Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 12
I'd like to publicly apologize for an earlier posting in response to a topic entitled "Same Sex Marriages" It was posted as a "Hot Topic" by the Motley Fool in the e-mail I received from them.

I was shocked to learn that I had just posted on the "Atheist Fools" discussion board. I didn't even know there was such a thing, nor did I know there was a "Christian Fools" board until one of your members alerted me to expect to be flamed for my response.

What I'm now wondering is what FOOL gets the privelege of deciding what topics are "hot" or not. This topic becam "hot" but it seems to have done so AFTER they posted it as so- not before. (My posting was one of the earlier ones, and by the way- they did flame me).

In a country which was formed by God-fearing men who respect the laws which God laid down for us as a guide for how we should live based upon how he put us together, I'm beginning to wonder what went wrong in this country? Where did we let our beliefs slip away? I would encourage you to review some of the postings on that site, just for your education, but by all means, please do not respond. This is just the kind of attention these people want from the rest of the world. Let them stand and scream in their own private hallway. It's a shame somebody decided to promote their forum to the public view, and I'm disappointed that I was taken in by it.

So I repeat for all of you here to discuss the opinion I placed on that board- homosexuality is not normal, nor is it natural. Mankind has many sins that he undertakes, and most of us would love nothing more than for our own to be ignored here on earth, so that we could somehow feel they weren't really sins. I hope our contry does not become complicit in supporting those sins that we, as a Christian country have worked so long to protect from the future generations who inherit this section of land we have established. For those who feel that other countries laugh at us for our "backward" ways, my suggestion is that they go and live in those "forward thinking" countries, and deal with the rest of what that brings. As for the USA, let's do our best to keep it upstanding and moral, not as a banner to other nations, but as a tribute to our God.

Please, I encourage others to speak their minds on this. "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 30
Please, I encourage others to speak their minds on this.

Some of the closed-minded, prejudiced, distasteful, vile, bigoted rhetoric being put forth by some of the people against gay marriage scares the hell out of me. I wonder where all this "turn back the clock" and "let's go back to the good old days" crap is going to stop. With what they're saying about gay people, it wouldn't surprise me to hear them start calling for doing away with other minorities' rights.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What I'm now wondering is what FOOL gets the privelege of deciding what topics are "hot" or not.

Since this is a privately owned company/web site, I'm guessing someone employed by TMF gets to decide what is "hot" or not.

Zee
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
SMapple...

Marvelous post. Its nice to add a new one to my Favorite Fools list.

Hopefully you and other like minded Americans will carry the torch on these social issues. Im sorry to say it, but I have just about given up on the America I love when it comes to social issues. From cradle to grave, I think America and the West faced guaranteed social decay. People dont realize it, but social decadence is the root of most of our problems...be it fiscal, crime, entitlements, you name it.

I have just about concluded that America was a great place, and will soon be a great strip mall.

Jedi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Some of the closed-minded, prejudiced, distasteful, vile, bigoted rhetoric being put forth by some of the people against gay marriage scares the hell out of me."

1st of all, it is nice to see some admit that marriage is the ONLY legit form of relationship. Those with the above mindset have written off today's shacking up, or "boyfriend-girlfriend", or my personal fave... "my baby's daddy" relationships. After all, if Civil Unions with 100% equality in terms of benefits isnt good enough, they admit that marriage is the only real deal, right? Well, some progress at least!

BTW, are they 'vile, bigoted and distasteful' against a brother marrying his sister? What if Dad has the hots for his daughter and they want to get married? Are you "prejudiced" against those two CONSENTING ADULTS marrying?

Jedi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
BTW, are they 'vile, bigoted and distasteful' against a brother marrying his sister? What if Dad has the hots for his daughter and they want to get married? Are you "prejudiced" against those two CONSENTING ADULTS marrying?


But they're not CONSENTING ADULTS. They may be over 18 but that doesn't mean they're capable of giving informed consent to enter into a relationship with a close family member.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
But they're not CONSENTING ADULTS. They may be over 18 but that doesn't mean they're capable of giving informed consent to enter into a relationship with a close family member
****

A 27 year old man wants to marry a 25 year old man. Both have degrees in their profession. They should have the right to be married right? We should not be 'vile and prejudice' to them.

A 27 year old man wants to marry a 25 year old man. Both are also educated and good citizens just like the above couple. Oh by the way, they are brother and sister. The sister is thrilled also as her brother is a great man.

The latter couple is as educated and upstanding as the two gays, so why should we be 'distasteful and vile' against their marital wishes?

Jedi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
But they're not CONSENTING ADULTS. They may be over 18 but that doesn't mean they're capable of giving informed consent to enter into a relationship with a close family member.
****

Who will decide if two American adults are "capable" of giving consent? The same people who will decide if its ok for gays to marry?

I thought government should "stay out of the bedroom" of consenting adults.

Jedi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 32
A 27 year old man wants to marry a 25 year old man. Both are also educated and good citizens just like the above couple. Oh by the way, they are brother and sister. The sister is thrilled also as her brother is a great man.

Let me go on record as demanding a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting two men from becoming brother and sister.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 61
In a country which was formed by God-fearing men who respect the laws which God laid down for us as a guide for how we should live based upon how he put us together,...

The same men insisted quite strongly that there should be a separation of church and state.

...I'm beginning to wonder what went wrong in this country?

I'm not sure what you mean. 200 years ago we bought and sold human beings as slaves. 150 years ago we were removing native Americans from their ancestral lands. 100 years ago women couldn't vote and higher education was mostly for white males. 75 years ago the elderly were left to support themselves, heaven help them if they had no kids and they lived too long. 50 years ago blacks and whites used different bathrooms and drank from different fountains. Seems to me that we are a far more moral country now than ever before.

So I repeat for all of you here to discuss the opinion I placed on that board- homosexuality is not normal, nor is it natural.

That statement is not supported by science.

I hope our contry does not become complicit in supporting those sins that we, as a Christian country have worked so long to protect from the future generations who inherit this section of land we have established.

Historically the greatest sins committed by humanity have been due to intolerance. It is a recurrent pattern.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<< I hope our contry does not become complicit in supporting those sins that we, as a Christian country >>

Do we live in different countries or do you not know what a Christian is?


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<BTW, are they 'vile, bigoted and distasteful' against a brother marrying his sister? >>

Abraham married his sister Sarah and I am thankful that he did. From them the lineage of Jesus our Lord was established. I do not think their marriage was either vile or distasteful.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Welcome SMApple! Good to see you over here!

I haven't read the other responses yet, but I'm sure they've told you that the FOOL decides what's "hot" by the number of Recs a post gets. That was a highly recced post. You should not be surprised by that, considering the "state of the state".

We have had many discussions about homosexuality on the board. The FAQ should have lots of info for you.

Again, welcome!

jrsmith13

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<We have had many discussions about homosexuality on the board.>>


Many.... many.... many... many discussions.....

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 187
I hope our contry does not become complicit in supporting those sins that we, as a Christian country have worked so long to protect from the future generations who inherit this section of land we have established.


Look. Christianity does not "own" America, and I resent every suggestion that it does. In fact, America, you may be shocked to discover, was explicitly determined by our so-called "god-fearing" founding fathers to be open to all ways of thought, yours and mine, right or wrong, despite your desire to have history read otherwise. The minute you start claiming propriety over America and what it's supposed to stand for, and claim that it is here for YOUR religious beliefs, and that Christianity should not only be included, but should prevail, is the moment I stand up and start defending the right that MY founding fathers gave to ME.

America is NOT a Christian country. It does not belong to you, or to any other religion. You do not own it. You never did. I understand that that is tough news for you to take. But accept it. And get over it.

Keep your religion out of MY constitution. To use your own analogy, you're entitled to scream in your own hallway all you want about how these desperate, poor, evil homosexuals are living their damned, depraved lives. But don't pretend to be so shocked when people disagree. As a matter of fact, let me invite you to open your eyes and discover that there's a whole world out there of people who don't think like you do, and you are living happy and rewarding lives despite your horror of them, and despite the fact that their rights entitle them to do so. And that these people happen to be just as American as you are, and are entitled to all the same rights that you enjoy.

My apologies for bringing this argument here. But if you are going to moan about America's moral decline (when in fact, it has been on a 200-year moral rise, giving the promise of freedom to wider and wider groups of people) and to grieve over the loss of a possession you were never entitled to in the first place, please expect some dissent. Because that is likely to happen when people make statements that are so frankly offensive and so plainly wrong.

Cheeze
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Abraham married his sister Sarah and I am thankful that he did.



silencer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Abraham married his sister Sarah and I am thankful that he did.

Let's try this again...I thought she was his cousin?


silencer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
For those who feel that other countries laugh at us for our "backward" ways, my suggestion is that they go and live in those "forward thinking" countries, and deal with the rest of what that brings. As for the USA, let's do our best to keep it upstanding and moral, not as a banner to other nations, but as a tribute to our God

Here's a contradiction in terms! You want us to be Christian (Protestant?) but you also want anyone who sees things differently to leave.

We were founded by Deists and Quakers (solid Trinitarians, in those days), as well as men like Jefferson who disbelieved the Bible, and who would count as left-wing in today's terms. Along with Church of England members, whose liturgical practice you may condemn.

So, let's go for a Trinitarian and left-wing (and I am both) country, following our best traditions, and let anyone who wants to assert Bible inerrancy move to Switzerland, to follow Calvin and Zvingli.

No?

Then you may want to re-think your position, which is only one of many.

Deac
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A tangled family tree.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As a person who believes in God, I put my trust and faith in God. I do not put it in the hands of governments of mankind. I do not trust them with it. The day that changes is the day that I remove God from the center of my reason for being and replace God and the trust that I have in God to the hands of others.

I thank God everyday for the freedom to live in a country where I am free to practice my beliefs without fear of persecution or prohibition. To bind that trust and faith in God with that of man's will using governments of man is to abet that trust and faith with man and all our fallibilities; to bind what I believe to be the Truth into the safeguard of man. It is to expose that trust and faith and freedom to perilous risk. It hopelessly weakens it.

It is not to say that I cannot reach out to my brother or sister with my being if I do not have the sanction of the government. I do not seek the filter or the abridgement of government. To do so would only lead me further from by brother or sister; further from God not closer to God. It is to say I am free and I am empowered by God, through God and to God.

Reach Out! You're free!

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We wish to seperate Church and State and that makes it wrong to ban gay marriages. Its also wrong to ban gay marriages as it is a civil right of 2 humans.

Why discriminate against 2 adults who happen to be related?

I thought you all were for equal rights, and getting government out of our bedrooms?

Jedi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
We need a constitutional amendment banning divorce. Divorce does more damage to families and children than gay marriage.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I do NOT believe in Same Sex Marriages, but I do believe in
states rights.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ga1Dawg wrote:

I do NOT believe in Same Sex Marriages, but I do believe in states rights.

So did the South.

The result was Bloody Kansas and the American Civil War.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We need a constitutional amendment banning divorce. Divorce does more damage to families and children than gay marriage.

I hope you're not serious, Ga1. I'll give you an example of divorce being the best thing that ever happened to my wife's parents.


Duck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Jediknight,

I read your TMF profile.

What do you mean when you write in your interview:

The Fool: What, in your opinion, are some of life's big mysteries?

JEDIKNIGHT: Feminism exists to help ugly women into the mainstream of society. How come the cuties dont get rid of it?

I asked before but I did not get an answer. Just curious.

Thanks,

-vex
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I do NOT believe in Same Sex Marriages, but I do believe in states rights.

So did the South.

The result was Bloody Kansas and the American Civil War.


Yeah, I know that the Civil War has been called the War for States' Rights, particularly among groups that seem to still want the South to secede, however, throwing away the concept of states' right? Bad idea. For one it is (and I'm sure you know this) already in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I'm not saying that the definition of marriage should be considered on a state by state basis - that would just breed chaos. But again, disagreeing with the application is one thing. Disagreeing with the concept, well, I'd need a better argument than "some people once started a war based on their definition."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9

I'd like to publicly apologize for an earlier posting in response to a topic entitled "Same Sex Marriages" It was posted as a "Hot Topic" by the Motley Fool in the e-mail I received from them.
I was shocked to learn that I had just posted on the "Atheist Fools" discussion board. I didn't even know there was such a thing, nor did I know there was a "Christian Fools" board until one of your members alerted me to expect to be flamed for my response.


So, what, you're apologizing to the Christians for posting on a Atheists Board? You afraid you caught cooties over there and no-one's gonna like you now? Boy, you have messed-up priorities - and I'm not just talking about your poltics.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
homosexuality is not normal, nor is it natural.

ps - homosexual behavior is observed in many other primate species. Are the bonobos going to hell?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hopefully you and other like minded Americans will carry the torch on these social issues. Im sorry to say it, but I have just about given up on the America I love when it comes to social issues. From cradle to grave, I think America and the West faced guaranteed social decay.

I am curious. Is there another nation that you feel currently conforms better to your expectations or ideals on social issues?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<I do NOT believe in Same Sex Marriages, but I do believe in
states rights. >>

I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I also believe that no law passed by man will improve marriage nor will it lessen it. When divorces were very hard to get some lived with their mistress even though they were married to another. I think the government should enforce justice. Morality can only be enforced by what is inside a man.
The sanctity of marriage can only be enforced by hearts that has been given over to Jesus Christ.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


We wish to seperate Church and State and that makes it wrong to ban gay marriages. Its also wrong to ban gay marriages as it is a civil right of 2 humans.
Why discriminate against 2 adults who happen to be related?
I thought you all were for equal rights, and getting government out of our bedrooms?


Indeed, why?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
or those who feel that other countries laugh at us for our "backward" ways, my suggestion is that they go and live in those "forward thinking" countries, and deal with the rest of what that brings. As for the USA, let's do our best to keep it upstanding and moral, not as a banner to other nations, but as a tribute to our God.

I have lived in many of the "forward thinking" countries that you refer to, and enjoyed it very much. For example, I was amazed at the wholesomeness of life in Denmark, with its low rates of STDs, teen pregnancies, and violent crime (despite early and thorough sexual education, low marriage rates, and freely available porn). I was also pleasantly surprised by life in the Netherlands, where, despite a liberal drug policy rates of drug abuse and drug crime are so much lower than the US and even surrounding European countries. Oh yeah - and they allow gay marriage too.

I love the US though, so instead of moving permanently to Europe I do my patriotic duty and try to improve the country of my birth.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When divorces were very hard to get some lived with their mistress even though they were married to another.

Including, btw, Ben Franklin, whose 'wife' was actuallyt married to another man.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
QASteph wrote:

I'm not saying that the definition of marriage should be considered on a state by state basis - that would just breed chaos.

It would also result in all states having the issue decided by the first state that legalizes gay marriage on account of the full faith and credit clause.

That's why this is not solely a state's rights issue. Regardless of the 10th Amendment, of which I am well aware, it would still cause a lot of problems and confusion between the states, let alone between the states and the federal government, irrespective of any moral differences.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 43
I have trouble with the notion that homosexuality is immoral, as often presented by the Christian theology. As a Roman Catholic, I'm a fully aware of the Bible's stance on homosexuality. And I am fully aware that the Christian faith can be utilized by its followers as a moral yardstick.

And guess what, your morality is protected by the government of the United States. The Constitution guarantees you the freedom to practice your religion, which you have CHOSEN to do.

What I don't understand is why this moral yardstick should be used to measure every citizen within in the United States? Marriage, as legislated by the state, is a legal union between two parties, currently defined as a man and a woman. At its most basic level, if you remove all notions of love, till death do us part, and religious sponsorship of marriage, marriage is a contract. A freakin' contract!! This is the institution that many claim is on the verge of extinction? And guess what this contract does? It grants legal rights to the partners who have signed it. Over 1,000 various legal rights are granted to married couples. Stepping away from the pulpit, from the keyboard, from the confines of San Francisco's City Hall, would a union between and man and a man or a woman and a woman void or somehow negatively impact the provisions of this contract? My mind and my heart tell me no...

Ah, but you say I can't ignore the larger picture regarding marriage. That it represents not just a legal contract, but is, in our Western culture, the symbol of commitment, fidelity, and love. That is a public declaration of a personal decision; two people dedicating the very sum of their resources to each other. Once again, would a same-sex union destroy the marriage's symbolic nature? And once again, my mind and my heart tell me no...

The United States has legislated you the right to select, practice, and voice the ideas sponsored by your religion, ANY religion. Not only that, but it promises it will us all of its power to protect that right. Men and women of the United States are now looking for that same right to protect their same-sex unions, and indeed extend the very rights you now enjoy. It is time the United Status use its power to protect them.

jeffpmills
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Mapletree,

I have lived in many of the "forward thinking" countries that you refer to, and enjoyed it very much. For example, I was amazed at the wholesomeness of life in Denmark, with its low rates of STDs, teen pregnancies, and violent crime (despite early and thorough sexual education, low marriage rates, and freely available porn). I was also pleasantly surprised by life in the Netherlands, where, despite a liberal drug policy rates of drug abuse and drug crime are so much lower than the US and even surrounding European countries. Oh yeah - and they allow gay marriage too.

How can you honestly believe that countries like Denmark and Norway have so much better lifestyles than we do? Obviously you don't or you would be living there. They may have low crime rates and low rates of STD's, but when there is no law there is no crime ... According to your way of thinking we should all be sleeping with each other, and have a big love fest, buying drugs at any corner, and selling each other to buy the drugs. Standards of decency are what makes a society wholesome, not freedom to do what you feel in your right to practice.

I just read about the Catholic Priests and Bishops that are being investigated for their molesting of the young boys in their parishes. Do you think that what they did was wrong, or is it the right of the Priest/Bishop to do what he wants as long as it was consentual? IMO that's what opening the door to gay marriage is going to do to this country. You'll start seeing more and more of this sexual depravity going on in the name of personal freedom.

I don't know if you have any kids, and I don't really understand how anyone with children would think that giving this 'right of nature' to legally start and build a family which is only possible between a man and a woman, with all that goes with it, should also be the right of those who act against what nature intended. Homosexuality, Lesbianism and all sexual deviances are not natural and never will be. No matter how much Gays and Lesbians want to be seen as "Normal" people, they will never be accepted as such.

SB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
jeffpmills wrote:

The United States has legislated you the right to select, practice, and voice the ideas sponsored by your religion, ANY religion. Not only that, but it promises it will us all of its power to protect that right. Men and women of the United States are now looking for that same right to protect their same-sex unions, and indeed extend the very rights you now enjoy.

Of course the difference is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all passed by majority vote of the people in this country. Pro-gay marriage advocates now want to push their agenda through the courts, without a vote of the people.

The problem is that the courts are "legislating" from the bench. Something which they have no right to do.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
How can you honestly believe that countries like Denmark and Norway have so much better lifestyles than we do? Obviously you don't or you would be living there. They may have low crime rates and low rates of STD's, but when there is no law there is no crime ... According to your way of thinking we should all be sleeping with each other, and have a big love fest, buying drugs at any corner, and selling each other to buy the drugs. Standards of decency are what makes a society wholesome, not freedom to do what you feel in your right to practice.


Are you really stating that Denmark and Norway have no serious statutes against murder, theft, fraud, drunk driving, assault, battery, etc?

Last i looked, northern europe is far from slipping into the sea due to their, "liberal", societies. (Well, er, maybe Holland is, but they got it under control. Mag Nederland altijd bestaan en droog zijn!)

- Weitzhuis

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Sorry, you can only recommend a post to the Best of once.

America is NOT a Christian country. It does not belong to you, or to any other religion. You do not own it. You never did. I understand that that is tough news for you to take. But accept it. And get over it.

Thank you, Cheeze, for stating the truth. I am a Christian by birth and a Buddhist by choice, and have always believed one thing "Judge not, lest you be judged". I think this was said by one great rabbi of antiquity.

Namaste,
eastender

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I hope you're not serious, Ga1. I'll give you an example of divorce being the best thing that ever happened to my wife's parents.


Duck


<WAVING>

Hi, Duck 8.0!

</WAVING>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I'll give you an example of divorce being the best thing that ever happened to my wife's parents."

Since they went ahead and got married, you're no doubt right. However, I believe the best thing that could have happened would have been for them to not get married in the first place. Yes, I know, your wife would not have been born, I don't know what the alternative would have meant for your life, but I know from my own "marriage" and subsequent divorce that divorce was the logical and also scriptural consequence; I also know that I knew that I was making a mistake when I married. I was just hoping things would change. They didn't.

Pam
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"At its most basic level, if you remove all notions of love, till death do us part..." Why on earth would someone get married if not for those reasons? Or to put it a different way, if you remove love and 'till death do us part'--why get married?

"marriage is a contract. A freakin' contract!!" Not to me. Not to a lot of people. To those who view marriage as (your words) a 'freakin contract' they have only themselves to blame--they've reduced it to such.

Used to be that a handshake was all that was needed to close deals, too--now we have to have those freakin' contracts--and contractors need to have their freakin' expensive liability policies. And the cost for those policies is understandably built into the work that they do. And that is necessary, contracts are necessary, not only because people don't do what they say they're going to do but also because other people want to claim to be victims--they've changed their minds, all of a sudden don't want to pay for work for which they've promised to pay--so they find a loophole.

To whomever marriage is a "freakin' contract" I say this--you've made it so, and you continue to make it so by viewing it that way. To me, and to people who take it seriously, it is not.

Don't for a minute think that you're reducing marriage to a "contract" just because some people don't think it through, don't want to commit, change their minds. It may be a contract for too many, but that's their (and maybe your) skewed view and you're welcome to it. Your view, however, does not change what marriage was intended to be.

Pam
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I agree on one thing for sure.

I look at our prisons and abortion clinics. I look at the funerals for the latest school shooting or violence on the street. I look at the lives of offspring from unwed parents. I look at our kids vs foreign kids in terms of education and jobs for the future. I look at our entitlement programs gasping for air from many people being there due to social ills.

I agree: CHRISTIANITY CERTAINLY DOES NOT OWN AMERICA.

It is time not just for Christians, but for all decent people in America to stop trying to rescue the Left and the decadent...it is time we let them sink and spend more time securing our OWN households from the ever growing threat of Liberalism and the social decay it brings.

Jedi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<WAVING>
Hi, Duck 8.0!
</WAVING>



Howdy!

<tips-hat>

How y'all doin'?

</tips-hat>


Duck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
(Duck) "I'll give you an example of divorce being the best thing that ever happened to my wife's parents."

(Pam) Since they went ahead and got married, you're no doubt right.



Well, my point was that MrsDuck's father (my FIL) was a raging, violent alcoholic and her mother was an enabler. I could list many atrocities committed by him, including breaking her mother's cheekbones 3 times, throwing MrsDuck out of a two-story window when she was 12, and shooting holes in the wall of their house with a shotgun "for the fun of it".

They divorced, the (masochistic) mother wanted to remarry him, they did remarry, he knocked her out cold one week later, and they divorced again.

Divorce was the only method of survival.


Duck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can appreciate all of that, Duck. Really, I can. My marriage was abusive, too. I can't speak for your MIL but I would be willing to bet that she, like me, saw signs before they got married--and married him anyway.

There is a part of me that even now (I've been divorced for 7 years) wants to longingly wonder where I'd "be" now if I hadn't given up my personality and my ambitions by marrying him--I'd truly be in a different place as far as a career I'd always wanted (and still think I can have)....I just can't, though, make myself wish I'd never married him--because there's my 18-year old daughter, whom I love more than life itself (despite those "times" *g*).

I can definitely relate to the turmoil of those in physically and/or emotionally abusive relationships. And I'd be the last one to throw stones, and I'm relieved that you don't come across as thinking that's what I meant to do, because that wasn't my intent. All I was thinking when I read your comment that I quoted was that, as I stated, the best thing is really to confront those issues before the marriage happens--to have the counseling to help get the self-esteem that either a man or woman needs to prevent them from entering into an abusive marriage in the first place.

Enter into an abusive relationship? I did--your MIL did--and we have reasons to be thankful (your wife and my daughter). I'd just like to have others spared what we endured, that's all.

:-) Glad to see you posting here.

Pam
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
oh well...In my Bible it says..."Judge not..lest ye be judged".....and that it that....how KISS the word really is...ain't it?....God Bless us everyone...so said Tiny Tim...a rat...cyz...tr
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"He that is without sin....cast the first stone"


How few true Bible believer there truly are...mores the pity....when He said.."my church is not on this earth"....He knew then...as He knows now....makes me puke at what passes for faith nowadays....the corruption of then word pollutes the airwaves...the pulpit...and even the faithful get caught up in it....I suggest we all reread the Words of the Teacher...and chill out...so sad..too bad...tr
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
HisDelight said, amongst other thing:

Don't for a minute think that you're reducing marriage to a "contract" just because some people don't think it through, don't want to commit, change their minds. It may be a contract for too many, but that's their (and maybe your) skewed view and you're welcome to it. Your view, however, does not change what marriage was intended to be.

That has to be one of the single best posts I've ever read. You hit the nail on the head, Pam. (And, incidentally although you may not know it, the law historically treated marriage as more than a contract. It also treated it as a change in status.)

HisDelight added to your Favorite Fools list.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ManOfAThousandDucks wrote:

Divorce was the only method of survival.

At that point yes. What would have worked out better for everyone was the "let's not get married" method.

As my grandmother used to say, "Let he with the most sense use it."

I'm sorry your wife had to be a witness to that. :(

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<I thought you all were for equal rights, and getting government out of our bedrooms>>

It does make it awfully crowded, unless you have a very big bedroom.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<When divorces were very hard to get some lived with their mistress even though they were married to another.

Including, btw, Ben Franklin, whose 'wife' was actuallyt married to another man. >>

Andrew Jackson also was married to a married woman even though they thought she was divorced when they married. I am not aware if they were remarried after the first husband died or whether they continued to live together even though their marriage was illegal.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<No matter how much Gays and Lesbians want to be seen as "Normal" people, they will never be accepted as such.>>

They are very "Normal". Christians should be the unusual people, however many have forgotten the standards that our Lord has called us to, they practice a form of godliness yet denying its power.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 68

How can you honestly believe that countries like Denmark and Norway have so much better lifestyles than we do? Obviously you don't or you would be living there.


Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I HAVE lived there, and enjoyed it very much. As a patriotic American citizen I would like to see those strategies that I see implemented successfully in other countries implemented here as well so that the US can also have the benefits of those strategies. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

They may have low crime rates and low rates of STD's, but when there is no law there is no crime ...

Violent acts against others are just as criminal in Europe as in the US.

According to your way of thinking we should all be sleeping with each other, and have a big love fest, buying drugs at any corner, and selling each other to buy the drugs.

Oh my God, it would be just like San Francisco in the 70's! Give me a break. You sound like Richard Nixon.

Standards of decency are what makes a society wholesome, not freedom to do what you feel in your right to practice.

I feel like 'wholesomeness' is what makes a society wholesome. Separately, I also feel my freedoms are valuable.

I just read about the Catholic Priests and Bishops that are being investigated for their molesting of the young boys in their parishes. Do you think that what they did was wrong, or is it the right of the Priest/Bishop to do what he wants as long as it was consentual?(sic)IMO that's what opening the door to gay marriage is going to do to this country. You'll start seeing more and more of this sexual depravity going on in the name of personal freedom.

I really don't see how this is relevant, unless you somehow think that a) the majority of molestation cases consist of consensual relations and victims are lying about it, or, b) the majority of gay marriages consist of priests wanting to marry young boys.

Your argument contains a logical fallacy. There is no demonstrated link between molestaion by priests of young boys and the gay marriage movement. The fallacy you are engaged in is called 'complex question'. Here is a link that defines it, with an example:

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/cq.htm

I don't know if you have any kids, and I don't really understand how anyone with children would think that (....) Homosexuality, Lesbianism and all sexual deviances are not natural and never will be. No matter how much Gays and Lesbians want to be seen as "Normal" people, they will never be accepted as such.

That makes me sad. I always try to understand why the other side in an issue thinks why they do, even while I disagree. I'm pretty sure I understand why you feel the way you do (and I'm not accusing you of homophobia or bigotry when I say this). It makes me very sad to hear from someone that they just 'can't understand' how anyone could take a different position. The clear implication being, of course, that you don't really want to try to understand.

Here's why: I have several gay friends who are married. They are my friends. I have attended their weddings (and the ground did not open up and swallow the party). I have hugged them and kissed them (and I didn't get cooties or even HIV). I love them. They love each other. They have dogs and pets and houses and jobs. *I* see them as normal. They see themselves as normal. They would really like to have the legal protection afforded by the state to married heterosexual couples. But I don't think they really care a whit about whether someone like you, who thinks 'a big love fest' is about the worst thing that could happen to this country (never mind violence or terrorism or war), thinks they are normal. So don't worry. You can go on rejecting them from a safe distance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So I repeat for all of you here to discuss the opinion I placed on that board- homosexuality is not normal, nor is it natural. Mankind has many sins that he undertakes, and most of us would love nothing more than for our own to be ignored here on earth, so that we could somehow feel they weren't really sins.
======================================================================
Where am I coming from:

I am trying to be a Christian. I attend a Presbyterian Church.
My theology => Try and do what Jesus would do.
I might get it right once in a while. I'm working on it.

One thing I really try to get right => accepting other people.

I go to Sunday school every week. 25% of my class is gay/lesbian. Two university professors teach the class. One is a conservative (amazing).

======================================================================
Some observations:

Two of my 1st counsins (A doctor & a teacher) are gay. When I was growing up in 50s, I knew zero about homosexuality. Looking back, its clear that these two young fellows were "wired" different than my other counsins. Did they make a choice to be gay? No way !!

For me, sexual activity outside a caring relationship is a sin.

I think Jesus would be OK with this statement:

"I hope all people find someone to love."

I think Jesus would be OK with this relationship:

My doctor cousin has been with the same partner for 25 years.
======================================================================

PS
I think if you needed help from a cardiologist you could not get anyone
better than my cousin (or his brother).

PSS
Need a good dentist? My brother !!

PSSS
Need a good veternarian? Sorry, my died passed away in 1991.





Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
In a country which was formed by God-fearing men who respect the laws which God laid down for us as a guide for how we should live based upon how he put us together, I'm beginning to wonder what went wrong in this country?

I really hate the self-righteous.

"After coming in contact with a religious man, I always feel that I must wash my hands."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Nothing so masks the face of God as religion
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
mapletree7,

Bless your pea-pickin' heart for the link to the complex question site! I knew the statement you referred to was an example of some type of erronious thinking but couldn't remember what it was called.

The only quibble with your post I might have regarding your enjoyment of living in Denmark, et al, would be that it seems they live on meats and starches--I guess that's not too significant in the whole scheme of things.

K
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<It is time not just for Christians, but for all decent people in America to stop trying to rescue the Left and the decadent...it is time we let them sink and spend more time securing our OWN households from the ever growing threat of Liberalism and the social decay it brings.

Jedi>>

Since the vast majority of people in this country claim to be christians I think you should blaim the social decay where it belongs on the churches. Most peoples religion is an empty shell, simply a garment they put on on sunday morning. The decay start at the churches and creaps into society. If the churches are alive the life from those churches also permiates the community around it.
Governments are to maintain order and laws so that we may live in peace. The social decay is our fault. If we had a light to shine the community would be able to see it.
Even Sodom and Gomorrah could have been saved if 10 rightious men had been there. If there had been 10 rightious men in Noahs time maybe there would not have been a flood.
I know that he political right's propaganda tends to blame liberalism for all our social ills, but propaganda is frequently a tool of those who do not know the Truth, whether it is used by the christian right or the christian left.

I believe a Christian can be a liberal or a conservative and still effect his community for Christ.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
My neighbors across the street were on TV the other night, explaining how complicated it is for gay couples to have normal lives without marriage. These two are fairly well off, so they were able to afford the lawyers fees for second-parent adoptions, living trusts, joint mortgates, etc. etc, that married people can get for free as a matter of course. These two women struck me as being about the most sane and normal people that I've seen on TV for a long time.

Then there was a Moslem friend of my husband who just attended the birth of his child in the hospital. Now everyone knows that the mother was his second wife, but in good old America you can have a child with your girlfriend, but not your second wife, so that's how it goes down in the records.

Laws should deal with reality, not dream states.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
MadCapitalist quoted:

"After coming in contact with a religious man, I always feel that I must wash my hands."
- Friedrich Nietzsche


All I can say is consider the source.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
WilliB wrote:

These two are fairly well off, so they were able to afford the lawyers fees for second-parent adoptions, living trusts, joint mortgates, etc. etc, that married people can get for free as a matter of course.

EXCUSE ME????

"GET FOR FREE AS A MATTER OF COURSE?"


FYI for the clueless: My husband and I paid thousands for an adoption, thousands for our estate planning, and plenty more for our mortgage.

Would you please let me know where my husband and I missed our free handout. Because I want some of that!

Then there was a Moslem friend of my husband who just attended the birth of his child in the hospital. Now everyone knows that the mother was his second wife, but in good old America you can have a child with your girlfriend, but not your second wife, so that's how it goes down in the records.

For what it's worth, I don't believe most birth certificates record whether you were married to the mother or not. Your Muslim friend will be held accountable financially and legally for that child just as if he were legally married to the mother. He is still a parent, even if he is not legally married.

Laws should deal with reality, not dream states.

That will be a bit difficult to do with so many people walking around in their own little "dream states."

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Spongbob
How can you honestly believe that countries like Denmark and Norway have so much better lifestyles than we do? Obviously you don't or you would be living there.

mapletree7
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I HAVE lived there, and enjoyed it very much.

Actually maple, you completely missed what Spong said. Please show some courtesy, and also realize that while we are all "right" in our own heads, sometimes we aren't.

-gapper

(p.s.- Just for clarification, Spong said "you would be living there", you said you "Have lived there" in reply, showing that Spong is in fact correct, and you are wrong.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

Actually maple, you completely missed what Spong said. Please show some courtesy


Dear gapper,

Thanks for ignoring my post except to point out an instance where you thought I lacked courtesy. I will take this as an indication that you disagree with me, but couldn't some up with anything substantial to say.

A) You are wrong, I understand his intent completely, I just think it's stupid.

B) I don't care to be courteous.

Regards,

mapletree7
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

The only quibble with your post I might have regarding your enjoyment of living in Denmark, et al, would be that it seems they live on meats and starches--I guess that's not too significant in the whole scheme of things.


Don't forget the fishies. Nothing like pickled herring on rye bread - to a Dane. You know there's actually a traditional breakfast dish called 'beer oatmeal'? Three guesses what it is....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
mapletree,

You don't care to be courteous, lose the "regards", it's not genuine.

The point still is, you insulted an individual, and you were wrong (Your contention is that he misunderstood you, when in reality, you were the one mistaken.).
Going to admit it?

-gapper
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<It is time not just for Christians, but for all decent people in America to stop trying to rescue the Left and the decadent...it is time we let them sink and spend more time securing our OWN households from the ever growing threat of Liberalism and the social decay it brings.

Jedi>>


Since the vast majority of people in this country claim to be christians I think you should blaim the social decay where it belongs on the churches. Most peoples religion is an empty shell, simply a garment they put on on sunday morning. The decay start at the churches and creaps into society. If the churches are alive the life from those churches also permiates the community around it.

Amen. However the real question is if the liberalism is how the decay starts in the churches?

Governments are to maintain order and laws so that we may live in peace.

This too is correct, however the question again is if liberalism has caused the laws to be passed by the government to be less than optimal?

The social decay is our fault. If we had a light to shine the community would be able to see it.
Even Sodom and Gomorrah could have been saved if 10 rightious men had been there. If there had been 10 rightious men in Noahs time maybe there would not have been a flood.


I think the flood example may be stretching things but setting that aside, we again come to a question about liberalism and righteousness. Which side of the conservative/liberalism debate would be advocating to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, "God is a God of love and you really do not need to worry about showing your love towards each other in various fashions?"

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Previous post went through before complete:

<<It is time not just for Christians, but for all decent people in America to stop trying to rescue the Left and the decadent...it is time we let them sink and spend more time securing our OWN households from the ever growing threat of Liberalism and the social decay it brings.

Jedi>>


Since the vast majority of people in this country claim to be christians I think you should blaim the social decay where it belongs on the churches. Most peoples religion is an empty shell, simply a garment they put on on sunday morning. The decay start at the churches and creaps into society. If the churches are alive the life from those churches also permiates the community around it.

Amen. However the real question is if the liberalism is how the decay starts in the churches?

Governments are to maintain order and laws so that we may live in peace.

This too is correct, however the question again is if liberalism has caused the laws to be passed by the government to be less than optimal?

The social decay is our fault. If we had a light to shine the community would be able to see it.
Even Sodom and Gomorrah could have been saved if 10 rightious men had been there. If there had been 10 rightious men in Noahs time maybe there would not have been a flood.


I think the flood example may be stretching things but setting that aside, we again come to a question about liberalism and righteousness. Which side of the conservative/liberalism debate would be advocating to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, "God is a God of love and you really do not need to worry about showing your love towards each other in various fashions?"

I know that he political right's propaganda tends to blame liberalism for all our social ills, but propaganda is frequently a tool of those who do not know the Truth, whether it is used by the christian right or the christian left.

Use of the term propaganda seems to imply that you disagree that liberalism is a main tool used by those who promote social decay. I would disagree that it is propoganda and say that it is mainly a fact. However the problem is that those in the "Christian" right tend to also be liberal when they wish to be and money can be made off of it.

I believe a Christian can be a liberal or a conservative and still effect his community for Christ.

I agree here, just like a person does not have to be perfect to be used by God, (giving hope to us all). However that I do not see this as a get out of jail for free card for those "preaching" liberalism. The further that you deviate from God' word (this is also seen when one wishes to divorce various passages away from the immediate context and the entire context of Bible as a whole), the worse society will be.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
"marriage is a contract. A freakin' contract!!" Not to me. Not to a lot of people. To those who view marriage as (your words) a 'freakin contract' they have only themselves to blame--they've reduced it to such.


i'm a new lurker on this particular board, and maybe a short-lived one after skimming this thread. the hatefulness that this issue seems to bring out in people isn't wholly surprising; but the fact that it comes out on the "christian" board is. to me, anyway.

i'm a heterosexual, raised in a conservative christian home...and so raised to believe, unquestioningly, that homosexuality is wrong. despite the best efforts of my less conservative friends, boyfriend, and other people whose opinions i respect, something deep down inside me still tells me that it IS wrong. i don't know why, exactly, i continue to believe homosexuality is a sin while i've so easily discarded other prohibitions in the old testament; call it instinct. call it misguided, if you're on that side of the fence. it may be; i'm not god, and so i don't have all the answers. at least i admit that, unlike some of the more confident and yet hateful posters here.

imo, well-written arguments in favor of gay marriage have not been widely countered by well-written arguments against it; most con arguments seem to start with "god said so" and end with "so that's the way it is" (and don't have much inbetween) -- ignoring the fact that such arguments only work well when you're preaching to the choir and are not at all compelling to anyone else in the country. even as a christian, i question the argument as valid *for the issue at hand* -- which is NOT "should we all agree that god was just kidding about homosexuality being wrong?" but rather "should we recognize a particular type of legal contract (which very unfortunately comes along with some cultural baggage involving love/sex/morality)?"

someone will always inevitably bring up the slippery slope arguments: well, what about incest? what about polygamy? what about bestiality? surely we can all agree that these are very wrong; so what's the difference?? if we legalize gay marriage, then before you know it...(fill in the blanks from here). barring the last example (the difference there should be obvious) and any involvement of minors, i actually would agree that there's not a lot of difference; and maybe that legal unions between siblings or legal unions between multiple parties SHOULD be considered right along with legal unions between gays. more on this in a moment.

as someone sanely pointed out here, this country is not "owned" by christians and never has been. but since those in power for the last few hundred years have been predominantly christian, some christian ideas and conventions have gotten muddled up in with the law. i think it would have been wiser had marriage, as we know it, stayed a religious institution rather than a legal one. the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution between a man and a woman...that is something that i view as desirable and in keeping with (what i think is) god's law. wouldn't it have been cleaner, and more in keeping with the seperations of church and state, if a marriage could be complemented by a legal institution of some other name and wholly different, supplemental purpose, which is something that i believe ought to be available to all consenting adults. why should romance/love/sex/norms have any bearing on a legal contract?? think about what it is that gays really want...the right to make decisions as a full partner (such as in the situation of incapacitation)...the right to inherit property...equal rights to custody of children raised together...etc. LEGAL rights, not spiritual rights -- what in the world does sexual orientation have to do with any of this? what's at the heart of the issue is an adult's right to choose a partner to work through life with; and i guess i think that people should have that right. i personally believe that homosexuality is a sin; but i don't think that sin should be an issue for the courts...not in this world, anyway -- it's an issue for a higher court, and thankfully none of us have to be judges for that one.

back to civil unions. i have an aunt (A1) who has a health condition, which in itself is not relevent except that it is probably the reason that she has never dated or married. i don't want to go into what the condition is; but it is disfiguring. there are times when the condition also is very painful; and so she has never held a steady job that i'm aware of, because she isn't always able to work. i have another aunt (A2), her sister, who is a professional as well as a single mother. she makes a decent living, nothing extravagant but sufficient. the two sisters have always lived together, and A2 is the only one who has ever worked. one might look at A1's role in the household as that of a stay-at-home mom (for her niece). she cooks, and does most of the housework, and all of the things one would imagine a wife to do; but sex is not part of the picture, obviously. they've done this for more than 30 years, and they seem very happy. if A2 were to pass away, i believe her will is set up so that A1 is taken care of financially; and because they are sisters, maybe there won't be a problem. who knows. in any case, i think there should be a way for my aunts to set up a legal union where they have the same key rights as spouses. it isn't, and shouldn't be, a "marriage"; but it is a valid committed arrangement that they have, and it works for them.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
one more thing that i didn't make apparent enough in my post a minute ago: *i* believe, based on what i was brought up to believe and what my instinct still tells me, that homosexuality is a sin. i also believe that a whole buncha' other things are sins: lying, cheating, spitefulness, laziness, adultery, pride, etc, etc, etc.

i've never been a homosexual, and i'm not married so am clean on the adultery count too; but i have, on a zillion different occasions, been a liar, cheater, lazy (oh boy have i been lazy!), etc. i don't think that the bible, even read in the most literal terms, supports a hierarchy of sins. [some might want to argue that the seven deadly sins are the "most" serious; and perhaps this is true...but i don't remember homosexuality being among them. anyway, my position is that if there is a hierarchy, only god knows about it.]

and so i don't think that people who identify themselves as homosxual are "abnormal" people, have cooties, or deserve the nastiness they seem to be a magnet for. they are quite normal people who have made a choice that i disagree with, and that i wouldn't probably make for myself based on what i believe. anyone who interprets my statements as gay-bashing on ANY level is mistaken; and i thought this might be worth clarifying.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
MadCapitalist quoted:

"After coming in contact with a religious man, I always feel that I must wash my hands."
- Friedrich Nietzsche


All I can say is consider the source.


I did. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't really know much about Nietzsche. He is often misunderstood, probably because his philosophy is often associated with Hitler and the Nazis, who perverted some of his ideas.

Here are some other great Nietzsche quotes.

Friedrich Nietzsche:

1) "He who knows how to breathe in the air of my writings is conscious that it is the air of the heights, that it is bracing. A man must be built for it; otherwise it will kill him."

2) "He is commanded who cannot obey himself. To command is more difficult than to obey. And not only that, the commander beareth the burden of all who obey, and that this burden easily crusheth him -- an effort and a jeopardy appeared to me contained in all commanding, and wherever living things command they risk themselves."

3) "Our destiny exercises its influence over us even when, as yet, we have not learned its nature; it is our future that lays down the law of our today."

4) "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman -- a rope over an abyss."

5) "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."

6) "The sick are the greatest danger for the healthy; it is not from the strongest that harm comes to the strong, but from the weakest."

7) "After coming in contact with a religious man, I always feel that I must wash my hands."

8) "The superman is an ideal to which men of the higher natural ranks could approximate more and more, and in ever increasing numbers, if only the rest of humanity did not try to tyrannize over them, and keep them down to their own level."

9) "The superman does the right thing spontaneously, not because of any commands dictated to him by others. With the ordinary man it is different. He is largely, if not wholly, dependent on the opinion and example of others."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<I agree here, just like a person does not have to be perfect to be used by God, (giving hope to us all). However that I do not see this as a get out of jail for free card for those "preaching" liberalism. The further that you deviate from God' word (this is also seen when one wishes to divorce various passages away from the immediate context and the entire context of Bible as a whole), the worse society will be.

CT >>

I agree except that I would add that "preaching conservatism" is just as wrong. I think the preaching should focus on Jesus Christ and Him crucified and His rightiousness, an how HE enabled us to share in His life.
I have yet seen a church that needed to stay the way it is, everyone I have seen should have been better. Every Christian too.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1


Nietzsche:"God is dead"
God :"Is that you again Freddy,now be a good failed philosopher
and put some more coals on the fire down there!!"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As Christians we have no one to blame but ourselves for the failings of “optimal” laws not being passed.

As Christians we have no one to blame but ourselves for the social decay we see in our churches and society.

He made us fishers of men, He asked us to go forth in His name. We are failing Him and we are failing ourselves by projecting the blame for what are really our own shortcomings, on to others.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
MadCapitalist wrote:

I did. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't really know much about Nietzsche.

Well, I guess you'll be surprised then. I not only know something about Nietzsche, I've read some of his books.

He contradicts himself just about every other paragraph. It was pure torture.

He was, quite literally as it turned out, nuts.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
umphy quipped:

Nietzsche:"God is dead"

God: "Nietzche is dead"

:)

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As Christians we have no one to blame but ourselves for the failings of “optimal” laws not being passed.

As Christians we have no one to blame but ourselves for the social decay we see in our churches and society.

He made us fishers of men, He asked us to go forth in His name. We are failing Him and we are failing ourselves by projecting the blame for what are really our own shortcomings, on to others.


I am not sure if you actually read my post or just skimmed it. The point was not that Christians deserve a pass and can just blame all ills on the heathen. (We cannot expect those in darkness to do what it right.) The issue is why have Christians in general failed? Is it because they have listened to those liberal Christians and those liberal outside of the church, or if they have listened to those conservative inside and outside of the church?

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<I agree here, just like a person does not have to be perfect to be used by God, (giving hope to us all). However that I do not see this as a get out of jail for free card for those "preaching" liberalism. The further that you deviate from God' word (this is also seen when one wishes to divorce various passages away from the immediate context and the entire context of Bible as a whole), the worse society will be.

CT >>


I agree except that I would add that "preaching conservatism" is just as wrong. I think the preaching should focus on Jesus Christ and Him crucified and His rightiousness, an how HE enabled us to share in His life.
I have yet seen a church that needed to stay the way it is, everyone I have seen should have been better. Every Christian too.


The issue is what does the Bible preach? If it preaches conservatism, then preaching liberalism is wrong, and if it preaches liberalism than preaching conservatism is wrong.

One thing that is for sure is that Jesus did not preach some sort of neutral system where as long as you do not stand for anything then everything is fine and dandy.

I also think that we should preach the "entire" Bible for the entire Bible is inspired by God and useful for teaching and correction and for every good work. If God had only wanted us to live by the words of Jesus and to ignore the teachings of others such as Paul, then He would have had the old testament thrown out, (Didnt happen Matthew 5:17-19) and He would have made sure that only Jesus' direct words were canonized.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The point still is, you insulted an individual, and you were wrong (Your contention is that he misunderstood you, when in reality, you were the one mistaken.).
Going to admit it?


Look, deleted for content, you are incorrect. I did NOT misunderstand him, and the only problem here is that YOU are too stupid to realize that my response to his thesis (paraphrased 'if you liked it so much you would live there') was contained in the SECOND sentence of my answer beginning 'As a patriotic American ....' Feel free to go review the material.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The issue is why have Christians in general failed?

Fear of rejection.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
SpongBob,

(bold mine) "How can you honestly believe that countries like Denmark and Norway have so much better lifestyles than we do? Obviously you don't or you would be living there".

In other words, what you're saying is that you believe:

"You value, therefore you have. If you do not have, you don't really value."

There's so much wrong with that. For reasons that have entirely nothing to do with this thread, I value and appreciate life at the ocean--it's laid back, I relax and it's easier for me to keep my priorities in line and remember what life is really for. I don't live at the ocean, however. Does that mean I don't really value what that lifestyle offers? Of course it doesn't--but going by the logic you're trying to level at mapletree, it would. And it just isn't true.

"you don't or you would be living there" That doesn't follow. How about reasons such as family obligations, employment obligations, spousal obligations, finances? Any one of these could prevent someone--mapletree included--from still being over there. However, that doesn't prevent her or anyone else for that matter from bringing back what she's learned and observed and trying to apply it here.

Pam

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I did NOT misunderstand him, and the only problem here is that YOU are too stupid...

And people wonder why I love the Left?

mapletree7, I would like for you to begin working right now for the DNC, call McAullife.

-gapper
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
However, that doesn't prevent her or anyone else for that matter from bringing back what she's learned and observed and trying to apply it here.

Pam


You are so right on this point. The only things that will stop her are Christians who know what the Bible has to say and do not back down when called names.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
SMApple writes (in part) (emphasis added):

I hope our contry does not become complicit in supporting those sins that we, as a Christian country have worked so long to protect from the future generations who inherit this section of land we have established.

I reply:

On most other boards, I'd take issue with much of what you have to say here. Here, I'll limit myself to a single point. We are not "a Christian country." We are, in fact, self-consciously not a Christian country. See, e.g., U.S. Const., amend. I. We are deliberately and determinedly a secular country. I myself am not Christian, and I will fight with all the skill and passion I possess to prevent us from ever becoming a Christian country.

Our strength derives in large part from our pluralistic nature as a people. Characterizing us as "a Christian country" is a frank danger to that strength. --Bob
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
And people wonder why I love the Left?
mapletree7, I would like for you to begin working right now for the DNC, call McAullife.


Are you under the impression that you've come out of this exchange looking good?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are you under the impression that you've come out of this exchange looking good?

Sorry for the disruption, I've enjoyed it.

-gapper
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<The issue is why have Christians in general failed? Is it because they have listened to those liberal Christians and those liberal outside of the church, or if they have listened to those conservative inside and outside of the church?>>

Because neither the liberal Christians nor the conservative Christians listen to God enough.

Many conservatives ignore this passage:
Galatians 5:22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit

Many liberals ignore this one:
16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Those Christians that try to divide the church along political lines are ignoring both. If we create dissensions and factions then we are no better than those who engage in sexual immorality, impurity, or debauchery. I know Christ minded individuals that live by the spirit, some are conservative, some are liberal. It matters not. I know some homsexuals that are liberal some who are conservative.
Liberal and Conservative labels have nothing to do with rightiousness in Christ Jesus.




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Those Christians that try to divide the church along political lines are ignoring both. If we create dissensions and factions then we are no better than those who engage in sexual immorality, impurity, or debauchery.

You are so right, we are to divide the church along Biblical lines and not political ones, following the example of Paul.

I know Christ minded individuals that live by the spirit, some are conservative, some are liberal.

I hope you mean liberal on some issue and conservative on others, because the law of non contradiction holds with us and what God tells us.

It matters not.

I wont go that far.

I know some homsexuals that are liberal some who are conservative.

Actually the homosexuals will be liberal on some issues and conservative on others, outside of being homosexual, for them living the homosexual lifestyle is inherently non conservative with respect to the Bible.

But as long as you hold that homosexuality is wrong, we can let the label stuff go.

Liberal and Conservative labels have nothing to do with rightiousness in Christ Jesus.

This is correct, the Bible defines righteousness, not labels.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
FYI for the clueless: My husband and I paid thousands for an adoption, thousands for our estate planning, and plenty more for our mortgage.


You had to hire a lawyer and pay him thousands to buy a house as joint tentants of the entirety? You had to adopt your own children? You had to set up a special will to inherit your husband's property and be able to visit him in the hospital?

Let me know what state you live in, because I don't want to move there accidentally.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
WilliB wrote:

You had to hire a lawyer and pay him thousands to buy a house as joint tentants of the entirety?

CA does not have tenants by the entirety. Most states don't. Further, title to property does not necessarily default to the best way property should pass. Something more than mere title is required. That's why my law firm has so many clients - the vast majority of them married heterosexuals.

You had to adopt your own children?

Yes. We did. Lots of people do it. It's rarely free.

You had to set up a special will to inherit your husband's property and be able to visit him in the hospital?

Given that all of my husband's property is not mine, yes. Given that an estate worth over $100K (i.e., home ownership) requires that you go through probate, something more than a will was required That's the way it is for most people.

As for visiting someone in the hospital, no one really cares about that - it's a red herring.

If you're talking about medical treatment, yes, we both have an Advanced Health Care Directive. That cost $5/each. There are things that even a spouse can't decide if it's not in writing beforehand.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
As for visiting someone in the hospital, no one really cares about that - it's a red herring.

Umm, no. It isn't. I have to deal with this issue every day as an ICU RN. Believe me, to turn away people from the bed of someone on life support who isn't expected to live til the end of the day because they aren't approved to be there by the "next of kin" is one of the trickier parts of my job. That's why I left, BTW. Got sick of dealing with screaming, ranting relatives, & the complications of family dynamics. Believe me, there are some vindictive people in this world.

Primm
*stepping down off my soapbox*
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I have to deal with this issue every day as an ICU RN. Believe me, to turn away people from the bed of someone on life support who isn't expected to live til the end of the day because they aren't approved to be there by the "next of kin" is one of the trickier parts of my job. That's why I left, BTW. Got sick of dealing with screaming, ranting relatives, & the complications of family dynamics. Believe me, there are some vindictive people in this world.

Yeah, but it is much easier to marginalize someone by stating, that one of the most important reasons homosexuals desire same sex marriage or legal representation of their union, is really just a red herring.

In other words, homosexuals really don't want to be able to take care of their spouses during times of medical emergencies.... they are just using it as a ploy to get sympathy from weak-kneed liberals and compassionate conservatives.

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Primm69 wrote:

Umm, no. It isn't. I have to deal with this issue every day as an ICU RN.

Your profile says you live in Australia. It may be an issue there for all I know. I wasn't talking about Australia.

I live in California. I have never seen this be an issue here. Particularly since the tightening up of laws regarding health care powers several years ago. The laws in this state were changed to provide for some incredibly stiff penalties if the hospital refuses to honor a health care power.

The hospitals hand them out for free when someone is admitted. You can download them from the CMA's website for a minimal fee. If you don't want to pay the fee, you can copy one right out of the Probate Code for free. Most attorneys use either one of these. It's not rocket science - the form is very easy to fill out. It is widely available.

If a homosexual signs one of these simple forms ahead of time, it's not going to make a bit of difference what the next of kin think.

And as I said earlier, there are some decisions that even a spouse cannot make without one of these.

I work in the estate planning area. ALL of our married heterosexual clients have one of these. Obviously, if being married was the sure fire solution to this issue, none of this would be needed. That is not the case.

Gay marriage is not the answer to this issue. Signing a durable power of attorney for health care and/or advance health care directive AHEAD OF TIME is.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Cliff wrote:

Yeah, but it is much easier to marginalize someone by stating, that one of the most important reasons homosexuals desire same sex marriage or legal representation of their union, is really just a red herring.

There is no need to marginalize anyone. I have no beef if one homosexual wants to take care of his/her partner. S/he doesn't need marriage to do that. It's just that simple.

This is a red herring.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Cliff wrote:

In other words, homosexuals ... are just using it as a ploy to get sympathy from weak-kneed liberals and compassionate conservatives.

Exactly right.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
There is no need to marginalize anyone. I have no beef if one homosexual wants to take care of his/her partner. S/he doesn't need marriage to do that. It's just that simple.

This is a red herring.


No, it is not. It is one of the most important issues in this whole debate.... yet you do continue to marginalize it. Forget medical decisions for a moment. Try and get in the door of a ICU unit by stating that you are a 'partner' of the injured party. Try it when the family of the injured party doesn't want you around, because you are a homosexual.... because they don't approve of your 'ungodly' relationship. A civil union or marriage would alleviate this problem.... permanently.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Cliff wrote:

A civil union or marriage would alleviate this problem.... permanently.

A durable power of attorney for health care would alleviate the problem. Permanently.

Gay marriage is not necessary.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
A durable power of attorney for health care would alleviate the problem. Permanently.

Gay marriage is not necessary.


Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary.

Of course, I think I see your stance now. As a lawyer, this would encroach on your ability to extract "a pound of flesh" for payment. It's not really the gay marriage thing is it? It's the money. I guess all those lawyer jokes have a bit of truth to them.

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
A durable power of attorney for health care would alleviate the problem. Permanently.

Gay marriage is not necessary.


Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary.

Of course, I think I see your stance now. As a lawyer, this would encroach on your ability to extract "a pound of flesh" for payment. It's not really the gay marriage thing is it? It's the money. I guess all those lawyer jokes have a bit of truth to them.

cliff


Cliff,
I get it now, when various people advocate gay marriage or civil union by saying that they want such people to be able to visit the other in the hospital if one is sick, actually should be saying they want "another option" in order to have same sex partners visit each other in the hospital, for they already have a perfectly valid and permanent option now.

Thanks for clearing it up.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your profile says you live in Australia. It may be an issue there for all I know. I wasn't talking about Australia.

Neither was I. I spent 2 years working in Phoenix, and my experiences there were the same as here. Although Arizona law may work dramatically differently than Californian, I doubt it.

I live in California. I have never seen this be an issue here. Particularly since the tightening up of laws regarding health care powers several years ago. The laws in this state were changed to provide for some incredibly stiff penalties if the hospital refuses to honor a health care power.

Actually, the enaction of the HIPAA legislation was part of the problem, from a health care providers point of view.

Prior to that we had discretion about who to allow access to the patient. The honouring of advanced health care directives etc. is not the issue. The problem is that a lot of people don't have them. And we are the bunnies on the front line who have to deal with a mother by the patients bed who is screaming "Don't let that homo near my son!" about someone who has been sharing his life with their son for 10 years or more. With no all-encompassing legislation, and in the absence of an AHD, we are not legally allowed to let the partner visit the patient. Might not be the intent of the law, but that's how it works in the real world.

Mind you, health care workers are pretty compasionate beings in general, & many a time the partner received a phone call in the wee hours of the morning saying "mum's gone home to have a sleep. You can come in now". Might not be legal, but sorry, it happens.

The hospitals hand them out for free when someone is admitted. You can download them from the CMA's website for a minimal fee. If you don't want to pay the fee, you can copy one right out of the Probate Code for free. Most attorneys use either one of these. It's not rocket science - the form is very easy to fill out. It is widely available.

Doesn't mean they get filled in. It's called apathy.

If a homosexual signs one of these simple forms ahead of time, it's not going to make a bit of difference what the next of kin think.

And as I said earlier, there are some decisions that even a spouse cannot make without one of these.

I work in the estate planning area. ALL of our married heterosexual clients have one of these. Obviously, if being married was the sure fire solution to this issue, none of this would be needed. That is not the case.


I'm very glad you encourage your clients to fill in AHD's. Makes my job a lot easier! Seriously, if everyone had one, there would not be a problem. So thanks for that.

The issue I see sometimes though is when mum is notified about sons admission, because she's the only NOK listed on some antiquated admission form from when son had his tonsils out 25 years ago, but then doesn't tell us about partner or the existance of AHD. We can't honour something we don't know exists. And mum certainly doesn't ring sons lawyer - not in her best interests now, is it?

Gay marriage is not the answer to this issue. Signing a durable power of attorney for health care and/or advance health care directive AHEAD OF TIME is.

I absolutely agree about the PofA (note to self: agreeing with a lawyer = time to check into the asylum! Make sure it doesn't happen again) :-) However realistically this is never going to happen for everyone. So why not allow a "default" position, where anyone who is married, straight OR gay, is automatically granted NOK rights? Seems to be the easiest solution, IMHO.

Primm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I get it now, when various people advocate gay marriage or civil union by saying that they want such people to be able to visit the other in the hospital if one is sick, actually should be saying they want "another option" in order to have same sex partners visit each other in the hospital, for they already have a perfectly valid and permanent option now.

Thanks for clearing it up.


Your get very good at this disingenous thing. Not exactly CT, they don't want 'another option', they just want the same option that is available to other married couples. I certainly don't have to visit a lawyer to ensure I can visit my spouse in the ICU, even if my in-laws were to discover what a calloused, obnoxious ass I have become.

But, you already knew that, didn't you?

;^)
cliff

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Cliff wrote:

Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary.

Of course, I think I see your stance now. As a lawyer, this would encroach on your ability to extract "a pound of flesh" for payment. It's not really the gay marriage thing is it? It's the money. I guess all those lawyer jokes have a bit of truth to them.


Dude, you're really funny. You really are. You just crack me up! LOL!! :)

You want to replace something that's free with something that costs a bunch of money.

Considering that I used to do pro bono estate planning - which included wills and other legal instruments aside from an advance health care directive - for gay people who were dying of AIDS, your comments are pathetically off base.

Which appears to be par for the course.

And just in case you don't know your Latin either, "pro bono [publico]" means for the good of the people, i.e. free.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Gay marriage is not necessary.


Yes it is. There are a lot of benefits to marriage besides hospital visitation.
http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/benefits.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
http://www.gay.com/families/article.html?sernum=4&navpath=/channels/families/commitment
(link to nolo.com that was REALLY long) http://tinyurl.com/39rlm

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1409
EXCERPT:After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, many LGBT partners were left out of the programs set up to provide a safety net for surviving spouses and other family members. When Bill Randolph lost Wesley Mercer, his partner of 26 years, he realized how vulnerable their relationship was because gay people cannot legally marry. Now, with Lambda Legal's help, he's fighting for the financial support that was given automatically to surviving spouses.

Marriage offers basic protection for many families in everyday life. When Alicia Heath-Toby needed surgery, her partner Saundra Toby-Heath took time off from work to care for her. But they had to worry about medical bills -- Alicia had no insurance and couldn't be covered under Saundra's plan since the couple wasn't married. Making matters worse, Saundra's employer wouldn't give her family leave because her relationship to Alicia is not legally recognized.

Being married often helps couples in times of emergency. Robert Daniel was on a cross-country drive with his partner Bill Flanigan when he became sick and had to be rushed to the hospital. Initially the hospital refused to allow Bill to be with Robert because they were not "family." By the time the hospital relented, Robert was in a coma. Robert died without regaining consciousness. Because the hospital would not recognize their relationship, Bill and Robert never said goodbye. Robert spent his last waking hours alone.




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Primm69 wrote:

Neither was I. I spent 2 years working in Phoenix, and my experiences there were the same as here. Although Arizona law may work dramatically differently than Californian, I doubt it.

California law often does works differently than in other states. We almost never take the uniform code without substantial modifications.

Actually, the enaction of the HIPAA legislation was part of the problem, from a health care providers point of view.

That did add a lot of complexity.

The problem is that a lot of people don't have them.

That's not really my problem, is it? It's certainly not a reason to support gay marriage. Not when there's already an alternative there that is available.

I'm very glad you encourage your clients to fill in AHD's. Makes my job a lot easier! Seriously, if everyone had one, there would not be a problem. So thanks for that.

You're welcome! I've passed so many of these things out for free, I can't even begin to tell you.

The issue I see sometimes though is when mum is notified about sons admission, because she's the only NOK listed on some antiquated admission form from when son had his tonsils out 25 years ago, but then doesn't tell us about partner or the existance of AHD. We can't honour something we don't know exists. And mum certainly doesn't ring sons lawyer - not in her best interests now, is it?

Don't know how long ago you worked here, but every hospital that I've been to here has now as part of its admission procedure having people fill one of these out. They didn't used to do this, but they are doing it now for the past several years. That may be the change that was caused by HIPAA. Before you even get to that admission appointment, they also tell you to bring in the one you already have, if that's the case.

I don't know if you have thought about this but gay marriage will simply reverse the scenario above. It will allow partner to exclude the gay person's family from visiting. So I don't think this will solve the problem of interpersonal relations that you have had to deal with. It will only put the shoe on the other foot. You'll just be calling different people at midnight.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
F2Q wrote:

Yes it is. There are a lot of benefits to marriage besides hospital visitation.

A sad situation to be sure. My friend's officemate was in the same position. Her fiance of two weeks was killed.

Nevertheless, marriage isn't just about benefits. And those benefits are not conferred gratis. Society intends to get something out of the bargain - the next generation. Something that homosexual couples can not offer.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Nevertheless, marriage isn't just about benefits. And those benefits are not conferred gratis. Society intends to get something out of the bargain - the next generation.

So would you be in favor of denying marriage benefits to infertile couples, couples that choose not to have children, or couples past their childbearing years?

And then by your logic, if a gay couple has children, shouldn't they be allowed to marry since they're holding up their end of the bargain WRT the next generation?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
California law often does works differently than in other states. We almost never take the uniform code without substantial modifications.

Really? Oh, my sympathies to the interpreters such as yourself then.

Don't know how long ago you worked here, but every hospital that I've been to here has now as part of its admission procedure having people fill one of these out. They didn't used to do this, but they are doing it now for the past several years. That may be the change that was caused by HIPAA. Before you even get to that admission appointment, they also tell you to bring in the one you already have, if that's the case.

I was there in 98/99, and we didn't have them at the hospital I worked at then. But that still doesn't change my scenario, assuming junior was injured and comes in unconscious. Takes a lot of work on our part to even FIND a next of kin in that case, let alone get them to fill in a form. And how many parents (if that's the person we find is the NOK) actually know things like who their child is insured with? My mum wouldn't.

I don't know if you have thought about this but gay marriage will simply reverse the scenario above. It will allow partner to exclude the gay person's family from visiting. So I don't think this will solve the problem of interpersonal relations that you have had to deal with. It will only put the shoe on the other foot. You'll just be calling different people at midnight.

I hadn't thought about that. You're right. But then what's the problem? It is what I have to go through with straight married people - and with straights, it certainly makes the legal standpoint a lot easier, from my perspective. So maybe I'm being selfish in wanting to make my job easier, but if everyone had the same rights etc, I wouldn't be so stressed!

Primm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Of course, I think I see your stance now. As a lawyer, this would encroach on your ability to extract "a pound of flesh" for payment. It's not really the gay marriage thing is it? It's the money. I guess all those lawyer jokes have a bit of truth to them."

Cheap shot alert. Just a few messages earlier CCSand wrote:

The hospitals hand them out for free when someone is admitted. You can download them from the CMA's website for a minimal fee. If you don't want to pay the fee, you can copy one right out of the Probate Code for free. Most attorneys use either one of these. It's not rocket science - the form is very easy to fill out. It is widely available.

Yup, that really sounds like CCSand is trying to protect her "pound of flesh" Talk about red herrings!! I guess if that is all you can come up with, cliff, it shows the paucity of your position.

God bless,

Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
F2Q asked:

So would you be in favor of denying marriage benefits to infertile couples,...

The possibility of adoption still exists, as in our case.

...couples that choose not to have children,...

Accidents have been known to happen. Frequently.

...or couples past their childbearing years?

Couples past their childbearing years often already have children.

And then by your logic, if a gay couple has children, shouldn't they be allowed to marry since they're holding up their end of the bargain WRT the next generation?

Gay couples don't have children. It's physically impossible. Someone not in that partnership is a parent, whether they have legal rights or not.

I do not think gay people should be allowed to adopt children. If a gay person has a child, that's one thing. But adoption does not put that child in an ideal situation and it should be discouraged. Especially with so many other heterosexual couples ready to adopt.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
And then by your logic, if a gay couple has children, shouldn't they be allowed to marry since they're holding up their end of the bargain WRT the next generation?

Gay couples don't have children. It's physically impossible. Someone not in that partnership is a parent, whether they have legal rights or not.


So infertile heterosexual couples that adopt don't actually have children since they can't physically have them? What about heterosexual couples that have children with the help of donor sperm or donor eggs? Are they (the heterosexual couple) not really the child's parents since "Someone not in that partnership is a parent, whether they have legal rights or not?"

And you never actually answered my question: "So would you be in favor of denying marriage benefits to infertile couples, couples that choose not to have children, or couples past their childbearing years?" A simple Yes or No will be sufficent.





Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Yup, that really sounds like CCSand is trying to protect her "pound of flesh" Talk about red herrings!! I guess if that is all you can come up with, cliff, it shows the paucity of your position.

Glad to see hear your opinion on 'paucity' of my position. However, you did not address the actual point of the post.

Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary.


The point being that filling out extra documents is not always necessary for hetero couples. It should not be necessary for homosexual couples, either. Its a rather simple point. Don't you think it rather strange that many folks keep sidestepping it?

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You had to adopt your own children?

Yes. We did. Lots of people do it. It's rarely free.


Sorry, I realize you must have had special circumstances--but it is hard for me to imagine a case in which married people have to adopt the children that were born to them while they were married. Now you really have my curiousity up--but I realize that it is none of my business.

As for visiting someone in the hospital, no one really cares about that - it's a red herring.

I can assure you that it is a very real concern who can visit, especially when there are hostile relatives involved.

Anyhow, you've certainly convinced me that I don't want to live in California.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
F2Q wrote:

So infertile heterosexual couples that adopt don't actually have children since they can't physically have them?

You only quoted part of what I wrote. The rest of what I wrote had to do with putting children with a homosexual couple which is a less than ideal situation.

What about heterosexual couples that have children with the help of donor sperm or donor eggs? Are they (the heterosexual couple) not really the child's parents since "Someone not in that partnership is a parent, whether they have legal rights or not?"

That's a very complex issue that I'm not going to address here. There are a multitude of possibilities all with different legal consequences.

A simple Yes or No will be sufficent.

No, it wouldn't be sufficient. And yes, I did answer the question.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cliff missed the point again:

The point being that filling out extra documents is not always necessary for hetero couples. It should not be necessary for homosexual couples, either. Its a rather simple point. Don't you think it rather strange that many folks keep sidestepping it?

Cliff, if a durable power of attorney is so unnecessary, why do nearly all of our married heterosexual clients have one?

Answer: It's not unnecessary or "extra" even if you're married.

Conclusion: If gay people get married, they are still going to need one of these documents.

So why not just get one of these documents and have done with it? It's a heck of a lot simpler to fill one of these out than it is to get married.

This really has nothing to do with gay marriage.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
WilliB wrote:

Sorry, I realize you must have had special circumstances--but it is hard for me to imagine a case in which married people have to adopt the children that were born to them while they were married. Now you really have my curiousity up--but I realize that it is none of my business.

Yes, you're right. It's none of your business. ;)

Anyhow, you've certainly convinced me that I don't want to live in California.

Suit yourself. Fill out a simple form, available for between $0 and $5 and you can have anyone you want visit you.

If a person doesn't do that, it's really not my problem. It's theirs.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Conclusion: If gay people get married, they are still going to need one of these documents.

So why not just get one of these documents and have done with it? It's a heck of a lot simpler to fill one of these out than it is to get married.

This really has nothing to do with gay marriage.


It has everything to do with gay marriage. Not everything related to medical issues, including hospital visitation, requires a power of attorney. I havn't required one as of yet when I have visited or stayed with my spouse in the hospital.

Why do you keep sidestepping the issue? Basic rights of hetero couples are being denied to homosexual couples. Civil unions or marriage would solve this inequity.

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Cliff wrote:

Why do you keep sidestepping the issue? Basic rights of hetero couples are being denied to homosexual couples. Civil unions or marriage would solve this inequity.

I'm not sidestepping the issue. I'm against gay marriage. I'm also against gay adoption. You can characterize it as sidestepping all you want, but since I don't share your false assumptions about the nature of homosexual people or about the intent of the law, something which I am trained in, therefore I will draw different conclusions.

It's not an equal protection issue. A gay man is as free to marry a woman as a straight man. He doesn't want to? That's not my problem. The law is not discriminatory. It treats all men and women equally.

What homosexuals want is to be treated as a group. Well, fine. If they want to be treated as a group, then I think it's fair to look at the characteristics of said group. A higher tendency to domestic violence. A much higher propensity to pedophilia. A lack of monogamy. I've read the studies and the critiques of the studies. This is just not a good situation for children.

There is no REASON why I or anyone else should treat as the same, that which isn't.

A durable power of attorney will solve the issue you claim is a problem. Gay marriage is unnecessary.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yup, that really sounds like CCSand is trying to protect her "pound of flesh" Talk about red herrings!! I guess if that is all you can come up with, cliff, it shows the paucity of your position.

Glad to see hear your opinion on 'paucity' of my position. However, you did not address the actual point of the post.

That is because you refuse to come right out and say it.

Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary.


The point being that filling out extra documents is not always necessary for hetero couples. It should not be necessary for homosexual couples, either. Its a rather simple point. Don't you think it rather strange that many folks keep sidestepping it?

cliff


See that didnt hurt did it. You have been trying to say its about seeing the sick partner. It all about having to do extra because the relationship is not considered legit. God defined what marriage is. Any deviations from God's given definition marriage is immoral and unacceptable. You have tried to sidestep this core issue by putting up red herrings. It is great that you finally came forward. No one was ever going to shoot you for saying that you had a problem with God and his definitions. Now that everything is out in the open, we can properly draw battle lines. Those with God and those who are against Him.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"However, you did not address the actual point of the post."

No, I addressed the exact point of your post, which was impugning CCSand's motives.

God bless,

Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
No, I addressed the exact point of your post, which was impugning CCSand's motives.

you're still dancing around it..... at least CCsand made an effort.

Let's try again:
Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary.


It solves the inequity. Does it not?

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary."

The fact that the "problem" has a solution that is considerably less involved than marriage or civil union amply demonstrates that this whole issue is merely a pretext. You have not addressed CCSand's point that even married heterosexuals need to have durable PoA's in order to ensure they can do everything that might be necessary. Which, of course, means that even if we had gay marriage gay people would need durable PoA's. So if the motive is to avoid having to do PoA's, marriage, whether hetero or gay, is not the solution. It is a pretext.

I note that you have neither retracted nor apologized for your comments impugning CCSand's motives.

God bless,

Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You have not addressed CCSand's point that even married heterosexuals need to have durable PoA's in order to ensure they can do everything that might be necessary. Which, of course, means that even if we had gay marriage gay people would need durable PoA's.

I don't think that you are intentionally obfuscating.... but IMHO, you are. The Power of Attorneys serve a purpose, but they are not needed in all circumstances by hetero couples....... an example of which I provided earlier. It is an apples to apples comparison. It is not a pretext.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"The Power of Attorneys serve a purpose, but they are not needed in all circumstances by hetero couples....... an example of which I provided earlier. It is an apples to apples comparison. It is not a pretext."

I'll avoid any gratuitous insults and just respond to your point.

So what if some things don't need a PoA. If you wait until one of those things that *Do* require a PoA to occur it is probably too late to execute one. Not having one because some things don't require it is, to say the least, shortsighted. Some people may be foolish enough to not have one and trust that they won't encounter one of those circumstances that require one, but intelligent people, both hetero and gay, will do the smart thing and have one. And if a married couple is not smart, the fact of their marriage will not help them if one of those situations arise.

So yes, it is a pretext.

And once again I note that you have not retracted nor apologized for impugning CCSand's motives.

God bless,

Rich
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary.

It solves the inequity. Does it not?


I bet it takes longer to apply for a marriage license than it does to print out a durable power of attorney. That means a durable power of attorney would probably be cheaper and faster. A marriage license wouldn't be necessary.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Like I said, Gay marriage or a civil union would alleviate this issue permanently.

A durable power of attorney would not be necessary.

It solves the inequity. Does it not?


I bet it takes longer to apply for a marriage license than it does to print out a durable power of attorney. That means a durable power of attorney would probably be cheaper and faster. A marriage license wouldn't be necessary.

And no need to change the law.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cliff wrote:

It solves the inequity. Does it not?

In order to solve an inequity, two things would have to be the same.

They aren't.

Therefore, there is no inequity.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Cliff wrote:

I don't think that you are intentionally obfuscating.... but IMHO, you are. The Power of Attorneys serve a purpose, but they are not needed in all circumstances by hetero couples....

Where did you say you went to law school? I mean it's nice that you have an opinion and all, but I sure wouldn't want someone to depend on it.

It's so interesting that you feel that DPOA's are unnecessary, while nearly all of our married heterosexual couples have them. In fact, when we do a review of a couple's estate planning, we look for the existence of one of these forms and, if they don't already have one, make sure that they know they should. There aren't any situations in which we recommend that a couple goes without.

What you want is to take a form that costs between $0-$5 and replace that with marriage or a civil union that are costly to get into and even more costly to get out of. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Of course, this is also brought to us by the people who say they want gay marriage so that they too can be subject to the marriage penalty.

It's a pretext. It's also putting the cart before the horse.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I bet it takes longer to apply for a marriage license than it does to print out a durable power of attorney. That means a durable power of attorney would probably be cheaper and faster. A marriage license wouldn't be necessary.

Again, the point is that a married hetero couple does not need the durable POA for all situations. They have basic rights that the homosexual couple does not? Giving these rights to homosexual couples through marriage or civil union solves the inequity.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And no need to change the law.

Throughout history, laws have changed. This may be one of those instances where it should be changed.

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
It's so interesting that you feel that DPOA's are unnecessary, while nearly all of our married heterosexual couples have them.

As a percentage of the married population in the United States, how many couples have a Durable Power of Attorney? I don't find DPOA's unnecessary, that is your statement, not mine. The DPOA is not necessary in all cases..... people have managed to slog by through the generations without having one. You don't magically get basic marriage rights by filling out the form. The basic rights are there before you sign the POA.

What you want is to take a form that costs between $0-$5 and replace that with marriage or a civil union that are costly to get into and even more costly to get out of. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

That's because you're not the one who has been denied basic rights of marriage. The homosexual couples want the basic rights that society grants hetero couples through marriage. It is an inequity. It would be solved by a civil union that would bestow rights not limited to what we are discussing (just the medical aspects). It is a very fair solution and costs nothing to society.

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Again, the point is that a married hetero couple does not need the durable POA for all situations. They have basic rights that the homosexual couple does not? Giving these rights to homosexual couples through marriage or civil union solves the inequity.

Why would I want to do that? Bestow equal rights on amoral behavior?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cliff wrote:

That's because you're not the one who has been denied basic rights of marriage. The homosexual couples want the basic rights that society grants hetero couples through marriage. It is an inequity.

Homosexuals have the exact same right to get married that heterosexuals do. There is no inequity. There is nothing to solve. It isn't fair to have this jammed down the throats of society without a vote and/or when the majority of society has already voted against it. It will have both monetary and non-monetary costs to society, the worst cost being what will happen to our children.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Homosexuals have the exact same right to get married that heterosexuals do. There is no inequity. There is nothing to solve. It isn't fair to have this jammed down the throats of society without a vote and/or when the majority of society has already voted against it. It will have both monetary and non-monetary costs to society, the worst cost being what will happen to our children.

But couldn't one use precisely the same logic to outlaw marriages by any minority? Suppose the nonsmoking majority passed a law banning smokers from getting married. One could argue that smokers can stop smoking at any time and therefore get married, hence there is no inequity in rights. One could argue that it isn't fair for the nonsmoking majority to have smokers rights "jammed down the throats of society". The economic cost to society of smoking is well-documented and there is a valid argument to be made that children raised in a smoking environment incur a cost to their health. Afterall, we already ban smokers from planes and restaurants for health reasons.

Do you believe nonsmokers have the right to prevent smokers from getting married? If no, how is the basis for that belief different from that of a ban against homosexual marriage?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
CCSand:

<<<<Yes it is. There are a lot of benefits to marriage besides hospital visitation.>>>>

"A sad situation to be sure. My friend's officemate was in the same position. Her fiance of two weeks was killed.

Nevertheless, marriage isn't just about benefits. And those benefits are not conferred gratis. Society intends to get something out of the bargain - the next generation. Something that homosexual couples can not offer."


What BS!

That statement might be credible if the intended had to prove pregnancy (or even live birth) before getting married.

No male/female couple needs to prove desire to have children, let alone fertility, in order to marry. Therefore, IMNSHO, the OP is simply rationalizing her discrimination against same-sex couples.

JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Fallout2Queen: "And you never actually answered my question: "So would you be in favor of denying marriage benefits to infertile couples, couples that choose not to have children, or couples past their childbearing years?" A simple Yes or No will be sufficent."

Do not hold your breath; I doubt you will ever see an answer. A consistent answer would expose the hypocrisy of the underlying position. An inconsistent answer would expose the discriminatory rationale of the underlying position.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Coralville,

I do not think your analogy has helped your cause but may instead have weakened it.

The rights of smokers are being restricted more and more all the time, and there are no city mayors violating the law to make sure that smokers are getting the same rights as non-smokers. In fact, it seems to be open season on smokers in a lot of ways. True, there are no marriage restrictions on them, but there are other restictions. They can't fly in airplanes for example. Oh sure, they can give up their smoking (at least for the duration of the flight) and board the plane, but they cannot "practice" their smoking while on the airplane.

We discriminate against them all the time.

Ron
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
coralville:

<<<<Homosexuals have the exact same right to get married that heterosexuals do. There is no inequity. There is nothing to solve. It isn't fair to have this jammed down the throats of society without a vote and/or when the majority of society has already voted against it. It will have both monetary and non-monetary costs to society, the worst cost being what will happen to our children.>>>>

"But couldn't one use precisely the same logic to outlaw marriages by any minority?"

No need to ask hypothetically. Go read the arguments against inter-racial dating and in favor of the anti-miscegnation laws, and you would see that the arguments are the same.

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
We discriminate against them all the time.

Because the consensus medical and scientific opinion is that there is a clear negative cost of smoking to society. Even so, we still allow smokers to marry, a recognition that marriage represents a fundamental human right different from flying in an airplane.

But the question is still unanswered, if the majority wanted to extend that discrimination to marriage, would that be okay with you? If not, how is the argument different from gay marriage?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We discriminate against them all the time.


Because the consensus medical and scientific opinion is that there is a clear negative cost of smoking to society. Even so, we still allow smokers to marry, a recognition that marriage represents a fundamental human right different from flying in an airplane.

But the question is still unanswered, if the majority wanted to extend that discrimination to marriage, would that be okay with you? If not, how is the argument different from gay marriage?


The argument is different because one has biblical support and one doesn't.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Now that everything is out in the open, we can properly draw battle lines. Those with God and those who are against Him.>>

CT,
Are you saying that I oppose God because I am in favor of civil unions?
L

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Now that everything is out in the open, we can properly draw battle lines. Those with God and those who are against Him.>>



CT,
Are you saying that I oppose God because I am in favor of civil unions?
L


Basically. The Bible opposes homosexual activity period, so I think it is fair to say it also opposes the gaining of "rights" on the basis of this illegal/immoral activity.

CT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"No, I addressed the exact point of your post, which was impugning CCSand's motives."

Still dodging the point that homosexual couples have to jump through extra hoops (no matter how small or cheap) that heterosexual married people do not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cliff wrote:

But couldn't one use precisely the same logic to outlaw marriages by any minority?

No, because that would be a racial classification, not a gender classification.

Do you believe nonsmokers have the right to prevent smokers from getting married?

I believe that if people want to pass such a law, they should do it through the legislature so that the people can vote accordingly. I do not think such legislation should come from the bench.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
JAFO wrote:

That statement might be credible if the intended had to prove pregnancy (or even live birth) before getting married.

The possibility exists innately with heterosexual couples. It does not with homosexual couples.

With respect to your allegation of discrimination, the constitution does not prohibit all discrimination. It only prohibits certain kinds of discrimination. Aside from those constitutional provisions, we are free to discriminate in all kinds of things, including the choosing of one job over another, the purchase of one house over another, the choosing of one's spouse over another. We are also allowed to make laws for the good of society and to prefer any one thing to another.

The power to discriminate is the power to choose. It's called freedom. Apparently, you think that freedom is a bad thing. You appear to think that we should not be allowed to make choices based on the available evidence.

I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against with respect to housing and jobs (except those jobs connected with religious institutions). They have to live and work and eat just like anyone else. I don't think they should be murdered just because they're homosexuals. They have the same right to life that anyone else does.

I do, however, believe that there are valid reasons to discriminate against homosexuals with respect to marriage, family and the raising of children.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
JAFO wrote

Go read the arguments against inter-racial dating and in favor of the anti-miscegnation laws, and you would see that the arguments are the same.

Except that they aren't the same because the current laws don't classify on the basis of homosexuality or race.

I've read them. Not even the US Supreme Court agrees with you.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cliff wrote:

Coralville probably would take offense to that.

Twas not I that wrote it.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I do not think your analogy has helped your cause but may instead have weakened it.

The rights of smokers are being restricted more and more all the time, and there are no city mayors violating the law to make sure that smokers are getting the same rights as non-smokers. In fact, it seems to be open season on smokers in a lot of ways. True, there are no marriage restrictions on them, but there are other restictions. They can't fly in airplanes for example. Oh sure, they can give up their smoking (at least for the duration of the flight) and board the plane, but they cannot "practice" their smoking while on the airplane.

We discriminate against them all the time.


Actually, given your scenario, the analogy becomes even more valid.

No-one is saying smokers can't smoke in the privacy of their own homes. And smokers are free to marry either other smokers or non-smokers, it's a question of personal freedom.

And I'm pretty sure that two homosexuals who had sex on a plane in public view (which is what some people here seem to think they want to do!) would be asked to stop and thrown off at the next possible opportunity. Same as someone who lit up in a plane.

But no-one's stopping smokers from getting married. The smoker on the plane analogy becomes the same as a homosexual on a plane refraining from having sex - not an unreasonable request, given the closeness of aeroplane seats!

Primm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
CCSand:

JAFO wrote: <<<<That statement might be credible if the intended had to prove pregnancy (or even live birth) before getting married.>>>>

"The possibility exists innately with heterosexual couples. It does not with homosexual couples."

I said prove it; not for some possibility. You are ignoring my words to suit your argument. If the law were as you suggested, then it would be easy to say that no male/female could marry unless she was pregnant with his child (easy to prove with amnio) or had born his child (ditto), depending upon which condition you intended, and until that time they cannot marry. The law, so far as I know, had never said or required, that sort of proof, therefor I suggest your argument is specious. Possibility is not reality.

"With respect to your allegation of discrimination, the constitution does not prohibit all discrimination. It only prohibits certain kinds of discrimination. Aside from those constitutional provisions, we are free to discriminate in all kinds of things, including the choosing of one job over another, the purchase of one house over another, the choosing of one's spouse over another. We are also allowed to make laws for the good of society and to prefer any one thing to another.

The power to discriminate is the power to choose. It's called freedom. Apparently, you think that freedom is a bad thing."


Nice try attempting to put words in my mouth.

You appear to think that we should not be allowed to make choices based on the available evidence."

For comse things, it does not matter how much evidence your produce, discrimination would still not be allowed.

"I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against with respect to housing and jobs (except those jobs connected with religious institutions). They have to live and work and eat just like anyone else. I don't think they should be murdered just because they're homosexuals. They have the same right to life that anyone else does."

That is a good start. Now if "same right to life" included the right to marry their loved one, it would truly be the same.

"I do, however, believe that there are valid reasons to discriminate against homosexuals with respect to marriage, family and the raising of children."

I will omit, for the moment, the arguments WRT to raising of children, but I suggest that you have not offered any valid reasons for discriminating WRT to marriage. The "whole possibility of having children" is a make weight, as I demonstrated above. You require no evidence of a live child (or even a current pregnancy) before allowing non-homosexuals to marry.

JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
CCSand:

JAFO wrote <<<<Go read the arguments against inter-racial dating and in favor of the anti-miscegnation laws, and you would see that the arguments are the same.>>>>

"Except that they aren't the same because the current laws don't classify on the basis of homosexuality or race."

They do classify on gender, and gender discrimination requires more than a rationale bases (heightened scrutiny).

JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The power to discriminate is the power to choose. It's called freedom. Apparently, you think that freedom is a bad thing. You appear to think that we should not be allowed to make choices based on the available evidence.

I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against with respect to housing and jobs (except those jobs connected with religious institutions). They have to live and work and eat just like anyone else. I don't think they should be murdered just because they're homosexuals. They have the same right to life that anyone else does.

I do, however, believe that there are valid reasons to discriminate against homosexuals with respect to marriage, family and the raising of children.

So you're OK with them as long as they know their place?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
JAFO wrote:

I said prove it; not for some possibility. You are ignoring my words to suit your argument.

No, I'm ignoring them because they don't make any sense. Accidents happen whether people intend not to get pregnant or not. Accidents aren't going to happen with homosexual couples. Not in a million years.

Possibility is not reality.

Unfortunately, I learned in my family law practice that possibility often becomes reality, whether or not people are ready for it.

Nice try attempting to put words in my mouth.

I didn't have to try. It is the logical conclusion to what you have said. The failure to make distinctions leads to a lack of freedom. Why do you think the great experiment of Communism/Marxism ended up the way it did? Or are you so unfamiliar with the political and philosophical ideologies that underpinned that system?

That is a good start. Now if "same right to life" included the right to marry their loved one, it would truly be the same.

The right to life is not equivalent to a "right to love." Words either have their intended meaning or they mean nothing at all. I'm talking about life as in life and death. You're talking about something else.

I will omit, for the moment, the arguments WRT to raising of children, but I suggest that you have not offered any valid reasons for discriminating WRT to marriage. The "whole possibility of having children" is a make weight, as I demonstrated above.

Actually, you've demonstrated nothing. And frankly, there isn't a darn thing you could say that would change my mind. Five years of a family law practice tells me all that I need to know about heterosexual couples and unintended children.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
JAFO wrote:

They do classify on gender, and gender discrimination requires more than a rationale bases (heightened scrutiny).

And gender classifications with respect to marriage have always been upheld. Further the inter-racial marriage cases cite a statute that involved a racial classification (strict scrutiny). Not solely a gender classification.

They are not the same.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
F2Q wrote:

So you're OK with them as long as they know their place?

I'm OK with them as long as they don't force a minority viewpoint down the majority's throat via judicial fiat.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Five years of a family law practice tells me all that I need to know about heterosexual couples and unintended children.

Another argument in favour of homosexual marriage - HOMOSEXUALS CAN NEVER HAVE UNWANTED CHILDREN.

Seems to be a point for gay marriage, rather than against. Whadda you reckon?

Primm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
CCSand:

JAFO wrote: <<<<I said prove it; not for some possibility. You are ignoring my words to suit your argument.>>>>

"No, I'm ignoring them because they don't make any sense."

You are ignoring them because you want to ignore them.

"Accidents happen whether people intend not to get pregnant or not."

So when the "accident" happens, then the couple marries.

"Accidents aren't going to happen with homosexual couples. Not in a million years."

And accifents will not happen for some subset of the heterosxual population, but you still let marry. Why?

<<<Possibility is not reality.>>>

"Unfortunately, I learned in my family law practice that possibility often becomes reality, whether or not people are ready for it."

So why not deal with it when it becomes reality?

<<<<Nice try attempting to put words in my mouth.>>>>

"I didn't have to try. It is the logical conclusion to what you have said. The failure to make distinctions leads to a lack of freedom."

Does that mean that you beleive the US Constitution is wrong? The Fair Housing Act?

I doubt that you really want to suggest that all discrimination should be allowed?

"Why do you think the great experiment of Communism/Marxism ended up the way it did? Or are you so unfamiliar with the political and philosophical ideologies that underpinned that system?"

Human nature/greed; read Orwell. No.

<<<<That is a good start. Now if "same right to life" included the right to marry their loved one, it would truly be the same.>>>>

"The right to life is not equivalent to a "right to love." Words either have their intended meaning or they mean nothing at all. I'm talking about life as in life and death. You're talking about something else."

You are taking a very narrow reading; certainly narrower than the USSC and its fundamental rights. By your standard the UD government could, like China, license births and limit the size of a family, and it would not affect the right to life of the couple.

"And frankly, there isn't a darn thing you could say that would change my mind."

Why do you even bother to participate on this topic if you mind is so closed?

JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
JAFO wrote:

So when the "accident" happens, then the couple marries.

When the "accident" happens, they will have other things on their mind besides a wedding. As anyone who's had children would know.

So why not deal with it when it becomes reality?

I spent five years dealing with that reality after the fact. It doesn't work.

Does that mean that you beleive the US Constitution is wrong? The Fair Housing Act?

Both of which have the support of the majority of the electorate. That's democracy. In contrast to the present situation.

Human nature/greed; read Orwell. No.

Now you're changing the subject. The subject is how forced "equality" leads to complete lack of freedom, such as happened in a communist state. Such forced equality always amounts to "All pigs are equal. But some are more equal than others." You wind up with a corrupt overclass that has all the power and a powerless and repressed underclass. So much for equality.

Been there. Done that. The world got the t-shirt. Much to its everlasting chagrin.

You are taking a very narrow reading; certainly narrower than the USSC and its fundamental rights.

If memory serves, the USSCt has not found a fundamental right to homosexual sex.

Why do you even bother to participate on this topic if you mind is so closed?

I could ask you the same question. Here's how I would answer it:

For all those other people who, IMO, just don't get it. :)

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
CCSand:


"As anyone who's had children would know."

What makes you assume that I do not have children? Or that I do not know people that have children?

<<<"So why not deal with it when it becomes reality?">>>

"I spent five years dealing with that reality after the fact. It doesn't work."

Never? And marrying first always works, right?

CCS in prior post: {{{"Why do you think the great experiment of Communism/Marxism ended up the way it did? Or are you so unfamiliar with the political and philosophical ideologies that underpinned that system?"}}}

JAFO: <<<<Human nature/greed; read Orwell. No.>>>>

"Now you're changing the subject."

I respond to your direct question and I am changing the subject? You have a peculiar posting style.

"The subject is how forced "equality" leads to complete lack of freedom, such as happened in a communist state. Such forced equality always amounts to "All pigs are equal. But some are more equal than others." You wind up with a corrupt overclass that has all the power and a powerless and repressed underclass. So much for equality."

It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but somehow I doubt your intending that.

<<<<You are taking a very narrow reading; certainly narrower than the USSC and its fundamental rights.>>>>

"If memory serves, the USSCt has not found a fundamental right to homosexual sex."

Last year's case essentially does, but not in so many words. IIRC, Justice Scalia seems to think so, too.

JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
JAFO wrote:

What makes you assume that I do not have children?

I made no such assumption. Someone who has had children would know that when a new child arrives, marriage is the last thing on one's mind. As a relatively new parent, sleep is far more important! :)

Never? And marrying first always works, right?

It clearly works better. Yes. Most of my cases involved people who had the kids first and who either didn't get married or got married way too young only because they already had children. This doesn't work.

I respond to your direct question and I am changing the subject? You have a peculiar posting style.

I'm talking about forced equality and you're talking about greed. If it's peculiar to want to stay on point, so be it.

It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but somehow I doubt your intending that.

If we agree, why do you think that it's a good idea to force everyone to be treated equally when they are not the same?

Last year's case essentially does, but not in so many words. IIRC, Justice Scalia seems to think so, too.

You just read the newspaper articles. You didn't actually read Scalia's dissent, did you?

Though there is discussion of “fundamental proposition[s],” ante, at 4, and “fundamental decisions,” ibid. nowhere does the Court's opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “[R]espondent would have us announce … a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” 478 U.S., at 191. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners' conduct as “an exercise of their liberty”–which it undoubtedly is–and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case. Ante, at 3.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
CCSand:

<<<<What makes you assume that I do not have children?>>>>

"I made no such assumption. Someone who has had children would know that when a new child arrives, marriage is the last thing on one's mind. As a relatively new parent, sleep is far more important! :)"

Most people have months of notice and time to prepare. For most people, the child does not appear without forewarning.

"It clearly works better. Yes. Most of my cases involved people who had the kids first and who either didn't get married or got married way too young only because they already had children. This doesn't work."

While your experienced informs your opinion, have you considered that your experienced skewed so far in one direction that it is no longer representative of the whole? And thus not the only valid experience out there?

<<<<I respond to your direct question and I am changing the subject? You have a peculiar posting style.>>>>

"I'm talking about forced equality and you're talking about greed. If it's peculiar to want to stay on point, so be it."

Your exact question was:
CCS in prior post: {{{"Why do you think the great experiment of Communism/Marxism ended up the way it did? Or are you so unfamiliar with the political and philosophical ideologies that underpinned that system?"}}}

I responded:
JAFO: <<<<Human nature/greed; read Orwell. No.>>>>

Economists talk about the Principle of Non-Satiation - we can never have too much. As a better poet than I sang it: "Poor man wann eb rich, rich man wanne be king, the king ain't satisfied until he rules o'er everything." B. Springsteen

Thus, even in forced equality, some (most?/all?) are unhappy and want more; at least some of those with the power will arrange to make it so. Thus, the equality will likely not last.


<<<It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but somehow I doubt your intending that.>>>

"If we agree, why do you think that it's a good idea to force everyone to be treated equally when they are not the same?"

Does that mean we agree. If we do not agree, I see no reason to respond on this hypothetical.

<<<Last year's case essentially does, but not in so many words. IIRC, Justice Scalia seems to think so, too.>>>

"You just read the newspaper articles. You didn't actually read Scalia's dissent, did you?"

You would guess wrong.

"Though there is discussion of “fundamental proposition[s],” ante, at 4, and “fundamental decisions,” ibid. nowhere does the Court's opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “[R]espondent would have us announce … a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” 478 U.S., at 191. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners' conduct as “an exercise of their liberty”–which it undoubtedly is–and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case. Ante, at 3."

He cannot fathom how the majority could get to where it did without deciding that it was a fundamental right.

"Most of the rest of today's opinion has no relevance to its actual holding . . . ."

"First, however, I address some aspersions that the Court casts upon Bowers' conclusion that homosexual sodomy is not a "fundamental right"--even though, as I have said, the Court does not have the boldness to reverse that conclusion."

"I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence--indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know--that it requires little discussion."

"At the end of its opinion--after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence . . . ."

He is not hiding his disdain for the legal reasoning of the majority opinion. In non-legal terms, he thinks the majority has lost (or maybe temporarily misplaced) its faculties

JAFO






Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
JAFO wrote:

Most people have months of notice and time to prepare.

During which time they are usually quite busy preparing for the arrival of the child, not an impending marriage. As anyone who has children would know.

While your experienced informs your opinion, have you considered that your experienced skewed so far in one direction that it is no longer representative of the whole? And thus not the only valid experience out there?

After that many years in the field of family law and many more years in the estate planning field, it is quite unlikely that my experience is so skewed that it is non-representative of the whole. Different experiences may be valid with respect to the individual, but most people don't go beyond that to seeing the effects on the whole. As a family law attorney, I was in an excellent position to see exactly what the problems are. I've worked in the trenches and I've seen the battle lines up close. Most people haven't.

Your exact question was:
CCS in prior post: {{{"Why do you think the great experiment of Communism/Marxism ended up the way it did? Or are you so unfamiliar with the political and philosophical ideologies that underpinned that system?"}}}


Actually, the entire quote would be more fairly represented:

The failure to make distinctions leads to a lack of freedom. Why do you think the great experiment of Communism/Marxism ended up the way it did? Or are you so unfamiliar with the political and philosophical ideologies that underpinned that system?

You continued:

Thus, even in forced equality, some (most?/all?) are unhappy and want more; at least some of those with the power will arrange to make it so. Thus, the equality will likely not last.

So you're saying that it's okay to repress freedom simply because freedom will win out in the end? So it was okay for Marx and Lenin to start the Communist system that they did, no matter who got hurt or killed, simply because freedom would win out in the end? That's really twisted logic.

He cannot fathom how the majority could get to where it did without deciding that it was a fundamental right.

Exactly. Because the court didn't decide that homosexual sex was a fundamental right. The court is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

He is not hiding his disdain for the legal reasoning of the majority opinion. In non-legal terms, he thinks the majority has lost (or maybe temporarily misplaced) its faculties.

And he would be correct.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
CCSand:

JAFO wrote: <<<<Most people have months of notice and time to prepare.>>>>

"During which time they are usually quite busy preparing for the arrival of the child, not an impending marriage."

Only if the marriage needs to be some grand ceremony with trumpet players, a red carpet, six bridesmaids with specially fitted and ordered gowns, a custom designed "wedding" dress that takes months to complete and huge party immediately afterwords that is hugely expensive.

A small civil ceremony is easy to arrange quickly. A small religous ceremoney is also relatively easy to arrange, but probably takes slightly more time in order to complete mandatory pre-marriage counseling.

<<<<Your exact question was:
CCS in prior post: {{{"Why do you think the great experiment of Communism/Marxism ended up the way it did? Or are you so unfamiliar with the political and philosophical ideologies that underpinned that system?"}}}

Actually, the entire quote would be more fairly represented:

The failure to make distinctions leads to a lack of freedom. Why do you think the great experiment of Communism/Marxism ended up the way it did? Or are you so unfamiliar with the political and philosophical ideologies that underpinned that system?

Thus, even in forced equality, some (most?/all?) are unhappy and want more; at least some of those with the power will arrange to make it so. Thus, the equality will likely not last.>>>>

"So you're saying that it's okay to repress freedom simply because freedom will win out in the end?"

Not even close, but I am finding redressing of your misunderstandings tiresome, so I simply answered.

<<<<He cannot fathom how the majority could get to where it did without deciding that it was a fundamental right.>>>>

"Exactly. Because the court didn't decide that homosexual sex was a fundamental right. The court is talking out of both sides of its mouth."

<<<<He is not hiding his disdain for the legal reasoning of the majority opinion. In non-legal terms, he thinks the majority has lost (or maybe temporarily misplaced) its faculties.>>>>

"And he would be correct."

So apparently you agree with my original statement that:

'Last year's case essentially does [find a fundamental right to homosexual sex], but not in so many words. IIRC, Justice Scalia seems to think so, too.'

JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
JAFO wrote:

So apparently you agree with my original statement that:

'Last year's case essentially does [find a fundamental right to homosexual sex], but not in so many words. IIRC, Justice Scalia seems to think so, too.'


No, I do not agree. Scalia is saying that the Court didn't find a fundamental right to homosexual sex, and yet analyzed the case as if it were. He is saying the court is talking out of both sides of his mouth and he is exactly right. Either it's a fundamental right or it isn't. Which is it? And what law can the Supreme Court cite other than their own opinion which says that homosexual sex is a fundamental right?

They can't. So the only way they could force this minority viewpoint on an unsuspecting public is to twist and distort the legal reasoning used to support their decision.

It's pathetic. And it's dishonest in the extreme. They have made a mockery of the law and in doing so, they have created a lack of respect for the institution of the Supreme Court and the law in general.

CCSand
Print the post Back To Top