NCAAbbs

...and a "lifelong Republican."

"What do you think I fought for on Omaha Beach?"

That man deserves (another) medal

It's such a sad commentary that this man is being reviled in many of the YouTube comments. I'm sure there's some on this board who want to say something negative about him, and may yet do so, in this thread. If you do so, you're entitled to your opinion, but you will be dead to me.

If anyone deserves to have his opinion heard, it is a man like that. They deserve respect like none other. And to be honest, I don't care about the whole gay marriage thing. I have no feelings one way or the other. That being said.........GN- I have to take exception to your thought. If someone puts himself out in public and champions a cause, he is fair game to have his position attacked. I know you probably are talking about personal/character attacks. If so, I agree. Any man who served his country does not deserve to have something like that done to him. But his service is not a shield against someone who wants to thrash the man's opinion. That's part of the game. I haven't read any of the comments on youtube, nor will I- it is normally completely retarded. So I don't know exactly what is being said.

Who cares?

My only caveat about gay marriage is that the government should never force a religious official (priest, preacher, deacon, etc.) to perform the nuptials, nor should they force houses of worship to hold the ceremonies (and this from someone who is not religious at all). I just don't want to ever see the day when a pastor or priest is refused, by the state, the right to marry couples because he refuses to marry gay couples and I'm afraid that's what we would get if some activists had their way.

But I don't see how anyone can be against a legal construct (i.e., union, marriage...I don't care what it's called) that gives the same rights, protections, and privileges to committed gay couples that are enjoyed by married couples now.

(10-22-2009 05:12 PM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]My only caveat about gay marriage is that the government should never force a religious official (priest, preacher, deacon, etc.) to perform the nuptials, nor should they force houses of worship to hold the ceremonies (and this from someone who is not religious at all). I just don't want to ever see the day when a pastor or priest is refused, by the state, the right to marry couples because he refuses to marry gay couples and I'm afraid that's what we would get if some activists had their way.

But I don't see how anyone can be against a legal construct (i.e., union, marriage...I don't care what it's called) that gives the same rights, protections, and privileges to committed gay couples that are enjoyed by married couples now.

I know plenty of preachers who won't marry heterosexual couples if they've lived together before they were married, admit to not being virgins, etc. There's no legal requirement that anyone perform a legal marriage other than legal officials such as judges, not religious officials.

This thread (not the OP, but the discussion following) reminds me of something I was thinking about the other day concerning that Justice of the Peace in Louisiana...

I was comparing and contrasting what he did to Pharmacists who refused to dispense the RU486? Abortion Pill... A "free country" Ladies and Gentlemen where the state dictates what you do and don't do, no matter what you believe... (Please lets not go there--change topic to the Justice of the Peace thing I mean. I am not necessarily endorsing what happened in LA, I just found some of the parallels interesting after hearing the guy out in interviews after the fact...)

I also wonder if there will come a day when religious leaders are pressured or required to marry those they do not wish. Despite the constitutional right of free worship.

There is no one I hold in higher regard than our country's veterans (hell, I am one). The veterans of WWII are indeed deserving of the moniker "Our Greatest Generation". But the old fella in the video is no sacred cow. I think if pressed on the issue, he'd admit that that what he "fought for on Omaha Beach" was our country, its people, our way of life, and our blessed Constitution born as it was in a truly Enlightened Age.

No one is locking up gay people like Oscar Wilde in Modern America.
Gay people can unite in a civil union legally now in this Country.
More and more employers are extending benefits to same-sex couples.

There's only really one hurdle here left, but that wont be jumped: Christian people who understand what marriage is still refuse to call what homosexuals have a "marriage". In other words the battle now is for our hearts and minds. They (homosexuals) wont let go the topic until we call that which they have a "marriage". Well you can extend the word as far as I'm concerned to: "Marriage before God". And sorry, I don't think that the homosexuals have that. I don't think a lot of heterosexuals have it either, but there go my beliefs again!

You can come and kick our damn door down, but we aren't going to change our beliefs. Morality is not relative. God's opinion does not evolve with the times.

It's a free country. Gay people can do whatever they damn well please. But don't you dare get up in my face and tell me what I need to be believing...

My question for the panel is this: Do you really think this guy would be standing up fighting for marriage equality if his son wasn't gay? The same thing goes for Dickhole Cheney.

As the Goat man sayeth, on Omaha Beach, his thought progression most likely was:

1) I can't die here.
2) I want to see my wife and make babies.
3) I want to get the hell out of here.
4) Oh sh*t, I'm being shot at.

Maybe I'm missing something:

a. Is anyone trying to force clergy to marry gays?

b. Why would anyone want to be married by someone repulsed by your gaiety?

(10-23-2009 10:36 AM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe I'm missing something:

a. Is anyone trying to force clergy to marry gays?

b. Why would anyone want to be married by someone repulsed by your gaiety?

Yes, 58-56, some of the homosexual activists have openly said they would ultimately want churches and clergy forced by the state to perform ceremonies for gay couples as a condition of them being recognized as an entity that can legally wed anyone. Not everyone has that goal, not every organization either, but I have heard it said by more than one spokesperson and many individuals.

As to question b, I think it's the same reason some liberals want to stop a logger from cutting down a tree and some conservatives want to make/keep the selling of dildos illegal. Some people, when they are convinced they are right, need to force everyone else to be "right" for whatever reason.

(10-23-2009 09:16 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]This thread (not the OP, but the discussion following) reminds me of something I was thinking about the other day concerning that Justice of the Peace in Louisiana...

I was comparing and contrasting what he did to Pharmacists who refused to dispense the RU486? Abortion Pill... A "free country" Ladies and Gentlemen where the state dictates what you do and don't do, no matter what you believe... (Please lets not go there--change topic to the Justice of the Peace thing I mean. I am not necessarily endorsing what happened in LA, I just found some of the parallels interesting after hearing the guy out in interviews after the fact...)

I also wonder if there will come a day when religious leaders are pressured or required to marry those they do not wish. Despite the constitutional right of free worship.

There is no one I hold in higher regard than our country's veterans (hell, I am one). The veterans of WWII are indeed deserving of the moniker "Our Greatest Generation". But the old fella in the video is no sacred cow. I think if pressed on the issue, he'd admit that that what he "fought for on Omaha Beach" was our country, its people, our way of life, and our blessed Constitution born as it was in a truly Enlightened Age.

No one is locking up gay people like Oscar Wilde in Modern America.
Gay people can unite in a civil union legally now in this Country.
More and more employers are extending benefits to same-sex couples.

There's only really one hurdle here left, but that wont be jumped: Christian people who understand what marriage is still refuse to call what homosexuals have a "marriage". In other words the battle now is for our hearts and minds. They (homosexuals) wont let go the topic until we call that which they have a "marriage". Well you can extend the word as far as I'm concerned to: "Marriage before God". And sorry, I don't think that the homosexuals have that. I don't think a lot of heterosexuals have it either, but there go my beliefs again!

You can come and kick our damn door down, but we aren't going to change our beliefs. Morality is not relative. God's opinion does not evolve with the times.

It's a free country. Gay people can do whatever they damn well please. But don't you dare get up in my face and tell me what I need to be believing...

Civil unions are not available in every state and, therefore, aren't recognized legally by every state. Couples in civil unions also don't get the same legal recognition from the federal government when it comes to taxes, benefits, estate planning, etc. Personally, I think that's indefensible. But, again, I never want to see the day when a clergy member is forced to perform a "civil union" ceremony, or a marriage ceremony for that matter, against his will. I also don't want to see a church/synagogue/chapel/etc. sued because they refuse to host the ceremony for a civil union.

Every state should, however, make civil unions available and recognize them the same way they do marriages. Then let the marketplace decide who performs "civil unions" and who doesn't...if there's money to be paid, someone will get "certified" or whatever to perform these unions.

(10-23-2009 09:16 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]This thread (not the OP, but the discussion following) reminds me of something I was thinking about the other day concerning that Justice of the Peace in Louisiana...

I was comparing and contrasting what he did to Pharmacists who refused to dispense the RU486? Abortion Pill... A "free country" Ladies and Gentlemen where the state dictates what you do and don't do, no matter what you believe... (Please lets not go there--change topic to the Justice of the Peace thing I mean. I am not necessarily endorsing what happened in LA, I just found some of the parallels interesting after hearing the guy out in interviews after the fact...)

I also wonder if there will come a day when religious leaders are pressured or required to marry those they do not wish. Despite the constitutional right of free worship.

There is no one I hold in higher regard than our country's veterans (hell, I am one). The veterans of WWII are indeed deserving of the moniker "Our Greatest Generation". But the old fella in the video is no sacred cow. I think if pressed on the issue, he'd admit that that what he "fought for on Omaha Beach" was our country, its people, our way of life, and our blessed Constitution born as it was in a truly Enlightened Age.

No one is locking up gay people like Oscar Wilde in Modern America.
Gay people can unite in a civil union legally now in this Country.
More and more employers are extending benefits to same-sex couples.

There's only really one hurdle here left, but that wont be jumped: Christian people who understand what marriage is still refuse to call what homosexuals have a "marriage". In other words the battle now is for our hearts and minds. They (homosexuals) wont let go the topic until we call that which they have a "marriage". Well you can extend the word as far as I'm concerned to: "Marriage before God". And sorry, I don't think that the homosexuals have that. I don't think a lot of heterosexuals have it either, but there go my beliefs again!

You can come and kick our damn door down, but we aren't going to change our beliefs. Morality is not relative. God's opinion does not evolve with the times.

It's a free country. Gay people can do whatever they damn well please. But don't you dare get up in my face and tell me what I need to be believing...

No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage. Suppose me and my girlfriend who are both non-religious drove to Columbiana to the Shelby County Courthouse and got married. We'd be eligible for all the rights and privileges afforded to anyone married in a church. We'd be married by a judge. There are pastors who would refuse to marry us based on our 'sinful' relationship until this point, and no one suggests that they should be forced to. Would you not recognize us as married? Does the fact that we'd be husband and wife trump the fact that neither of us believe in nor consider ourselves married before any God? Me and my girlfriend are sinners just as much as two gay people. Aren't all sins the same before God? Why would a marriage between two "sinful" homosexuals be any different than a marriage between two heterosexual atheists? Why should a homosexual marriage be called something different if it is on a legal basis the same thing? Why complicate things by calling something a civil union when it's the same thing as marriage. Separate but 'equal' was ruled unfair and illegal a long time ago.

(10-23-2009 10:25 AM)FNblazer Wrote: [ -> ]My question for the panel is this: Do you really think this guy would be standing up fighting for marriage equality if his son wasn't gay? The same thing goes for Dickhole Cheney.

As the Goat man sayeth, on Omaha Beach, his thought progression most likely was:

1) I can't die here.
2) I want to see my wife and make babies.
3) I want to get the hell out of here.
4) Oh sh*t, I'm being shot at.

You're quite the ass hole.

(10-23-2009 10:36 AM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe I'm missing something:

a. Is anyone trying to force clergy to marry gays?

b. Why would anyone want to be married by someone repulsed by your gaiety?

(10-23-2009 10:54 AM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 10:36 AM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe I'm missing something:

a. Is anyone trying to force clergy to marry gays?

b. Why would anyone want to be married by someone repulsed by your gaiety?

Yes, 58-56, some of the homosexual activists have openly said they would ultimately want churches and clergy forced by the state to perform ceremonies for gay couples as a condition of them being recognized as an entity that can legally wed anyone. Not everyone has that goal, not every organization either, but I have heard it said by more than one spokesperson and many individuals.

As to question b, I think it's the same reason some liberals want to stop a logger from cutting down a tree and some conservatives want to make/keep the selling of dildos illegal. Some people, when they are convinced they are right, need to force everyone else to be "right" for whatever reason.

As to question A, that is why there is compromise and nuance in life. You can be pro-gay marriage and not believe that clergy should be forced to perform marriages they don't agree with. Pastors can deny marriages and do all the time. On the other hand a legal representative such as a justice of the peace or a judge should perform any legal marriage ceremony before him. However the judge/justice is a public servant, the pastor is not.

(10-23-2009 12:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage.

There aren't "two types of marriage".

We already disagree and you just got started...

Call it what you like. I'm calling it exactly what I like.

(10-23-2009 12:21 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage.

There aren't "two types of marriage".

We already disagree and you just got started...

Call it what you like. I'm calling it exactly what I like.

So what would you call the legal framework that legally joins two atheist heterosexuals?

(10-23-2009 12:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:21 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage.

There aren't "two types of marriage".

We already disagree and you just got started...

Call it what you like. I'm calling it exactly what I like.

So what would you call the legal framework that legally joins two atheist heterosexuals?

Civil Union?

(10-23-2009 12:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:21 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage.

There aren't "two types of marriage".

We already disagree and you just got started...

Call it what you like. I'm calling it exactly what I like.

So what would you call the legal framework that legally joins two atheist heterosexuals?

Technically, the only thing that exists from the perspective of the State is that a couple is "legally married." That determines certain rights, privileges, and legal constructs. Anything beyond that is a religious discussion and not a political one. But anyone who oversees the union must be authorized by the State to do so. Again here, I'm not a religious guy, but just like pharmacists are having their licenses threatened for not dispensing the RU486 pill (I actually think they should have to since it's deemed "medically approved" by the FDA, but nonetheless...), I don't want to see some clergy having his authority to oversee unions revoked because he refuses to wed gay couples (or cohabitating couples, interracial couples, etc.).

(10-23-2009 12:56 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:21 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage.

There aren't "two types of marriage".

We already disagree and you just got started...

Call it what you like. I'm calling it exactly what I like.

So what would you call the legal framework that legally joins two atheist heterosexuals?

Civil Union?

So you actually advocate for removing the ability for a man and woman to marry unless they meet some religious standard? Have you ever read the first amendment?

(10-23-2009 12:59 PM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:21 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage.

There aren't "two types of marriage".

We already disagree and you just got started...

Call it what you like. I'm calling it exactly what I like.

So what would you call the legal framework that legally joins two atheist heterosexuals?

Technically, the only thing that exists from the perspective of the State is that a couple is "legally married." That determines certain rights, privileges, and legal constructs. Anything beyond that is a religious discussion and not a political one. But anyone who oversees the union must be authorized by the State to do so. Again here, I'm not a religious guy, but just like pharmacists are having their licenses threatened for not dispensing the RU486 pill (I actually think they should have to since it's deemed "medically approved" by the FDA, but nonetheless...), I don't want to see some clergy having his authority to oversee unions revoked because he refuses to wed gay couples (or cohabitating couples, interracial couples, etc.).

That is exactly my point. From the legal standpoint, which is the only thing any of the debate should affect, marriage is a legal contract only. The religious aspect isn't and shouldn't be dictated by the government. People wanting to call the legal construct joining two homosexuals "civil unions" is nothing but prejudicial segregation. It's exactly the same thing as requiring blacks to the back of the bus. Sure, they get where they're going, but just by applying a different name you're putting them in a different class, and it's wrong.

As far as the forcing people to perform marriages and the quoted issue with pharmacists and the morning after pill..the only people that I personally think should be forced to perform a marriage that they don't agree with (but is legally valid) would be a government official, and that's because their involvement with the marriage is legal only, and based on any current law that removes race from consideration and any future law that removes gender from consideration, a government official can't take personal beliefs into the granting of a legal wedding license.

As far as the pharmacist issue..that's kind of a hard thing to figure out, and I'm not in the medical profession so this is just a layman's view of the issue. I don't think anyone in a private business should be forced to do anything they don't want to. I do think, however, that people should have access to any medical services or treatments that are legal. Most pharmacies are corporately owned, and if a company wants to fire a pharmacist for refusing to dispense plan b/morning after, then that is within their rights as a private employer. If the owner of a pharmacy doesn't want to dispense the drug, fine. I do think that they should have some kind of notice so that the customer doesn't have to go through some embarrassing process just to find out they can't get the medicine. However, I think it gets hairy when a pharmacy refuses and is the only one in a community. I don't know what the solution there is.

(10-23-2009 01:17 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:59 PM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:21 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage.

There aren't "two types of marriage".

We already disagree and you just got started...

Call it what you like. I'm calling it exactly what I like.

So what would you call the legal framework that legally joins two atheist heterosexuals?

Technically, the only thing that exists from the perspective of the State is that a couple is "legally married." That determines certain rights, privileges, and legal constructs. Anything beyond that is a religious discussion and not a political one. But anyone who oversees the union must be authorized by the State to do so. Again here, I'm not a religious guy, but just like pharmacists are having their licenses threatened for not dispensing the RU486 pill (I actually think they should have to since it's deemed "medically approved" by the FDA, but nonetheless...), I don't want to see some clergy having his authority to oversee unions revoked because he refuses to wed gay couples (or cohabitating couples, interracial couples, etc.).

That is exactly my point. From the legal standpoint, which is the only thing any of the debate should affect, marriage is a legal contract only. The religious aspect isn't and shouldn't be dictated by the government. People wanting to call the legal construct joining two homosexuals "civil unions" is nothing but prejudicial segregation. It's exactly the same thing as requiring blacks to the back of the bus. Sure, they get where they're going, but just by applying a different name you're putting them in a different class, and it's wrong.

As far as the forcing people to perform marriages and the quoted issue with pharmacists and the morning after pill..the only people that I personally think should be forced to perform a marriage that they don't agree with (but is legally valid) would be a government official, and that's because their involvement with the marriage is legal only, and based on any current law that removes race from consideration and any future law that removes gender from consideration, a government official can't take personal beliefs into the granting of a legal wedding license.

As far as the pharmacist issue..that's kind of a hard thing to figure out, and I'm not in the medical profession so this is just a layman's view of the issue. I don't think anyone in a private business should be forced to do anything they don't want to. I do think, however, that people should have access to any medical services or treatments that are legal. Most pharmacies are corporately owned, and if a company wants to fire a pharmacist for refusing to dispense plan b/morning after, then that is within their rights as a private employer. If the owner of a pharmacy doesn't want to dispense the drug, fine. I do think that they should have some kind of notice so that the customer doesn't have to go through some embarrassing process just to find out they can't get the medicine. However, I think it gets hairy when a pharmacy refuses and is the only one in a community. I don't know what the solution there is.

Pharmacists may be private citizens and work for private corporations/companies, but they are certified by the State to do what they do...and that entails following the laws of the State both actively (don't do anything illegal) and passively (don't not do something legal). Again, just my view.

(10-23-2009 01:49 PM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]Pharmacists may be private citizens and work for private corporations/companies, but they are certified by the State to do what they do...and that entails following the laws of the State both actively (don't do anything illegal) and passively (don't not do something legal). Again, just my view.

Barbers are also licensed by the state. Are you saying that if the old fart working in the downtown barber shop refuses to cut a woman's hair he should be prosecuted or have his license revoked because he is discriminating on the basis of gender?

(10-23-2009 02:26 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 01:49 PM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]Pharmacists may be private citizens and work for private corporations/companies, but they are certified by the State to do what they do...and that entails following the laws of the State both actively (don't do anything illegal) and passively (don't not do something legal). Again, just my view.

Barbers are also licensed by the state. Are you saying that if the old fart working in the downtown barber shop refuses to cut a woman's hair he should be prosecuted or have his license revoked because he is discriminating on the basis of gender?

The thread's getting derailed, but...

1) I didn't say anything about anyone getting prosecuted. I would think the correct, and only, course of action would be that the licensing body revokes the pharmacist's license.

2) I think we can all recognize that there is a difference between being licensed to cut hair and being a licensed pharmacist. I am not aware of any hairstyles regulated by the federal or state government. I can think of dozens of drugs off the top of my head that can ONLY be dispensed by a medical doctor or a licensed pharmacist.

3) I didn't say anything about discrimination in the case of the pharmacist. I don't think a pharmacist refusing to distribute RU-486 would be doing so on the basis of discriminating against women.

(10-23-2009 01:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:56 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:21 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 12:10 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There are two types of marriage. Religious marriage and legal marriage.

There aren't "two types of marriage".

We already disagree and you just got started...

Call it what you like. I'm calling it exactly what I like.

So what would you call the legal framework that legally joins two atheist heterosexuals?

Civil Union?

So you actually advocate for removing the ability for a man and woman to marry unless they meet some religious standard? Have you ever read the first amendment?

You asked me what I'd call it. I told you. I'm not "advocating for" anything.

Now get off my lawn!

(10-23-2009 02:50 PM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]1) I didn't say anything about anyone getting prosecuted. I would think the correct, and only, course of action would be that the licensing body revokes the pharmacist's license.

You will kill unborn or you can't be a pharmacist.

Double standard much? (Doctors can elect not to administer abortions, but pharmacists can't apparently).

Pure asinine rubbish.

To invoke my sacred cow status and tie us back in to the topic, more or less: I didn't go to war in Iraq for that.

I agree with you blazr- there is a difference between pharmacists and barbers. I'm just pointing out through an absurdity that using the fact an activity is licensed by the state as an excuse to regulate conduct is troublesome. I believe that it is best for the government not to get into the business of forcing someone to conduct their business in a certain way. If a pharmacist doesn't believe in abortion, and refuses to sell RU486, the state should not force him to do so. The consumer has the option of going down the street and buying it from another drug store. Same with someone who will not marry a couple he doesn't believe should be getting married.

(10-23-2009 03:11 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you blazr- there is a difference between pharmacists and barbers. I'm just pointing out through an absurdity that using the fact an activity is licensed by the state as an excuse to regulate conduct is troublesome. I believe that it is best for the government not to get into the business of forcing someone to conduct their business in a certain way. If a pharmacist doesn't believe in abortion, and refuses to sell RU486, the state should not force him to do so. The consumer has the option of going down the street and buying it from another drug store. Same with someone who will not marry a couple he doesn't believe should be getting married.

Liberals say they're all for choices, as long as you choose what they chose. Just look at the healthcare stuff. They want to increase competition to lower prices, but by essentially making Medicare available to everyone (government option). So instead of actually giving people more options, they give 1 more option which will have an advantage because the additional healthcare regulations will be skewed so that people are forced into choosing the government healthcare.

There's this thing called the invisible hand that Adam Smith wrote about a few hundred years ago. Hussein & Co. should read up on it.

(10-23-2009 03:11 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you blazr- there is a difference between pharmacists and barbers. I'm just pointing out through an absurdity that using the fact an activity is licensed by the state as an excuse to regulate conduct is troublesome. I believe that it is best for the government not to get into the business of forcing someone to conduct their business in a certain way. If a pharmacist doesn't believe in abortion, and refuses to sell RU486, the state should not force him to do so. The consumer has the option of going down the street and buying it from another drug store. Same with someone who will not marry a couple he doesn't believe should be getting married.

It's important to remember, especially considering the recent case in Louisiana, that I think a private citizen (religious official of some kind) shouldn't be forced to perform any marriage, regardless of the reason. However a public official (judge, justice of the peace, etc) *should* be compelled to perform any lawful marriage.

(10-23-2009 03:02 PM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]You asked me what I'd call it. I told you. I'm not "advocating for" anything.

Now get off my lawn!

Ok, but the entire debate about gay marriage has to do with the legal framework of marriage. It has nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage. I feel the separation of church and state goes both ways. I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, but I also don't think the government should be getting involved with telling religious groups what they should be doing (outside of preventing some group of pedos starting a young boy worship or something like that). And you can't say that all marriages have a religious underpinning, because they don't. Plenty of non-religious people get married every day in this country. There *are* two different kinds of marriages, whether you personally want to acknowledge it or not. The dictionary defines it as a legal OR religious ceremony. Some people have both. Some people have one or the other. I don't care what you or your church call a God-ordained marriage. My only interest is what the government calls marriage.

(10-23-2009 03:39 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]There's this thing called the invisible hand that Adam Smith wrote about a few hundred years ago. Hussein & Co. should read up on it.

Something tells me they have no idea who Adam Smith is.

(10-23-2009 03:39 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 03:11 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you blazr- there is a difference between pharmacists and barbers. I'm just pointing out through an absurdity that using the fact an activity is licensed by the state as an excuse to regulate conduct is troublesome. I believe that it is best for the government not to get into the business of forcing someone to conduct their business in a certain way. If a pharmacist doesn't believe in abortion, and refuses to sell RU486, the state should not force him to do so. The consumer has the option of going down the street and buying it from another drug store. Same with someone who will not marry a couple he doesn't believe should be getting married.

Liberals say they're all for choices, as long as you choose what they chose. Just look at the healthcare stuff. They want to increase competition to lower prices, but by essentially making Medicare available to everyone (government option). So instead of actually giving people more options, they give 1 more option which will have an advantage because the additional healthcare regulations will be skewed so that people are forced into choosing the government healthcare.

There's this thing called the invisible hand that Adam Smith wrote about a few hundred years ago. Hussein & Co. should read up on it.

What does healthcare have to do with the gay marriage debate? And who would force someone to pick a government health plan? If it was so terrible why would people pick it? Do you think that gay people being able to marry would force heterosexual couples to marry or something?

(10-23-2009 05:21 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 03:39 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 03:11 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you blazr- there is a difference between pharmacists and barbers. I'm just pointing out through an absurdity that using the fact an activity is licensed by the state as an excuse to regulate conduct is troublesome. I believe that it is best for the government not to get into the business of forcing someone to conduct their business in a certain way. If a pharmacist doesn't believe in abortion, and refuses to sell RU486, the state should not force him to do so. The consumer has the option of going down the street and buying it from another drug store. Same with someone who will not marry a couple he doesn't believe should be getting married.

Liberals say they're all for choices, as long as you choose what they chose. Just look at the healthcare stuff. They want to increase competition to lower prices, but by essentially making Medicare available to everyone (government option). So instead of actually giving people more options, they give 1 more option which will have an advantage because the additional healthcare regulations will be skewed so that people are forced into choosing the government healthcare.

There's this thing called the invisible hand that Adam Smith wrote about a few hundred years ago. Hussein & Co. should read up on it.

What does healthcare have to do with the gay marriage debate? And who would force someone to pick a government health plan? If it was so terrible why would people pick it? Do you think that gay people being able to marry would force heterosexual couples to marry or something?

I went off on a tangent about choices. It has nothing really to do with gay marriage per se, just to do with the ability to choose one's own life.

If two willing adults should be able to marry what about three willing adults? would denying three people (or more) the right to marry be denial of equal protection in the same way that advocates say denying gays the right to marriage is such a denial?

(10-23-2009 07:32 PM)Blazeramo Wrote: [ -> ]If two willing adults should be able to marry what about three willing adults? would denying three people (or more) the right to marry be denial of equal protection in the same way that advocates say denying gays the right to marriage is such a denial?

Shhh, don't bring up rational questions.

well why don't we just tell blacks and whites they can't marry. and people who aren't christians. and while we're at it why don't we tell people who have an IQ below 100 they can't marry because their kids will be idiots.

Polygamy is primarily illegal because of moral considerations. IMO I don't think that's a strong enough reason. Now, there may be economic, practical, and other sticky legal issues that arise if you try to apply the American legal system which is based on a marriage being between two people to a polygamous marriage. None of those issues would arise when it comes to a homosexual marriage. Outlawing a marriage on purely moral reasons alone, to me (and IANAL), violates the spirit of the constitution.

And before you say something about "well what about marrying your dog or a 3 year old boy" or some other strawman argument, a 3 year old boy or a dog is not a consenting adult.

The original gay / lesbian movement was around a demand for the rights that married couples take for granted, but are denied by the state to same-sex "partners" even if their relationship is of decades duration. As the debate heated up over the years, the more moderate positions were over-run by extremists on BOTH sides. That has been the nature of such debates throughout our history.

EXAMPLE: The original slavery debates had moderates as well. Many in the South were satisfied to keep their "peculiar institution" in the South, but some later insisted that it be spread westward into the new territories and then in 1857, in the "Dred Scott Decision", they insisted it be state protected even in the "Free States" as it was in the South. The moderates in the North had originally agreed to limit slavery to the South (Free-Soil Party) and later, sought to find a system of financial compensation to pay owners for their slaves to free them and perhaps to return them to Africa (The American Colonization Society which founded Liberia was an early attempt to do this). This position was held by some right into the early years of the Civil War, but was realized to be taken by Sotherners as a desperate gambit by a losing Union leadership and dropped. The extremists on both sides eventually forced a resolution of the question by total and definitive warfare.

Well that's the problem. No one is willing to compromise. There's no room to meet in the middle anymore. That's why spurious strawmen such as "well, we might as well let 50 people marry a horse!" actually get serious consideration and airtime in such debates.

(10-23-2009 08:34 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]well why don't we just tell blacks and whites they can't marry. and people who aren't christians. and while we're at it why don't we tell people who have an IQ below 100 they can't marry because their kids will be idiots.

Polygamy is primarily illegal because of moral considerations. IMO I don't think that's a strong enough reason. Now, there may be economic, practical, and other sticky legal issues that arise if you try to apply the American legal system which is based on a marriage being between two people to a polygamous marriage. None of those issues would arise when it comes to a homosexual marriage. Outlawing a marriage on purely moral reasons alone, to me (and IANAL), violates the spirit of the constitution.

And before you say something about "well what about marrying your dog or a 3 year old boy" or some other strawman argument, a 3 year old boy or a dog is not a consenting adult.

And so the question should be answered. Once the sanctity of marriage has been distorted to anything beyond a man and a women - it will be open to everything that can distort it. The same logic applies that a man not able to marry another man applies to every other form of marriage the ideological discrimination can create.

I have two separate neighbors that are gay. Both are in same sex relationships. Both couples are extremely nice and yes they are living in sin. I don't judge them for the same reason why I wouldn't want to be judged. They are broken people, like me, living in a broken world. They are very good neighbors too.

We are all sinners saved by the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they are going to hell. However, I am against changing the sanctity of marriage from anything other than one man versus one woman for the reason stated above.

I also don't agree with teaching children that being gay is any more right than lying, committing adultry, murdering, any other sin or breaking laws. Nor agree with teaching kids in school how to use condoms rather than practice abstinence.

(10-23-2009 08:48 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]The original gay / lesbian movement was around a demand for the rights that married couples take for granted, but are denied by the state to same-sex "partners" even if their relationship is of decades duration. As the debate heated up over the years, the more moderate positions were over-run by extremists on BOTH sides. That has been the nature of such debates throughout our history.

EXAMPLE: The original slavery debates had moderates as well. Many in the South were satisfied to keep their "peculiar institution" in the South, but some later insisted that it be spread westward into the new territories and then in 1857, in the "Dred Scott Decision", they insisted it be state protected even in the "Free States" as it was in the South. The moderates in the North had originally agreed to limit slavery to the South (Free-Soil Party) and later, sought to find a system of financial compensation to pay owners for their slaves to free them and perhaps to return them to Africa (The American Colonization Society which founded Liberia was an early attempt to do this). This position was held by some right into the early years of the Civil War, but was realized to be taken by Sotherners as a desperate gambit by a losing Union leadership and dropped. The extremists on both sides eventually forced a resolution of the question by total and definitive warfare.

So now your an expert on homesexualty, REALLY? I really don't care if someone is a homosexual or not. Whatever someone does in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. What I do have a problem is our schools teaching children that homosexualty is okay to my children. It is a sin. Just like I would have a problem with schools teaching my children that lying is okay.

Sorry, you lost me on your example. Exactly how does slavery creating a civil war relate to gay rights?

You guys are spreading the argument into the realms of teaching morality. The simple question is, should someone's gay partner be allowed the same rights/privileges afforded married couples. In other words, should a same-sex partner be allowed on his/her partner's insurance, should he/her be allowed to inherit his/her partner's estate, should he/her be allowed to make "life or death" decisions regarding their partner, should he/her be allowed to receive military benefit upon the death of their partner? Those are the questions at stake...everything else really is a strawman.

(10-24-2009 12:25 AM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are spreading the argument into the realms of teaching morality. The simple question is, should someone's gay partner be allowed the same rights/privileges afforded married couples. In other words, should a same-sex partner be allowed on his/her partner's insurance, should he/her be allowed to inherit his/her partner's estate, should he/her be allowed to make "life or death" decisions regarding their partner, should he/her be allowed to receive military benefit upon the death of their partner? Those are the questions at stake...everything else really is a strawman.

No, I formulated it correctly earlier. At the end of the day when the last legal impediment is hurdled* (i.e. benefits, inheritance, etc.) it is and will be about acceptance. For some reason it bothers these people that there are those in society that still don't agree what they are up to.

I don't give two rips that they think I am sanctimonious or judgmental. I don't care what they think. But why on Earth do they care what I think?

That's the $64,000 question.

*Same-sex couples will eventually have all of the same legal rights in society that heterosexual couples have. The ball has been rolling on this for quite some time and anyone who thinks it wont eventually, completely come to past has been living in a hole. Neither I, nor most of America, is outside picketing against such a thing either--despite what we think about it, personally. Like RBB said, we aren't perfect and all have our own burdens to bear.

(10-23-2009 09:51 PM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-23-2009 08:48 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]The original gay / lesbian movement was around a demand for the rights that married couples take for granted, but are denied by the state to same-sex "partners" even if their relationship is of decades duration. As the debate heated up over the years, the more moderate positions were over-run by extremists on BOTH sides. That has been the nature of such debates throughout our history.

EXAMPLE: The original slavery debates had moderates as well. Many in the South were satisfied to keep their "peculiar institution" in the South, but some later insisted that it be spread westward into the new territories and then in 1857, in the "Dred Scott Decision", they insisted it be state protected even in the "Free States" as it was in the South. The moderates in the North had originally agreed to limit slavery to the South (Free-Soil Party) and later, sought to find a system of financial compensation to pay owners for their slaves to free them and perhaps to return them to Africa (The American Colonization Society which founded Liberia was an early attempt to do this). This position was held by some right into the early years of the Civil War, but was realized to be taken by Sotherners as a desperate gambit by a losing Union leadership and dropped. The extremists on both sides eventually forced a resolution of the question by total and definitive warfare.

So now your an expert on homesexualty, REALLY? I really don't care if someone is a homosexual or not. Whatever someone does in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. What I do have a problem is our schools teaching children that homosexualty is okay to my children. It is a sin. Just like I would have a problem with schools teaching my children that lying is okay.

Sorry, you lost me on your example. Exactly how does slavery creating a civil war relate to gay rights?

Everything that he posts eventually goes back to some sort of racism.

(10-23-2009 09:40 PM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]And so the question should be answered. Once the sanctity of marriage has been distorted to anything beyond a man and a women - it will be open to everything that can distort it. The same logic applies that a man not able to marry another man applies to every other form of marriage the ideological discrimination can create.

I have two separate neighbors that are gay. Both are in same sex relationships. Both couples are extremely nice and yes they are living in sin. I don't judge them for the same reason why I wouldn't want to be judged. They are broken people, like me, living in a broken world. They are very good neighbors too.

We are all sinners saved by the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they are going to hell. However, I am against changing the sanctity of marriage from anything other than one man versus one woman for the reason stated above.

I also don't agree with teaching children that being gay is any more right than lying, committing adultry, murdering, any other sin or breaking laws. Nor agree with teaching kids in school how to use condoms rather than practice abstinence.

The sanctity of marriage. Right. That's why we have a divorce rate over 50%. Give me a f'n break.

I've got news for both you and RBB. NOT EVERYONE SUBSCRIBES TO YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT EVERYONE FEELS THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THEM. If I want to live in sin and go to hell, that's my right, is it not? You've done your job according to the bible by telling me jesus saves and I'm going to hell. Now please leave me alone and don't force your moral indoctrination on me.

Public schools should teach things that are based in reality and science. Condoms prevent STDs and pregnancies. That is rooted in science. Kids are going to have sex. I don't give a damn if you only tell them that not having sex is the only way to not have babies because then they're going to do it and roll the dice. If you don't want your kids learning what they teach in public NON-RELIGIOUS schools, why don't you do like all the conservatives love to preach and vote with your dollars and send him/her to a private religious school. No one is forcing you not to.

I really for the life of me cannot fathom why anyone gives a damn what other people do in their lives. How would gay people marrying affect you? What would it do to your marriage? What would change in those neighbors' lives? They already live together. They'd just get the advantage of, oh, I don't know HEALTHCARE COVERAGE and the ability to make medical or legal decisions for an incapacitated spouse. Heaven forbid that we afford gay couples the same rights as me. Because by God, and because He said so, I'm better than them.

And I am still waiting to hear how a marriage between me (non-religious) and my girlfriend (non-religious) who, yes, we've had sex and we're not married..., would be any different than the marriage between two gay men or women.

(10-24-2009 12:25 AM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are spreading the argument into the realms of teaching morality. The simple question is, should someone's gay partner be allowed the same rights/privileges afforded married couples. In other words, should a same-sex partner be allowed on his/her partner's insurance, should he/her be allowed to inherit his/her partner's estate, should he/her be allowed to make "life or death" decisions regarding their partner, should he/her be allowed to receive military benefit upon the death of their partner? Those are the questions at stake...everything else really is a strawman.

Ding! You got it. Moral arguments have no place in this debate, from a legal perspective. The government has no job in enforcing moral codes on anyone. Especially at the Federal level.

(10-24-2009 06:38 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2009 12:25 AM)blazr Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are spreading the argument into the realms of teaching morality. The simple question is, should someone's gay partner be allowed the same rights/privileges afforded married couples. In other words, should a same-sex partner be allowed on his/her partner's insurance, should he/her be allowed to inherit his/her partner's estate, should he/her be allowed to make "life or death" decisions regarding their partner, should he/her be allowed to receive military benefit upon the death of their partner? Those are the questions at stake...everything else really is a strawman.

No, I formulated it correctly earlier. At the end of the day when the last legal impediment is hurdled* (i.e. benefits, inheritance, etc.) it is and will be about acceptance. For some reason it bothers these people that there are those in society that still don't agree what they are up to.

I don't give two rips that they think I am sanctimonious or judgmental. I don't care what they think. But why on Earth do they care what I think?

That's the $64,000 question.

*Same-sex couples will eventually have all of the same legal rights in society that heterosexual couples have. The ball has been rolling on this for quite some time and anyone who thinks it wont eventually, completely come to past has been living in a hole. Neither I, nor most of America, is outside picketing against such a thing either--despite what we think about it, personally. Like RBB said, we aren't perfect and all have our own burdens to bear.

No one cares what you think. It's about having equal protection under the law. You know, that pesky phrase that is engraved above the Supreme Court. If you want to sit at home and hate some queers, then go right ahead. People will call you a bigot, but since you don't care what they think what does it matter. The entire point is to have the same legal rights as any other couple. No one is going to force you to take gays into your church, or into your house, or force you to attend a gay wedding. No one is going to hammer you until you get up in front of the world and say "I love gays". They just want the government to acknowledge that they are people, equal to you under the LAW. Not under God. Not in your mind, but in the law.

(10-24-2009 08:50 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one cares what you think. It's about having equal protection under the law. You know, that pesky phrase that is engraved above the Supreme Court. If you want to sit at home and hate some queers, then go right ahead. People will call you a bigot, but since you don't care what they think what does it matter. The entire point is to have the same legal rights as any other couple. No one is going to force you to take gays into your church, or into your house, or force you to attend a gay wedding. No one is going to hammer you until you get up in front of the world and say "I love gays". They just want the government to acknowledge that they are people, equal to you under the LAW. Not under God. Not in your mind, but in the law.

You cared enough to respond.

So i'm a "bigot" who "hate[s] queers"....? Ouch. Want to level any more personal attacks on me, or are you done?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the peace loving, all considerate, all inclusive LEFT. Exhibit A.

(10-24-2009 09:15 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2009 08:50 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]No one cares what you think. It's about having equal protection under the law. You know, that pesky phrase that is engraved above the Supreme Court. If you want to sit at home and hate some queers, then go right ahead. People will call you a bigot, but since you don't care what they think what does it matter. The entire point is to have the same legal rights as any other couple. No one is going to force you to take gays into your church, or into your house, or force you to attend a gay wedding. No one is going to hammer you until you get up in front of the world and say "I love gays". They just want the government to acknowledge that they are people, equal to you under the LAW. Not under God. Not in your mind, but in the law.

You cared enough to respond.

So i'm a "bigot" who "hate[s] queers"....? Ouch. Want to level any more personal attacks on me, or are you done?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the peace loving, all considerate, all inclusive LEFT. Exhibit A.

Hey, I never said I wasn't a jerk or that I'm a peace loving hippie. And I responded because you think that the gay marriage advocates are trying to do something they're not.

the institutions/values/freedoms/liberties that made our Country great are under daily assault by the leftist 'blame America first' crowd,
collectivists, socialists and Marxists. These people won't be happy until they take this Country down to the level of most third world nations,
much of Europe and the 'banana republics' of Central & South America/Asia. Marriage is just another in this long line.

(10-24-2009 10:40 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]the institutions/values/freedoms/liberties that made our Country great are under daily assault by the leftist 'blame America first' crowd,
collectivists, socialists and Marxists. These people won't be happy until they take this Country down to the level of most third world nations,
much of Europe and the 'banana republics' of Central & South America/Asia. Marriage is just another in this long line.

+1

(10-24-2009 10:40 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]the institutions/values/freedoms/liberties that made our Country great are under daily assault by the leftist 'blame America first' crowd,
collectivists, socialists and Marxists. These people won't be happy until they take this Country down to the level of most third world nations,
much of Europe and the 'banana republics' of Central & South America/Asia. Marriage is just another in this long line.

I don't even know what you're trying to say. I think you'll find most of Europe has a standard of living comparable or higher than we do, so trying to emulate some of the things they do isn't necessarily a bad thing. And we already emulate third world nations with our record on the death penalty for example.

I'd like to know what you mean by the "blame america first" crowd. I don't see how it's unpatriotic or anti-american to point out things that we could do better. No one is perfect, not even America. There are things we need to fix and things we could do better. If we didn't work to improve ourselves we'd still have slaves or still have segregation, and women would be second class citizens. Though, I suppose there are probably some around that would like for that to be the case.

Quote:I've got news for both you and RBB. NOT EVERYONE SUBSCRIBES TO YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT EVERYONE FEELS THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THEM. If I want to live in sin and go to hell, that's my right, is it not? You've done your job according to the bible by telling me jesus saves and I'm going to hell. Now please leave me alone and don't force your moral indoctrination on me.

AND NOT EVERYONE SUBSCRIBES TO YOUR NON-RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND FEELS THAT THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO THEM. Nobody told you that you were going to hell. Don't you force your immoral indoctination on me either.

Quote:Public schools should teach things that are based in reality and science. Condoms prevent STDs and pregnancies. That is rooted in science. Kids are going to have sex. I don't give a damn if you only tell them that not having sex is the only way to not have babies because then they're going to do it and roll the dice. If you don't want your kids learning what they teach in public NON-RELIGIOUS schools, why don't you do like all the conservatives love to preach and vote with your dollars and send him/her to a private religious school. No one is forcing you not to.

Reality and science? Condoms? Condoms fail bro. I hate to break the news to you, but abstinence is the ONLY sure fire guarantee that STDs and Pregnancies don't happen. Newsflash: Religion has been taken out of public schools. What gives you the right or the government the right to encourage children to have sex using condoms? It is my public school as much as your public school because we both give tax paying dollars to it. I beg to differ with your comment about no one is forcing schools to hand out condoms and encourage sex - it begins in the 5th grade.

Quote:I really for the life of me cannot fathom why anyone gives a damn what other people do in their lives. How would gay people marrying affect you? What would it do to your marriage? What would change in those neighbors' lives? They already live together. They'd just get the advantage of, oh, I don't know HEALTHCARE COVERAGE and the ability to make medical or legal decisions for an incapacitated spouse. Heaven forbid that we afford gay couples the same rights as me. Because by God, and because He said so, I'm better than them.

Like I said, I could care less about what you do in your life. Gay marriage affects me because marriage is between one man and one woman. As soon as you change that, it opens up marriage to any number of other challenges such as marrying animals, multiple spouses and anything else. What makes you think that as soon as marriage is changed to one man and one man or one man and one woman or one woman and one woman that it won't be one man, one man and one woman next? By changing the sanctity of marriage, it does impact me.

(10-24-2009 10:08 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2009 10:40 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]the institutions/values/freedoms/liberties that made our Country great are under daily assault by the leftist 'blame America first' crowd,
collectivists, socialists and Marxists. These people won't be happy until they take this Country down to the level of most third world nations,
much of Europe and the 'banana republics' of Central & South America/Asia. Marriage is just another in this long line.

I don't even know what you're trying to say. I think you'll find most of Europe has a standard of living comparable or higher than we do, so trying to emulate some of the things they do isn't necessarily a bad thing. And we already emulate third world nations with our record on the death penalty for example.

I'd like to know what you mean by the "blame america first" crowd. I don't see how it's unpatriotic or anti-american to point out things that we could do better. No one is perfect, not even America. There are things we need to fix and things we could do better. If we didn't work to improve ourselves we'd still have slaves or still have segregation, and women would be second class citizens. Though, I suppose there are probably some around that would like for that to be the case.

First of all, I mostly agree with mixed in that I don't even know what oldblazer was trying to say. He mentioned marriage in the last line of his post, but I don't think the logical connection was made to the rest of the thought. How is giving legal recognition to gay couples hating America? I don't get that.

However, mixed, your response was one of the most ironic posts I've ever read. You write two sentences that perfectly describe the thought process of what is generally described as the "blame america (sic) first" crowd, then you as oldblazer what he means by that term. That was just too sweet not to point out. For all the individual statistics you can pick out of a pile that are better in some country/region other than the U.S. (and I don't even know where you were going with the death penalty making us comparable to third-world countries...good grief), we still earn better, we innovate better, we produce better, we create better, we control our strategic interests better, we transition power better, we heal better, etc., etc., ... we are, overall, the greatest country human beings have ever produced. No nation has EVER dominated the rest of the world as America does now: culturally, militarily, financially, etc. And it's because over the course of our history great men and women have used the lessons of the past and freedoms unique on this earth when they were recognized to forge a society that strives to seek a constantly shifting balance between the beauties and the failings of human nature. I think our unique position in the world today generates hand-wringing guilt in some people. Better is not a bad thing...personally, professionally, or globally.

And, at the same time, extending the legal rights of marriage to gay couples does nothing to "bring America down." I don't even see how that can be logically defended.

I would say back to the original topic, but I fear we're too far gone.

Quote:Reality and science? Condoms? Condoms fail bro. I hate to break the news to you, but abstinence is the ONLY sure fire guarantee that STDs and Pregnancies don't happen. Newsflash: Religion has been taken out of public schools. What gives you the right or the government the right to encourage children to have sex using condoms? It is my public school as much as your public school because we both give tax paying dollars to it. I beg to differ with your comment about no one is forcing schools to hand out condoms and encourage sex - it begins in the 5th grade.

Of course condoms fail. That should also be taught. However if you think abstinence only sex education works then you are the most naive person I've ever met. Just ask Sarah Palin. Actually, ask public health officials. Kids should be taught the truth about sex. They should be taught what it is and what the consequences are (babies). They should be taught about STDs. They should also be taught how to prevent babies and STDs. That includes telling them that the only 100% way to prevent a pregnancy or STD is to not have sex. It also includes telling them that condoms are whatever% effective. Where do you think they are going to learn about that stuff? School is meant to prepare kids to be adults. Adults need to know about sex. I don't necessarily think schools should hand out condoms, but they should teach them. Schools aren't telling kids to go have sex (or they shouldn't be, at least). They should be telling them though that if you are going to have sex, here's the consequences and here's how to avoid them. Abstinence only sex education only has one proponent, and that's the religious right. True sex education has plenty of proponents in the public health sector. That's based on real science. Which one do you think *I* think belongs in public school?

Quote:Like I said, I could care less about what you do in your life. Gay marriage affects me because marriage is between one man and one woman. As soon as you change that, it opens up marriage to any number of other challenges such as marrying animals, multiple spouses and anything else. What makes you think that as soon as marriage is changed to one man and one man or one man and one woman or one woman and one woman that it won't be one man, one man and one woman next? By changing the sanctity of marriage, it does impact me.

No, it doesn't! That entire argument is a strawman. A marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is between two consenting adults. "Marrying an animal" is not between two consenting adults. And there are legal and economic reasons why polygamy isn't legal in this country and would be a large disruption. Marriage between homosexuals doesn't require any special treatment (and as a matter of fact begs for equal treatment) by the legal system.

Quote:First of all, I mostly agree with mixed in that I don't even know what oldblazer was trying to say. He mentioned marriage in the last line of his post, but I don't think the logical connection was made to the rest of the thought. How is giving legal recognition to gay couples hating America? I don't get that.

However, mixed, your response was one of the most ironic posts I've ever read. You write two sentences that perfectly describe the thought process of what is generally described as the "blame america (sic) first" crowd, then you as oldblazer what he means by that term. That was just too sweet not to point out. For all the individual statistics you can pick out of a pile that are better in some country/region other than the U.S. (and I don't even know where you were going with the death penalty making us comparable to third-world countries...good grief), we still earn better, we innovate better, we produce better, we create better, we control our strategic interests better, we transition power better, we heal better, etc., etc., ... we are, overall, the greatest country human beings have ever produced. No nation has EVER dominated the rest of the world as America does now: culturally, militarily, financially, etc. And it's because over the course of our history great men and women have used the lessons of the past and freedoms unique on this earth when they were recognized to forge a society that strives to seek a constantly shifting balance between the beauties and the failings of human nature. I think our unique position in the world today generates hand-wringing guilt in some people. Better is not a bad thing...personally, professionally, or globally.

And, at the same time, extending the legal rights of marriage to gay couples does nothing to "bring America down." I don't even see how that can be logically defended.

I would say back to the original topic, but I fear we're too far gone.

I never said I thought America wasn't the greatest country in the world. I think it's kind of sad that to be taken seriously you have to say that or your labeled unpatriotic or somehow my opinion doesn't count. I love this country, that's why I want to fix what's wrong with it. If you blindly say that everything about whatever country you're from is perfect, then there's something wrong. We are the best in lots of categories. That doesn't negate the fact that we're not in others and that we have problems that need fixing.

(10-24-2009 10:08 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2009 10:40 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]the institutions/values/freedoms/liberties that made our Country great are under daily assault by the leftist 'blame America first' crowd,
collectivists, socialists and Marxists. These people won't be happy until they take this Country down to the level of most third world nations,
much of Europe and the 'banana republics' of Central & South America/Asia. Marriage is just another in this long line.

I don't even know what you're trying to say. I think you'll find most of Europe has a standard of living comparable or higher than we do, so trying to emulate some of the things they do isn't necessarily a bad thing. And we already emulate third world nations with our record on the death penalty for example.

I'd like to know what you mean by the "blame america first" crowd. I don't see how it's unpatriotic or anti-american to point out things that we could do better. No one is perfect, not even America. There are things we need to fix and things we could do better. If we didn't work to improve ourselves we'd still have slaves or still have segregation, and women would be second class citizens. Though, I suppose there are probably some around that would like for that to be the case.

as a 'card carrying member of the ACLU', I wouldn't expect you to understand this or believe this to be true.
the ACLU is one of the leftist organizations attempting to do the very things I posted above.
the ACLU is multi-dimensional, therefore it falls into more than one of the above listed categories.