QoW Update - comic for 2/25

There are no monkeys in here. Really.

Moderator: Aeire

QoW Update - comic for 2/25

Postby Aeire on Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:00 am

is now up
Queen of Wands - Wanna taste of religion? Lick a witch.
User avatar
Aeire
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 11:00 pm

Postby Noxy on Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:22 am

First post! Whee! :D

Excellent strip. Glad to see that some Americans find their whole political games as stupid/funny as we do over at the other side of the great pond.

Of course, the whole marriage-debate is about far more than religion. If it was just a religious issue, I doubt anybody would make a great deal about it. But since married partners have legal rights and tax benefits nonmarried partners simply can't get, it's a direct discrimination against people who chose a different path to happiness than perhaps "the norm". Whatever that might mean.

Eeeeeh....ok, getting too political here. :x Why is Angela making a point against homosexual marriage, while Kestrel is pro? Isn't Angela the more "open-minded" one when it comes to sexual preference? Thought so.
And have Kestrel boobs gotten bigger over the last year? Yep, still hetero here.
User avatar
Noxy
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:51 am

Postby Aeire on Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:42 am

It's not so much that she's making a point against it as she's playing Devil's Advocate.

One can have respect for a religion without necessarily agreeing with it - I think that's probably the most open-minded type of person of all.
Queen of Wands - Wanna taste of religion? Lick a witch.
User avatar
Aeire
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 11:00 pm

Postby verd99 on Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:49 am

What I want to know is when are they are going to legalize marriage to playtipie. Me and my wife helga have been discrimenated against for far too long. I demand justice now.

On a more serious note when are people going to learn to mind their own damn business. If the gay couple down the street gets married it has no baring on their lives what so ever. So why do they care? This shouldn't even be an issue. Anyone out there opposed to gay marriage I have one thing to say to you "Shut up and eat your corn flakes." With all the crap that goes on in this world gay marriage is the least of anyone's problems.
John Wayne was a fine actor, but he's dead now.
User avatar
verd99
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:55 pm

Postby Luneward on Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:49 am

Excellent work, Aerie. You've managed to single handedly blast two of my biggest aggravations in one strip. Intolerance and stupid people. *chuckles*

And I have to disagree with you a bit Noxy. It has far too much base in religion, and people will make a great deal of it just because of religion. Certain very fundemental sects evidently inspire people to make a great deal of fuss about things that aren't directly affecting the way they live their lives. The notion of minding your own business has never been too big of a concept over here at times.

Though I will agree that part of it on this issue is people claiming a moral case, who might be business owners who don't care to provide for extra benefits for partners and the like. Then again, I tend more to the side of 'people are idiots' argument, that they just are (to quote R. Milholland) selectively moral hicks.

I'll leave my own opinion on how the 'marriage' issue should be resolved since it's already far more long winded than I've already been. Heh.

'Did you want ketchup with your freedom fries, hon?'

*starts looking around for his Canadian asylum form so he can get away from whatever dreg of the gene pool came up with that concept*
Luneward
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:36 am

Postby Noxy on Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:24 am

Luneward wrote:Excellent work, Aerie. You've managed to single handedly blast two of my biggest aggravations in one strip. Intolerance and stupid people. *chuckles*

*wholehearted agreement there.*

And I have to disagree with you a bit Noxy. It has far too much base in religion, and people will make a great deal of it just because of religion. Certain very fundemental sects evidently inspire people to make a great deal of fuss about things that aren't directly affecting the way they live their lives.


I didn't make that point very clear: Of course the opinion has to do a lot with religious beliefs and of course people attempt to pour down their beliefs into enforced laws. However, the effects of these laws affect everybody regardless of their religious beliefs. I guess I consider that a bit odd about a country which has a statement of division of church and state somewhere written down.

The notion of minding your own business has never been too big of a concept over here at times.


A statement true for a lot of religions and all fundamentalist cases, I guess.
User avatar
Noxy
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:51 am

Postby Jeffro on Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:42 am

Ah...if only the marriage issue were as simple to solve by using the 'A rose by any other name...' formula.

However, the religious/social atmosphere of the United States is so fragmented, and at the moment a bit top heavy, what with the President pushing for the Amendment while many 'common people' are pushing for equal rights. Of course, as with all my statements, that's based purely on my personal experience, which is limited to a corner of Ohio, and about twenty people around the globe.

Personally, I'm all for complete equality under the law (Not religiously, not yet anyways. That's going to take more time...proportionally, Christianity as a whole has about 10 times more to go through that the U.S. legal system if we're going on years...baby steps to start.). Then again, I'm the anomaly, I'm a college-aged, heterosexual male who is all for equality of homosexuals, women, hell, EVERYONE, legally AND socially.

That's my take on this...I'll go slink back to the predictions thread.
User avatar
Jeffro
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Postby Luneward on Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:25 am

Well, my last political comment here before going back to what I'm supposed to be doing here - namely just saying how funny Aerie really is and how much we all love her strips. :lol:

Noxy wrote: However, the effects of these laws affect everybody regardless of their religious beliefs. I guess I consider that a bit odd about a country which has a statement of division of church and state somewhere written down.


Indeed. Point taken. I see that now. It does affect everyone. Though since it's not affecting the people complaining and trying to set the laws I still think they need to shut up about it and mind their own business. Then again that's also the sort of opinion I have about men making laws about abortion over here. Once they can start having kids they can have a say about it. *snickers*

As for 'separation of church and state'... it's implied more than directly written. It does say that, but it has so many loopholes that people squiggle through them. And also many (not just religious conservatives) take the viewpoint that the founding fathers of the country set up the country on judeo-christian moral values and intended it to be the basis of how law set up, while respecting minority viewpoints. Which makes me want to point out to these people that not only were there no substantial minorities in the country at the time of the founding, all of the founding fathers had slaves. Wonder if the religious conservatives still think that's acceptable?

Also makes me believe we don't emphasize that there was a purpose to history classes aside from catching up on your sleep. This has happened before in this country, most notably with interracial marriages in the mid 40s when they were banned. Now nobody blinks an eye about them. We haven't learned a thing yet. I'd rather it not take another 40 years in my opinion.

Ok, rants off. I really need to take my political rantings over to Flem where they're more in topic. Heh.
I am merely a figment of your imagination.
Luneward
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:36 am

Postby Adam The Alien on Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:27 am

[sarcasm]Oh, of course, the sanctity of marriage hasn't been tarnished in any way by heterosexual couples...[/sarcasm]

And personally, I would hate it if someone told me "you can have a civil union, but you can't get married" let alone "you can have a civil union, but you can't get married...oh, but those folks over there can". Now, if a church or even individual priest/pastor/clergyperson/whatever doesn't want to perform the marriage, fine. That's a religious issue that people within the religion itself have to work out. But there are plenty of people out there who would be fine with performing the marriage, and there's no reason for it to be illegal. As far as the law is concerned, the sanctity of marriage is bullshit. Especially in Vegas.

::cuts long-winded spiel short because the basic point has already been made, hopefully::

And I does anyplace actually use the term freedom fries? I never saw or heard it used in my area, except in mockery of the whole thing, and I thought it must have faded out by now even where it was used. And I'm not even going to go into my problems with this...though I do find the concepts of it moving on to things like "freedom toast" and -better still- "freedom kissing" downright hilarious. :lol: Oh wow..."freedom kissing" is too funny not to laugh at every time I think about it. Creates some very...interesting images, that's for sure.
User avatar
Adam The Alien
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:50 am
Location: Oregon

Postby Luneward on Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:05 am

I never saw freedom fries ever get used anywhere either. I should hope most businesses realized how asinine it would make them sound. I'm pretty certain the cafeteria that first started using the term switched back fairly quickly when they realized how much everyone was laughing at them. Then again if they made the name in the first place maybe not.

'Freedom' kissing. Hm... wonder how free the kissing is. Definitely puts new meaning into the phrase 'Make love, not war.'
I am merely a figment of your imagination.
Luneward
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:36 am

Postby Albert the Absentminded on Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:18 am

While I don't think gay marriages have any validity in a religious sense(yeah, I'm one of those 'only one pantheon' people - and yes, Christians believe in a pantheon; and once you throw in all the minor gods, er, saints, that Catholics pray to, it's a pretty big pantheon), I wouldn't have a problem with marriage being treated, legally, as a type of contract, with the specific details of the contract being specific to that contract. Provided all parties to the contract are consenting adults.

That said, that's not how marriage works in our country. You don't get a choice in how the contract works - it's up to the laws of the state(which is why prenups exist at all - the separation clauses should be in the contract itself, not a separate document). In order to set up a logical system, you'd have to scrap the current one and start over.

Ain't gonna happen. Counter to the nature of government. Take a _lot_ of effort, and everyone who's already married would have to get their contracts redone.

So, legalizing gay marriage is going to get tacked on to an already overly complicated legal code. The law of unintended consequences is going to bite quite a few people in the ass, _hard_.


Possible example: Are same-sex room-mates common-law spouses?

Rediculous, right? Nope. Remember, equal treatment under the law. Try proving that you haven't had sex with your roommate when she wants part of your salary as alimony.


Canadian example: I hear that in one of the provinces, people authorized to perform marriages are now _required_ to perform same-sex marriages on request. So many religious ministers are now in danger of losing the power to perform marriages as soon as someone demands a gay marriage from them.


And, of course, there's always the possibility for religious discrimination. Coming down on a sect that won't perform marriages it considers immoral.

Oh, well. If worst comes to worst, Christianity(or, rather, the versions that aren't pop fads wrapped up in a wierd package) will be driven underground. That'll strip away the posers, at least.

-Albert
Albert the Absentminded
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 1:44 am

oh, yeah

Postby ravenlore on Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:28 am

Thank you for this strip Aerie. i was actually writing an email to the Shrub yesterday about this subject :x when we had a brief power failure.
and THANK YOU for tshirt goodness part II!!

and i finally got activated! :D
my moral standing is lying down.
User avatar
ravenlore
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:01 am
Location: Minnesnowta

Postby burtonos on Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:36 am

hey, isn't murder just a word? it just says it's bad in the bible. wait...that's what most of our laws are based on, i forgot. why should anybody pay attention to the bible anyway?

if you get a tax break for being in a civil union with someone you CAN'T make babies with, i want the same deal, an ima marry my cat!! that is why the tax system is set up the way it is, right? to help FAMILIES. oh i can hear the " yeah, but they could adopt!!" yeah? well so can i.

see, i probobly wouldn't have such an issue with the gay issue, but i saw something like a shrine in the back of a car featuring blue from blue's clues and a whopping great load of rainbow crap(some in the triangle form), and that's total bull**it. who is this one cat to make the statement that blue is gay? and on the subject of rainbows, if i had a kid, i wouldn't want to have to say, " well the homosexuals decided that they would hi-jack the raonbow so that everytime we see one we have to think of them. isn't that nice?"

bill clinton said it best..."don't ask, don't tell"
burtonos
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 12:00 am
Location: grand rapids michigan 49507

Postby DonShimoda on Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:58 am

Seems to me that the only way to really resolve the gay marriage issue is to take the government out of the marriage business entirely. (Got this idea from a poster on another board.) All that would be necessary would be to change the term "marriage" to "civil union" for legal matters, regarding both homosexual and heterosexual unions. No discrimination, and as long as all legal rights currently applying to marriage were still applicable to civil unions, no fundamental change other than bureaucratically. Civil unions, from the government's point of view, would apply to any union between two individuals. If churches or other organizations wanted to make a distinction between marriage and non-marriage, let them.

Seems to me this would resolve the issue, though I'm not so naive to believe that there aren't rational arguments against it...
"You always said people don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Bob Dylan, "Brownsville Girl"
User avatar
DonShimoda
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:22 pm

Civil unions and domestic partnerships illegal also

Postby coak on Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:24 am

Noxy wrote:Of course, the whole marriage-debate is about far more than religion. If it was just a religious issue, I doubt anybody would make a great deal about it. But since married partners have legal rights and tax benefits nonmarried partners simply can't get, it's a direct discrimination against people who chose a different path to happiness than perhaps "the norm". Whatever that might mean.


I had to follow this up with the fact that many states have outlawed civil unions and domestic partnerships for gays. Among other things, this means that if one member of a gay couple gets hit by a car, the partner has no hospital visitation rights. It also puts up barriers to shared home ownership, adoption, etc. So many people focus on the tax issue, which isn't even a good issue (there's a reason they call it the marriage penalty). Angela needs to do her homework.

Incidentally, in these states, many of these things can be recovered from a legal standpoint by having the gay couple file for corporation, LLC, or nonprofit status (well, not adoption). This may actually help a gay couple apply for a mortgage (the nonprofit, owned by the couple, would own the house). Otherwise, it can sometimes be difficult for two 'single' people to buy a house together. Of course, my only knowledge here indicates the opposite: my buddy (straight) was trying to buy a house with his business partner and actually had an easier time when the bankers thought they were a gay couple. But that may have been that individually they had better credit than the new business they were starting.

Sorry, I actually felt a little angry that even the alternative point of view in the comic was wrong.
coak
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:04 am
Location: CA

Postby Adam The Alien on Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:25 pm

Albert the Absentminded wrote:Possible example: Are same-sex room-mates common-law spouses?

Rediculous, right? Nope. Remember, equal treatment under the law. Try proving that you haven't had sex with your roommate when she wants part of your salary as alimony.

That would be ridiculous. But then, I find common law silly to begin with. That's just me. It is, however, more complicated than you make it seem. First off, looking into the matter a bit, I found only fifteen states (and D.C. in addition) recognize common law marriage: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia (if created before 1/97), Idaho (if created before 1/96), Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only), Ohio (if created before 10/91), Oklahoma, Pennsylvania (if created before 9/03), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

Second, a couple isn't automatically married after seven years, as many believe. To prove a common law marriage exists in a court of law, there must be some proof/documentation that there was an intent to marry. It's not about "proving you didn't have sex" with them. Sex and intent to marry are different things.

Albert the Absentminded wrote:Canadian example: I hear that in one of the provinces, people authorized to perform marriages are now _required_ to perform same-sex marriages on request. So many religious ministers are now in danger of losing the power to perform marriages as soon as someone demands a gay marriage from them.

I'll grant you this one, that is messed up. However (and I don't know anything about Canada's laws), I think it could be avoided in the U.S. with separation of church and state. Not to mention I have considerable trouble believing such a law would be enacted, taking our political factors into account.

Albert the Absentminded wrote:And, of course, there's always the possibility for religious discrimination.

The words "religion" and "discrimination" have gone hand in hand for a long time (how this happens so often is beyond me). I doubt homosexual marriages would impact it that much for better or worse.

Albert the Absentminded wrote:Oh, well. If worst comes to worst, Christianity(or, rather, the versions that aren't pop fads wrapped up in a wierd package) will be driven underground.

I highly doubt it.



burtonos wrote:hey, isn't murder just a word?

Two ways I can see it in relation to this topic, all depending on whether or not you consider the words "just words" or something more:
1) Yes, it's just a word. It's the act that's wrong. Now, most people don't seem to be against the act of civil union, so what, then, is wrong with applying the word marriage?
2) No, it's not just a word. And neither is marriage. Which is exactly why people shouldn't have to settle for civil union when they want marriage.

burtonos wrote:if you get a tax break for being in a civil union with someone you CAN'T make babies with, i want the same deal, an ima marry my cat!! that is why the tax system is set up the way it is, right? to help FAMILIES. oh i can hear the " yeah, but they could adopt!!" yeah? well so can i.

What does making babies have to do with this? A heterosexual couple can get married without this much fuss, and they could already be planning to NEVER have kids. Or they might be INCAPABLE of having kids for a multitude of possible reasons. And it's not like the system isn't abused as it is: foster care, blood relatives, etc...if tax breaks are available, someone will abuse them. Focus on stopping these people, not stopping a whole group of people simply based on a lifestyle choice.

And family, in my opinion, is far more than what laws make official. In cases of marriage, legal/religious recognition makes you an official couple, but when it comes to non-romatic family bonds? My family reunions consist of far more people than are blood/legal relatives.

burtonos wrote:see, i probobly wouldn't have such an issue with the gay issue, but i saw something like a shrine in the back of a car featuring blue from blue's clues and a whopping great load of rainbow crap(some in the triangle form), and that's total bull**it. who is this one cat to make the statement that blue is gay? and on the subject of rainbows, if i had a kid, i wouldn't want to have to say, " well the homosexuals decided that they would hi-jack the raonbow so that everytime we see one we have to think of them. isn't that nice?"

And what about words like "gay" and "queer" that heterosexuals attributed to homosexuals? The rainbow wasn't hijacked. First of all, it's still everybody's. The general use of the rainbow is to show peace, happiness, unity. Used in reference to homosexuality, I think it means the same. That's my view, at least. Second, what else are you going to associate with the word "gay" if you take into account the original meaning of the word?

burtonos wrote:bill clinton said it best..."don't ask, don't tell"

Privacy is nice, but "don't ask, don't tell" destroys. This concept, unfortunately common to more situations than this, can make homosexuals and others paranoid, as keeping such a secret would do to anyone. In this and totally unrelated situations, "don't ask, don't tell" can lead to massive problems, even suicide. Worse, suicide in and of itself often ends up being a "don't ask, don't tell" situation, because people have a problem confronting it. "Don't ask, don't tell" is the logic of a mindset that doesn't want to deal with things that make it uncomfortable, and there are severe, negative consequences of that mindset everywhere.
User avatar
Adam The Alien
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:50 am
Location: Oregon

I end up having a lot to say...

Postby AmanuJaku on Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:35 pm

Ah, politics and religion. Two topics that are almost guaranteed to get people in an uproar. It
User avatar
AmanuJaku
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA

Postby tankus on Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:21 pm

Okay, this was a lot of information at the same time!!! It took me 25 minutes read the forum with a lot of thinking of what i could answer...

Adam The Alien
Albert the Absentminded wrote:
Canadian example: I hear that in one of the provinces, people authorized to perform marriages are now _required_ to perform same-sex marriages on request. So many religious ministers are now in danger of losing the power to perform marriages as soon as someone demands a gay marriage from them.

I'll grant you this one, that is messed up. However (and I don't know anything about Canada's laws), I think it could be avoided in the U.S. with separation of church and state. Not to mention I have considerable trouble believing such a law would be enacted, taking our political factors into account.


Well, since I'm canadian, I would have heard of this one... And I didn't, or is it because I'm in Quebec (yes I'm a "freedom Canadian") so it must be elsewhere in Canada...

Also, I don't want to search where it as been said in the forum, but one said that what we should do is get the relidiong out of the politics... I REALLY WONDER WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO WRITE ON YOU ONE DOLLAR BILLS :-? I mean, our laws, in Canada and USA are based on religion, our scholarship etablishement are based our religious people, our ways to treat native people are religious... :o OOPS bad exemple! Anyway, what we should really do is to get any taxes out of the union thingy, that's all ! It's not fair to forget what the love of our brothers and sisters have made to make our countries possible... So yes get married (or civil unioned) and adopt childrens!!! There are plenty of children who doesn't have a home, and if his two dads/moms love him, the little boy/girl WILL be happy and families can be made !! So yes that's mean I really don't like religion because of their opinion, the main message is love each other people...

Tankus out
-If a friend has problems, you try to solve them... When a real friend have a problem, you live it with him...

-tankus
User avatar
tankus
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:58 am
Location: Gatineau / Quebec / Canada

Postby squiddy on Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:45 pm

*ignores all the yelling..*

I'm going to focus on the less contreversial part of the comic. Has any actually seen the term "freedom fries" used seriously?
I nearly forgot about that. I read about it in US News one day and heard about it a lil after that but never actually heard anyone call it that.

It sounds so..........stupid! But that's just my opinion. Ya know..don't want to offend anyone.
Insert incredibly witty/hilarious/inspirational signature here.
User avatar
squiddy
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Mason City, Iowa

Postby tankus on Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:55 pm

squiddy wrote:*ignores all the yelling..*

I'm going to focus on the less contreversial part of the comic. Has any actually seen the term "freedom fries" used seriously?
I nearly forgot about that. I read about it in US News one day and heard about it a lil after that but never actually heard anyone call it that.

It sounds so..........stupid! But that's just my opinion. Ya know..don't want to offend anyone.


squiddy, did you actualy read the forum, or you didn't want to because there was to much text?
-If a friend has problems, you try to solve them... When a real friend have a problem, you live it with him...

-tankus
User avatar
tankus
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:58 am
Location: Gatineau / Quebec / Canada

Postby squiddy on Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:07 pm

tankus wrote:
squiddy wrote:*ignores all the yelling..*

I'm going to focus on the less contreversial part of the comic. Has any actually seen the term "freedom fries" used seriously?
I nearly forgot about that. I read about it in US News one day and heard about it a lil after that but never actually heard anyone call it that.

It sounds so..........stupid! But that's just my opinion. Ya know..don't want to offend anyone.


squiddy, did you actualy read the forum, or you didn't want to because there was to much text?


Ignored it. All I saw was stuff about gay marraige. I spose I could go through it and check, but then again, I am lazy.

So, instead, I'll drop it.
Insert incredibly witty/hilarious/inspirational signature here.
User avatar
squiddy
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Mason City, Iowa

Postby Aeire on Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:22 pm

tankus wrote:squiddy, did you actualy read the forum, or you didn't want to because there was to much text?


Leave her alone. If she didn't want to read the debating, she didn't want to read the debating. There's no reason to flame her for it.


And please, correct your spelling - it's very difficult to read your posts because your spelling, grammar, and lack of capitalization makes them almost illegible.
Queen of Wands - Wanna taste of religion? Lick a witch.
User avatar
Aeire
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 11:00 pm

Postby tankus on Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:11 pm

Aeire wrote:
tankus wrote:squiddy, did you actualy read the forum, or you didn't want to because there was to much text?


Leave her alone. If she didn't want to read the debating, she didn't want to read the debating. There's no reason to flame her for it.


And please, correct your spelling - it's very difficult to read your posts because your spelling, grammar, and lack of capitalization makes them almost illegible.


First: It was an actual question, I asked her if she read it and didn't have a opinion or just didn't actualy went trough... I didn't understood by "ignores all the yelling" wich could have meant either didn't cared or was too lazy for reading it... And it gives a all other meaning in wich case (by the way thanks for answering squiddy :wink: )

Second: If you didn't catch what I meant by "freedom Canadian" (wich I think you did) Well I'm french, so I'm sorry for any grammatical error... or syntax... or whatever :cry:
Last edited by tankus on Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-If a friend has problems, you try to solve them... When a real friend have a problem, you live it with him...

-tankus
User avatar
tankus
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:58 am
Location: Gatineau / Quebec / Canada

Postby Adam The Alien on Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:47 pm

tankus wrote:Well, since I'm canadian, I would have heard of this one... And I didn't, or is it because I'm in Quebec (yes I'm a "freedom Canadian") so it must be elsewhere in Canada...

Also, I don't want to search where it as been said in the forum, but one said that what we should do is get the relidiong out of the politics... I REALLY WONDER WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO WRITE ON YOU ONE DOLLAR BILLS :-? I mean, our laws, in Canada and USA are based on religion, our scholarship etablishement are based our religious people, our ways to treat native people are religious... :o OOPS bad exemple! Anyway, what we should really do is to get any taxes out of the union thingy, that's all ! It's not fair to forget what the love of our brothers and sisters have made to make our countries possible... So yes get married (or civil unioned) and adopt childrens!!! There are plenty of children who doesn't have a home, and if his two dads/moms love him, the little boy/girl WILL be happy and families can be made !! So yes that's mean I really don't like religion because of their opinion, the main message is love each other people...


:o Um...your post was all over the map here. Aside from the fact that some of it doesn't seem to relate to what you're replying to (Yes, most people are aware of the "In God We Trust" displayed on all U.S. currency...but what was your point in relation to this situation, exactly?), it comes off as a wee bit strange to open with what seems to me to be flaming, and then end with "love each other". I'd might well agree with a good portion of your post...if I could decipher exactly what it is you're trying to say. :)
User avatar
Adam The Alien
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:50 am
Location: Oregon

Postby Starman Matt on Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:21 pm

I'm just going to side-step all the debate and legalese and say that the uncommon common sense Kestrel shows here is all the argument I need. :)

Thanks, Aerie!
"Starman" Matt Morrison
Writer of Looking To The Stars and 144 Anima.
Check out our NEW home at The Nexus.
User avatar
Starman Matt
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:43 pm
Location: DFW

 
Next

Return to Queen of Wands

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron