Well, I am sure I am on the terrorist list now....

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Jan 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #1
    Washington Post Article


    My response to senor asshat™ (my Delegate):


    Mr. Dwyer,

    You, sir are exactly the reason that hundreds of thousands of Republicans are fleeing the party (I did a year ago). Unfortunately, you and most of the party have long lost sight of about what the Republican Party was formed for--and at its core--is about: individual freedom with a limited and non-intrusive government.

    Your quote in Friday's Washington Post is what struck me to write this letter to you:

    "The evidence is now on the table. We must pass a constitutional amendment."

    I, for one, as have many Marylanders, have had it with state lawmakers passing laws that are very obviously a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause as well as meddling in the affairs of "the sanctity of marriage." Let me assure you, Mr. Dwyer, that with a 50% divorce rate, the "sanctity of marriage," as you put it, is far from an untouched treasure that we need to "defend," as our governor has put it.

    The other item you are quoted as saying follows:

    "This issue is not for the courts to decide."

    I say, sir, that the issue of marriage, and who it can and can't include is not for you and state lawmakers to decide. Please stop wasting the salary I pay you dealing with such foolishness in order to "save us" from some imaginary evil and remember what being a Republican is about - freedom, not exclusion. I wouldn't mind a tax break while you are at it.

    Respectfully yours,

    Gary Reich
     
  2. 2nyRiggz macrumors 603

    2nyRiggz

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Location:
    Thank you Jah...I'm so Blessed
    #2
    You had to throw it in there huh;) LOL


    Bless
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    a-HA! so your name is gary! i KNEW it!!!

    :)

    steve
     
  4. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #4
    I should have signed it iGary.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    Hey! Sounds a lot like my kinda government.

    And seeing as I'm a Democrat, normally we'd just be arguing about how limited the non-intrusive and freedom-respecting government should be.

    Shame about those Republicans though.

    Steve (another one)
     
  6. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #6
    Great letter, iGary. I hope you plan to send Mr. Dwyer a hard copy.

    -David-
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    You should have delivered it by hand.
     
  8. silverback66 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #8
    May as well add it to the constitution. Enough states have already made their will clear. Funny how you all think you're in the majority on this.
     
  9. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #9
    I agree. Equality sucks.
     
  10. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #10
    Welcome back, silverback...

    The legislatures can add it to their Constitutions, but the courts have already ruled such legislation unconstitutional. Perhaps we should pass a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage?
     
  11. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #11
    Heh, yeah. If everybody followed the logic of SB, black people would still be in bondage, you wouldn't be able to vote, and we'd both be in jail for our "choices." Sounds like a winning situation for all of us.
     
  12. silverback66 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #12
    Thanks for the warm welcome back. I bet you al missed me terribly and even shed a tear while I was gone.

    As for your contentions, that's some twisted logic you have yourself there my friend because race and ethnicity is not a moral issue. I think it's pretty well accepted that rascism in any form is an evil thing. Homosexuality on the other hand is a moral issue and so at the local and state level we have every right to define marriage as we see fit. We may even have that right on the national level which we will soon find out.
     
  13. belvdr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #13
    Okay, so who is going to be the first person to bring out a big stick?

    EDIT: I guess I should add that I must have missed some interesting posts before the mods stepped in on the last few debates, so I have no idea why silberback66 got the ban-stick waved over his/her head. So my comment is just a joke really.. Not trying to start anything... :)
     
  14. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #14
    Not really, its a trait, much like hair colour, eye colour, how tall you are, etc. It only seems a moral issue because your religion tells you to and last time I checked we don't let the church make our laws.

    Its an equality issue, plain and simple.
     
  15. belvdr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #15
    I have a question then. And I'm serious too, not trying to poke holes in anyone's thoughts.

    Why do people switch to homosexuality, then switch back if it's a trait? It seems this would something one wouldn't be able to switch between at all in the first place.
     
  16. silverback66 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #16
    I'll be happy to fill you in. I was telling a story of a couple women I know who were raped and decided to keep their babies and now are glad they made the descision they did because their babies have become such tremendous blessings in their lives. Someone called that anti-abortion propoganda, I got upset and called them an A##hole for talking down on people that I care about and I got banned for a week.
     
  17. silverback66 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #17
    And that's not a fact, that's an opinion. I guess the recent trend of middle school and high school kids claiming to be bisexual is just a genetic anomoly at work huh?
     
  18. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #18
    Because in some people, their trait is that they're flexible. Some people are stuck one way or the other but some are inherently attracted to one, then the other and some are inherently attracted to both. Sexuality is certainly not something that's static but I would say it was certainly a trait not unlike any other.

    Its a fact that most people are pretty sure they know what gender they're attracted to. I'm assuming you're quite confident you know you're attracted to the opposite sex no?


    So I'm an anomaly eh? :rolleyes:

    I wouldn't call it a trend so much as I would say that (some of) society os more open to non-heterosexual ways of being and the people who would have already had those feelings are more free to act and explore them to find out where they really stand on things.

    Homo/bisexuality is nothing new, its not a trend and its not going away. The only thing in flux is society's attitudes about it.
     
  19. silverback66 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #19
    Yes, it's a fact that I'm attracted to women, but that doesn't make it genetic.

    And I don't know if you're an anomoly yet. I'll get back to you on that one lol.
     
  20. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #20
    Yeah, so am I. What was your point again?
     
  21. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #21
    Yes, they were moral issues. The most significant argument expounded by opponents of interracial marriage claimed that it was unnatural and immoral.
     
  22. silverback66 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #22
    My point is that you can't prove that it's genetic and there seems to be more evidence to the contrary so why keep hiding behind that excuse. If you're attracted to women aren't you woman enough to say that that's your choice?
     
  23. silverback66 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #23
    Well obvioiusly those people who I imagine were from the church missed all of the examples of interracial and interethnic marriage in the Bible and were nothing more than common bigots. Don't hate on all for the mistakes a few man, it's just not groovy cat, you dig?
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    let's see the research, then.
     
  25. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #25
    Then how would you explain the fact that in identical twins, if one identifies as gay, then in 52% of cases the other identifies gay as well? And this is in spite of whether or not they were reared together or separately.

    (Bailey and Pillard, 1991)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page