NFL 2006 Season Week 9 Picks

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/03/2006 @ 08:16:55 AM
Jon, Picking the Packers. First Jeremy last week, now Jon This week. Is Matt gonna fall off the wagon pretty soon too? Ha ha ha. That's ridiculous. No one's in a wagon.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/05/2006 @ 12:45:37 PM
no more rating your own comments i see?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/05/2006 @ 12:46:42 PM
nope		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/05/2006 @ 01:23:26 PM
What's next. Elected officials won't be able to vote for themselves? Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Nice catch by Jennings with 14 secondsn left in the 1st half.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 11/05/2006 @ 01:24:22 PM
what more could go wrong today for the packers		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/05/2006 @ 01:40:26 PM
it's pretty ugly.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 11/05/2006 @ 02:12:04 PM
Don't count anything out just yet.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/05/2006 @ 02:48:42 PM
y not just run it in there????????? y screw us over there?????????????????????		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/05/2006 @ 03:03:44 PM
What uniform was Favre wearing today? It didn't look green and gold to me. More Red and Blue than anything. All but 3 of Buffalo's points could be attributed to Favre.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 11/05/2006 @ 03:08:03 PM
Although watching Vanderjagt get the game winning FG blocked feels somewhat good. As does watching the bears lose to the Miami.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 11/05/2006 @ 06:23:25 PM
That was sucking AND dying.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/05/2006 @ 07:42:41 PM
I was actually hoping the bears would run the table. The NFC North took a beating today. And When I say beating, I mean it, because the 3 teams that probably should have won lost, and the Lions beat a team they should have lost to.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 11/06/2006 @ 12:58:14 PM
I'm going to win this week because I'm the only one who picked the Raiders.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 11/06/2006 @ 08:17:30 PM
Scott, In case you didn't know, Jeremy and I have picked the packers many times throughout the years. I hadn't picked them this year because they're terrible.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 11/06/2006 @ 08:51:17 PM
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2007 is an awesome game.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 11/06/2006 @ 08:57:56 PM
I only wish there were a zero nut rating so I could properly rate that last comment.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/06/2006 @ 09:26:28 PM
Now THAT'S funny.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 11/06/2006 @ 11:15:27 PM
If another one of my half finished articles gets leaked and read I'm going to stop writing them.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 11/06/2006 11:17:15 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/07/2006 @ 08:07:52 AM
I don't read leaked articles. Nor do I leak names. I'm not a leaker. My Great grandfather was a leaker, but my family has since plugged things up.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 11/07/2006 @ 11:56:17 AM
I only wish there were a zero nut rating so I could properly rate that last comment.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/07/2006 @ 01:43:16 PM
what, now we highjack people's witty comments. I guess it's fitting. So, who voted today?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 11/07/2006 @ 01:44:53 PM
how do articles get leaked anyway?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 11/07/2006 @ 02:14:55 PM
CNN's election tracker won't update. I want to know what's going on.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 11/07/2006 @ 02:16:13 PM
Some jackpine writes crappy code.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 11/07/2006 @ 07:28:16 PM
Everyone should get their vote on. Except some nutcanners who vote irrationally and ridiculously.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/07/2006 @ 08:02:35 PM
I drew a smiley face on my ballot, does that count as "voting ridiculously".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/07/2006 @ 10:04:53 PM
I'm ashamed to be a Wisconsinite, and it's not because the Packers blew the game against the Bills.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 11/07/2006 @ 11:10:22 PM
You do realize, Sarah, that there is a good chance you and I were on the 4-2 losing end of what you're ashamed of even here at nutcan. :)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 11/07/2006 @ 11:32:10 PM
I'm trying to figure out what week 9 football issue you guys are speaking so cryptically about.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/08/2006 @ 10:01:55 AM
Jon, they are talking about the Colts-Patriots Game. Sarah and Jeremy both picked the Patriots, while you, Matt, Alex and I all picked the Colts. So Jeremy and Sarah ended up on the 4-2 losing end of things. I'm not sure why picking Brady Thomas would make you ashamed to be a Wisconsinite, but I guess some people just hate that guy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - I'm flippin' burgers / you at Kinko's straight flippin' copies 11/08/2006 @ 04:07:58 PM
I got to vote using one of the 1950's style giant voting machines with the big levers. It was pretty sweet even though all the races were about 70-30. According to ballot measures, minimum wage higher, banning abortion bad, banning gay marriage good, smoking pot bad, and my personal favorite...one million dollars to one random Arizona voter each two years.....bad		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/08/2006 @ 04:38:14 PM
I had never heard of that Arizona thing. It seems to make a lot of sense. More people would vote if there was a sweepstakes involved. Of course it's a sad state of affairs that it would come to that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 11/08/2006 @ 05:37:48 PM
Wisconsin.... you're among friends.... unless you're gay. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Think of the children. Has anyone seen the type of people that get married nowadays? It is ridiculous. Two people of the opposite sex who have just met or two people of the opposite sex who have tried running each other over with their cars can get married to each other at the drop of a hat and receive all of the benefits attached to that because that's the American way. But two people of the same sex can't legally recognize their long-time commitment because that's strictly taboo. Bull. Getting married to some people is a joke and I'm also tired of hearing the whole line about keeping it between a man and a woman for the sake of the children. How many kids get the ol' screw job because their parents are unfit to be parents and shouldn't be married to one another? All kids need is a loving home. A lot of different people can provide that. We're talking about two different things there. Come up with some better arguments.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 11/08/2006 @ 06:02:44 PM
Isn't the first argument that Jesus doesn't like it :)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/08/2006 @ 06:07:12 PM
Separation of church and state, although most people in this wonderful nation seem to forget that, including our president.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 11/08/2006 @ 06:55:55 PM
Well, here's a funny thing about the church and state argument: In South Carolina there was a ballot measure about Gay Marriage and about Banning Abortion. The Gay Marriage ban passed 52%-48%. The Abortion Ban failed 56%-44%. Wouldn't you expect that if people were voting on the grounds of religious conviction that the vote for these 2 issues would be closer? So one can conclude that one of these issues isn't strictly about religion, and I have always been under the impression that Christian/religous people placed more importance on stopping abortion than banning gay marriage.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/08/2006 @ 07:10:10 PM
The abortion issue has been so polarized and "militarized" on both sides it's tough to use it as the basis of comparison. Personally if I were to pick between the two issues as which one I think is more drawn down religious lines I would pick gay marriage, but I see your argument.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 11/08/2006 @ 09:13:41 PM
Yeah abortion is heavily weighed by people who have been personally affected by it, as well as people who have the common sense to realize that even though it may be wrong in the eyes of god, banning it in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk can cause more problems than it is worth. Problems and opinions like this don't really come up in the gay marriage issue.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 11/09/2006 @ 09:42:46 PM
Let me give a few thoughts on the church state issue. (You'll be wise not to try to interpret anything I say into my promotion of one side of an issue or another, because assumption will, as micah and will smith can tell you, make the ump shun you) Citizens voting one way or the other really has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. It simply doesn't apply. The clause about separating the two is for the government not to promote or establish one religion. But that doesn't mean individuals mustn't get guidance from their own set of beliefs. And it doesn't mean any view that is held sacred by a church can't be deemed as also good for society and voted on as such. The fact that a religious group largely supports one side of an argument does not mean that enacting such a position necessarily establishes a religion or even one facet of a religion. And to say otherwise is fairly simplistic in my mind. The Anti-slavery movement as well as anti-discrimination are among a group of social causes that churches and their members played a key role in. I question, though, if anyone would consider these examples of times the government was overstepping its bounds and forcing religion on us when they enacted laws to stop those practices. The fact is, there are religions and/or religious people on both sides of the argument for things like abortion and gay marriage. Unitarian Universalists support gay marriage, as do other religions and denominations. And it's their right as Americans to vote in such a way. Others consider it wrong and feel it would damage society, and it's their right to vote that way if they choose. Either election result would end up falling on one religion's side. Does that mean it is an imposition of religion? Not to me. As for abortion, people always throw it in with religion. And certainly you can get an idea of where someone stands on the issue based on religion, but really what makes it a religious issue more than any other issue? The Bible doesn't use the word abortion anywhere I'm aware of. Many Christians do, however, feel that it is taking an innocent life. But so do many non-Christians. They both agree that taking an innocent life is wrong, and so they are against abortion. How then would an abortion ban be an imposition of religion? On a different note, If a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim believes taht we need to take care of the earth because it is one of God's gifts to us, does that mean that he can't vote for an environmental bill or amendment or referendum? People have different reasons for voting different ways. Some draw their conclusions based on what's right according to their religious text, traditions, or leaders. Some base it on what they have concluded is right based on the writings of greek philosophers. Some base it on their views of what's right based on their own mixture of personal observations, their parents, their friends, the television, authors or whatever else they hold as true, sacred or of some redeeming value. Others mix "religious" views in with current cultural practices to the point they, or anyone else would have a tough time pinning their beliefs down to one or the other. If I could get maybe a step more philosophical, I would seriously ask anyone to explain how one person's personal rationale for making a voting decision on any of the issues discussed is somehow more or less democratically acceptable. If everyone must divest themselves of all thoughts of God or religion before they vote, what kind of democracy does it become? Isn't that much closer to establishing a national religion than the alternative? Who will be the judge of what thoughts are "too religious" to base a vote on? I don't have all the answers, because democracy is complicated. And I fully understand people being upset with the results of any referendum or any race. After all, that's part of any election. You can say people were unwise if you feel that way, and explain why you feel that way, but on these issues at least, I really don't think it's accurate to say they were crossing the lines between church and state.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 11/09/2006 @ 09:58:09 PM
You shouldn't use religious text to help form public policy. If you feel an issue is wrong because of something deeply cored to your beliefs which is based in religion then fine. I'll explain. If you are against abortion because your deeply religious beliefs lead you to believe it's wrong then fine. You used a set of core values and applied them to a decision. As far as the gay marriage issue goes there is no such set of base core values. The Bible says no therefor I say no. There is no other rational argument for being against it other than because the Bible says so. I don't know if that makes any sense at all, but the two are different to me.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 11/09/2006 10:00:43 pm

	Jon - 3375 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 10:02:21 PM
What about if you're a person whose "deeply religious beliefs lead you to believe it's wrong"? "it" being a governmental recognition of gay marriage? (And don't think I'm using your words just to be cute or something. If it comes across that way it's not meant to be)		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/09/2006 @ 10:05:31 PM
I'm with Jon. As written in the Constitution, there is only a ban on the establishment of a national religion. Various Supreme Court decisions over the years have "morphed" this into a ban on anything that can be construed as promoting or being preferential to one religion over another. Some people feel that even this is not enough, while others feel that this is an example of judicial activism. I would tend to agree with the latter. Now that I've kind of gone off on a tangent and can't remember where I was trying to go with this, I'll end the comment now.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 10:15:26 PM
The only reason why I brought up church vs state was because Micah's reply to why gay marriage should not be allowed was because Jesus didn't like it. I think it should be allowed because marriage is not a "sacred institution between a man and a woman." Opposite gendered people can get married and divorced any damn time they feel like it. I have seen a lot of scenarios lately of this and it makes me very disgusted. Especially when other people see how marriage is a joke yet still have the gall to say that people of the same sex can't get married to one another if they so choose. As for the religious thing, it should be a separate thing. Yes, citizens are going to vote based on their beliefs, which could be influenced by their religion. But then we have George W bringing God into everything he does. Everyone was so afraid when Kennedy was elected because they thought he would consult the Pope on everything since he was Catholic. He didn't do that. I think more people should be concerned that Bush is bringing HIS religion to everything, including this non-holy war we are fighting. It's creepy.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 11/09/2006 @ 10:17:51 PM
Obviously people can vote anyway they want. They can vote for someone because they like their haircut. That doesn't mean it was a rational reason. The two situations are different for the reasons I stated already stated. You aren't applying beliefs to gay marriage, you're regurgitating the Bible.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 11/09/2006 10:21:02 pm

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 11/09/2006 @ 10:24:27 PM
Jeremy, I don't think there was ever any discussion of what was rational as far as people's voting decisions. Just if it was or wasn't crossing church state division lines. And I guess I'm not sure of what two situations you're talking about in the second one. Is it the gay marriage decision being based in religion verses abortion based in religion? If so, I'm still confused as to how they are substantionally different in the scheme of separation of church and state. And I'm not asking you to say why one side of one issue is right or not, just in how the church state aspect of the decision making is different one way or the other.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 10:27:37 PM
I like Doyle's hair cut		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 10:29:12 PM
Jeremy is saying that abortion can be argued from a non-religious side, but in his opinion gay marriage can only be argued against from a religious point of view. I think that is what he is saying.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 10:29:42 PM
I didn't mind Bill Clinton's hair cut either.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 11/09/2006 @ 10:32:27 PM
I have to disagree with Jeremy's assertion that there is no rational argument to why someone would oppose gay marriage. Many people have argued that loosening the restrictions on marriage (i.e. allowing gay marriage, polygamy, etc.) would harm the already fragile (as Sarah mentions) institution of marriage, and since children who grow up in homes with both a mother and father tend to do better, anything that would weaken marriage would be bad for society. Now, I'm not sure how much of that I agree with and whether it would/should be enough to deny gay marriage, but it is a rational argument, and I'm sure that there are more out there. Also, in no way am I trying to equate homosexuality with polygamy, or any other lifestyle, except in the fact that society has enacted restrictions to marriage in these cases.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Matt perfected this at 11/09/2006 10:33:22 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 10:39:38 PM
Johnny Unitas, now there's a haircut you can set you watch to. Any guesses as to where this is from?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/09/2006 @ 10:50:21 PM
Back to the Church/State argument. Some of the 10 commandments are also laws in this country, others are not, so there are obviously religious ideals that most people feel are not appropriate to enact on society as a whole even though they may agree with them individually. This would imply that most people also have reasons other than religious beliefs to support the so called "religious issues". I know that this may have some "twisted logic" in it, but I think my point applies to many people.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 10:53:04 PM
Because I think individuals be them citizens, congress, judges, or Presidents SHOULD in fact rationalize out "I only feel this way because the Bible says so." In the case of abortion the fundamental reason for being against it from a religious perspective is the "Thou Shalt not Kill" commandment. However very few people think killing is ok. It just so happens that religious people generally happen to believe this more fervently than non religious and that it should trump other reasons for allowing it. Gay marriage ONLY has a religious argument opposing it. Any other lame ass argument such as "Wont somebody PLEASE think of the children!?" is ridiculous. First off gay people want to be married so that they can share health insurance and other such stuff. No one said anything about every gay couple adopting 9 children. Secondly, Opposition points to studies that say children do best with a mother and father. OF COURSE! I guess we should start taking kids from all those single moms! And everyone start getting abortions because I bet foster homes and adopted parents aren't the optimum ways for a child to grow up either. How funny that the same group of people that use the fact that two guys isn't the most bestest way for a child to grow up would want a 15 year old mother who isn't sure what to do to give her baby to an orphanage. There is no data being discussed about how two guys or two girls do raising kids vs. a broken home, single mom, adoptive parents, or foster home. I guess though we're only going to allow the absolute optimum data set for any comparisons from now on. Did you know the Packers are undefeated every time they score more points than their opponents? (see how I brought it back to football?)		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/09/2006 @ 11:01:22 PM
The fact is, though, that even if there was a strict seperation of church and state, it wouldn't matter what the motivation was that caused people to vote for a constitutional amendment or not, as you are literally changing the rule book.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 11:18:58 PM
Jeremy, you asked for a non-religious rational to ban gay marriage and I gave you one. It may be lame, but you can't say that it ONLY has a religious argument against it. And yes, homes with both mother and father do tend to be better for the children, so I would argue that people who want to enact laws to encourage/protect this situation (ex. ban on gay marriage) have a rational basis for it, even if there are more drastic measures (taking children away from single parents) that they don't agree with. Most people agree that drinking can be bad for you, but prohibition was tried and failed. There are, however, still laws that try to limit this (drinking age, limit on when you can sell alcohol, etc.) that most people feel are beneficial even if people will still drink too much.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 11/09/2006 @ 11:19:21 PM
I'm not really talking about the separation per se it would just be ideal to me if people thought "would I feel this way if I wasn't religious?" Obviously no one violated any "rules" by voting the way they did. A question: Interraccial married couples are more likely to get divorced, and furthermore their children have problems growing up unique to being mixed races. If there were an interracial marriage referendum last Tuesday for allowing interracial marriage or not would it have passed? The arguments against it should be the same. (Somehow 83% of the public thinks interracial marriage is ok)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 11/09/2006 11:22:22 pm

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 11:20:06 PM
On a lighter note, Jenna Fischer is on Letterman right now, and is looking mighty good.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 11/09/2006 @ 11:20:48 PM
Oh my....		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 11:23:08 PM
This is one of those times where it pays to have HDTV.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 11/09/2006 @ 11:25:13 PM
If I could interject some of my opinion into these other issues (since there are probably technically about 10 variations of the abortion/gay marriage topic) I think it's fair to say that a good number (be it most, half, some, etc.) of Christians Also feel that people should "rationalize out" the thought of, "I only feel this way because the Bible says so." And just because they end up in the same place the Bible pointed to originally doesn't mean they didn't. It may end up being a rationalization that you or others find acceptable, or it may not. But I think asserting (and I'm not saying you are asserting this) that Christians all just believe things "just because" isn't quite accurate.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 11/09/2006 @ 11:26:12 PM
Also I never said "only" until I posted my rebuttal to the "made up" reason. Scott put "only" in my mouth. :)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 11/09/2006 @ 11:29:26 PM
I guess what I was trying to say, albeit poorly, earlier was that I feel Christians are against gay marriage a little more so "Just Because" than abortions. (Not totally "just because", just more so)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 11:33:01 PM
The easiest way to put in my 2 cents was to rank the comments so that's what I did. Though I realized you can't change your rating, kind of a bummer if you misclick.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 11/09/2006 @ 11:35:52 PM
On a more-in-depth note, Jeremy seems to be arguing for a religion of rationlization. Can everything in the world be rationlized? What's rational to you may not be rational to other people. Who's to say what is and isn't rational? And if your answer is something like "use common sense" or "rational is what the majority believes" than isn't that what results from the democratic process? It's your right to vote completely "rationally" if you so choose. If someone else wants to vote strictly on their religious beliefs or create a complicated algorithm to figure out how to vote or just vote a, b, c, d or whatever how can you say that your opinion is more valid then theirs?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Alex screwed with this at 11/09/2006 11:38:14 pm

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 11/09/2006 @ 11:38:14 PM
I know I can use rational thought to give good ratings to good arguments, whether or not I agree with them.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 11:51:15 PM
Also my argument has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with the choice. I'm pro-choice, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if that choice was taken away. (So long as doctors have an option for complications, and for situations like rape and such things.) I really don't care all that much about the gay marriage issue either. Two guys together creeps me out. It's just that two guys wanting to file taxes together is so far down my list of things to give a crap about that it's not worth worrying about it. It doesn't effect me. I'm just sick of people pretending that there are reasons, outside of religion, that all these referendums coming out against gay marriage every time. (I'm not saying that's what is happening here on nutcan, I was just venting about the nation in general.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/09/2006 @ 11:54:53 PM
Also I can agree with people and hate their argument. I'm against the war, that doesn't mean I like hippies. I'm pro-choice but the "it's my body" argument is so void of rational thought it makes me madder than a Yak in heat.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 11/10/2006 @ 12:02:53 AM
I'll preface this by saying that I'm against legalizing gay marriage on a religious basis. In any complex social situation there is hardly ever a cut and dry answer. But some things that I would bring up would be: Why should we change the law to allow it? Precedent seems to be a big part of law so what is the catalyst for making a change? I know Jeremy hates the slippery-slope argument in general, but doesn't it apply here? Wouldn't this make it easier for more people to have "fake" marriages for the legal benefits? And before you jump on that... Just because marriage has become seemingly meaningless to an increasing number of people doesn't mean that the solution is to further degrade it. If enough people still value marriage they should try to change society's views to get people to value it again, not just give up and say okay anyone can be married.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 11/10/2006 @ 12:25:37 AM
We would change the law to allow it for the same reason we change the law to allow interracial marriage. Precedent or not, wrong is wrong. I would say two gay guys marrying two gay women in a loveless "win-win" compromise and then carrying on with their lives without their spouses is more "fake" than two guys who have lived together for 20 years wanting those same benefits. As for your last point, the very concept of applying "meaning" or "value" to marriage is religious. As far as the law should be concerned it means two people can file taxes jointly, share benefits, be benefactors to one another, and so on. Anything beyond a change in how paperwork is filed is more likely than not a religious thought that shouldn't have any place in the law books.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 11/10/2006 12:26:09 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 12:45:15 AM
Here's another question/thought regarding children and marriage: You could make the case that children are a plague (black plague) on the institution of marriage, rather than a plus. Everyone knows many couples who only got married because a baby got involved. Many of these marriages fail. (Also, many happy marriages get derailed when children come along.) In other words one could argue it a boon to gay marriage that children CAN'T be involved accidentally. You know their intentions to each other are pure. If two straight people are involved in a shotgun wedding, or even if two people with a 4 year old get married, wouldn't you have to question how much of it is a commitment to one another and how much of it is outside influences?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 12:55:11 AM
I really thought I was gonna quit, but this will be it for tonight. I once heard it said/implied that one of the primary reasons that the government "promotes" marriage by giving it legal recognition is BECAUSE of reproduction. Since men and women getting together and staying together creates kids and families and that's good for society. If that's true, and I don't know if it is, you can look it up maybe, then the children are actually part of the desired effect. But hey, that was just something I heard once.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this at 11/10/2006 12:56:49 am

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 11/10/2006 @ 01:01:59 AM
How constitutional would a law requiring people to have to prove they can be good parents be? A more few trips to walmart and I think I could get behind something like that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 08:36:25 AM
I would have voted against the $1 million for someone who votes referrendum. Here's an interesting thing related to Jeremy's basic argument: I voted AGAINST the death penalty based on RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, which is probably the opposite of what most who voted for it did. So you see, even basing things on religion can lead to different outcomes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 11/10/2006 @ 08:44:39 AM
One more about marriage: You can't judge marital traditions by those that suck at it. Just because Brittany Spears was married for like 3 months, and just because lots of people get married simply because the girl got pregnant, and just because 2 drunk people can get married in Vegas and wake up and not remember it the next day does not mean that marriage has lost meaning. Just because people abuse something does not make the entire establishment a sham. People have been abusing the Bible for centuries (slavery, crusades, etc.) And I agree with Alex in saying that just because marriage has become seemingly meaningless to an increasing number of people doesn't mean that the solution is to further degrade it. In fact, a solution might indeed be to limit marriage even more. Don't allow people to get married in Vegas. Mandate that couples go through marriage seminars and training courses before they get married. My wife and I went through pre-marriage counseling as well as a 2 day marriage seminar before we got married, and I'll tell you what, I don't know how people can survive without even a little guidance like that. Maybe the solution to marriage problems is for the government to get MORE involved. If the institution of marriage is that important to the country (and I think it is), then the government should invest some resources into helping marriages last.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 08:44:43 AM
But you can argue the death penalty on both sides via religious arguments. "Thou Shalt not kill" vs "an Eye for and Eye," there isn't really anything analogous for gay marriage. Unless you take "Judge not, lest ye be judged" to apply. I know that there are of course a million different reasons people voted the way they did, and I didn't say ALL Christians voted one way or another. I'm just sick and tired of people trying to kid themselves that it isn't the reason Gay Marriage is being denied.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 09:00:04 AM
Again that's exactly the point. There isn't anything to "degrade" in the eyes of the state, it's simply a paperwork change. Sarah and I had to attend a 2 day seminar and what not too. We had to jump through lots of hoops to get married in the Catholic church. That is fully in the Catholic church's discretion, they can set all the rules they want, and should forever more get to. I would be against any law, in the event gay marriage was allowed, that stated churches had to preform that ceremony. I'm with you on the Vegas thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Bring me the finest muffins and bagels in all the land. 11/10/2006 @ 09:07:00 AM
Can anyone give me a non-religious reason for opposing stem cell research? As far as defense of marriage not being changed because it is a precedent, it was signed by Clinton in 1996 after being rammed through congress with a veto-proof majority. That is hardly much of a precedent. Why should we change a law to allow people to do something? Why don't you ask you mom, or your sister, or your black cousin, or your mexican housekeeper. And as far as degrading marriage, go read some George Wallace speeches from the 60's and see what he has to say about the degredation of society once we allow civil rights to black people. And before you get all uppity and say civil rights was much more important (it was), and recognizing that there are some major differences there (black people already had these rights, but were being denied them. Gay people do not have the right to get married by law), you are still telling a group of people that they can't do something solely because on what they are, not what they believe or what they do. Show me other examples, and I am sure there are some, of people that are denied something like marrage because of something fundamental to them as a person, for reasons as trivial as the fact that marriage is sacred or suffer the children. And no you are not fundamentally a murderer, or a child molester. Those are choices. And no the white guy being denied the job becaue of affirmative action doesnt count either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Micah screwed with this 3 times, last at 11/10/2006 9:08:29 am

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 11/10/2006 @ 09:14:02 AM
Let's not burn though all our debate material now. :) Eventually I'm going to get off my a$$ and write the debate section.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Bring me the finest muffins and bagels in all the land. 11/10/2006 @ 09:14:12 AM
I'm also tired of people saying that its not prejudice just because the only gay people you see in the media are rich and white. Tell me how it degrades scoiety. Those studies about children with a mother and father compared them to children from single-parent homes. Every study done using gay couples as parents has proved that the children are just as successful as when they have traditional parents. It's still prejudice. But you should restrict marriage even more. Or better yet, you could let gay people get married, but they would only receive 3/5 of the tax benefits.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 11/10/2006 @ 09:27:29 AM
One key reason gay people want to be married is to be able to have the other person be their benefactor. Shouldn't this be a separate law change? Shouldn't you be able to pick who gets your life insurance money and what not anyway?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 11/10/2006 @ 10:54:09 AM
I don't think that a church must necesssarily perfrom the ceremony for it to be a valid marriage, but unless some goes throw a church, they probably aren't going to be motivated to go through the counseling and whatnot that a church provides and recommends. The state could/should require it, and provide the means for individuals not going through a church's program to go through a community run program.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 01:18:38 PM
How about this angle. Where did marriage come from? Hasn't it always been at least seeded in religious beliefs? As far as the benefactor thing, that does seem like something (to me anyway) that could be totally separate from marriage. If Americans (a possible majority of them at least) don't care about marriage anyway, then maybe the solution is to remove all legal benefits for married couples. I'm winging it here but I'm guessing the "point" of legalized marriage is to provide benefits to families basically so they can survive and raise children. Gay couples can't have children. And lots of people other than female-male legally married couples do end up raising someone elses children, so should we give special legal status to all of them too?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 11/10/2006 @ 01:25:39 PM
I'd imagine people with custody of other people's children DO get legal benefits from it. You wouldn't be giving Gay people "special legal status" you'd be giving them the same legal status everyone else has a right to. Right now us straight folk are the ones with the "special status" since we've decided to not include everyone.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 01:26:25 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't legal marriage in the US always been only between a man and a woman? That'd be 200 years of precedent. I'm not saying that laws should never change, but in my eyes gayism and racism are 2 differnt things. I suppose it depends on if you think gayness is nature or nuture. I've heard of people changing their sexual orientation but I've never heard of a black man changing into a caucasian.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 11/10/2006 @ 01:30:08 PM
When I said special legal status I just meant the benefits that a married couple receives, not that gays would be getting something different.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 01:31:24 PM
So wouldn't a gay person with custody of child receive legal benefits? What do they need to be married for then?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 01:37:01 PM
Because we're talking about different kinds of benefits?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 02:42:26 PM
I don't believe there was an official law defining marriage until the Defense of Marriage Act, so no, it isn't 200 years of precedence. But let me know if there was a law before this. I always thought marriage was seeded in love, not religious beliefs. I don't plan on getting married in a church, nor do I plan to have religion in any part of it. Does that make my marriage less valid than another. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a tax "penalty" for being married. Perhaps the resident accountant could weigh in here. A child tax credit is awarded regardless of marriage, and there are lots of gay people with kids. Does anyone actually believe anymore that being gay is a learned behavior?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 11/10/2006 @ 02:47:29 PM
I think the republicans recently did away with the marriage "penalty".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 11/10/2006 @ 03:30:40 PM
or they tried to do away with it. I think it might still being in the works.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 11/10/2006 @ 04:35:45 PM
Micah is right. You don't really get a benefit as far as the standard deduction, AMT exemption, etc etc goes, you do get penalized for being married, filing jointly. However, don't file married filing separately unless you have a very very good reason to do so. That'll only screw ya.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Sarah perfected this at 11/10/2006 4:37:25 pm

	Jon - 3375 Posts 11/10/2006 @ 07:34:15 PM
Micah, you wrote: "Can anyone give me a non-religious reason for opposing stem cell research?" I'll kind of be repeating some of my other thoughts here, but here goes. I'd assume if someone is against embryonic stem cell research (note the use of the word embryonic, because it's almost never used when it should be), they are against it because they feel it is ending a life. Being against ending a life IS a religious position but obviously also a position that society in general has agreed to follow. I don't think you need to go any further than that to see a non-religious argument. Certainly someone being against a practice they feel is ending an innocent life is equally valid no matter what their religious beliefs or if you classify such an argument as "religious" or "non-religious".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat! 11/11/2006 @ 07:27:31 AM
OK well then my next challenge is to find me a person who has that belief that actually stems (AHAHAHA) from society and not from religion. Or why they are against using embryos that are going to be discarded and destroyed in other processes anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - many posts 11/11/2006 @ 06:51:17 PM
Honestly I'm not sure if it'd be too difficult. Maybe so. Then again, it's one of those things that's tough to classify. I think you could probably go to a church or synagogue or similar place and find someone who is against it for what you might call "societal" reasons as well as what you might call "religious" reasons. There are shared values among the two institutions (church and state). I would be disheartened to think that just because a person also has a belief that God feels one way or another, that their view of that issue and its role in society would be simply labeled "religious" and deemed less than relevant. I'm not saying that that is or isn't what you are implying, I just thought I'd throw in a few thoughts on that.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.