31 Jul 12
Originally posted by whodeySo if you could have all those things, would you be happy to have unrestricted immigration too?
You forgot, no $16 trillion debt, no running multiple foreign wars abroad, no government 24/7 survellience of its citizens, no NDAA so that citizens could not be detained without trial indefinately, a return of respect for the Constitution and rule of law, etc.
Yes, I can dream, can't I?
I visited Ellis Island in June. I can't tell you how moved I was by what American ideals can mean at their best!
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe powers that be are left leaning progressives. In the US, polygamists are by in large conservative Mormons. The two simply don't mix. It is much more hip to be gay than a polygamist Mormon.
Are Americans really that anti-polygamy? Most of the world has accepted polygamy in the past, including most religions. Very few places are or have been as tolerant of homosexuality.
Do you think it is the Christian influence that would cause objection to polygamy?
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeBecoming a citizen the legal way has become a bureaucratic nightmare, hence illegal immigration is now the accepted way to become a citizen.
So if you could have all those things, would you be happy to have unrestricted immigration too?
I visited Ellis Island in June. I can't tell you how moved I was by what American ideals can mean at their best!
There should be a quick and painless legal procedure to process these people and decide if they are a danger to American citizens, but red tape prevails, as with everything else.
31 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57It means that people would no longer seek tax perks, it would mean that a spouse could divided their estate how they pleased instead of having the state dictate that a certain percentage goes to a spouse. It would mean that the money and property one has when entering a relationship, remains with them if the two part wayrs etc.
I keep hearing that phrase but nobody expands on it, does it mean that all marriages would be null and void from a legal perspective and that everyone had to make the same private arrangements as gay people do at the moment.
In short, it would give people their freedom back.
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by whodeyOn this forum, you seem to oppose staunchly the "quick and painless legal procedure to process" immigrants that is on the table in the current U.S. political domain. Sending 11,000,000 immigrants - if that is indeed the figure - back to their countries of origin and asking them to reapply to get back in is hardly a "quick and painless legal procedure", or are you suggesting something other than that?
There should be a quick and painless legal procedure to process these people and decide if they are a danger to American citizens, but red tape prevails, as with everything else.
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFPersonally, I like how the Swiss do it. In order to be a citizen, you have to speak the langauge and live in a community for a certain period of time who can then vouch for you that you would be a "good" citizen.
On this forum, you seem to oppose staunchly the "quick and painless legal procedure to process" immigrants that is on the table in the current U.S. political domain. Sending 11,000,000 immigrants - if that is indeed the figure - back to their countries of origin and asking them to reapply to get back in is hardly a "quick and painless legal procedure", or are you suggesting something other than that?
31 Jul 12
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIs that how it works in the U.S.? The government decides divorce settlements? I've never lived in a country that has that system. Everywhere I have lived has had courts to decide in cases where the details of the divorce settlement are in dispute. Not even under the dictator Soeharto did Indonesian couples getting a divorce see "the state dictate that a certain percentage goes to a spouse". We have laws here pertaining to divorce and people can take each other to court if they think they are being treated illegally or unjustly. Don't people in the U.S. have resort to legal means in divorce cases in this way? The U.S. government "dictates" the settlement in every case? This is the first I have heard of this.
... it would mean that a spouse could divided their estate how they pleased instead of having the state dictate that a certain percentage goes to a spouse.
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by whodeyIsn't this more or less the same as Obama's recent proposed "quick and painless legal procedure to process" somewhere in the region of 800,000 immigrants. You opposed that proposal bitterly.
Personally, I like how the Swiss do it. In order to be a citizen, you have to speak the langauge and live in a community for a certain period of time who can then vouch for you that you would be a "good" citizen.
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by whodeySo spouse No1 stays at home and raises 4 children while spouse No2 goes out into the workplace and makes money, are you saying as part of that child rearing partnership spouse No2 can walk away from spouse No1 and make no financial compensation to them.
It means that people would no longer seek tax perks, it would mean that a spouse could divided their estate how they pleased instead of having the state dictate that a certain percentage goes to a spouse. It would mean that the money and property one has when entering a relationship, remains with them if the two part wayrs etc.
In short, it would give people their freedom back.
Apart from illustrating your ingrained sense of fair play how does this qualify as an argument for the retention of inequality before the law regarding gay people and the right to marry.
31 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyFrom what I hear, the Swiss have the most discriminatory procedure in the world. You can be born and live your whole life in Switzerland and still be unable to become a citizen.
Personally, I like how the Swiss do it. In order to be a citizen, you have to speak the langauge and live in a community for a certain period of time who can then vouch for you that you would be a "good" citizen.
Citizenship is one of the things I consider to be not only a rights issue, but also and issue that should never ever be decided by democracy.