View Full Version : Obama Backs Gay Marriage
He KNOWs he's one and done...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/
President Obama has endorsed same-sex marriages, using a TV interview to make his position clear after days of questions about where he stands.
"At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told ABC News.
ORIGINAL STORY ...
President Obama is expected to discuss his position on same-sex marriage during a hastily arranged interview at the White House Wednesday afternoon, a source close to the president told Fox News.
The source, who is a Democratic adviser outside the White House, said Obama during this interview is likely to go further than he has in the past on the controversial topic.
"He'll make some news," the source said. "He's not just going to talk about old ground ... and will not be rehashing" his old position.
Whether that means Obama will endorse gay marriage, or offer a more nuanced position, is unclear.
Obama in the past has said he is "evolving" on the matter, stopping short of endorsing the unions.
But statements in recent days supportive of gay marriage by both Vice President Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have put pressure on Obama to make his personal view crystal clear. Drawing more attention to the issue, voters in North Carolina on Tuesday approved a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The Obama interview is being conducted by ABC News.
Two other sources said it's possible Obama may stop short again of an actual endorsement of same-sex marriages.
Fox News' Ed Henry contributed to this report.
Snip
Well, lets hope that it helps him lose NC in the election...amongst other states..
He held as long as he could on this issue but the writing is on the wall for him. I like the sound of one and done!
If we didn't repeal DADT I really wouldn't care who marries who.
But the two issues have been tied together with heavy chains by both sides of the agenda.
I'd say reinstate DADT and let non-military folks marry whoever they want.
Well, he lost my vote :rolleyes: :D
craigepo
05-09-2012, 17:12
Interesting article attached, arguing that some muslims are alright with this, as it makes their arguments for polygamy easier.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296493/polygamy-too-david-j-rusin
Interesting article attached, arguing that some muslims are alright with this, as it makes their arguments for polygamy easier.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296493/polygamy-too-david-j-rusin
...but not OK with most blacks:
http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/09/will-black-voters-punish-obama-for-his-support-of-gay-rights/?iid=op-main-lede#ixzz1uPIoKREm
What's next? Endorsing marriage with one's pet? Celebrating a wedding between a man and his corvette? C'mon now, let us be serious... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Everything about this man is disingenuous. As with most things that this President does, the timing of this announcement is suspect. I strongly believe that because of Biden's comments this past weekend, the Pres. and his staff felt that he would be quizzed endlessly tomorrow night at the mega-fundraiser that good ol' George Clooney is throwing at his pad for him to the tune of $14-16 million. I'm certain that the Hollywood liberal-elite will congratulate him and throw even more money his way because of what he said today.
‘On My Behalf’
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-behalf_644310.html
"............“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”................"
Read the above slowly. Other than troops fighting on his behalf notice how gay marriage gets tied to the military and DADT.
KimuraFTW
05-09-2012, 20:55
What's next? Endorsing marriage with one's pet? Celebrating a wedding between a man and his corvette? C'mon now, let us be serious... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Well, since this would basically be redefining the concept of marriage, I actually can't imagine those things being too far off... :eek:
Everything about this man is disingenuous. As with most things that this President does, the timing of this announcement is suspect. I strongly believe that because of Biden's comments this past weekend, the Pres. and his staff felt that he would be quizzed endlessly tomorrow night at the mega-fundraiser that good ol' George Clooney is throwing at his pad for him to the tune of $14-16 million. I'm certain that the Hollywood liberal-elite will congratulate him and throw even more money his way because of what he said today.
Close. Definately the timing of the announcement is a political calculation. This is a despiration move.
Luger (the Democrat's Republican in the Senate) got crushed in the Indiana Repub primary. The Wisconsin gubernatorial primary had a 90something percent turnout for a Repub governor who should be very unpopular after taking on the unions..right? And, who's to forget the WV Demo primary where O-No got what, 59% vs. a felon in prison in Texas?
dadof18x'er
05-09-2012, 23:36
Close. Definately the timing of the announcement is a political calculation. This is a despiration move.
Luger (the Democrat's Republican in the Senate) got crushed in the Indiana Repub primary. The Wisconsin gubernatorial primary had a 90something percent turnout for a Repub governor who should be very unpopular after taking on the unions..right? And, who's to forget the WV Demo primary where O-No got what, 59% vs. a felon in prison in Texas?
wouldn't it be fitting if this gay marriage flap was started by of all people Biden?
it'll be one for the gaffe hall of fame :eek::D
wouldn't it be fitting if this gay marriage flap was started by of all people Biden?
it'll be one for the gaffe hall of fame :eek::D
A gay marriage political crisis, not ‘evolution’
By Ed Rogers
There is a lot of fawning media coverage of President Obama's new support for gay marriage. There is serious discussion of how he "evolved," and there are serious timelines being prepared by the Obama apologencia that earnestly track his "evolution." The only problem is they don't put "evolution" in quotation marks to highlight the cynical doubts that Obama's conversion deserves. There is every reason to believe that this decision was made because Obama thinks it serves his current selfish political interests. He characterizes his politically expedient flip-flop as a theological "evolution." The reality is, his political trajectory has stalled and he "evolved" into a desperate political situation.
The path to his final "evolution" and telling the truth about how he really feels about gay marriage don’t 't just reveal his changed thinking, it perfectly matches his political needs at every step of his ambitious career. Let's pause before we do any planning for an expansion to the eventual Obama monument on the Mall.
Reality check: Obama manipulated gay voters, kept them at a distance and hoped they would settle for the occasional wink and a nod. But he has found himself in a campaign with dwindling enthusiasm and a narrowing electoral map; he needs this group's enthusiastic support and high turnout in November.
Even so, it took Vice President Biden's moment of honesty to force the president's hand. Obama did this because he needed to, not because he wanted to.
Even so, it took Vice President Biden's moment of honesty to force the president's hand.
Maybe OBL was right about Biden..."take a bow Chuck..."
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
If one is a terrorist - why try and shut up such a high level idiot. Take a bow Joe.
Maybe OBL was right about Biden..."take a bow Chuck..."
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
If one is a terrorist - why try and shut up such a high level idiot. Take a bow Joe.
lol Smokin' Joe's been a continuous wellspring of levity during this term. I actually like the guy. He's one of the best Dems the Republicans have in their lineup. :D
What's next? Endorsing marriage with one's pet? Celebrating a wedding between a man and his corvette? C'mon now, let us be serious... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Three good reason's I'd like to be able to marry my rifle:
1. I don't mind another man using my rifle.
2. I can put a silencer on my rifle.
3. I'll have no problem trading my old 44 in for a new 22.
Three good reason's I'd like to be able to marry my rifle:
1. I don't mind another man using my rifle.
2. I can put a silencer on my rifle.
3. I'll have no problem trading my old 44 in for a new 22.
A rifle doesn't mind if you go to sleep right after you use it.
Three good reason's I'd like to be able to marry my rifle:
1. I don't mind another man using my rifle.
2. I can put a silencer on my rifle.
3. I'll have no problem trading my old 44 in for a new 22.
All we need now is a lobbyist, a Super PAC, victim mentality and a blog... :D
Red Flag 1
05-10-2012, 14:57
lol Smokin' Joe's been a continuous wellspring of levity during this term. I actually like the guy. He's one of the best Dems the Republicans have in their lineup. :D
...and obama gives Joe a pass..http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/10/obama-yeah-weve-been-fibbing-about-my-position-on-same-sex-marriage-for-a-while-now-or-something/ even if he is "out over his skis". And this from 2004, http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/09/2004-video-obama-on-why-he-opposes-gay-marriage/. I'd have to say he is consistent here.
RF 1
There is a difference though between two consenting adults wanting to marry versus an adult human and an animal, child, or inanimate object.
To most of us.
Snaquebite
05-10-2012, 17:43
I have to agree with this...
Little happens by accident in the Obama White House, or the Obama reelection campaign for that matter -- if there even is a difference between the two. And the dramatic decision by the president to come out Wednesday in support of same-sex marriage is no exception. Contrary to what many in the news media would have us believe, the decision was carefully planned and timed.
One thing it was not: It was not the forced result of public pressure coming from others in his administration, starting with Vice President Biden. Biden, who said Sunday on NBC’s "Meet the Press" that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage, was merely playing the role of John the Baptist, preparing the way for Obama’s coming.
more here...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/10/how-president-obama-played-press-perfectly-on-gay-marriage-announcement/
Clear as the sun that it's a political move. If I were gay though, I'd be offended by the timing. He's had 3 + years to endorse gay marriage, and now he wants to go public with it? I'd say thanks, but no thanks.
From his MoveOn base on this position:
President Barack Obama made history yesterday by coming out in support of full marriage equality for all couples, no matter who they love.
This never would have happened without the progressive community pushing the president to fully "evolve" on this issue, and the tireless work of MoveOn members across the country for marriage equality.
But President Obama is already feeling the heat for taking this stand in an election year. Fox Nation accused him of declaring a "War on Marriage," and Republicans are jumping on this, hoping that intolerance helps win them the election.
The president's support of full marriage equality is something to be celebrated, and frankly, rewarded. We have pushed the president to lead on many issues, marriage equality among them. The best way to encourage the president to keep showing leadership and taking strong stands is to demonstrate how much his actions mean to you.
Will you chip in to our special "thank you" donation page for President Obama's re-election campaign? Your donation will go straight to the campaign, but we'll make sure they know every cent comes from progressives like you, specifically because of his support for marriage equality.
We still have a lot of work to do on marriage equality—just days ago, an amendment banning same-sex unions passed in North Carolina, and a bill in support of civil unions failed in Colorado. But this stance by the president is of huge symbolic importance. May we never again have a president who opposes fundamental equality for all Americans.
On a personal note, I can't tell you how deeply meaningful President Obama's statement was to me. With my own big gay wedding only 24 days away, it's incredibly uplifting to know that President Obama supports my right to marry the love of my life. That's why for the first time since 2008, I pulled out my credit card and donated to his re-election. I hope you will join me.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I guess if Obama wins in November, we'll know for sure just how gay the Country's become.
I think he pulled in 15M at Clooney's house last night.
dadof18x'er
05-11-2012, 08:07
I think he pulled in 15M at Clooney's house last night.
he's going to need it if this poll is an indicator....... http://drudgereport.com/
I think he pulled in 15M at Clooney's house last night.
Just enough for Michelle's Colombia vacation...
Red Flag 1
05-11-2012, 08:53
I think he pulled in 15M at Clooney's house last night.
Wonder if those same folks would be willing to part with the same amount to reduce our growing debt?
RF 1
Wonder if those same folks would be willing to part with the same amount to reduce our growing debt?
RF 1
The only debt Hollywood gives a flying f.ck about is Africa's.
I think this sign pretty well nails it.
:munchin
I think this sign pretty well nails it.
:munchin
Yeah, that sign says it all, if you're a lib who believes in gay marriage.
Yeah, that sign says it all, if you're a lib who believes in gay marriage.
What if you are a conservative who does not like the idea of the government sticking its nose into private citizen's lives? Personally, I think it is hypocritical for the party of small government to keep trying to regulate individuals freedom of marriage. Just because homosexuality disgusts me, does not mean we should deny them the right to legally marry the person they want to. It does not effect me if two gays get legally married. No church is being forced to provide same-sex marriages.
I guess if Obama wins in November, we'll know for sure just how gay the Country's become.
I wonder how many fiscally conservative gays will stay at home come November, or vote for Obama, because of many Republican's stance on the issue.
What if you are a conservative who does not like the idea of the government sticking its nose into private citizens lives? Personally, I think it is hypocritical for the party of small government to keep trying to regulate individuals freedom of marriage. Just because homosexuality disgusts me, does not mean we should deny them the right to legally marry the person they want to. It does not effect me if two gays get legally married. No church is being forced to provide same-sex marriages.
I wonder how many fiscally conservative gays will stay at home come November, or vote for Obama, because of many Republican's stance on the issue.
I am a conservative who does not like the idea of the government sticking its nose into private citizen(')s lives. Personally, I think marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.
I wonder how many fiscally conservative gays there are, period. I personally don't give a flying f.ck what gays think, anyway.
I am a conservative who does not like the idea of the government sticking its nose into private citizen(')s lives. Personally, I think marriage is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.
I wonder how many fiscally conservative gays there are, period. I personally don't give a flying f.ck what gays think, anyway.
Wasn't it against the law for "colored people" to use "white restrooms" or ride in the front of the bus? Did you support those laws?
Wasn't it against the law for "colored people" to use "white restrooms" or ride in the front of the bus? Did you support those laws?
I wasn't old enough to have an opinion on that issue, but apparently the majority of people in the Country supported them, or they wouldn't have been in place at that time. I never had a problem with blacks getting married, anyway.
Never heard of any black guys who want to marry another black guy, come to think of it.
This is about homosexuals, not blacks.
Nobody can make me accept that it's OK for men to f.ck each other, dude-sorry 'bout that shit.
Seems to be allright for liberals, though.
I wasn't old enough to have an opinion on that issue, but apparently the majority of people in the Country supported them, or they wouldn't have been in place at that time. Could the majority of all people in your county vote when such legislation was passed?This is about homosexuals, not blacks.MOO, it is about the equal application of the law to all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, political views, gender identity, or sexual orientation. If we're going to say it is a "homosexual" issue and then allow our personal views of gays and lesbians to determine how we apply the law, then we're taking a big step back towards the sensibilities of nineteenth century America.
My $0.02.
If we're going to say it is a "homosexual" issue and then allow our personal views of gays and lesbians to determine how we apply the law, then we're taking a big step back towards the sensibilities of nineteenth century America.
My $0.02.
Apart from (obviously) bigotry based on skin color, what was wrong with the sensibilities of nineteenth-century America?
It took 'til '92 or so for even DADT to kick in. As far as I know, it's against regulation for same-sex marriages on base, still. If it's wrong to marry on base, why is it OK to marry off-base?
Where does it stop? NAMBLA's members like to f.ck little boys; isn't that illegal? Nineteenth-century sensibility, right? Some guys like to f.ck animals; how long before somebody says, "Oh, don't diss him for fucking wombats just because you have nineteenth-century sensibilities, Dusty."
F.ck! Before long, it'll be allright to sit down and eat a plate full of shit in public.
TXGringo
05-11-2012, 15:50
If we're going to say it is a "homosexual" issue and then allow our personal views of gays and lesbians to determine how we apply the law, then we're taking a big step back towards the sensibilities of nineteenth century America.
My $0.02.
Seems odd that such an important issue, the equal application of the law to all Americans, sat on the back burner for 3 and half years...
Makes me wonder if this isn't about rights so much as...
I'm just kidding, it makes me laugh my ass off.
"Clear as the sun that it's a political move. If I were gay though, I'd be offended by the timing. He's had 3 + years to endorse gay marriage, and now he wants to go public with it? I'd say thanks, but no thanks." -Sierra Lima
That's because you can think.
Women should feel the same way about The Life of Julia.
Blacks should feel the same way about "my son would look like Trayvon." What about the thousands of victims of black-on-black crime every year?
The guy is a snake. I wonder how many underwater mortgages or student loans he could pay off with $15 million.
Apart from (obviously) bigotry based on skin color, what was wrong with the sensibilities of nineteenth-century America?
YGBSM - it wasn't just based on skin color - and then there were the repeatedly stifling economic issues; government scandals at all levels; nearly unregulated banking and industrial manipulation of the monetary and labor markets; major food and health issues; erratic enforcement of the Constitution and the legal system; openly political cronyism, fraud, and disenfranchisement; and so forth.
In the period between the Civil War and the end of the nineteenth century the US became a great industrial power. Steam and electricity replaced human muscle, iron replaced wood, and steel replaced iron. Machines could drive steel tools and change the nature of farming. Oil could lubricate machines and light homes, streets, and factories. People and goods could moe by railroad, propelled by steam along steel rails.
All of this industrial progress had an enormous human cost. In the year 1889, for example, 22,000 railroad workers were killed or injured according to the records of the ICC. Thousands of others died or were crippled in the mines, the steel mills, the textile mills. Workers were often forced to live in so-called "company towns" as virtual slaves to the companies they worked for.
Waves of immigrants were pouring into the cities from Europe, after suffering the harrowing ocean voyage of the poor. They worked on the railroads, in the garment factories, in the mines, long hours at puny wages. Their families were crowded into city slums.
The record shows people rebelled against these conditions. Farmers like my relatives formed Granges, then the People's Party of the late nineteenth century Populist Movement during one of the worst periods of economic depression this country has endured. Workers went on strike for the eight-hour day. Radicalism grew. Anarchism and socialism took root. Millions of people began to imagine that there might be a different kind of society, a different way of sharing the wealth of the nation, their ideas often put into words by writers like Henry George (The Crime of Poverty, 1885) and Edward Bellamy.
You should read some History. Warning: It's pretty disheartening at times and 9 times out of 10 runs contrary to the 'narrative' we grew up parroting in school.
Personally, I have come to find it a bit less disturbing to study nineteenth century America when it has a Samuel Clemens tone to the narrative.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Apart from (obviously) bigotry based on skin color, what was wrong with the sensibilities of nineteenth-century America?In addition to a political culture that was increasingly poisoned by widely held notions of white supremacy, nineteenth century America was also notorious for
conservative jurists legislating from the bench,
the ongoing subjugation of women (politically, legally, economically, socially, and culturally),
the acceptance of violence as a legitimate element of everyday life,
the unequal application of the law at the federal, state, and municipal levels,
a process of "Indian removal" that resulted in many of their deaths and the undermining of America's moral credibility,
a widespread belief that ethnic cleansing is a sustainable public policy,
the privileging of identity politics over the concept of nationalism,
a widespread contempt among Americans for professional soldiers,
a flawed concept of American seapower,
an increasingly anachronistic concept of land warfare,
an equally flawed view of grand strategy for which America would pay dearly in two world wars the following century,
an ongoing collaboration among self described proponents of "states' rights" to impose their ways of life upon all Americans,
paramilitary filibustering,
poorly managed urbanization,
the rise of party machine politics,
the impact of industrialization upon American craftsmen,
growing socio-economic stratification,
widespread violence among differing economic classes, and
people talking loudly and endlessly during artistic performances.
Also, there wasn't a single Starbucks to be found anywhere.
In addition [...], nineteenth century America was also notorious for
[...]
people talking loudly and endlessly during artistic performances.
Yet another skeleton in the closet of American history brought to light :D
Yeah, well liberals will champion the elimination of common decency until it's totally gone. Either you can see and understand that fact, or you are a liberal yourself.
It's been said that a man who doesn't have a problem with homosexuality more than likely is homosexual, as well.
YGBSM - it wasn't just based on skin color - and then there were the repeatedly stifling economic issues; government scandals at all levels; nearly unregulated banking and industrial manipulation of the monetary and labor markets; major food and health issues; erratic enforcement of the Constitution and the legal system; openly political cronyism, fraud, and disenfranchisement; and so forth.
In the period between the Civil War and the end of the nineteenth century the US became a great industrial power. Steam and electricity replaced human muscle, iron replaced wood, and steel replaced iron. Machines could drive steel tools and change the nature of farming. Oil could lubricate machines and light homes, streets, and factories. People and goods could moe by railroad, propelled by steam along steel rails.
All of this industrial progress had an enormous human cost. In the year 1889, for example, 22,000 railroad workers were killed or injured according to the records of the ICC. thousands of others died or were crippled in the mines, the steel mills, the textile mills. Workers were often forced to live in so-called "company towns" as virtual slaves to the
Waves of immigrants were pouring into the cities from Europe, after suffering the harrowing ocean voyage of the poor. They worked on the railroads, in the garment factories, in the mines, long hours at puny wages. Their families were crowded into city slums.
The record shows people rebelled against these conditions. Farmers like my relatives formed Granges, then the People's Party of the late nineteenth century Populist Movement during one of the worst periods of economic depression this country has endured. Workers went on strike for the eight-hour day. Radicalism grew. Anarchism and socialism took root. Millions of people began to imagine that there might be a different kind of society, a different way of sharing the wealth of the nation, their ideas often put into words by writers like Henry George (The Crime of Poverty, 1885) and Edward Bellamy.
You should read some History. Warning: It's pretty disheartening at times and 9 times out of 10 runs contrary to the 'narrative' we grew up parroting in school.
Personally, I have come to find it a bit less disturbing to study nineteenth century America when it has a Samuel Clemens tone to the narrative.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
You didn't answer any of my questions. By the way, I have read history. The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire comes to mind.
In addition to a political culture that was increasingly poisoned by widely held notions of white supremacy, nineteenth century America was also notorious for
conservative jurists legislating from the bench,
the ongoing subjugation of women (politically, legally, economically, socially, and culturally),
the acceptance of violence as a legitimate element of everyday life,
the unequal application of the law at the federal, state, and municipal levels,
a process of "Indian removal" that resulted in many of their deaths and the undermining of America's moral credibility,
a widespread belief that ethnic cleansing is a sustainable public policy,
the privileging of identity politics over the concept of nationalism,
a widespread contempt among Americans for professional soldiers,
a flawed concept of American seapower,
an increasingly anachronistic concept of land warfare,
an equally flawed view of grand strategy for which America would pay dearly in two world wars the following century,
an ongoing collaboration among self described proponents of "states' rights" to impose their ways of life upon all Americans,
paramilitary filibustering,
poorly managed urbanization,
the rise of party machine politics,
the impact of industrialization upon American craftsmen,
growing socio-economic stratification,
widespread violence among differing economic classes, and
people talking loudly and endlessly during artistic performances.
Also, there wasn't a single Starbucks to be found anywhere.
Answer the other questions, please. About where the decadence will stop...
GratefulCitizen
05-11-2012, 16:58
Not sure why it matters what the POTUS thinks about gay marriage.
Don't recall seeing in the Constitution where regulating marriage is a power of the federal government.
Not sure why it matters what the POTUS thinks about gay marriage.
Don't recall seeing in the Constitution where regulating marriage is a power of the federal government.
Why it matters? Cash and support from the kooks. He knows he can't regulate it.
Were you being facetious?
Where does it stop? NAMBLA's members like to f.ck little boys; isn't that illegal? Nineteenth-century sensibility, right? Some guys like to f.ck animals; how long before somebody says, "Oh, don't diss him for fucking wombats just because you have nineteenth-century sensibilities, Dusty."
The stoping point would be where legal consent is defined. In the states that do allow underage marriage, it is usually required to have the consent of both parrents, and often a court order.
Statutory rape is still statutory rape, beasteality is still beasteality. Both lack the consent of one party.
Answer the other questions, please. About where the decadence will stop...QP Dusty--
"Common decency" is a construct made by certain groups of Americans to serve their own best interests and often at the direct expense of other groups of Americans. IMO, the triumph of American exceptionalism is that, for the most part, we have succeeded at renegotiating the meaning of that construct without resorting to political violence or significant portions of Americans taking refuge in a mindset of self isolation and separation.
To be clear, acknowledging that "common decency" is a construct does not automatically entail an endorsement of moral relativism. Rather, the acknowledgement provides an opportunity to re-examine and to re-evaluate one's core values, to identify and to smooth out tensions among those values, to find better reasons to hold to those values, and let go of anachronistic reasoning and unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric.
IMO, there are too many Americans on the left and the right, who, in defense of "common decency," display an astonishing willingness to talk and to act indecently. If one wants to stop the decadence, I think confronting this dynamic within one's own behavior is a good place to start. Or, as a nation, we can keep pointing fingers and insisting that the other guys started it.
The difference though Sir is that children and animals aren't consenting adults. Sex with them by an adult human is something being forced onto them. And even if the child is willing, they are too dumb at that age to really know what they want or are. Two adult humans on the other hand, it's a choice on their part.
A bit different, but still related, but there is a woman who recently was honored for her massive contributions to the development of the modern microprocessor (Lynn Conway (http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/conway.html)). Thing is though, she is a transsexual person (used to be a man). She played a very pivotol role in the early development of the microprocessor, but then when she (he at the time) admitted to the company (IBM) that she was getting a sex change, she was promptly fired (this being the 1960s) and pretty much blacklisted (among family and friends too). She had the change, then restarted her life as a wholly new person, and went on to again become a huge star in computer engineering, this time as a woman. She only recently came out as a former man as she was finally outed, and because she had been terrified over what the reaction would be, as many such people have been ostracized, beaten, and even killed.
She had to live with one of her main inventions in microprocessors, which became widely used in modern microprocessors, being un-attributed to her for many years. Engineers thought the innovation had just been something that naturally had evolved, but then computer historians digging around eventually figured out it was her who had invented it.
But I mean here is a person who made massive contributions to our modern society, yet that many people would hate simply because of her sexual identity, who almost had her career and relationships destroyed, and who had to live in hiding for many years. As a society, you draw the line when someone's rights are being infringed upon (children's, animal's, adult's, etc...). But two consenting adults, gay, straight, transsexual, whatever, isn't infringing on anyone's rights. How can we call ourselves a free society that respects human rights if we will not accept LGBTs?
And to paraphrase your pink quote, no I am not a transsexual:cool:
Why can't homosexuals get married on a military base?
QP Dusty--
"Common decency" is a construct made by certain groups of Americans to serve their own best interests and often at the direct expense of other groups of Americans. IMO, the triumph of American exceptionalism is that, for the most part, we have succeeded at renegotiating the meaning of that construct without resorting to political violence or significant portions of Americans taking refuge in a mindset of self isolation and separation.
To be clear, acknowledging that "common decency" is a construct does not automatically entail an endorsement of moral relativism. Rather, the acknowledgement provides an opportunity to re-examine and to re-evaluate one's core values, to identify and to smooth out tensions among those values, to find better reasons to hold to those values, and let go of anachronistic reasoning and unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric.
IMO, there are too many Americans on the left and the right, who, in defense of "common decency," display an astonishing willingness to talk and to act indecently. If one wants to stop the decadence, I think confronting this dynamic within one's own behavior is a good place to start. Or, as a nation, we can keep pointing fingers and insisting that the other guys started it.
Why did the military kick out homosexuals until now?
The stoping point would be where legal consent is defined. In the states that do allow underage marriage, it is usually required to have the consent of both parrents, and often a court order.
Statutory rape is still statutory rape, beasteality is still beasteality. Both lack the consent of one party.
I see your point about legal consent, but where was the stopping point when homosexuality was illegal? Pedophilia and bestiality are considered abominable and are illegal at this juncture, but if you extrapolate the future from what has happened with homosexuality, it reasons that those two abominations will one day be legal, as well as others.
I don't know the exact reason, I am guessing because of DADT?
Wasn't DADT repealed?
Why did the military kick out homosexuals until now?Because the civilian leadership of the armed forces allowed the services to do so until a different constellation of civilian leadership decided to stop that practice.
Given the complexity of the issue and the debate surrounding it, I augur it will be some time before a consensus emerges that ranks the constellation of factors that motivated each supporter and opponent of the repeal. In the case of the American president, my guess that his motivation on this point was pretty much what it is on other issues: self-serving political opportunism.
Yes.
The question was rhetorical.
Soon, if things continue in a like manner, gays will be allowed to marry on base. My point is, morals are consistently being degraded by liberal politicians.
Because the civilian leadership of the armed forces allowed the services to do so until a different constellation of civilian leadership decided to stop that practice.
One example of the decay of morality perpetrated by liberal legislators.
It's OK to be homosexual in the Service now, right? I know I'm redundant here, but, if it's OK to be gay, why isn't it OK to get married on base?
Because it was wrong and it still is wrong, but liberal legislators haven't had time to effect that part of the transition in the Military.
Call me madcap, but I'll bet they crack down on the gay BS about like they did on the tattoos.
The Reaper
05-11-2012, 19:23
Why did the military kick out homosexuals until now?
Because having practicing homosexuals in a close knit unit was considered to be prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the unit.
Based on my 25 year plus of service, I consider that to be prudent, unless we cannot find adequate numbers of hetero recruits to meet our manpower requirements.
Clinton made it legal, as long as you minded your business and kept your orientation to yourself (or at least not to the chain of command). Camel's nose under the tent.
Now it is not only accepted, but it is encouraged.
I believe that if gay people can be trusted to sleep, shower, and live in barracks with straight people, then hetero soldiers should be able to enjoy the same level of trust with members of the opposite sex.
TR
GratefulCitizen
05-11-2012, 19:37
Why it matters? Cash and support from the kooks. He knows he can't regulate it.
Were you being facetious?
Not trying to be facetious.
Just don't think it helps to give him a bigger platform.
It would be more effective to be dismissive of the POTUS.
I am also against gay marriage.
It weakens the basic building block of society.
That being said, the law is a poor tool to address the problem.
Gay marriage is a symptom of a bigger problem, it is not the cause.
You didn't answer any of my questions.
:confused: And just what were the "sensibilites" of the nineteenth century American culture that behaved in the manner I summarized?
By the way, I have read history. The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire comes to mind.
In what way? :confused: Are you referring to Gibbons' thesis in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Criswell's in The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roman Empire, or to the many popular generic predictive comparisons between the rise and fall of imperial* Rome and their similarities to the yet-to-be-written history of non-imperial America?
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
* Corrected - Thanks, BS.
lol I'm just a straight, old-timey, honest FOG who evidently has become a dinosaur in my way of thinking about what's right and wrong and the difference between the two.
God help this Country and its Military.
TXGringo
05-11-2012, 21:33
What is immoral about being gay or gays marrying though?
The same thing that's immoral about injecting heroin between your toes or selling yourself sexually for money or drugs. Are we going to legalize those activities for all?
To the gay marriage proponents on this thread: Should we legalize hard drug use? Should we legalize prostitution?
ZonieDiver
05-11-2012, 21:36
I got married... once. As I recall it was held in a church, a Catholic church no less, with a real, live priest officiating over the ceremony which included readings from the Bible, sacramental wine which had been turned into the 'Body and Blood' of Christ, and the presence of none other than God. (It scared the crap out of me; white as a sheet I was.)
All of this caused me to form the opinion that this marriage thing was part of RELIGION. I don't think government should stick its nose into religious activities. Government should recognize contracts, and allow people to enter into such contracts - joining together as two companies might merge. (Later on, government can preside over the disolution of the merger/union - dividing assets, protecting those invested in the union's interests (children), etc. MARRIAGE should be left to religions, and they should decide who gets to take part as they so believe.
'Dogs and cats living together' is kind of a straw man, when the affairs of consenting adults is the issue under discussion. Abusing children would also not be germane to such a discussion.
Will problems arise? Yes. Will they eventually be dealt with reasonably? Yes. Will some people be unable to accept the new ways? Yes. That's how it goes sometimes.
As for military issues, there are sure to be many. They will be solved. That's what we do. Maybe a start would be to 'pay by the job' - pay a 'living wage' for each rank, regardless of whether or not they were married/'partnered'. (Yeah, I know, but it still bothers me... 'Evening detail time. Married men, fall out.') Lots of complex issues here, I know... but all able to be solved, methinks.
GratefulCitizen
05-11-2012, 22:12
lol I'm just a straight, old-timey, honest FOG who evidently has become a dinosaur in my way of thinking about what's right and wrong and the difference between the two.
God help this Country and its Military.
Exactly.
The perverse behaviors and direction of society is a consequence of Godlessness, not the cause.
The solution will not be found in laws.
All of this started when (heterosexual) marriage became a method of "fulfillment" and "enjoyment" rather than an obligation related to the bearing and raising of the next generation.
If it's just fulfillment and and enjoyment, it makes sense that homosexuals want equal status.
When children are viewed as a "lifestyle choice" rather than a blessing, they become disposable.
Over 54 million innocent humans - made in the image of God - slaughtered in the past 40 years primarily for "lifestyle".
This is all intimately related to socialism.
Economics matter.
Why have kids to support you in your old age if you can just rely on the labor of other people's kids (social security).
Why have a husband if the state will support you and your kids (welfare).
If children don't matter, it's all about the fun.
If it's all about the fun, anything which satisfies sexual urges can be justified.
In the end, this culture of death (gay marriage, abortion, and aversion to having children) will destroy itself because it doesn't result in procreation.
This is why they try to steal other people's kids through brainwashing in the media and the public school system.
I suspect that this nation will survive the current chaos, and two or three generations from now the errors will be eschewed.
Until then, we will reap what we have sown, and many in the boomer generation will pay a dear price in their old age.
Have faith, Dusty; and keep fighting the good fight.
:lifter
TXGringo
05-11-2012, 22:26
Exactly.
The perverse behaviors and direction of society is a consequence of Godlessness, not the cause.
The solution will not be found in laws.
All of this started when (heterosexual) marriage became a method of "fulfillment" and "enjoyment" rather than an obligation related to the bearing and raising of the next generation.
If it's just fulfillment and and enjoyment, it makes sense that homosexuals want equal status.
When children are viewed as a "lifestyle choice" rather than a blessing, they become disposable.
Over 54 million innocent humans - made in the image of God - slaughtered in the past 40 years primarily for "lifestyle".
This is all intimately related to socialism.
Economics matter.
Why have kids to support you in your old age if you can just rely on the labor of other people's kids (social security).
Why have a husband if the state will support you and your kids (welfare).
If children don't matter, it's all about the fun.
If it's all about the fun, anything which satisfies sexual urges can be justified.
In the end, this culture of death (gay marriage, abortion, and aversion to having children) will destroy itself because it doesn't result in procreation.
This is why they try to steal other people's kids through brainwashing in the media and the public school system.
I suspect that this nation will survive the current chaos, and two or three generations from now the errors will be eschewed.
Until then, we will reap what we have sown, and many in the boomer generation will pay a dear price in their old age.
Have faith, Dusty; and keep fighting the good fight.
:lifter
You alluded to this in a previous post, and I'm glad you elaborated on it. Couldn't agree more.
The same thing that's immoral about injecting heroin between your toes or selling yourself sexually for money or drugs. Are we going to legalize those activities for all?
To the gay marriage proponents on this thread: Should we legalize hard drug use? Should we legalize prostitution?TXGringo--
First, you are making apples and oranges comparisons of questionable utility. If you're going to equate legalizing gay marriage with legalizing heroin, it is your responsibility to establish that the comparison is valid. As of yet, you've not done your due diligence.
Second, you are seeking to impose your value system upon other Americans without offering a show of proof that your value system is sustainable.
Third, before you start insisting that members of this BB answer your questions, how about giving some thought to the possibility--as slight as it may be--that the discussion of gay marriage, as well as other controversial topics, on this BB predate your arrival here. That is, before asking rhetorical questions about legalized prostitution and the selling of drugs--also both topics of debate--why not use the search button (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/search.php) to learn more about other members, their experiences, their viewpoints, and how this topic has been debated in years past?
GratefulCitizen
05-11-2012, 22:38
Kids are supposed to support you in your old age? Isn't that kind of a selfish reason for having kids? :munchin
The behavior must be modeled.
Take care of your own parents/grandparents in their old age, and your kids are more likely to imitate.
You reap what you sow.
TXGringo
05-12-2012, 00:16
TXGringo--
First, you are making apples and oranges comparisons of questionable utility. If you're going to equate legalizing gay marriage with legalizing heroin, it is your responsibility to establish that the comparison is valid. As of yet, you've not done your due diligence.
Second, you are seeking to impose your value system upon other Americans without offering a show of proof that your value system is sustainable.
Third, before you start insisting that members of this BB answer your questions, how about giving some thought to the possibility--as slight as it may be--that the discussion of gay marriage, as well as other controversial topics, on this BB predate your arrival here. That is, before asking rhetorical questions about legalized prostitution and the selling of drugs--also both topics of debate--why not use the search button (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/search.php) to learn more about other members, their experiences, their viewpoints, and how this topic has been debated in years past?
First, the general consensus seems to be that gay marriage is an issue of adult consent. So is drug use. And prostitution. Therefore, they're congruous topics. I doubt anyone else had a hard time figuring that out, but if you want to nitpick, so be it. My point is that those activities are illegal for reasons that go beyond adult consent. I believe the same idea applies to gay marriage, at least in some states.
Second, I inquired whether the members in favor of gay marriage would apply their same reasoning to drug use or prostitution. Please explain how I "imposed" anything on anyone. With regards to sustainability, a man and woman have the ability to reproduce. Like GratefulCitizen pointed out, two men do not. Nor do two women. Therefore, I'd say my value system has sustained itself since, well, creation.
Thirdly, how exactly does one ask a rhetorical question and insist upon answers at the same time? :confused:
I didn't insist that just any member chime in. I was asking for answers from certain members who have opined on THIS thread. Experiences alter beliefs. Viewpoints change. I'm not asking about which damn boots to buy. I believe this is the first time a sitting President has openly supported gay marriage. I'm not interested in what the other members thought 3 years ago, I'm interested in what they think now.
In conclusion, and with all due respect, I believe your post accomplished jack-shit with regards to this thread. How about addressing my question? That wasn't rhetorical...
Entire post.On the contrary, my previous post accomplished its primary objective thanks to your reply.
You made the decision to disregard the guidance to use the search button. You decided not to consult the archives to generate answers to your own questions. By taking this path, you are insisting upon yourself by asking questions rather than finding answers for yourself. By taking this path, you are displaying an undergraduate's sensibilities of entitlement by expecting others to do your work for you.
Again, I urge you, make an effort to use the search button. For example, if you were to run a search using "legalize drugs" as keywords, you will find 47 posts in seventeen threads in less than a quarter of a second. Or, if you prefer, you can perform a similar search using "gay marriage" as your keywords.
Just want to make sure I am reading you correctly here Sir, but by "empirical" did you mean "imperial?"
Yes. It had been a long day helping AP Art students finalize and submit their portfolios to the College Board for evaluation, many who were operating under high stress creativity generated by the fear brought about from a procrastinating high school senior year. Thanks! :D
Richard
TXGringo
05-12-2012, 06:26
On the contrary, my previous post accomplished its primary objective thanks to your reply.
You made the decision to disregard the guidance to use the search button. You decided not to consult the archives to generate answers to your own questions. By taking this path, you are insisting upon yourself by asking questions rather than finding answers for yourself. By taking this path, you are displaying an undergraduate's sensibilities of entitlement by expecting others to do your work for you.
Again, I urge you, make an effort to use the search button. For example, if you were to run a search using "legalize drugs" as keywords, you will find 47 posts in seventeen threads in less than a quarter of a second. Or, if you prefer, you can perform a similar search using "gay marriage" as your keywords.
Actually, I opted to search "gay marriage drug use." 10 whopping posts from 4 threads. Half of those posts are from this thread.
Then I searched "gay marriage prostitution." 6 posts from 2 threads. 4 of those posts from this one.
Am I not making myself clear? I want to know what members who posted on THIS thread in support of gay marriage think about legalizing drug use or prostitution. Again, since they made their point "adult consent," I want to know how they apply that argument to the issues of legalizing drugs or prostitution.
By taking this approach, you are insisting upon yourself by talking pretty without answering the question. You are displaying the sensibilities of a libtard elitist intellectual who can't or won't address the issue, but prefers to beat around the bush. I couldn't reach them, nor will I be able to reach you. Last post on this matter.
P.S. "libtard" is my redneck Uncle from East Texas' word. I like it.
Actually, I opted to search "gay marriage drug use." 10 whopping posts from 4 threads. Half of those posts are from this thread.
Then I searched "gay marriage prostitution." 6 posts from 2 threads. 4 of those posts from this one.
Search functions pretty much work in a GIGO sense. I suggest you try using separate search strings and see what you come up with - e.g., gay marriage, drug use, drug legalization, drugs, prostitution, etc. I think you'll find the results much different.
Last post on this matter.
Your decision. Check your PMs.
Richard :munchin
The same thing that's immoral about injecting heroin between your toes or selling yourself sexually for money or drugs. Are we going to legalize those activities for all?
To the gay marriage proponents on this thread: Should we legalize hard drug use? Should we legalize prostitution?
Yes to both.
GratefulCitizen
05-12-2012, 17:53
Well sure, my point is that one should not just have kids on the idea that they will be an insurance policy.
That is exactly what social security was supposed to be (hence the comparison).
Somebody's kids will be doing the labor.
If you don't plan on being left to die when you can't fully support yourself, someone has to aid you.
Is it more selfish to receive that aid from children you raised or from children somebody else raised?
Those children will go on to produce much more for the world than aiding their parents in old age.
Raising kids is anything but a selfish endeavor.
That being said, there is a big difference between having kids and raising kids.
One of Thursdays headlines in the Briefing section of The Dallas Morning News read something to the effect of "Obama makes history, first president to openly support gay marriage."
Nothing about the accumilation of trillions upon trillions in debt; now I would have thought that historic.
I am not so sure what the big deal is about gay marriage. Two people can have any kind of union they want, IMO. They do not need some kind of governing body to sanctify their relationship. Besides, if it is real love, they shouldn't really be looking for or carring about their ability to have a leagalized union, or what the POTUS thinks, or anyone else for that matter. I know, perhaps a bit naive on my part.
And if the basis of this is for the collection of benefits, or filing jointly on tax returns, then I don't see it happening any time soon. There is just too much money at stake, and it would be the equivelent of one huge tax break; something this administration does not favor (which tells me this is just an attempt to shore up votes from this segment of the population).
These folks are just better off, again IMO, enjoying their special union between eachother and taking out a large life insurance policy, with their life partner as beneficiary, so that if something were to happen, the partner is taken care of.
Marriages are a religiously sanctioned institution which is accepted by and given certain recognition of benefits by our system of government at all levels.
The Constitution says that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
There are mainstream religious groups which recognize gay marriage amongst their members IAW their doctrinal scriptures (the same sources of scripture which others use to deny its acceptability) and, therefore, sanction it.
Whether or not I, personally, sanction it, it seems to me that it is an issue for government in this country to deny such recognition of equality of benefits to a couple (whether hetrosexual or homosexual) whose 'marriage' has been sanctioned IAW the duly recognized tenets of faith of a religious body without being in contravention of the Constitution.
And as far as government staying out of the marriage business, that bridge was crossed a long time ago with the sanctioning of 'civil unions' by local governmental agencies and granting such 'unions' the same equality of benefits as religiously sanctioned marriages.
Some of the first colonists of this nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion, although some did explicitly support or demand adherence to Christianity. Above all, the many varying sects of Christianity and other religious beliefs in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none, as it would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So the authors decided it best to keep the government out of religion. This is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious nation; religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, both then and now. But what the authors were striving for is tolerance...something I think contemporary America continues to struggle with as much today as it did yesterday.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
But what the authors were striving for is tolerance...something I think contemporary America continues to struggle with as much today as it did yesterday.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I don't recall reading any American history where they were struggling to license cornholing before.
I don't recall reading any American history where they were struggling to license cornholing before.
After a struggle the ACO was able to establish itself as the governing body of cornholers.
:munchin
Oops! I forgot the link.
http://www.americancornhole.org/
After a struggle the ACO was able to establish itself as the governing body of cornholers.
:munchin
:D Made my day with that one, Bro.
Cornholing clearly belongs in the Dept. of Agriculture portfolio.
Excellent points Richard.
cetheridge
05-13-2012, 16:13
It's official....Newsweek says the Prez is Gay!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newsweek-obama-first-gay-president-144158226.html :munchin
It's official....Newsweek says the Prez is Gay!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newsweek-obama-first-gay-president-144158226.html :munchin
These days, with a lot of people, it seems "gay" and "cool" are synonymous, so-no stigma.
It's official....Newsweek says the Prez is Gay!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newsweek-obama-first-gay-president-144158226.html :munchin
hmmm, I can see it now...just like 'ol Bill (but different things on theor piehole)..."I stuck it in my mouth...but I didn't swallow"...
Fly a plane one time, you're not a pilot, suck a dick one time...you're a fag for life....:eek:
hmmm, I can see it now...just like 'ol Bill (but different things on theor piehole)..."I stuck it in my mouth...but I didn't swallow"...
Fly a plane one time, you're not a pilot, suck a dick one time...you're a fag for life....:eek:
lol How'd it go? "What happened was, the family was sitting at the table, uh, and my wife and I were talking with, uh, our daughters, over dinner, and the subject naturally segued into cornholing. They had said that their friends' parents were, uh, cornholing each other, or licking each other's peepees, and right then, I, uh, made up my mind to quit evolving on the issue. So, I've come out in favor of cornholing. As long as you're married. Uh, and cunnilingus."
craigepo
05-14-2012, 07:26
Pretty interesting take, including the links to past articles, from the National Review writers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299533/devolution-marriage-editors
KimuraFTW
05-14-2012, 07:36
I got married... once. As I recall it was held in a church, a Catholic church no less, with a real, live priest officiating over the ceremony which included readings from the Bible, sacramental wine which had been turned into the 'Body and Blood' of Christ, and the presence of none other than God. (It scared the crap out of me; white as a sheet I was.)
All of this caused me to form the opinion that this marriage thing was part of RELIGION. I don't think government should stick its nose into religious activities. Government should recognize contracts, and allow people to enter into such contracts - joining together as two companies might merge. (Later on, government can preside over the disolution of the merger/union - dividing assets, protecting those invested in the union's interests (children), etc. MARRIAGE should be left to religions, and they should decide who gets to take part as they so believe.
'Dogs and cats living together' is kind of a straw man, when the affairs of consenting adults is the issue under discussion. Abusing children would also not be germane to such a discussion.
Will problems arise? Yes. Will they eventually be dealt with reasonably? Yes. Will some people be unable to accept the new ways? Yes. That's how it goes sometimes.
As for military issues, there are sure to be many. They will be solved. That's what we do. Maybe a start would be to 'pay by the job' - pay a 'living wage' for each rank, regardless of whether or not they were married/'partnered'. (Yeah, I know, but it still bothers me... 'Evening detail time. Married men, fall out.') Lots of complex issues here, I know... but all able to be solved, methinks.
This is basically what I think as well. I have no problem with legal unions between those of the same sex, but marriage shouldn't have to be redefined simply because other people want to be included. If marriage is between a man and a woman, then obviously gays wouldn't qualify. However, I don't think that means that they can't have the same rights as heterosexuals under some sort of "legal contract" by a different name...
KimuraFTW
05-14-2012, 07:42
Kids are supposed to support you in your old age? Isn't that kind of a selfish reason for having kids? :munchin
Not anything.
He obviously didn't mean that was the REASON for having kids since he mentioned beforehand that kids should be a blessing. But it would make sense that, if you love your children in a way that any person would if they in fact believed that they were a true blessing, the child would most likely want to take care of their parent(s) in their old age out of pure love and not obligation...
This is basically what I think as well. I have no problem with legal unions between those of the same sex, but marriage shouldn't have to be redefined simply because other people want to be included. If marriage is between a man and a woman, then obviously gays wouldn't qualify. However, I don't think that means that they can't have the same rights as heterosexuals under some sort of "legal contract" by a different name...
"The traditional principle upon which the institution of marriage is founded is that a husband has the obligation to support a wife, and that a wife has the duty to serve. In the past, this has meant that the husband has the duty to provide a safe house, to pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and to live in the house. A wife's obligation has traditionally entailed maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children."
Hasn't it already been redefined?
Like society, and Army uniforms....the definition of words change.
:munchin
This is basically what I think as well. I have no problem with legal unions between those of the same sex, but marriage shouldn't have to be redefined simply because other people want to be included. If marriage is between a man and a woman, then obviously gays wouldn't qualify. However, I don't think that means that they can't have the same rights as heterosexuals under some sort of "legal contract" by a different name...
Same "rights" or same "privileges"?
This issue of so-called Same-Sex Marriage is not about marriage but rather about advancing an agenda of normalization and acceptance of an abnormal minority by the majority.
They "win" whenever they achieve "new rights". Not that there is anything wrong with that...
KimuraFTW
05-14-2012, 08:19
"The traditional principle upon which the institution of marriage is founded is that a husband has the obligation to support a wife, and that a wife has the duty to serve. In the past, this has meant that the husband has the duty to provide a safe house, to pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and to live in the house. A wife's obligation has traditionally entailed maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children."
Hasn't it already been redefined?
Like society, and Army uniforms....the definition of words change.
:munchin
That seems like more of an interpretation than a definition. While I still believe as the "head" the husband has a duty to provide, and the wife a duty to "serve", the rest just seems like how people managed to fill those roles in the times they lived in...
KimuraFTW
05-14-2012, 08:25
Same "rights" or same "privileges"?
This issue of so-called Same-Sex Marriage is not about marriage but rather about advancing an agenda of normalization and acceptance of an abnormal minority by the majority.
They "win" whenever they achieve "new rights". Not that there is anything wrong with that...
I certainly agree with you and the idea that these are privileges is an interesting take. I guess I called them "rights" because of a combination of what they consider them to be, and what I think of them with respect to the impossible concept of "equality". I guess in a way, I feel that they "deserve" to be able to enjoy the same legal benefits as other law abiding citizens in similar situations whether I agree with their lifestyle choices or not. But, I also fear that calling them privileges would add fuel to the fire by insinuating that heterosexual couples deserve special treatment because they are better than gays...
I certainly agree with you and the idea that these are privileges is an interesting take. I guess I called them "rights" because of a combination of what they consider them to be, and what I think of them with respect to the impossible concept of "equality". I guess in a way, I feel that they "deserve" to be able to enjoy the same legal benefits as other law abiding citizens in similar situations whether I agree with their lifestyle choices or not. But, I also fear that calling them privileges would add fuel to the fire by insinuating that heterosexual couples deserve special treatment because they are better than gays...
Good counterpoint. I suppose it depends on what ones definition of Rights is...
To me there are God given rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We now have state given rights.
And with everything being a "right" these days, I often find myself wondering where is the 'responsibility' that goes with these rights?
Back on topic - I do believe that every citizen 'deserves' the same "rights and privileges' as any other citizen (with reasonable exceptions), whether they be 'normal' or abnormal'.
Since the state has already appropriated the defined activity if not just the term of 'marriage' - we (normals) will eventually lose this battle for (abnormals) acceptance.
Badger52
05-14-2012, 08:54
Pretty interesting take, including the links to past articles, from the National Review writers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299533/devolution-marriage-editorsFeature pic in that article... he's got that Duce thang Pete pointed out goin' on again.
Newsweek apparently think's "game on" in terms of mag covers after Time's 26-yo mama breast-feeding her toddler.
While I still believe as the "head" the husband has a duty to provide, and the wife a duty to "serve", .
If my daughter was dating a guy with those beliefs, I'd tell her to dump him like a hot potato.
KimuraFTW
05-14-2012, 12:41
If my daughter was dating a guy with those beliefs, I'd tell her to dump him like a hot potato.
Lol...If you're taking that the way I think you are, I wouldn't blame you. Allow me to explain myself. My personal beliefs, as a Christian, are that the male is the head and the woman should submit to his authority. That being said, I also believe that a woman should choose a man that is fitting of this role. A strong Christian man should understand that the purpose of his life is to serve, not to be served. He should also understand that a marriage that is pleasing to God is a relationship between a man and a woman (for now ;)), in which the only thing more important, more precious, and more deserving of his affection than his spouse, is the God that created her. This basically creates a relationship where the priority of both members is to serve the other to the best of their ability. Rest assured, I'm aware that all do not share these beliefs, but this is the logic from which my original statement was derived...
Lol...If you're taking that the way I think you are, I wouldn't blame you. Allow me to explain myself. My personal beliefs, as a Christian, are that the male is the head and the woman should submit to his authority. That being said, I also believe that a woman should choose a man that is fitting of this role. A strong Christian man should understand that the purpose of his life is to serve, not to be served. He should also understand that a marriage that is pleasing to God is a relationship between a man and a woman (for now ;)), in which the only thing more important, more precious, and more deserving of his affection than his spouse, is the God that created her. This basically creates a relationship where the priority of both members is to serve the other to the best of their ability. Rest assured, I'm aware that all do not share these beliefs, but this is the logic from which my original statement was derived...
Thanks for explaining your beliefs. My advice to my daughter would be to ditch you.
PedOncoDoc
05-14-2012, 14:16
Lol...If you're taking that the way I think you are, I wouldn't blame you. Allow me to explain myself. My personal beliefs, as a Christian, are that the male is the head and the woman should submit to his authority. That being said, I also believe that a woman should choose a man that is fitting of this role. A strong Christian man should understand that the purpose of his life is to serve, not to be served. He should also understand that a marriage that is pleasing to God is a relationship between a man and a woman (for now ;)), in which the only thing more important, more precious, and more deserving of his affection than his spouse, is the God that created her. This basically creates a relationship where the priority of both members is to serve the other to the best of their ability. Rest assured, I'm aware that all do not share these beliefs, but this is the logic from which my original statement was derived...
I read this once through as is, then a second time with "Muslim" exchanged for "Christian", and "Allah" for "God". Sounds eerily fitting, IMHO. YMMV...
I read this once through as is, then a second time with "Muslim" exchanged for "Christian", and "Allah" for "God". Sounds eerily fitting, IMHO. YMMV...
It's eerily fitting with "Bokononist" and "Bokonon", as well. :rolleyes:
KimuraFTW
05-14-2012, 15:40
Thanks for explaining your beliefs. My advice to my daughter would be to ditch you.
And that would be fair.
I read this once through as is, then a second time with "Muslim" exchanged for "Christian", and "Allah" for "God". Sounds eerily fitting, IMHO. YMMV...
I'm not too familiar with Islam, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are many similarities. Especially considering they share so much common ground and both trace their roots to Abraham.
I don't want to derail the conversation though so I will leave it at that...
Lol...If you're taking that the way I think you are, I wouldn't blame you. Allow me to explain myself. My personal beliefs, as a Christian, are that the male is the head and the woman should submit to his authority. That being said, I also believe that a woman should choose a man that is fitting of this role. A strong Christian man should understand that the purpose of his life is to serve, not to be served. He should also understand that a marriage that is pleasing to God is a relationship between a man and a woman (for now ;)), in which the only thing more important, more precious, and more deserving of his affection than his spouse, is the God that created her. This basically creates a relationship where the priority of both members is to serve the other to the best of their ability. Rest assured, I'm aware that all do not share these beliefs, but this is the logic from which my original statement was derived...
I am curious as to what kind of authority you think she should be submitting to.
I am curious as to what kind of authority you think she should be submitting to.
You know, like when I slap my wife on the ass and say, "Git me my sammitch, woman!" :D
Seriously, I think he's referring to the authority given man over woman by God. It's in the Bible.
Incidentally, I don't think there's anything in the Bible which states that God condones homosexual marriage, either.
You know, like when I slap my wife on the ass and say, "Git me my sammitch, woman!" :D
Seriously, I think he's referring to the authority given man over woman by God. It's in the Bible.
Incidentally, I don't think there's anything in the Bible which states that God condones homosexual marriage, either.
"it's in the Bible" has been used to justify lots of things over the years, a lot of them not so good.
The problem with quoting the Bible is you can find all kinds of quotes to support a given position, just as others can use it to justify theirs. That is why the Bible should be looked at in totallity, vice verses on their own.
To answer your next question, I do not agree with homosexual Marriage, but I do agree with civil unions.
To me, this was a stupid move on his part.
He is going to solidify the votes of quite a few people that already voted for him in '08. I don't think many gays voted for McCain, and he is probably not going to win a substantial amount of votes by saying this.
He also is probably going to alienate a lot of people in the black community. Statistics show that blacks were one of the most pro-proposition 8 demographics in california when they were trying to pass the law. He is probably going to lose a lot of votes in the hispanic community as well, considering the large Catholic population within the hispanic community (whom he has already pissed off with this whole contraception thing).
He also does not need to be worrying about this right now. Congress hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days, we have over 15,000,000,000 dollars in debt, our economy still is not doing well, and AQ just tried to blow up another plane. If our economy was better and we didn't have so much to worry about, then great, express the fact that you support gay marriage. But with how our country is right now, all I can say is: Really? :confused:
GratefulCitizen
05-14-2012, 18:55
Lol...If you're taking that the way I think you are, I wouldn't blame you. Allow me to explain myself. My personal beliefs, as a Christian, are that the male is the head and the woman should submit to his authority. That being said, I also believe that a woman should choose a man that is fitting of this role. A strong Christian man should understand that the purpose of his life is to serve, not to be served. He should also understand that a marriage that is pleasing to God is a relationship between a man and a woman (for now ;)), in which the only thing more important, more precious, and more deserving of his affection than his spouse, is the God that created her. This basically creates a relationship where the priority of both members is to serve the other to the best of their ability. Rest assured, I'm aware that all do not share these beliefs, but this is the logic from which my original statement was derived...
My wife and I had wedding vows which differed and implied an "order of leadership" (love, honor, cherish; love, honor, obey).
We believe in them and do our best to live them.
That being said, they are unconditional, voluntary vows and lack an enforcement mechanism (this is a significant difference from islam...).
If one of us isn't living up to our vow, it does not release the other from their vow.
The only "enforcement mechanism" is to live up to our own vow more fully and hope such behavior will inspire the other.
That is the nature of unconditional love.
GratefulCitizen
05-14-2012, 19:10
Good counterpoint. I suppose it depends on what ones definition of Rights is...
To me there are God given rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We now have state given rights.
And with everything being a "right" these days, I often find myself wondering where is the 'responsibility' that goes with these rights?
Back on topic - I do believe that every citizen 'deserves' the same "rights and privileges' as any other citizen (with reasonable exceptions), whether they be 'normal' or abnormal'.
Since the state has already appropriated the defined activity if not just the term of 'marriage' - we (normals) will eventually lose this battle for (abnormals) acceptance.
Rights are a zero-sum game.
One person's rights end where another's begin (e.g. property rights).
Heterosexual marriage has enjoyed special legal privileges since well before the Constitution.
The ninth amendment to the Constitution reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The SCOTUS has used 500 year-old case law in determination of some marriage and paternity issues.
Changing the definition of marriage will dilute the ante-Constitutional special rights and priviliges enjoyed in the institution of heterosexual marriage.
Heterosexual marriage is an institution which pre-dates our (and perhaps any...) government.
Homosexual marriage would be a creature of modern government.
I believe this reveals the true agenda.
The goal is to make the citizen's relationship to the state superior to the marriage relationship.
TrapLine
05-14-2012, 20:06
I read this once through as is, then a second time with "Muslim" exchanged for "Christian", and "Allah" for "God". Sounds eerily fitting, IMHO. YMMV...
With respect, I might agree had you only read the first few sentences of the paragraph. To me there is significant difference based on the latter portion. MOO
MOO: Lets leave marriage out of this. I got married by a rabbi, and I got my license from city hall. Freedom of religion withstanding, if a gay couple were to find religious clergy (of any religion for that matter) to marry them and sign-off on the license/certificate, then call it "marriage", and send them on their merry way. It seems that the gay "rights" movement is substituting the state and/or republic as the clergy here, all while pushing for legislation for their marriage to be recognized by and performed by religious clergy who's religions do not recognize such a union. As GratefulCitizen put it, it appears that the right to freedom of religion ends where LGBT "rights" begin...
My .002
Yes, but come November, this won't be the key issue in the media and the black and Hispanic votes will probably stick with him.
That's probably why he's bringing up those issues in the first place, to distract attention away from the country's situation.
Maybe, but hopefully he picks someone like Allen West or Marco Rubio. Both of those guys are sharp, and they would also attract voters from their respective demographics.
Never thought about him drawing attention away. I thought they were more concerned about Dancing with the stars? :rolleyes:
Thought you all might like to see this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4y6rF_ncAc
olhamada
05-14-2012, 20:53
To answer your next question, I do not agree with homosexual Marriage, but I do agree with civil unions.
What's the difference?
olhamada
05-14-2012, 21:02
Good read with thoughtful analysis - "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" from MIT (of all places).
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
What's the difference?
Marriage, in my opinion is a religous sacrament and blessed by the church (insert religous affiliation here)
In my opinion, I am no less a sinner than a homosexual. I had sex outside the bonds of matrimony. To me that is the sin of homosexuality, sex outside the bonds of marriage. I do not know if God will judge one more harshly than the other. I sin in some way every day, I am sure, and I was always taught that one sin is no greater or no less in his eyes. So I pray for forgiveness every day. I am no better or worse than those that commit other sins, no matter how repugnant others may think the sin is in their eyes. I do not concern myself with the judgement of man, only of that of God and his Holy Son.
I feel homosexual couples should have the same legal benefits as the one I share with my husband. The right to be seen as next of kin, the right to insurance benefits, etc.
I do not believe they should have the right to a religous ceremony if that religon does not accept same sex marriage.
MOO: It seems that the gay "rights" movement is substituting the state and/or republic as the clergy here, all while pushing for legislation for their marriage to be recognized by and performed by religious clergy who's religions do not recognize such a union.
My .002
For some gays that may be true. For others, like one of my brothers, as well as others gay friends that I have spoken recently with, it is not at all about being able to have a religiously sanctioned marriage. I personally don't know anyone who is gay that wants to walk into a church where, for a multitude of years, they've been told that they are evil and are condemned to spend all of eternity in hell.
Yes, they want to have their relationships recognized in some sort of a civil capacity. But from what I can tell, this is a financial issue for many (ie. benefits, taxes etc.)
Oh...and almost all of the people I spoke to concur that Obama was simply pandering politically.
"it's in the Bible" has been used to justify lots of things over the years, a lot of them not so good.
The problem with quoting the Bible is you can find all kinds of quotes to support a given position, just as others can use it to justify theirs. That is why the Bible should be looked at in totallity, vice verses on their own.
To answer your next question, I do not agree with homosexual Marriage, but I do agree with civil unions.
I didn't ask you a question.
Practicing Christians don't commit adultery because they're Commanded not to in the Bible, therefore homosexuality is wrong for one of many reasons in that since two men can't marry, they shouldn't hide sausage.
"Between two consenting adults" is how most liberals excuse aberrant behavior, but that roadblock will come down, soon:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/13/backlash-grows-at-ruling-on-viewing-of-child-porn/
In the wake of a New York court ruling that says it’s not illegal to “merely” view online child pornography, child advocates are urging Internet-savvy federal prosecutors to take over these kinds of cases as two state lawmakers rush to fix the law.
It is “a singular outrage that the highest court in New York has decriminalized the act of viewing child pornography by computer,” Patrick Trueman, president and chief executive of Morality in Media, said after the May 8 ruling by the New York Court of Appeals.
The high court unanimously agreed to reverse two of the dozens of child-pornography counts against a former college professor, saying there was no evidence the professor did more than look at some images on his computer.
Snip
Camel's nose; I guarantee it-unless we stop it from further denigrating the moral fabric of the Country.
To paraphrase The Duke as Davy Crockett, there's right and wrong, and you gotta do what's right. Homosexuals and pedophiles aren't.
KimuraFTW
05-15-2012, 06:14
My wife and I had wedding vows which differed and implied an "order of leadership" (love, honor, cherish; love, honor, obey).
We believe in them and do our best to live them.
That being said, they are unconditional, voluntary vows and lack an enforcement mechanism (this is a significant difference from islam...).
If one of us isn't living up to our vow, it does not release the other from their vow.
The only "enforcement mechanism" is to live up to our own vow more fully and hope such behavior will inspire the other.
That is the nature of unconditional love.
That was precisely the idea I was attempting to express. I am not married yet (I'm engaged at the moment) so I unfortunately could not reference a personal marital relationship.
KimuraFTW
05-15-2012, 06:36
"it's in the Bible" has been used to justify lots of things over the years, a lot of them not so good.
The problem with quoting the Bible is you can find all kinds of quotes to support a given position, just as others can use it to justify theirs. That is why the Bible should be looked at in totallity, vice verses on their own.
I agree 100%. This is why I saw the need to explain myself further when referring to the man as being the head. When taken at face value, and out of the context of Christian theology, it becomes an excuse for male fools to mistreat their wives and still expect them to be committed (which is not only untrue, but also quite silly)
To answer your next question, I do not agree with homosexual Marriage, but I do agree with civil unions.
We seem to agree on this point.
Practicing Christians don't commit adultery because they're Commanded not to in the Bible, therefore homosexuality is wrong for one of many reasons in that since two men can't marry, they shouldn't hide sausage.
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.
--Mark Twain
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where to they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.
--Senator Barry Goldwater
From the Washington Times article link:
“Child pornography is highly offensive” and it “should not matter if you view it, read it or download it. Simply the fact that you are viewing it is a crime, and New York should treat it as such,” said Mr. {NY State Sen} Golden.
So, people believe that anyone who simply views such materials should be charged with a crime, even if they are someone like a professor or LEO doing so for a legitimate purpose such as teaching a college-level psychology course on deviant behaviors or an LEA seminar on child porngraphy or human trafficking? :confused: I don't agree with the State Senator's reasoning.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
olhamada
05-15-2012, 07:20
From my friend Allen Yeh, a professor at Biola and real rock star with degrees from Oxford and U of Edinburgh, who also happens to be a follower of Christ - "On the day President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage, it is also a pivotal day for Biola. Our campus just received posters and a website (http://biolaunderground.webs.com/) by the hidden LGBT community here. I hope Biola responds appropriately: listening well in compassion which does not necessarily mean condoning every sentiment or point of view. Censorship and ignoring don't solve anything. And yet as a religious institution we have a right to hold certain beliefs that a public university does not. The balance is delicate, and how Biola responds may define our university for years to come."
olhamada
05-15-2012, 07:22
Marriage, in my opinion is a religous sacrament and blessed by the church (insert religous affiliation here)
In my opinion, I am no less a sinner than a homosexual. I had sex outside the bonds of matrimony. To me that is the sin of homosexuality, sex outside the bonds of marriage. I do not know if God will judge one more harshly than the other. I sin in some way every day, I am sure, and I was always taught that one sin is no greater or no less in his eyes. So I pray for forgiveness every day. I am no better or worse than those that commit other sins, no matter how repugnant others may think the sin is in their eyes. I do not concern myself with the judgement of man, only of that of God and his Holy Son.
I feel homosexual couples should have the same legal benefits as the one I share with my husband. The right to be seen as next of kin, the right to insurance benefits, etc.
I do not believe they should have the right to a religous ceremony if that religon does not accept same sex marriage.
Thanks, afchic. Great explanation. I agree with all except the civil union part.
ZonieDiver
05-15-2012, 07:34
Marriage, in my opinion is a religous sacrament and blessed by the church (insert religous affiliation here)
In my opinion, I am no less a sinner than a homosexual. I had sex outside the bonds of matrimony. To me that is the sin of homosexuality, sex outside the bonds of marriage. I do not know if God will judge one more harshly than the other. I sin in some way every day, I am sure, and I was always taught that one sin is no greater or no less in his eyes. So I pray for forgiveness every day. I am no better or worse than those that commit other sins, no matter how repugnant others may think the sin is in their eyes. I do not concern myself with the judgement of man, only of that of God and his Holy Son.
I feel homosexual couples should have the same legal benefits as the one I share with my husband. The right to be seen as next of kin, the right to insurance benefits, etc.
I do not believe they should have the right to a religous ceremony if that religon does not accept same sex marriage.
Very well said! I wish I'd been able to express this view, which I share, half as well. (Of course, I ain't an ossifer, or smart enough to have chosen the USAF! :D)
From my interactions with a few thousand young people over these past years, "this" is going to happen. It'll be a "generational" thing.
Marriage, in my opinion is a religous sacrament and blessed by the church (insert religous affiliation here)
In my opinion, I am no less a sinner than a homosexual. I had sex outside the bonds of matrimony. To me that is the sin of homosexuality, sex outside the bonds of marriage. I do not know if God will judge one more harshly than the other. I sin in some way every day, I am sure, and I was always taught that one sin is no greater or no less in his eyes. So I pray for forgiveness every day. I am no better or worse than those that commit other sins, no matter how repugnant others may think the sin is in their eyes. I do not concern myself with the judgement of man, only of that of God and his Holy Son.
I feel homosexual couples should have the same legal benefits as the one I share with my husband. The right to be seen as next of kin, the right to insurance benefits, etc.
I do not believe they should have the right to a religous ceremony if that religon does not accept same sex marriage.
This statement is illogical to me. Are you saying that, since you sinned, it should be alright for homosexuals to keep on sinning? If you stole or murdered or did something else off the Commandment list, would it be alright for a thief or murderer to continue their sins? :confused:
There are no fundamental "rights" being denied homosexuals due to their inability to "marry" - that is a red-herring designed to get concurrence of folks who don't like to think.
Next of kin and insurance are property rights capable of being protected by contract. There are no contractual denials based upon homosexuality.
In fact - the exact opposite is true - that a certain segment of the population, defined by genetic deviation is clamouring to be confined by law. It's a weird society in which we live.
I didn't ask you a question.
Practicing Christians don't commit adultery because they're Commanded not to in the Bible, therefore homosexuality is wrong for one of many reasons in that since two men can't marry, they shouldn't hide sausage.
"Between two consenting adults" is how most liberals excuse aberrant behavior, but that roadblock will come down, soon:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/13/backlash-grows-at-ruling-on-viewing-of-child-porn/
In the wake of a New York court ruling that says it’s not illegal to “merely” view online child pornography, child advocates are urging Internet-savvy federal prosecutors to take over these kinds of cases as two state lawmakers rush to fix the law.
It is “a singular outrage that the highest court in New York has decriminalized the act of viewing child pornography by computer,” Patrick Trueman, president and chief executive of Morality in Media, said after the May 8 ruling by the New York Court of Appeals.
The high court unanimously agreed to reverse two of the dozens of child-pornography counts against a former college professor, saying there was no evidence the professor did more than look at some images on his computer.
Snip
Camel's nose; I guarantee it-unless we stop it from further denigrating the moral fabric of the Country.
To paraphrase The Duke as Davy Crockett, there's right and wrong, and you gotta do what's right. Homosexuals and pedophiles aren't.
Yet heterosexuals have done more to disparage the sanctity of marriage, than anyone probably thought possible.
You certainly have your blinders on if you think "practicing" Christians aren't committing adultery, just because the Commandments tell them so. They aren't very good at "not coveting" either.
I don't have a statistic, but I am willing to bet a vast majority of marriages take place inside a chirch of some sort, with the blessing of either a priest, rabbi, minister, etc.... I am sure that alot of these same couples receive some sort of marriage counseling before they take their vows.
Yet, over 50% of marriages end in divorce. And heterosexuals have the gall to tell homosexuals that they will be the cause of the downfall of marriage. Give me a break. To quote the Bible, yes I know what I said about qoting,Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4“Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. "
IMO we heterosexuals have enough to do taking care of our own business, without focusing on the weakness of others.
This statement is illogical to me. Are you saying that, since you sinned, it should be alright for homosexuals to keep on sinning? If you stole or murdered or did something else off the Commandment list, would it be alright for a thief or murderer to continue their sins? :confused:
I am saying because I sin, I am a sinner. Just the same as anyone else, regardless of the sin. God will judge each of us accordingly. Is my sin any worse than someone elses? That is for God to decide.
Give me a break. To quote the Bible, yes I know what I said about qoting,Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4“Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. "
IMO we heterosexuals have enough to do taking care of our own business, without focusing on the weakness of others.
Why was it wrong to be homo 30 years ago, but it's not wrong, now?
Can you quote me a passage out of the Holy Bible that permits men to marry each other?
lol It's absolutely astounding to me that I'm the only member of this forum, evidently, who still believes it's absolutely abhorrent for men to f.ck each other. :D
Why was it wrong to be homo 30 years ago, but it's not wrong, now?
Can you quote me a passage out of the Holy Bible that permits men to marry each other?
lol It's absolutely astounding to me that I'm the only member of this forum, evidently, who still believes it's absolutely abhorrent for men to f.ck each other. :D
Same reason that it was ok to forbid women to vote, or that a black man was only worth a partial vote, etc etc etc. Times change Dusty.
Do I believe homosexuality is a sin, yes I do. Just as I believe that adultery is a sin, stealing is a sin, coveting what my neighbor has and I don't is a sin.
I can't quote you a line in the Bible that says two homosexuals have the right to marry, because we both know that it isn't in there. But if you would like, I can quote you passage upon passage where Christ speaks about hypocrits. "Ye who has no sin, cast the first stone" when talking about the woman at the well. He also goes on to tell her "Sin no more". Or the many times the Pharisees try to make him stumble, for instance performing miracles on Sundays, becasue I guess God doesn't work on Sundays
I try to lead my life in the way Jesus Christ taught. And I believe with my whole heart that Christ would be the first to sit and have dinner with a homosexual, while the rest of the world grinds and knashes their teeth about it. He was a man of great compassion, who probably learned over the years that you have a better chance of changing a behavior you deem offensive and wrong with kindness and compassion rather than bashing someone repeatedly over the head with their sin.
Jesus died for ALL our sins. And as I said before, it will be up to him to decide which sin is worse. I personally would rather be on the side of trying to change things with compassion, than with annimosity. God knows what is in my heart and will judge me accordingly.
KimuraFTW
05-15-2012, 09:14
Why was it wrong to be homo 30 years ago, but it's not wrong, now?
Can you quote me a passage out of the Holy Bible that permits men to marry each other?
lol It's absolutely astounding to me that I'm the only member of this forum, evidently, who still believes it's absolutely abhorrent for men to f.ck each other. :D
You're not the only one...
KimuraFTW
05-15-2012, 09:36
Same reason that it was ok to forbid women to vote, or that a black man was only worth a partial vote, etc etc etc. Times change Dusty.
Do I believe homosexuality is a sin, yes I do. Just as I believe that adultery is a sin, stealing is a sin, coveting what my neighbor has and I don't is a sin.
I can't quote you a line in the Bible that says two homosexuals have the right to marry, because we both know that it isn't in there. But if you would like, I can quote you passage upon passage where Christ speaks about hypocrits. "Ye who has no sin, cast the first stone" when talking about the woman at the well. He also goes on to tell her "Sin no more". Or the many times the Pharisees try to make him stumble, for instance performing miracles on Sundays, becasue I guess God doesn't work on Sundays
I try to lead my life in the way Jesus Christ taught. And I believe with my whole heart that Christ would be the first to sit and have dinner with a homosexual, while the rest of the world grinds and knashes their teeth about it. He was a man of great compassion, who probably learned over the years that you have a better chance of changing a behavior you deem offensive and wrong with kindness and compassion rather than bashing someone repeatedly over the head with their sin.
Jesus died for ALL our sins. And as I said before, it will be up to him to decide which sin is worse. I personally would rather be on the side of trying to change things with compassion, than with annimosity. God knows what is in my heart and will judge me accordingly.
I agree 100% with what you're saying. However, while Jesus made a habit of socializing with sinners, he never condoned their actions and always made it a point to show them the error of their ways while doing so. I agree that they should be afforded the same treatment under the law though. Obviously, keeping homosexuals from getting married won't stop them from being homosexual.
As you stated, animosity will only harden the hearts of man. I would have no issue with civil unions that would give them equal treatment, but I strongly oppose a redefinition and perversion of "marriage" as we know it to accommodate a relationship that, by it's very definition, contradicts what marriage is. Logicians would argue that this is a "slippery slope fallacy" but allowing the constant differentiation of our morals can only result in the destruction of them entirely just as you find in mathematics...
Would this be a good time to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Biblical reason for the destruction of those cities is quite blunt.
olhamada
05-15-2012, 10:40
It's absolutely astounding to me that I'm the only member of this forum, evidently, who still believes it's absolutely abhorrent for men to f.ck each other. :D
No you're not Dusty. I'm right there with you. And I appreciate your public stance for Christ and the Word.
Would this be a good time to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Biblical reason for the destruction of those cities is quite blunt.
Well, CA is still here so God must be on vacation.
GratefulCitizen
05-15-2012, 11:16
Good read with thoughtful analysis - "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" from MIT (of all places).
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Bingo. That article nails it.
This paragraph caught my eye:
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
Yet, over 50% of marriages end in divorce.
I get tired of this bogus "statistic" being used. Yes, if you look at any given year, the divorce rate is about 50% of the marriage rate. This is an argument used by those who wish to destroy the institution of marriage and the family structure. The death rate is also about 50% in any given year. In the '70s they would say,"We don't need a piece of paper to show we love each other". Now EVERYBODY wants to get married and wants to be recognized equally for doing so. The actual number of first-time marriages that end in divorce is hard to pin down, but seems to be between 28 and 38 per cent with the highest, at the end of the '70s, being about 43%.
And heterosexuals have the gall to tell homosexuals that they will be the cause of the downfall of marriage.
I'll let Dennis Prager field this one:
The divorce-threatens-marriage lie (http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=96ed215a-2939-4100-b9cc-66562b7dc7b6&url=the_divorce-threatens-marriage_lie)
Pat
GratefulCitizen
05-15-2012, 11:24
Would this be a good time to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Biblical reason for the destruction of those cities is quite blunt.
Yes it was quite blunt.
It was not destroyed for the evil found there.
It was destroyed for the lack of ten righteous men.
Attacking evil isn't the solution.
Leading people to good is the solution.
Religion and state have different roles.
Religion (should) uphold the maximum standard for behavior (furthers civilization).
The state (should) enforce the minimum standard for behavior (preserves civilization).
BTW, which one does islam try to do?
GratefulCitizen
05-15-2012, 11:47
I can't quote you a line in the Bible that says two homosexuals have the right to marry, because we both know that it isn't in there. But if you would like, I can quote you passage upon passage where Christ speaks about hypocrits. "Ye who has no sin, cast the first stone" when talking about the woman at the well. He also goes on to tell her "Sin no more". Or the many times the Pharisees try to make him stumble, for instance performing miracles on Sundays, becasue I guess God doesn't work on Sundays
I try to lead my life in the way Jesus Christ taught. And I believe with my whole heart that Christ would be the first to sit and have dinner with a homosexual, while the rest of the world grinds and knashes their teeth about it. He was a man of great compassion, who probably learned over the years that you have a better chance of changing a behavior you deem offensive and wrong with kindness and compassion rather than bashing someone repeatedly over the head with their sin.
Jesus died for ALL our sins. And as I said before, it will be up to him to decide which sin is worse. I personally would rather be on the side of trying to change things with compassion, than with annimosity. God knows what is in my heart and will judge me accordingly.
I hear what your saying.
That being said, evil should never be condoned as good (not accusing you of doing this).
BTW, I'm pretty sure in ancient Israel they didn't have a problem working on sundays.
Saturdays may have been another matter...
:D
ZonieDiver
05-15-2012, 12:28
I hear what your saying.
That being said, evil should never be condoned as good (not accusing you of doing this).
BTW, I'm pretty sure in ancient Israel they didn't have a problem working on sundays.
Saturdays may have been another matter...
:D
I think Walter may have said it best!:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmULYr1nsZ0&feature=related
Well, CA is still here so God must be on vacation.
Sometimes I worry He might be spitting on His palms and rubbing them together.
Same reason that it was ok to forbid women to vote, or that a black man was only worth a partial vote, etc etc etc. Times change Dusty.
I can find in the Bible passages that would seem to disparage forbidding women to vote, or allowing blacks only a partial vote; show me a passage where It indicates that men "lying" with other men is acceptable.
Enabling liberals to destroy our morality through moves such as gay marriage legislation only harms the integrity of the Country, afchic, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we're all sinners; it has to do with the breakdown of the boundary seperating right and wrong.
Sometimes I worry He might be spitting on His palms and rubbing them together.
Sometimes I occasionally find myself praying that an asteroid hits Wash. DC.
Enabling liberals to destroy our morality through moves such as gay marriage legislation only harms the integrity of the Country, afchic, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we're all sinners; it has to do with the breakdown of the boundary seperating right and wrong.
Obama has a lot of folks, his people distancing themselves from him on this issue, it plays well in a few states but not in the majority of states. I think its an issue that is going to cost some politicians their jobs, the governor of N.C. being one of them she recently made the following statement.
“It’s wrong for North Carolina, clearly and simply,” she said. “People around the country are watching us and they’re really confused to have been such a progressive, forward-thinking, economically driven state that invested in education and that stood up for the civil rights of people including the civil rights marches back in the ‘50s and ’60s and ’70s. Folks are saying, what in the world is going in North Carolina? We look like Mississippi.”
She is beyond out of touch with the majority of her constituents. I am glad that they got their say in the matter. We were not so fortunate here in Iowa.
The Reaper
05-15-2012, 17:13
Obama has a lot of folks, his people distancing themselves from him on this issue, it plays well in a few states but not in the majority of states. I think its an issue that is going to cost some politicians their jobs, the governor of N.C. being one of them she recently made the following statement.
“It’s wrong for North Carolina, clearly and simply,” she said. “People around the country are watching us and they’re really confused to have been such a progressive, forward-thinking, economically driven state that invested in education and that stood up for the civil rights of people including the civil rights marches back in the ‘50s and ’60s and ’70s. Folks are saying, what in the world is going in North Carolina? We look like Mississippi.”
She is beyond out of touch with the majority of her constituents. I am glad that they got their say in the matter. We were not so fortunate here in Iowa.
Bev's poll numbers were tanking long before this and she declined to run for a second term to allow the state's Dims (who are in the middle of a meltdown over the male chair of the state Dim party sexually harrassing a male subordinate, to tie in to this thread) to try and run a competitive candidate for governor.
I am with Dusty. Men should not be having sex with other men, and people should not be forced to approve of or sanction it.
TR
There are lots of things in society people are allowed to do that others do not have to approve of though. The problem is if it affects others. For example, some people do not approve of drinking. Yet tons of people do it, and it has very dangerous affects for the innocents that get killed by drunk drivers. I don't think churches that are of a religion that is against gay marriage should be forced to perform such marriages, but I think it is fine for the State itself to be okay with them.
Logically, then, you don't have a problem with two men having sex. Do you have a problem with pedophilia?
TrapLine
05-15-2012, 19:09
IMO, marriage should be between two people, gay, straight, bisexual, transsexual, whatever, so long as they are consenting adults.
I don't mean to come across in a snide manner, but would two cousins or brother and sister qualify as consenting adults?
Stargazer
05-15-2012, 19:17
If they are children, no. But if they are adults, then yes. But that would only be for sterile people.
Why only sterile people if the parties are consenting?
Of course.
So, did you have a problem with homosexuality when you were younger?
Stargazer
05-15-2012, 20:00
As the article mentions, because two non-sterile cousins or brother-sister are too close genetically to the point that the child or children would or could be genetically defective.
The article states that even sterile blood relatives are unable to marry.
I raise the question because if the standard is two consenting adults that love each other, why is it acceptable to add a condition that they must be sterile. Although it is true that the odds for genetic disorders increase with inbreeding, it is not a given. There are many factors for determining coefficiency. If a loving couple is willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their personal choice, why should government interfer in this instance?
Nope.
Bullshit.
Unless a. you're homosexual yourself or b. you're too young to know better.
Liberals have hacked at the veil between what's right and what's wrong to the point that homosexuality is accepted socially, and they'll (already are doing) do the same thing with other sexually aberrant behavior a la pedophilia.
It's a symptom not unlike the rise in crime and the fall of honesty in business.
The moral fabric of the integrity of the Country took a big rip when B.J. Clinton pulled his bullshit with Lewinsky and lib parents allowed their kids to believe fellatio wasn't really "sex".
Honesty took another blow when Obama tried to make the world believe he'd just now "evolved" into accepting the behavior of one of the legs of his kook base.
We need about 16 straight years of the House/Senate/White House, or this Country's f.cked beyond repair, if it isn't already.
lol It's absolutely astounding to me that I'm the only member of this forum, evidently, who still believes it's absolutely abhorrent for men to f.ck each other. :D
QP Dusty,
I find it abominable as well, the issue is that it has hit the point where IT is not going away, so we essentially live with it, for lack of a better term. My point in a previous post was that I don't really care if they have the same benefits, i.e. visitation, inheritance etc. as a union between man and woman in this country does, I just want it to end there, leave the whole marriage thing out of it, stop pushing the liberal sexual agenda in order to normalize that which isn't.
While we are on the topic, it probably wouldn't hurt to repost this (http://narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf).
Yes it was quite blunt.
It was not destroyed for the evil found there.
It was destroyed for the lack of ten righteous men.
GratefulCitizen,
Sodom was indeed destroyed due to it's evilness. Abraham's entreaties were that it be spared due to any merit, no matter how small it may be, but they weren't the reason why Sodom was ultimately annihilated, as it was, Sodom lacked any merit to begin with. G-d only destroys those who are so throughly evil that there is no point of return. Several classic Jewish philosophers[1] point out that it is very difficult to reach this point as even a person who is more evil than good, can be purified both by hardship on this earth and time spent in Hell. It should be noted that the flood of Noah's time was brought about for the similar reasons: breakdown in civil order in which theft became the norm and pervasive sexual depravity to the point which animals were copying the people[2].
[1] Maimonides - Guide to the Perplexed, R' Moses Luzzato - Way of G-d
[2] Genesis 6:11 - the words shachat(corruption) = immorality and sexual deviance, chamas(violence) = theft - Rashi(R' Shlomo Yitzchaki - France, 1040 - 1105CE) - Commentary on the Bible
The Reaper
05-15-2012, 20:08
As the article mentions, because two non-sterile cousins or brother-sister are too close genetically to the point that the child or children would or could be genetically defective.
So you are a believer in forced sterilization and eugenics then?
Break.
Anyone who has ever witnessed a gay pride event knows why this activity is offensive to so many others.
TR
QP Dustry, as far back as I can remember, I have never had a problem with homosexuality.
Why is it you believe homosexuality is wrong?
My friend, the fact that you find it necessary to ask me that question is flabbergasting to me and seems unreal.
I can't imagine having to answer it even 15 years ago.
Let me answer with a question: would you think it queer if you saw a male lion insert his penis into the anal pore of another male lion? Or two Longhorn bulls? Or two male Silverback gorillas? Of course you would, son, because it is queer. It's aberrant; goes against nature.
The Reaper
05-15-2012, 20:25
Not at all for forced sterilization or eugenics, I am against allowing two people of close relation to marry because their children could be harmed from their being so close genetically.
Lots of things, from different groups and religions, are in turn offensive to certain other groups and religions. But what distinguishes us as a society is that we are a free society. We allow everyone from Muslims, Christians, gays, Nazis, whomever, to march and make their points.
Then who are you to decide, if there are no obstacles to whatever floats your boat?
Since we let everyone do whatever feels good to them, when was the last time you saw a Klan rally?
TR
Enabling liberals to destroy our morality through moves such as gay marriage legislation only harms the integrity of the Country, afchic, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we're all sinners; it has to do with the breakdown of the boundary seperating right and wrong.
We have discussed this topic on at least 4 threads:
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2715352
And there is this study which eludes to what Dusty is suggesting:
http://narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
QP Dustry, as far back as I can remember, I have never had a problem with homosexuality.
Actually, given your age, you are proof that the Left's assault on Western Civilization is working (has worked). They took control of teaching our children (you). They are trying to take control of raising our children (your children). Next is turning our children into government agents against us (our grandchildren). It's happened before. It's happening now.
Pat
The Reaper
05-15-2012, 20:33
BS, what is the age of consent that you are comfortable with, for your son to start having sex with the 60 year old NAMBLA member he met on line?
TR
Stargazer
05-15-2012, 20:34
As the article mentions, because two non-sterile cousins or brother-sister are too close genetically to the point that the child or children would or could be genetically defective.
Not at all for forced sterilization or eugenics, I am against allowing two people of close relation to marry because their children could be harmed from their being so close genetically.
Lots of things, from different groups and religions, are in turn offensive to certain other groups and religions. But what distinguishes us as a society is that we are a free society. We allow everyone from Muslims, Christians, gays, Nazis, whomever, to march and make their points.
Children raised by homosexual parents can be bullied and treated differently thereby causing psychological harm. Therefore, should it be mandated that homosexuals can marry but may not raise children?
I am not a leftist nor was I raised in a leftist household.
Didn't say you were. But, my guess is that you were edumacated by a Government school.
I just do not see the problem with homosexuality that you all see.
I have a homosexual 2nd cousin who's my age and was president of the OU (Oklahoma) Young Republicans back in the day, and he is aginst gay marraige. So is Elton John, by the way. This isn't about "human freedom in the sense that as long as what people are doing isn't harming anyone else". It's about big-G Government forcing us, and religious institutions, to accept it as normal.
Pat
I've been lurking in this thread for a few days and observed thoughtful back and forth.
I'd have to agree with Dusty and TR that homosexuality is wrong. I've had that instinct for as long as I can remember, even before learning it was a sin as a Christian. My instincts were simply reaffirmed later when I got older. However, IMHO, I think that the issue has to be taken out of the context of religion in order to sway people or at the very least, have them respect your/our opinion. I think the best way to address the issue is as objectively as possible, in a sort of "reject the null hypothesis" scientific sort of way.
Romance aside, the very act of homosexual intercourse is inherently dangerous and harmful, even if you are not absolutely disgusted by it (like myself and I'm sure others on this board). I happen to think that many of God's commandments were for our own good, even in this life, and that we will be happier and better off if we follow them, even for those who don't necessarily believe in a Savior.
So let's remove a) My disgust with the act. And remove b) Sin under my set of religious views and personal values.
So now, why is homosexuality wrong? I don't have stats or scholarly research in front of me, so take it what it's worth, but I'd wager that the homosexual lifestyle as a whole is medically dangerous. AIDS is an easy one. But then consider the fellatio of a man who's penis has trace amounts of feces on it. Eating sh*t more or less can't be healthy. And then there could be consequences for the "catcher" who's rectum could get damaged. And, excuse me for being graphic, but when climax occurs in another man, that man's body could be digesting another man's semen. (I need a vomit icon) I'd also wager the vast majority don't use protection much of the time, as reckless behavior probably includes other reckless behavior like the non-use of protection.
Even if it's not admitted, it wouldn't surprise me if homosexuals were far more depressed/suicidal than hetero counterparts possibly resulting from doing the things they do, and living their whole lives denying/justifying that it's okay even if it's not something smiled upon by much of the society they live in.
In terms of lifestyle...I'd proffer that deviant behavior is not always a segregated matter. What I mean is, other deviant behavior may be more prevalent once an individual chooses a deviant lifestyle as I alluded to a moment ago. Pedophilia, "golden showers" or other strange fetishes, or others could probably be included within the range of activities of a large cross-section of the homosexual population. Anecdotal evidence I've observed myself are gay men who like to "cruise" for "boys" (which could be teenage boys or just young men.)
In terms of genetics, as far as I know there's nothing that proves homosexuality one way or the other. I'm of the opinion that it's an "acquired taste" so to speak, though I wouldn't be beyond thinking that certain genetic predispositions combined with environmental factors could lead someone down that path. Predispositions don't have to determine lifestyle choices IMO.
What I'm getting at is, people have plenty of incentive IMO to not engage in homosexuality, lest they risk their reputation (being straight never counts against you) their health (gay sex by and large tends to be more dangerous than hetero) or their mental health (accumulating shame/guilt, leading to confide in other deviants, which could lead to comfort/acceptance of deviant behavior in certain crowds.)
A slippery slope, IMO, as it has so much to do with what people believe is their identity.
- Dan P.
KimuraFTW
05-15-2012, 21:58
If they are children, no. But if they are adults, then yes. But that would only be for sterile people.
Didn't take long for those exceptions to pop up...
KimuraFTW
05-15-2012, 22:02
So you are a believer in forced sterilization and eugenics then?
Break.
Anyone who has ever witnessed a gay pride event knows why this activity is offensive to so many others.
TR
I am lucky enough to have never seen one. However, you see enough at night in D.C. as it is... :eek:
KimuraFTW
05-15-2012, 22:17
I am of the opinion that so long as one isn't harming anyone else, then they should be free to do as they please. Klan rallies included. If the Klan wants to have Jim Crow brought back and so forth, that is harming other people and infringing on their rights. But if they just want to hold rallies, well that's their perogative.
How exactly do you define "harm" being done to another person?
KimuraFTW
05-15-2012, 22:37
Physical or mental damage.
Would you then say roaming the streets nude, public masturbation, or watching child pornography on your iPad on the train should be alright then? While these things (certainly the latter two) are quite disgusting, it can be argued that they do not harm anyone physically or mentally. Even in the case of the iPad, if the person didn't create the material and is only enjoying it, he is doing no harm to anyone. It may completely disgust them, but surely that wouldn't be enough to outlaw it right?
... then a Catholic School (albeit as a non-Catholic, but they were willing to make an exception) up to 8th grade.
Bingo, bango, bongo! To quote myself: "...you are proof that the Left's assault on Western Civilization is working (has worked)."
As a Catholic alter-boy in the late '50s, I was tought not even to enter a non-Catholic church. Why then would a Catholic school accept a non-Catholic student. Do Philip F. and Daniel J. Berrigan ring a bell?
In the '70s (funny how often the '70s come up) homosexuals flooded the Catholic seminaries. Most, I believe, to escape the Draft and not have to admit that they were homosexual (I use that term as "gay" was not used then). The so-called "pedophile priests" where just gay priests preying on pubescent teen alter-boys.
And so it goes..."on and on and on until the end of time." ;)
Pat
FWIW, I don't think anyone can prove that gay 'marriage,' either among males or females (which, noticably, has been left out of this discussion), is an insidious assault on all marriages.
Polls show that the country is now evenly divided on the issue of gay marriage, largely split between young and old. But I think the split really boils down to just a couple of words — fair vs. fear.
I asked my sons (27, 29, 41) about it and their opinions of it were, "Meh." Younger people, as a group, have grown up with homosexuality as a no-big-deal kind of thing, and it seems only fair to them that all couples who commit to some sort of marital-like relationship should have the same right to the benefits our government offers to those committed to marriage in the traditional sense.
We older people see a rapidly changing world and understandably have fears about where it all leads. I, for one, can relate to that.
I don’t think we appreciate the powerful force behind the quiet little word “custom.” Custom helps shape our very core. And things we’re unaccustomed to can be profoundly unsettling. Gay marriage certainly fits into that category for many. It is a huge change in custom to go from living in secrecy to open recognition in some form of 'marriage' in less than a generation, and that journey can be jarring.
But the idea of 'fairness' is also part of our deeply ingrained custom, and it seems to me as if time and the forces of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" are continuing to be taking us in that direction...along with the usual cacophony historically associated with such societal shifts.
As for me, I will continue to try and just live a decently moral life because it is the humanistically right thing to do - not because a book written by somebody claims some gawd they believe in will be upset if I don't.
And so it goes...
Richard
FWIW, I don't think anyone can prove that gay 'marriage,' either among males or females (which, noticably, has been left out of this discussion), is an insidious assault on all marriages.
Polls show that the country is now evenly divided on the issue of gay marriage, largely split between young and old. But I think the split really boils down to just a couple of words — fair vs. fear.
I asked my sons (27, 29, 41) about it and their opinions of it were, "Meh." Younger people, as a group, have grown up with homosexuality as a no-big-deal kind of thing, and it seems only fair to them that all couples who commit to some sort of marital-like relationship should have the same right to the benefits our government offers to those committed to marriage in the traditional sense.
We older people see a rapidly changing world and understandably have fears about where it all leads. I, for one, can relate to that.
I don’t think we appreciate the powerful force behind the quiet little word “custom.” Custom helps shape our very core. And things we’re unaccustomed to can be profoundly unsettling. Gay marriage certainly fits into that category for many. It is a huge change in custom to go from living in secrecy to open recognition in some form of 'marriage' in less than a generation, and that journey can be jarring.
But the idea of 'fairness' is also part of our deeply ingrained custom, and it seems to me as if time and the forces of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" are continuing to be taking us in that direction...along with the usual cacophony historically associated with such societal shifts.
As for me, I will continue to try and just live a decently moral life because it is the humanistically right thing to do - not because a book written by somebody claims some gawd they believe in will be upset if I don't.
And so it goes...
Richard
I think we are witnessing a fascinating paradigm shift when it comes to the two most controversial social issues of our time. Many in the baby boomer/sixties generation were all about sexual freedom and liberation from the moral restraints that had guided previous generations. This line of thinking, of course, led to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and legalization of abortion-on-demand. But if you even mentioned the idea of open homosexuality outside of places like San Francisco....much less the question of equal marriage....there would be neither talk nor tolerance of it.
The succeeding two generations are much more open to same-sex relationships and marriage because, as you rightly pointed out, many of them have grown up around LGBT people. However, judging from polls that I have seen as well as the general attitude among numerous friends of mine from a variety of backgrounds, there exists a strong disdain towards abortion for reasons of economic and social convenience. People tend have a more pro-life outlook these days unless in extenuating circumstances during a woman's pregnancy.
These are fascinating times that we live in.....:munchin
That word 'fairness' has been shaped into a very broad definition lately with all this 'Fairness Doctrine" stuff. Fairness on the air means that the government can restrict or reduce conservative programs while increasing liberal ones.
"Fairness in the Workplace" means that a qualified candidate who may revolutionize your company must be rejected for one of lower quality in order to satisfy a 'fairness' requirement.
Fairness in Marriage - males who 'love each other' are granted the same rights as hetero couples, yet can offer nothing but the weakening of society in return.
Can they reproduce?
Does their matrimonial bond strengthen the fabric of society?
Would these same couples who would beg their validation from the state, return to the state for validation in other ways?
I hear the fabric of society, its tearing.
You all keep referring to "rights". Just what "rights" are being "denied" to homosexuals???
If you think this through, you'll see this is a false argument. There simply aren't ANY "rights" being denied to gay lovers. Don't accept the flawed premise.
Stargazer
05-16-2012, 08:09
You all keep referring to "rights". Just what "rights" are being "denied" to homosexuals???
If you think this through, you'll see this is a false argument. There simply aren't ANY "rights" being denied to gay lovers. Don't accept the flawed premise.
An argument might be made based on privileges of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Same sex marriges, lawfully, are limited on tax and health privileges afforded married citizens.
Stargazer
05-16-2012, 13:14
I reacted to President Obama’s stance on gay marriage as ‘puffing’ for political gain and has nothing to do with bettering or strengthening the quality of this nation’s fabric. In the eyes of this citizen when comparing his pledges to actions, I have concluded he meets the Dilbert Principle.
Is it surprising that the Framers of the Constitution did not want to create a bill of rights? They did not believe the Constitution or a government can or should infringe on individuals rights. After much debate, those in support of a bill of rights won. Since that day, special interest groups and those in power have debated, legislated and masturbated our rights away.
If those chartered with the responsibility and duty of protecting the Constitution were true to the spirit of the Framers, would there even be a discussion regarding the legal rights of LGBT or any other marital combination? If individuals do not accept LGBT lifestyles, (or any other social divide) a path towards acceptance cannot be legislated without infringing on the rights of others. MOO, it was not the intended role of government to force individuals, employers, organizations or any other entity to accept social choices of others. It is the role of government to protect lawful and responsible citizens from domestic and foreign enemies.
My position – the established or “customary” definition of marriage is between a man and woman. Find another word to describe your union. Move to a flat tax thereby eliminating the marriage bonus. Find an employer who offers benefits to same-sex partners (since we are now on a flat tax rule, there are no longer tax advantages only employer paid benefits). If your employer doesn’t extend benefits to same-sex partners, get an individual policy based on risk factor of lifestyle/ social choices. Others do not accept your union, well, that’s life – go live yours.
Stargazer
05-16-2012, 14:18
Because in that instance, it can harm children.
As I interpret your view, harm to children (offspring) is what determines whether individuals are able to legally marry. Is that a criteria for marriage or reproduction? How is that managed by legislating the type of 'consenting' adults that can marry? People do not have to marry to produce children. Does it only apply to genetic compatibility of married couples? What about other physical and psychology risks?
With respect to inbreeding - In a first level pedigree (parent/child; siblings) coefficent is at 25%; second level pedigree (cousins) is at 4-6%. Non-related is 2-3%. So, even offspring of non-related parents are at risk of genetic related disease or 'harm' as defined by you. There is a study if you are truly interested: http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1765114
What about the potential risk of harm to the general public and LGBT participants? The NIH sponsored a study that looked at the health status of LGBT relationships. The study separated results by 3 groupings: child/adols; early/middle adults; late/adults. Findings showed the child/adols at higher risks of HIV, suicidal ideation, depression and substance abuse. There are documented risks and health implications associated with LGBT practices. LGBT makes up a small segment of society, although the increase was notable in the 2010 census.
If the potential or risk of harm to offspring is a determing factor for marriage than we might as well abolish the act.
Actually, there is a marriage "penalty" if you are looking at it from a taxation standpoint. The rest are merely contractual obligations freely entered into by anyone. There simply are no "rights" being denied gay couples. Don't fall for this line of BS.
Ya'll are so wound up looking at the trees that you can't see the forest.
Bullshit.
Unless a. you're homosexual yourself or b. you're too young to know better.
b
Homosexuality has never been a problem for me, and I'm neither homosexual or too young.
What consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults do sexually doesn't concern me.
Allowing homosexuals to marry will not change my life, and it most certainly will not affect or lessen my marriage one iota. But then what do I know, I've only been married once, and neither my wife nor I plan on getting gay married.
:munchin
Stargazer
05-16-2012, 14:58
Actually, there is a marriage "penalty" if you are looking at it from a taxation standpoint. The rest are merely contractual obligations freely entered into by anyone. There simply are no "rights" being denied gay couples. Don't fall for this line of BS.
Ya'll are so wound up looking at the trees that you can't see the forest.
I was referring to those who might benefit from the marriage bonus..
http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/Getting-Married/INF12006.html
I believe there are IRA issues but you may be correct as I am not a tax expert.
Homosexuality has never been a problem for me, and I'm neither homosexual or too young.
What consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults do sexually doesn't concern me.
Allowing homosexuals to marry will not change my life, and it most certainly will not affect or lessen my marriage one iota. But then what do I know, I've only been married once, and neither my wife nor I plan on getting gay married.
:munchin
OK
or c. you're a liberal.
GratefulCitizen
05-16-2012, 17:42
-Homosexuality is normal and healthy.
-Global warming is real and you can do something about it.
-Capitalism doesn't work and needs to be regulated.
-Socialism does work when it has enough funding and power.
Reminds me of the Star Trek TNG "Chain of Command" episodes.
The captain is captured, tortured, and interrogated.
The interrogator shows 4 lights and asks the captain what he sees.
Whenever the captain says he sees 4 lights, he is zapped and told that there are actually 5 lights.
By the end, the captain started to believe he could see 5 lights.
This is all just a bunch of mass brainwashing using the gaslighting technique.
KimuraFTW
05-16-2012, 19:35
we let people smoke and eat fast food and don't disdain them for doing so. Well everyone at least makes you feel bad about it.I wonder if these are related to many LGBTs being rejected by society, ostracized, or feeling ashamed of how they are, or whatnot.Probably so to be honest...
GratefulCitizen
05-16-2012, 20:29
IMO it's both, depending on how one looks at it. In terms of how nature designed creatures, it is abnormal. But in terms of whether it happens a lot in humans and other creatures, it is a normal occurrence for a portion of the population.
There are 4 lights.
And there are 5 lights.
The idea that global warming is going to wreck the planet and destroy everything unless we submit to massive governmental micromanaging of our lives and the economy is a form of religious hysteria. But the idea the global warming is real is not junk science. Think of it this way: the Earth has a MASSIVE fire that has been burning for over one-hundred years now, and is continuining to grow in size. Each year, it releases hundreds of billions of tons of additional carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. One could theorize that, after a certain point, it could start to have an effect on the climate.
Both the Left and the Right have a misunderstanding of the argument. The Left make out as if global warming is occurring and will be disastrous, and because of their using it as an excuse for radicalism and socialism, the Right has garnered a knee-jerk reaction that consists of just rejecting global warming theory outright completely. From what I understand of it though, in terms of whether the Earth is warming and whether this warming is being caused by humans, the scientists that study this are pretty much 100% sure that the answer to both is yes. Where the debate is, and where no one knows the answer, is how this warming will change the climate or affect the biosphere. In order to try and predict this, they have to rely on computer models, which can be manipulated to predict things will be catostrophic. They also have to try and understand the biosphere and how it will react to the warming, and no one person or profession completely understands the biosphere or exactly how the climate will change even.
The concern among many scientists is that the pumping of carbon into the atmosphere and warming the planet could result in a sudden change in the climate at some point in the future, which, if that happens, could be catostrphic for the biosphere. We know for a fact that in the past at certain times, the climate has changed relatively quickly and too quickly for much of the biosphere to adapt. That is the concern with global warming. OTOH, global warming might be beneficial for the biosphere as well. No one knows for sure though.
My skepticism on global warming has little to do with politics (though their advocacy appears to have everything to do with politics).
Their science sucks.
More than 99.9% of the world's carbon is locked up in sediments (primarily limestone).
About .00012% of the world's carbon is in the atmosphere.
When scientists can come up with a plausible explanation as to the origin of limestone I might consider listening to their opinions on the relationship between atmospheric carbon and global warming.
FWIW, the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor.
Capitalism does need regulation, but regulation is not any panacea and can have its own share of problems, such as Big Business using it to cut out competition and the Left using it to try and implement socialism-by-proxy. But I would not want a completely unregulated capitalist system. We saw what that resulted in during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and in China right now. One thing important to remember is that, while capitalism has created tremendous things for society, it doesn't really work well, but instead is just the economic system that functions the least badly out of the alternatives. It will always be subject to evil businesses, corrupt executives, financial manias, panics, crashes, bubbles, recessions, depressions, etc...it is the system that works the least badly, and it needs regulation, in varying degrees.
Ahh, another favorite liberal technique: the false dichotomy.
If we're against centralized planning we're for anarchy.
Not accusing you of doing this.
But you are using their talking point.
Peregrino
05-16-2012, 20:30
Marriage is a (reasonably) successful social construct predating all the religious reasons cited by the current crop of moralists. It's designed to entice women into procreating and sticking with motherhood through the most productive years of their life. It exists because bonded heterosexual couples represent the most efficient system for raising successful progeny. That's why it provides a sanctioned environment for sexual activity (admittedly primarilly for procreation), provides security and support by attaindering the male partner, and provides penalties against the male partner for breach of contract. It's all about creating and maintaining a favorable environment for raising the next generation. Why in the hell would any sane society want to dilute marriage by perverting its purpose, making it less exclusive and less effective as a safeguard and enticement for females to take up motherhood? :confused:
ETA: Just in case anyone missed my point. I'm vehemently opposed to homosexual marriages. You want to play house with your same-sex partner - have fun. I don't care. You want me to sanction your union with the rights and privileges of a married hetero-sexual couple - pound sand. Those are (must be) reserved as protections and enticements for a stable home environment and ensuring the success of the next generations.
re read this
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
GratefulCitizen
05-16-2012, 22:44
Yes, carbon and water vapor are a small part of the atmosphere (about 1%), but they are what create the greenhouse effect that keeps our planet warm. Without that 1% of the atmosphere, Earth would be a frozen planet (the other 99% of the atmosphere, ozygen, nitrogen, and argon, does not create a greenhouse effect). So the concern is that by pouring hundreds of billions of tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere each year, we could increase the greenhouse effect over time. Regarding water vapor, water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, but water vapor it is believed creates a positive feedback loop with CO2 increases in that if you increase the carbon-dioxide, and warm the planet more, then you cause more water to evaporate into the atmosphere and this increases the warming effect caused by the CO2.
The main point I was seeking to make though is, at least as far as I understand of it, people don't understand just where there is a consensus among the climate scientists. You have people on the Left saying "the debate is over," people on the Right pointing out that consensus isn't what you go by in science and that it could be wrong, etc...but there are different aspects of the argument. In terms of "Is the planet warming?" and "Is the warming human-caused?" most climate scientists believe the answer is yes. In terms of "How will the warming change the climate?" and "How will the climate changes affect the environment?" there is no consensus.
This reasoning is still rooted in liberal talking points.
The talking points assume the question, which limits the potential answers.
This enables them to ignore other relevant questions.
They wish to ignore questions for which they don't have answers or don't like the answers.
In the case of C02/climate change:
Sediments are transported and deposited by water.
Limestone dissolves in water.
When limestone is in solution, it takes the form of HC03 and Ca ions.
When limestone precipitates out of solution, the supernates are H20 and C02.
For every 100g of limestone precipitated, 44g of C02 are produced.
The amount of carbon in sediments is highly relevant to the history of atmospheric C02.
If they cannot address how this absolutely massive* potential source of C02 affects the atmosphere, how can they address how a minor** source like coal and hydrocarbons affects the atmosphere?
*(Over 99.9% of the world's carbon is in sediments, mainly limestone)
**(Coal and hydrocarbons represent less than .01% of the world's carbon)
Regarding gay marriage/homosexuality, many ignored questions have been brought up in this thread.
Among those:
-What is the state's interest in gay marriage (how does it benefit the state)?
-Homosexuality was once considered a psychological disorder; why did this change?
How do liberals answer these questions?
Don't let liberal talking points determine the limits of your questions.
Don't let liberals corral you into binary or even one-dimensional thinking.
So what if it is though?
If it IS a psychological disorder - then there is not a single reasonable argument that portrays providing a PAIR of people with psychological disorders with a state recognized relationship in a positive light.
If it IS NOT a psychological disorder - then it really is an "alternate lifestyle", gays 'choose' to be gay. The argument that they should be allowed to 'marry' goes out the window again.
Yet another of those "Come over to my side of the argument - the view is so clear from here!" discussions.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
05-17-2012, 11:32
Does the limestone regularly release CO2 into the atmosphere?
It releases CO2 every time it forms, which is then likely held in solution in the world's waters.
There is about 50 times as much CO2 in the world's water as there is in the atmosphere.
Every time limestone dissolves, CO2 is absorbed.
Also, CO2 is released and absorbed between the atmosphere and the world's water all the time.
These massive interactions are ignored.
Just a few inconvenient truths.
Why should it have to benefit the state? If it will hurt the state a lot, I could maybe see the argument, but I do not see how it does. Allowing gays to marry doesn't affect straight people.
Never said that it should benefit the state nor claimed that it hurt the state.
I asked how liberals answer these questions.
So what if it is though?
I agree.
So what.
Again, I asked how liberals answer these questions.
They want their questions answered.
They do not wish to address these questions because it involves thinking about the issue from many different angles and revealing true agendas.
Liberals don't want people to think, they want people to feel.
"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
-Thomas Sowell
Liberals don't want people to think, they want people to feel.
"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
-Thomas Sowell
Nailed.
Golf1echo
05-18-2012, 06:39
I am with Dusty. Men should not be having sex with other men, and people should not be forced to approve of or sanction it.
TR[/QUOTE]
I see the following aspect as a trend. Here in NC we voted to forbid same sex marriage 61% to 39% ( aprox. 2/3rds have it) 39 other States have also voted against it ( aprox. 2/3rds have it) 65% of folks polled said the economy is what matters...does any of these majority votes and polls matter? Apparently not to listen to the news. :mad: It appears to me that the majority rule and democracy is being hijacked by special interest.
[QUOTE=Golf1echo;449131]I am with Dusty. Men should not be having sex with other men, and people should not be forced to approve of or sanction it.
As Richard pointed out earlier, I find it comical that a majority of this discussion has centered around men having sex with men. I guess none of you have problems with women having sex with women (as long as they are good looking women I am sure)
[QUOTE=Golf1echo;449131]
As Richard pointed out earlier, I find it comical that a majority of this discussion has centered around men having sex with men. I guess none of you have problems with women having sex with women (as long as they are good looking women I am sure)
I find it comical that you profess to be a practicing Christian while condoning homosexual marriage.
GratefulCitizen
05-18-2012, 13:34
Don't know enough about the limestone issue, but the oceans and atmosphere exchanging CO2 is well-known among the climate scientists. Their argument is that there is a natural cycle that keeps a relatively equal amount of carbon in the atmosphere at play (the amount absorbed by land and the oceans equals the amount released). However, by adding additional carbon into the atmosphere, humans upset this balance, as the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. They absorb about 40% of it, while the other 60% remains in the atmosphere. This of course doesn't happen overnight, but is cumulative, and causes more CO2 to build up in the atmosphere (or so their argument goes).
Differing CO2 levels in water, in turn, affects the precipitation/dissolution of limestone, other minerals, and who knows what else.
The limestone is there (lots of it), CO2 production/absorbtion is associated, and the issue is ignored.
The point of my tangent wasn't to solve the CO2 issue.
It was to demonstrate that many liberal arguments are often just a cover for their real agenda.
If they keep getting pestered with questions which don't exactly match their talking points, the truth eventually comes out.
The truth: they want you to take actions (or refrain from acting) in a manner which enhances their power (just like any political movement).
Perhaps their ambitions are justified and they are correct (on whatever issue).
It does make me suspicious that they feel the need to conceal their true agenda.
OK
or c. you're a liberal.
I'd much rather be a liberal then a bigot.
c. lib·er·al
[ líbbərəl ]
broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others.
d. big·ot
[ bíggət ]
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
I'd much rather be a liberal then a bigot.
c. lib·er·al
[ líbbərəl ]
broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others.
d. big·ot
[ bíggət ]
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
Damn! I almost fit into the "bigot" category. I have strong opinions, especially on politics, religion and ethnicity, but the only views I refuse to accept are those of liberal idiots.
GratefulCitizen
05-18-2012, 14:21
Tolerance and approval are not the same thing.
Ten years ago, South Park addressed the whole tolerance vs. approval issue.
Pretty vulgar, but prescient.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s06e14-the-death-camp-of-tolerance
Stargazer
05-18-2012, 14:30
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/18/obama-stance-adds-fuel-in-marriage-battlegrounds/
Excerpt:
"PORTLAND, Maine – President Barack Obama's support for gay marriage has emboldened activists and politicians on both sides of the issue, setting off a flurry of political activity in a number of states and serving as a rallying point in others where gay marriage votes are being held this fall.
With the nation divided on gay marriage, Obama's declaration this month — a day after North Carolina voters approved an amendment to the state constitution affirming that marriage may only be a union of a man and a woman — has added a wrinkle in the political debate on a touchy subject.
Obama's stand has put wind in the sails of gay marriage supporters, while providing political fuel to opponents, said Kamy Akhavan, president of ProCon.org, a nonpartisan California-based nonprofit that researches pros and cons on controversial issues.
"It has altered the national discussion to some degree," he said.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in six states and the District of Columbia. Thirty-one states have passed amendments aimed at banning it. The issue is expected to come up in at least four ballot measures this fall:
— Maine's ballot question asks whether gay marriage should be legalized.
— Minnesota is asking whether a ban on gay marriage should be part of the state constitution.
— Maryland and Washington are expected to have ballot measures seeking to overturn same-sex marriage laws that were recently passed by the legislatures."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/18/obama-stance-adds-fuel-in-marriage-battlegrounds/
Excerpt:
"PORTLAND, Maine – President Barack Obama's support for gay marriage has emboldened activists and politicians on both sides of the issue, setting off a flurry of political activity in a number of states and serving as a rallying point in others where gay marriage votes are being held this fall.
With the nation divided on gay marriage, Obama's declaration this month — a day after North Carolina voters approved an amendment to the state constitution affirming that marriage may only be a union of a man and a woman — has added a wrinkle in the political debate on a touchy subject.
Obama's stand has put wind in the sails of gay marriage supporters, while providing political fuel to opponents, said Kamy Akhavan, president of ProCon.org, a nonpartisan California-based nonprofit that researches pros and cons on controversial issues.
"It has altered the national discussion to some degree," he said.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in six states and the District of Columbia. Thirty-one states have passed amendments aimed at banning it. The issue is expected to come up in at least four ballot measures this fall:
— Maine's ballot question asks whether gay marriage should be legalized.
— Minnesota is asking whether a ban on gay marriage should be part of the state constitution.
— Maryland and Washington are expected to have ballot measures seeking to overturn same-sex marriage laws that were recently passed by the legislatures."
lol The First Gay Black Foreign Great Unifier. Everything backfires on this guy.
Stargazer
05-18-2012, 14:36
lol The First Gay Black Foreign Great Unifier. Everything backfires on this guy.
The President's title is growing exponentially... ambition can be a slippery slope....
The President's title is growing exponentially... ambition can be a slippery slope....
...along with incompetence and duplicity...
Stargazer
05-18-2012, 15:31
Can anyone provide me with what it is that they are fighting for? Is all this over a word - "marriage"? What's the President's endorsement worth beyond 'feel good' soundbytes. Do they need other's approval to affirm their love/commitment to each other? Do they believe by receiving a presidential endorsement that the majority will now accept their lifestyle choice? I am not being mean-spirited in my questions. I am sincererly trying to understand what individuals realistically think will 'change'.
I have spent a little free-time researching the 'legal' matters or 'civil rights' that LGBT feel are being denied.
As the article that PRB shared and views expressed by Jim P pointed out -- LGBT parties are not the only individuals who are unable to legally marry; and, most legal matters can be covered by agreements/contracts such as financial/healthcare PAs, domestic partnership agreements, wills (Living too--all kinds of ways for attorneys or legalzoom.com), etc.. Other couples have to take the same measures to protect loved ones in the case of their death or dissolution of the relationship. What appears to be missing is the 'automatic' or inherit safety net afforded to legal spouses.
What cannot be resolved by a contract is healthcare coverage under a employer 's benefits unless they offer it to domestic partners. Today, under some plans an employer can offer coverage to domestic partners. However it usually drives up the group premiums due to increased health risks. Another matter is the marriage tax bonus (not penalty). Again, these matters are not a point of discrimnation against LGBT's since man/woman that choose to live together (but not marry) have the same restraints.
I personally do not have an issue granting a legal union (not use of the word marriage) that would give individuals the inherit rights that married couples receive.
If the fight is over the use of the word marriage that leads me to believe the issue is more about acceptance than spousal benefits. This country's culture is not at a place where the majority of individuals will embrace LGBT 'marriages'. Sorry, as I've previously stated, you cannot legislate equality, acceptance, diginity, honor, respect....
Disclaimer: MOO
GratefulCitizen
05-18-2012, 15:37
Can anyone provide me with what it is that they are fighting for?
Hearts and minds.
[QUOTE=afchic;449188]
I find it comical that you profess to be a practicing Christian while condoning homosexual marriage.
Then you need to go back and read my posts. I have never stated I condone homosexual marriage. Emotions are getting the better of you.
[QUOTE=Dusty;449189]
Then you need to go back and read my posts. I have never stated I condone homosexual marriage. Emotions are getting the better of you.
"Civil Union" and "Homosexual Marriage" are identical when applied to two people of the same sex, afchic-even though the legalities differ with regard to benefits, etc.
And you're right, I've gone through several boxes of Kleenex in this thread.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=afchic;449237]
"Civil Union" and "Homosexual Marriage" are identical when applied to two people of the same sex, afchic-even though the legalities differ with regard to benefits, etc.
And you're right, I've gone through several boxes of Kleenex in this thread.:rolleyes:
That's where you and I differ. Nothing I say will ever change your mind. Nothing you say will change mine. Have a great Air Force day.
[QUOTE=Dusty;449238]
Have a great Air Force day.
I can't even concieve of such a thing. :D
Golf1echo
05-18-2012, 16:54
[QUOTE=Golf1echo;449131]I am with Dusty. Men should not be having sex with other men, and people should not be forced to approve of or sanction it.
As Richard pointed out earlier, I find it comical that a majority of this discussion has centered around men having sex with men. I guess none of you have problems with women having sex with women (as long as they are good looking women I am sure)
I was trying to save band width and probably could have saved some more. I have my own beliefs, that reflects part of them. I believe in personal liberties as long as they do not interfere with others freedoms and rights. I also don't believe I am any ones judge, but I think history tells me marriage is between a man and woman, not that I ever figured that out, but that's me. What I was saying is that a minority agenda does not or should not have the weight I perceive the media is giving it, that does bother me, I think that is manipulation plain and simple. That is not the medias job nor is it helpful no matter what you believe. Imagine if they focused on the economy ...which is most peoples concern. Imagine if they used those same efforts to help solve those problems or at least be a positive influence...
Added: With one of the biggest wealth redistribution in our history going on and a Congress and Senate that are ineffective why are they focused on this?
GratefulCitizen
05-18-2012, 20:36
Yes, there's different types of global warmer:
1) The serious kind who is a truly interested in the science, who believes in global warming because they look at the evidence and let it determine their point-of-view (as opposed to the ideologues who search for facts to support their predetermined point-of-view).
2) The ideologues for whom it's a religion, and who believe the world is going to end
3) Those who see it as a great opportunity to implement big government and socialism (some of these are also ideologues)
FWIW, I do believe that, on average, the Earth is getting warmer.
This belief is based on scientific reasons which are completely different from the CO2 argument (for that matter, CO2 levels are probably a consequence of global warming, not the cause).
I am also against gay marriage.
The reasons relate to a number of different issues, which may or may not be in direct opposition to various proponents of gay marriage.
From some angles, gay marriage is just a corollary to a bigger issue.
From other angles, it is a potential cause to sets of unintended consequences not directly related to the controversy.
Liberals typically try to define the argument in simple, binary, and emotional terms.
The technique works pretty well with a centralized government and a two-party system.
Damn! I almost fit into the "bigot" category. I have strong opinions, especially on politics, religion and ethnicity, but the only views I refuse to accept are those of liberal idiots.
You're just upset because they set fire to police cars and loot stores during their "You shouldn't think of me as a bad person" rallies.
Golf1echo
05-19-2012, 06:18
The problem though is that going by history is not a good idea to determine whether a particular activity is right or wrong. There are plenty of activities that have been the norm throughout history that we consider to be very wrong today, such as slavery, oppression of women, religious oppression, etc...also, the history argument is one of the arguments that Justice Blackmun used in his majority opinion in the SCOTUS case of Roe v Wade. The SCOTUS reasoned that if you look at history, abortion laws had actually been a lot more lenient in the past then what they were at that time, and this was part of their reasoning for striking down anti-abortion laws.
Good point, I did think afterwards about "I also don't believe I am any ones judge" That could be articulated a bit more. Judgement and interpreting the context in accordance with ones beliefs and social norms is important but I do not see myself as the judge of others unless I am on a jury. I will be the judge of what I believe is right. I see others, through out history that have chosen differently. I am mostly concerned here with a minority view or agenda being forced on the majority outside our agreed system, that tears at the fabric of who we are and what makes it work.
KimuraFTW
05-19-2012, 07:08
If the fight is over the use of the word marriage that leads me to believe the issue is more about acceptance than spousal benefits.
Disclaimer: MOO
It's technically about both, but a large majority of it is simply over the former...
There is an article today on American Thinker which mirrors some points made by others here regarding the intent of marraige and the utility (or lack of) of same - sex parents raising children.
Marriage and parenting aren't invented, but evolved institutions. They evolved from human nature, from millions of years of human (and before that hominid) adaptations to the environment. Heterosexual marriage and parenting are conformities to nature; they are time-tested as the most efficacious ways to nurture children to adulthood.
Of course, there are exceptions or deviancies; that's the case with most rules. But gay advocates (most progressives, as a matter of fact) have a curious belief that 5-8 million years of human hardwiring and the social arrangements that have grown out of that hardwiring through environmental responses can be disposed of. Social arrangements are furniture to be moved around at will. It's a conceit.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/new_data_on_same-sex_parenting_challenges_gay_orthodoxy.html#ixzz1x aTZLoIo
I find it extremely interesting how the author touches also touches on the root of the "Gay gene" theory
Yet it's often the same gay advocates who argue that marriage and family are pliable who are as likely to advance the case that homosexuality is inborn or genetic, without any scientific confirmation (or, perhaps, without any good science confirming).
If homosexuality is ever proven to be inborn (perhaps new science will prove something someday), it still stands as a deviancy (the word isn't being used pejoratively, but descriptively). Again, contrary to popular thinking, gays constitute about 3% of the U.S. population, making gays a significant "deviation from the norm." That 3% figure is likely true across the planet.
Preponderantly, the norm is heterosexuality, and the norm that is optimal for the benefit and promotion of the human species (and the societies within which humans prosper) is heterosexual marriage and rearing of children.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/new_data_on_same-sex_parenting_challenges_gay_orthodoxy.html#ixzz1x aU1kjFS
If homosexuality is indeed a choice, then science will never be able to definitively prove where homosexuality "exists" so to speak as a choice made at some random time is not something science can measure. Thus, the question will forever remain and we will fund study after study in our quest for the root of homosexuality. This is good for research scientists, bad for tax payers.
There is an article today on American Thinker which mirrors some points made by others here regarding the intent of marraige and the utility (or lack of) of same - sex parents raising children.
I find it extremely interesting how the author touches also touches on the root of the "Gay gene" theory
If homosexuality is indeed a choice, then science will never be able to definitively prove where homosexuality "exists" so to speak as a choice made at some random time is not something science can measure. Thus, the question will forever remain and we will fund study after study in our quest for the root of homosexuality. This is good for research scientists, bad for tax payers.
There have been quite a few articles the past couple of days on the Regnerus study. A lot of the comments I have seen on them state that his sampling size as well has how he chose his samples were very flawed. I am not posting this so that we can have a debate on gay vs hetersexual parents. I just wanted to point out that the referenced study may not be all it is cracked up to be.
There have been quite a few articles the past couple of days on the Regnerus study. A lot of the comments I have seen on them state that his sampling size as well has how he chose his samples were very flawed. I am not posting this so that we can have a debate on gay vs hetersexual parents. I just wanted to point out that the referenced study may not be all it is cracked up to be.
I too have a healthy skepticism over the Regnerus study. How many of the very same advocates of this so-called research study would embrace the same on weed abatement by the makers of Agent Orange, the efficacy of second-hand smoke by R.J. Reynolds, or use of lite crude in cleansing befouled waterfowl?
I too have a healthy skepticism over the Regnerus study. How many of the very same advocates of this so-called research study would embrace the same on weed abatement by the makers of Agent Orange, the efficacy of second-hand smoke by R.J. Reynolds, or use of lite crude in cleansing befouled waterfowl?
The biggest critique I have seen is the sampling size (258) and the fact he chose his sample from standing outside a LGBT bookshop. Additionally the questions were posed in such a way that if the respondent did answer 'yes" to one of their parents having a homosexual relationship, it did not follow up with questions as to the length of the relationship, whether the "partner" was a parent, a one night stand, just a girlfriend/boyfriend, etc...
Additionally it tried to draw a causation between homosexuality and child sex abuse but did not determine when the child sex abuse took place. Before the homosexual relationship began, during, or after. That is a pretty steep hill to climb on a very sensitive matter, in my opionion, without asking the correct questions.
This study also did not look at the implications of heterosexual divorce rates on the children.
I personally believe the best thing for kids is a healthy heterosexual two parent home. I say healthy because there is a vast difference in "stability" if the two parents are constantly fighting, abuse is present, etc...
But if given the choice between a child being raised in an abusive heterosexual home, foster care, or an orphanage and a happy (I won't say healthy because I know how you all feel about homsexuality and healthy :D) homosexual home, I would go for the homosexual home. JMO
I found this in an early review of the study:
The Study’s Sample
On that score, there is one significant strength to this study which makes it stand out. Unlike prior studies, the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is based on a national probability sampled population. This is the gold standard for all social science studies, and it’s extremely rare for a study to achieve that mark. As far as I am aware, all of the studies to date of gay and lesbian parenting use non-representative convenience samples. National probability samples, unlike convenience samples, are important because they alone can be generalized to the broader populations, to the extent that key characteristics in the design of the probability sample (demographics, etc.) match those of the general population. Convenience samples can’t do that.
Source (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/10/45512)
I believe the most telling research would compare two pairs of adults, one male and one female, one pair raised in a loving same sex home and the other in a loving traditional home. (Does traditional still mean mother/father?) But even this study would be skewed from the start because the children of the traditional parents would actually be their own offspring. Thus a clear picture of the tendencies of a child via inherited or learned traits could not be drawn from the same sex parents the way they could with traditional parents (drive, intelligence, health etc).
While this thread is not about children of homosexual parents, the mentality of most individuals in our country is as follows: First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes mommy with the baby carriage. The gay couples I know have this same mentality (strangely enough). In this light, a discussion of gay marriage must surely address the subject of 'gay families' as well IMO.
With respect.
I found this in an early review of the study:
Source (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/10/45512)
I believe the most telling research would compare two pairs of adults, one male and one female, one pair raised in a loving same sex home and the other in a loving traditional home. (Does traditional still mean mother/father?) But even this study would be skewed from the start because the children of the traditional parents would actually be their own offspring. Thus a clear picture of the tendencies of a child via inherited or learned traits could not be drawn from the same sex parents the way they could with traditional parents (drive, intelligence, health etc).
While this thread is not about children of homosexual parents, the mentality of most individuals in our country is as follows: First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes mommy with the baby carriage. The gay couples I know have this same mentality (strangely enough). In this light, a discussion of gay marriage must surely address the subject of 'gay families' as well IMO.
With respect.
If you read the entire text of the review you highlighted above, you will see where the review author says this study is comparing apples to elephants. Just sayin"
If you read the entire text of the review you highlighted above, you will see where the review author says this study is comparing apples to elephants. Just sayin"
While not disagreeing with you ma'm, this study at least offers some insight into the possible repercussions of embracing gay marriage as a society when viewed from the angle of the resulting benefits to that society. Marraige between traditional couples is granted special privileges (partly) because the result of that matrimony benefits society (more producers, tax payers, soldiers etc). Once the gays win acceptance of their 'right' to marry in the traditional sense (its going to happen, its just a matter of when), they gain the benefits without being capable of producing anything to society. The Regnerus study, with its flaws, at least opens up the discussion that though gay couples may be able to adopt, that the return value they can offer (in a percentage of cases) ie new producers, tax payers, soldiers etc, have a higher chance of being flawed and/or less productive/useful to society than offspring from traditional couples.
Following that line of reasoning, if the chance that a gay couples 'offspring' has less of a chance of being stable, capable, solid contributing members of society than even a less than ideal traditional couple, is it worth granting them the special privilege of state recognized matrimony and the associated benefits if the utility gained by society is minimal to non-existent?
Respectfully...