Actually, you can call yourself doctor all you want. Entertainers do it all the time. The only time you would get in trouble is if you tried to exercise any of the rights of privileges of being a doctor such as prescribing drugs or operating on someone.
You are correct that the government has an interest in affecting people's behavior. The government's interest is in ensuring that the next generation of children are created and raised in a stable family. That is why there are special rights and privileges given to couples that are licensed to be married. It may not work in every family, but it is more successful than single parent households. You can just look at what has happened to the Black community since the 70's to see that single parent homes are inferior to married couple homes.
Unfortunately, our leaders don't understand such simple concepts so they have done a lot to destroy the nuclear family since the 60s. We have been reaping the rewards their naivety ever since with vast ghettos, ignorance, high crime rates, drug use and the general decline of ethics. This is just the next step in the demise of the nuclear family.
I don't really care one way or the other. But being a NY state resident and seeing all the time spent on this I couldn't help feeling resentful as this state has a lot of other more important problems that concern many more of us than gay marriage does. Like the state's financial problems, the economy, jobs, corrupt polititians, etc.
Larry
And I only observe that there are reasons why so much effort was spent on this. The pro side has very valid reasons, such as access to health care decisionmaking, post-mortem transfer of property, etc. The anti-side was against it primarily for religious and philosophical reasons. So, a long-dragged out fight was born, a fight that used up precious resources and time. So, would it have been better for the anti-side to just give up and let the normalization of civil rights go through, or would it have been better for the pro-side to shut up and go back into the closet? When placing blame for wasted time on this subject, all parties are equally responsible. However, IMHO the pro-side had the correct side. What I don't understand is why the anti-side won't allow the civil union path? Don't call it a marriage as that's basically a religious label, but allow the legal things as mentioned above. How could a heterosexual couple somehow think their marriage was diminished just because a gay couple has the same rights and responsibilities? To me, if the marriage was weakened by that then the hetero couple's marriage wasn't all that meaningful in the first place.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 06-25-2011).]
This is actually an endorsement of gay marriage. Gay marriage was already legal. Any two people can choose to spend their lives together and call it a "marriage" without the government's approval. A marriage license is a special kind of endorsement from the government that gives certain rights, privileges and comes with restrictions.
You contradicted yourself in this post. first you say any couple could spend their lives together and call it a marriage, then you say that marriage licenses give married people (heterosexual couples only in most states) extra rights and privileges. So in your own words, you say that couples who cannot be legally unioned are less than couples who can, in the eyes of the law.
So no, it's not an endorsement of gay marriage. Endorsement implies active efforts to get people to marry, gay or otherwise, and there is no such endorsement. All that exists is an option available to all citizens now that formerly was only available to some, and that's the ability to find happiness with those that are loved.
Shame that the Christians think they can keep that to themselves, as though somehow they are more deserving of happiness than others who are different.
IP: Logged
10:16 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9474 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
You contradicted yourself in this post. first you say any couple could spend their lives together and call it a marriage, then you say that marriage licenses give married people (heterosexual couples only in most states) extra rights and privileges. So in your own words, you say that couples who cannot be legally unioned are less than couples who can, in the eyes of the law.
So no, it's not an endorsement of gay marriage. Endorsement implies active efforts to get people to marry, gay or otherwise, and there is no such endorsement. All that exists is an option available to all citizens now that formerly was only available to some, and that's the ability to find happiness with those that are loved.
Shame that the Christians think they can keep that to themselves, as though somehow they are more deserving of happiness than others who are different.
That is not a contradiction and it is an endorsement. The NY legislature gave homosexual couples rights and privileges that they did not have before that is exclusive to only narrowly defined relationships.
Shame on the leftists that are blaming this all on "Christians". The religion card played by anti-religious bigots is getting old.
Actually, you can call yourself doctor all you want. Entertainers do it all the time. The only time you would get in trouble is if you tried to exercise any of the rights of privileges of being a doctor such as prescribing drugs or operating on someone.
You are correct that the government has an interest in affecting people's behavior. The government's interest is in ensuring that the next generation of children are created and raised in a stable family. That is why there are special rights and privileges given to couples that are licensed to be married. It may not work in every family, but it is more successful than single parent households. You can just look at what has happened to the Black community since the 70's to see that single parent homes are inferior to married couple homes.
Unfortunately, our leaders don't understand such simple concepts so they have done a lot to destroy the nuclear family since the 60s. We have been reaping the rewards their naivety ever since with vast ghettos, ignorance, high crime rates, drug use and the general decline of ethics. This is just the next step in the demise of the nuclear family.
Shame that the Christians think they can keep that to themselves, as though somehow they are more deserving of happiness than others who are different.
Odd, my Buddhist friend just got married last summer. I know several Catholics who are too..
IP: Logged
05:00 PM
TiredGXP Member
Posts: 712 From: A cold, miserable place Registered: Jan 2008
Gay marraige became legal here about 6 years ago, and guess what.....
THE WORLD DID NOT COME TO AN END!
Really, who gives a rat's ass about this anyway? It's not like it actually has any effect on those of us who are hetero.
Just like most 'fringe groups' ( no disrespect intended ) in life, they really don't impact the majority of the population, unless you want it to bother you.
IP: Logged
07:56 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22827 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Interesting documentary about those opposing gay marriages. I think I'll watch it, it's available on Netflix.
Pretty sure it's no more interesting than this book, which I can imagine is just as equally stupid as your book... but hey, we each have our interests.
IP: Logged
08:08 PM
PFF
System Bot
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Pretty sure it's no more interesting than this book, which I can imagine is just as equally stupid as your book... but hey, we each have our interests.
What I posted was a documentary movie, not a book. So you FAILED!
FILM SYNOPSIS
Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?
Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).
Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families -- including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson -- we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard's Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 06-26-2011).]
But one thing is for sure, I don't like bigotry, and I don't like the government imposing itself on the lives of good citizens.
I don't have to be gay, or care one way or another to support this decision.
People thought at one point that women shouldn't need the right to vote. Democracy would fail.
It didn't. It changed.
People thought that black people were property. The ecomomy would fail.
It didn't. It changed.
I could go on and on. We are today standing in front of another group of people that are oppressed. They are asking to be heard.
You don't have to like them. You don't have to be friends with them. To all hardcore conservatives: you don't have to **** them either. Oh, that was funnier than originally intended. Quite a few seem to like to do that.
You just need to stay out of their way.
I certainly don't want the fight to go to the church. I think a church has an equal right to declare that in this building and this congregation, we marry one man to one woman.
This entire issue has nothing to do with government. It is solely between religious groups and the LGBT community, along with others like myself that care.
Give this man a cigar on me...
IP: Logged
09:54 PM
Jun 27th, 2011
fogglethorpe Member
Posts: 4828 From: Valley of the Sun Registered: Jul 2001
There are two misconceptions about gay marriage that I want to point out. Before I do, let me state that I am a libertarian/objectivist and support the rights of individuals to pursue their own happiness and love whoever they want accordingly. Provided that it is peaceful, that they don't ask me to sanction or endorse it or clean up their messes, it makes no difference to me whatsoever how people choose to live.
Misconception number 1: Laws supporting traditional marriage (a legal union between one man and one woman) are discriminatory.
Institutional discrimination occurs when a law abiding individual is not afforded the same protection and treatment by his/her government as another law abiding individual. But traditional marriage laws apply equally to everyone; no man may marry another man, no woman may marry another woman. Sexual preference aside, such laws treat all individuals the same. If exceptions were made against, or in favor of, certain individuals because of benign traits such as race, the law would be discriminatory and should be changed or repealed. But traditional marriage laws are equitable, whether one agrees with them or not.
Misconception number 2: The government has no interest in distinguishing between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships.
One major difference between the two types of relationships described above is obvious..procreation. Birth rate is an important aspect concerning the longevity of a nation. Currently, the CBR (Crude Birth Rate) of the United States is app. 14 per 1000 (according the the CIA World Factbook, and the UN). 20 is considered low, and app. 30 is considered sufficient to maintain current population levels.
Many problems are associated with declining population numbers. As the population ages, the burden of caring for seniors increases while the financial resources to do so decrease. In other words, we have an unsustainable welfare state. Insufficient personnel for the workforce and military is another problem.
Granted, legal immigration helps take up some of the slack. But with the current combination, population levels are still decreasing and the logical result is marginalization of culture and influence at best, eventual collapse at worst.
So, does the government have an interest in promoting traditional marriage? I think it does.
I can find no justification for redefining a foundational institution of western civilization in the name of political correctness.
IP: Logged
04:37 AM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 18133 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
I agree single parent families are at a disadvantage, but we are talking couples here. 2 parents... So i don't see it as assisting erosion at all.
See this article. Gay marriage, welfare, and abortion on demand all create a separation of parenthood from marriage and erodes the nuclear family. Married couples are becoming rare in Scandinavian countries that legalized same sex marriage over a decade ago.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. There are consequences to everything.
The next phase will be "marriage to children" as the Muslums do, then someone will want to marry his best animal friend, dog, sheep or goat as we would be descriminating against their chosen life styles if not allowed. The slippery slope is here now, enjoy the trip down it.
The next phase will be "marriage to children" as the Muslums do, then someone will want to marry his best animal friend, dog, sheep or goat as we would be descriminating against their chosen life styles if not allowed. The slippery slope is here now, enjoy the trip down it.
Respectfully, I don't buy it. The differences between animals and humans makes it impossible for an animal to consent to marriage, nor sign the marriage license. Animals are also not legally recognized as persons, either. My dog may be my best friend, but if you run him over with a car you will never get charged with even involuntary manslaughter. This example seems pretty thin.
Same with Children, who still are bound by law to not marry anyone until minimum age in each state. That is not going to change because of Gay marriage... especially when Romeo and sex with minors punishments are actually becoming more hard nosed in the last several years. No, I dont believe the slope is that slippery according to your 2 examples. Sorry.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 06-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:29 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
The next phase will be "marriage to children" as the Muslums do, then someone will want to marry his best animal friend, dog, sheep or goat as we would be descriminating against their chosen life styles if not allowed. The slippery slope is here now, enjoy the trip down it.
I don't know about people marring farm animals, but some do practice bestiality. General rule of thumb is; if it has happened before-it can happen again. Out of the three, I think polygamy would be up next.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: See this article. Gay marriage, welfare, and abortion on demand all create a separation of parenthood from marriage and erodes the nuclear family. Married couples are becoming rare in Scandinavian countries that legalized same sex marriage over a decade ago.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. There are consequences to everything.
The next phase will be "marriage to children" as the Muslums do, then someone will want to marry his best animal friend, dog, sheep or goat as we would be descriminating against their chosen life styles if not allowed. The slippery slope is here now, enjoy the trip down it.
Comparing a gay/lesbian relationship to those examples is rather insulting and bigoted.
IP: Logged
04:49 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
Sorry but i have several gay parent friends. I wont accept that its any worse than a 'traditional' family.
You are mixing two different subjects. There is the macro and the micro. In the micro I accept that there are individual cases of loving same sex couples that are great parents.
What I posted was the macro effect that the government endorsing same sex marriage has on the entire society. They are very different subjects. On the macro level, it has a very negative effect on the society. Unfortunately, such effects are not immediately seen. Just like the effects that welfare has, it gives an immediate good feeling for doing something for the poor, but has the long term negative effects of single parent homes, devastated the Black community, and created a culture of dependence. With same sex marriage, we are starting to see the effects in the Scandinavian countries with far fewer couples getting married, lower birth rates and a slow death to the society as it fails to create the next generation.
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.
As Ron Paul says: "Get the government out of it". Like so many things, the government has given itself authority and power that it really has no authority to take. Marriage isn't a government issue, it's a *religious* issue. Weddings are based largely on religious customs. If the government has an issue with same-sex marriage, then let them establish rules disallowing weddings officiated by government officials, and let that be the end of it. And if a particular church doesn't want same sex marriage, then allow them to make that choice on their own. But "...get the government out of it."
IP: Logged
06:02 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27082 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
As Ron Paul says: "Get the government out of it". Like so many things, the government has given itself authority and power that it really has no authority to take. Marriage isn't a government issue, it's a *religious* issue. Weddings are based largely on religious customs. If the government has an issue with same-sex marriage, then let them establish rules disallowing weddings officiated by government officials, and let that be the end of it. And if a particular church doesn't want same sex marriage, then allow them to make that choice on their own. But "...get the government out of it."
When in doubt, this should be the default in the U.S.A. Government out of it unless absolutely necessary.
As for declining population, there are probably too many people on the planet already. Maybe declining population isn't a bad idea? Not by force, like China, but a natural "draw down" of population might not be bad.
The next phase will be "marriage to children" as the Muslums do, then someone will want to marry his best animal friend, dog, sheep or goat as we would be descriminating against their chosen life styles if not allowed. The slippery slope is here now, enjoy the trip down it.
"Slippery slope" is a fallacy...
IP: Logged
06:43 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
As Ron Paul says: "Get the government out of it". Like so many things, the government has given itself authority and power that it really has no authority to take. Marriage isn't a government issue, it's a *religious* issue. Weddings are based largely on religious customs. If the government has an issue with same-sex marriage, then let them establish rules disallowing weddings officiated by government officials, and let that be the end of it. And if a particular church doesn't want same sex marriage, then allow them to make that choice on their own. But "...get the government out of it."
Sounds like homosexuals are trying to tickle thier own ears and maybe some of the ears of various religions. If the "union" is so important then why the need to perform the vows in church? How are they going to get pass the various portions found in the Bible that God's condems?
Sounds like homosexuals are trying to tickle thier own ears and maybe some of the ears of various religions. If the "union" is so important then why the need to perform the vows in church? How are they going to get pass the various portions found in the Bible that God's condems?
There are a lot of churches and religions that don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (I belong to just such a church, called "Unity") For those churches, and members of those churches, there is no conflict with anything in the Bible or the religion.
IP: Logged
06:46 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
There are a lot of churches and religions that don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (I belong to just such a church, called "Unity") For those churches, and members of those churches, there is no conflict with anything in the Bible or the religion.
That interesting. Although you stated that there's a lot of churches/religion may have that viewpoint, but is that type of thinking supported in the Bible? Is there a scripture(s) that supports that viewpoint? However, it would be best to see how Jesus and the Apostle viewed the Bible principles, "All Scripture is given by inspiration for doctrine, for reproof, for corection for instrucrtion in righeousness. That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (1Tim 3:16, 17) Gideons Bible.
Therefore, if Jesus or the Apostle didn't pick n' choose what they want to hear or follow. How on earth do you think individuals/churches today can by-pass Bible principles? If they claim to be Christ followers don't you think He has the last say as to what is right and what is wrong? Otherwise, what you'll end up having is a "free-for-all." Where anybody can come along and say, "I like stealing" and another one, "I like murder." Let's remove those two as sin.
There are two misconceptions about gay marriage that I want to point out. Before I do, let me state that I am a libertarian/objectivist and support the rights of individuals to pursue their own happiness and love whoever they want accordingly. Provided that it is peaceful, that they don't ask me to sanction or endorse it or clean up their messes, it makes no difference to me whatsoever how people choose to live.
Misconception number 1: Laws supporting traditional marriage (a legal union between one man and one woman) are discriminatory.
Institutional discrimination occurs when a law abiding individual is not afforded the same protection and treatment by his/her government as another law abiding individual. But traditional marriage laws apply equally to everyone; no man may marry another man, no woman may marry another woman. Sexual preference aside, such laws treat all individuals the same. If exceptions were made against, or in favor of, certain individuals because of benign traits such as race, the law would be discriminatory and should be changed or repealed. But traditional marriage laws are equitable, whether one agrees with them or not.
Misconception number 2: The government has no interest in distinguishing between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships.
One major difference between the two types of relationships described above is obvious..procreation. Birth rate is an important aspect concerning the longevity of a nation. Currently, the CBR (Crude Birth Rate) of the United States is app. 14 per 1000 (according the the CIA World Factbook, and the UN). 20 is considered low, and app. 30 is considered sufficient to maintain current population levels.
Many problems are associated with declining population numbers. As the population ages, the burden of caring for seniors increases while the financial resources to do so decrease. In other words, we have an unsustainable welfare state. Insufficient personnel for the workforce and military is another problem.
Granted, legal immigration helps take up some of the slack. But with the current combination, population levels are still decreasing and the logical result is marginalization of culture and influence at best, eventual collapse at worst.
So, does the government have an interest in promoting traditional marriage? I think it does.
I can find no justification for redefining a foundational institution of western civilization in the name of political correctness.
I think part 1 is crap.
The ultimate problem is we have got ourselves involved in others relationships for far too long.
You want to talk equity? Here's how it works in my books: The discrepancy in YOUR example is that a defined group of people are being blocked from something that another defined group of people can partake in.
End. of. story.
Now, do 51% of people believe that this form of discrimination is acceptable? Well, Westboro Church member, local bigot olejoedad seems to want to kill them, so there's a vote against.
I find it funny that so many republicans are against gay marriage.
One: Because so many of them are closet homosexuals, its not even funny. Seriously, how many hardcore republicans arguing for the sanctity of white hetero america need to **** men in the ass before we start asking whats up?
Two: Because they are always talking about smaller government. Seems convenient that you want another gov't intrusion into lives to define marriage.
FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANT **** .
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Additionally, throughout the Old Testiment there are verses about the destruction and killing of the sodomites, as they are an abomination before God.
You sir are actually one of the most bigoted, back woods assholes I have ever seen on the internet.
Well, the problem is, you can't use a literal interpretation of specific quotes of the Bible to support an argument against someone who doesn't interpret the Bible literally.
Besides, I don't know how *anyone* can claim to be able to literally interpret the Bible anyway. First off, it's been translated from a language that has no English equivalents for many if its words, and the meanings of words has changed with time.
If you're truly interested, I'm happy to explain as best I can, but I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a theological discussion. I also don't want to argue about our individual beliefs.....I believe we are all entitled to our own paths. That includes gays.
IP: Logged
11:18 PM
Jun 29th, 2011
olejoedad Member
Posts: 18133 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
So, Gridlock, is being gay a choice or is it not a choice?
Your last post is more confusing than your previous posting, in which you accused me of the following:
- being a member of the Westboro church - being the local bigot - seems to want to kill them. - being one of the most bigoted, back woods a??holes I have ever seen on the internet
I understand that your opinion on this subject may be different than my opinion, but in the end, it's only opinion.
So, anyway, back to the original question in this post - is being gay a choice or not? Or is it "hardwired" into the psyche of a person?
And, along the same line of questioning, are some people just incapable of controlling other urges, such as temper, theft, telling the truth, being faithful to their word, spending money irresponsibly, running their mouth without thinking through their words?
I'm curious.
IP: Logged
01:28 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by olejoedad: So, Gridlock, is being gay a choice or is it not a choice?
Your last post is more confusing than your previous posting, in which you accused me of the following:
- being a member of the Westboro church - being the local bigot - seems to want to kill them. - being one of the most bigoted, back woods a??holes I have ever seen on the internet
I understand that your opinion on this subject may be different than my opinion, but in the end, it's only opinion.
So, anyway, back to the original question in this post - is being gay a choice or not? Or is it "hardwired" into the psyche of a person?
And, along the same line of questioning, are some people just incapable of controlling other urges, such as temper, theft, telling the truth, being faithful to their word, spending money irresponsibly, running their mouth without thinking through their words?
I'm curious.
not sure what that has to do with anything? "being gay" is actually irrelavent, isnt it? how does it impact you in any way? unless, of course, you are wanting to perhaps "be gay" with him? are you looking for someone?
If I may add. Child Support Services. Homosexual or otherwise, nobody gets a free ride.
Give this man a cigar on me...
(sarcasm 
)
