How did we come to have a military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

Why does Castro permit a U.S. facility in his country?
Are we paying Cuba for the use?

http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/history.htm

We have a base in Cuba as a result of the Spanish-American War and a subsequent treaty. We pay approximately $4,000/yr rent (Hey, it's either an old lease or it's rent control). We send the check; Castro refuses to cash it.
  Yes, Castro hates it, Yes, it's a thorn in his side. No, he can't do a damn thing about it. We're gonna be there until hell freezes over; or, until Castro dies. At which point, we'll probably give it to the Cuban government a la the Panama Canal.

Just follow on to the below website. Probably more than you ever wanted to know about "Gitmo":

http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/history.htm

Thank you for the input....

  First sorry Raoul to divert from your topic, but I think an adequete answer has been posted to you question so Im cutting in.
I promised I wouldn't start a completely new topic so Im being rude and cutting into yours to start this topic.  

 I am very patient and openminded to talking about any issue with anyone no matter how much I disagree with the other side.  As you can tell from reading all my posts I don't affiliate myslef with any ideology or political party but there is one issue that is just driving me nuts.  
 Sorry, but this Gay marriage law in Mass and now SF is completely out of hand and non-sensical.  I can understand hate crimes legislation passed to protect gays and lesbians but to fully approve marriage is absolutely abhorrant.  Yes I know the modern day institution of marriage may not be successful, and there are many reasons for it but to legalize gay marriage is something I simply cannot see any justification for.  
 Am I the only one who feels this way??

And I just wanted to open it up for discussion. So, can you say why you feel that way?

To me, I just don't care whether they are married or not. There are plenty of things that are 'not my thing' but I don't care enough about it for it to matter.

Here's the thing:  What if I say "I don't know" ?  What does that mean?   What if I say that I don't know if I want "Susie has two mommies" to be taught in my kid's school?

*****
NOTE: I'M  N*O*T  SAYING THAT, I'M POSING A HYPOTHETICAL
*****

What if I don't know if I want marriage between two people of the same sex?   Maybe I think the whole institution of marriage is stupid [well THAT part IS true] except for the raising of children, and I actually SWALLOW a line of psycological research that says "yes, two loving parents is better than one loving parent, but two loving parents of the opposite sex is substantially better for the child's welfare" ?  What if I believe that?

What if, upon close examination of the issue, I see that the notion that the solution is simple, easy, painless and has no ramifications beyond the "obvious" is simplictic?

Does that make me sick, inhumane and simple minded?

What if I don't give a RATS ASS about "under God" in the pledge and think that the justices that decided that case should be tossed out on their ass for NOT telling the girl and her father "Life is tough, little Princess, and this is ONLY THE FIRST thing in your life that is going to offend your delicate little sensibilities.  What you need to do right here and now is learn to suck it up and focus on important things before your Daddy teaches you to be the kind of princess that thinks it's OK to sue a restaurant because the food was "uninspired"?"

What if it offends me that people who support gun owners rights are called "Lobbyists" while people who don't are called "Activists"?

Why is it that I think that anyone who DOES think that these problems are easy to fix, without complication or reach, and who think that anyone who disagrees is "sick, inhimane and simple minded" are themselves at bit . well .... yanno ......

  I was just about to write a post that was going to piss off a ton of people on this board and have decided not to post it.  As I started writing I realized I would wind up writing 20 pages and frankly its not worth it.  This is a topic which has such broad implications that it simply can't be seriously debated on a message board.  The implications are just so grave IMHO that I simply can't bring myself to start on this.  My beliefs on this issue are very strong and I see such grave consequences arising from this issue that I can't argue this on a board.  
  Sorry all for starting something more contorversial than politics.  Besides, Valentines day is not the right time to piss off many on the board with the things I want to say.

All the drivel you've been spouting off in this past week. A clear picture is forming in my mind as to how "openminded" you really are. More power to you!

What does Cuba have to do with gay marriage?

Since you posted and apparently want to stir again the political cesspool that this site has now become, which was formely known as "THE EROTIC REVIEW," go ahead.

I support gay marriage.

Netmichelle,
   As I said in my first post, I apologize for getting off topic and cutting into Raoul Duke's post.  I agreed earlier not to start a completely new string on a political topic.  Though you can say I did exactly that, even though its not a new string on top of the page.  Point well taken.  
   As for being a cesspool, I don't agree.  This is a "General Discussion" board.  It doesn't have to be about sex all the time every time all day every day. The political discussions started about a week ago and that has not impared anyone from posting the usual topics on this board.  There are some highly intelligent people on this board with various backgrounds and experiences and for the past week they have been giving input on politics which affects everyones lives.

Fag Bash Fever,
   I see exactly why you think I was about to spout off vile about gays and that is  not the case at all.  

  Let me explain in general what the logic was going to be.  No moral or religious judgements were going to be used as I am in no way qualified to make such judgements.  The whole structure was going to be one of actions and consequenses as it relates to the stability and movement of society as a whole.  However many of the examples I was going to use were probably going to piss a lot of people off so I left it at that and wish to leave it at that.
I would support, march with, stand by, and defend with passion community who seeks equal protection under the law from discrimination and hate, however I don't think you can equate disagreement of gay marriage as spouting off drivel.   I used the word sickening and I shouldn't have as it is offensive.

Not to be confrontational, but you're "sickeningly" homophobic.

If you bother to read your constitution, you'll see that this country has a separation of church and state, written in by our incredibly wise forefathers, *even though* they themselves were very religious (hence, all the In God We Trust and other phrases peppering our money, documents, etc., but that go totally counter to the idea of church and state). Thus, marriage is a civil contract, and all the things that gays, lesbians, etc. are fighting for are CIVIL rights: the right to pass property among spouses, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc.

So, for YOU to put your religion's baggage on that concept of marriage is incredibly presumptuous.

If marriage were ONLY a religious belief thing, I could fully understand the viewpoint that it is defined as a union of a man and a woman. But it is NOT a religious thing, although, as religion is wont to do, it imposes its values onto marriage as part of its own code of beliefs and ethics. And who's to say YOUR religion's take on marriage is THE right one? Christians? Muslims? Mormons? Buddhists? Religions which allow bigamy? Which one? Our country says (or should say) None of the Above.

Therefore, all this handwringing among legislators is misguided from the beginning. Their personal religious/moral view of relationships is irrelevant. This is a social contract and social/civil rights we're talking about. Therefore, gays should have the right to enter into civil marriages; period.

Sorry for the lecture; but I have friends and acquaintances whose very lives hinge on this decision. I'm straight as the day is long, but I can't sit by and listen to people make judgments about things that define the core of people's day to day life, based on their view of morality and religion which is irrelevant to everyone else.

This homophobic rot is part and parcel the same garbage that said that blacks were merely chattel, that women weren't intelligent enough to vote and be full members of society, etc., etc., etc.

You claim you are concerned about the "stability and movement of society as a whole" and for that reason you object strongly to gay marriage. Would that be a fair characterization of your stance? (I think your answer would be YES since it's almost exactly in your own words).

But if the "logic" of your argument is NOT moral or religious (as you clearly stated) why then use words like "sickening" and "abhorrant" (btw, the correct spelling is 'abhorrent')?  

No need to answer. Frankly, what I'd like to know most is how long will you be content playing second fiddle to Bribite and Megapig?

I have mixed feelings about gay marriage, but no where does this come close to what is happening in Iraq or in the poor quality of most public education in this country.  For someone who obviously uses escorts on a fairly regular basis, homophobes just do not belong on TER.  Granted many conservative men, like Newt and Livingston, have had extramarital affairs while dissing on divorce, etc., but your postings truly are off-topic and do not belong here.

Fag Bash Fever,

   NO, Im not backpedalling, its just a verey serious and topic that I feel simply cannot be discussed fairly and sincerely on any board, regardless of the point of view of the individuals involved.  
   If you have read the my many posts, you may find some of them "abhorrent"  however, I don't play second fiddle to Bribite or Megapig.  We agree on many issues and disagree equally on many others.  I have posted througout when I disagree with them.  But that is not the issue here.  
   You are free to ascertain whatever you like from what I have said however, to me the topic simply is not a matter of agree or disagree arguments based on personal beliefs.

Trek,
 
   Which is why I have decided not to post any further on the topic.  BTW I don't use escorts, and never have.  At one point  I really wanted to live out my fantasy of meeting an escort and hence I stumbled upon this site and boards.  I decided not to for various reasons and do not disrespect people who do see escorts.
   I don't frame arguments in the context of relative hypocrisy a la men like Newt and Livingston whose moral self-righteousness was undercut by their own behavior.  That doesn't diminish the merit of an argument on marital infedility, however it is weakened when men such as Newt and Livingston make that case.  
   I'm a logical person, so if you can define "General discussion" first for me then I will accept that I am way off topic.  And if you can't define the term "general topic" with inclusive or exclisive parameters, which I don't think anyone can then Im not way off topic.  Unnecessary on this board, yes I can give you that!!

Just what we need, more hate crime legislation. These types of laws are nonsensical pablum at best, an opening of the door to the thought police at worst. (Of course, that would be the liberal, politically correct thought police, as opposed to the religious-conservative thought police.)

There is no hate crime legislation in Texes. Two of the bigots who dragged James Byrd (black man) behind that pickup-up truck were sentenced to death, the third is serving life. How exactly would a hate crimes law have enhanced their punishment - or deterred their crime?

Both of the killers of Matthew Shepherd (gay man) in Wyoming are serving two consecutive life sentences - again, no hate crimes law involved. Had Wyoming had one - what then? Three consecutive life sentences? Yeah, that would have deterred them, for sure.

While these laws are race/gender/religion neutral on their face,
they are invariably selectively applied. The number of hate crime prosecutions in cases of black-on-white violence where the attacker was motivated by a racial animus can be counted on one hand. If a Muslim attacks a Jew on the streets of New York, and a Jew attacks a Muslim in a separate incident blocks away, which perp do you think is going to be prosecuted for a hate crime? (Hint: the correct answer is not - both.)

These laws lead to the absurd situation where a bigot who stabs a Jewish lesbian because he hates Jews while shouting "I'm going to kill you, you kike" had better be careful to enunciate very clearly, lest he be misheard as saying "I'm going to kill you, you dyke." Then he'd be in real trouble - gays are a protected class, Jews are not.

as I simply replied whenI saw your post.
Sorry Raoul..hope you got the answers you needed, while the thread took off in a new direction.

Honestly, I naively didn't even think the topic would ruffle feathers enough to 'piss people off'.

I just wanted to know what the big deal was, and why so many emails petitioning against it. Who cares, or 'why' care?
I was looking for literal answers.
Sure, I can understand where people would say it's because it goes against God's wishes. That's obvious for those brought up that way, or not, but in the Secular world, in a world that's already 'accepted' Gays, why still the fuss?

Megapig brought up benefits. I understand that, too but benefits are a whole different deal, as we all know, yet he mentioned the correlation. Good one.

But, it's more than that. So, what is it? I was hoping Loarthan would say what he thought as he was what lead me to my Steer Me Clear post.

Or, if naively, I didn't realize that it would be an 'ugliness', then we'll let it go. We don't need any of that...

That's a serious question. What does it matter if two people of the same sex marry each other?

It is NOT against the law to hate someone or a group of people.  However, it is illegal to take action on those feelings and harm someone.

Hyabby is correct when he says it is the start of the "thought police".  Who cares why you killed someone, just prosecute the crime.  Good luck proving what someone's thoughts were at the time of the crime.

To me, when there is love, it has no boundaries. I should know, first hand, for I had dated a beautiful woman, some years ago. Although, things didn't work out (she wanted me to move to NY with her, and I chose to stay in Boston), I still think about her from time to time. Anyways, when you love someone, nothing should ever stand in the way of that. Anyways, just my 0.02 cents..

Mel

  You would see that I never tried to make this a moral or religious argument.  I stated twice that I would not make this a religious or moral argument, because Im not qualified in any way shape or form to pass such judgements.  Next time read the posts more carefully.  Find me one place where I mentioned that I believe this is the case because of my personal faith or moral code and if you do I will send you a $1.  And if you don't then its ok you don't have to send me a $1.  Just want you to read the posts carefully before you assume the premise of another person's arguments.  
  Disagreeing with an act or decision is not the same as making a judgement either, its merely disagreeing.  You feel strongly for and I against.  You are not a liberal commie gay lover damned to hell because you approve of gay marriage and Im not "homophobic" for being against gay marriage.  One doesn't have to be religious to be against it and one doesn't have to be liberal to be for it.  With every issue there are layers of understanding which influence an intellectual belief or conviction where religion or morality do not have to play part.  
Maybe its just not as simple as if you are against it you are a homophobe, or if you are for it then you are an immoral liberal commie.  Neither argument respects the complexity of human understanding.  

My brother in law is gay.

He has been in a committed relationship with his partner for 5 years. They as a "couple" have been through their share of their ups and downs, and in my mind they are as good as married.
I would also be in favor of something that sounds a bit more permanent, than "a union"

I'm tired of marriage being referred to as sacred. It's just a legal arrangement memorialized by a piece of paper. But then again, I'm not much of a churchgoer....

OK, then if you're NOT religious, why does the idea of two men or two women marrying "make you sick"??? It's that very phrase you used that set me off.

You don't have to sleep with either of them. What they do in their bedroom is none of your business (or mine for that matter). And what you think of how they interact is as much a "choice" of theirs as what you ask for from your provider. Finally, science has yet to prove that their so-called "lifestyle choice" isn't as natural to them as it was to you when you first noticed that looking at certain girls made you "stir" down below. Not that they haven't tried, either...

Who are you to make value judgments on homosexuals, when it affects you not a whit?

And then, going further, who are you to deny them the civil rights that are so vital to the quality of their life from the time they get together to the time they die?

Finally, if you say you're not religious, and that's not swaying your opinion, then what's your defense of it being so "sickening"?

These people who harp on how "sacred and holy" marriage is conveniently forget that over half of these "real" church-sactioned, heterosexual marriages end in divorce, when, especially by religious standards, they're supposed to be "til death do us part". The hypocrisy here is also "sickening".

If you want to talk "sickening", it sickens me that people can't see this as a human issue rather than a "sexual" one.

Sorry about hijacking your post Raoul. Ohhhhhhh, it has already been hijacked?  Can we get this forum back to basics and stop the political B****t?

But mostly it is about the money.  Gay people suffer from serious financial disadvantages vs Hetros in their relationships.  If you want to put them on equal footing and call their unions something else, it's OK with me.  If you don't, you are treating some people as second class citizens because of their sexuality.  That isn't fair.

I suport Gay Marriages...Harry

You post on this board. You have never acquired an escort. You say you are not a member of law enforcement.

I'll take a bit of a stretch here, I am assuming you are not gay, nor do you have a family member or close friend who is. You jump into a thread, and switch the conversation to a topic of which you have no direct knowledge of, yet feel passionate about and refuse to explain your reasoning, as it would be too long. You post in capitals to get more attention.

Please, if you enjoy discussion boards pick another forum. You are being offensive, and unreasonable. It's Valentine's Day. Behavior such as this makes me question why I check these boards. One day you will be scratching your head, with the recognition that as you shout from atop your milk crate that nobody is caring to listen.

Hey.....Visit a provider and post a review. That is what people do here. Get some respect. Think before you post.

Stilltryin25,

Why don't you post that as a new thread? I think we can talk about that..

I'd love to see Megapig's comments on that one! LOL!

you too might see a pattern of word usage (perhaps subconcious) that is disturbing. Being concerned with the long-term well-being of society one might then describe a threat to that stability with words like dangerous, regretable, irreversible or even catastrophic, neither of which conveys a moral or religious judgement. But words like abhorrent and sickening clearly have different connotations in this context (especially in all-caps).

Evidently he now thinks that being called a "homophobe" is as equally unwarranted as him calling you an "immoral liberal commie gay lover damned to hell!"

Another post which confuses belittlement (i.e., "homophobic," meaning "fear of homosexuals") with political argument.

You might want to try reading the Constitution (that's with a capital "C"), since it doesn't use the phrase "separation of church and state."  It instead prohibits an "establishment" of a religion, and guarantees the "free exercise thereof."  That separationist BS is from Jefferson, who wasn't even in the country when the Constitution was drafted (he was chasing tail in France).

As for your so-called "civil rights," homos could achieve those things simply by contract, something that the Lavender Lobby scrupulously ignores.

And actually, our country decided a long time ago --- when it came time to consider whether Utah would become a State --- whether non-traditional definitions of marriage would be tolerated.  The answer was and is "No."

And finally, gays have the same right to marry as anyone else.  Every one of them is free to marry a member of the opposite sex.  Whatever their perverse relationships among one another, and their legality, they ain't "marriage."