Avila Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 There is no more conversation once the namecalling starts. It is just a way to bully people into not sharing their opinions. Or is tolerance only for people you agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeninok Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 That's a simplistic view of people. People are much more complicated than that. Does that mean a severely handicapped person who is wheelchair bound and on a ventilator should be allowed to be an air force pilot? They may have dreams, but I'm certain they are more aware of their own limitations than we are. And, before you bash me for that analogy, I worked in a hospital for the severely handicapped and dying. They know their limitations. Me wishing more for them and pressing for them to attain unreachable goals only exacerbates their pain, not reduces it. And it also denies them their dignity. There is no correlation between the wish of a handicapped person in a wheelchair wishing to be a pilot and an adult gay couple wishing to be a family with all the legal benefits that go along with it. Equal rights doesn't mean we all grow up to be president, it means we all have equal protection and legal liberties under the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 That's a simplistic view of people. People are much more complicated than that. Does that mean a severely handicapped person who is wheelchair bound and on a ventilator should be allowed to be an air force pilot? They may have dreams, but I'm certain they are more aware of their own limitations than we are. And, before you bash me for that analogy, I worked in a hospital for the severely handicapped and dying. They know their limitations. Me wishing more for them and pressing for them to attain unreachable goals only exacerbates their pain, not reduces it. And it also denies them their dignity. There's the basic fact that you're missing, whether you worked in a hospital or not. Those people are physically unable to perform certain tasks. There is no physical obstacle to gay people being married. Just societal ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ture, but yet, they have not naturally produced a child. And, we are higher than animals, we have the amazing God given ability to reason, which gives us dignity and raises us above animals. Some like to think that's a romantic argument, but I have no desire to go back to being an ape. We have an evolutionary ability to reason. Often, it does not serve us well at all, as a species, except to justify our abhorrent actions toward others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I am not religious. Don't go to church. Here's my opinion in a nutshell. I think this should be an issue for each individual state to decide. The people in each state make the rule. Live in the state that has the rules you prefer. That doesn't work for a couple of reasons. 1.) DOMA is a federal law which affects everyone, even in states where gay marriage is legal. 2.) What happens when someone is forced to move due to work? In any other case the marriage license from the issuing state would be accepted. Why should it be different for homosexuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Trying to stay within forum guidelines here, but if I go around declaring a 4-sided polygon a "triangle", that does not change it from a quadrilateral into a triangle. It's still a quadrilateral, and not a triangle. Is wanting accurate terminology to remain accurate,"hateful"? I don't see it that way. Um, do I really have to be the one to point out that if we were all going to go with the "traditional" definition of marriage as it's portrayed in the Bible, we'd all have to be practicing polygamy? How many wives did Jacob have? Personally I'm glad we changed that definiton. I think it's a much smaller tweak to extend that to be married to the one person you love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 And before anyone pops in with the, "But that's just a pill!" argument for Viagra. I *should* have conceived on Clomid statistically. So my babies would not have been 100% natural but they would have come about only because of a pill. At what point would YOU have considered my babies unnatural? And here's the problem... that line is morally different for everybody! And would my babies be twice as unnatural if my DH needed Viagra and I needed Clomid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Help for what? I asked for the thread to be deleted because it is predicated upon irreconcilable differences of opinions and is a 100% political topic. Hardly a controversial position. If all parties involved feel passionately about a topic, then I think it is a useful discussion to have. If one cannot stomach discussions on hot and controversial topics, then it would be best to stay away from those threads, rather than banning conversation altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I guess you were addressing the flag/pledge thing, but surely this is not comparable to a gay couple wanting the liberty/freedom to marry. Because no matter how hard we wish, we will not eradicate injustice in this world. We can lessen it, but it will never be eradicated. Why? Because people will alwys be born with handicaps to overcome, death visits us all and many times too soon, disease attacks our bodies...It is our job to lessen it, but we also must balance the needs of ALL, not the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom-ninja. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. Wow. This opinion explains a lot then. What gives you the right to say whether someone has to ignore their feelings of love and attraction towards another person? You can't say your religion because our laws require freedom of religion meaning you can't enforce your religious beliefs on others. Other than religious beliefs anti-homosexuality holds no ground. One thing people CAN choose is whether or not to discriminate against other humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Um, do I really have to be the one to point out that if we were all going to go with the "traditional" definition of marriage as it's portrayed in the Bible, we'd all have to be practicing polygamy? How many wives did Jacob have? Personally I'm glad we changed that definiton. I think it's a much smaller tweak to extend that to be married to the one person you love. Not just polygamy, either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 We have an evolutionary ability to reason. Often, it does not serve us well at all, as a species, except to justify our abhorrent actions toward others. We also have the evolutionary ability to perform neurosurgury. It all depends at how you look at the glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Because no matter how hard we wish, we will not eradicate injustice in this world. We can lessen it, but it will never be eradicated. It is our job to lessen it, but we also must balance the needs of ALL, not the minority. Agreed. So we lessen it here by allowing gays and lesbians to have the same right to form legal, loving unions as heterosexuals have. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeninok Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Because no matter how hard we wish, we will not eradicate injustice in this world. We can lessen it, but it will never be eradicated. Why? Because people will alwys be born with handicaps to overcome, death visits us all and many times too soon, disease attacks our bodies...It is our job to lessen it, but we also must balance the needs of ALL, not the minority. The majority will not be changed by allowing marriage equality, you still have every right to marry and live in a traditional christian household. The only way the majority would be hurt is if all marriage was made illegal, since if one group can't have it, nobody can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Trying to stay within forum guidelines here, but if I go around declaring a 4-sided polygon a "triangle", that does not change it from a quadrilateral into a triangle. It's still a quadrilateral, and not a triangle. Is wanting accurate terminology to remain accurate,"hateful"? I don't see it that way. No. If you go around insisting that a 4-sided polygon is a triangle, the accurate label would be "stupid" or, perhaps, "poorly educated". However, shapes are not sentient beings, and when you endeavor to mete out the civil rights of others based upon your own preferences for the way things are "supposed to be", stupid becomes hateful very quickly, and we lose the ability to charitably extend "poorly educated". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 But why bother? We can't fix everyone's sniveling little problems. I don't know. For some reason I am really weird and I take to heart what Jesus said about loving your neighbor and all.... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 That's a simplistic view of people. People are much more complicated than that. Does that mean a severely handicapped person who is wheelchair bound and on a ventilator should be allowed to be an air force pilot? They may have dreams, but I'm certain they are more aware of their own limitations than we are. And, before you bash me for that analogy, I worked in a hospital for the severely handicapped and dying. They know their limitations. Me wishing more for them and pressing for them to attain unreachable goals only exacerbates their pain, not reduces it. And it also denies them their dignity. Grasping at straws, much? I can make illogical and unrelated arguments too. "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because cats can't make toast!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyinNNV Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 See I think this should be a federal issue. What if one state decided that anyone who married in a protestant church will be recognized as married, but anyone else who was married in another type of church or by a JP is no longer married? Yes, each state would have to decide how to deal with other state's unions. I'd prefer 50 different laws. Then I just live in the state that I agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Grasping at straws, much? I can make illogical and unrelated arguments too. "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because cats can't make toast!" LOL! I wish I had my "likes" back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFaerie Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Sadly, being married doesn't stop fighting between families during a medical crisis or after a death. We've seen it over and over. Always have a medical power of attorney with your wishes detailed as much as possible. Always have a will. The last mom and wife we saw go through the loss of their soldier are currently fighting it out in court. It happens *often*. I know, but at least this man would have had some legal ground to stand on, rights to information about his beloved at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 There is no more conversation once the namecalling starts. It is just a way to bully people into not sharing their opinions. Or is tolerance only for people you agree with? Some people's arguments are so abhorrent they don't deserve to be heard. If that makes me a socialist-commie-freedom-hater, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 WendyK, as a matter of teaching US history, our children memorized the pledge. However, we don't say it - not even at 4-H meetings when we get stares from people for not doing so - though I will admit that I think our National Anthem is pretty and hate it when some pop singer slaughters it for the public ear. I'm not horrified to be an American or anything, well some days I am! :001_smile: But, I consider being American an accident of birth, not a choice. If I had been born in Russia in 1968, I think I probably would have been an adult in a gulag by 1988 because I wouldn't have said their pledge either. Dh and I are very, very careful about making the oath thing. Much of what the country/feds stand for in this day and age are a violation of deeply held beliefs. We refuse to render it unbridled allegiance. I do the best I can in regards to civic duty, but it never transcends issues of conscience. Shh....I'm sure the Department of Homeland Security is probably going to knock on my door if this gets around!!! Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Allowing the redefinition of marriage will easily change the laws, yes. However, the laws can be changed in other ways. I am an American, and I want equal rights for people, HOWEVER, they *are* a minority, and you accommodate the minority, you do not restructure the laws to redefine the majority. I fully think the estate laws should be changed --I think they're pretty shameful the way they stand. Redefining marriage will not make the estate laws any better, they still need to be changed. I want to know how gay marriage will redefine marriage for you. Please explain. I am making the assumption that your definition of marriage is based on your religious beliefs. Can you please tell me how allowing gays and lesbians to marry will change your religious beliefs? Or how it will redefine the majority? Moreso, can you explain what the majority definition of marriage is? I would also like to know how extending equal rights to a minority is "accomodating." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 We also have the evolutionary ability to perform neurosurgury. It all depends at how you look at the glass. Thumbs rarely lead to the oppression of other human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 But why bother? We can't fix everyone's sniveling little problems. In no way did I diminish anyone's problems, most certainly by labeling them sniveling. ALL human life has dignity. That doesn't mean that we allow the country's laws to be changed --the laws are for the benefit of ALL society, not the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In no way did I diminish anyone's problems, most certainly by labeling them sniveling. ALL human life has dignity. That doesn't mean that we allow the country's laws to be changed --the laws are for the benefit of ALL society, not the minority. And again...how does allowing all adults equal access to marriage rights not benefit society? It seems really odd that your argument seems to boil down to "Apes! Sex = kids! Neurosurgery! Just because!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ture, but yet, they have not naturally produced a child. Yes indeed. You said that natural law states that sex=children and I responded to that by saying that is not always true. There are variations of sexuality that can be found through out the animal kingdom including humans. Therefore, your argument, that marriage should be defined based on the ability to reproduce because sex=children, does not follow. Even if your definition of marriage hinges on the ability to reproduce based on the stance of the Catholic Church, I do not see why that belief should be the basis of secular law or the secular definition of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In no way did I diminish anyone's problems, most certainly by labeling them sniveling. ALL human life has dignity. That doesn't mean that we allow the country's laws to be changed --the laws are for the benefit of ALL society, not the minority. So basically, it's our job to lessen the amount of injustice in the world, as long as it's an injustice YOU don't like. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Thumbs rarely lead to the oppression of other human beings. So there is no reasoning and learning that enables neurosurgury? I think the Drs who perform them would disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Yes, each state would have to decide how to deal with other state's unions. I'd prefer 50 different laws. Then I just live in the state that I agree with. And I can see how someone who is pretty conventional and never wants to leave their home can think like that. Hobbits are good people too and they have no sense of adventure, for the most part. :laugh: But DH and I enjoy traveling quite a lot. You're telling me you think it's a good idea that I road trip through the US and if I drive through Iowa, my marriage is cool but I could be considered legally single in Nebraska and WHOOPEE?!! So my kids would be legally considered legitimate here in Michigan but in Hawaii, they might be bastards? That's a little kooky. And in an economy like this one is, it's not as simple as, "Hey! I don't like Tennesse anymore. I'm selling my place and moving to Delaware." There are little things to consider like employment, home sales, extended family, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 So basically, it's our job to lessen the amount of injustice in the world, as long as it's an injustice YOU don't like. Got it. It's very easy to paint it that simplistically and tar the other side, but as this conversations has shown, that's not quite true, and it's also misportrays those who disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Some people's arguments are so abhorrent they don't deserve to be heard. If that makes me a socialist-commie-freedom-hater, so be it. If you don't want to hear the other side, don't participate on a message board. Or ignore people. Or refute the argument without calling names. Breaking the board rules and being nasty does not influence anybody or change any minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If marriage is simply for procreation why do 80 year olds get married? Why did people who are already done having children choose to remarry after divorce or death of a spouse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Yes indeed. You said that natural law states that sex=children and I responded to that by saying that is not always true. There are variations of sexuality that can be found through out the animal kingdom including humans. Therefore, your argument, that marriage should be defined based on the ability to reproduce because sex=children, does not follow. Even if your definition of marriage hinges on the ability to reproduce based on the stance of the Catholic Church, I do not see why that belief should be the basis of secular law or the secular definition of marriage. I answered that back a few pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In no way did I diminish anyone's problems, most certainly by labeling them sniveling. ALL human life has dignity. That doesn't mean that we allow the country's laws to be changed --the laws are for the benefit of ALL society, not the minority. And if those of faith become the minority? Or whites? Or educated males? The extent of "ALL" is typically defined by a select segment of society, often in a perplexing fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If you don't want to hear the other side, don't participate on a message board. Or ignore people. Or refute the argument without calling names. Breaking the board rules and being nasty does not influence anybody or change any minds. Or.... you stand up and say "that's ridiculous" and "you're a fool". Because standing up for something and calling stupid out on stupid can lead to progress. Or I guess during the Civil Rights movement, everyone who supported equal rights should have just stood down and let things keep on keeping on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyinNNV Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 That doesn't work for a couple of reasons. 1.) DOMA is a federal law which affects everyone, even in states where gay marriage is legal. 2.) What happens when someone is forced to move due to work? In any other case the marriage license from the issuing state would be accepted. Why should it be different for homosexuals? I like your questions/comments I am still thinking about number 1. As to number 2 I'd just state that nobody can be forced to move to another state. If they choose to move, then they choose to abide by the laws of that state. That is the way it is now. The only exception to that I can think of is the military. I guess there would need to be a federal law for those in the military. Thanks for the conversation, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's very easy to paint it that simplistically and tar the other side, but as this conversations has shown, that's not quite true, and it's also misportrays those who disagree with you. It's easy to paint simplistically because all of the arguments I've seen you make in this thread are, well, simplistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If marriage is simply for procreation why do 80 year olds get married? Why did people who are already done having children choose to remarry after divorce or death of a spouse? But see, they have all of the "parts", so that makes it okay. Apparently the "natural law" definition means sex = kids except when it doesn't. Somehow apes, pilots on ventilators, and neurosurgery works into it as well but I am getting a bit confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom2scouts Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I saw one that was a red > symbol. It was posted by a lesbian blogger who felt the HRC had more important issues than marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If you don't want to hear the other side, don't participate on a message board. Or ignore people. Or refute the argument without calling names. Breaking the board rules and being nasty does not influence anybody or change any minds. Have I been nasty? Some arguments truly are abhorrent and sickening. Like the idea that your skin color determines your worth, or that your genitals should determine who you love. No one should have to listen to that kind of thing. An argument has some kind of logic behind it. I see no logic in either of those ideologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoughCollie Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If the country's laws are for the benefit of all society, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 comes to mind. Some classes of minorities are specifically protected in that Act. Marriage is a matter of state law. Federal law trumps state law -- where they vary, the feds win (or in the case of medical marijuana laws, will win if the feds decide to make it an issue). If the Feds decide to make a law pertaining to gay marriage, whether couched in terms of civil rights or not, as long as it is Constitutional it would trump state law. Similar to how Roe v. Wade and the Thirteenth Amendment trump state law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 But see, they have all of the "parts", so that makes it okay. Apparently the "natural law" definition means sex = kids except when it doesn't. Somehow apes, pilots on ventilators, and neurosurgery works into it as well but I am getting a bit confused. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 So there is no reasoning and learning that enables neurosurgury? I think the Drs who perform them would disagree. Of course there is. But the other, more functional part of that - opposable thumbs - is not being used to justify oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH_Homeschooler Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I saw one that was a red > symbol. It was posted by a lesbian blogger who felt the HRC had more important issues than marriage. Interesting. I've seen many gay people who believe this is just about the most important issue right now but I suppose they don't speak for all gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 But see, they have all of the "parts", so that makes it okay. Apparently the "natural law" definition means sex = kids except when it doesn't. Somehow apes, pilots on ventilators, and neurosurgery works into it as well but I am getting a bit confused. Let's hope we don't have to consider the sexual habits and proclivities of ducks as well. Some here might never recover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Or.... you stand up and say "that's ridiculous" and "you're a fool". Because standing up for something and calling stupid out on stupid can lead to progress. Or I guess during the Civil Rights movement, everyone who supported equal rights should have just stood down and let things keep on keeping on? Civil discourse ought to be civil in my opinion. People who can't discuss a topic like adults ought to give themselves a time-out IMO. Not being able to listen to the other side while demanding to express one's own beliefs is pretty childish IMO. Listening respectfully does not imply agreement. In fact, the country can never come to a real agreement until both sides can listen respectfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Of course there is. But the other, more functional part of that - opposable thumbs - is not being used to justify oppression. Bravo for coming up with a response to that crap. That might have been the weirdest comment made so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Or.... you stand up and say "that's ridiculous" and "you're a fool". Because standing up for something and calling stupid out on stupid can lead to progress. Or I guess during the Civil Rights movement, everyone who supported equal rights should have just stood down and let things keep on keeping on? Um, here, that us ridiculous may fly. You're a fool breaks board rules that you agreed to when you joined. You have a choice on whether to participate on this board or in any thread on it. Don't think your moral high horse means you get to be nasty. Plenty of people defend their positions intelligently and civilly without the nastiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I like your questions/comments I am still thinking about number 1. As to number 2 I'd just state that nobody can be forced to move to another state. If they choose to move, then they choose to abide by the laws of that state. That is the way it is now. The only exception to that I can think of is the military. I guess there would need to be a federal law for those in the military. Thanks for the conversation, But it really isn't that way now. Contracts signed in one state are valid in another. A driver's license issued in GA is valid in Alaska. If state A says you have to be 16 to marry but state B says 18, a 16-year old married in state A has a legal marriage when they move to state B. The only reason that marriage laws are exempt from this currently is due to DOMA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts