong. Think about it. Nobody really does the "wrong" thing on purpose. Everybody justifies in their own head the actions they do and thoughts they have. You are right, there must be some kind of order. We cannot feasibly allow everybody to run around willy nilly doing whatever they feel is right in their own eyes. But I just want to make it clear here that the only "significant difference" is a matter of finding out majority opinion for practicality purposes, not what is more right or wrong than something else. To tell even one person what they are doing is wrong, even if everybody else agrees with you, goes against the whole freedom of belief that America is based on. You can restrict/restrain as a matter of practicality for the majority, but not as a matter of morality. Otherwise, you would be guilty of using the law to force your personal beliefs onto someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 And anyways, if you really want to argue that, we could use that logic to say you're not a real American if you try to keep me from being a serial killer or a pedophile or <insert anything else here that makes me happy>. Now you can argue that two people getting married does not harm me, but if it upsets me that it's allowed and recognized and something that now gets benefits that I have to pay for through my taxes, then yes, it does affect me. Indeed, and that's, in my opinion, a fault in the declaration of independence and American mentality. No, you cannot have complete freedom. There are too many people who would abuse that freedom. Seeing as it's impossible to tell who would abuse it it's necessary to put restrictions on everybody whether they like it or not. There is, however, a significant difference in being happy about engaging in a gay marriage and being happy about being a serial killer. The former does not inflict harm on other people whereas the latter does. There is a significant difference between those things, in your opinion. Serial killers and pedophiles and other people who do things that you feel are "bad" do not do those things because they feel it's wrong. Think about it. Nobody really does the "wrong" thing on purpose. Everybody justifies in their own head the actions they do and thoughts they have. You are right, there must be some kind of order. We cannot feasibly allow everybody to run around willy nilly doing whatever they feel is right in their own eyes. But I just want to make it clear here that the only "significant difference" is a matter of finding out majority opinion for practicality purposes, not what is more right or wrong than something else. To tell even one person what they are doing is wrong, even if everybody else agrees with you, goes against the whole freedom of belief that America is based on. You can restrict/restrain as a matter of practicality for the majority, but not as a matter of morality. Otherwise, you would be guilty of using the law to force your personal beliefs onto someone else. Wasn't my opinion. I was being objective. A gay marriage is a union between two people, that is there are two people in this action and both of them have agreed on it. I.e. nobody are hurt. On the contrary killing someone means you against the victim's will takes that person's life. I.e., there is no agreement going on. You are hurting the person. If the person wanted his/her life ended then it wouldn't be murder, but euthanasia which is something quite different. Incidentally, euthanasia is illegal many places though... What I said didn't have anything to do with the beliefs of the person performing the actions, but whomever the action is performed on. Another, perhaps clearer, example of that difference is the difference between rape and consensual sexual intercourse. In the former example either of the two parties involved does not consent to the actions taking place whereas that's the case in the latter. Thus in my opinion the former should be illegal (because it hurts someone) whereas the latter should not (because it does not hurt someone) which is also the case any place I know of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I think you missed the part where married couples get certain benefits and lots of other things that cost me money from my tax dollars. And it is your opinion, not objectivity. Saying what someone is or isn't doing is objectivity. Interpreting it as something right or wrong no longer makes it objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 How would it cost you more money that two same-gendered people marry than if two different-gendered people marry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 It wouldn't. And lots of people disagree with that, as well. But the majority think it's okay, so it continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effigy Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I think you missed the part where married couples get certain benefits and lots of other things that cost me money from my tax dollars. What about the divorces of "proper" marriages that hit the court systems, which run on our tax dollars? What about domestic violence within "proper" marriages that use the law enforcement from our tax dollars? These things are taking my money, but I don't think we should abolish divorce or same-gender marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I think you missed the part where married couples get certain benefits and lots of other things that cost me money from my tax dollars. What about the divorces of "proper" marriages that hit the court systems, which run on our tax dollars? What about domestic violence within "proper" marriages that use the law enforcement from our tax dollars? These things are taking my money, but I don't think we should abolish same-gender marriage. Again: But the majority think it's okay, so it continues. The law is not supposed to be biased. It's supposed to simply allow or not allow things based on majority. Now we all know that that's not how laws end up being made, due to the whole corruption portion of this debate, but ideally, that's how it's supposed to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R4nk3d Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 gay marriage is still banned in michigan too. and also, u cant base laws off of the bible, cause 1. america is a melting pot of color and religion. 2. not everyone uses the bible. it also says playing with urself is a sin, and im guessing 95% of u dont follow that rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 gay marriage is still banned in michigan too. and also, u cant base laws off of the bible, cause 1. america is a melting pot of color and religion. 2. not everyone uses the bible. it also says playing with urself is a sin, and im guessing 95% of u dont follow that rule. Ah but that's the thing: you can do that. If there's 100 people that show up to vote whether gay marriages are allowed or not, and the majority vote no, then guess what, the law will say no, gay marriages are not allowed. It is possible that every single person who voted no could have voted no because they flipped a coin, but it's also possible that they all voted no because they feel it's morally wrong, because the bible says so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dropfaith Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 i think the real issue with gay marriage is that it doesn't really effect the masses. so they leave it as it is as it hasn't caused them any problems with it banned. theres not enough supporters of it because of this. If a law effected the entire nation then they would vote to change it way faster but as it is it only effects a small portion of the country and remains in tact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinM1 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 gay marriage is still banned in michigan too. and also, u cant base laws off of the bible, cause 1. america is a melting pot of color and religion. 2. not everyone uses the bible. it also says playing with urself is a sin, and im guessing 95% of u dont follow that rule. Ah but that's the thing: you can do that. If there's 100 people that show up to vote whether gay marriages are allowed or not, and the majority vote no, then guess what, the law will say no, gay marriages are not allowed. It is possible that every single person who voted no could have voted no because they flipped a coin, but it's also possible that they all voted no because they feel it's morally wrong, because the bible says so. Until, you know, the state Supreme Court gets involved.... I'm hoping that the California Court does overturn the law. I've yet to hear a logical reason as to why homosexual marriage should not be allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWater Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 gay marriage is still banned in michigan too. and also, u cant base laws off of the bible, cause 1. america is a melting pot of color and religion. 2. not everyone uses the bible. it also says playing with urself is a sin, and im guessing 95% of u dont follow that rule. Ah but that's the thing: you can do that. If there's 100 people that show up to vote whether gay marriages are allowed or not, and the majority vote no, then guess what, the law will say no, gay marriages are not allowed. It is possible that every single person who voted no could have voted no because they flipped a coin, but it's also possible that they all voted no because they feel it's morally wrong, because the bible says so. Until, you know, the state Supreme Court gets involved.... I'm hoping that the California Court does overturn the law. I've yet to hear a logical reason as to why homosexual marriage should not be allowed. I hope it gets overturned too. Let them do what they want. If they want to go get married to the same sex, go right ahead. And I absolutely hate it when people use the bible to defend their homophobia. =/ Kinda sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Anyone with half a brain should realize that homosexual marriage should be allowed legally because there is no legal reason against it. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people went in there and voted according to their personal beliefs. It's funny in a messed up way that we elected a black president, but we haven't gotten over homosexuality yet. I would expect the Supreme Court (of either California or the US), to turn over the Proposition since I think it's unconstitutional, but hey, they might fear gays too. Who knows. I remember back in I think it was 04 that gay-marriage bans were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of California. I want to know how that got reversed so easily. It's just suddenly constitutional now? Weird how our government works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Little Guy Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I support gay marriage, that way there are less guys hitting on the girls, which gives a guy a better chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWater Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 Anyone with half a brain should realize that homosexual marriage should be allowed legally because there is no legal reason against it. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people went in there and voted according to their personal beliefs. It's funny in a messed up way that we elected a black president, but we haven't gotten over homosexuality yet. I would expect the Supreme Court (of either California or the US), to turn over the Proposition since I think it's unconstitutional, but hey, they might fear gays too. Who knows. I remember back in I think it was 04 that gay-marriage bans were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of California. I want to know how that got reversed so easily. It's just suddenly constitutional now? Weird how our government works. Yeah, I agree. It's pretty messed up. There's no real reason to not let them marry other than "the Bible deems it bad". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.