VOTE

Your point of veiw was expressed well rob.;)good for you being on the school committee,if everyone would volenteer a few minutes of time ,imagine what WE can do
default_smile.png
Only in Acton it`s never a few minutes of time particularly Actons Comprehensive PLan Implimentation Committee of which I have been a member for 3-1/2 years. We usally meet the 1st & 3rd Wednsdays of each month at a minimum of 3 hours each. last April we met 8 times trying to finish our work in time for our June Town Meeting for a vote only to have 2 of our 3 selectman push it back till the Nov. elections and then push it back to
default_wink.png
We are still waiting to find out when. They put in some changes for the people to vote on in yesterdays vote because they don`t agree with the wording our committee came up with. Don`t get me wrong you should stand up for what you believe in but when you get involved in small town politics half the town will love you and the other half hate you.
default_wink.png


 
I too am ticked that the school consolidation would be underway. I thought for sure people would see it differently.

And PS because this has been on my mind since last night, I am about to show some stars:

but if a couple of fluffs get pissed off at my neighbor...
You're an ******* for calling someone a "fluff". How ignorant can you be? You couldn't have just said "gay" or "same sexed"?? Thank you for putting that incredible offensive term out there.

default_smile.png
-
default_wink.png
-;)-
default_smile.png
!

"Time to make the donuts".

 
lol fluff while an insult is far from a horrible term and i can think of much worse terms. its liek callign a white person a cracker

 
lol im sorry you took offense to it... i will make sure to use the term "those that prefer the company and affection of the same sex" that is sure to not offend anyone.

take it easy will ya? shoot, i cant count how many times each day i see stereo types and slurs and slangs of our native peoples all over this state. its easier to just live life with out giving a crap than to get all emotional about it.

and for the record i voted no on 1.
default_smile.png


 
Kati while we may disagree on pizza joints we certainly agree on this. The problem as I believe Pedro pointed out, is that the govt managed to use the same damn word as the church for a legal joining of two people.

Please remember that at the core of this are the rights, which Pedro listed, that are so important to families. Financial issues like benefits for each partner, and/or children involved. This is NOT, at the heart of it, whether or not you approve of gay marriage. I applaud Rez, who has understood that. He put his personal feelings aside about what makes him feel uncomfortable and realized that there are people at stake.

Kristof...are you out of your goddamn mind? Lisps, limp wrists, and walking like girls? Seriously dude? Get a grip. You also listed "taking away rights" as being one of your reasons for being against it. While I agree there's a laundry list of specifics that would need to be ironed out so that churches retained certain rights, you're literally voting to take away rights from a large group of people.

I know there's a lot of self proclaimed "gun nuts" on here. Aren't you the least bit freaked out that if a group of people previously proven to have the right to marry can have that right taken away? With gun rights so under fire (pardon the pun) shouldn't this hit home more? I'm not implying anything obviously, it's just an example.

I'm not even sure if anything i just typed was coherant, i did it in between working with customers. argue if you wish

 
Kristof...are you out of your goddamn mind? Lisps, limp wrists, and walking like girls? Seriously dude? Get a grip. You also listed "taking away rights" as being one of your reasons for being against it. While I agree there's a laundry list of specifics that would need to be ironed out so that churches retained certain rights, you're literally voting to take away rights from a large group of people.

I'm not even sure if anything i just typed was coherant, i did it in between working with customers. argue if you wish

i am not voting to take away anyon'es rights. they currently dont have the right to marry so voting yes did not take it away. voting no however woudl take away rights from church's and individuals who dont agree with it. the gay community needs to get of using the term marry. like i have said before i am all for allowing civil unions with the benifits like health insurance next of kin etc etc etc. the word marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a women for a very very long time. i dotn feel liek we should have to change how a word has been defined for thousands of years because gay couples want to be together.

this country like it or not this country was based on traditional values and has been liek that for hundreds of years. i dont feel we should have to change the basis on wich a country was founded for a minority. if you dont agree with traditional values im sure any country in europe would be glad to have you.

the right for gay people to "marry" has been voted on 31 times in different states and has been rejected every time and will keep doign so untill gay peopel relize we will not change the definition of marriage. no however if they wish to bring foward a bill allowing the state to recognize ther union and allowing thme rights you stated before pedro ill be all about that

 
this country like it or not this country was based on traditional values and has been liek that for hundreds of years. i dont feel we should have to change the basis on wich a country was founded for a minority. if you dont agree with traditional values im sure any country in europe would be glad to have you.
This country was founded based on being free to believe what you wish to believe.

 
What about slavery Kristof? A woman's right to vote? These were things people weren't keen on changing.

 
this country like it or not this country was based on traditional values and has been liek that for hundreds of years. i dont feel we should have to change the basis on wich a country was founded for a minority.

this country was founded on the basis of freedom first off and if our country was based on traditional values woman would not be voting amongst a bunch of other things. And this country started as a minority.

mark you beat me to it

 
This country was founded based on being free to believe what you wish to believe.
exactly my point it wasent founded on having stuff being crammed down peoples throats like changing the definition of a word that has been that way for a very very long time. so if u agree with gay marriage your free to beleive what u want but if u dotn agree then you loose your right to beleive what u want? there is a huge double standard among liberals

how does slavery and womens right to vote have anythign to do with what im saying? in case u missed it i said i agree they should have the same rights as a couple as a straight couple i just dont want them redefining what the word marriage is and also forcing people to either agree with there lifestyle of face legal actions. there are ways to approach things and trying to roce churchs to marry and redefining words are not the way to go about it. like it or not my opionon is in the majority in this country and most likley always will be. if they make this debate about certain rights they dotn have they might actually pass a bill. but as long as its about forcing peopel to accept their lifestyle or face legakl actions things will stay the same

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i dotn feel liek we should have to change how a word has been defined for thousands of years because gay couples want to be together.
Too late, already been done according to Wikipedia's definition of marriage (in red):

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the marital structure created is known as wedlock.

People marry for many reasons, most often including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of love.[1][2]

Marriage practices are very diverse across cultures, may take many forms, and are often formalized by a ceremony called a wedding.[3] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage.[4]

External recognition can manifest in a variety of ways. Some examples include the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

Definitions

According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain."[5]

Philosopher, historian, and literary essayist Thomas De Quincey defined marriage as "a union between two persons, who lived in harmony so absolute with each other, as to be independent of the world outside."[6]

In lexicography, words have changed and expanded in accordance to the status quo.[7] According to the first edition of Webster's Dictionary of the English Language published in 1806, marriage was defined as "the act of joining man and woman..." although this failed to recognize other types of marriages, such as Polygyny, Polyandry, etc [8]

By 2009, all major English language dictionaries dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions.[9][10][11]

 
Hrm... the old Traditional Values argument...well the fact is that lots of bad sheet has been perpetrated in the name of 'traditional values"

how about how the traditional values of the Taliban, like girls shouldn't go to school, or liars get their tongues cut out or kids who have sex before marriage should be stoned in the town square...? Our armed forces have been fighting this stuff for years. Stalin held his own traditional values, so did that German guy with the weird little moustache.

our country was not founded on 'traditional values,' it was founded on the unique concept that the majority does NOT necessarily dictate the lives of the minority. that's what makes the US different, what has made the US a shining beacon of freedom worldwide (at least until certain recently ousted power figures screwed THAT up royally)

these People's Veto questions are fundamentally flawed, in fact I believe they are truly un-American because they allow a narrow majority to dictate the lives of a broad minority.

 
wow what a bunch of flaming liberals in here lol. every think this state is in such bad shape because of the majority liberal view? bottom line it didnt become law nor will it ever until people who dont agree with their lifestyle dont have it cramed down there throat.

oh and nigel your refernce to bush ( wich i think did a bad job also). since your savior the chosen one obama has come into office how have thinks changed? we are still at war in iraq and afganastan gitmo is still open. the economy still sucks even after the 700 billion in tax money appropriated to "stimulate" the economy. the president has very little to do with laws and the congress has the true power and look at the downward spiral of this country since left wing nuts like palosy ( possible anti christ?) and reid and dod and frank have been in power.

bottom line look at all the liberal states and how badly they are doing. california, maine, illinois new jersey all states have a huge huge deficet and extremly high taxes yet with all thos etaxes they still cant get otu of the whole. i have learned that liberals are either blind or retarted because they complain about the state of thingsyet keep voting people with the same views into power until recently. luckily the peopel in new jersey opened up there eyes and say what left wing tax and spend politics gets you and decided enough was enough and im sure that trend will continue

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 11:35:02-----

these People's Veto questions are fundamentally flawed, in fact I believe they are truly un-American because they allow a narrow majority to dictate the lives of a broad minority.
it is not a narrow majority like i said 31 times this has tried to pass and 31 times it has been voted down. that's how a democracy works the majority makes the decisions. if the "broad minority" would actuall come out and vote maybe they could actuall change things but it wont do them any good staying at home complaining how things are

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 11:36:58-----

Too late, already been done according to Wikipedia's definition of marriage (in red):
[9][10][11]
oh yeah that's right i forgot how accurate wikipedia is lmao:lol:

http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2009/02/10/25-biggest-blunders-in-wikipedia-history/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Narrow Majority and Broad Minority? Would the same standard be in place if the "other side" had 53% of the public? No matter if the margin is 7% of the people or 80% of the people on the "winning" side, a democracy is a democracy. We cannot go and change that rule that if a question is tallied at X percentage points close, we have to do something else. A majority is a majority, even if it is by a single ballot. Every vote truely counts!

I'm going to have side with Kristof on this one, although with question 1 we have different reasons for our voting....but Kristof, flaming liberals?....we're above that man. Your points have a good foundation, no need to give them reasons to get upset.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kristof --

Crammed down their throats? How and where is this being crammed? You're quick to pass judgement and change the subject, but we're not talking about politics for once. In my mind this has nothing to do with politics. We're not talking about the budget deficit, which I'm sure you are oh so informed and educated on, we're talking purely about the rights of a minority set of people. Because of the arbitrary use of the word marriage to mean a union of people to acquire a certain set of rights and benefits, people are up in arms. If you want to argue, focus on the arguement at hand.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 11:45:10-----

Narrow Majority and Broad Minority? Would the same standard be in place if the "other side" had 53% of the public? No matter if the margin is 7% of the people or 80% of the people on the "winning" side, a democracy is a democracy. We cannot go and change that rule that if a question is tallied at X percentage points close, we have to do something else. A majority is a majority, even if it is by a single ballot. Every vote truely counts!
Mike although I disagree with your stance, I appreciate and respect the way you carry yourself. To those who agree with Mike, take a lesson from him.

 
Back
Top