Close Window Gay marriage opponents vow to fight Calif. ruling Friday, May 16, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO - Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.
A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.
If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.
"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. "The remedy is a constitutional amendment."
With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation.
The 4-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
Gay marriage opponents, meanwhile, derided the ruling as an example of judicial overreaching in which the opinions of a few justices trumped the will of Californians.
The last time the state's voters were asked to express their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday struck down both statutes.
Still, backers of a proposed November ballot measure that would allow Californians to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage said the court's decision would ultimately help their cause.
"(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups helping to underwrite the gay marriage ban campaign. "I do think it will activate and energize Californians. I'm more confident than ever that we will be able to pass this amendment come November."
To date, 26 states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
In the past few years, courts in New York, Maryland and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage, and New Jersey's highest court gave the state lawmakers the option of establishing civil unions as an alternative.
Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. More than 9,500 same-sex couples in that state have wed. The California ruling is considered monumental because of the state's population - 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million - and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.
California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.
"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told a roaring crowd at City Hall after the ruling was issued. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."
The case was set in motion in 2004 when Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four thousand wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.
Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.
Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office argued to uphold the ban, said Brown would "work with the governor and other state agencies to implement the ruling."
The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with the decision of this court."
By Thursday afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. The county clerk's office in Los Angeles issued a statement saying it was awaiting legal analysis of the ruling and a timeline for implementation.
California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors of the anti-gay marriage ballot measure gathered enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
As well they should (fight it). Gay marriage is a big joke. Everyone knows that marriage is between and man and a woman. If gays want to shack up - FINE! If gays want to have the right to manage each other's healthcare - FINE! If gays want the same rights as married couples - FORGET IT!
Where does it end? What is a marriage? Two men and a woman? Five women and a man? Three men and a goat? RIDICULOUS!
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our society - so many people don't have any common sense and can't understand the difference between right and wrong!
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: As well they should (fight it). Gay marriage is a big joke. Everyone knows that marriage is between and man and a woman. If gays want to shack up - FINE! If gays want to have the right to manage each other's healthcare - FINE! If gays want the same rights as married couples - FORGET IT!
Where does it end? What is a marriage? Two men and a woman? Five women and a man? Three men and a goat? RIDICULOUS!
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our society - so many people don't have any common sense and can't understand the difference between right and wrong!
why am I not surprised?...Hillbilly Posted by Stupid on :
Three men and a goat.What kind of properties does he manage.Its a wonder he does much of anything with his warped religeous mindeset.Must be kind of nice to go around with with his eyes closed and hope someone believes like he does. I am stupid for a reason but his has no bounds.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Which rights that married people have are the rights that you do not want same sex couples to have PM?
Can you even answer that question?
Posted by bond006 on :
I heard an attorney talk about this last night on KGO 810 am out of San Fransico and he said the decision came purely form a constitutional rights point. And thats the way the Judges see it.
And in reality the way I see it,is they are one hundred pcent right.
You can,t tell people who to marry and you have no right to tell some one how there right of property is to be handled.
I am a religous man but this does not offend me in any way,why may you ask. Simple I don't intend to marry another man. I married a woman because I am not gay and nobody said I couldn't.
Everybody in this country has rights they are born to and this is just one.
We are all human and may not agree with someone eles but the law protects us from the hate,greed,and the self rightous. Any the law is to suppose to do that.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Which rights that married people have are the rights that you do not want same sex couples to have PM?
Can you even answer that question?
And I doubt he could... whatever he says will be based on some BS...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
I don't want gays to have ANY of the rights of married couples. Why? Because THEY ARE NOT A MARRIED COUPLE! Marriage has ALWAYS been an institution between one man and one woman.
Therefore, to answer your question: I don't want them to have tax treatment equal to married couples; insurance as a spouse; inheritance rights; or any other rights that married couples enjoy. I don't want them to be legally recognized as married - WHICH THEY ARE NOT!
All of this socialist nonsense is DESTROYING our society and there will be a big price to be paid down the road as our society disintegrates.
Posted by jordanreed on :
you are a small-minded, little, sad man...
what you fail to see?...it is you, and the others like you,that are destroying our society, and slowing our progress.Why cant you let us grow, to become a full-blown,loving, caring, accepting, people?
Klan meeting today.Archie????
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Why cant you let us grow, to become a full-blown,loving, caring, accepting, people?
That's funny. I'm still hoping that you can grow past your 1st grade insults. If you can make it, maybe to a sixth grade level, maybe you will have something productive to say. Until then, it's just one step at a time.
Good luck!
Posted by jordanreed on :
I'm sorry...you thought those were insults?
Nope,my man...they were nothing more then observations... as for the 1st grade remark?..that cant be helped...I try to adjust accordingly..
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Ho-tay,
As to taxes. These are the major tax breaks for spouses that you want to keep away from gay couples.
quote: Good benefits add to wedded bliss For most middle- and upper-income people, though, there are plenty of financial benefits to marriage, regardless of their income tax situation. Among them: Workplace health and pension benefits coverage. While some companies offer health coverage to domestic partners, this benefit is typically taxable as income. When spouses are covered, the benefit is tax-free. Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. A husband or wife is entitled to one-half of the spouses Social Security benefits and to additional benefits in the event of death. Lower insurance rates. Married people usually get a discount on auto insurance and may pay less for other types of insurance. Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and your spouse gets your stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of your estate. Preferential estate tax treatment. The $1 million estate tax limitation doesnt apply to married people: you can leave an unlimited amount to a spouse without owing one penny of estate tax. In certain states, this benefit is multiplied by special capital-gains tax treatment for homes and other assets held by married couples as community property.
This is what we are withholding with such rancor???
Non-taxable health benefits? Why should this be the domain of hetero couples only? (Besides...if we switch to a national healthcare plan - which is likely given our odds of having a democratic president/congress/senate next year - this becomes a non-issue.)
Survivorship benefits in Social Security?
In a duel income family (which would include nearly all gay couples) the surviving widow chooses between his/her own social security plan or the survivorship rate of the deceased, depending on which one is higher. This means that there would be little to no substantive difference in giving gay couples this benefit. Remember also divorce (which happens in 50% of all marriages and would likely continue the average within gay partnerships) and remarriage DO affect survivor benefit elligibility which would create even less of an impact to the program.
Lower Insurance Rates? This is irrelevant as it is driven by the statistics gathered by insurance companies and voluntarily offered. They will create a new statistical category if gay couples are given status and adjust their rates based on the statistical evidence.
Automatic inheritance? Write out a will and this is a non-issue. It is mearly one less hoop to jump through. It has little impact.
Preferential Estate tax treatment? This is the only marriage benefit that has any significant value to my mind. And it is funny because the many of the folks who are fighting not to give this benefit to gay couples are the ones complaining how high the tax is regaring their children. The inheritance tax really only matters if the deceased is wealthy and then we get into a whole set of issues that trancend sexual orientation. If we are going to have an inheritance tax then I don't think relationship should really matter. Put a 1 Mil cap (yearly adjusted for inflation) on everyone or else do away with it completely. Really not worth the paperwork headache to my mind.
P.S. (I kept income tax brakes out of this example because it has been researched and proven that income tax break are only beneficial if there is a large disparity in income between the two partners. Further the closer the two are in income the benefit actually becomes a liability to a certain extent. It is unlikely to truely help the majority of gay couples.
So there you have it PM. Your big list of marriage benefits that you are trying to keep from those damned gay people.
Why don't you just admit that you beleve you are more deserving than they are and that this has nothing to do with numbers?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Why don't you just admit that you beleve you are more deserving than they are and that this has nothing to do with numbers?
You're close there Bigfoot. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the numbers. What this has to do with is morality. Marriage is, and always has been, between a man and woman. Gays shouldn't get marriage benefits because by definition they are not married. Simple as that!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:Why don't you just admit that you beleve you are more deserving than they are and that this has nothing to do with numbers?
You're close there Bigfoot. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the numbers. What this has to do with is morality. Marriage is, and always has been, between a man and woman. Gays shouldn't get marriage benefits because by definition they are not married. Simple as that!
A man and A woman?
not:
Solomon had 700 wives. and 300 slave girls too...
1 Kings 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
I think PMS is really hiding in the closet and does not want to face the truth about himself... Only a hatred that strong is a hatred of one's self from what they hate...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Oh...I get it.
A (wo)man and a (wo)man seeking a long term commitment do not deserve to have it recognized because YOU disagree with it.
Perhaps we should build separate water fountains for them to use as well? They are different after all.
What you don't get is that the benefits that are given to married couples are given by the government, not the church.
You don't want to call it marriage...that's fine by me. The term belonged to the church before it belonged to the government. But it IS discrimination for the state not to recognize the relationship.
And no, multiple partners and various livestock will not be next. There is enough precedence to prevent multiple partnership and livestock can't recite the vows.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: What you don't get is that the benefits that are given to married couples are given by the government, not the church.
You don't want to call it marriage...that's fine by me. The term belonged to the church before it belonged to the government. But it IS discrimination for the state not to recognize the relationship.
Exactly Big... Thank god (no pun intended) that we have separation of Church and State...
Posted by glassman on :
And no, multiple partners and various livestock will not be next. There is enough precedence to prevent multiple partnership and livestock can't recite the vows.
did Mr Ed die? Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
I think that it's odd that every time the debate over gay marriage is brought up, everyone seems to see it as yet another attempt by The Man (insert scary music here) to keep some minority from being happy.
Why do we keep trying to find alternatives to the traditional family instead of working to strenghten the very basis that has kept this country strong for so many years?
I'm not sure if I've posted this on this board so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. There is a social theorum that runs something like this: 'Any act, if practiced by all members of a group, causes more harm than good; that act is wrong.' Homosexuality, by that definition alone and not based on religion, is wrong. If all members of the species practiced it, we'd have the end of the race withing a short time span.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Raising a child in a same sex parental environment is NOT normal, and NOT healthy for the child.
Posted by glassman on :
I'm not sure if I've posted this on this board so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. There is a social theorum that runs something like this: 'Any act, if practiced by all members of a group, causes more harm than good; that act is wrong.' Homosexuality, by that definition alone and not based on religion, is wrong. If all members of the species practiced it, we'd have the end of the race withing a short time span.
hmmmmm.... how has homosexuality survived in thru evolution?
there must be some survival benefit or it wouldn't have...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
We're not suggesting you should practice homosexuality SF. And by that maxim you quote we could as easily state that if we were all heterosexual we would overpopulate and have a massive die off due to starvation therefore heterosexuality is wrong. Or if we all ate cheese every day there would be a huge incidence of heart failure therefore eating cheese is wrong.
There is no reason not to recognize a gay relationship beyond the belief held by many that it is not "normal". The same reason why women were denied equal treatment in the workplace and the same reason why black people were denied equal status as white people. They were different.
And you may believe that having a child raised in a homosexual home is not healthy. I can live with you believing that. Neither is it healthy to allow smokers to get pregnant. Neither is it healthy for a child to be raised in a home that abuses alcohol or drugs. You could even make a case that it is unhealthy for a child to be raised in poverty.
There is no prerequisite requirements for child-bearing. And until there are I would much rather see a child placed in a loving home (gay or straight) that is ready for the responsibility of raising the child rather than depend on the foster care system which is wholely unreliable. Some get placed with families that genuinely care. Many get place with families that need or want the extra check that comes with the child more.
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Raising a child in a same sex parental environment is NOT normal, and NOT healthy for the child.
Agreed, and worth repeating.
Posted by Stupid on :
PM may have some tendencies he is trying to hide.If we get rid of the gays then we can add christians,jews,blacks,landlords,asians and europeans.While we are at it we should ban everybody that isnt 100% american indian. Propmanagers are included since they are hate mongrels...DUH
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: hmmmmm.... how has homosexuality survived in thru evolution?
there must be some survival benefit or it wouldn't have...
Deviancy requires a norm, Glass; not the other way around. Homosexuality is not some insticnt bred into the species. It serves no vital purpose to the continuation of the race. Bestiality, bondage\intentional pain play, and other 'alternatives' (read deviancies) are just that. Diversions from the norm. By making them equal to the norm you are marginalizing the norm. You are saying there is no norm and anything goes.
That is not understanding and acceptance, that's decadence and hedonism given permission and social acceptance.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
We're not suggesting you should practice homosexuality SF.
Thanks for the confirmation, Big.
There is no prerequisite requirements for child-bearing. And until there are I would much rather see a child placed in a loving home (gay or straight) that is ready for the responsibility of raising the child rather than depend on the foster care system which is wholely unreliable.
Here's the issue though. A child's parents are his\her first and most powerful examples of their roles in society and how to treat the other gender. A mother figure and father figure are indispensable because neither is capable of teaching both roles.
How does a lesbian couple teach their daughter how to interact with men when their lifestyle choice precludes it? How does a gay couple talk to their son about girl when they choose to live without one in the home? And these two examples are only if the child and parents are of the same gender. Think if they are not.
The traditional family is formed for the purpose of procreation AND and to provide the basis for the child's social development. Without exemplars of the roles and social interactions between the genders the child has to find their teachers outside the home. And I think most of us here would agree that the current media\society doesn't seem to be offering very constructive examples for our children to learn from.
Posted by glassman on :
You are saying there is no norm and anything goes.
not at all, i'm saying that the survival of the fittest laws define our genome.
and the 10% + or - of all human populations that is same-sex oriented would have been selected out long ago if what you said was true.. it hasn't been...
and it has been around for a very long time...
you made the value judgemnet
Homosexuality is not some insticnt bred into the species. It serves no vital purpose to the continuation of the race.
and
Bestiality, bondage\intentional pain play, and other 'alternatives' (read deviancies) are just that. Diversions from the norm.
putting bestiality into that group is actually off target, just as cannabilism would not belong in that group. Bestiality and cannibalism both have serious deleterious "social health" effects. (AIDS is not a gay disease just look at Africa.) Kuru and diseases like anthrax are INEVITABLE from cannibalism and bestiality.
Mendelian principles and evolutionary development require that we have "deviations" from norm. They have to happen in order to evolve. Nature determines the success of that deviation.
Posted by glassman on :
And I think most of us here would agree that the current media\society doesn't seem to be offering very constructive examples for our children to learn from.
i agree in theory that kids should have their biological parents to raise them. it just doesn't happen much anymore in this country...
i don't think it's the media's fault tho....
how do you keep people from having kids and entering into a gay relationship tho? can't be done. adoption? that gets tricky. seems to me that the private adoption market is thriving. i don't think much of that either.
Posted by T e x on :
boy, howdy...
some good points here. Nice thread.
will answer one, for now, from personal, painful experience:
G-E-Bozo posits inevitability:
how do you keep people from having kids and entering into a gay relationship tho? can't be done.
actually, it could be done.
And, get this, my answer will seem to contradict what I say later because I do *not* like same-sex unions being labeled a marriage.
Now that having been said, the grievous, tragically multifaceted heartbreak that awaits nearly all who attempt a hetero/gay marriage could most assuredly be avoided if homosexual kids/teens/young adults were *not* so horribly mangled by the "American-standard" ISO-bar, pressure-cooker that is and has been allowed to set the mold for societal norms.
Notwithstanding the various studies/statistics--cuz I'm not "in the know" on the DATA, lol--it *does* seem inherently logical to have a male/female adult-couple presence in the home...if nothing more than for the yin/yang interaction.
Look though the wrong end of the telescope, just for a second:
Without evidence, there is no mystery.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Why do we keep trying to find alternatives to the traditional family instead of working to strenghten the very basis that has kept this country strong for so many years?
No one is trying to "Find" anything much less a alternative... do you seriously think that banning gay marriages would stop a person from loving someone of the same sex? Do you really think that a "traditional" family upbringing will prevent a child from becoming gay? ... Love has no boundaries... it does not discriminate based on gender or race... if someone loves someone of the same gender that is coming from the heart and not a deviancy as you call it... humans do "deviant acts" if you can call it that with their loved one (significant other) but that is a private thing between two people... that does not mean they go around doing it in front of a child... I am sure that if we could watch you with your significant other in a private moment we can point out a act or two of "deviancy".. what you are doing is shoving your morals down people's throats basically... morals are like a opinion... everyone has one and because it is right or wrong to you does not make it so for others who can form their own opinion or morals...
quote:I'm not sure if I've posted this on this board so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. There is a social theorum that runs something like this: 'Any act, if practiced by all members of a group, causes more harm than good; that act is wrong.' Homosexuality, by that definition alone and not based on religion, is wrong. If all members of the species practiced it, we'd have the end of the race withing a short time span.
Glass already touched upon this and he is right... by your statement since heterosexuality is the majority then we are all causing more harm then good and are "acting" wrong...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Look within nature. Homosexuality exists everywhere. Even in species we had thought to "bond for life" with one partner have been recorded practicing homosexuality.
In certain species such as frogs it has been proven that environmental stress and overcrowding can increase the prevalence of homosexual behavior exhibited by the group.
I know many think homosexuality is a choice. And I do think that sometimes that may be the case. But there is biological evidence that it goes well beyond that.
If family dynamics is the reason for your disdain then I suggest to you that your argument is misplaced. In a gay relationship the two roles may be distorted by the same gender but they are still two roles.
In single parent home one of the roles is completely absent. If family dynamics is your argument then you should be even more adamant against single parent scenarios than you are against same sex couples.
But I am going to guess you think single parent homes are regrettable but not alarming...cuz they are 'more normal' than same sex couples.
(Do you see the hole in your logic?)
Posted by T e x on :
Look within nature.
... then you should be even more adamant against single parent scenarios ...
Big? logically, that's an ooopsie...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Please expand on that thought Tex.
Posted by T e x on :
in most species, are dual parents the norm?
could be off-base here, but I'm thinking the two-parent, monogamous, hetero model is kinda rare...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Indeed.
There are many models of child-rearing within nature and the two parent hetero model IS rare.
The male/female monogamous 'family value' home is a societal concept not grounded in reality.
However, if that is the mode of thought through which we are arriving at the determination that a same sex couple should not raise children then by that logic a single parent home should be even more of an anathema. A child may be confused by the "distortion" a same sex couple brings to that ideal, but it is closer to the mode of choice than when one role is completely absent.
Posted by T e x on :
shall we rush?
lol...
The male/female monogamous 'family value' home is a societal concept not grounded in reality.
you still comfortable with this statement?
Posted by T e x on :
best, bro...
catchup tomorrow
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:do you seriously think that banning gay marriages would stop a person from loving someone of the same sex?
No, and no-one is trying to tell anyone who they can love. Gays are not being discriminated against. Gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex just like all other citizens. What they are NOT free to do is change the centuries old definition of marriage to suit their desires.
quote:but that is a private thing between two people...
It is normally a private thing between hetrosexuals, but that is far from the case with gays. Turn on the TV. Gays (especially in California) are always having their silly gay parades where they dress up like a bunch of freaks and act like idiots! Private? I dont' think so. That is the face of the gay movement in the US and it is a disgrace!!! They're like a bunch of immature high schoolers acting out to get attention.
Posted by jordanreed on :
I guess I dont understand..
why is it a problem if gay people are allowed to get married?
It wouldnt affect me in the least..
if 3 people want to marry a goat?..doesnt bother me either. why should it?..
seems to me that the people that it bothers are afraid of something...I'm not sure what, but, maybe it hits a little too close to home
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Common PM...been to Mardi Gras lately? How about spring break? A rager? A keger? A neighborhood dance? A nightclub?
Our hetero sons and daughters promote their sexuality just as much as the homosexual element of our community. It just doesn't attract attention because it is seen as normal.
And what do we hope for our hetero sons and daughters? That eventually they will find a nice boy/girl, settle down into a comfortable loving relationship, get married, and maybe have a few kids. That is stability, and we garner satisfaction from knowing that our children have a support structure that will continue past when we are gone.
But homosexuals don't deserve stability to you do they?
Like I said...don't want to call it marriage and that is just fine. But they do deserve to be recognized.
quote: shall we rush?
lol...
The male/female monogamous 'family value' home is a societal concept not grounded in reality.
you still comfortable with this statement?
Must be a slow morning. I expected everybody to jump all over me after that one.
No...I stand by it. I'm not saying it is a bad thing. It is a very good thing. That such a thing CAN exist is a testament to human fortitude. But we should recognize it for what it is; an abnormality.
(Please forgive semi-colon if it is not appropriate. I never have understood when it was right to use them.)
With a divorce rate standing at 50% in the country and god only knows the rate of infidelity...I would think we would all understand that the male/female monogamous 'family values' home is something to aspire to...not the place where we set the standard of normal. It is distinctly abnormal within our own species and even more so on a global scale to have such a relationship work.
So why are we setting that as our basic criteria for what constitutes an minimally acceptable arrangement for raising children? That's ludicrous!
Posted by retiredat49 on :
This existence of this thread proves that what I've been saying is true...
The dems and the reps continue to stir up emotions with frivolous issues like this..just to create diversions and division so average joe doesn't pay attention to what they are really up to...
Seriously...WHY is anyone spending any of their time squabbling over this issue when there are REAL problems that we should be dealing with...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Seriously...WHY is anyone spending any of their time squabbling over this issue when there are REAL problems that we should be dealing with...
It's a symptom of a sick society, Retired, and it's getting worse. That's why I worry about it. No, it's not the one issue I will vote my candidate on, but it's something I care where they fall on it.
Back to Big though.
With a divorce rate standing at 50% in the country and god only knows the rate of infidelity...I would think we would all understand that the male/female monogamous 'family values' home is something to aspire to...not the place where we set the standard of normal. It is distinctly abnormal within our own species and even more so on a global scale to have such a relationship work.
I think there's a critical flaw in that logic, Big. You're assuming that the above 'facts' are inevitable and natural in the human race and therefore valid arguments against the monagamous, traditional home.
Myself? I believe that they are the sad effects of our society abandoning the responsibility of family life for personal pleasure\selfishness. They are the resulting quagmire that comes from people saying that the 'norm' is abnormal. Slowly we've slipped from the 'free love' bologna of the 60's to 'whatever feels good.' Nothing is allowed to be held up as meaningful because everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is 'right.'
And here we are.
There are many models of child-rearing within nature and the two parent hetero model IS rare.
Not even in the same ball park, Big. The animal models are based on one of two scenarios: single member survival or small group family survival. In the first, the animal only has to learn enough from the parent to survive vs. predators and find prey. In the second, the member functions as a member of a small group (usually less than twenty individuals) and pure strength determines leadership positions.
Neither of these are tenable for the human race.
People need to be able to interact with and function along side others. They also need to understand authority that isn't based solely on punishments but also simple basic right and wrong. These traits aren't something that can be taught in a book or in a movie. They are taught by the example(ideally) of parents through interaction with eachother and with others. The child SEES and HEARS how they should act through these examples. Without them, they are left to fend for themselves as it were as to how to act.
This is why we see a predominately more frequent amount domestic abuse in adults who grew up in a household where it was present. That is what they learned was appropriate and so they repeat it. That is why people who have parents who smoke or drink are more likely to pick up the same habits at some point in their lives. They saw that their parents thought it was ok enough for them, it must be ok.
However, if that is the mode of thought through which we are arriving at the determination that a same sex couple should not raise children then by that logic a single parent home should be even more of an anathema. A child may be confused by the "distortion" a same sex couple brings to that ideal, but it is closer to the mode of choice than when one role is completely absent.
It's not a matter of how far from the standard model the example is, Big. It's what we as a society choose to have AS the standard model. No, I think the single parent home is not ideal. One of the two role models that the child needs is absent. They are forced to look outside the home for that example. Many times they find someone near to the family that can provide a healthy model. Many times they don't.
Now, for the sake of the arguement I'll take the bait.
In the homosexual couple home model, it's 'worse.' Instead of having one parental rolemodel simply being absent, which by definition one is; the child is presented with conflicting role models as to gender roles. The feminine and masculine roles are being played by the same gender. The child is left confused as to which is correct. This doesn't even cover the lack of example of how to interact with members of the opposite sex appropriately.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Some pretty good points SeekingFreedom.
Posted by glassman on :
Myself? I believe that they are the sad effects of our society abandoning the responsibility of family life for personal pleasure\selfishness. They are the resulting quagmire that comes from people saying that the 'norm' is abnormal. Slowly we've slipped from the 'free love' bologna of the 60's to 'whatever feels good.' Nothing is allowed to be held up as meaningful because everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is 'right.'
becoming abnormal?
see? this is where you lose me.
we are not "becoming abnormal"
do you believe that Leave It to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show was a real portrayal of our society or ANY society?
how about the fact that our country was founded on economic principles of slave ownership and indentured servitude, and that we took land from people that truly owned it, but didn't have written DEEDS?
there is no "norm", and never was, never will be. there is no such thing as moral values that we built our nation on. Societal relationships are built and forged in the fires of Chaos.
Norms are fiction taught to people that have no curoisity....
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Ok, now for round 2.
Glass,
not at all, i'm saying that the survival of the fittest laws define our genome.
and the 10% + or - of all human populations that is same-sex oriented would have been selected out long ago if what you said was true.. it hasn't been...
and it has been around for a very long time...
If your'e looking at it from a purely genetic standpoint, Glass, I find nothing in your statement to argue with. However, man is more than the sum of his genetic heritage. He is free to make choices based on what he percieves and experiences. Genetic predisposition does not mandate his life's path. It may influence it, sometimes heavily; but it is still his to decide.
you made the value judgemnet
Perhaps. But that's my right. Just as it is your's to judge whether it's right or wrong for yourself. My opinion is just that. I am attempting to explain how I came to that conclusion just as Big and others are doing the same thing. That's the point of the discussion.
Mendelian principles and evolutionary development require that we have "deviations" from norm. They have to happen in order to evolve. Nature determines the success of that deviation.
Evolution in this direction can only take two courses.
One: asexual reproduction or Two: the death of the species due to lack of reproduction.
I don't think either really fits Darwin's model.
i agree in theory that kids should have their biological parents to raise them. it just doesn't happen much anymore in this country...
Why not? That's the whole point of my, well, point. We are taking the weight and importance out of the family unit. It's become all about ME and what MY needs are. Who cares what anyone else needs. Raising a family in a responsible way is hard. Abandoning them to find the next one night stand is easy. Easy is the new fad.
i don't think it's the media's fault tho....
Not solely, no. But they sure don't seem to be stemming the tide.
Quickly to Mach before I have to run.
From your post I feel you misunderstood my use of the term deviancy. I'm not talking about the physical sex involved, Mach. I'm talking about giving anything outside of the traditional family unit the same societal weight. By giving it the same recognition you aren't elevating it to the same plane; you're saying there is no plane to begin with. That it's all relevant and there is nothing absolute.
As to the morals part. It's not the imposition of one set of morals on another that's my concern. I couldn't even if I wanted to. Each is free to decide for themselves what they believe is right and wrong. My concern is what our society decides is right and wrong. In group dynamics, the majority has three choices. Either they can enforce their will on the group as a whole to maintain uniformity, they can allow the group to be governed by will of the minortiy causing strife because the majority doesn't agree, or finally they can abaondon all concensus and chaos ensues.
Morally, we as a culture have elected to do the last. Everyone is allowed to do whatever and nothing is sacred. We have moral chaos as a result.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: becoming abnormal?
see? this is where you lose me.
we are not "becoming abnormal"
do you believe that Leave It to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show was a real portrayal of our society or ANY society?
how about the fact that our country was founded on economic principles of slave ownership and indentured servitude, and that we took land from people that truly owned it, but didn't have written DEEDS?
there is no "norm", and never was, never will be. there is no such thing as moral values that we built our nation on. Societal relationships are built and forged in the fires of Chaos.
Norms are fiction taught to people that have no curoisity....
I mean this with all sincerity, Glass, so please try not to take undue offense.
How do you live in this world if that really is your point of view on it?
Leave It to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show and what they portrayed should be held up on pedastals and should be the goal we all strive for. The happy family that learns together and stands together through whatever comes should be imitated to all our best abilities. To allow anything else to supplant it is socitital suicide and we are feeling the effects of it right now.
Posted by glassman on :
However, man is more than the sum of his genetic heritage. He is free to make choices based on what he percieves and experiences. Genetic predisposition does not mandate his life's path. It may influence it, sometimes heavily; but it is still his to decide.
nature VS nurture... hmmm.. let's ask Dick and Lynne Cheney. did they have "bad" DNA or did they screw up in their rearing? tuff questions huh?
Posted by glassman on :
How do you live in this world if that really is your point of view on it?
simply. i humbly ask for the strength to change what i can, the patience to endure what i cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Posted by glassman on :
i agree in theory that kids should have their biological parents to raise them. it just doesn't happen much anymore in this country...
Why not? That's the whole point of my, well, point. We are taking the weight and importance out of the family unit. It's become all about ME and what MY needs are. Who cares what anyone else needs. Raising a family in a responsible way is hard. Abandoning them to find the next one night stand is easy. Easy is the new fad.
all i'm really saying is that it's it's not a new fad.
it's just that the history books in High School are censored...
Posted by glassman on :
To allow anything else to supplant it is socitital suicide and we are feeling the effects of it right now.
how did Rome fall? some people want to point to social insanity like Caligula's antics... they don't seem to realise that Caligula died about 300 years before Rome fell... Rome fell because they over-reached militarily... same with the USSR... that sounds more like our real problem right now to me...
Posted by T e x on :
What bugs me about the "decline of the family" is the notion is that children MUST leave home and get their own place by x-age (18, 21, whatever). I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place...(maybe not the same house, but on the same land or "compound," if you will)... was commonplace and even somewhat expected. Certainly, you didn't automatically dump the old folks and kick the kids out after high school or college...
Did the Realtors have something to do with this?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place
I think you'll be seeing this again soon. With gas at $4 and food prices skyrocketing, people will increasingly be sharing housing - just to survive!
Posted by jordanreed on :
ya wanna move in with me...PMS?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote SeekingFreedom:
"Myself? I believe that they are the sad effects of our society abandoning the responsibility of family life for personal pleasure\selfishness. They are the resulting quagmire that comes from people saying that the 'norm' is abnormal. Slowly we've slipped from the 'free love' bologna of the 60's to 'whatever feels good.' Nothing is allowed to be held up as meaningful because everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is 'right."
Quote Tex:
What bugs me about the "decline of the family" is the notion is that children MUST leave home and get their own place by x-age (18, 21, whatever). I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place...(maybe not the same house, but on the same land or "compound," if you will)... was commonplace and even somewhat expected. Certainly, you didn't automatically dump the old folks and kick the kids out after high school or college...
Did the Realtors have something to do with this?
_________________________________________________
SeekingFreedom i think your point is well taken but there are other aspects of this also. The need to survive the economic times since the sixties has partly led to the changing of the value system, but many have used these trouble times to excuse them from the responsibilty that a family brings.
These changing economic times have brought the term quality time vs quantity time as a rational for the lack of time spent with their families and their behavior.
Tex that is one thing we see in many of the older Asian families as i am sure you well know. This will most likely change over time as they become Americanized.
With these changing times we are seeing more and more Grandparents having to raise there grandkids without much or any help from their kids. This is not a good sign but fortunately sometimes it might be a great alternative for the grandkids.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place
I think you'll be seeing this again soon. With gas at $4 and food prices skyrocketing, people will increasingly be sharing housing - just to survive!
that would be nice...
but probably what we'll see instead is a sadder, greyer version, an older-person, scaled-down "hippie commune."
Family/blood won't be the common tie, but instead who's got any capital left, who can still perform...on a ladder, a roof, in a tree...in the kitchen, on the budget, etc.
Older guys and maybe a few older gals...who go in together on a bigger house with some space enough to make their last stand.
Hopeably, some of their various and assorted "real family" will visit, from time to time...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:With these changing times we are seeing more and more Grandparents having to raise there grandkids without much or any help from their kids. This is not a good sign but fortunately sometimes it might be a great alternative for the grandkids.
yup...cleave unto cleave...
that simply and strongly shows the value of grandparents/grandchildren.
We have, wrongly, imo, diverted from that valuable model.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Glass, do you consider yourself a religious individual? The Serenity Prayer is usually seen as a supplication to God for assistance in troubled times.
Either way, back to your points.
nature VS nurture... hmmm.. let's ask Dick and Lynne Cheney. did they have "bad" DNA or did they screw up in their rearing? tuff questions huh?
No, and yes. Not from the angle I think you intended, but yes in that I don't know either them nor their daughter well enough to give you an opinion. I do concede that some people may have a genetic predisposition toward homophilia. I also believe that science has 'proven' that people can have predispositions toward substance addiction, logical dispositions and artistic excellence. None of these predetermine the individuals actions or career paths. They are simply genetic 'nudges' they choose to follow or not.
how did Rome fall?
Pick up The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire if you haven't already. They're probably the finest books on the subject ever written. I've got the abridged version, and Gibbon listed far more than merely military over extension as the causitive effect. Social degredation and civil fracturing feature prominently. Both of which we see right now along with your forementioned military issue.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Tex,
I'm with you one hundred percent on families. My brothers and I live within 20 minutes of our parents and last living grandparent. We were taught growing up that family takes care of family and we live by it. When one of us hit a rough spot economically, it was family they turned to, not welfare. The 'clan' mentality has kept us together and made sure all members are taken care of.
Iwish,
I can't say I don't understand the challenge of quantity of time devoted to family. But few can truly say they give all the time they could. I know I spend far too much time in front of this monitor that could\should be spent with the wife or children. One of the leaders of my church once said 'it's not the speed that we're traveling at that's so important, but moreso the direction.' If we're honestly trying to keep our families together and strong we will see results.
If we don't try...well, we can see where that's taking us can't we?
Posted by glassman on :
Glass, do you consider yourself a religious individual? The Serenity Prayer is usually seen as a supplication to God for assistance in troubled times.
hmmmm.... i don't see why one would wait till they are in trouble for that prayer. wisdom is definitely in short supply in the world today...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place...(maybe not the same house, but on the same land or "compound," if you will)... was commonplace and even somewhat expected. Certainly, you didn't automatically dump the old folks and kick the kids out after high school or college...
Were not living in Little House on the Prairie days Tex lol Grandma/Granpa should of saved for retirement and if they did they would like to have some space from family... as for HS kids, they want to be more independent and if they can support themselves then why not? It will show them responsibility... to me it sounds like Ole Tex doesn't want daddy's lil girl to move away or for her not to care anymore about him when Tex is Ole... Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Didn't answer the question, Glass. Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD:
Tex that is one thing we see in many of the older Asian families as i am sure you well know. This will most likely change over time as they become Americanized.
Actually no IWISH, that never changes with Asian families. It is fair to say that I have had many asian friends throughout my adult life then anyone else on this board. Both Americanized and non-Americanized. None have abandoned that part of their culture. Recently I made a new Chinese friend and she lives in Chinatown in NYC. She works two jobs i believe to support her parents financially. She doesn't live with them but does work so that they do not have to.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD:
Tex that is one thing we see in many of the older Asian families as i am sure you well know. This will most likely change over time as they become Americanized.
Actually no IWISH, that never changes with Asian families. It is fair to say that I have had many asian friends throughout my adult life then anyone else on this board. Both Americanized and non-Americanized. None have abandoned that part of their culture. Recently I made a new Chinese friend and she lives in Chinatown in NYC. She works two jobs i believe to support her parents financially. She doesn't live with them but does work so that they do not have to.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Didn't answer the question, Glass.
i assumed it was rhetorical
IMO? Jim Morisson was correct when he said "You cannot petition the Lord with prayer"
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
It was originally, but your response made me wonder. You've quoted the Bible on other threads and now use the Serenity Prayer to describe your life. Just curious about whether you actually believe in something along the lines of Christianity or if it's simply sarcasm.
And if you don't think it's my business just tell me and I'll drop it. It's your privacy I'm asking to intrude upon.
Posted by glassman on :
well, i don't know how you would define "religious" for starters, and the questions get wider from there...
Budhas are very religious, but i'm not one o'them... *as far as i know anyway *
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Machiavelli:
"Actually no IWISH, that never changes with Asian families. It is fair to say that I have had many asian friends throughout my adult life then anyone else on this board. Both Americanized and non-Americanized. None have abandoned that part of their culture. Recently I made a new Chinese friend and she lives in Chinatown in NYC. She works two jobs i believe to support her parents financially. She doesn't live with them but does work so that they do not have to."
_________________________________________________
In So. Ca. i have seen this change in their culture slowly come about.
There is such a large Asian population in areas around here where i live in So. Ca. and inland where i grew up and i have seen first hand this separation from family happening. Not a good thing but with these economic times and a new generation of family they also fall into this problem, not to the extent that other races do ...yet
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: well, i don't know how you would define "religious" for starters, and the questions get wider from there...
Budhas are very religious, but i'm not one o'them... *as far as i know anyway *
I really don't consider Buddhism as a religion but more philosophical.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: _________________________________________________
In So. Ca. i have seen this change in their culture slowly come about.
There is such a large Asian population in areas around here in So. Ca. and inland where i grew up and i have seen first hand this separation from family happening. Not a good thing but with these economic times and a new generation of family they also fall into this problem, not to the extent that other races do ...yet
I have a Chinese friend (as well as others)in SF as well as LA and all of them haven't abandoned that part of their culture. So I don't see it. Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Budhas are very religious, but i'm not one o'them... *as far as i know anyway *
Maybe your next life, Glass. Posted by glassman on :
or the last? Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: well, i don't know how you would define "religious" for starters, and the questions get wider from there...
Budhas are very religious, but i'm not one o'them... *as far as i know anyway *
I really don't consider Buddhism as a religion but more philosophical.
enlightenment is the goal... have you ever noticed how every story ends when the goal is attained?
i think i'll just keep trying Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
There are a lot of families that have not changed but like i said before there are ones that have. I am seeing and talking to more that have gotten away from the typical tradition of many of the Asian families.
Life in America can sure change things in families for generations to come as we have seen in past generations and many of these traditions are lost.
Where i grew up and my mother still lives it is now about 75% Asian which use to be 75% white. These Asian families come in with big money pay cash for these older homes and bull doze them and put up multi million dollar homes on the lots.
The high school where i went and the junior high has a major Asian gang problem which really surprises me.
This change in my home town has been going on for the last 20 years and it is interesting the differance between the early Asian families that started to do this and the ones in the last 5 years. Generally a different type of family coming in now.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place...(maybe not the same house, but on the same land or "compound," if you will)... was commonplace and even somewhat expected. Certainly, you didn't automatically dump the old folks and kick the kids out after high school or college...
Were not living in Little House on the Prairie days Tex lol Grandma/Granpa should of saved for retirement and if they did they would like to have some space from family... as for HS kids, they want to be more independent and if they can support themselves then why not? It will show them responsibility... to me it sounds like Ole Tex doesn't want daddy's lil girl to move away or for her not to care anymore about him when Tex is Ole...
Little House days?
no, of course we're not...
too much the worse, though--as far as family values go.
Can *not* imagine why you're being flippant about my daughters, though.
In your culture, has respect slipped away?
Posted by T e x on :
SF opines:
quote:I'm with you one hundred percent on families. My brothers and I live within 20 minutes of our parents and last living grandparent. We were taught growing up that family takes care of family and we live by it. When one of us hit a rough spot economically, it was family they turned to, not welfare. The 'clan' mentality has kept us together and made sure all members are taken care of.
That's good stuff.
Power to you, on family...
best,
tex
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Tex:
"yup...cleave unto cleave...
that simply and strongly shows the value of grandparents/grandchildren.
We have, wrongly, imo, diverted from that valuable model."
--------------------
I just finished helping to coach that T-Ball team and there were quite a few grandparents like me that were helping to coach also.
It was fun but i am glad this season is over with. I think it helps to keep your mind young and more open being around those 5 year olds.
I do think it is a little harder now than when i did it before maybe because i was just planning to help and somehow ended doing the main part or maybe age has caught up a tad or both.
These young guys are just learning what coaching is all about and have trouble teaching fundamentals to the young kids even though some have played college ball.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Quote Tex:
"yup...cleave unto cleave...
that simply and strongly shows the value of grandparents/grandchildren.
We have, wrongly, imo, diverted from that valuable model."
--------------------
I just finished helping to coach that T-Ball team and there were quite a few grandparents like me that were helping to coach also.
It was fun but i am glad this season is over with. I think it helps to keep your mind young and more open being around those 5 year olds.
I do think it is a little harder now than when i did it before maybe because i was just planning to help and somehow ended doing the main part or maybe age has caught up a tad or both.
These young guys are just learning what coaching is all about and have trouble teaching fundamentals to the young kids even though some have played college ball.
Of course it's harder...
For one, you hadda change your plan.
For two, sounds like you don't have your own kids helping out--schooled in your system, they would be invaluable re: the "heavy lifting" of teaching fundamentals and basic skills.
lol, man, at our age? we *deserve* Coach Emeritus status Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Tex i agree with you as far as family is concerned.
I think we have lost a lot since the ealier years. (40's 50's 60's)
I am not really sure some people really even understand the value of a good family because they have not ever really felt it in their lifetime. Sometimes family can be a pain in the .... but still it needs to be part of life.
I hope we have done our best to give our kids and grand kids the best chance to understand a fairly good family structure.
Both my kids do spend time raising money for charities plus all the things in their busy schedules.
My son has a baby on the way my third grandkid. Him and his wife's had his wife sister move in and helped her through her chemo and radiation for 6 months asked for nothing and i have never heard any complaint other than when one threw up the other did the same. I think he knows that you help out because it the right thing to do and it's family even though others did not step up to the plate.
My daughter who's kid i have been coaching has kind of let me teach him the fundamentals and play. Her husband was a swimmer and never really spent much time at other sports.
He plays fine but my grandson wants me to help him which maybe is partly my fault since i have been teaching him all the way along and spent quite a bit of time playing with him in his 5 years. Hopefully his dad gets more involved which seems to be happening now.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I had a gay man that was trying to hit on me over the weekend at this bar in the downtown of the city I live in. It was very uncomfortable to say the least with the things he was saying to me.
yuck!
Posted by jordanreed on :
when homosexuals hit on me?..I say "thanks, but I'm not gay".. it feels good to get hit on, for a change....
as for the "family" discussion, I whole-heartedly agree...people need to get back to the family, but with both parents working, the kids have little parental influence....Growing up, my mom was ALWAYS home..making lunch,dinner,always knowing where her kids(6) were. that was a nice, comfortable, feeling..
Posted by Stupid on :
CashCow,What were you doing in a gay bar in the first place?My experience has been in most social settings is that the gay minority men will watch before they approach.If they see someone checking out other men or couples then it appears that they may have a chance.If you just check out women and they stilll hit on you it could be like fishing...he could be trolling and dropped a line your way.Try dancing more often so it doesnt appear as if you are available.I had some gay friends years ago and I am not gay.I had to ask questions similar to your experience.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote:
"as for the "family" discussion, I whole-heartedly agree...people need to get back to the family, but with both parents working, the kids have little parental influence....Growing up, my mom was ALWAYS home..making lunch,dinner,always knowing where her kids(6) were. that was a nice, comfortable, feeling.."
_________________________________________________
I think that's something that many in the new generations will never feel because of the changing times.
I do feel it also affects the behavior in the growing years, just my opinion and observation.
What bothers me is that some of these working parents can spend more time with their kids but choose to do other things and then use the excuse that when they take their kids out in the public or at home the kids mis-behave all the time(cry etc.)
I have heard that excuse with some of my daughters friends and others and it just makes me sick. They don't get the relationship between spending time with your kids and behavior or they do not want to get it.
It is not a guarantee to good behavior but sure can help.
I always think of the song that tells the story of dad being to busy for his kid can't remember the name... his kid grew up just like him.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: quote:
I always think of the song that tells the story of dad being to busy for his kid can't remember the name... his kid grew up just like him.
Cats in the Cradle by Harry Chapin.... and in the song both were responsible Dad's... just no one has time in this world because everything is money and work work work work.... in Europe they get like 3 hour lunches... here some of us get 1/2 hour lunches... WTF???
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: becoming abnormal?
see? this is where you lose me.
we are not "becoming abnormal"
do you believe that Leave It to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show was a real portrayal of our society or ANY society?
how about the fact that our country was founded on economic principles of slave ownership and indentured servitude, and that we took land from people that truly owned it, but didn't have written DEEDS?
there is no "norm", and never was, never will be. there is no such thing as moral values that we built our nation on. Societal relationships are built and forged in the fires of Chaos.
Norms are fiction taught to people that have no curoisity....
I mean this with all sincerity, Glass, so please try not to take undue offense.
How do you live in this world if that really is your point of view on it?
Leave It to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show and what they portrayed should be held up on pedastals and should be the goal we all strive for. The happy family that learns together and stands together through whatever comes should be imitated to all our best abilities. To allow anything else to supplant it is socitital suicide and we are feeling the effects of it right now.
Really SF, the only thing I see from your posts are your own prejudices disguised as being concerned about the eradication of the "traditional" family. You have offered no independent unbiased proof that gay marriages would lead to such a thing or "confuse" children about how to act with the opposite sex etc.. etc.. If anything gay marriages in our society would preach tolerance to our children towards people that are different much like we do with race, religion, gender etc.. It would teach them tolerance and not hatred. And we have enough hatred in this world, do not need more.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Cats in the Cradle by Harry Chapin.... and in the song both were responsible Dad's... just no one has time in this world because everything is money and work work work work.... in Europe they get like 3 hour lunches... here some of us get 1/2 hour lunches... WTF???
_________________________________________________
Thanks could not remember that one.
Got to make time!
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Little House days?
no, of course we're not...
too much the worse, though--as far as family values go.
Can *not* imagine why you're being flippant about my daughters, though.
In your culture, has respect slipped away?
We'll to me it seems that is what everyone wants... Little House days...
As for family values, why do family have to leave near each other to preach family values? I don't see it. To me if you raised your children right in "values" then it does not matter where they are located when they enter adulthood. Those "values" will always be instilled in them.
As for your daughters, I wasn't being flippant. I was merely trying to convey that dad needs to let them go and choose their destiny. They will always love dad and will always have his "values" that he taught them. They are only a phone call or plane ride away. Simple as that. If we all went by what everyone is posting here then none of our families would live in other states spreading our legacies and such. To me and in general everyone here (at least male wise) feel lonely without their kids near them and that what this is really about and not "family values" because if you raised them right then there is nothing to fear. So I wish everyone would admit it is about loneliness and not "values".
As for my own culture (what is my culture since I was born in the U.S. and am americanized????) i take offense to that comment since you do not know my family's culture (I would have to assume you mean Costa Rican culture).
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I had a gay man that was trying to hit on me over the weekend at this bar in the downtown of the city I live in. It was very uncomfortable to say the least with the things he was saying to me.
yuck!
Maybe you are such a darn cute Cow lol Anyways don't take offense to it, just politely tell them your not gay and be flattered that both sexes find you cute. Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote:
"To me and in general everyone here (at least male wise) feel lonely without their kids near them and that what this is really about and not "family values" because if you raised them right then there is nothing to fear. So I wish everyone would admit it is about loneliness and not "values".
_________________________________________________
It would be nice to have my kids "close" but not in the same house, even though one of mine is not close.
I think we all know they need to live there own lives but that does not necessarily mean they have to live a long ways away.
I do think that being close to your kids and grandkids can help to ease some of the stresses that these times bring. This gives them more time to get out while we watch the grandkids instead of daycare or a baby sitter.
Daycare sucks but is a necessity in many cases.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
You have offered no independent unbiased proof that gay marriages would lead to such a thing or "confuse" children about how to act with the opposite sex etc.. etc..
Since you seem to know me better than I do, Mach, what are my prejudices? Is it I'm homophobic? Anti-Semetic? White Supremicist? Which of the sterotypical bigotries am I guilty of since you seem to be able to read minds.
If you really want it, I will link you to several studies that support what I've said. I specifically didn't for one reason: you won't accept them. Anything I post will be called biased because of any myriad of reasons from the source is a conservative group or it didn't include the minority of the day.
If you don't like the answer, you can find any numbers of excuses to dismiss it...and most people do.
Posted by glassman on :
there's no such thing as "independent unbiased proof" in any "social science" society literally is chaos, always has been always will be, even in societies that demand conformity...
Homosexuality has been documented in China since ancient times.
none of the major Chinese religions consider homosexual acts as sin as many Christian churches do. Compared to sin in Christian culture, the list of sinful deeds in the codex of Confucianism does not include homosexuality. As long as a man does his duty and sires children, it is his private affair to have other male lovers.
This is also true in Taoism. Although each man is regarded as yang (陽,masculine), every man also has some yin (陰,feminine) in him. Some men can have much yin in them. So the presence of some feminine behavior is not viewed as unnatural for men. In this view, homosexuals can even be regarded as something very natural, according to the natural balance of yin and yang.
Homosexuality went underground after the formation of the People's Republic of China. The Communist regime persecuted homosexuals, especially during the Cultural Revolution, when many homosexuals were punished with long prison terms and sometimes execution. Social tolerance of homosexuality declined.
Since the policy of Reform and Opening Up in 1979, the Communist Party has been loosening its control over this kind of behavior. But the practice of homosexuality is still labeled as a "moldering life style of capitalism". Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Since you seem to know me better than I do, Mach, what are my prejudices? Is it I'm homophobic? Anti-Semetic? White Supremicist? Which of the sterotypical bigotries am I guilty of since you seem to be able to read minds.
If you really want it, I will link you to several studies that support what I've said. I specifically didn't for one reason: you won't accept them. Anything I post will be called biased because of any myriad of reasons from the source is a conservative group or it didn't include the minority of the day.
If you don't like the answer, you can find any numbers of excuses to dismiss it...and most people do.
Yes, I do find you as being homophobic. You can say it as many ways as you want but the bottom line is you do not want homosexuals (both male and female) to have the same rights as heterosexuals and that includes issues not pertaining to marriage.
As for your "studies" you can link us to. I would not be surprised if they were in fact written by a "conservative" which in fact would make it biased. Wouldn't you agree?. In order for a report to be written and have no bias tied to it, it would have to be studied and written by a person who does not care either way about homosexuals or whatever topic it is.
I'll give you a example. I work in jewelry. Sometimes when we sell something to a customer they want a "appraisal". Sometimes we mark up the value of the item on our "appraisal" (most of the time at the request of the customer and we can only mark it up 25% from the purchase price). When a customer takes this "appraisal" to a appraiser outside of our company, that appraiser tells the customer the item is not worth what they pay for it and is really worth much much less. Now both my company and the outside appraiser have agendas when appraising a item. My company wants the customer to feel they got good value for their money. The outside appraiser most of the time is looking to get the customer to return the item and sell them their own item. Now a Gemological labratory will certify a diamonds quality (cut, color, carat and clarity) and from that a monetary value based on the current market can be assessed. Now my company and the outside appraiser is biased in their reports but the Gem Lab isn't because they do not care either way. They do not sell diamonds so their opinion on the diamond is "unbiased". I hope you see what I mean when it comes to your "studies" and any "study" me and others can come up with.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: If you don't like the answer, you can find any numbers of excuses to dismiss it...and most people do.
You are guilty of this yourself though I am sure you will dismiss it as most people do. Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Yes, I do find you as being homophobic.
I'm curious, Mach. What do you base this on? According to the dictionary, nothing I've said even comes close to fitting me for the term.
I've given my reasons for my opposition to gay marriage. I have explained my beliefs as to what the consequences to allowing it would be. Nothing in my posts directed anything resembling antipathy toward the individuals themselves. I don't agree with their choices, but I respect that it is THEIR choices.
Sorry, now for my moment of pettiness...
Mach, I don't know what sick priest you were an altar boy for...but not every christian conservative is the hate mongering bible belter you seem to think we are. There are those of us who actually do believe that "Love thy Neighbor" was more than just a passing suggestion. Just because I\we disagree with something doesn't mean we ostracize people for it.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Posted by glassman on :
Nothing in my posts directed anything resembling antipathy toward the individuals themselves. I don't agree with their choices, but I respect that it is THEIR choices.
i believe that you believe this, but you made value judgments which i pointed out.
you did make it a "survival of the fittest" argument, but the reality of the human social condition is that we do in fact participate in a considerable amount of behaviour that has nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:If you really want it, I will link you to several studies that support what I've said. I specifically didn't for one reason: you won't accept them.
You got that right!!!
quote:but the bottom line is you do not want homosexuals (both male and female) to have the same rights as heterosexuals and that includes issues not pertaining to marriage.
TOTAL NONSENSE! Conservatives want gays to have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else - WITH NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: TOTAL NONSENSE! Conservatives want gays to have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else - WITH NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!
What f*cking world you living in because you know that is BS.... not giving gays the right to marry is not having the same rights as everyone else and it is giving preferential treatment to heterosexuals... that is just for starters among other things conservatives try to squash in terms of rights for gays...
Posted by Highwaychild on :
You know any red blooded man in his right mind wouldn't mind seeing some hot lesbians making out.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
I've got 2 hot lesbian friends, and I kind of like it...lol
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:not giving gays the right to marry is not having the same rights as everyone else and it is giving preferential treatment to heterosexuals...
Mach, that's ridiculous. Gays have the exact same right to get married as everyone else - TO A MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITE SEX! Marriage is between a man and a woman, so there is no such thing as Gay Marriage (between same sex partners). SIMPLE!
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: You know any red blooded man in his right mind wouldn't mind seeing some hot lesbians making out.
lol, that's rookie thrill-seekers, imo
a three-way in which everyone is interested in everyone having having fun can be very pleasssant. But when the two women are really only interested in each other? gets boring, pretty quick...
Mach posts:
quote:We'll to me it seems that is what everyone wants... Little House days...
As for family values, why do family have to leave near each other to preach family values? I don't see it. To me if you raised your children right in "values" then it does not matter where they are located when they enter adulthood. Those "values" will always be instilled in them.
As for your daughters, I wasn't being flippant. I was merely trying to convey that dad needs to let them go and choose their destiny. They will always love dad and will always have his "values" that he taught them. They are only a phone call or plane ride away. Simple as that. If we all went by what everyone is posting here then none of our families would live in other states spreading our legacies and such. To me and in general everyone here (at least male wise) feel lonely without their kids near them and that what this is really about and not "family values" because if you raised them right then there is nothing to fear. So I wish everyone would admit it is about loneliness and not "values".
As for my own culture (what is my culture since I was born in the U.S. and am americanized????) i take offense to that comment since you do not know my family's culture (I would have to assume you mean Costa Rican culture).
lol, *you* can't take offense--I took offense, first.
You say, "To me if you raised your children right in 'values' then it does not matter where they are located when they enter adulthood."
Either I posted poorly, or you misunderstood: What I was saying is that I do NOT understand the "modern push" of shooing kids out of their HOME just because they reach a certain age.
How does that sound like clinging?
All my kids--and several of their friends--know they've always got a place here. In fact, Tex, Jr. has returned home, and his immediately older sister is due back in a few weeks. Completely their choice--and a decision I was not in on until *after* they had decided between themselves, for individual reasons.
In my son's case, he had tried living with his mother and her girlfriend--once again (so far, that particular dynamic has never worked more than a few months)--partly because their place was closer to his college campus. After the holidays, they told him he needed to get his own place because he's over 18 and should be on his own. They gave him a deadline--BUT when they learned he and his sister had decided to come home instead? chit hit the fan...they told him he needed to leave N-O-W.
Is that some *special* lesbian jealousy? I dunno... I can tell you this, though: my ex's partner is strikingly damaging to families and kids, AND my ex does make some strikingly bizarre decisions since jumping the fence...
Now, my daughter who is coming home has *her* own reasons, and is even bringing a roommate to live here for the roommate's senior year in college.
My oldest daughter lives about 900 miles away, where she's kinda famous, and we visit when we can and e-mail or phone quite often. I can guarantee you that neither has she ever felt any reluctance to spread her wings--but she also knows if she needed to come home...no problem.
In fact? If *I* needed to lean on her, well...it just goes without saying.
Bottom line: I was NOT talking about my family. My children and I are good in the family and values department, with of course our own set of challenges/opportunities. I was posting about SOCIETY, which I see careening and bob-sledding into ever-increasing, fragmented niches with TV specials about the HORRORS of BOOMERANG KIDS and elderly left to rot in "nursing" homes.
and, btw...I didn't insult your culture, I asked about it. Gotta love it, bro--our first spat, lol.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: quote:
I always think of the song that tells the story of dad being to busy for his kid can't remember the name... his kid grew up just like him.
Cats in the Cradle by Harry Chapin.... and in the song both were responsible Dad's... just no one has time in this world because everything is money and work work work work.... in Europe they get like 3 hour lunches... here some of us get 1/2 hour lunches... WTF???
oooh, oooh....
Perhaps our second spat...
quote:in the song both were responsible Dad's...
I don't get that *at all* from that song.
I get "you reap what you sow" you negligent bazturd. Sure, I missed some games and plays and recitals--but not many.
Here's what way too many Dads don't get: You don't have to be "perfect." You don't have to be able to "explain everything." But you DO need to show up and BE THERE.
Divorced? New girlfriend? New boyfriend? No job? New raise?
Whatever... be there. Maybe not everytime--kids are flexible, up to a point. But as pattern?
Be There.
Posted by glassman on :
You don't have to be "perfect." You don't have to be able to "explain everything." But you DO need to show up and BE THERE.
that was my take too. but i didn't see/hear failure, i just heard resignation that things weren't as good as they could be...
failure would be: the kid's calling collect from Folsom...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: You don't have to be "perfect." You don't have to be able to "explain everything." But you DO need to show up and BE THERE.
that was my take too. but i didn't see/hear failure, i just heard resignation that things weren't as good as they could be...
failure would be: the kid's calling collect from Folsom...
you talking about the song?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
i believe that you believe this, but you made value judgments which i pointed out.
Lol, Glass, I think I remember owning up to it as well. I think the problem is that we have lumped two seperate discussions together. Whether homosexuality is right or wrong and whether they should be alowed to have the civil union recognized as on par with traditional marriage.
On the first, I fully agree and accept that it is a value based judgement call. If you believe it's a sin (under whatever religion you care to use) then you're against it. If you feel it's got nothing to do with right and wrong and it's just a preference then you're more than likely for it or at least not against anyone choosing it.
I'm against homosexuality on principle due largely to my religious beliefs. I don't deny that in the least. However, I do have several gay friends and a gay uncle whom I care for just the same. They understand that I disagree with the choice but respect them anyways. I disagree with smoking. That doesn't mean I want all smokers to be cast out of our society. I disagree with their choice, but as long as it's legal it's still their choice. My friends that smoke simply respect me enough not to smoke around me. Mutual respect.
The second is an entirely different matter for the reasons I've already outlined. It doesn't have to be a value based call if one believes that it will be harmful to the society in and of itself.
Posted by cottonjim on :
Well said SF, I agree with you. I am a smoker and I have several buddies who aren't. I will smoke in front of them as long as we are outside , I will not smoke in a room or vehicle with them out of repect. I respect my freinds and I earn some respect because of it. On the whole gay wedding thing and their rights, I have a few gay employees, I know it, they know it, eveyone knows it........ but the closet is still closed because of mom and dad. What ever and none of my buisness. If they want the same benifits, fine.... don't call them married, I think that is disrespectfull to the institution. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. If your gonna say it, mean it government.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Mach, that's ridiculous. Gays have the exact same right to get married as everyone else - TO A MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITE SEX! Marriage is between a man and a woman, so there is no such thing as Gay Marriage (between same sex partners). SIMPLE!
You really are a idiot and they should take rights away from idiots like you... anyways Gay marriage is in the future so reap it...
Posted by Upside on :
Please, cut through all of the crap that's been posted here and really get down to the bottom line. Don't approve of gay marriage or equal rights for them? It has nothing to do with all this talk of family values, parenting, adherence to any passage of scripture, etc.
It boils down to the fact that you cannot stomach one man taking another mans "parts" into him. You either believe it to be abhorrent or you don't, simple as that. That's what it's all about. All of the arguments presented here, both pro and con, are nothing more than attempts to support your beliefs about the act(s) they perform behind closed doors.
And Bigfoot, you know how much I respect you and your opinions but this "it's prevalent in nature" argument simply doesn't make sense to me. They are lesser animals and not a role model we should aspire to. I've witnessed my dog hump numerous legs along with many inanimate objects just as most dogs and other lower species do but it certainly doesn't mean that we as humans should do and accept the same.
Enough, I'm done venting, carry on. One other thing though, I purposely left lesbians out of the equation because as Highwaychild said, we all know that's acceptable.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
I'm curious, Mach. What do you base this on? According to the dictionary, nothing I've said even comes close to fitting me for the term.
I've given my reasons for my opposition to gay marriage. I have explained my beliefs as to what the consequences to allowing it would be. Nothing in my posts directed anything resembling antipathy toward the individuals themselves. I don't agree with their choices, but I respect that it is THEIR choices.
Your fear of homosexuals getting married is in fact a fear of homosexuals themselves. So therefor you are by those means homophobic. Also as for your beliefs in the consequences of their marriages when they happen. Put this food for thought. Gays have been living with their significant others for years. Marriage really is just a formality since it would not change their living arrangements. So wouldn't it suffice to say that since their living together in society openly throughout the aages has not affected what you said it would affect ,then in fact you were wrong.
Face it, your fear of homosexuals because of the cr*p your religion teaches or more like it brainwashes you with is what this is really about.
quote:Sorry, now for my moment of pettiness...
Mach, I don't know what sick priest you were an altar boy for...but not every christian conservative is the hate mongering bible belter you seem to think we are. There are those of us who actually do believe that "Love thy Neighbor" was more than just a passing suggestion. Just because I\we disagree with something doesn't mean we ostracize people for it.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
I was never a altar boy because i was smart enough when I was a child to rebel against organized religion. It really makes me laugh that in this day and age modern people believe in a God that was created by ancient man because he couldn't explain simple things like earthquakes, floods, eclipses etc. due to lack of knowlege of science.The other reason for religion in ancient times as well as modern times is control. What better way to have power and control over the masses other then politics then by religion? You just have to be charismatic and a well spoken preacher then tell them God said this and God said that. You know the ole saying. There is a fool born every second. Ever hear the saying Religion is the Opiate of the Masses?.
Anyways as for the hate mongering christian. We see that everyday in this country so spare me the "Love thy Neighbor" speech. Christians love homosexuals aka sinner in your eyes as much as Hitler loved Jews. What you and other christians say publicly on a internet forum is most likely different then what is said privately among family and friends or even at Church.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Please, cut through all of the crap that's been posted here and really get down to the bottom line. Don't approve of gay marriage or equal rights for them? It has nothing to do with all this talk of family values, parenting, adherence to any passage of scripture, etc.
It boils down to the fact that you cannot stomach one man taking another mans "parts" into him. You either believe it to be abhorrent or you don't, simple as that. That's what it's all about. All of the arguments presented here, both pro and con, are nothing more than attempts to support your beliefs about the act(s) they perform behind closed doors.
And Bigfoot, you know how much I respect you and your opinions but this "it's prevalent in nature" argument simply doesn't make sense to me. They are lesser animals and not a role model we should aspire to. I've witnessed my dog hump numerous legs along with many inanimate objects just as most dogs and other lower species do but it certainly doesn't mean that we as humans should do and accept the same.
Enough, I'm done venting, carry on. One other thing though, I purposely left lesbians out of the equation because as Highwaychild said, we all know that's acceptable.
At least you admit what this is really about and that you yourself hate homosexuals. I wish SeekingFreedom would do the same and stop playing this charade.
Posted by T e x on :
lol...waiting
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Upside i think some of the posts just veered a little from the main topic seems to happen once in awhile on allstocks.
As far as the song is concerned i always got the impression that it was saying that dad pretty much ignored his son and now his son was ignoring dad...and so how does it feel dad.
I do not feel that is necessarily being responsible. I guess some could say it is being responsible because he did bring money home to raise his kid i think.
My point earlier was that you should make time for your kids and i feel that is our responsibility as parents
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Sorry Tex i think i overlap you on this one. Just got back and did not read your post.
Similiar statements one of us just puts it in words much better. Won't say which one. Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Please, cut through all of the crap that's been posted here and really get down to the bottom line. Don't approve of gay marriage or equal rights for them? It has nothing to do with all this talk of family values, parenting, adherence to any passage of scripture, etc.
It boils down to the fact that you cannot stomach one man taking another mans "parts" into him. You either believe it to be abhorrent or you don't, simple as that. That's what it's all about. All of the arguments presented here, both pro and con, are nothing more than attempts to support your beliefs about the act(s) they perform behind closed doors.
And Bigfoot, you know how much I respect you and your opinions but this "it's prevalent in nature" argument simply doesn't make sense to me. They are lesser animals and not a role model we should aspire to. I've witnessed my dog hump numerous legs along with many inanimate objects just as most dogs and other lower species do but it certainly doesn't mean that we as humans should do and accept the same.
Enough, I'm done venting, carry on. One other thing though, I purposely left lesbians out of the equation because as Highwaychild said, we all know that's acceptable.
Ok, lol, I'll go off on you, cuz I know you can take it...
quote:It boils down to the fact that you cannot stomach one man taking another mans "parts" into him.
I could not care less, even though I personally don't want a guy "hanging around" my stomach, especially from the inside. A *really cute* female with a strap-on? m-a-y-b-e, lol...we males all got that prostate thang. But, no, I ain't looking into some dude's eyes, if you catch my drift...
As far as what other guys do? who cares what *anybody* does, sexually? Especially if it's "behind closed doors." For instance, I suspect you of doing stuff with seafood that I would not be interested in. Still, that's part of your charm...you and the fey smile of the sexual outlaw.
quote:One other thing though, I purposely left lesbians out of the equation because as Highwaychild said, we all know that's acceptable.
That's cuz you have the many-shared fantasy that somehow lesbian-nymphos will "wake up" and realize what really need is a "real man," lol...
ain't gonna happen, bro...
Now...what really happens, at least in this country, is that homo-kids feel so much pressure to deny themselves that many wind up deceiving not only themselves but also a gal or guy with whom they bond emotionally, spiritually, etc.
Some don't enjoy sex in that situation, but they tough it out. Others love the sex (my own situation). Either way, there's often kids involved, and *usually* the kids get to go through a particularly heart-wrenching explosion of the family and household, when the homo-partner j-u-s-t can't *pretend* anymore.
And this chit doesn't just rock one household...it's like an emotional earthquake, with tremblors rumbling into the various workplaces, Grandma's house...the cousins, vendors, buyers, etc.
Lottsa lives at stake...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Sorry Tex i think i overlap you on this one. Just got back and did not read your post.
Similiar statements one of us just puts it in words much better. Won't say which one.
no prob, I agree with your assessment.
I think that song tells the story of a man broken-hearted to realize the consequence of his negligence...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I do not feel that is necessarily being responsible. I guess some could say it is being responsible because he did bring money home to raise his kid i think.
yah, that is what i meant about responsible. He was too busy working and bringing home the bread.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: That's cuz you have the many-shared fantasy that somehow lesbian-nymphos will "wake up" and realize what really need is a "real man," lol...
No, i really think what he said is what most men think. That we accept good looking lesbians and are turned on by it or bisexual women. Has nothing to do with that they need a "real man". It's just a turn on.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:It boils down to the fact that you cannot stomach one man...(rant deleted)
No, it all boils down to right and wrong. Nobody cares what people do behind closed doors in the privacy of their home. However, when gays think they are so special that they can re-write a centuries-old definition of "marriage", that's a problem. Gays have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else and they certainly shouldn't have any additional rights. If they want to shack up, have at it. If they want to change the definition of "marriage" - FORGET IT! Apparently, even out there in California, the heart of socialist lefto land, 61% of the population wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman. Here in the midwest where people still have common sense and still know the difference between right and wrong, an overwhelming majority of the people know the definition of "marriage".
quote:Christians love homosexuals aka sinner in your eyes as much as Hitler loved Jews. What you and other christians say publicly on a internet forum is most likely different then what is said privately among family and friends or even at Church.
That is the most mis-informed, ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Christians (with the possible exception of Rev. Wright and his 19th century black liberation church) don't hate any group and certainly don't want to exterminate anyone. I go to church EVERY week and I have NEVER heard a Christian advocate that privately or publicly - NEVER.
quote:It really makes me laugh that in this day and age modern people believe in a God that was created by ancient man because he couldn't explain simple things like earthquakes, floods, eclipses etc. due to lack of knowlege of science.
Now I see where you're going wrong. God wasn't created by man - man was created by God! Hope that helps!
Posted by jordanreed on :
man created god(fact),not god created man(fiction)..I thought everyone knew that!...
the religious argument again!!..lol
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Your fear of homosexuals getting married is in fact a fear of homosexuals themselves. So therefor you are by those means homophobic.
That's a pretty neat jump in logic, Mach. I don't fear smokers...I do fear teaching our children that's it's healthy to smoke. Same concept.
I was never a altar boy because i was smart enough when I was a child to rebel against organized religion.
Dang, I hate it when good sarcasm goes to waste.
Yeah, you're right, Mach. It really is only rubes like George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Albert Einstein that buy into that whole divine creator crap. Good thing you were an atheistic prodigy and managed to avoid the scam. Word up!
Anyways as for the hate mongering christian. We see that everyday in this country so spare me the "Love thy Neighbor" speech.
Yep. And we see 'angry, black men,' 'lazy hispanics,' 'tight-fisted jews,' and 'violent muslims.' Did I get them all or do you have any other generlized predjudices I missed?
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: That's cuz you have the many-shared fantasy that somehow lesbian-nymphos will "wake up" and realize what really need is a "real man," lol...
No, i really think what he said is what most men think. That we accept good looking lesbians and are turned on by it or bisexual women. Has nothing to do with that they need a "real man". It's just a turn on.
as a concept, I understand...when you're around it very long, it's no turn on. Women who dig men? Now, that's a turn-on Posted by Upside on :
quote:Women who dig men? Now, that's a turn-on
Most of them do though. No challenge there.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:If you really want it, I will link you to several studies that support what I've said. I specifically didn't for one reason: you won't accept them.
You got that right!!!
quote:but the bottom line is you do not want homosexuals (both male and female) to have the same rights as heterosexuals and that includes issues not pertaining to marriage.
TOTAL NONSENSE! Conservatives want gays to have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else - WITH NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!
LOL PM! GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD! If gay marriage is legalized then you will have the right to marry another man if you choose, just like gay men. THEREFORE THERE IS NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Upside:
quote:Women who dig men? Now, that's a turn-on
Most of them do though. No challenge there.
lol, now you sound like a homo guy who wants a straight guy...how often you think that happens?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: No, it all boils down to right and wrong. Nobody cares what people do behind closed doors in the privacy of their home. However, when gays think they are so special that they can re-write a centuries-old definition of "marriage", that's a problem. Gays have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else and they certainly shouldn't have any additional rights. If they want to shack up, have at it. If they want to change the definition of "marriage" - FORGET IT! Apparently, even out there in California, the heart of socialist lefto land, 61% of the population wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman. Here in the midwest where people still have common sense and still know the difference between right and wrong, an overwhelming majority of the people know the definition of "marriage".
The definition of "marriage" was created by heterosexuals... how convenient... . The midwest has no sense other then their Christian agenda that they get from the greatest fiction book ever written: The Bible.
quote:That is the most mis-informed, ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Christians (with the possible exception of Rev. Wright and his 19th century black liberation church) don't hate any group and certainly don't want to exterminate anyone. I go to church EVERY week and I have NEVER heard a Christian advocate that privately or publicly - NEVER.
There you go again, twisting my words around.When did I say anything about extermination?. And please don't give me the BS that you never heard a Christian advocating hatred towards homosexuals. If your going to write here in this forum and say that you never heard a Christian throughout your life utter the words f*g & other choice words to another individual because they thought or knew that person was a homosexual then you need to get that shovel out of the closet because your full of sh*t.
quote:Now I see where you're going wrong. God wasn't created by man - man was created by God! Hope that helps!
I can prove Man wrote the Bible, the greatest fiction ever written, can you prove God created Man? Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Please, cut through all of the crap that's been posted here and really get down to the bottom line. Don't approve of gay marriage or equal rights for them? It has nothing to do with all this talk of family values, parenting, adherence to any passage of scripture, etc.
It boils down to the fact that you cannot stomach one man taking another mans "parts" into him. You either believe it to be abhorrent or you don't, simple as that. That's what it's all about. All of the arguments presented here, both pro and con, are nothing more than attempts to support your beliefs about the act(s) they perform behind closed doors.
And Bigfoot, you know how much I respect you and your opinions but this "it's prevalent in nature" argument simply doesn't make sense to me. They are lesser animals and not a role model we should aspire to. I've witnessed my dog hump numerous legs along with many inanimate objects just as most dogs and other lower species do but it certainly doesn't mean that we as humans should do and accept the same.
Enough, I'm done venting, carry on. One other thing though, I purposely left lesbians out of the equation because as Highwaychild said, we all know that's acceptable.
LOL...I liked it UP. It think you just asked us to stop *****footing about *****es.
I would only ask that you take a look at your dog's behavior again and then take a gander at Perez Hilton's website and see what is going on in Hollyweird. If you are like me you will notice similarities. (no inhibitions)
It's an extreme example but the point I am trying to get across is that though we have evolved quite nicely we are still a product of nature and will reflect nature within ourselves as a species. You can believe that girls don't fart all you like, but one day you will find yourself navigating an ill wind.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: You can believe that girls don't fart all you like, but one day you will find yourself navigating an ill wind.
LOL.... i still find it difficult that they cr*p especially the pretty ones... Posted by Upside on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by Upside:
quote:Women who dig men? Now, that's a turn-on
Most of them do though. No challenge there.
lol, now you sound like a homo guy who wants a straight guy...how often you think that happens?
Yep, pretty much the same thing. As to how often it actually happens? I'm sure it's extremely rare. I wouldn't say never though and therein lies the challenge. Posted by Upside on :
"You can believe that girls don't fart all you like, but one day you will find yourself navigating an ill wind."
Damn, did you actually come up with that line? Pretty funny right there.
Posted by T e x on :
That's a classic, awright...
Up, I've had 'em come on to me...why? Trying to get to my wife.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
SF
I never did respond to your rebuttal a few days ago. (Haven't had time to post much)
I am happy to do so if you would like but perhaps the conversation has moved beyond that point?
Posted by Upside on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: That's a classic, awright...
Up, I've had 'em come on to me...why? Trying to get to my wife.
You were used Tex. A tool of sorts. It's a good piece of advice though. I'll now be a bit more cautious if, no, when it happens.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Not at all, Big. Love to hear from you. Fire at will...err, me...well, you get it.
And, Mach, you can prove man wrote the Bible just as I can prove a secretary takes notation. You can't prove the source of the material transcribed.
Up, as to the lesbians = good, gays = bad idea...right and wrong should have something a little bit more objective to measure by other than the 'limp noodle vs saluting soldier' method. Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Here's my two cents on the subject.
What gays/lesbians do between themselves is their business as long as they do not have kids or adopt them.
But once they decide to do that (adopt/have kids) then it ticks me off (not that they care) because they are only doing what's good for "them" and not what is good for the kids.
There is so much bs slung about the kids in these homes having a very natural home no different than any other one.
My experiance with kids in these situations says that idea is way off base.
If kids are born into this situation where the parent all the sudden finds out he or she has a same sex liking then not much can be done, but when they have kids and know prior shame on them.
The kids do suffer.
What we need is some more things to mess with the kids minds as if they don't have enough things with the trouble times.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Here's my two cents on the subject.
What gays/lesbians do between themselves is their business as long as they do not have kids or adopt them.
But once they decide to do that (adopt/have kids) then it ticks me off (not that they care) because they are only doing what's good for "them" and not what is good for the kids.
There is so much bs slung about the kids in these homes having a very natural home no different than any other one.
My experiance with kids in these situations says that idea is way off base.
If kids are born into this situation where the parent all the sudden finds out he or she has a same sex liking then not much can be done, but when they have kids and know prior shame on them.
The kids do suffer.
What we need is some more things to mess with the kids minds as if they don't have enough things with the trouble times.
Actually, I'd rather see the adoption deal.
It's devastating to go through the process of them "realizing who they are" and get your family blown up...very painful.
Talk about feeling used...
That's why homo kids need support instead of shame--so they don't try to live a lie by getting married, then later ruining some gal's or guy's life.
Plus, for a lot of adoptees...ANY kind of family nuturing is prolly better than what they've got...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Not shame on the kids.
You know more on this subject than me from what little you have written about it.
I am not even sure that in the cases of adoption that they are not just thrusting another major problem on these kids to compound the ones they already have. Only time will tell that and each person would have his/her view.
My little experiance in the subject mainly comes from the early sixties and little later.
My older brother had a friend that lived with us in his senior year because his mom had moved in with her girlfriend and he could not handle it so my parents allowed him to live with us.
I also had a very good friend of mine since i was 5 we hung around each other till high school, his dad whom i am sure was gay yet he stayed married. Every thing seem okay with my friend and i never thought much of it my whole life but i think things caught up with him later in life.
There was never any thing i ever heard mentioned about his dad anywhere, no teasing at all around any of my friends. Rather unusal for the sixties i think.
Posted by T e x on :
It's all relative. eg, my ex is the best thing that ever happened to her gf's kids; my own kids, though? not so much. My ex does goofy stuff now that she would have never done when we were together. Is strange for me cuz I feel more like a widower: the woman I knew is gone, yet I can see her body moving around, alive... (like at graduations and such).
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
It has to be tuff for you and your kids.
Sure wish we had all the right answers for these situations. Just lucky your kids have good support and help if they need it.
Posted by T e x on :
We're fine...as I say, my son is home, and my daughter is on her way. Be all moved in here by the end of the month...we have a lot of fun.
Posted by T e x on :
...although I could you some stories that would curl your hair.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Why is it that in these same sex relationships does it appear that one person seems to want to play the role of being more male and one more female almost acting like it is a male/female relationship.
Seems like many times this appears to be the case or maybe it is just the ones that stand out more to me.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: And, Mach, you can prove man wrote the Bible just as I can prove a secretary takes notation. You can't prove the source of the material transcribed.
That's not much of a answer... i never said i can prove the exact person(s) who wrote the Bible just that it was written by a human out of their own creativity and imagination much like Stephen King and his novels. You on the other hand can't ever prove a deity created us... but hey if you want to believe such a "being" exists and never question whether he does because of no proof & because you were brainwashed throughout your life then so be it.. but leave your religion out of my home and everyone elses... in other words religion has no place in Gov't in what we can or cannot do other then the Freedom to practice whatever religion we want to...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: That's why homo kids need support instead of shame--so they don't try to live a lie by getting married, then later ruining some gal's or guy's life.
Plus, for a lot of adoptees...ANY kind of family nuturing is prolly better than what they've got...
Spoken like a wise person... all a kid ever needs is love from parents no matter the gender of the parents... love and good upbringing is what does that not anything else... there are bad kids in both situations of families (hetero and homo) and to say that all kids will turn out bad in a homo home & not a hetero home is being bigoted and biased... It's the person who raises them that determines (though not all the time since kids have their own minds) how they will be and not what their parents do in private with their significant other.... like i said marriage between gay couples is just a formality since alot of them are already living together... most won't even have kids but if they do choose to do so that is there right... there are perfect examples of kids growing up in a homo family that have no problems and all the love... from famous gay couples... one of them i believe is Melissa Etheridge (hate her music though but thats another story and that is about musical tastes lol)and I'm sure others here can name others in the public eye...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote:
"Spoken like a wise person... all a kid ever needs is love from parents no matter the gender of the parents... love and good upbringing is what does that not anything else... there are bad kids in both situations of families (hetero and homo) and to say that all kids will turn out bad in a homo home & not a hetero home is being bigoted and biased... It's the person who raises them that determines (though not all the time since kids have their own minds) how they will be and not what their parents do in private with their significant other.... like i said marriage between gay couples is just a formality since alot of them are already living together... most won't even have kids but if they do choose to do so that is there right... there are perfect examples of kids growing up in a homo family that have no problems and all the love... from famous gay couples... one of them i believe is Melissa Etheridge (hate her music though but thats another story and that is about musical tastes lol)and I'm sure others here can name others in the public eye..."
_________________________________________________
You are counter dicting yourself in the same post.
Who said all kids will turn out bad in same sex homes? Explain bad.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: quote:You are counter dicting yourself in the same post.
Who said all kids will turn out bad in same sex homes? Explain bad.
ok, let me clarify it a different way... "Bad" in a bigoted person's sense of the word... turn gay if brought up in a gay environment or see gay marriages as "normal" because only hetero's can determine what is normal or not normal in this world etc. etc.. I use one word "bad" to describe all the BS arguments that have been said pertaining to this subject from the ones against gay marriages... better?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
My concern would be the possible psychological affects on the kids since it is not an accepted way of life by many. ( i think that's what got my friend in the end some 20 years ago)
Other kids and society in general can sure change how a kid acts and or thinks hopefully the home front is enough to counter those affects.
That is why i feel the way i do about bringing kids into the relationship after becoming a gay/lesbian couple.
As far as the marriage part i could care less, but a lot of businesses care especially at a time when they are trying to cut everyones benefits(health etc.) they would love to not see it go through and i am sure they lobby against it.
Wait until those rich celebrities decide to separate from their lover see how much they like the idea of marriage then.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: My concern would be the possible psychological affects on the kids since it is not an accepted way of life by many. ( i think that's what got my friend in the end some 20 years ago)
Times have changed.. at one point of time we had segregation and some of the same bigots today (the right christians fanatics) were saying the same thing when the Civil Rights movement was in full force... if this goes through attitudes will change over time and everyone will see it wasn't such a threat as they thought much like integration wasn't...
quote:Other kids and society in general can sure change how a kid acts and or thinks hopefully the home front is enough to counter those affects.
My exact point... "parents" regardless of gender are the ones who should counter the effects of society and other kids... let's face it kids can be cruel to other kids regardless if someones's parents are gay or not.. they are cruel to each other if a kid is overweight, not as attractive etc.. that is all a part of growing up... Growing Pains as they call it...
quote:That is why i feel the way i do about bringing kids into the relationship after becoming a gay/lesbian couple.
Don't knock it till it's been tried... i don't know what age you are but if you grew up prior to the 1960's I am sure your attitude would be same with segregation/integration, interracial couples, women voting/working etc..
quote:As far as the marriage part i could care less, but a lot of businesses care especially at a time when they are trying to cut everyones benefits(health etc.) they would love to not see it go through and i am sure they lobby against it.
They are always looking to stick it to the little guy/gal no matter the issue.. whether gay marriages or something else.. so nothing new...
quote:Wait until those rich celebrities decide to separate from their lover see how much they like the idea of marriage then.
No different then you separating from your wife I am sure. That is what marriage is. Some are successful and some end in divorce/separation. That is just life. But that is one reason i won't get marriage. Too much hassles and the 2nd reason is the person i was meant to marry has passed from this earth. Tess. R.I.P.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
That's not much of a answer... i never said i can prove the exact person(s) who wrote the Bible just that it was written by a human out of their own creativity and imagination much like Stephen King and his novels.
Prove it was simply fiction, Mach.
You on the other hand can't ever prove a deity created us...
True enough. But you're right, from my perspective I don't HAVE to have proof. That's why debating religion itself is really quite pointless.
but hey if you want to believe such a "being" exists and never question whether he does because of no proof & because you were brainwashed throughout your life then so be it.. but leave your religion out of my home and everyone elses... in other words religion has no place in Gov't in what we can or cannot do other then the Freedom to practice whatever religion we want to...
Not to be nitpicky...but I wasn't the one that brought it up. You did. You assumed religious bias and dismissed everything I said because you assumed I was simply parroting church-taught dogma.
I approached the subject from an anthropological \ group dynamic point of view. I didn't bring in my religious beliefs because I'm sure most could correctly assume what they would be based on my previous posts. Not to mention that they were neither solicited nor offered until you made them an issue.
If you don't agree with my opinion or point of view, Mach, debate them. But please don't just dismiss them with a wave of your 'all religious people are cold-hearted, closed minded, racist bigots' predjudice wand.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote:
"My exact point... "parents" regardless of gender are the ones who should counter the effects of society and other kids... let's face it kids can be cruel to other kids regardless if someones's parents are gay or not.. they are cruel to each other if a kid is overweight, not as attractive etc.. that is all a part of growing up... Growing Pains as they call it..."
quote:
"Times have changed.. at one point of time we had segregation and some of the same bigots today (the right christians fanatics) were saying the same thing when the Civil Rights movement was in full force... if this goes through attitudes will change over time and everyone will see it wasn't such a threat as they thought much like integration wasn't..."
_________________________________________________
It is far from growing pains and times haven't changed that much for this issue for those kids that have to cope with this situation and the other problems of today.
As far as growing up in the 50's and 60's in ca. my attitude towards those things was that i did not think much about them. Now if you talk about partying and cars now that was an issue.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: No, it's not the one issue I will vote my candidate on, but it's something I care where they fall on it.
I'm glad to hear that. I was raised religiously and went to a religious university and I was ASTOUNDED at the number of people who began and ended their political affiliations based on homosexuality and abortion alone. Even more astounded that the institution did nothing to discourage this remedial mentality that its students were using (within the halls of a place of learning) in regards to politics.
Back to Big though.
quote: With a divorce rate standing at 50% in the country and god only knows the rate of infidelity...
I think there's a critical flaw in that logic, Big. You're assuming that the above 'facts' are inevitable and natural...
They may or may not be natural, and given time they may be evitable, but for the foreseeable future they are what they are. Has the divorce rate grown because because folks are giving up too early? Or is it because infidelity/abuse are no longer swept under the rug? I say both. Given that, I can just as easily posit that rather than society degrading due to the abandon of responsibility it is actually showing the growth of our society in holding its members accountable for their actions. Until it can be proven that the second does not factor in, the 'family values' home we have been speaking of can not be counted on as a measuring stick to determine a "healthy" family capable of raising children.
Myself? I believe that they are the sad effects of our society abandoning the responsibility of family life for personal pleasure\selfishness.... Nothing is allowed to be held up as meaningful because everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is 'right.'
But don't you see...you are fighting yourself in this instance. You don't want to give homosexuals the right to have their union recognized and in the same breath lament that nothing is meaningful anymore. Our gay brothers and sisters are fighting for their monogamous relationships to HAVE meaning. To be recognized. To be celebrated.
I pose you a question. If it isn't good that everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is right...then who gets to choose? It has to be someone. Are you very sure that it isn't good that everyone gets choice? Or could it possibly be your sadness that they haven't chosen the same as you? If the first, then the question rounds back to who gets to choose, if the second then your reluctance to embrace same sex couples is driven by internal conflict, not external forces. That means you are the one trying to reshape the mold of the world to fit your personal ideals, not them.
And here we are.
quote: There are many models of child-rearing within nature and the two parent hetero model IS rare.
Not even in the same ball park, Big. The animal models are based on one of two scenarios: single member survival or small group family survival. In the first.... In the second, the member functions as a member of a small group (usually less than twenty individuals) and pure strength determines leadership positions.
Neither of these are tenable for the human race.
Oh really? And the second doesn't resemble the growth of human society to you at all? Remember my friend...there are many kinds of strength...even in the natural world this can be so.
People need to be able to interact with and function along side others. They also need to understand authority that isn't based solely on punishments but also simple basic right and wrong. These traits aren't something that can be taught in a book or in a movie.
Some would say that the conscience given to man by God innately tells us right and wrong...but I won't scape goat with that answer (though I think you are scape goating a bit when you say basic right and wrong). In right and wrong with our current topic we are either talking about right straight sex/wrong gay sex or right male-female gender roles played out in male-female relationship/ wrong male-female gender roles played out in (fe)male-(fe)male relationship.
I would suggest neither of these play into right and wrong, rather they are merely tradition.
With sex as right and wrong we are talking about gay sex being wrong and because of this gay relationships should not be encouraged. It is possible, however, to have that type of sex within a straight relationship. So if that gay type sex is what is wrong then it is equally wrong to have that type of sex with a female. If that is the argument then I think many would back away from supporting it saying what happens between a man and a woman within the bedroom is their own business. It is necessary to stick to that argument however if the statement is that gay type sex is wrong or else the argument is hypocritical and thereby discriminatory.
If it is gender roles within a relationship that we are talking about then it is a female playing a male role or a male playing a female roll within the relationship that is wrong. You had best just chuck this argument out the window right now. In order to say that a male should not play a female role within a relationship you must then define gender roles. If you define gender roles you must throw 50 years of equal rights for women out the window. It is the only way for this argument to not be hypocritical and thereby discriminatory because the women's rights movement gave women the right to take on the traditional male gender role. If it is wrong for a male to play a female role than it is equally wrong for a female to play a male role. I would also suggest that this is a part of why we as a society do not have nearly the same stigma surrounding lesbianism. Not only is the couple comprised of two "sexual receivers" but we have had 50 years to get used to the idea of a woman taking on the role of a male. There is no way to make this argument without taking away the right of a woman to pursue a traditionally male role. (While this would give us much more in common with our 'at this current time' fundamentalist Islamic adversaries, I don't suggest it.)
This is why we see a predominately more frequent amount domestic abuse in adults who grew up in a household where it was present. That is what they learned was appropriate and so they repeat it. That is why people who have parents who smoke or drink are more likely to pick up the same habits at some point in their lives. They saw that their parents thought it was ok enough for them, it must be ok.
I believe this statement is incomplete and incompatible with the current topic. I agree that a child raised in a home where one of the partners is completely dominant through abusive action is more likely to grow tolerant to un-equal relationships and enter into a relationship in the future that is not equal. I differ in my opinions on the subject from there. It is possible for a child to identify with the aggressor within this type of relationship and repeat what has been learned. More naturally though the child identifies with the abused as they relate their own lack of adult strength with the weakness of the lesser partner. Unfortunately, because these situations stay hidden and the aggressor is not held responsible for their actions they then have the time to either turn their abusive attentions to the child or else use false teachings to justify their actions (If this is done I would agree that the child is more likely to become an abuser in turn). The reason I say the examples above are incompatible with our current conversation is that you have used violence and two forms of addictive substances to justify your argument. Violence has nothing in common with homosexuality (other than the occasional beatings of gays by intolerants) and homosexuality has not been proven to be addictive. I had a lot of peas in my life as I was growing up but that doesn't mean I eat a lot of peas now. You see...I decided for myself that...I DON"T LIKE PEAS!
It's not a matter of how far from the standard model the example is, Big. It's what we as a society choose to have AS the standard model. No, I think the single parent home is not ideal. One of the two role models that the child needs is absent. They are forced to look outside the home for that example. Many times they find someone near to the family that can provide a healthy model. Many times they don't.
Now, for the sake of the arguement I'll take the bait.
In the homosexual couple home model, it's 'worse.' Instead of having one parental rolemodel simply being absent, which by definition one is; the child is presented with conflicting role models as to gender roles. The feminine and masculine roles are being played by the same gender. The child is left confused as to which is correct. This doesn't even cover the lack of example of how to interact with members of the opposite sex appropriately.
Well, first off, as I have pointed out before the standard you like to call 'The Standard' is barely standard 50% of the time within itself without even including non-conforming relationships. As to gender roles...gender roles do form even within homosexual relationships. In every stable gay relationship I have seen this has been true. But the best relationships (gay and straight) are where roles are shared. There no longer needs to be one primary bread winner (though usually one emerges). There no longer needs to be one primary caregiver (though one usually emerges depending on temperament and attitude). Everything that is a "role" can and does get shared to one degree or another within any relationship. I think you would admit that this is true within your own relationship. So the hang up here is that you are mixing the physiological with the ideological when it comes to homosexuals when we have already removed that requirement from nearly every other section of our society. This is what it is going to take the longest to remove from the socially conservative psyche. Gender roles are no longer tied down to physiological gender. The women liberation movement destroyed that ideology. And given the success that we have found that women can achieve within a "Man's World" we now know that it was good to remove that barrier. As to how to interact sexually...I really don't think that is a problem. Hell...even I figured it out eventually!
Sorry for such a long post folks. I'll stop here.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote:
"Don't knock it till it's been tried... i don't know what age you are but if you grew up prior to the 1960's I am sure your attitude would be same with segregation/integration, interracial couples, women voting/working etc.."
_________________________________________________
Interesting point that i had never really thought about till you posted it.
These were things that were never talked about in my family or among my friends seems like we had other things to talk about that were much more important at the time(girls, party, sports etc.)
My father had a business and most of his employee's were Mexican many working for him till they retired. He use to sell to Howard Hughes and others.
My mother voted at least from when i remember from and worked a very short time even though she did not have to.
I was surprised when i went into the service how much predudice there was and how much worst it was from people in other parts of the country especially the south.
Not that Ca. was perfect.
Posted by glassman on :
That's not much of a answer... i never said i can prove the exact person(s) who wrote the Bible just that it was written by a human out of their own creativity and imagination much like Stephen King and his novels.
Prove it was simply fiction, Mach. [Wink]
i can prove it contradicts itself over and over again.
starting at Leviticus in the case of homosexuality...
don't wear clothing made of wool and linen both?
don't let your cattle breed with "other cattle"?
it's OK to have sex with your slave girl (even if you are married?) unless she's betrothed? it doesn't mention adultery being bad unless there's a man hurt by it that i can tell...
then there's the issue of Lot being allowed to live after offering his two daughters to the mob for their amusement? and his wife was killed for her curiosity?
Vengance is mine? You must kill people for adultery? it goes on and on and on...
nah, there's not much point in debating the Bible cuz you can support almost any point you want from it... often both sides of the same argument from the same Book.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Not to be nitpicky...but I wasn't the one that brought it up. You did. You assumed religious bias and dismissed everything I said because you assumed I was simply parroting church-taught dogma.
I approached the subject from an anthropological \ group dynamic point of view. I didn't bring in my religious beliefs because I'm sure most could correctly assume what they would be based on my previous posts. Not to mention that they were neither solicited nor offered until you made them an issue.
If you don't agree with my opinion or point of view, Mach, debate them. But please don't just dismiss them with a wave of your 'all religious people are cold-hearted, closed minded, racist bigots' predjudice wand.
Actually I think you or someone else brought religion into it and i just reacted to it & continued with it... though I could be wrong... as for everything else in terms of debating your opinion or point of view... we'll Big and Glass beat me to it so read their posts after your post to me because that pretty sums it up in what I would of replied to you... you'll have to reply to them and perhaps I will jump in if need be..
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: quote:
"Don't knock it till it's been tried... i don't know what age you are but if you grew up prior to the 1960's I am sure your attitude would be same with segregation/integration, interracial couples, women voting/working etc.."
_________________________________________________
Interesting point that i had never really thought about till you posted it.
These were things that were never talked about in my family or among my friends seems like we had other things to talk about that were much more important at the time(girls, party, sports etc.)
My father had a business and most of his employee's were Mexican many working for him till they retired. He use to sell to Howard Hughes and others.
My mother voted at least from when i remember from and worked a very short time even though she did not have to.
I was surprised when i went into the service how much predudice there was and how much worst it was from people in other parts of the country especially the south.
Not that Ca. was perfect.
Glad you see what I been trying to say though sometimes with me it takes a little longer lol But anyways that is how I see this issue... a minority not being treated as a minority anymore due to peoples' prejudices...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote:
"Glad you see what I been trying to say though sometimes with me it takes a little longer lol But anyways that is how I see this issue... a minority not being treated as a minority anymore due to peoples' prejudices..."
_________________________________________________
In Ca. we have always had to intermix more than some other parts of the country, partly i think because of the vast employment situation here and i think that helps some.
Growing up we had friends of different cultures and economic backgrounds this was just part of life here in Ca.
That's why we never talked about it being any issue we just had our friends.
But what i do think is many of these issues could get worst instead of better as employment shifts from the workplace to home with more telecommuting. People will not have to interact in the workplace anymore and somehow face to face creates a more realistic picture of life, people and understanding.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:If it isn't good that everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is right...then who gets to choose?
In that question is the death of a nation. When the people get so screwed up that they don't even know right from wrong, the country can not survive!
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Tex this point is so well stated it needs to be repeated for parents to let it soak in.
Quote Tex:
"Here's what way too many Dads don't get: You don't have to be "perfect." You don't have to be able to "explain everything." But you DO need to show up and BE THERE.
Divorced? New girlfriend? New boyfriend? No job? New raise?
Whatever... be there. Maybe not everytime--kids are flexible, up to a point. But as pattern?
Be There."
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: That's why homo kids need support instead of shame--so they don't try to live a lie by getting married, then later ruining some gal's or guy's life.
Plus, for a lot of adoptees...ANY kind of family nuturing is prolly better than what they've got...
Spoken like a wise person... all a kid ever needs is love from parents no matter the gender of the parents... love and good upbringing is what does that not anything else... there are bad kids in both situations of families (hetero and homo) and to say that all kids will turn out bad in a homo home & not a hetero home is being bigoted and biased... It's the person who raises them that determines (though not all the time since kids have their own minds) how they will be and not what their parents do in private with their significant other.... like i said marriage between gay couples is just a formality since alot of them are already living together... most won't even have kids but if they do choose to do so that is there right... there are perfect examples of kids growing up in a homo family that have no problems and all the love... from famous gay couples... one of them i believe is Melissa Etheridge (hate her music though but thats another story and that is about musical tastes lol)and I'm sure others here can name others in the public eye...
I do think it would be ideal to have a mom and a dad--but then my oldest friend (known him since beyond memory) is one of the greatest guys on the planet, and he was raised by a single mom. His dad, an airline pilot, died in a crash when we were in second grade. Their family had all manner of tragedy, but somehow he has always pulled off this mix of noble, yet self-deprecating; tough on the field yet gentle otherwise; a leader who never "pulls rank." I lost my dad about 10 years later, so I had a full decade of "bonding" with a role-model of the first caliber--yet, I've made *so* many more calamitous, dangerous decisions than has my friend...it's not even funny.
Now, the thing with the lesbians--one of my poorer decisions--that gets me, and this is purely anecdotal, is their lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage, that is, of traditional, hetero marriage. (See? that bugs me to have to spell that out...) In other words, my ex and her partner--and many of their friends--have no problem whatsoever trashing our respective marriages...YET, they want to create "instant family," with a myriad of "family photographs," outings/trips, blended finances, etc. Plus, they want their "marriage" to be viewed as wholly legit, practically brow-beating both sets of kids to consider each other as siblings. Get this--within about three weeks of our splitting up, both women came to me all lovey-dovey, bygones-be-bygones...asking me to be sperm donor to THE GIRLFRIEND...so they could raise one of my kids as their own!
Now, fast-forward a few years...a few weeks ago, they announced they were going on family vacation to Grand Canyon. My middle daughter expressed an interest in going along...
uh-oh...
My ex's partner looks at my daughter and says, "Oh--we meant this family."
Point being, the cruelty and insensitivity knows no bounds...
Now, for balance, I have met a few lesbians who are not man-haters. Not to say, they're "interested," but we get along fine and there's no hidden agenda. On balance, though, most that I've met and had dealings with believe men are the root of all evil. lol, well, maybe not that bad...but close.
Also for balance: I had a homosexual friend at a major corporation; we hired in within days of each other and went on to build a fantastic department together. He told funny jokes--both "gay-oriented" and "het-oriented." One of our favorite things to do was meet for Sunday brunch at a Mexican cafe on the Northside--he thought my kids were a hoot, and they enjoyed his laid-back sophistication. (lol, you may have noticed: I'm not "polished.")
Yet...he *never* made a move that even *slightly* made me uncomfortable. Simply put, "sexuality" had nothing to do with our deep, abiding friendship.
I miss him to this day. Incisive intellect, adept editor, and a true, loyal friend...
I've rambled too long--make of this post what you will...
best,
tex
Posted by T e x on :
ya...
nowadays? lol...
it should be tatooed in reverse on guys' foreheads when they get a marriage license...
they could read it every morning, in the mirror:
Be There
or, SHOW UP! lol...
thanks for the vote of support, IWISH...
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Tex this point is so well stated it needs to be repeated for parents to let it soak in.
Quote Tex:
"Here's what way too many Dads don't get: You don't have to be "perfect." You don't have to be able to "explain everything." But you DO need to show up and BE THERE.
Divorced? New girlfriend? New boyfriend? No job? New raise?
Whatever... be there. Maybe not everytime--kids are flexible, up to a point. But as pattern?
Be There."
[ May 22, 2008, 22:04: Message edited by: T e x ]
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: ya...
nowadays? lol...
it should be tatooed in reverse on guys' foreheads when they get a marriage license...
they could read it every morning, in the mirror:
Be There
or, SHOW UP! lol...
thanks for the vote of support, IWISH...
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Tex this point is so well stated it needs to be repeated for parents to let it soak in.
Quote Tex:
"Here's what way too many Dads don't get: You don't have to be "perfect." You don't have to be able to "explain everything." But you DO need to show up and BE THERE.
Divorced? New girlfriend? New boyfriend? No job? New raise?
Whatever... be there. Maybe not everytime--kids are flexible, up to a point. But as pattern?
Be There."
What if MOM doesn't want you there, plus, she makes your life a living hell when you try to be there. Also, the well being of the other kids are threatened, not to mention the mom of your other kids, the one that lets you be a daddy,.................... It's so easy to be condescending. BUT, I am a good dad to my other kids.... Got a taxi tonight Tex, had a good steak and a few beers.. life is good.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
There are circumstances that Tex's statement can not cover and i sure Tex, me and many other's understand that.
His statement is for those parents that have many excuses to not be there but could be there if they Really wanted to. The kids know the difference quite to the contrary of what many parents believe.
Is that confusing enough. Posted by T e x on :
remove the threat, whatever that is...
Mom ain't the final say. But you gotta balance her influence, for sure...
As long as the kids see you're trying...that counts.
Posted by jordanreed on :
I like gays...they're alot of fun...
Posted by jordanreed on :
be honest, tell him the truth!!give him hugs.love,and kisses.....THATS what is normal..
in the end?...
he will be a good person
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: remove the threat, whatever that is...
Mom ain't the final say. But you gotta balance her influence, for sure...
As long as the kids see you're trying...that counts.
I am not willing to sacrafice my other (5) kids for one whos mother has promised to make me pay if I Try to see my daughter. I am not scared of anyone, but I protect my family.......... apparantly in my own way, this girl is nutz and it is a shame we have a child but based on the fact that I have others and she has threataned them, I need to protect my own.
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: I like gays...they're alot of fun...
When you say you love gays.....................is it cause they can decorate a room like a S.O.B. or cause they can pack good? Apparantly they have a system.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
be honest, tell him the truth!!give him hugs.love,and kisses.....THATS what is normal.."
in the end?...
he will be a good person
_________________________________________________
I don't think i ever told a big lie to my kids some little lies like Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy etc. or are those lies?
But i also have never told them a lot of things that i did do.
Every so often they would hear a few of those things from grandma.
Santa Claus whatwholies what???????????????
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by cottonjim:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Be There."
What if MOM doesn't want you there, plus, she makes your life a living hell when you try to be there. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I have 2 daughters and 2 step daughters...
My oldest daughters mother and I were never married. When we split up she didn't want me there and she tried to make my life a living hell...Fu(k her...I was there every other weekend, holidays, and any time I could be with her...I was there!
My youngest daughter's mother and I were married and divorced...she didn't want me there either, but she sure wanted child support. She also tried to make my life a living hell...
You know what...Fu(k her too! Not only was I there, but I fought tooth and nail for joint physical custody, and won. I spend 3 weekends a month, all holiday vacations, and all summer with her...
My 2 step daughter's biological father was not and is still not there for them...but I am!
All in all I will have paid child support for almost 30 years. I didn't do it because the courts forced me to...I did it because I love my girls and wanted them to be well taken care of. More importantly though....I WAS THERE!
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Big:
I was raised religiously and went to a religious university and I was ASTOUNDED at the number of people who began and ended their political affiliations based on homosexuality and abortion alone.
Yes, I agree that too many people believe that candidates are only acceptable if they argree with EVERY position. Until Jesus himself runs for office, I understand I will disagree with something with every candidate.
They may or may not be natural, and given time they may be evitable, but for the foreseeable future they are what they are.
That's just the thing, Big. If we don't hold the fort on marriage and it's importance these things will only grow because each succeeding generation with have less and less reason to stay married. It will get worse, not better.
I pose you a question. If it isn't good that everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is right...then who gets to choose? It has to be someone.
From a societal point of view, the majority gets to. It is the only way for the bulk of the people to be happy. There will never be a time that EVERYONE is happy, so the only answer is to the least number of people unhappy and feel bad for the rest. As of the last census, just over 78% of the population is self described as belonging to some religion that considers homosexuality at the very least an 'alternative' lifestyle. That means that to raise it to the level of the traditional home, you are going against the personal beliefs of the majority. As I posted earlier, that is the road to more problems as the majority feels they are being ignored. Until the group (society) decides that it's ok, any attempts to force the issue is going to sow more harm than good. That just the facts of group dynamics.
The reason I say the examples above are incompatible with our current conversation is that you have used violence and two forms of addictive substances to justify your argument.
My only attempted correlation between them as to point out that whatever the child sees as being acceptable to the parents heavily influences what they will later view as acceptable. The smoking and drinking were simply items that multiple studies have been done on so that we can comfortably draw conclusions that where the child sees them occur, they later have a higher chance of following in their footsteps.
Have to run, Big, will finish addressing the rest of your post later.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by cottonjim:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Be There."
What if MOM doesn't want you there, plus, she makes your life a living hell when you try to be there.
I have 2 daughters and 2 step daughters...
My oldest daughters mother and I were never married. When we split up she didn't want me there and she tried to make my life a living hell...Fu(k her...I was there every other weekend, holidays, and any time I could be with her...I was there!
My youngest daughter's mother and I were married and divorced...she didn't want me there either, but she sure wanted child support. She also tried to make my life a living hell...
You know what...Fu(k her too! Not only was I there, but I fought tooth and nail for joint physical custody, and won. I spend 3 weekends a month, all holiday vacations, and all summer with her...
My 2 step daughter's biological father was not and is still not there for them...but I am!
All in all I will have paid child support for almost 30 years. I didn't do it because the courts forced me to...I did it because I love my girls and wanted them to be well taken care of. More importantly though....I WAS THERE! [/QB][/QUOTE] yep...had to fight for time with my oldest daughter. Her mom pulled some nasty trix...eventually, my daughter asked me to file for custody, so I did. Worked out swell...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
In right and wrong with our current topic we are either talking about right straight sex/wrong gay sex or right male-female gender roles played out in male-female relationship/ wrong male-female gender roles played out in (fe)male-(fe)male relationship.
While I a personally believe in divinely based right and wrong, for the current discussion I am limiting it to what the society considers right and wrong. Societies define their rights and wrongs through legislation and social stigmas. 'Right' becomes what is generally accepted as good for the society and 'wrong,' inversely, what is considered damaging to it.
For all the talk of tolerance and open mindedness, the majority of people in the U.S. still do not consider the gay lifestyle as 'just as good' as the hetero. It is still seen as different, not simply one of the several equal choices.
By so choosing, the individual is seen (in some respects rightly) as making themselves more important than the 'herd.' By so doing, they deny the procreative instincts and therefor become a genetic dead end. This is the same stigma attached to women (hetero) who decide to never have children. No matter how you want to look at it, she (or they if a couple) is seen as making an 'odd' choice as the family making instinct is natural.
Now, as I mentioned earlier, my 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with the physical sex involved. So, I'll focus on the gender role aspect of your post.
As much as the women's lib folk would like people to believe that men and women are the same...we're not. Physical and emotional differences in the genders predispose us to different natural roles. The male is generally bigger and stronger and therefore predisposed to the breadwinner\hunter role. The female, through physical traits such as womb and mammary glands, is uniquely qualified to be the nuturer. These roles are both natural and bred into us socially since the dawn of time. When you play with these roles, some instinct screams that something just isn't right. In our current hypothetical homosexual parent family, neither of the roles is clear because one is absent and the other portrayed in two seperate ways.
It is possible for a child to identify with the aggressor within this type of relationship and repeat what has been learned. More naturally though the child identifies with the abused as they relate their own lack of adult strength with the weakness of the lesser partner.
Once again, social sciences tell us that it depends on the gender of the child and that of the abusive parent. If they are the same, they learn that that is part of their role. If they are the gender of the abused parent or are the abused themselves, they generally learn that they 'deserve' it and thus come to expect it from other relationships.
Gender roles are no longer tied down to physiological gender. The women liberation movement destroyed that ideology. And given the success that we have found that women can achieve within a "Man's World" we now know that it was good to remove that barrier.
And they did so at the expense of the family unit. There is a finite amount of time. If the woman spends the required amount outside of the home to persue a career, she spends less time nuturing the children (if she has any). That is what we've been talking about with the 'Cat's in the Cradle' song. Where you spend your time tells people what you consider valuable. Kids pick up on that quick.
Finally, as to the Bible thing. Glass, I'm the wrong flavor of Christian to be phased by the whole biblical contradictions thing. We Mormons love the Bible dearly, but we accept that men have played with it over the centuries. We take everything in it with a grain of salt. Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Times have changed.. at one point of time we had segregation and some of the same bigots today (the right christians fanatics) were saying the same thing when the Civil Rights movement was in full force... if this goes through attitudes will change over time and everyone will see it wasn't such a threat as they thought much like integration wasn't...
You've got the process backwards, Mach. Until the majority of people feel that this is a fully acceptable alternative lifestyle on par with traditional family, legislation 'forcing' gay marriage on the society will only alienate. It will alienate the bulk of the people because they feel their will was ignored and only heighten the tensions.
The racial segregation stayed in place until a large enough portion of the population felt that it was wrong.
Group dynamics.
Posted by glassman on :
It will alienate the bulk of the people because they feel their will was ignored and only heighten the tensions.
invoking the moral majority doesn't prove that they are either moral or the majority...
The male is generally bigger and stronger and therefore predisposed to the breadwinner\hunter role.
dang, man i thought i had long arms, but it's only my knuckles that drag... i bet your elbows drag too Posted by glassman on :
Glass, I'm the wrong flavor of Christian to be phased by the whole biblical contradictions thing. We Mormons love the Bible dearly, but we accept that men have played with it over the centuries. We take everything in it with a grain of salt.
never read Joseph Smiths work... any good? Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
invoking the moral majority doesn't prove that they are either moral or the majority...
Once again, I'm not invoking moral anything. As far as the majority part, well, I haven't seen any hetero pride parades...but I'm guessing it would be sufficiently large enough to impress.
dang, man i thought i had long arms, but it's only my knuckles that drag... i bet your elbows drag too
Elbows, no. Forearms, occasionally.
never read Joseph Smiths work... any good?
Spent two years selling it...I like it. Posted by T e x on :
quote:invoking the moral majority doesn't prove that they are either moral or the majority...
Once again, I'm not invoking moral anything. As far as the majority part, well, I haven't seen any hetero pride parades...but I'm guessing it would be sufficiently large enough to impress.
Bumper stickers to counter homo-rainbows...
"BREEDERS UNITE!"
"A BREEDER & DAMN PROUD OF IT"
"GOT X CHROMOSOME?"
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
"GOT X CHROMOSOME?"
Love it!
Posted by T e x on :
actually, I was being flippant...
although I *do* sort of resent those rainbow-homo stickers...
as I recall, the rainbow was to bring "everyone" together, not limited to the homo contingent...
Posted by thinkmoney on :
i guess invoking the moral minority works in this country - and stampedes the majority
that is so BS
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
actually, I was being flippant...
I know, Tex. Technically half the gay parade could use that bumper sticker anyway.
i guess invoking the moral minority works in this country - and stampedes the majority
that is so BS
Invoking the minority at the expense of the majority's opinion has always been a problem, Money. But because we're so afraid of litigation from people like the ACLU, we give in when we should stand up.
Posted by T e x on :
"Technically half"
i wonder...kinda interesting stat, that would be.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "Technically half"
i wonder...kinda interesting stat, that would be.
ROFLMAO, I hadn't thought of it that way but the jokes from that one write themselves.
I just meant that if half (statistically) the parade is gay and half lesbian then half would qualify for the sticker.
Posted by T e x on :
criminy...
more later
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote: From a societal point of view, the majority gets to.
While I a personally believe in divinely based right and wrong, for the current discussion I am limiting it to what the society considers right and wrong. Societies define their rights and wrongs through legislation and social stigmas. 'Right' becomes what is generally accepted as good for the society and 'wrong,' inversely, what is considered damaging to it.
I'm surprised at you SF. You took the standard BS answer.
You are willing to let your argument be justified by what is considered 'right' by the majority? You need me to point out the track record of that position?
The Earth is Flat The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition The Red Man is a savage that must be exterminated The Black Man is a beast of burden The Woman should be seen and not heard
I can go on.
If the best answer you can give to me is that the majority says it isn't right, then I consider myself vindicated in my argument that it is discrimination alone.
Gotta do better than that SF.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote: Now, as I mentioned earlier, my 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with the physical sex involved. So, I'll focus on the gender role aspect of your post.
You are focusing on what now? The gender role and not physical?
quote: As much as the women's lib folk would like people to believe that men and women are the same...we're not. Physical and emotional differences in the genders predispose us to different natural roles. The male is generally bigger and stronger and therefore predisposed to the breadwinner\hunter role. The female, through physical traits such as womb and mammary glands, is uniquely qualified to be the nuturer. These roles are both natural and bred into us socially since the dawn of time. When you play with these roles, some instinct screams that something just isn't right. In our current hypothetical homosexual parent family, neither of the roles is clear because one is absent and the other portrayed in two seperate ways.
Your focus on the gender role seems to be completely grounded within the physical realm.
'Some Instinct'? What is that? Could it be.....your own beliefs being projected onto another???
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Ok, I'll make this as simple as I can.
5 people are stranded on an island (don't worry about gender or race, these are 5 generic faceless personages resembling human beings) with no hope of rescue. Determining that they are stuck with each other for the rest of their natural lives they decide together on what life is going to be like on the island. Since they are not clones of eachother raised with the exact same life experiences they obviously will disagree with at least one of the other 4 members on something at some point in their future. Now, since most decisions can't be made both ways (as it will affect the existance of all members) a decision will have to be made.
Three options exist as to the outcome of the disagreement.
1)The majority rules concept. Vote is taken, most number of votes wins.
2)The minority rules concept. Someone is apparently so important that they get to demand that others bow to their will even as it contradicts their own.
3)Seperation. The outvoted party leaves the group (voluntarily) and lives life according to their beliefs elsewhere.
In our current country, option 3 really isn't generally considered viable because if everyone left the U.S. because they disagreed with it about something it did everyone would be gone in short order. So we are left with options 1 and 2.
I'm surprised at you SF. You took the standard BS answer.
You are willing to let your argument be justified by what is considered 'right' by the majority?
Yes. Once again, this is simple but I'll spell it out...again.
Only two choices exist on this one, Big. You tell me which you like better.
1) God exists and has defined for and to man what is right and wrong. As the One that will judge men's actions at some point, He is uniquely qualifed to make the distinctions. This leads us to the determination that when He says homosexuality is wrong, it is. The rest of the discussion about gay marriage is therefore pointless.
or
2) God doesn't exist and we're left to our own to determine 'right' and 'wrong.' Since this is something that there doesn't seem to be a unanimous consensus, we are left with the previously mentioned three options as to how to determine where each disagreement falls.
The majority chooses making the minority unhappy; the minority chooses, making the majority unhappy; or the minority goes off to some corner of the world where they can practice what they want as they want.
Once again...which do you think should be the answer, Big?
If you define discrimination as the will of the majority holding sway, then yes, it's discrimination. However, if the group has decided that this isn't what they want, who would you rather have unhappy? The majority or the minority?
You need me to point out the track record of that position?
The Earth is Flat The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition The Red Man is a savage that must be exterminated The Black Man is a beast of burden The Woman should be seen and not heard
I can go on.
Please do. Other than the Earth is Flat item (which is a scientific question, not a moral one), the rest of these items fall completely under my previous postings as well as this one. To come out and say that they are 'wrong,' you have to explain your basis for such a distinction. Either there is a divinely accepted right and wrong, or it's simply a matter of what the bulk of the people can stomache. There is no middle ground on this one, Big.
God or might makes right. Which is it?
'Some Instinct'? What is that? Could it be.....your own beliefs being projected onto another???
Now you're getting as bad as Mach.
I'm not projecting my beliefs on anyone. I'm trying to get you to make a choice. Either you accept that there is an objective criteria for right and wrong (such as divine will), or you must accept that if we are all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves then it means where two or more people disagree on the 'right' choice, the majority should get to decide what it allows and that becomes the 'right' for that group.
Once again, there is no middle ground.
You tell me which you would have us believe.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
i think they believe your answers are BS... and yes you are projecting your beliefs either concioiusly or subconciously...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Then I'll pose the same question to you, Mach.
Either you accept that there is an objective criteria for right and wrong (such as divine will), or you must accept that if we are all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves then it means where two or more people disagree on the 'right' choice, the majority should get to decide what it allows and that becomes the 'right' for that group.
Once again, there is no middle ground.
You tell me which you would have us believe.
Make a choice.
Posted by glassman on :
The minority rules concept. Someone is apparently so important that they get to demand that others bow to their will even as it contradicts their own.
this is usually what happens... there are several factors that determine WHY one is so important that other follow tho. Force of will is rarely equal among any random group of people.
1) this person is a sociopath and the others recognise that they have no choice but to follow or risk bodily harm 2) this person is physically endowed either sexually or strengthwise 3) this person convinces the others that he/she is a mouthpeice of God
mostly it's some combination of the three...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Beyond that I am going to try and be generic about religion in my response as much as possible because that opens a new can of worms and we have a big enough can already. When I mentioned beliefs above I was not necessarily meaning religious in nature.
As to the five faceless beings on an island example...
The three outcomes you have provided leave no room for individual expression. Last I heard that was one of the founding principles of our Union. The Amish are left to practice their own individual lifestyle though it does not conform to the majority. Where is the difference?
The Earth is flat may have been a scientific question, but it was enough of an abnormality from the majority that people died because of it. Are you defending that as appropriate?
There may be a divine right and wrong (you and I believe so, though we have different takes on it) but this country is set up to be tolerant to folks who believe in different forms of divinity as well as folks that do not believe in divinity at all. As these forms of divinity (or non-divinity) can (and do) have differing beliefs on what constitutes right and wrong, and as the freedom of religion protects all such forms of belief in the divine, governmental rules cannot be based off of a divine right and wrong or we violate the right to freedom of worship. Therefore the Government must find another standard to use as the measuring stick.
So you see...there may not be middle ground within divine right and wrong but the laws of man (in America) are all about finding the middle ground that can apply to all without taking away the rights that are granted to each of the members that make up our union.
As an example...the US Constitution gives the right to life, liberty, and property. Therefore it is a crime to kill, enslave, and steal.
While these "right and wrongs" may be borrowed from the prevailing religion of the drafters that does not mean that laws can be based off of religion if they violate other tenants of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Now, since we must look beyond the old testament in order to find the ground work for denying equal rights to same sex couples, how do you justify your argument?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
The three outcomes you have provided leave no room for individual expression. Last I heard that was one of the founding principles of our Union. The Amish are left to practice their own individual lifestyle though it does not conform to the majority. Where is the difference?
Bad example, Big. The Amish chose the third option. That is why they live in close knit communities where they can be free from 'corrupting influences.' My three options still stand.
While these "right and wrongs" may be borrowed from the prevailing religion of the drafters that does not mean that laws can be based off of religion if they violate other tenants of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What the heck are you talking about? Have you heard of a little thing called amendments? The 'rights' you think you have are competely at the mercy of the prevailing opinion of the day. Prohibition was constitutional for several years. Then, as opinion swayed the oposite direction, it was repealed. Will of the majority.
Now, since we must look beyond the old testament in order to find the ground work for denying equal rights to same sex couples, how do you justify your argument?
The Old Testament verses simply mean that yet another religios group, Judaism, also holds the opinion that it's wrong. That is another huge chunk of the population that you are alienating by making it 'right' against their beliefs.
Ok, I think we are at an impasse until one question is resolved.
What constitutes 'right?'
I've tried to make it as plain as I can and I think you've dodged around answering my request for you to define it for me.
I'm trying to get you to make a choice. Either you accept that there is an objective criteria for right and wrong (such as divine will), or you must accept that if we are all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves then it means where two or more people disagree on the 'right' choice, the majority should get to decide what it allows and that becomes the 'right' for that group.
I'm not asking you to pick a religion and give them the final say as to right and wrong. I'm asking you to either give me an objective standard for measuring right and wrong (whatever that standard is) or to acknowledge that there isn't one and man gets to pick and choose his 'right' and 'wrong' at will.
Pick one or give me a viable third option (which I don't believe exists).
Until we can get this question resolved, we're going to continue going around in circles with various forms of name calling and other childish behaviors rampant.
Posted by glassman on :
did you actually read the site you linked? it's anti-homophobic.... the arguments it provides question literal translations of specific words...
n the original Greek, the phrase translated "vile affections" does not refer to passion or lust. it appears to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music."
almost all religions provide tenets which proscribe the practice of OTHER religions...
this proscribing of other religious practices makes more sense since they were looking for new recruits/converts..
I'm asking you to either give me an objective standard for measuring right and wrong (whatever that standard is) or to acknowledge that there isn't one and man gets to pick and choose his 'right' and 'wrong' at will.
lemme show you the error of your survival argument.
put a colony of living things in any closed environmental system and they die in their own wastes sooner or later depending on the size of the closed system and the REPRODUCTIVE capability of the organism... in other words? right and wrong have no meaning without the broadest contextual understanding.
interesting: Smithsonian has an article entilted Brink of War this month... it's about Brigham Young and Joseph Smith....
did a little reading over the weekend at the OFFICIAL site...
i gotta say that i was lost by the time i finished the testimony of the three....
i don't question other peoples faith, but i find the story incredible... if the plates had been recovered in the dead sea? i would find it more credible, but in New York?....
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
did you actually read the site you linked? it's anti-homophobic.... the arguments it provides question literal translations of specific words...
I didn't provide the link to offer support to homophobic uses of the Bible, Glass. If that was my intent I would have linked www. God Hates F**S.com or some other hate site. I simply pulled the first link off of my Google search that listed New Testament verses used to support the standard christian position against homosexuality. I've repeatedly stated in this thread that I don't want to base my points on religion because half the readers will dismiss anything I say, no matter how logical, if I do.
lemme show you the error of your survival argument.
put a colony of living things in any closed environmental system and they die in their own wastes sooner or later depending on the size of the closed system and the REPRODUCTIVE capability of the organism... in other words? right and wrong have no meaning without the broadest contextual understanding.
Sorry, Glass, I'm not sure what that example has to do with the current discussion. I'm asking a simple question: is there an objective standard for measuring the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of something, or is it completely subjective to each man or woman's personal choices? The entire discussion hinges on which of these two options one believes. I just want Big, Mach, and anyone else interested in the discussion to go on record as to which of these two they believe. We can't progress any further till we do.
interesting: Smithsonian has an article entilted Brink of War this month... it's about Brigham Young and Joseph Smith....
While I might disagree with some of the finer points of the article on the Smithsonian, I guess history IS written by the victors.
did a little reading over the weekend at the OFFICIAL site...
i gotta say that i was lost by the time i finished the testimony of the three....
i don't question other peoples faith, but i find the story incredible... if the plates had been recovered in the dead sea? i would find it more credible, but in New York?....
I'll see if I can find some links for you, Glass. But there is substantial archeological work to support that not only were south and middle americas covered by ancient indian civilizations, but the same goes for the bulk of the U.S. There is a temple in mexico that has a mural depicting what we mormon's call 'Lehi's Dream.' A story only recorded in the Book of Mormon. Which was published some 140 years before the temple was discovered. I'll see what links I can find in the next few days if you're curious.
Posted by glassman on :
I'll see what links I can find in the next few day yes, i am curious (about most everything)
Sorry, Glass, I'm not sure what that example has to do with the current discussion. I'm asking a simple question: is there an objective standard for measuring the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of something, or is it completely subjective to each man or woman's personal choices? The entire discussion hinges on which of these two options one believes. I just want Big, Mach, and anyone else interested in the discussion to go on record as to which of these two they believe. We can't progress any further till we do.
well, my point was that rightness and wrongness have to be defined based on set of agreed upon parameters.
for instance? brewers want the yeast to reproduce as fast as it can to cut down production time. it's bad for the yeast cuz the yeast dies sooner....
we humans (currently) live in a closed ecological system, we are "doomed" to eventually destroy our planet no matter how "clean" we are IF we orver-reproduce... it really is that simple.
China recognised this and passed strict reproductive laws NOT based on religion, YET? the commies still outlawed homusekshal bahavure. without religious bias at all...
IF/when we were able to colonise other planets? (over)reproduction would/will suddenly become "right" again... but we are beginning to understand that we have reached a possible limit to our earths population right now, based on overall quality of life issues. if you don't beleive me? look at some of the most densely populated areas of India, and Africa's (as well as a myriad of other countries)inability to feed itself...
so? right and wrong? is it wrong to reproduce UNTIL we are at dangerously high population levels? or is it wrong to recognise that we are approaching dangerously high pop. levels and avoid the SUFFERING that all will face if we do not "slow down"? or isit wrong to ignore the dangers and procreate "naturally" until we all choke on our own waste, or die of starvation?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
amendments? What the heck are you talking about SF? Didn't the California Supreme Court just strike down a majority rules marriage amendment as unconstitutional?
And prohibition is just another example of how the majority creates right and wrong does not always work.
I have already shown you why a divine 'right and wrong' cannot work in our country based off of the right to worship.
So then to the majority rules.
Majority rules can get close. But as can be proven though our view of history the majority is quite often proven wrong. So to further define right beyond majority rules one must look back in history to see when majority right was proven wrong. Again and again it can be shown that when the majority persecutes a social group for acting or being out of the norm when that group is not actively infringing upon the normal majority, the majority is proven wrong.
The majority persecuted the black man for being different when the black man was not infringing upon the majority. They were proven wrong.
The majority persecuted the red man for being different when the red man was not infringing upon the majority. They were proven wrong.
The majority persecuted the woman as being different from a man when the woman was not infringing upon the majority. They were proven wrong.
The majority is persecuting same sex couples as being different than hetero couples when same sex couples are not infringing upon the majority. They will be proven wrong.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Yes; and no, Big. They struck down an amendment to the California STATE constitution. Not THE Constitution. That bill hasn't even gotten started yet.
So then to the majority rules.
Majority rules can get close. But as can be proven though our view of history the majority is quite often proven wrong...
...The majority is persecuting same sex couples as being different than hetero couples when same sex couples are not infringing upon the majority. They will be proven wrong.
This is why what is 'right' changes from culture to culture and from time period to time period. The popular opinion changes with new developments (both scientific and social). Thus old concepts become obsolete and new ones become fashionable. Anthropologically speaking, it's intellectually dishonest to judge older cultures (or even contemorary ones) by OUR standards. Each culture has made its decisions on right and wrong based on complex interconnections of geography, history, governmental style and many other factors. To try and fit them into the mold you believe is 'right' and to judge them lacking if they don't, is as narrow-minded as Mach thinks I am.
And...you still haven't answered my question. Is there an objective standard for right and wrong or not?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
yes, i am curious (about most everything)
The two book set, 1000 Evidences for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dr. David E. Richardson, Allen H. Richardson and Anthony E. Bentley are the best references that I've read. They line up historical and archeological information confirmable by any inquirer.
The mural I mentioned before was the Stela 5 glyph at Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico. It depicts quite well the forementioned story in the Book of Mormon.
This is one link to reading material online as well.
As I've told many friends, nothing that I can show you can prove to you my church IS the right one; they can only offer evidence that it MIGHT be. Beyond that it's up to you and God.
Now, back to the discussion at hand.
The overpopulation concept is crap. Pure and simple. We just don't use the resources available to us appropriately. One estimate put our ability to sustain life at nearly 200 times our current population if current farming technologies were utilized throughout the world instead of just in a few industrialized nations.
And as far as our current topic is concerned, are you saying that drowning all but your first child is 'right?' That's the tradition in China that you seem to favor in your post. Did you know that the men of India outnumber the women in some areas by as much as 40% for the same reason. 640 females to every 1000 males and the trend is getting worse. Is this 'right' to you? Did you know that if you don't count the immigrants, France and a net NEGATIVE population growth rate? They just aren't having enough children to overcome the age \ disease death rates. Is this 'right' to you?
Finally,
well, my point was that rightness and wrongness have to be defined based on set of agreed upon parameters.
But who gets to agree? And if everyone doesn't agree, then who wins? As I asked Big and Mach...
Is there an objective standard for right and wrong or not?
Posted by glassman on :
One estimate put our ability to sustain life at nearly 200 times our current population if current farming technologies were utilized throughout the world instead of just in a few industrialized nations.
the words i put in bold are called weasel words...
i got news for you. the US cannot sustains it's current ag output at this rate for unlimited generations.
you can put nitrogen fertilisers down and keep growing things until the soil is bankrupt... but replacing nitrogen does not keep the soil from going bankrupt...it actually accelerates the depletion of everything else..
you'll note that i didn't say we couldn't support more people anyway, i said there's a quality of life issue.
is it right to keep ten animals of any type in cage designed for one, even tho they can "survive"? your name is seeking freedom, yet we all know that the more people there are the less freedom there will be, it's a matter of physics...
i see you don't like the question since you immediately go to the value based hot-button issue of drowning...
as to the male/female inbalances and the Europeans birthrates declining? i am very familiar with the concept of the marching morons...
that doesn't change the overcrowding issues.. as you can see? th e poor are bing made more poor, and that won't change by making more poor...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: To try and fit them into the mold you believe is 'right' and to judge them lacking if they don't, is as narrow-minded as Mach KNOWS I am.
I am glad that you agree with me that you are narrow-minded and not open-minded... Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Yes; and no, Big. They struck down an amendment to the California STATE constitution. Not THE Constitution. That bill hasn't even gotten started yet.
Good luck on that. It has already been defeated twice. And it has been called un-republican by John McCain in 2004. Do you really believe time is going to make your position stronger? I don't think you do. That is why (IMO) you inserted the anthropological argument. That way you can still be right even though you know your position is on the road to obsolescence.
Right does not change as time goes by. Killing and enslaving were as wrong in the 1800's as they are today.
MY standard for right and wrong since you refuse to understand that this is not an A) or B) question:
All (wo)men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
If an action infringes upon another in regards to the above statement it is wrong. If it does not then it is acceptable.
That is simplistic and I am sure you will be quick to find loopholes but seeing as you have brushed aside the loopholes I have found within the two options you have presented I think I can handle it.
Who knows, you might even help me clarify my position though I doubt you will ever accept it.
Posted by glassman on :
Stela 5 glyph at Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico
i dunno... i've looked at quite a few mesoamerican drawings.
they tend to not be what we (westerners) think they are. i see the symbols you are looking at, but i've seen mesoamerican drawings of a guy "flying a spaceship" too (palenque)...
i'm not of the opinion that the Toltecs, the Olmecs or Maya were in contact with aliens or Levi... the Aztecca? now maybe they might have been running with the devil Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
the words i put in bold are called weasel words...
Call them what you will, Glass. Doesn't change the information cited. And just as a point of nitpicking, nitrogen based fertilizer is not the only modern farming technology not being implemented in many of the poorer agricultural areas.
you'll note that i didn't say we couldn't support more people anyway, i said there's a quality of life issue...
...i see you don't like the question since you immediately go to the value based hot-button issue of drowning...
ROFLMAO. You opened the door, Glass. Don't get mad at me for walking us through it. You want to discuss answers for over population? Bring up making birth control more available in 3rd world countries. Bring up voluntary sterilization. But don't tout the benefits of infanticide and expect to not get called on it.
i am very familiar with the concept of the marching morons...
Was that a dismissive generalization of foreigners, Glass? I'm shocked!!
that doesn't change the overcrowding issues.. as you can see? th e poor are bing made more poor, and that won't change by making more poor...
No, but it can change by making modern advances availble to the poor.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: I am glad that you agree with me
Good to hear...now, please answer my question.
Posted by glassman on :
Doesn't change the information cited. And just as a point of nitpicking, nitrogen based fertilizer is not the only modern farming technology not being implemented in many of the poorer agricultural areas.
no info was cited...it was mentioned, there is a difference... i am more than a wee bit familiar with modern farming techniques.. i even know a little bit about how to go about making GMO's...
But don't tout the benefits of infanticide and expect to not get called on it.
That is why (IMO) you inserted the anthropological argument. That way you can still be right even though you know your position is on the road to obsolescence.
No, that's not it at all. I used the anthro arguement because it's not based on religion which none of us can\will agree on. It's as close to an objective perspective as we're likely to get.
Right does not change as time goes by.
If you take religion out of the picture, Big, it most certainly HAS to.
MY standard for right and wrong since you refuse to understand that this is not an A) or B) question:
Yes, I do.
All (wo)men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
If an action infringes upon another in regards to the above statement it is wrong. If it does not then it is acceptable.
YEAH!!! Ok, that's wasn't that hard was it? That's all I've wanted for the last two pages of posts. Now if Glass and Mach can do it we'll really take off.
Now. Let's apply that very Libertarian attitude to some current cases and see how it fits...
Statutory Rape: It's consensual, right? Why make it illegal? Selling Cigs and Booze to kids: Doesn't impede on my life does it? Should be ok! Selling 'Adult' material to minors: See above. Universal Healthcare: Should be illegal as it takes away MY right to MY property to give it to another. All forms of drug use: Personal choice right? Legalize everything!! Polygamy: Personal choice again, right? Bring on the harems!!
I can continue but I think the sarcasm is thick enough as is. If everyone gets to decide for themselves, how does your definition apply to these cases?
Who knows, you might even help me clarify my position though I doubt you will ever accept it.
My acceptance of your position isn't the question here, Big. Never has been. It's stating our positions and why we espouse them. Several of the posters on this thread have done a great job debating the points I've brought up, but they haven't offered their own to compare. That's what I feel we're still lacking.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
i didn't bring up infanticide, you did...
Yes, I did. You hid behind the generic, I offered the specific.
China recognised this and passed strict reproductive laws NOT based on religion, YET? the commies still outlawed homusekshal bahavure. without religious bias at all...
I simply made it clear the process you didn't, to achieve the goal you endorsed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons
My apologies. I was unaware of the story.
Posted by glassman on :
Polygamy: Personal choice again, right? Bring on the harems!!
where do i sign up?
show me where i brought up infanticide. i was being generic in terms of population planning.
as for Chinese population regulatory practices? i don't listen to rumors. Chinese infanticide is rumor... there is evidence that it is practiced in India and China as you pointed out, but not by the Govt... it is done by individuals not wanting female children due to social/economic reasons
since it goes against many religious teachings? i am not surprised that the rumors are mongered tho...
as for feeding even double what we have on the planet today? i believe you have been listening to some fools... we could feed double, but only if a lot of people quit overeating... beyond that? i am very skeptical, because the world economy is such a mess right now while we have plenty of food and there is NO shortage of ANY food ANYWHERE, that real shortages and hardship would cause "natural" and violent population "trimming" in a very big way IMO...
Posted by bond006 on :
Most people don't care any more and why should they.
If you don't want to marry the same sex don.t if your minister or relegious leader wants to marry a same sex couple and you don't believe it is right find a new Church.
It really is a simple solution quit spending all your time making others live to your way by law.
This would not have to be a leagal battle if some people did not try to make such a fuss over it and try to repress these people,and that is all they are are people.
Posted by T e x on :
Actually, it at least "bugs" a lot of people...
and I'm one of 'em.
I supported "bi-rights" for over 20 years, and got burned badly. I don't like all the "politically correct" hoo-haw, for one thing. And I sure don't like it when "factions" appropriate the language for their own agendas.
I liked it when gay had no snicker quotient, when it connoted simply happy or festive. lol, not saying fag is a word that should ever leave a gentleman's mouth (should be a smoke, or an ember, yes?), but c'mon?
gay? Have you spent much time among homosexuals? They can be as tortured as any other niche-folk you can imagine...and often worse--in other words, it's a misnomer.
I think that's where marriage bothers the peeps that it does--cuz that word is supposed to be reserved, literally, for one-each, opposite sex, in our culture and language. Used figuratively, it's clear one addresses "welding" or some other "intimate blending." Bottom line, though, the "holy grail" connotation of marriage is not only a welding of two, distinctly individual humans into a couple that has more power and competency than the two apart...but also a coupling that has a ... well, a shot, a chance...at a miracle: namely, birth...and the chance to pass on more than genetic information. More than simple "procreation," which any dog or squirrel can accomplish...
For real, I've been through the blender on this issue, for more than twenty years, and can not imagine why the "queer nation" (ie, the more edgy, up-front factions) have not demanded or invented a better term to describe their unions.
Posted by Relentless. on :
The question should be:
Should government have the right to control who does and who does not marry?
The answer is: No
Any other answers are clear evidence that those people want, if not demand, government should control every facet of their and your life.
Posted by Relentless. on :
This whole issue is a government scam to get you to demand fewer rights. They are creating a "them". And most are falling for it like there was never a ground in the first place
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: The question should be:
Should government have the right to control who does and who does not marry?
The answer is: No
Any other answers are clear evidence that those people want, if not demand, government should control every facet of their and your life.
well, somebody has to decide...
At this point in my "evolution," I think I'm more comfortable with "the gumment" than I am with "da choich."
You think it's OK for a Dad to "marry" a daughter?
How about a son?
What about an uncle "marrying" his nephew's cousin's doughnut?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Don't care And the only reason you do is because you've been led to it.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Don't care And the only reason you do is because you've been led to it.
lol, that ain't right...
not too familiar with reptiles and so forth, but mammalian interbreeding leads *at least* to bad hips, weak forelocks, etc...
Must agree, we both prolly enjoy the banjo sequence, though Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Chinese infanticide is rumor... there is evidence that it is practiced in India and China as you pointed out...
Do I really need to make the joke on that paragraph?
...but not by the Govt... it is done by individuals not wanting female children due to social/economic reasons
Ok, let's play out a scenario:
Gov't: You can only have one child! People: Or what? Gov't: We'll fine the crap out of you and take away many social services your family needs. People: What if our culture favors continuing the family line (only done through a male child) and we have a female child first? Gov't: Sucks to be you.
While the government may not be the hand holding the child under water, Glass, they force the family into a no win choice without regard for their wishes. That's as close to intimidating them into it as you get.
Finally a question, if you are in favor of Government regulating how many children one is allowed to have, what other freedoms do you think they should take away 'for the good of the race?'
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Don't care And the only reason you do is because you've been led to it.
lol, that ain't right...
not too familiar with reptiles and so forth, but mammalian interbreeding leads *at least* to bad hips, weak forelocks, etc...
Must agree, we both prolly enjoy the banjo sequence, though
And hemorrhoids... Just look at the other thread...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Right does not change as time goes by.
If you take religion out of the picture, Big, it most certainly HAS to.
The full quote to respond to is "Right does not change as time goes by. Killing and enslaving were as wrong in the 1800's as they are today."
I stand by that. The wrong of killing or of enslaving was quickly corrected and punished if it was the right 'type' of person. The right hasn't changed, what qualifies as a person worth fighting for has.
All (wo)men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
If an action infringes upon another in regards to the above statement it is wrong. If it does not then it is acceptable.
YEAH!!! Ok, that's wasn't that hard was it? That's all I've wanted for the last two pages of posts. Now if Glass and Mach can do it we'll really take off.
Now. Let's apply that very Libertarian attitude to some current cases and see how it fits...
Statutory Rape: It's consensual, right? Why make it illegal? Selling Cigs and Booze to kids: Doesn't impede on my life does it? Should be ok! Selling 'Adult' material to minors: See above. Universal Healthcare: Should be illegal as it takes away MY right to MY property to give it to another. All forms of drug use: Personal choice right? Legalize everything!! Polygamy: Personal choice again, right? Bring on the harems!!
SF...I said you'd poke holes in the position but you didn't really think it would be that easy did you?
Statutory Rape? Got that one covered. Rapists infringe upon the mental and physical health of the raped. Mental and physical health are components required for the pursuit of happiness. Age of consent? Find anything in the Bible that helps you there? I prefer the 16 spot but I know that kids are choosing to be sexually active before that. Go to mental health professionals and ask them when a child can handle that responsibility. What ever the average answer is means anything below that can be construed as harming the mental health of the younger party.
Cigs and Booze. Again the age of consent? When can the average youth handle the responsibility? There's your answer.
Adult material...Age of consent again. See above.
Universal Healthcare. Your argument isn't about Universal Healthcare. Your argument is against taxes. I'd be willing to hear your ideas as to alternatives to taxes. Until an alternative is provided taxes are required to create the basic elements and infrastructure necessary for society to grow. AND as physical health is a component of the pursuit of happiness Universal Healthcare fits in well.
Drugs. Legalize em? Well...given the framework...yes. But if your actions while on drugs infringes on the rights of others be prepared to pay.
Polygamy. I knew this one would be brought up. I'd suggest that polygamy infringes on the pursuit of happiness of at least one or more of the partners. But that would admittedly be debatable. Lets wait and see how many men from that ranch down in Texas get charged and jailed for having multiple wives. (Not underage wives...that is something different. I'm talking our laws currently on the books about polygamy.)
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Lets wait and see how many men from that ranch down in Texas get charged and jailed for having multiple wives.
been there, designed the T-shirt, threw it away...
I think the charge is "bigamy."
Basically? If you're compelled to have an alternative lifestyle? Just NIKE that m'fo...
DO IT!
but... are you sure you wanna challenge the town-folk, on the town-square?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Actually, it at least "bugs" a lot of people...
and I'm one of 'em.
I supported "bi-rights" for over 20 years, and got burned badly. I don't like all the "politically correct" hoo-haw, for one thing. And I sure don't like it when "factions" appropriate the language for their own agendas.
We'll no offense ole pal but your a little biased when it comes to this issue due to your own personal life experience. If it was a guy and not a girl that your ex shacked up with then you probably would think differently about this.
As for what word they use to describe themselves? Who cares really. And it was probably the heterosexual society at that time that named them gay as a general term to describe them Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: You think it's OK for a Dad to "marry" a daughter?
How about a son?
What about an uncle "marrying" his nephew's cousin's doughnut?
There's a difference between same sex couples getting married who are not related and relatives getting married, don't you think?. I did read a story a long time ago I think of a guy who married a chicken or some sort of animal.. might of been multiple stories i read. .don't remember lol now that's love lol
Posted by T e x on :
I concede my bias, based on personal, anecdotal experience. Lol, I *earned* my bias, the hard way...
Apparently, in certain quarters, gay had a connotation of promiscuity, even a few centuries ago. But the first printed use connoting homosexuality might trace to Gertrude Stein--which sends delicious shivers of irony up my spine, given "Rose is a rose is a rose."
Of course, I understand the speciousness of the incest argument; yet, if the judges anoint "gay marriage" on Constitutional grounds then clearly it's also unConstitutional to deny the same rites of marriage to two women and a man, or two men and a woman--all consenting adults. This is why at least some among the so-called "polyamorist movement" hope "gay marriage" opens the door for "plural marriage."
In the end, I don't lose sleep over this stuff..
I am, however, alarmed and deeply troubled about The Market, in all phases, from public education all the way through regulation and enforcement. On this homo stuff, I suppose I'm merely reiterating...careful what you wish for.
Me? I want everybody to get behind...
quote:S. 1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 (from http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1782.html#toc1 ) Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 - Declares that no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of: (1) an employment, consumer, or franchise dispute, or (2) a dispute arising under any statute intended to protect civil rights or to regulate contracts or transactions between parties of unequal bargaining power.
The full quote to respond to is "Right does not change as time goes by. Killing and enslaving were as wrong in the 1800's as they are today."
I do happen to agree with your 'killing and enslaving...' part, Big. But in our current discussion we're trying to define WHY something is right or wrong. Simply stating that something IS right or wrong avoids the underlying question.
I stand by that. The wrong of killing or of enslaving was quickly corrected and punished if it was the right 'type' of person. The right hasn't changed, what qualifies as a person worth fighting for has.
And I would hope you would. Now, the follow-up question: Who got to decide when someone was worth fighting for?
Age of consent? Find anything in the Bible that helps you there?
We're not using the Bible, Big. Remember? That's religious non-sense. (snicker)
I prefer the 16 spot but I know that kids are choosing to be sexually active before that. Go to mental health professionals and ask them when a child can handle that responsibility. What ever the average answer is means anything below that can be construed as harming the mental health of the younger party.
So, your willing to take a poll among 'professionals' to determine at what age a child becomes an adult (btw this age of consent has changed dramatically over the years as life styles and lengths have changed)? So you want to know what the MAJORITY of the professionals think and you'll just accept that it's 'right?' Seems odd considering that's exactly what you just said you don't want to do on other issues of 'right' and 'wrong.'
Universal Healthcare. Your argument isn't about Universal Healthcare. Your argument is against taxes.
Yes and no. Some taxation is needed to provide services that ALL will benefit from. My fight is how much of my property the government is allowed to take that doesn't provide any measurable benefit to me or my family at all. As we've talked about on previous threads, the conservative estimate from Billary themselves is it will raise the tax burden on the working class by about 15%. Adding that to the already existant 26% - 35 % most of us pay, that is approaching nearly half our earnings. Since the majority of those that would benefit from this plan are in the lower income brackets (which through tax credits and deductions generally end up recieving more money than they pay in as it is), you are simply making the middle, upper middle and the wealthier clases pay for care for the lower incomes.
How much of my right to property are you willing to step on to provide services to others?
What is the 'right' amount of trampling?
AND as physical health is a component of the pursuit of happiness ... Drugs. Legalize em? Well...given the framework...yes.
Yeah, drugs do great things for your health. That will just add more to the healthcare burden. I'm sure that's ok though. We'll just take more in taxes to cover the additional costs. More of that 'right to property' trampling again.
Polygamy. I knew this one would be brought up. I'd suggest that polygamy infringes on the pursuit of happiness of at least one or more of the partners. But that would admittedly be debatable.
Yeah, just ask those that practice it. I'm sure they just might take the position that they're happy....just maybe.
Lets wait and see how many men from that ranch down in Texas get charged and jailed for having multiple wives.
I'll answer that one for you right now, Big.
None.
Only one of the marriages is legally recognized. The rest are 'church' marriages not on the state books. That way, they avoid the legal hassles of multiple marriages and get to collect buckets of your tax dollars in welfare money for 'single parent homes.' Ain't the system grand?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
NONE! Exactly. Our laws against polygamy are unenforceable.
Physical Health/Drugs. Mixing quotes again are we? Some drug are very bad for your health. Legalized they can be regulated (and taxed). Education is a lot more of a deterrent than a "thou shalt not..." just ask the boys in blue how well that works.
Universal Healthcare. How much of my property are you willing to take to build and maintain the dams along the Mississippi? I don't live in a flood plain. Or the disaster aid given to Myanmar? Nothing to do with me.
A healthier base creates a healthier system. A person with a tooth ache goes to a dentist they get fully fixed and it costs a couple hundred bucks. A person with a tooth ache who has to go to the emergency room because they have no insurance gets a pain reliever that does not solve the problem and it costs the system over a grand.
Age of consent. Nice try SF. The law is not the issue. The development of mental health is. And it is not based on the subjective but objective input of trained professionals.
We aren't using the bible? So you have given up on option A completely? Good to know.
You agree with me that right doesn't change? Wow...that was easy. As to who gets to decide? Individuals can be subjective in their decision (so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others). The Government is of the people for the people so they cannot, they must fight for all that have been infringed upon.
Though we have danced with Who and What I don't think we have ever asked the question WHY regarding right and wrong until this moment SF. It is a question worth asking. Care to take first crack?
Posted by bond006 on :
So much on this subject I guess it really hits a spot with folks.
There can be a moral right or wrong from a relegious point of view but not from a legal one.
Besides this is a California issue and according to the polls I have heard about 68% pecent of those polled don't care one way or the other.Another words let them get married if they want to. I mean face it they are going to live together anyway.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
NONE! Exactly. Our laws against polygamy are unenforceable.
And yet the laws still exist and thus show a bias against the practice. Is that 'right' to you?
Physical Health/Drugs. Mixing quotes again are we?
My responses to both were related.
Some drug are very bad for your health. Legalized they can be regulated (and taxed). Education is a lot more of a deterrent than a "thou shalt not..." just ask the boys in blue how well that works.
Yep. Education sure has stamped out that smoking thing. My, my, at the current rate, it should be all but gone by...well...20-something or the other.
How much of my property are you willing to take to build and maintain the dams along the Mississippi?
Do you live in Mississippi? If so, it should be part of your state taxes. If you live in flood plains protected by the dams, then it should also be part of your property taxes. If neither is the case, no, I wouldn't take a cent from you for their upkeep.
Or the disaster aid given to Myanmar?
Slightly harder question. I think we need to worry less about disasters outside our country until our own house is in order. That being said, there is a case to be made that improving our international image through charitable work\donations DOES help every american. But's that's all in how you look at it.
A healthier base creates a healthier system...
True enough, but once again, how much of my right to property are you willing to take away to get there?
And it is not based on the subjective but objective input of trained professionals.
Sorry, Big, no such thing. That is why they have disagreements on diagnosis and treatment of different disorders. If there was an objective standard to mental healthcare they would be more like medical doctors in that one prescription should fit one disease. As it pertains to this subject, did you know that for many years, homosexuality was considered a diagnosible mental disorder? How objective was that? And if it was, what changed that that is no longer the case?
We aren't using the bible? So you have given up on option A completely? Good to know.
The Bible was merely an example of one option for A. I will accept any other viable alternatives for an objective standard for measuring right and wrong if someone will just offer up what it could be.
You agree with me that right doesn't change? Wow...that was easy.
That's because from what I undstand from your previous posts, Big, we both consider ourselves subject to a Creator...
There may be a divine right and wrong (you and I believe so, though we have different takes on it)
...and we'll be subject to Him at some point for our actions. Therefore, His right and wrong are really all that matters to those who believe in it. If that's the case, then right and wrong CANNOT change.
As to who gets to decide? Individuals can be subjective in their decision (so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others). The Government is of the people for the people so they cannot, they must fight for all that have been infringed upon.
But now we're back to who gets to decide what constitutes infringement? The Government (ideally) is only in place to reflect the will of the people. We send people from different regions to vote the will of those regions. Those representatives take vote on issues and when certain minimum percentages of the whole are met, the measure passes and laws are enacted. The reason that the minimum percentage is never 100 is that a unanimous vote is almost impossible. Thus the MAJORITY (funny how that keeps coming up) makes the laws. Someone is left unhappy always. Sad but true.
Though we have danced with Who and What I don't think we have ever asked the question WHY regarding right and wrong until this moment SF. It is a question worth asking.
Why what?
Care to take first crack?
Love to.
Posted by glassman on :
Finally a question, if you are in favor of Government regulating how many children one is allowed to have, what other freedoms do you think they should take away 'for the good of the race?'
there you go again...
"if i am in favor"? waaahhh!!!
i am in favor of people being responsible for themselves... give all the all the idiots all the hard drugs they can carry is the only solution.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
So much on this subject I guess it really hits a spot with folks.
There can be a moral right or wrong from a relegious point of view but not from a legal one.
'Legal,' Bond, is only what the majority of the people want. Prohibition was legal. Segregation was held as constitutional for many years by the Supreme Court. Both changed as the prevailing opinions changed.
Amendments are the way each succeeding generation changes what ISN'T constitutional and legal to what IS.
Besides this is a California issue...
Not once they try and get the marriages recognized in other states it won't be.
...and according to the polls I have heard about 68% pecent of those polled don't care one way or the other.Another words let them get married if they want to. I mean face it they are going to live together anyway.
Most people don't care if they live together or not, Bond. I agree with you there. I'd even go so far as to say most wouldn't even care about some form of civil unions. But, more or less in line with what Tex posted above, it's the equalizing it with traditional marriage that has many up in arms. By so doing, many (including myself) feel you're bring traditional marriage down, not raising homosexual unions up.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: Another words let them get married if they want to. I mean face it they are going to live together anyway.
It's exactly what I am saying. They are living together anyways, marriage is just a formality. Me personally, other then Tess when she was alive God Rest her Soul (i said that because she was religious), I wouldn't get married because 6 out of 10 marriages end in divorce. If you love someone you do not need that "paper" and "ring". If it doesn't work out you can both just walk away without the legal hassles or very minimal ones. But as for Gays, let them get married because in spirit they pretty much are already. After all what are you afraid of? that they will marry you? lol Posted by glassman on :
did you know that for many years, homosexuality was considered a diagnosible mental disorder? How objective was that? And if it was, what changed that that is no longer the case?
i did, and it was enlightenment that changed that.
By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology. This historical shift was generally considered progressive because a sick person was less blameful than a sinner or criminal (e.g., Chauncey, 1982/1983; D'Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Duberman, Vicinus, & Chauncey, 1989).
beleive it or not? the inquisition is the time that homosekshality became "unacceptable" even in Christianity...
the Biblicial references that are interpreted today as homosexual behaviour are actually references to temple prostitution... yeah, the various religions offered "one stop shopping" you got your dope and your sex and "God" all at one place....
oh yeah, you could also take out a mortgage there too....
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
'Legal,' Bond, is only what the majority of the people want. Prohibition was legal. Segregation was held as constitutional for many years by the Supreme Court. Both changed as the prevailing opinions changed.
Ah buddy, the prevailing opinions are changing slowly but surely. Just have to look at the attitudes in Salt Lake City for that. lol And not for nothing but the Constitution wasn't written to protect the Majority or Popular only even though you like to think it does.
quote:Amendments are the way each succeeding generation changes what ISN'T constitutional and legal to what IS.
Amendments doesn't make something right nor wrong either.
quote:Not once they try and get the marriages recognized in other states it won't be.
It already has started. New York just announced they will recognize out of state same sex marriages.
quote:Most people don't care if they live together or not, Bond. I agree with you there. I'd even go so far as to say most wouldn't even care about some form of civil unions. But, more or less in line with what Tex posted above, it's the equalizing it with traditional marriage that has many up in arms. By so doing, many (including myself) feel you're bring traditional marriage down, not raising homosexual unions up.
The way I see it you think gay marriages will turn kids gay which is kind of stupid to say because if they are gay , they are gay and it's not because they see two men married that they became that way. And equalizing gay marriages to traditional marriages is equalivent to equalizing Blacks with Whites in 1964 or men and women when they had the right to vote etc. Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: yeah, the various religions offered "one stop shopping" you got your dope and your sex and "God" all at one place....
oh yeah, you could also take out a mortgage there too....
Religion: the Opiate of the Masses... Posted by glassman on :
i agree about the gay is gay Mach...
i do not beleive in this "propensity" and "must deny myself" bullcrap....
if a person is gay? then they are gay, if they aren't ? then they are not.. they have been tormented by society, not by their gayness.
i think that people who are afraid of gay people are afraid of THEMSELVES.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i agree about the gay is gay Mach...
i do not beleive in this "propensity" and "must deny myself" bullcrap....
if a person is gay? then they are gay, if they aren't ? then they are not.. they have been tormented by society, not by their gayness.
i think that people who are afraid of gay people are afraid of THEMSELVES.
Couldn't agree with what you said even more... if someone is comfortable in their sexuality then they have nothing to fear from gays... that goes the same with "traditional" marriages... if you are comfortable in your "traditional" marriage then other types of marriages are nothing to fear... if your love is strong then it will test the tests of time. If it's not strong then it was never meant to be and Gay people are not to blame. Like I said to Tex, if his ex had left him for a Man and not a Woman would he still think the same about this issue? I doubt it. I think in a way Tex (as well as SF and others) see it as a threat to their Manliness etc. Just my opinion. Btw, Traditions are meant to be broken. Posted by glassman on :
well, i have personally known some women that were same sex oriented, got pregnant, kept the kids (yes multiples), and collected child support, intentionally, and i don't think much of 'em, but, the problem wasn't that they were gay, they were schemers. i can't speak to Tex's specific situation. but i know some straight women that did the same stuff... society is chaos...
and yeah, gay people getting married won't affect my marriage at all... i'd personally prefer that gays had civil unions with most of the legal rights associated with marriage. (i don't like the idea of gay couples adopting kids) and call it a civil union, cuz it isn't a marriage (IMO) but it seems that too many people couldn't even agree on giving that simple right. so marriage it will be...
marriage is supposed to be about making a family, right?
somebody once asked me why old people that are beyond child bearing years are allowed to marry.. i told 'em it was a technicality they were taking advantage of Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Ah, Mach, sometimes I don't know why I even bother...but let the dance continue.
Ah buddy, the prevailing opinions are changing slowly but surely. Just have to look at the attitudes in Salt Lake City for that. lol
Yes, they are; and more than anything else that's been posted, that statement proves what I've said it right. As the opinions on the subject change, it becomes 'right.' It will be 'right' as soon as the majority of people consider it such and not a moment before.
To believe otherwise is to acknowledge an absolute standard of right and wrong. If you believe in such, then offer it up so that the rest of us can adjust our life course accordingly.
And not for nothing but the Constitution wasn't written to protect the Majority or Popular only even though you like to think it does.
As I've mentioned before, the Constitution is hostage to the prevailing opinions. That is what Amendments are for. And on that note...
Amendments doesn't make something right nor wrong either.
What does?
It already has started. New York just announced they will recognize out of state same sex marriages.
And it won't be the last one, either.
And equalizing gay marriages to traditional marriages is equalivent to equalizing Blacks with Whites in 1964 or men and women when they had the right to vote etc.
Lifestyle choices are different from natural attributes like race or gender, Mach.
I think ...
Somehow I doubt that.
I think in a way Tex (as well as SF and others) see it as a threat to their Manliness etc. Just my opinion.
If Tex wants a bite at that one that's his call. Otherwise, it's not even worth dignifying.
Traditions are meant to be broken.
With all of the consequences involved, Mach. With all of the consequences involved.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
i'd personally prefer that gays had civil unions with most of the legal rights associated with marriage. (i don't like the idea of gay couples adopting kids) and call it a civil union, cuz it isn't a marriage (IMO)
Care to elaborate on both of these, Glass? Because from reading your posts on this subject, that's far from what I understood your position to be.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: i'd personally prefer that gays had civil unions with most of the legal rights associated with marriage. (i don't like the idea of gay couples adopting kids) and call it a civil union, cuz it isn't a marriage (IMO)
Care to elaborate on both of these, Glass? Because from reading your posts on this subject, that's far from what I understood your position to be.
really?
why?
just because i was showing you the error of the biological argument doesn't mean that i can't have a personal view that is different.
the human condition is one of chaos. i know, religions make the chaos make sense when possible and when it can't? then there's the Devil to blame...
wanna get into a good debate on creation? i beleive in evolution, and especially natural selection, but that does not preclude the existence of a Creator. It only brings to question the methods of the Creator
the real issue about "gayness" IMO is why do you care?
Posted by cottonjim on :
Here is the thing, I don't have a problem with someone being gay... Doesn't bother me in the least bit, but. The first thing that goes through my mind when I find out that someone I know is gay is "Chit, I have been in the same locker room shower with that guy." That is what makes my skin crawl. In a strange kind of way, gay people are the "opposite sex" so why then are the in the same bathrooms and locker rooms with people they are attracted to? I gotta tell you, if I was allowed into the womens locker room at the club, I would be looking all around and quite frankly enjoying the hell out of myself. That is just human nature. Now I know some of you are going to get that whole atitude on me and say something like, "it is very conceited of you to think that you are anything that they would want to look at anyways." But, I am kinda cute so why wouldn't they and I don't like the thought of that. I would rather walk into the womens shower butt azz naked because I don't mind women looking at me because I am attacted to them as well so we might just find a match.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
wanna get into a good debate on creation? i beleive in evolution, and especially natural selection, but that does not preclude the existence of a Creator. It only brings to question the methods of the Creator
Guided evolution I believe is name for that concept. Mormon's don't necessarily disagree with it either.
the real issue about "gayness" IMO is why do you care?
From a religious point of view? It eliminates the joining of the two sexes which we believe is necessary for continued spiritual progress.
From a societal point of view? It raises questions about the importance of family and the associated family values.
Posted by glassman on :
From a religious point of view? It eliminates the joining of the two sexes which we believe is necessary for continued spiritual progress.
so, it's your way or the hi-way..
From a societal point of view? It raises questions about the importance of family and the associated family values.
well? i think most people agree that the American family structure is kaput anyway...
my only argument is/was that it never really amounted to a "pinnacle" of the human condition to begin with...
if you dig thru history at an interpersonal level? you'll find people have been pretty mean to each other since before the Egyptians began making clay bricks, and they were no "nicer" in 1950 than they ever were.
Posted by glassman on :
on meanness? don't you think maybe it's time to stop persecuting people for something beyond their control?
look, i am a real knuckledragger, i admit it. it's not something i am ashamed of or proud of i just am... i compete, i argue, i like to get close to getting into trouble and not actually being in trouble etc...
i can't help it, and neither can gay people... it's that simple.
this might sound like a curse to you but read my current siggy... i BET you Dick Cheney hated gays for a major portion of his life.. he just looks the part to me, man... but the Fates had other plans for his sorry azz, didn't they? Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
so, it's your way or the hi-way..
(sigh)
Not getting into that one again, Glass. It's getting old.
well? i think most people agree that the American family structure is kaput anyway...
So, your answer to helping society become better is just to abandon it? Yeah, I'm sure that'll work.
my only argument is/was that it never really amounted to a "pinnacle" of the human condition to begin with...
It's not the pinnacle...it's the base. All else that we call civilization rose from the base institution of Father, Mother, Children and the cycle of infant, child, adolescent, adult and founding one's own family. Take away that base, or its importance and the house of cards falls. That is what we are seeing right now.
on meanness? don't you think maybe it's time to stop persecuting people for something beyond their control?
Does disagreeing with someone equate to persecution? If so, there's alot more of it in the world today than even the most ardent poverty pimps would have us believe.
i BET you Dick Cheney hated gays for a major portion of his life.. he just looks the part to me, man...
Yep, that's a really objective way to tell a bigot, Glass. They just LOOK like bigots.
Posted by glassman on :
That is what we are seeing right now.
do you realise that countless generations of people have said the EXACT same thing (and will) ? Posted by glassman on :
i BET you Dick Cheney hated gays for a major portion of his life.. he just looks the part to me, man...
Yep, that's a really objective way to tell a bigot, Glass. They just LOOK like bigots.
toldja i was a knuckledragger
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Yes, they are; and more than anything else that's been posted, that statement proves what I've said it right. As the opinions on the subject change, it becomes 'right.' It will be 'right' as soon as the majority of people consider it such and not a moment before.
To believe otherwise is to acknowledge an absolute standard of right and wrong. If you believe in such, then offer it up so that the rest of us can adjust our life course accordingly.
Let's just say that on prevailing thoughts (the Majority) Gay marriages are "right" so get over it already. The future or near future is here.
quote:As I've mentioned before, the Constitution is hostage to the prevailing opinions. That is what Amendments are for. And on that note...
How about this, each state decides in their own states if Gay Marriages are legal like California. To have a national Amendment imo is really based on people's religious beliefs therefor it would be foregoing the "tradition" of Separation of Church and State. This should not be a Federal issue.
quote:What does?
I guess you did not get what I meant. That just because a Amendment is drafted does not mean it is right ala Prohibition etc.
quote:And it won't be the last one, either.
Then just accept it and move on. By your logic of Majority rules as well as right/wrong then Gay marriages will be "right". You can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't say Majority rules and then when the Majority says gay marriages are "right" then you say it's "wrong".
quote:Lifestyle choices are different from natural attributes like race or gender, Mach.
I would say Homosexuality is a natural attribute that is inside a person. Something that obviously you do not understand because in your mind someone cannot become gay or be born gay unless some outside influence such as books, movies, marriages etc. make them gay. Sorry, just bringing a little of our RR debate into this one.
quote:Somehow I doubt that.
Low blow from someone who I thought was civil and a gentleman. Guess I was wrong and you finally showed your true colors. Btw I would say I think more then you because you cannot think past your own religious beliefs. I am very open minded and obviously you are not.
quote:If Tex wants a bite at that one that's his call. Otherwise, it's not even worth dignifying.
Guess truth hurts because your logic that gay marriages will destroy heterosexual marriages is what people are saying that Bear Stearns initials stand for.
quote:With all of the consequences involved, Mach. With all of the consequences involved.
No consequences at all. Gay marriages will not destroy "traditional" heterosexual marriages. That is logical. It is also logical that gay marriages will not make a "hetero" kid turn "homo". If your gay your gay, if your not your not. There is no grey as you yourself said. Only black and white unless of course your bi-sexual. Posted by T e x on :
whoa, whoa, whoa!
quote:If Tex wants a bite at that one that's his call. Otherwise, it's not even worth dignifying.
lol, this thread is hard to follow...
What is it I might wanna bite of?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
He wants u to bite him, Tex lol
Posted by T e x on :
well...
ok
BUT WE AIN'T GETTIN' MARRIED
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: well...
ok
BUT WE AIN'T GETTIN' MARRIED
We'll based on his logic of Majority Rules... you will be Tex... lol don't forget to invite us so we can throw rice to you newlyweds... Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
I guess you did not get what I meant. That just because a Amendment is drafted does not mean it is right ala Prohibition etc.
And you apparently didn't understand my question, Mach.
What makes something 'right' or 'wrong?'
We're now on the third page of wasted posts because noone is willing to answer that question.
Big took a swing at it at least. When are you going to step up to bat?
Low blow from someone who I thought was civil and a gentleman. Guess I was wrong and you finally showed your true colors.
From anyone else that might even sting, Mach. From you? Pots and Kettles.
Btw I would say I think more then you because you cannot think past your own religious beliefs. I am very open minded and obviously you are not.
Of course YOU would say that, it'd be kinda awkward if you didn't. As for open minded? Well, that's one we'll just have to agree to disagree on.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: I think in a way Tex (as well as SF and others) see it as a threat to their Manliness etc. Just my opinion. Btw, Traditions are meant to be broken.
That's the origin of the biting comment, Tex.
From our open-minded friend.
All yours if you want it.
I don't.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: well...
ok
BUT WE AIN'T GETTIN' MARRIED
It would never work out, Tex...
It's not you...it's me....
We'll always have Paris!
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: I think in a way Tex (as well as SF and others) see it as a threat to their Manliness etc. Just my opinion. Btw, Traditions are meant to be broken.
That's the origin of the biting comment, Tex.
From our open-minded friend.
All yours if you want it.
I don't.
lol, there's nuthin' to that--that's just Mach's way of flirting...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: well...
ok
BUT WE AIN'T GETTIN' MARRIED
It would never work out, Tex...
It's not you...it's me....
We'll always have Paris!
Paris? That's on the way to Hugo, OK
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote: But in our current discussion we're trying to define WHY something is right or wrong.
Though we have danced with Who and What I don't think we have ever asked the question WHY regarding right and wrong until this moment SF. It is a question worth asking.
quote: And yet the laws still exist and thus show a bias against the practice. Is that 'right' to you?
That also is worth exploring SF. You are a Mormon what is your take? I personally don't see how polygamy can work without one of the extra partners becoming sub-dominant which would to my mind infringe upon their liberty. But...should there be a law against it? If it was done against their will or under the age of consent it would be a form of enslavement but if they enter into that situation willingly?
quote: Yep. Education sure has stamped out that smoking thing. My, my, at the current rate, it should be all but gone by...well...20-something or the other. [Smile]
I'm afraid I'll need to see the statistics you are referring to before I can comment.
quote: True enough, but once again, how much of my right to property are you willing to take away to get there?
How great is the good that can come of it? From a property standpoint I own a chunk of nearly every sports stadium and complex in my state but I am not much of a sports fan (except for football which are too pricey for me to justify purchasing). From a property stand point I should own at least a classroom or two by now in regards to public education and yet I do not have children. Does not the health of your neighbors at least stand on par with you in regards to your entertainment?
quote:Sorry, Big, no such thing.
I disagree completely. It is subjective reasoning that classified homosexuals as mentally ill. It was the objective reasoning of metal health professionals that removed that classification. There may be differing opinions but as perfection has yet to be obtained that is to be expected, yes?
quote:...we both consider ourselves subject to a Creator...If that's the case, then right and wrong CANNOT change.
Ah, but I believe that right and wrong is completely independent of a creator and can be identified without the requirement of belief. Indeed, belief in a creator has caused much wrong in this world which strongly suggests that I am correct in my assessment.
quote: Thus the MAJORITY (funny how that keeps coming up) makes the laws.
'
Once again, Majority rules may affect laws but it does not constitute right. This is where your argument fails again and again. You are equating lawful with right. Until you can prove that lawful equals right the majority rules argument is a tangent to the conversation.
quote: But now we're back to who gets to decide what constitutes infringement?
As stated prior to the question. Individuals can be subjective in their reasoning. That is one of the main reasons that governments even exist. The governing body is put in place to make objective decisions about the country as a whole. Though the majority may have more representation within a governing body, if it is truly using objective reasoning all minority and majority groups will be treated equally in regards to the laws it passes. If the government passes laws that infringe on the equality status of a minority group then they are guilty of discrimination which is wrong. In such an instance the MAJORITY has used the legal system to act illegally. Therefore, while the majority can make right decisions they can also make wrong decisions which means The Majority cannot equal 'right'.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:...we both consider ourselves subject to a Creator...If that's the case, then right and wrong CANNOT change. Ah, but I believe that right and wrong is completely independent of a creator and can be identified without the requirement of belief. Indeed, belief in a creator has caused much wrong in this world which strongly suggests that I am correct in my assessment.
and i would assert that what is right and wrong to US (esp in a social sense) has absolutely no relevance to whatever the (a) Creator is up to...
here's why.
the best argument i see for "guided evolution" is found in the area of parasites...
anybody who studies the amazing complexity of the life cycles of parasitic worms has to wonder what kind joke is being played.
the Biblical restrictions against eating certain kinds of foods are undoubtedly due to these parasites.
whether it was "advice" from God or astute human observation that led to the proscription of eating pork? the fact is that whatever guided the evolution of the very complicated life cycle of these 8 foot long intestinal worms has a strange, no, incomprehensible sense of "right and wrong".
does it strike you as a bit odd that a God who is responsible for the existence of Malaria is really worried about who is scratching who's back Posted by jordanreed on :
Is SF gay?
If he were?..he would be for gay marriage..
Being gay is not a choice..
Who would choose to be ostracized by mainstream society?..
Gayness is a fact of life..
and so will be gay marriage..there is no other way.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Do you really think that a "traditional" family upbringing will prevent a child from becoming gay? ... Love has no boundaries... it does not discriminate based on gender or race... if someone loves someone of the same gender that is coming from the heart and not a deviancy as you call it... humans do "deviant acts" if you can call it that with their loved one (significant other) but that is a private thing between two people... that does not mean they go around doing it in front of a child... I am sure that if we could watch you with your significant other in a private moment we can point out a act or two of "deviancy".. what you are doing is shoving your morals down people's throats basically... morals are like a opinion... everyone has one and because it is right or wrong to you does not make it so for others who can form their own opinion or morals... ![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
*
![[More Crap]](graemlins/morecrap.png)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Wall Bang]](graemlins/wallbang.gif)