|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Oct 3, 2003 9:26:59 GMT -5
Petshop of Horrors?!? thought I was the only one who saw that one!
anyway, fave anime flicks: Princess Mononoke, Ninja Scroll, Fist of the Northstar.
fave anime series: Slayers! oh, and Yu Yu Hakusho, Ruronin Kenshi is pretty good (but curses on the Cartoon Network for constantly moving them around!) Lodoss Wars (series 1, 13 eps), and Bishojo Senshi Sera Muun (ONLY in Japanese. DIC should be beheaded for what they did to that series when they dubbed it!!!!)
least faves: most dubs. Sailor Moon, Knights of the Zodiac (LAME!). I'm also really tired of DB and anything with soft cuddly critters who morph into giant monsters, my AV nonwithstanding!
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 27, 2004 13:31:30 GMT -5
I think I'll try and keep my stance neutral on this subject but I do have one observation to make. Lets just say Galadon is right and the majority of the United States of America is against allowing same sex marrages. Doen't the very concept of Democracy mean that it should be banned as it is the will of the majority? Challenger Couple of things, prolly take two posts: 1) The United States is NOT a Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Let's just get this whole "democracy" thing out of our heads. If we were a true democracy we wouldn't have an Electoral College... 2) The point of the US Constitution is not to do what is popular, but what is JUST. The Constitution is not designed to remove the rights of the people; the one time in history that happened, it was disastrous. Heck, if we did what was popular, we'd still be living in a country where schools were segregated, races couldn't mix, we could intern members of a racial or ethnic minority living on American soil just because we went to war with another country, women couldn't vote, etc. Popular does not always equal just. Folks got over it, they'll get over this as well. Now for Galadon: Pick up a paper or watch cnn, msnbc, etc. A number of REPUBLICAN senators and representatives have plainly stated that this is a bad idea and that it will never get out to the states because not enough members of Congress would vote for it. Many feel it's a waste of time. Secondly, people don't get married just to procreate. Marriage is a social institution conferring both legal and social benefits. According to your logic my friend who cannot bear children for medical reasons should not be able to marry since she cannot procreate. You really wanna continue with this line of logic? Thirdly, there are very good reasons to prohibit bestiality, pedophilia and incest. And none of them are moral. All are scientific or psychological. The only reason folks can give for prohibiting same sex marriage is the fact that some book no one can accurately translate says it's wrong. Whoopee, I'm not Christian. Fourthly, WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY. The First Amendment guarantees that we are free from laws establishing a state religion, which means that any law prohibiting same sex marriage to "preserve the Christian institution" is ILLEGAL. Read the Constitution, it's in there. Fifth, although you may not be old enough to remember, until 1963, IIRC, it was illegal in this country to marry outside your race. Thanks to the United States Supreme Court, that silly concept is no longer legal. It's the same crap here. Finally, marriage will not be destroyed by allowing same sex couples to marry. That's preposterous. What, because I can marry Arryk, is Hussar gonna leave his wife and soon to be born child? Are all the straight boys suddenly going to go queer, and thier wives go lesbian? Please, save the hystrionics. If you have solid proof to back up such a statement, present it, otherwise, please don't waste everyone's time with the drama. Finally, Christians got the term from the folks wo came before them. It's not a Christian term, it's not a Christian institution, so can we forget that please?
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 26, 2004 15:17:40 GMT -5
Sight: Fine. No one is trying to force any denomination to perform a religious ceremony for gay couples; legally, marriage can be done at the JP. We just don;t want to be second-class citizens. We want not only the rights, but the equal status in terms of sanctioned relationships. That's not really an issue as the state does not have that kind of power. The state cannot force any church to do something like that. Look what happened with the Boy Scouts... they don't have to admit gays. The Elks (IIRC) were sued because they wouldn't allow women, and the Elks won. Women have never been able to successfully sue the Catholic Church over the fact that they cannot be ordained. So I don't believe that any church will be impacted by this.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 26, 2004 10:45:51 GMT -5
The US Constitution is designed to provide rights, not to take them away. It is meant to provide a "floor", or baseline, of rights which the states can expand upon. George Bush is proposing to change the very nature of the document to meet his own religous needs. That's outrageous this country would willingly strip a percentage of the population of a basic right. Vlad, marriage is NOT a Christian institution. Marriage existed long before Christianity, and it was even performed in a religous setting! As for your other stuff, I work with kids on a daily basis, and I can pretty much guarantee that they're not going to risk getting beaten up because it's "cool". Trust me on that one. Oh, and for the record, how dare you say that my relationship isn't as good as yours because I am committed to a man! Do you know any gay people? Ever met a gay couple? That takes a lot of nerve, Vlad, and I actually feel sorry for you.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 24, 2004 15:07:21 GMT -5
Gee, what a surprise. The born again Christian President caving in to the pressure from the Relgious Right. Wow. Just another reason to vote Democrat in November...
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 20, 2004 9:58:08 GMT -5
Here in PA we require ignition interlocks, but only on folks convicted of DUI. Even that was a fiasco, because there were issues raised about the price (they are quite expensive), what happens to someone who doesn't own a car, a self-employed person or head of household who owns a number of them, etc.
It took a couple of years, but our legislature managed to iron it all out.
As for the assertion that this will deal with the DUI problem, that's BS. It simply means that they catch more folks who are DUI, spend more $$$ on enforcement, and put more folks in already overcrowded jails. If he's going to suggest that this will be more effective in the "war on DUI", I hope that NM has a solid pre-trial diversion program to avoid their system getting clogged up with low BAC DUIs!
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 24, 2004 21:31:56 GMT -5
And that would be why we have a Supreme Court. I suspect that most moderates will not vote for an amendment barring same-sex marriages, for fear of irking the more moderate constituency. I don't believe that an amendment is likely. Therefore it's up to the Supreme Court to make the decision as to whether or not this will be legal. Usually they don't get involved in this stuff and leave marriage to the states, but I suspect that this will rise to the level of Loving v Virginia, where the US Supreme Court held that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment to prohibit interracial marriages. Once again, an issue of who can marry whom...the parties may have changed, but the legal issue is still the same.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 24, 2004 15:06:26 GMT -5
The problem is that whether we like it or not, America is a Christian country and regardless of "freedom", the biblical way will more or less always triumph. Just look at Lieberman and how fast he got thrown out of the race. Which is exactly why folks need to make sure that they support the First Amendment every chance they get. Congress hsall make no law establishing a state religion. Despite the protestations of the Far Right, this is not a Christian nation, never has been, and never will be. The Constitution ensures that.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 17, 2004 11:58:12 GMT -5
y'know, it's stupid stunts like this that really cheese me off!
We have a perfectly valid legal battle going in in Massachussettes, but Gods forbid these folks wait. Instead of taking the time and effort to think this through and handle it appropriately, they go all willy-nilly on the rest of the community and run the risk of screwing this whole thing up.
California has a law on the books. Said law may not be Constitutional. Said law may be illegal. But it is still a law. Handing out meaningless pieces of paper is not helping things any. If anything, it's making folks less tolerant to the idea of gay marriage because they see that gay couples will do whatever they want, and if they don't get their way, they'll force the issue in an inapporpriate manner.
My partner an I would never dream of this. Do we like not having leal status? Of course, we hate it. Are we willing to wait? Yes. Do we recognize that this is a touchy issue which needs to be handled with kid gloves? Yes. I fail to see why getting a meaningless piece of paper to prove a point is worth screwing up what's going in in Mass and NJ and the ramifications of those state rulings throughout the country. <sigh>
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 13, 2004 10:30:26 GMT -5
The reality of it is this:
There is utterly no reason to take such offense at a person's expression of self. For many Muslims and Jews, their religion is so closely intertwined with their cultural identity, it's almost impossible to differentiate the two.
Additionally, so what if they're wearing a religious symbol? Believe it or not, the mere presence of a religious symbol does not mean that the wearer is waltzing around and trying to convert everyone they meet to their particular path.
Also, let's keep in mind that the law is so geared to reflect a Christian mentality it's not even remotely fair. Christians, as a general rule, do not have specific cultural or religious articles of clothing as do Muslims and Jews. Jews wear yarlmakas, and Muslims have the scarves and turbans (Thanks, EK for the correction). The law is blatantly pro-Christian, relecting the ridiculous levels of anti-Semetism and anti-Muslimism rampant throughout Europe.
And Challenger, could you read what you're writing for a moment, please? First off, the "like it or lump it" mentality which you espouse is sadly missing the point about this debate. This is a rewritten law, so there is no way anyone could have known about it. Secondly, when you travel over state/country/regional lines, do you check to see if everything you're doing is legal? Moral? Ethical? Probably not. People aren't legally obligated to research the laws of a country they plan to move to, ESPECIALLY WHEN SAID COUNTRY CHANGES THE RULES AFTER YOU'VE MOVED THERE! As I stated above, assuming that this is an old, unenforceable law which is being rewritten, no one could see this coming.
Even though I'm not Christian, Muslim, or Jew, I can see the blatant prejudice behind this law, I can see the unfairness of it. And I agree with Merkuri, what's next? Racial Segregation? Segregation based on sexual orientation? Gender? Handicap status? Veteran status? Whenever you strip the rights of one group to placate the few, eventually YOUR rights will be the ones being taken away. And who's gonna stand up for you?
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 12, 2004 14:46:16 GMT -5
This is just asking for trouble, IMO. It's already tough to be a Muslim right now, and making a law whose intent is to target a specific religious group which is having "PR" problems to begin with is like kicking someone when they're down.
Let's be realistic for a moment, shall we. The law says "Muslim headscarves, large Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, and any other obvious religious symbols from schools". OK, wearing a Yarmalka (sp?) isn't religiously required, IIRC. I've known several Conservative Jews, never saw them wearing one unless they were going to Temple. Large Christian crosses, oh please, how easy is that to get around?
Now we have the head scarves. Religiously mandated, with a heavy dose of cultural baggage attached to them. It's not just a matter of religion, either, which is in jeopardy. We're also talking about cultural identity as well, and morality. For example, one aspect of the head scarves is a recognition of the somewhat repressed sexuality Islam expects of it's women. By taking away the scarves, not only are you compromising their religious values, but you're also forcing them to deal with collateral issues they may not be ready to deal with.
This is a bad idea all around. Too bad France doesn't have a first amendment...
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 7, 2004 7:49:32 GMT -5
First off, just to play devil's advocate, a tag might tell the gogvernment that you're at the grocery store or drug store (whatever the example was). And to some of you, that's an invasion of privacy. But: Would that chip have been an invasion of privacy to the young girl found dead in Florida yesterday? Or the still-missing CO college student? Or Elizabeth Smart? Or would it have saved their families months of hearache? For every "invasion", there is also a benefit to be weighed.
Legally speaking, you have no right to privacy of your whereabouts. As long as the police don't harass you (and yes, for some of you like khyron, their mere presence is harassment, but I'll deal with that one in a minute), they can in fact follow you, and they don't even need a warrant to do it. BUT, Merkuri does raise a good point. 4th Amendment legal jurisprudence is constantly evolving. 200 years ago, there was no thought about whether a warrant was needed to search your car, as they didn't exist. Now there is enough case law on motor vehicles and other modes of transportation that it takes years to learn it all. 50 years ago, the police coudn't rifle through your mail, but what if they found a way to look into your house without being intrusive? They figured out a way, and it got declared unconstitutional as fast as the courts could get at it. On the downside, the police can listen in on a phone call made in a public place, a conversation made in a private place, etc w/o too much problem. So perhaps in 50 years a body of law will have developed in this area, it would be interesting to see.
About the right to privacy. Although there is no "constitutional" right to privacy, strictly speaking (conscription and warrants aren't technically "privacy rights" per se as much as they are a means of avoiding overwhelming governmental intrusion into our lives without cause), the US Supreme Court has come up with this nebulous concept known as the "penumbra of privacy". That's how we have extended to the people rights such as abortion, consensual non-marital sex, birth control, homosexual sex, etc. If there's no Amendment protecting it, it gets dumped into this class.
Khyron, you really need to reassess your stand on the police. You'd rather be beaten, raped and robbed? I think you'd not last very long in a true anarchy; the idealists usually don't. Don't let the small number of idiots on any given police force convince you that all cops are bad.
Merkuri, although you are correct in theory about the goverment believing that my clients are innocent until proven guilty, it's hardly the fact. 90%+ of the time, the assumption is that my client probably did SOMETHING, even if it wasn't what he's in court for.
Finally, the Constitution was not originally written with our freedoms in mind. That was a complete and utter afterthought, Merkuri. The original Constitution dealt with taxes, and trade, and commerce, and separation of powers, and the framework of the governement, etc. That's why the part guaranteeing us all those charming little freedoms are called "amendments". They were added after the original draft. Some felt that it was the only way to get the darn thing ratified.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Dec 28, 2003 11:17:14 GMT -5
we live, we breathe, we die. we hope to make a difference somewhere to someone. and we hope to lead as full and happy a life as possible before moving on
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Dec 18, 2003 10:11:29 GMT -5
In order:
Refrigeration. Enables us to do a heck of a lot.
Telephone: Much easier to keep in touch with our loved ones around the world.
Internet: Even easier to keep in touch, and most info is just a keyboard stroke away!
Planes/trains/and automobiles: Does this need an explanation...? Making travel easier on us all.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Dec 18, 2003 10:08:42 GMT -5
personally, I'm all for subjecting him to a bit of good ol' Iraqi justice. Let's do to him for 5 minutes what he did to his citizens for the term of his dictatorship. Guarantee he'll be crying like a baby before 5 minutes is up.
At this point, the reality of the situation is that he's been a martyr since this whole thing started! Publishing pics of his dead kids on the front pages on damn near every newspaper in the world didn't help. By unilaterally making the decision to attack/invade Iraq, we're already the bad guys, and nothing anyone does is going to fix it.
What do we need to do now? Get the Iraqi infrastructure up and running. Period. That's all we can do to make things better in the eyes of the world. We're there, we're supposed to be running the show, so get to work already! Get the oilfields up so they can get back to exporting goods; get the schools back so the kids can learn; get the water and electricity back so that people can have a reasonable standard of living. That's what we need to do. Whether Saddam is executed or not isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things; even the Iraqis are saying "whoopie, he's been jailed, but that's not putting food on the table or money in my pocket."
|
|