| Author |
Message |
    
Hibbs
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2012 - 11:24 pm: | 
|
Hi Ken
Sorry if I misinterpreted you. I missed your point that you were talking about someone being attacked for not being pro gay. Hopefully you nor anybody else feels like I've attacked them - I can only go back to my question as to why anyone thinks there is a legal justification to NOT support gay marriage. I've never heard about someone being hounded out of a job for not being pro gay, but I would expect someone to lose their job if they discriminate or treat gay folks unfairly compared to their straight peers. I've also never heard of someone being hounded out of an elected position but again I would expect some political constituents to either call for a resignation or vote an intolerant politician out if that politician's actions were not in line with the constituents values and expectations. And I also don't know that demanding approval from others for private behaviour reveals the persons own doubts in said behaviour. I see a difference between demanding approval and seeking legal recourse for equal protection or legal rights. Do you think riders who demonstrate for repeal of helmet laws have doubts about that behavior? I would think most either think that THEY won't be the ones to crash or maybe they realize they are at far greater risk but I don't suppose they have any doubts that they think it should be their right to make that decision.
I'm also curious how you came to the conclusion someone else determines their personal self value in terms of how others perceive their personal relationships. Unless they tell you that, it's conjecture, isn't it? I know two gay couples that have been together over 20 years. Certainly not the norm, but it happens. Conversely, I don't know a single high school buddy ( and there were 600 people in my senior class)who isn't divorced - some twice or more
And I agree that money fame taxes paid all good deeds mean [little]if one's self worth comes from how world sees them. The gay folks I know don't seem to have any doubts about their self-worth. At least none has ever mentioned that to me. I was just asking how you define productivity
And Rainman - well done. You said it a whole lot better than I ever did
(Message edited by Hibbs on January 07, 2012) |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 12:06 am: |
|
Hibbs I know gay couples like you described. But on average they are fewer in number than before. The Militant activist gays are more common. Perez Hilton for example his personal attacks on people that dont agree with the Gay agenda are well known. Civil unions which define how the contractual parts of a of a relationship I have no problem with. But no change in semantics will ever turn Lgbt etc relationships into a marriage. They shouldnt be persecuted or abused either. |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 01:06 am: |
|
Odd that what advances the elite conspiracy to subvert freedom, God, nation, democracy, marriage and family is "tolerance"; inversely, what defends these institutions is "hate."
Lots of folks are buying into this Orwellian propaganda and brainwashing scam.
I do not condone hatred or harm to homosexuals. Most people just want to live and let live, including Christian heterosexuals. Should the Bible will be banned for its injunctions against homosexuality? Is anybody talking about banning the Talmud or Koran? |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 02:02 am: |
|
Let's look at this another way.
If, as you suppose, those most against "gay marriage" are "religious", why would they be against gay people being recognized as "married" under the law?
Marriage historically has been an institution primarily of the "church". The legal aspect, civil union, has been the purview of the state.
Now, I take from your post that you would not consider yourself "religious". Am I correct Hibbs? If this is the case, I'm assuming you would also strongly believe in "separation of church and state", correct?
So if it is desirable to have this separation, why would one demand that the government intervene in a matter that is largely religious in nature? Wouldn't you, if you are a non-religious person, thump your chest at even the slightest involvement of the church in matters of government?
My position, completely consistent with the concept of separation of church and state, is that the ONLY legal structure available to bestow upon gay couples IS civil unions. The state doesn't have the right to bestow a religious designation.
All "marriages" are technically civil unions from the standpoint of government. Only religious institutions recognize the status of "marriage". The ONLY reason the government refers to civil unions as "marriages" is that up until recently the majority of civil unions were conducted in conjunction with religious organizations.
By the way, currently eighty-five percent of weddings are held in a church or synagogue; 15 percent are evenly distributed among private homes, hotels, country clubs, and other locations. |
Littlebuggles
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 03:12 am: |
|
I think that is an excellent point Jeremy.
I am one who would not oppose a civil union between consenting adults. Seems appropriate for employers to apply benefits to couples who have committed to a relationship, and "civil union" seems exactly the right term for that.
I believe the term marriage is far more than just semantics and should not be forced to bend to accommodate male/male or female/female relationships, even if they are long-term, loving relationships. I think Ft's most recent post boils it down quite clearly. I definitely could not have stated it nearly so succinctly, or pointedly. |
Hibbs
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Lots of good discussion I think.
For Ken - I agree with most of your last post. I don't get the resistance to calling a same-sex union (civil and/or church) as a marriage, but OK. I don't know how my gay friends feel about it - I'll have to ask. I checked a couple on line dictionaries and most show multiple definitions and most include a reference to same sex marriages. I guess I'd go back to my earlier statement that I see similarities to using the term "doctor" for a physician, a dentist and a PhD. But obviously this is a hot point - a lot of folks are saying they'll support civil same sex legal unions so long as they aren't called marriages. I expect over the next few years these unions will be called marriages, within the legal system and within society but that's just a guess
Mox - I just don't know where you're coming from. Likening this as part of an elitist conspiracy to subvert democracy, etc, calling it brainwashing and all,well.... Maybe you're right but that seems like an awful stretch to me. Wait a minute - are you just kidding me? I miss the cues sometimes. Regardless, I never advocated banning the Bible. Lots of good teachings and a lot to be learned there. I only get resistant when folks insist that it is entirely factual truths and when they use its contents as evidence for what is "right" and what therefore should be reflected in our legal system.
Ft bstrd. Marriage may be historically a primary institution of the church. But again, times change and so do societal definitions
I do not practice an organized religion but consider myself spiritual. And I do support the separation of church and state. One because I think its a good idea and two because its the law
For the next point, I disagree that only religious institutions recognize the status of marriage. Maybe I'm missing your point, but before I got married, in a church, I had to go to city hall and get a marriage license, then had to take that same license to my employer to get my wife health care benefits etc. No one has ever asked we if I'm in a civil union or asked to see my civil union certificate. When you (I think) posted a copy of government issued document, I remember clearly seeing the word "marriage" in bold type across the top. True most marriage have been conducted in religious institutions, but as you say there are some that have been conducted elsewhere - like City Hall with a Justice of the Peace, for example. The precedent of "marriages" in a non-religious setting has been set; it's been done for years.
Bottom line - I think its been an interesting discussion. It seems that many here are OK with same sex civil unions, they just don't want them called marriages. I'm sure there are others here who would fight against civil unions no matter what they are called, and I think that's good that they'd fight for what they think is right. Isn't that how its supposed to work? I'm just not confident that they will graciously accept it as (if/when) more and more states allow same sex unions, whether they call them marriages or use some other term.
I see that the Gov of Washington now supports the concept and, if successful, that would make Washington the 7th state (plus DC) to allow this.
I wonder if the internet had been around during the abolitionist movement, women's suffrage or prohibition if we would have been having similar discussions
(Message edited by Hibbs on January 08, 2012) |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 01:43 pm: |
|
Hibbs separtion is not the law that comes from a comment by Jefferson on whether or not the gov could make ruling on how churchs worship. Your repeating a liberal myth. The gov shall not establish a religion but may not retrict a faiths worship. The claim that gov can restrict a churches activities in the public square have been destorted by atheists and company. In reality gov has no power to restrict religious activity on public property as long as they meet the same use permits as are required by any other group using public property. Useing religious terms define a private contract between two individuals fails on its face since it would require special recognition in law. So there by establishing a religion which isn't allowed by the Constitution.
Which brings us back to the point words games will never make civil unions a marriage.Jefferson, Madison etc we pretty sharp on predicting mans ablity to destort the gov and laws. This is why we have a Constitutional Republic with limited powers. They knew men like fdr and obama would arise like a plague and gave us the tools to control and eject them from power |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 01:58 pm: |
|
My question about banning the Bible was a lead in to the question about the Talmud and Koran, either of which receive little or no attention from amateur and professional Christian haters, and both of which deal with homosexuality in severe terms.
As one who made a living as an agent provocateur, amongst other trades, in my sordid youth, I'm a firm believer in conspiracies one the part of one group to manipulate another. For example, money (power) manipulates a group to become social engineers forcing societal shifts, by whatever means, to meet the desires of money. Christians hope to influence people to serve for justice and mercy, and to walk humbly with God. Some would say money and power operate a conspiracy to a selfish and self serving end. Social engineers say Christianity is bad, thus further serving the manipulators.
I am influenced by Christianity. Ya'll are manipulated by people who have power and want more. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 01:59 pm: |
|
>>> Doesn't it all boil down to a question of whether religious beliefs should be used a basis for legislation?
No.
It boils down to what the definition of marriage is, whether one behavior is equivalent to another. |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 03:01 pm: |
|
Tell me why you like Roosevelt, poor man's friend
That's why I like Roosevelt, poor man's friend
That's why I like Roosevelt, poor man's friend
Good God almighty, he's the poor man's friend
Cause in the year of nineteen and thirty-two
We had no idea just what we would do
All our finances had flowed away
Till my dad got a job with the WPA
That's the first two stanza's of Jesse Winchester's 1974 rendition of his song Tell Me Why You Like Roosevelt.
Roosevelt's vice president for his first two terms was Cactus Jack Garner, conservative southern Democrat. From our friends @ Wiki:
<<"In 1932, Garner ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination against Governor of New York Franklin Roosevelt. When it became evident that Roosevelt was the strongest of several candidates, although he had not yet received a majority of delegates (thanks to opposition figures and despite receiving most of the popular support), Garner cut a deal with Roosevelt, becoming his Vice-Presidential candidate. He was re-elected to the Seventy-third Congress on November 8, 1932, and on the same day was elected Vice President of the United States, making him the only man to serve as both Speaker of the House and President of the Senate on the same day (March 4, 1933). He was re-elected Vice President in 1936 and served in that office from March 4, 1933, to January 20, 1941. Garner once described the Vice-Presidency as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss." [;2]
During Roosevelt's second term, Garner's previously warm relationship with the President quickly soured, as Garner disagreed sharply with him on a wide range of important issues. Garner supported federal intervention to break up the Flint Sit-Down Strike, supported a balanced federal budget, opposed packing the Supreme Court with additional judges, and opposed executive interference with the internal business of the Congress.
During 1938 and 1939, numerous Democratic party leaders urged Garner to run for President in 1940. Garner saw himself as the champion of the traditional Democratic Party establishment, which often clashed with supporters of Roosevelt's New Deal. The Gallup Poll showed that Garner was the favorite among Democratic voters, presuming that Roosevelt would defer to the longstanding two-term tradition and not run for a third term. Time magazine characterized him on April 15, 1940:
Cactus Jack is 71, sound in wind & limb, a hickory conservative who does not represent the Old South of magnolias, hoopskirts, pillared verandas, but the New South: moneymaking, industrial, hardboiled, still expanding too rapidly to brood over social problems. He stands for oil derricks, sheriffs who use airplanes, prairie skyscrapers, mechanized farms, $100 Stetson hats. Conservative John Garner appeals to many a conservative voter.[3]
Garner did not appeal to liberals, however. Union leader John L. Lewis testified before Congress that Garner was a "a labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man." [;4]
Roosevelt quietly made it known that he would seek a third term. Even though this decision made it highly unlikely that Garner would win the nomination, he stayed in the race anyway, because he opposed much of what the President stood for, and opposed the idea of anyone having a third term as President. Roosevelt easily won re-nomination at the Democratic National Convention on the first ballot and chose Henry A. Wallace to be his running mate, leaving Garner without an office.">>
Wallace was a red. So red, Roosevelt dropped him in favor of Truman as VP for his forth election. People play the system like a piano.
Back to gay marriage vs. heterosexual marriage, the system is being played like a piano in favor of turning the world upside down. The first card played in the 60s was drugs, which make people stupid. The second was feminism, which makes them anti-male; the third gay rights, which makes them anti family.
This shift in society is driven by money, power and sex. The rich want more money, the feminists want more power, and the gays want more sex. Both the manipulators and their goals are interchangeable across the board.
Gay marriage does not build a society, it just shifts downhill into a collection of ideologs doing the work for people at the top. Gay "unions" equals a lowered birthrate. Lessen the population and the folks with money have fewer lumpen to share the wealth, power is held amongst the elite as straight men and women are degraded, and carnal proclivities are enjoyed by those who place that in high value. And, of course, power remains in the hands of those who believe they are entitled to do so.
A religious marriage ceremony is not an affront to God, unless it involves Amorites.
(Message edited by moxnix on January 08, 2012) |
Hibbs
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 03:47 pm: |
|
Again more interesting comments.
Ken - as for the separation of church and state. I agree its often incorrectly cited as most people don't really understand it. I think the only thing I've done is answer a question as to whether I strongly believe in it, to which I answered "yes". As for the rest of your most recent post, I'd have to say I disagree with the implication that the "marriage" is an exclusively religious term. I say it isn't and support that with the fact that there are legal "marriages" in City Halls/etc officiated by non-clergy all over the country everyday. It may have religious origins and even have special meaning within organized religions but it is no longer the single providence of organized religion. Like it or not, its become part of civil and colloquial speech now. And as for the statement that word games will never make civil unions a marriage, I can only say that while that may be true for you, it's not true for all of society.
Mox, thanks for clarifying. My response to the statement about the Koran and the Talmud is much like my position about the Bible. While respecting others rights to practice their own beliefs, I don't believe in the Bible, the Koran or the Talmud and I'd make the same objections if someone here was trying to insist that our legal system ought to reflect the contents of those books - just because its in those books. But nobody here's done that (yet) - just the Bible.
Your subsequent post was interesting too. Your depiction of cards being played suggests to me that you may see the 60's drugs, feminism and now this issue as issues that were solely injected into society by the elite to more firmly entrench their positions? I'll wait for a clarification before I go deeper into that one. Because frankly, I'd have a real hard time getting my brain around that one
Blake - good succinct post. My follow on question to be answered (by society, not just by you or I) is how much space on the continuum society establishes between "equal" and "equivalent" and how society looks at the behavior between same sex partners as a determining factor when considering the use of the term "marriage"
Bottom line its not up to you or I as individuals. We can make our points and have our say but what becomes legal and what term society uses will be beyond our individual control. I predict I'll be a lot happier with future outcomes than you will, both I'm sure it will continue to remain dynamic for decades. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 03:59 pm: |
|
Logic is clear to me. The cup analogy illustrates it. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 05:20 pm: |
|
Hibbs the society you will get as the result of the break down morals and standards. Will be one you wont really enjoy living in. When you allow gov Our employees to dictate morality and values of the culture it ends up in millions dead and war to end the tyranny.
The country was founded by men of honor and values the founders said this gov could only survive with an moral and ethical population. We are well on the way to being an immoral and unethical in all of this gov dealings. We are about to get our 40 years in the desert before we return to values we should be keeping. |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 06:00 pm: |
|
Hibbs, do you have a single in your wallet? Take it out and look at it, please. Do you have faith that this piece of paper represents value? Does it represent less value or more value than it did 40 years ago?
Marriage is like that dollar, valued in the past and watered down in value by manipulative and demanding people who see themselves as benefiting from its diminishing value. When the dollar and marriage are totally without value, then the financial and moral bankruptcy of society is complete. |
Hibbs
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 08:40 pm: |
|
Gents
Not really sure where to go after that. Here goes, though...
Ken - If we are still talking about gay marriage, I don't see the move towards legalization as a break down in morals and standards. A change maybe, but not a breakdown. Does anyone think that gay marriage will increase the incidence of homosexuality? While its probably true that there are more OPENLY gay folks these days, I doubt that gay marriage will increase the ranks. If you believe there is a good chance that are sexualities are hard-wired, like I do, then that implies there may be a genetic component. Then if anything, making it easier for gay folks to be gay might actually reduce the incidence since some won't be coerced into adopting a false hetero relationship, producing children and passing on the genetics. That's a stretch, I admit, but an interesting idea, no? Surely some will disagree with the Harvard ( I think) study but that's not really the point of this particular thread
Seems to me the best parts of our society are getting better, and the worst is getting .....well, worse. Why? There's a good question! I don't know, but I don't see any indication that the degradation of certain parts was in anyway hastened by homosexuality or will be hastened by gay marriage. If there was a simple cause and effect relationship, we'd ALL probably be doing something against it.
No doubt the founding fathers were men of great intelligence and honor. With values that represented their times. How many were slave owners? Is that a value you would admire in anyone today? Although I've not said it here, I see it very much about context. Times change, values change, definitions and semantics change - over time. This is how our society has evolved. You may see devolved - but whatever. Blaming the government for changes that you don't agree with is lame. Somebody voted for those government officials and you might have to think that there are more voters who think differently than there are who think the same as you. Forty years in the desert? Really?
Mox. Value in a dollar. Yes? More or less than 40 years ago - well again that's relative. Surely you can't buy today what you could 40 years ago with a dollar. Then again, I have a whole lot more of them then I would have had 40 years ago. Has the purchasing power kept pace - I don't know - I'm sure someone will tell me. Do I think I'm in a better place than I would have been 40 years ago - absolutely.
So I guess I'll look forward to the continuing progression of human rights and you can bemoan the coming ruin of your world. Have we got problems - Of course! Is homosexual marriage going to make it worse: doubtful. But since I've got the ear of the resident conspiracy theorist, it it was drugs, feminism and now gay marriage, what's the next round of pestilence the elitist power-brokers will instill?
I'll be traveling tomorrow but looking forward to picking this up tomorrow evening. Take care and don't forget to lock up your coffee Mel. I mean Mox |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 08:44 pm: |
|
An apology would be nice.  |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 09:49 pm: |
|
Hibbs all of the things you detailed are examples of the breakdown of our culture the pushed and promoted by the so called liberals. Who are the biggest control freaks on the planet till it comes to drugs perversion and intolerance toward Christians.
With few examples in hard sciences I have found any thing coming out of a Harvard Study to be little more than the prattle of people parroting the liberal party line. Real learning seems to have withered away in our Universities. |
Hibbs
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Very well. I apologize. I think I'm apologizing for the "Conspiracy Theory" reference where Mel Gibson locked up his coffee to prevent being poisoned. Sorry, I thought a little levity was allowable, especially with someone who described himself as a firm believer in conspiracies. If it was something else I said I am truly and doubly sorry because I have no idea what that might have been.
In reviewing the last few posts, it seems we live in different worlds. I just don't get the gloom and doom and prediction of total moral meltdown. Like I said, time will tell.
The apology is genuine
pwh
(Message edited by Hibbs on January 08, 2012) |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 08:28 am: |
|
Hey, don't apologize to me. My avocation is explaining "how the system works." No one has to agree with me.
The Chinese letter for Crisis contains the characters for "danger" and "opportunity."
Why do people/companies/politicians/movements/special interest groups, et al, hire public relations firms? To manage the public's perception of what's going on with them, or with someone else.
'scuse me while I wrap another layer of foil over my coco and return to writing a recent history of life on the half shell as seen through my jaundiced eye. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 06:00 pm: |
|
>>> If it was something else I said I am truly and doubly sorry because I have no idea what that might have been.
Check your email. |
Ducxl
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 07:09 pm: |
|
Smells like Blake is afraid to debate Hibbs thoughtfull
Discussion. Look at poor Blake once again playing victim.poor,poor,Blake.
I can't tell if you're an idiot or a troll .
I believe Marriage is between man and woman.
But I leave it at that....... |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 08:11 pm: |
|
Duc has the old finger pointing out Blake as a Troll when you have 3 of his own pointing back at his troll like posting .
You say you dont like trolls then dont be one! have a herring |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Greg (Ducxl),
You are out of line and know not of what you speak. I haven't read the rest of Hibbs' comments. I'm just not much interested in them after the miserable PM he saw fit to launch my way 4 days ago. then to see him pop up posting here pretending innocence. It's kinda like someone spitting in your face then coming into your home expecting hugs and dinner like nothing happened. Brain damage or substance abuse may be in play. Regardless, I have no time for such nonsense.
Thanks Ken, I'm assuming Greg was talking about Hibbs, but I'm not sure. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2012 - 11:50 pm: |
|
Here's the deal. Anyone who feels the need to turn the conversation to personal insult/attack, really ought to refrain from posting. Discuss the issue or don't post; it really is that simple. |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 12:24 am: |
|
My photo.
Actually, it's not kosher in responding to folks with what can easily be construed as mondo obscuro information and references when I'm operating on my "assumption of knowledge" tangent with people who couldn't care less.
However, those who come to poke the bear should by now be aware of what the results will be.
(Message edited by moxnix on January 10, 2012) |
|
