I also find this interesting. The assumption that those who contest wills could represent the majority of the american population is clearly a false one, because wills are generally contested in situations [edit:that] occur wherein 1 brother was left with something the other brother thought he was entitled to. End of story. Most will contests occur because an intestate heir isn’t getting his or her intestate portion. And, personally, though I have absolutely no facts to back this up, I believe that most wills are not contested because most Americans are more concerned with consoling their relatives than with fighting them over inheritance.
If I’m wrong, then we suck.
If I’m right, then what does it matter if an occasional bequest or devise is contested? It doesn’t speak to the desires of Americans.
That's the million dollar question. If homosexuals can't help it, then many things change. I know for certain that some homosexuals weren't forced by their biology to be so. Did I choose to be heterosexual? Honestly, I don't believe in the distinction. Heterosexuality only exists because an exception to it exists- what you've really asked is if I chose to be interested in sex, and no I did not. Imagine if you came up with a term for "Not at all interested in bondage gear" and ask me if I chose to be such a person. Can you choose an abscense of an interest? Can you choose to persue and develop an interest?
I don't see how this could really occur, as long as homosexuality has nothing to do with it. What they know is, they aren't married. Just about everyone should know whether they are married or not, yes? The only way there would be this kind of confusion is if homosexual partnerships could get married, liscence and all, but for some reason didn't get the benefits of being married. That would be unfair and confusing. It would be spiteful towards homosexuals, and that's wrong.
As if it couldn’t have gotten any better… I’d like to take a moment and salute Julie Banderas for snapping on live television at the bitch that started this thread…
I’d like to note that there’s a bunch of stuff about Fred Phelps on YouTube that can’t be accessed unless your a member. How much worse can it be?? Pornographic?? Fred Phelps reminds me of the Preacher in Poltergeist II… ugly, old, and scary.
The thing about America is… until they start killing people for being gay, the law can’t touch them.
Ucci - I think I’ve been clear on the Phelps group - nothing I know about “christians-at-large” makes me equate the former group with the latter. I do not take these kooks to be representative of the faith as a whole.
You can’t slide past a moral stance, here. You can call it “social” but your “oughts” and “ought nots” are moral ones. You can hide behind some perceived majority, but majorities change.
If you simply wish to take the majority position, you won’t have anything to say - you won’t need to. That is not the Uccisore I read. This I do not believe.
But your argument has left me incredulous. Why should a slave wish to be free? He knows he’s a slave. Why should the americans have revolted? Why should Rosa Parks have objected to her treatment after sitting in the front of the bus? It’s the very objection that counts for something. That’s what brings change. You can’t be so conservative that you expect no change - that you believe that people have no “right” to desire it and effect it. If two gay people wish the same rights as a straight couple - they are wrong merely to wish this?
You know, this has taken me aback. I will have to ponder this before I respond more. I am surprised at this from you. Not that I know you all that well.
Just one thing - where does it say in the Constitution that “lifestyles” must be “acceptable” to receive rights? Who are you, who is any of us, to judge a mere “lifestyle”? Moral offense is not enough. If that’s the only harm, then we have mere dogma. We are to be morally offended at actual harm, not at mere moral offense itself. This is perverse. This is not a coherent view. This is to say that a merely offensive idea is morally wrong - that an act is not required. I must think about why you would believe this.
It is not enough that we are morally offended. There must be some harm as well. There is no harm to anyone in gay civil union - except the morally offended feeling. That’s kinda…well…
This is why I am not an atheist. Being an atheist is only possible because some humans couldn’t conceive of a world they couldn’t comprehend. While I’m at it, the agnostics are in the same boat as those who insist that God must exist. But, again, that is beyond the purpose of thread.
Anyway, violations of the law aren’t legally excused because of ignorance, generally, but protections afforded by the law shouldn’t be denied because of ignorance. Some states permit common law marriage, some don’t. At least a couple of states now permit gay marriage. In short, what is required to be legally married differs. So legal rights aren’t uniform. But states are constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to the “decisions” of other states. So, one could reasonably assume that he or she is permitted the rights that he or she would have received in the state in which he or she previously resided.
How does your assumption of risk argument answer this?
Personally, in all honesty, I think they should all be thrown in the federal slammer. Anyone who praises the events of 9/11 should be convicted of treason.
Funny movie… the best part was the puke scene with Harry Gregson-Williams (the first composer to bridge the gap between video game and motion picture scores) providing a fitting work of music…
I don’t much care for Micheal Moore in the respect that he goes too far with his agendas; but he sure knows how to make good documentaries.
Faust and yopele- taking a break, and will reapproach this all in the morning. All I’ll say for now is that over the past few weeks, you couldn’t have missed that fact that I think some things are immoral even if they don’t hurt anyone.
moore makes crockumentaries with little to no facts to back up his statements.
for example, his south park mock in bowling for columbine, he makes the false assertation that whites went to Africa with guns to get slaves. (this south park mock btw, is what got the creators of south park to blow him up in team america.)
Anyone who has studied history knows that it was the Muslims that traded slaves.
Heard of the Barbary wars? If we hadn’t had guns, we’d still be paying out money to the muslim pirates.
I’m torn. I think Moore is a good filmaker. But good filmakers are a dime a dozen. I think most filmakers considers themselves artists. And I, personally, find little artistic value in Moore’s films. But I don’t want to be the final judge here. Society doesn’t measure the value of filmakers by their artistic abitlitiy or content alone. So to be fair I must weigh the impact of his films, bearing in mind that they were not made for artistic purposes (I don’t know how the Cannes Festival judges missed this). I suppose to be fair I must determine whether his films had the intended impact.
They didn’t
His film was made with the purpose (entirely political, entirely a-artistic) of promoting the election of someone other than GW Bush.
The film failed.
It was a flop.
I will say that Moore is extremely skilled at presenting reality as he sees it.
That’s a valuable skill - as the multi-millions he made off of exposing the warmonger’s profits wrt Iraq will attest.
EDIT:
(I don’t want to correct my use of too many “s”'s above, cause I like the sound.)
That’s what I mean, Yo. He preached only to his choir. I can’t think he convinced any fence-sitters. Documentarists are presenting reality, some reality, the way they see it. It’s what they do. I found Columbine entertaining at times, and scary (Heston as the head of one of the most powerful lobbying groups - scared for the NRA, I was) at others. That ain’t bad.
I thought Marilyn Manson was the most intelligent person in the film, despite that I’m not a big fan of his (hers?).
His goal was too lofty, and his rhetorical skills too honed.
Even so, the films are entertaining,
But a Palme d’Or?
Come now, are our politics getting ahead of our abilities to appropriately criticize fims?
Maybe, maybe not.
It is a good documentary, if one is willing to close his eyes to the fact that the other side of the political view had been distorted. That it received the award indicates that the judges were able to do so.
Okay, Yo. But I don’t think a documentary has to be fair and balanced. I’ll put it this way. Moore is a punk, but it’s only a movie. Bill Moyer used to do stuff like this regularly, but it was television. No hype. No one paid much attention, I think. We also can’t let our ability to critique a film be swayed by the fact that it was an “event”. It was “important” only because we made it so. Unlike Moyer, Moore at least has a sense of humor.
