I never got the impression that Whitey followed all TWI doctrine, I've seen him argue against some of it. He has been a vociferous opponent of those who spotlight the sins of TWI's founder, and has expressed doubt about some of the stories appearing here. Maybe that's what threw you.
i wonder if bumpy is sitting in a little cafe on the coast in riec sur belon... :~)
peace,
jen-o
I'm shacked up with someone right now, so I can only give the weather report. Roland Garros (which my uncle won in 1939 in straight sets over Bobby Riggs) will continue to have weather related problems! <_<
Other than that, we are still trying to corner the oyster market, but keeping one eye out for that former star Oakie linebacker and his gay friend Gear at the Riec port!
Roland Garros (which my uncle won in 1939 in straight sets over Bobby Riggs)
Other than that, we are still trying to corner the oyster market, but keeping one eye out for that former star Oakie linebacker and his gay friend Gear at the Riec port!
WOW ... so Uncle Don is famous ... pretty cool ... but does that mean you are an Okie?
I'm shacked up with someone right now, so I can only give the weather report. Roland Garros (which my uncle won in 1939 in straight sets over Bobby Riggs) will continue to have weather related problems! <_<
Oh I see how it is...invite me to a threesome....
Other than that, we are still trying to corner the oyster market, but keeping one eye out for that former star Oakie linebacker and his gay friend Gear at the Riec port!
Don't strain yourself waiting, I don't think the Oakie has enough Euros to be traveling anywhere.
WOW ... so Uncle Don is famous ... pretty cool ... but does that mean you are an Okie?
Thanks for the article Rhino. No, Bump is just a Toon, never even been to Oklahoma. Sure would like to go there though, and also to Kansas and visit some folks. :)
But at the moment, the Lord has done called me to the Finistere, to minister(e) to all the nice locals and make sure that the oysters, wine and seafood are not going to waste!
(And to recuperate from the latest African project).
(although i still would like to hear one anti-twi thought straight from the horse's mouth)
i have only been posting since march...
and have not seen "whitey" (heehee) disagree with anything about twi...
is it accurate to say that he accepts the bulk of twi doctrine and thought?
Oakman does not speak with forked tongue. Whitedove think plenty doctrine, like teepee with hole in it....all wet.
Dove think,Jeno been watching too much Mr. Ed TV, Whitedoves horse not speak about TWI, only say Winnie....
But since you asked nice here are a couple from my mouth..... Believing and Tithing.
Again I'll point out you seem to want to title doctrine by group, I don't, it is either scriptural or not. Much of what you term way doctrine wrongly (because it was not theirs to begin with) came by way of other sources and has no conflict with scripture.
still, whitedove sauntered on to this thread insinuating that i make insinuations about him...
and trying to make the thread about HIM...
(i have seen him do that on other threads)
in any case, i have no need to insinuate anything about him;
my disagreements with him are OPEN and DIRECT and FOCUSED on the doctrine he states...
(for an example of this, see wolves & shepherds discussion)
Actually I pointed out that you made the case to two other posters that quote:
and i hope that you are not attempting to discredit me by insinuating that i engage in twi-like thinking...
(that would not be an honest approach to disagreement either)
You make the point that it is not honest approach to disagreement, to attempt to discredit someone by insinuating that they engage in twi-like thinking, and yet that is exactly what you have insinuated concerning me on numerous occasions. Wrongly of course as Oakspear pointed out.
now, back to our regularly scheduled program...
or has this thread been thoroughly hijacked now?
i wonder if bumpy is sitting in a little cafe on the coast in riec sur belon... :~)
I never got the impression that Whitey followed all TWI doctrine, I've seen him argue against some of it. He has been a vociferous opponent of those who spotlight the sins of TWI's founder, and has expressed doubt about some of the stories appearing here. Maybe that's what threw you.
Actually I don't object to the spotlight, but it's the three cases of bulbs that we have gone through. I wonder if it is not light overkill? This spotlight seems to have turned into a permanent fixture. And in regard to stories I simply said that they are not documentable, that makes them neither true or false for me, I don't accept things as truth without some fact or proof to substantiate the case. I have seen the results of such foolish actions, and they are less than attractive.
You make the point that it is not honest approach to disagreement, to attempt to discredit someone by insinuating that they engage in twi-like thinking, and yet that is exactly what you have insinuated concerning me on numerous occasions
whitedove, where have i done this?
perhaps you need to get out your trust dictionary and look up the word "insinuate"...
no where have i subtly hinted anything about you...
my communication with you has been quite upfront and direct...
perhaps a little too direct for your liking...
but it's the opposite of "insinuation" which connotes a subtle hint...
It pyzzes me off to no end when gays, and their liberal flunkies, love to equate the cramming of gay acceptance down Americas' throat with the civil rights struggle of the 60's. Sorry; no comparison, no matter how you sugar coat it. Blacks wanted equal access & opportunity in the United States; to my knowledge I have not seen a single restuarant with a sign saying "No Gays Allowed", no public areas posted "Straights Only", heard of a "Jim Crow" law passed against gays or gays forced to sit in the rear of any public transportation. Gays, plain & simple, want ACCEPTANCE by mainstream America of a abhorrent, vile lifestyle THEY chose (yeah, born gay...no more than a person is born a F-22 pilot, nurse, or contractor!).
HOWEVER, if they REALLY want to compare themselves to blacks, they first have to go through +400 years of oppression, violence, & institutionalized genocide. THEN & only then they can don the banner of struggle that the black man does. Period. Can you look at a person & tell he's gay? For the most part, no. But one look at me & it's obvious I'm black; no flaunting necessary. But gays want you to know they're gay, happily accept it, & make provision (health care, certain rights, special laws) in this country to cater just for them. Forget it.
Besides, didn't God cover all this? And the people of California said no to this.
No one is forcing anything down your throat, Weout. You can still hold all the exact same opinions that you always have. Your church would continue to be able to make it's own decisions on who they will and who they will not marry.
What has been going on for a long time is that the heterosexual definition of marriage has been forced upon homosexual couples who love eachother and want the same legal protections and benefits as the rest of us. Including them in the legal definition of marriage will not effect your life or your lifestyle at all. The way it has been to this point has effected the lives of homosexuals, though.
No one needs to compare their struggles to that of black history in our country. Not much will match up. But discrimination is discrimination and inequality is inequality. Women abolitionists identified with slaves even though the comparison was not equal. While we won't find 400 years of overt discrimination to compare to the civil rights movement, we could definitely find incidents going back far longer than 400 years of violent crime and discrimination towards homosexuals. If being gay was as apparent as being black then I would bet we would see a very different history. Homosexuals did not chose to be "in the closet", they didn't have much choice. Only in the last few decades has it been more acceptable socially and more and more gay people have come out. People still hide it from their parents, family, and friends and with good reason.
Your opinion is clear and no one will change that, but your opinion and your god or anyone else's god(s) do not make policy and law in this country, thank goodness.
(yeah, born gay...no more than a person is born a F-22 pilot, nurse, or contractor!)
lol Do you need rigorous training, a degree, license, or certificate program to become gay in your world?
"...and want the same legal protections and benefits as the rest of us."
And just what protections do they not have? Medical decisions for their "partners"? Simple...draw up documentation like the rest of us do (i.e living will, wills, powers of attorney). Say, for example, a relative may share with me their desire to not have heroic life-saving measures used in case of tramatic injury; we can talk about it 'til we turn blue. But unless I can produce something legal that states my relatives' wishes what I say means squat. Again, to my knowledge, there is nothing that prevents gays from doing this.
"lol Do you need rigorous training, a degree, license, or certificate program to become gay in your world?"
No, but it is a choice. Period. If the world forces them "in the closet" then whose fault is it? Most gays will tell you the world; It should change. They (and their perversion) is correct and the world is wrong. Discrimination from a natural trait is one thing; discrimination from a lifestyle choice is something that the practicioner of the lifestyle should consider before they jump in.
"...your god..."
My god (yeah...) "My God" did say love the sinner but hate the sin, but He also created male and female in the Garden and that a man who lies with another man is a abomination. He also said that while we live under grace it doesn't mean we live in sin. What does your god say?
My god (yeah...) "My God" did say love the sinner but hate the sin, but He also created male and female in the Garden and that a man who lies with another man is a abomination. He also said that while we live under grace it doesn't mean we live in sin. What does your god say?
Your god is Mahatma Gandhi? That is who said that. From the Garden bit though I assume you mean the god of the Bible. In that case, your God also said eating shellfish was an abomination, as was wearing clothes of mixed fabric, and letting your women out in public when "aunt Flow" was visiting.
My god, if I have one that I am unaware of, hasn't made themself known to me. So, I don't know what they have to say on the matter. My reason though tells me that as long as shellfish is cooked properly I will be just fine eating shellfish. My sence of style tells me that certain clothes of mixed fabric aren't only perfectly fine to wear but quite comfortable and stylish. Although, lightening should fall from heaven and strike people wearing spandex dead. My television tells me that as long as a woman uses one of any number of products they can walk around during their time of the month without anyone being the wiser. My sense of morality tells me that homosexuals should be able to marry just like the rest of us, no matter what your god or anyone else's god says.
No, but it is a choice. Period. If the world forces them "in the closet" then whose fault is it? Most gays will tell you the world; It should change. They (and their perversion) is correct and the world is wrong. Discrimination from a natural trait is one thing; discrimination from a lifestyle choice is something that the practicioner of the lifestyle should consider before they jump in.
Their choice... your belief not fact necessarily. The garden... your belief not fact necessarily. The abominations... your belief not fact necessarily. Your God... your belief not fact necessarily. Don't force your religious beliefs on others please.
In what way is weouts or anyones life going to be changed if two adults down the block get married?
In what way is weouts life changed if two adults down the block are shooting up heroin?
This is the government taking a moral stance on the issue of whether same sex unions are the equivalent of "normal" marriages. The government represents the people ... and the people have clearly spoken against same sex marriage.
Some are trying to say, they don't get extra benefits, so give it to them anyway ... or some such ... but there are benefits. ..."Alaska's Supreme Court in October ruled that state and local governments must provide the same benefits to employees' same-sex partners that spouses get." for one example ...
I'm actually against any partners getting extra benefits. As a single person, many things are more expensive .. there are already benefits to having a partner, why should I pay more taxes for not having a partner. If one partner makes most of the money, why don't they pay or provide retirement funding for their partner on their own?
I'm actually against any partners getting extra benefits. As a single person, many things are more expensive .. there are already benefits to having a partner, why should I pay more taxes for not having a partner. If one partner makes most of the money, why don't they pay or provide retirement funding for their partner on their own?
thats separate issue--maybe you could bring that up in another thread
In what way is weouts life changed if two adults down the block are shooting up heroin?
Answering a question with a question--you must o been corps!
So getting married is like shooting heroin?
Although Im sure there are a few ( alot ?)of married and divorced people that would agree with you (bad addiction that you cant get away from, costs you everything and oooo...the pain...),
Im not sure I follow your reasoning of marriage=shooting heroin.
What are you suggesting these married gays are gonna do, break in in the middle of the night and rob you?
Has it occurred to anybody that lesbians and gays number among "the People" as well, and where is that representation? The reality is that the People are arguing amongst themselves on this topic: this question is by no means one-sided, and it certainly hasn't been settled. As for equating same sex marriage with heroine use: honestly. If this is an implied reference, which I suspect, to same-sex acts, that's just not part of the marriage question.
On the question of benefits that are sometimes awarded to same-sex couples in some places in lieu of marriage: they are frequently limited in scope. They are by their nature restricted to municipalities, or in some cases they extend to the state level. They never extend to the federal level, and never instantly upon union, unlike heterosexual marriage, with which rights are immediate and inclusive. Never mind those states and municipalities in which the possibility of these benefits are actively prohibited by local or state legislation. A legal mechanism already exists, but existing legislation (in DOMA at the federal level and any number of state-level acts) actively excludes a subset of the citizenry... I don't know that it's fair to impose special categories on people and then blame them for demanding them.
Is it a choice to be lesbian or gay: who cares? Christianity is a choice, but that doesn't make discrimination based on a religious choice right. As for who's to blame if you're gay and in the closet or if you face descrimination, hate speech, violence, et cetera? Well, if you move into a bad neighbourhood, are you to blame if you get stabbed or shot? I guess that you should have thought about that before you moved there. It amazes me that the thought of two people of the same sex kissing enrages some people more than the murder of a lesbian or gay person. Still sure that this is a moral question?
I think that it's simply a question of whether it's ethical or legal to exclude a certain portion of your citizenry from access to the rights and priveleges enjoyed by another portion of the citizenry.
In what way is weouts or anyones life going to be changed if two adults down the block get married?
Their lives wouldn't change, nor would mine.
Homosexuality is a sex act or more precisely, a subset of sex. Communion is a religious act.
Wouldn't it be perverted or wrong for Weout or anyone else who practices communion to attempt to FORCE acceptance of the concept that the wine literally turns to blood and the bread literally turning to flesh on those don't believe that but who otherwise wouldn't care?
This isn't the best example of what I'm getting at since I was rousted out of my morning slumbers with a phone call from someone objecting to my use of the word pervert....and my blood nicotine and caffeine levels aren't up to par, yet.
Tolerance doesn't necessarily mean unconditional acceptance.
People are entitled to their choices, I'll NEVER argue or deny that, but they AREN'T entitled to force their choices on others via the coersive power of the state.
What people do in privacy and who they love is their business and none of anyone elses. It's NOT a "civil rights" issue and it's perverse to make it one.
thats separate issue--maybe you could bring that up in another thread
It is not separate ... it has been discussed here already ... these benefits to marriage. For the non-child portion of this discussion, why should couples be favored over singles?
So getting married is like shooting heroin?
Although Im sure there are a few ( alot ?)of married and divorced people that would agree with you (bad addiction that you cant get away from, costs you everything and oooo...the pain...),
Im not sure I follow your reasoning of marriage=shooting heroin.
What are you suggesting these married gays are gonna do, break in in the middle of the night and rob you?
Sorry if I was too subtle ... my point was simply that the influence of what the couple down the street is doing in their home is not grounds for making this ethical decision. I could have used smoking dope, since many want to legalize that as well. But really the point is many/most laws don't directly influence us ... would we change laws on something more obviously wrong, just because someone down the street is doing it without harm to us? Your justification made no sense to me.
However, if you want to compare the drug community to the homosexual community ... there may be a closer correlation than zero. As has been alluded to, some feel those that live in that sphere are more aberrant in other aspects of their lifestyle ... while there are of course the more average gay lesbian crowds as well. The average gay/lesbian parade may not be representative either. Hopefully the gay couple dads will not be wearing the leather pants with the but cheeks exposed ... at least not to the PTA meetings.
There is an influence in changing the law on marriage, more people getting a favored status by government or business ... I'm more accepting of that when there are children concerned. But then there is also the "promotional" aspect from some teachers or the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" crowd.
The child seems by far the big issue. My position is not against a lesbian couple having a child. Probably children in stable same sex union families should have protections offered to hetero' marriages. Very limited data so far suggest these unions are quite similar to hetero' marriages.
I'm not sure though, that same sex couples that are now raising children are representative of the general population. In light of all the accidental teen or ill prepared pregnancies ... very few homosexual drunken one night stands result in a child ...The unprepared sex act for gays is more likely to end in AIDS than a child, culling that population rather than increasing it.
So it seems the homosexual with child has planned more deliberately, on a percentage basis.
And besides the accidental births, the homosexual couple has greater barriers to overcome to have a child, so their population in studies would be skewed toward those with greater coping/social/whatever skills.
But mostly I don't think laws should be changed against the majority opinion based on activist judges or groups. Even if it seems there is some evidence, there is still a need for the majority to accept, else scientific studies become manufactured by activists or special interests to impose their agenda on the public.
Here is a partial list of some marriage benefits, protections, rights ... from LindyHopper's article ... of interest was that providing these may actually reduce government liability, pushing me toward being more favorable. There is the marriage penalty, plus more obligation for a spouse to provide for a spouse in need, rather than the state, among other things. I'm not positive there is not some political activism in these studies as well ... still it is good to read.
I think many of these benefits can be obtained anyway (eg. power of attorney for health care), but marriage changes the "default" position.
As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified
a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions classified to the
US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
Oakspear
Jen-o:
I never got the impression that Whitey followed all TWI doctrine, I've seen him argue against some of it. He has been a vociferous opponent of those who spotlight the sins of TWI's founder, and has expressed doubt about some of the stories appearing here. Maybe that's what threw you.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
oak,
i stand corrected...
(although i still would like to hear one anti-twi thought straight from the horse's mouth)
i have only been posting since march...
and have not seen "whitey" (heehee) disagree with anything about twi...
is it accurate to say that he accepts the bulk of twi doctrine and thought?
still, whitedove sauntered on to this thread insinuating that i make insinuations about him...
and trying to make the thread about HIM...
(i have seen him do that on other threads)
in any case, i have no need to insinuate anything about him;
my disagreements with him are OPEN and DIRECT and FOCUSED on the doctrine he states...
(for an example of this, see wolves & shepherds discussion)
now, back to our regularly scheduled program...
or has this thread been thoroughly hijacked now?
i wonder if bumpy is sitting in a little cafe on the coast in riec sur belon... :~)
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
I'm shacked up with someone right now, so I can only give the weather report. Roland Garros (which my uncle won in 1939 in straight sets over Bobby Riggs) will continue to have weather related problems! <_<
Other than that, we are still trying to corner the oyster market, but keeping one eye out for that former star Oakie linebacker and his gay friend Gear at the Riec port!
Bump
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
WOW ... so Uncle Don is famous ... pretty cool ... but does that mean you are an Okie?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Oh I see how it is...invite me to a threesome....
Don't strain yourself waiting, I don't think the Oakie has enough Euros to be traveling anywhere.
Edited cuz I stil can't speel!
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Thanks for the article Rhino. No, Bump is just a Toon, never even been to Oklahoma. Sure would like to go there though, and also to Kansas and visit some folks. :)
But at the moment, the Lord has done called me to the Finistere, to minister(e) to all the nice locals and make sure that the oysters, wine and seafood are not going to waste!
(And to recuperate from the latest African project).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Actually I don't object to the spotlight, but it's the three cases of bulbs that we have gone through. I wonder if it is not light overkill? This spotlight seems to have turned into a permanent fixture. And in regard to stories I simply said that they are not documentable, that makes them neither true or false for me, I don't accept things as truth without some fact or proof to substantiate the case. I have seen the results of such foolish actions, and they are less than attractive.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
perhaps you need to get out your trust dictionary and look up the word "insinuate"...
no where have i subtly hinted anything about you...
my communication with you has been quite upfront and direct...
perhaps a little too direct for your liking...
but it's the opposite of "insinuation" which connotes a subtle hint...
check out your dictionary, whitedove...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
you two should get a room! :lol: :lol: :lol: :wub: :wub: :blink: :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weout1200
It pyzzes me off to no end when gays, and their liberal flunkies, love to equate the cramming of gay acceptance down Americas' throat with the civil rights struggle of the 60's. Sorry; no comparison, no matter how you sugar coat it. Blacks wanted equal access & opportunity in the United States; to my knowledge I have not seen a single restuarant with a sign saying "No Gays Allowed", no public areas posted "Straights Only", heard of a "Jim Crow" law passed against gays or gays forced to sit in the rear of any public transportation. Gays, plain & simple, want ACCEPTANCE by mainstream America of a abhorrent, vile lifestyle THEY chose (yeah, born gay...no more than a person is born a F-22 pilot, nurse, or contractor!).
HOWEVER, if they REALLY want to compare themselves to blacks, they first have to go through +400 years of oppression, violence, & institutionalized genocide. THEN & only then they can don the banner of struggle that the black man does. Period. Can you look at a person & tell he's gay? For the most part, no. But one look at me & it's obvious I'm black; no flaunting necessary. But gays want you to know they're gay, happily accept it, & make provision (health care, certain rights, special laws) in this country to cater just for them. Forget it.
Besides, didn't God cover all this? And the people of California said no to this.
Forced acceptance. Plain & simple.
Edited by Weout1200Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
No one is forcing anything down your throat, Weout. You can still hold all the exact same opinions that you always have. Your church would continue to be able to make it's own decisions on who they will and who they will not marry.
What has been going on for a long time is that the heterosexual definition of marriage has been forced upon homosexual couples who love eachother and want the same legal protections and benefits as the rest of us. Including them in the legal definition of marriage will not effect your life or your lifestyle at all. The way it has been to this point has effected the lives of homosexuals, though.
No one needs to compare their struggles to that of black history in our country. Not much will match up. But discrimination is discrimination and inequality is inequality. Women abolitionists identified with slaves even though the comparison was not equal. While we won't find 400 years of overt discrimination to compare to the civil rights movement, we could definitely find incidents going back far longer than 400 years of violent crime and discrimination towards homosexuals. If being gay was as apparent as being black then I would bet we would see a very different history. Homosexuals did not chose to be "in the closet", they didn't have much choice. Only in the last few decades has it been more acceptable socially and more and more gay people have come out. People still hide it from their parents, family, and friends and with good reason.
Your opinion is clear and no one will change that, but your opinion and your god or anyone else's god(s) do not make policy and law in this country, thank goodness.
lol Do you need rigorous training, a degree, license, or certificate program to become gay in your world?
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
Weout1200
"...and want the same legal protections and benefits as the rest of us."
And just what protections do they not have? Medical decisions for their "partners"? Simple...draw up documentation like the rest of us do (i.e living will, wills, powers of attorney). Say, for example, a relative may share with me their desire to not have heroic life-saving measures used in case of tramatic injury; we can talk about it 'til we turn blue. But unless I can produce something legal that states my relatives' wishes what I say means squat. Again, to my knowledge, there is nothing that prevents gays from doing this.
"lol Do you need rigorous training, a degree, license, or certificate program to become gay in your world?"
No, but it is a choice. Period. If the world forces them "in the closet" then whose fault is it? Most gays will tell you the world; It should change. They (and their perversion) is correct and the world is wrong. Discrimination from a natural trait is one thing; discrimination from a lifestyle choice is something that the practicioner of the lifestyle should consider before they jump in.
"...your god..."
My god (yeah...) "My God" did say love the sinner but hate the sin, but He also created male and female in the Garden and that a man who lies with another man is a abomination. He also said that while we live under grace it doesn't mean we live in sin. What does your god say?
Forced acceptence. Plain & simple.
Edited by Weout1200Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
My god, if I have one that I am unaware of, hasn't made themself known to me. So, I don't know what they have to say on the matter. My reason though tells me that as long as shellfish is cooked properly I will be just fine eating shellfish. My sence of style tells me that certain clothes of mixed fabric aren't only perfectly fine to wear but quite comfortable and stylish. Although, lightening should fall from heaven and strike people wearing spandex dead. My television tells me that as long as a woman uses one of any number of products they can walk around during their time of the month without anyone being the wiser. My sense of morality tells me that homosexuals should be able to marry just like the rest of us, no matter what your god or anyone else's god says.
Their choice... your belief not fact necessarily. The garden... your belief not fact necessarily. The abominations... your belief not fact necessarily. Your God... your belief not fact necessarily. Don't force your religious beliefs on others please.
BTW, when did you choose to be heterosexual?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I can't see where Weout or anyone else is forcing their religious beliefs on anyone.
I can see where people like Weout is defending his absolute right to resist having perverts force their lifestyles on them.
Yes, it IS forced acceptance. Plain & simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
??? What???
In what way is weouts or anyones life going to be changed if two adults down the block get married?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
In what way is weouts life changed if two adults down the block are shooting up heroin?
This is the government taking a moral stance on the issue of whether same sex unions are the equivalent of "normal" marriages. The government represents the people ... and the people have clearly spoken against same sex marriage.
Some are trying to say, they don't get extra benefits, so give it to them anyway ... or some such ... but there are benefits. ..."Alaska's Supreme Court in October ruled that state and local governments must provide the same benefits to employees' same-sex partners that spouses get." for one example ...
I'm actually against any partners getting extra benefits. As a single person, many things are more expensive .. there are already benefits to having a partner, why should I pay more taxes for not having a partner. If one partner makes most of the money, why don't they pay or provide retirement funding for their partner on their own?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Mornin Rhino
thats separate issue--maybe you could bring that up in another threadAnswering a question with a question--you must o been corps!
So getting married is like shooting heroin?
Although Im sure there are a few ( alot ?)of married and divorced people that would agree with you (bad addiction that you cant get away from, costs you everything and oooo...the pain...),
Im not sure I follow your reasoning of marriage=shooting heroin.
What are you suggesting these married gays are gonna do, break in in the middle of the night and rob you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cake
Has it occurred to anybody that lesbians and gays number among "the People" as well, and where is that representation? The reality is that the People are arguing amongst themselves on this topic: this question is by no means one-sided, and it certainly hasn't been settled. As for equating same sex marriage with heroine use: honestly. If this is an implied reference, which I suspect, to same-sex acts, that's just not part of the marriage question.
On the question of benefits that are sometimes awarded to same-sex couples in some places in lieu of marriage: they are frequently limited in scope. They are by their nature restricted to municipalities, or in some cases they extend to the state level. They never extend to the federal level, and never instantly upon union, unlike heterosexual marriage, with which rights are immediate and inclusive. Never mind those states and municipalities in which the possibility of these benefits are actively prohibited by local or state legislation. A legal mechanism already exists, but existing legislation (in DOMA at the federal level and any number of state-level acts) actively excludes a subset of the citizenry... I don't know that it's fair to impose special categories on people and then blame them for demanding them.
Is it a choice to be lesbian or gay: who cares? Christianity is a choice, but that doesn't make discrimination based on a religious choice right. As for who's to blame if you're gay and in the closet or if you face descrimination, hate speech, violence, et cetera? Well, if you move into a bad neighbourhood, are you to blame if you get stabbed or shot? I guess that you should have thought about that before you moved there. It amazes me that the thought of two people of the same sex kissing enrages some people more than the murder of a lesbian or gay person. Still sure that this is a moral question?
I think that it's simply a question of whether it's ethical or legal to exclude a certain portion of your citizenry from access to the rights and priveleges enjoyed by another portion of the citizenry.
Edited by cakeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Their lives wouldn't change, nor would mine.
Homosexuality is a sex act or more precisely, a subset of sex. Communion is a religious act.
Wouldn't it be perverted or wrong for Weout or anyone else who practices communion to attempt to FORCE acceptance of the concept that the wine literally turns to blood and the bread literally turning to flesh on those don't believe that but who otherwise wouldn't care?
This isn't the best example of what I'm getting at since I was rousted out of my morning slumbers with a phone call from someone objecting to my use of the word pervert....and my blood nicotine and caffeine levels aren't up to par, yet.
Tolerance doesn't necessarily mean unconditional acceptance.
People are entitled to their choices, I'll NEVER argue or deny that, but they AREN'T entitled to force their choices on others via the coersive power of the state.
What people do in privacy and who they love is their business and none of anyone elses. It's NOT a "civil rights" issue and it's perverse to make it one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
It is not separate ... it has been discussed here already ... these benefits to marriage. For the non-child portion of this discussion, why should couples be favored over singles?
Sorry if I was too subtle ... my point was simply that the influence of what the couple down the street is doing in their home is not grounds for making this ethical decision. I could have used smoking dope, since many want to legalize that as well. But really the point is many/most laws don't directly influence us ... would we change laws on something more obviously wrong, just because someone down the street is doing it without harm to us? Your justification made no sense to me.
However, if you want to compare the drug community to the homosexual community ... there may be a closer correlation than zero. As has been alluded to, some feel those that live in that sphere are more aberrant in other aspects of their lifestyle ... while there are of course the more average gay lesbian crowds as well. The average gay/lesbian parade may not be representative either. Hopefully the gay couple dads will not be wearing the leather pants with the but cheeks exposed ... at least not to the PTA meetings.
There is an influence in changing the law on marriage, more people getting a favored status by government or business ... I'm more accepting of that when there are children concerned. But then there is also the "promotional" aspect from some teachers or the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" crowd.
The child seems by far the big issue. My position is not against a lesbian couple having a child. Probably children in stable same sex union families should have protections offered to hetero' marriages. Very limited data so far suggest these unions are quite similar to hetero' marriages.
I'm not sure though, that same sex couples that are now raising children are representative of the general population. In light of all the accidental teen or ill prepared pregnancies ... very few homosexual drunken one night stands result in a child ...The unprepared sex act for gays is more likely to end in AIDS than a child, culling that population rather than increasing it.
So it seems the homosexual with child has planned more deliberately, on a percentage basis.
And besides the accidental births, the homosexual couple has greater barriers to overcome to have a child, so their population in studies would be skewed toward those with greater coping/social/whatever skills.
But mostly I don't think laws should be changed against the majority opinion based on activist judges or groups. Even if it seems there is some evidence, there is still a need for the majority to accept, else scientific studies become manufactured by activists or special interests to impose their agenda on the public.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Here is a partial list of some marriage benefits, protections, rights ... from LindyHopper's article ... of interest was that providing these may actually reduce government liability, pushing me toward being more favorable. There is the marriage penalty, plus more obligation for a spouse to provide for a spouse in need, rather than the state, among other things. I'm not positive there is not some political activism in these studies as well ... still it is good to read.
I think many of these benefits can be obtained anyway (eg. power of attorney for health care), but marriage changes the "default" position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.