quote Originally posted by jstricker: it's about FORCED ACCEPTANCE OF A LIFESTYLE CHOICE that the vast majority of US citizens do not agree is normal. John Stricker

This is a Republic. In a Republic the rights of the minority MUST be honored regardless of how much you disagree. Their lifestyle DOES NOT impinge on ANY of your rights. The minority merely asks for your respecting them and treating them as equals.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: No John it is an idea that "we" (does not include me) are trying to destroy for a certain select group of people whose lifestyle "we" (does not include me) do not agree with are BARRED from their pursuit of happiness. Yes John I know that which is why I am here explaining to you these things. The word "were" would infer past tense which is inaccurate. I live it, I breathe it, I drink it and I fight for it anywhere I am needed for those who have been deemed unworthy of it.

Let me refresh your memory. You wrote the following:

quote Let me ask you this question. Do we live in an open society where all are created equally or is it just an imaginary place that you like to pretend exists?

You asked a question and gave two possible choices, neither of which are complete or valid. That makes it impossible to answer it as true/false or right/wrong.

There is not, has never been, and never will be a truly open society where all people are TREATED equally and without discrimination. It's never happened, never will happen, so it's ridiculous to ask the question. No, we do not live in an open society where all are "created" (which is different from TREATED, but you chose your words carefully), nor do I operate under any illusions that such a place has ever, or will ever exist.

If such were the case, every child would have their own private tutor. Every child would have their own private coach or teacher to help them excel at whatever abilities they might demonstrate. Every person would have unlimited medical care at no cost to them or society. Every person would have the car of their choice in their garage. Every person would live in the location of their choice in whatever accomodations they desired.

None of these things happen.

I certainly agree that all people are CREATED equal, but that has little bearing on what happens throughout their life. People make choices in their lives and there are consequences to those choices.

40 years ago, individuals that chose to live an openly gay lifestyle had a huge problem in society. It was not accepted by the vast majority of society, period. The lifestyle has been more accepted now. Personally, I have no feelings towards that one way or the other. It doesn't affect me in the least.

When you start talking about Gay MARRIAGE, however, and since we are agreed that it is primarily due to financial considerations and desires, it DOES affect me. It affects the taxes I have to pay. It affects the legalities that I might be subjected to because I am an employer. It affects me in the rates that I may have to pay not just for my health insurance, but the insurance I have to pay for my employees (and I DO pay for my employee's health insurance).

How two people want to live their lives, whether I approve of that lifestyle choice or not, makes no difference to me as long as it doesn't directly affect me and my wallet. When that happens, though, I do have a say-so in the matter and I'll continue to have one.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by jstricker: You asked a question and gave two possible choices, neither of which are complete or valid. That makes it impossible to answer it as true/false or right/wrong. John Stricker

Either THIS COUNTRY IS OR IS NOT one that promotes equality. If you say it is then you believe in a lie. If you say it is not then you would be correct and it is merely a smoke screen to allow hidden agendas and hate to flourish which will lead to strife and unrest.

The cities will burn and they will burn because of ignorance.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Name an "evil" thing that feels good to do.

Adultery
Get Drunk
Lie to get what you want
...

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Adultery Get Drunk Lie to get what you want ...

everyones a little different.
this may make for a fun next thread
yup - lust (tho not adulterus), some sloth, gluttony, and of course, envy

anyways - GAY is not one of deadly sins. nor is it called out in the ten commandments.

Bill,

Please stop quoting me out of context. I wrote "I certainly agree that all people are CREATED equal, but that has little bearing on what happens throughout their life. " but you conveniently ignored that part. That IS what the Constitution says, and I believe that is what we strive for. I do not believe that extends to redefining what the term marriage is.

If it were "just a word", I really wouldn't care, but it's not. The activists are using it as a legally defining term and as such it DOES affect me, my life, and my wallet.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Evidently you do not believe in the Constitution of the United States of America and its founding principals of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. This is why the Constitution has become nothing more than a meaningless scrap of paper. You either love it and it means something or you dont and it all goes to hell.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Bill, Please stop quoting me out of context. I wrote "I certainly agree that all people are CREATED equal, but that has little bearing on what happens throughout their life. " but you conveniently ignored that part. That IS what the Constitution says, and I believe that is what we strive for. I do not believe that extends to redefining what the term marriage is. If it were "just a word", I really wouldn't care, but it's not. The activists are using it as a legally defining term and as such it DOES affect me, my life, and my wallet. John Stricker

The church is also trying to redefine marriage. marriage is the joining of two or more of anything. marriage existing before the church.

Nah you didn't scare me away. I have 4 kids and a wife to support, so I work... Alot.

I've also been pondering this.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Do not try to alter my definition by adding yours to it.

Off to work I go again.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 11-11-2008).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Bill, Please stop quoting me out of context. John Stricker

Excuse me John... take note of the time. It is possible I misread?

You have it absolutely Bass Ackwards. You need to look up the etymology of the word Marriage.

quote marriage marriage 1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" marry (v.) 1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.

This is where the word comes from. Only later was it used to define such things as the "marriage" of two inanimate objects or ideas, and that was much later. The original definition of the word comes from "marry" and that's clearly a male/female relationship. Now there are those that want to redefine the term again.

You can argue whether or not the redefinition is proper, but you can't argue the history and etymology of the word.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: The church is also trying to redefine marriage. marriage is the joining of two or more of anything. marriage existing before the church.

If you want the correct word that the church uses it's MATRIMONY not marriage.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Logic is a real PITA, isn't it Bill? John Stricker

No, logic is very easy to understand, IT IS EITHER YES OR NO.

Your arguments on the other hand are not so as you tend to bend things or create gray areas to make your points stick. I also don't like they way you mask your dislike of certain groups of individuals and attempt to use your wallet as an excuse to alienate them. This hasnt been the first time.

Logic is a way to find an anser not an answer. You for sure could answer maybe by using logic to get there.

Wow, we are really getting atround on topics here.

quote posted by Khw: I've also been pondering this. " quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Do not try to alter my definition by adding yours to it."

Ya me too, excellent catch.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-11-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Logic is a way to find an answer not an answer. You for sure could answer maybe by using logic to get there.

So why do so many stop short of the answer?
I can only take you so far but it is up to you to decide to drink from the well spring I brought you to with my logic.

Respecting people goes a long way in allowing them to enjoy their lives and it doesnt matter what it is they do, They could be hookers, dealers or have a different taste in a sex partner. Doesnt matter so long as they are not violating anyone elses rights. Our Constitution is the one thing that protects our right to live our lives on an equal playing field. Some seek to destroy the Constitution and some seek to defend it.

quote posted by Khw: I've also been pondering this. Originally posted by 84Bill: Do not try to alter my definition by adding yours to it." Ya me too, excellent catch.

What did you catch?

Do me a favor and dont answer yet, I'd like to see what Khw meant by that.

Thanks.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-11-2008).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: How two people want to live their lives, whether I approve of that lifestyle choice or not, makes no difference to me as long as it doesn't directly affect me and my wallet. When that happens, though, I do have a say-so in the matter and I'll continue to have one. John Stricker

So, are you in favor of getting rid of hetero marriage's monetary benefits? The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage's affect on your wallet is you're already paying for hetero marriage. It would save you tax money somehow, and get rid of some legalities you have to be subjected to as an employer. It would also mean you don't have to pay for health insurance for hetero married couples - just your employer.

Would you be in favor of that? If it's "all about the money" then I would think you'd want to get rid of hetero benefits as well.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So, are you in favor of getting rid of hetero marriage's monetary benefits? The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage's affect on your wallet is you're already paying for hetero marriage. It would save you tax money somehow, and get rid of some legalities you have to be subjected to as an employer. It would also mean you don't have to pay for health insurance for hetero married couples - just your employer. Would you be in favor of that? If it's "all about the money" then I would think you'd want to get rid of hetero benefits as well.

I am.
up until they produce a child - which is what the financial benefits are actually for.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: So why do so many stop short of the answer? I can only take you so far but it is up to you to decide to drink from the well spring I brought you to with my logic. Respecting people goes a long way in allowing them to enjoy their lives and it doesnt matter what it is they do, They could be hookers, dealers or have a different taste in a sex partner. Doesnt matter so long as they are not violating anyone elses rights. Our Constitution is the one thing that protects our right to live our lives on an equal playing field. Some seek to destroy the Constitution and some seek to defend it.

So you want to hear me say maybe?

In regards to the paragraph, you don't think hookers and dealers harm anyone else? I do.
Hookers may have families, even dependents, they harm the "john" as well, primarily mentally, but they can carry who knows what disease as well.
Dealers? They sell narcotics. No argument needed.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I am. up until they produce a child - which is what the financial benefits are actually for.

That plays into the adoption argument. IF they are allowed to adopt, would you be willing to offer benefits to both gay and straight couples?
Of course, if they weren't allowed to adopt, it doesn't matter.

But there are more issues than just a child. Next-of-kin rights in medical issues as well as survivor benefits are important for couples without children as well.

It's not like they're asking for special rights or some kind of "affirmative action" program to give them extra support. They're only asking for the same rights hetero couples currently enjoy. Nothing more.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That plays into the adoption argument. IF they are allowed to adopt, would you be willing to offer benefits to both gay and straight couples? Of course, if they weren't allowed to adopt, it doesn't matter. But there are more issues than just a child. Next-of-kin rights in medical issues as well as survivor benefits are important for couples without children as well. It's not like they're asking for special rights or some kind of "affirmative action" program to give them extra support. They're only asking for the same rights hetero couples currently enjoy. Nothing more.

of course they are important to the couples - but not to everybody else. which is what laws are all about.
and as mentioned, next of kin & survivor benifits are available thru the writing of a will. if its important enough to them - spend the $20 get a will made.
and, of course - the all important decision of when to remove life support.
marriage benifts are to ease the burden of raising children. THATS IT. so, lets not give them out until they have/adopt children. that is MORE than fair, to both sides.

really - what is the point of a marriage without kids? and - then - why cant a gay couple have them same wishes?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: So you want to hear me say maybe? In regards to the paragraph, you don't think hookers and dealers harm anyone else? I do.

Sure but I wont agree with what you have to say. Can you handle that?

quote Hookers may have families, even dependents, they harm the "john" as well, primarily mentally, but they can carry who knows what disease as well.

You say MAY. You can not make a claim of injury based on a probability unless you are an insurance agency that may need to pay a claim SHOULD something happen. No harm HAS come so no claim to injury can be made against the hooker. The "john" is an adult and as an adult he is charged with being RESPONSIBLE for his actions. Should he engage in sexual activities with a hooker and he knows the risk then what is the problem? What we have are two consenting adults. In fact this is no different than what happens on any given night in every bar across America. The only difference is the the fact that money changes hands. I think the real reason for your claim is the "stigma" and despicable images the word "hooker" implies. It is socially unacceptable practice so you just go along with it.

quote Dealers? They sell narcotics. No argument needed.

Yes there is but you chose to avoid it. Thats cool

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-11-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Yes there is but you chose to avoid it. Thats cool

OK so I think I am done trying to reason with someone who thinks drug dealers are harmless enough that I need to explain why they are not.

I do not accept things because society does. Society has accepted sleeping with whomever you feel like at a bar all across America (as you state). I do not.
I have come to the conclusion that your purpose is only to keep running this in circles.

Yes, I can handle you agreeing with some things and not others.

When it comes to telling me who I have to employee, what I have to pay for, when I can terminate someone and for whatever reason, yes, I'm in favor of cutting all that crap out. It's my money, I should be able to spend it on who, and however, I decide I want to spend it. If others have different ideas on how to spend theirs, fine, have at it. I really don't care. Just don't force ME, at the point of a gun and under the threat of imprisonment, to support a lifestyle which I don't approve of. If you or anyone else wants to live that lifestyle, have at it. Be my guest. Doesn't matter to me. Just don't force me to support you in that decision.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So, are you in favor of getting rid of hetero marriage's monetary benefits? The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage's affect on your wallet is you're already paying for hetero marriage. It would save you tax money somehow, and get rid of some legalities you have to be subjected to as an employer. It would also mean you don't have to pay for health insurance for hetero married couples - just your employer. Would you be in favor of that? If it's "all about the money" then I would think you'd want to get rid of hetero benefits as well.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

Bill,

You can't point out a single thing I've said in this thread that fails a logical test. If you can, then do so. I really don't care what you think I'm "masking". I neither like, nor dislike, people that are homosexual, as long as they leave me out of it. Everyone is free to make their own choice, but this is going beyond that and their lifestyle choice, if codified in law, and will potentially force me to support a lifestyle of which I don't approve, and that I will never agree to.

John Stricker

PS: Logic is not simply a yes or no answer, Bill.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: No, logic is very easy to understand, IT IS EITHER YES OR NO. Your arguments on the other hand are not so as you tend to bend things or create gray areas to make your points stick. I also don't like they way you mask your dislike of certain groups of individuals and attempt to use your wallet as an excuse to alienate them. This hasnt been the first time.

A++ for you.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I feel the same way, especially when money is taken out of my wallet for taxes that go toward religious institutions and causes. Unfortunately, I don't have a say-so on that. If I did, not a single taxpayer dollar would go toward vouchers or any other form of religious subsidy. If churches want to suckle at the taxpayer's teat, then those churches better darned well better start paying taxes like the rest of us taxpayers. And the science on whether being gay or not is a true "lifestyle choice" is tending to show it's not. Honestly, given the discrimination (so clearly shown here on this forum), violence, and murder that is typically visited upon people just for being gay, I can't see why any rational person would "choose" to be homosexual. That, and the absolute failure of so many religions to "cure" or "treat" it as a disease, pretty much makes it plain to see that it's far from being a "lifestyle choice" for most, if not all, people who are gay. And they are people, make no mistake about that, human beings deserving of all the rights and privileges of being human, and in this country, of being American. JazzMan

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Bill, You can't point out a single thing I've said in this thread that fails a logical test. If you can, then do so. I really don't care what you think I'm "masking". I neither like, nor dislike, people that are homosexual, as long as they leave me out of it. Everyone is free to make their own choice, but this is going beyond that and their lifestyle choice, if codified in law, and will potentially force me to support a lifestyle of which I don't approve, and that I will never agree to. John Stricker PS: Logic is not simply a yes or no answer, Bill.

thats the fun of politics. noone is wrong. noone is right. it can ALL be argued logicly. especially when you throw money into the mix. and, sorry - your money is being taken to support MANY lifestyles which I am sure you dont approve of. that is how a nation works.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: OK so I think I am done trying to reason with someone who thinks drug dealers are harmless enough that I need to explain why they are not.

They are no more harmful than a gun. It is not the gun that is responsible for what happens to a person shot with it rather it is the person who does not use it responsibly. Seems to me you like the government mandating what can and can not be done in our society... which is fine because you and those like are the majority and the very unfortunate truth is the majority does indeed rule America. All hail the Democracy.... down with the Republic and freedom of choice.

Urbis incendia. Are you ready for it? I am.

quote I have come to the conclusion that your purpose is only to keep running this in circles. Yes, I can handle you agreeing with some things and not others.

It is not I who is running in circles trying to justify my stance on these issues but rather it is you. I have no problems with hookers, drug dealers or gay marriage but you seem to have a problem with all three.... I can only guess as to why that is.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-11-2008).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: When it comes to telling me who I have to employee, what I have to pay for, when I can terminate someone and for whatever reason, yes, I'm in favor of cutting all that crap out. It's my money, I should be able to spend it on who, and however, I decide I want to spend it. John Stricker

I never could figure that one out, don't most employment contracts say in the fine print, This company can terminate your employment at any time without telling you why? Of course they have little rules like 3 strikes and you are out, and so on, but doesn't that line basicaly override anything else?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: When it comes to telling me who I have to employee, what I have to pay for, when I can terminate someone and for whatever reason, yes, I'm in favor of cutting all that crap out. It's my money, I should be able to spend it on who, and however, I decide I want to spend it. If others have different ideas on how to spend theirs, fine, have at it. I really don't care. Just don't force ME, at the point of a gun and under the threat of imprisonment, to support a lifestyle which I don't approve of. If you or anyone else wants to live that lifestyle, have at it. Be my guest. Doesn't matter to me. Just don't force me to support you in that decision. John Stricker

So is it about the money or your disapproval of their "lifestyle?" Serious question.
How do you feel about inter-racial marriage between a man and a woman? Is it normal? An abomination? Do you approve or not?

You're complaining about being forced to "support" a lifestyle you disapprove of, but what if you disapprove of Muslims? Jehovah's Witnesses? Atheists? Do you
You might not agree with or support Muslim beliefs, but you'd pay benefits for a Muslim family and I don't think you'd be complaining about it, either.

So it comes back to your religious viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong and therefore you don't want to support it in any way. Your freedom of religion allows you to follow a religion that teaches it's wrong; however, their freedom of religion allows them to follow a religion that says it's not wrong. You do not have the right to impose your religious views on others, either as an individual or employer.

How long before you ran into legal trouble if you said you'd only hire white Christian males to work for you? Maybe you believe women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Maybe you don't approve of non-Christian lifestyles? Maybe you think blacks should know their place and be garbage men and janitors? Now, I'm not accusing you of any of these outlandish opinions. But they were once widely held beliefs, yet today we recognize people have basic civil rights regardless of sex, religion or gender.

I'm not trying to change your opinion of homosexuality being right or wrong, but I do think a couple's right to marry should be a basic civil right, whether gay or straight.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: This is a Republic. In a Republic the rights of the minority MUST be honored regardless of how much you disagree.

NOT at the expense of other people's rights Bill. Why must we CONSTANTLY remind you of this simple fact?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So is it about the money or your disapproval of their "lifestyle?" Serious question. How do you feel about inter-racial marriage between a man and a woman? Is it normal? An abomination? Do you approve or not? You're complaining about being forced to "support" a lifestyle you disapprove of, but what if you disapprove of Muslims? Jehovah's Witnesses? Atheists? Do you You might not agree with or support Muslim beliefs, but you'd pay benefits for a Muslim family and I don't think you'd be complaining about it, either. So it comes back to your religious viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong and therefore you don't want to support it in any way. .

You won't accept an answer that is up to your no-religion standards? You must proev that that cannot be a real reason? Why?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Actually the gun is the drug, the dealer is the guy who sells the gun to someone who plans on abusing it.

So your logic would indicate that we need to jail gun dealers every time someone kills someone with a gun? I somehow dont think that will fly.

quote Hey some people want to legalize drugs, sheesh man we are way of topic here.

And some people want gay marriage recognized leagally.... so they have the same argument
[/quote]

quote You are darn right I have a problem with Drug dealers and Hookers, they should be in jail. I don't agree with homosexuals, they should not however be in jail.

All that is needed is another person like you with the idea that homos should be jailed and guess what? they will be. And dont go thinking they dont exist because they do. There was once a man named Hitler... remember him?

quote Your posts here are getting farther fetched, each one.

Dont start resorting to personal attacks on me. My posts are not far fetched but rather you disagree and are frustrated becasue you arent getting through to me.... Well guess what? I feel the same and I also understand why... So, I'll just say this, reality really does suck.