Gay Marriage

[elSicomoro]

Because the Haitians and Senegalese would give them what for and what have you.

[JeepNGeorge]

As far as why they're not fighting for everything right now... would you fight a thousand front war? Or would you concentrate on one area?

Yes how naive of me. Nobody in American would ever fight a multiple front war. turns off CNN.

To me fighting for the inclusion to a set of rules instead of the abolishment of the set of rules seems kinda silly.

[JeepNGeorge]

Originally posted by Griff


Those perks really only exist as a fig leaf of the sovereignty which they were promised. We should all have these rights but resenting nat-am's for barely clinging to theirs seems counter-productive.

Just as the so called perks of marriage.

[JeepNGeorge]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


Ok, so why is it that only Indians are allowed to open stores?

Because Oklahoma has given indians the only right to legalized gambling. It started out as bingo halls, and has grown to include class III gaming, although some of the games are starting to be questioned. We can't even get a lottery here in Oklahoma, but feel free to visit the lovely Cherokee Casino as you leave to go to Arkansas or Kansasto get your tickets.

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
To me fighting for the inclusion to a set of rules instead of the abolishment of the set of rules seems kinda silly.

This is called "picking your battles". What do you think is more likely to happen - legalized gay marriage <b>or</b> the abolition of the marriage system?

Get real, dude. You're a homophobe, and that's okay. Just admit it and move on.

[JeepNGeorge]

I knew it was getting close to the name calling time.

I prefer the term gubmentphobe, but call it as you wish.


We will never create a perfect society and no matter how many laws we pass, nor how many special 'groups' we publicly acknowlege, not all people will be treated equally.

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
We will never create a perfect society and no matter how many laws we pass, nor how many special 'groups' we publicly acknowlege, not all people will be treated equally.

This is not an excuse for not righting a wrong when you see it.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge


Because Oklahoma has given indians the only right to legalized gambling. It started out as bingo halls, and has grown to include class III gaming, although some of the games are starting to be questioned. We can't even get a lottery here in Oklahoma, but feel free to visit the lovely Cherokee Casino as you leave to go to Arkansas or Kansasto get your tickets.

Hrm..couldn't this be considered "reparations"? (God I hope I didn't open a powder keg!). *IF* that is the case, then I'd say it's only fair.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
I knew it was getting close to the name calling time.

I prefer the term gubmentphobe, but call it as you wish.


We will never create a perfect society and no matter how many laws we pass, nor how many special 'groups' we publicly acknowlege, not all people will be treated equally.

And it's certainly not the "special groups" that we have to blame for that way of thinking.

After all, "majority rules", right?

[JeepNGeorge]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


Hrm..couldn't this be considered "reparations"? (God I hope I didn't open a powder keg!). *IF* that is the case, then I'd say it's only fair.

It could be considered that, but if you take that stance, then couldn't marriage benefits be considered "reparations" for being married to a member of the opposite sex. Nobody is stopping them from loving each other, only taking advantage of the benefits.

[elSicomoro]

It seems to me that Native Americans being allowed to run casinos and gays being allowed to marry are both remedies of injustice, just in different veins.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
It could be considered that, but if you take that stance, then couldn't marriage benefits be considered "reparations" for being married to a member of the opposite sex.

Only if one considers marriage benefits as "Something done or paid to compensate or make amends." *from dictionary.com*
And I'm thinking that this wouldn't be the case if same sex partners were equal in the eyes of society as hetero couples.

Nobody is stopping them from loving each other, only taking advantage of the benefits.

"Taking advantage"? So, if it were Syc and I fighting for the same rights, then it's ok, but if it's same sex couples then it's "taking advantage"?

[quzah]

Originally posted by slang


(lights fuse of the bomb....runs away quickly)

They didnt own the land. What court gave them title to it? Did god give them the right to it? They didnt believe in the white man's god. If they had converted, they may have been able to own the land they had previously roamed on.

They were killed for tresspassing on the land that the settlers had claimed and had title to. God gave the white man the right to the land.

If you're upset, be so at God.

This is another thing that pisses me off. It should probably be another thread, but since this has been high-jacked anyway...

The NA get money for the fact that whitey drove them off their lands. They say how horrible whitey was for coming over, "taking their lands" and then kicking their ass.

Well let's look at what happened before whitey came over:

NA wandered around dragging their tents behind them, kicking eachothers asses. End of story.

They didn't have wheels, they didn't have horses. They didn't even build anything permenant. (Yes, there is a small exception to this; a few of the eastern tribes actually built lodges.)

But all in all, the Apache, Comanche, etc etc all wandered around killing eachother.

It's fine for them to kill eachother. That's "heritage". But when whitey does it more effectively, it's evil.

So now whitey pays them money to live on their lands that whitey gave them.

Sure, don't get me wrong, lots of people died. But don't even act like the NA were some peaceful happy-go-lucky group of people that were all innocent and fun. They weren't. They slaughtered eachother. They raided eachothers tribes. They raped eachothers womens. They kidnapped eachothers young. They were not a friendly people en masse.

Yes, there were some friendly tribes. But as a whole, they were not. They were a war-like people. That's what they did. They killed eachother and stole "eachother's land".

Quzah.

[quzah]

Originally posted by Griff
*cough* Might = Right

Naturally. That's the way the world works. That's why it's called "natural selection". The strong survive.

It doesn't mean it's all sunsine and roses, far from it. It means whoever is the strongest makes the rules. If you don't like it, get a better weapon.

Quzah.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by juju
Do you think a man's attraction to women is a choice?

Normally, no.