Spineless Democrats fear gay marriage issue

[Valley Oak]

I would advise those Democrats that they have more to fear if they don't support same-sex marriage:

Democrats fear voter ire over AG's gay-marriage opinion (https://www.gazette.net/stories/02262010/polinew202105_32550.php)

[LenInSebastopol]

I am interested in your comment to "Most Americans do not want marriage for gays", thus making office holders coming up for election scared to hang their hat up instead of throwing it into the ring. Democratically speaking, most voters in this vast land outside of Wacco-land don't.

[Valley Oak]

I would have a conversation with them about people in love should have the right to be married and I would ask them to change their minds. I might also explain that same-sex couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry. I might also point out that the US Supreme Court in 1967 voted, unanimously, to overturn the State of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, in favor of the plaintiffs: a White man and an African-American woman:
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)

All I can have is a conversation, Lenin. That's all. But at the same time, the Democrats running for office have to demonstrate some cojones, for crying out loud. That's called leadership and that includes standing up for what's right when the odds are against you. Life is not easy but it is far more difficult if you don't face up to its challenges.

One of the politically active LGBT groups that gave over $100,000 in campaign donations to Democratic Party candidates in New York are NOT going to donate to them again. Disgraced Democratic State Senator, Hiram Monserrate, was ousted 53 to 8 for brutally beating up his live in female partner. The LGBT group that made campaign donations to Monserrate's successful bid for office is not supporting a new Democratic candidate to fill Monserrate's vacant seat, a pro-gay marriage Democrat:
New York Senate Moves Toward Expelling Monserrate - NYTimes.com (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/nyregion/10hiram.html)

Time and historical precedent is very strongly in favor of same-sex marriage. NEVER in US history has a civil rights movement lost. It may have taken decades, such as women's suffrage movement, which ended in victory when the US Constitution was amended in 1920 (19th Amendment) to protect women's right to vote. (It was a cliffhanger that boiled down to a state legislative vote in a southern state, decided by only vote that was influenced by a letter from his mother.):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States

(On a separate note, Finland was the first country in the world that gave women the legal right to vote and run for public office; this was in 1906 and there were 19 female members of parliament resulting from their 1907 elections.)

The great majority of the younger generation, people under 30, strongly support same-sex marriage. It's just a matter of time before all 50 states legally recognize gay marriage. In California, we could get Proposition 8 repealed in a few weeks by a pending federal court decision, or by state ballot initiative this November. If both of those fail, same-sex marriage will inevitably become legal in California by 2012 or 2014 or sometime between now and November 2014 because of legislative or judicial action.

Edward



I am interested in your comment to "Most Americans do not want marriage for gays", thus making office holders coming up for election scared to hang their hat up instead of throwing it into the ring. Democratically speaking, most voters in this vast land outside of Wacco-land don't.

[LenInSebastopol]

Your approach using a conversation is the BEST way to proceed, as in all things human, which are those that touch the heart. Thanks. I am sure they would change their minds after a decent conversation, but then again if you were talking to the spineless ones that lead us, they may STILL vote against your wishes and that is due to their response to their constituents.
Please allow me to respond without getting too angry and maligning me, which is a way to lose the issue. I do not wish to talk about you, nor your feelings, as I know my own are as vaporous and changing as a candle in a draft. I wish to discuss the issue as if it were a legitimate part of a dialog in the public square.


I would have a conversation with them about people in love should have the right to be married and I would ask them to change their minds. I might also explain that same-sex couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry. I might also point out that the US Supreme Court in 1967 voted, unanimously, to overturn the State of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, in favor of the plaintiffs: a White man and an African-American woman:
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)


The right to get married! I do not find that anywhere in the original papers. Nor should we find it any right to be granted by our government. If you base your right, correctly so, on elements outside and beyond the reach of gov't, then you have a chance to be heard, IMO. If you your love issue, as you infer, is beyond the purview of the gov't, then why not go for Civil Unions and domestic partners? That matter is "controlled" by gov't and affords all the same. Plus it is clear the country would not be so divided by such a crucial issue. As you know identity is important, and sexual identity is so important that the old Woody Allen joke becomes a oxymoron, "Why are sex and death so much alike"?
Actually one of the miscegenation laws that was overturned was here in California in 1948. My mother and fathered were married when it was against the law! From this I realized that the gov't is most ALWAYS lagging behind what the people want to do: live their lives without gov't interference.



All I can have is a conversation, Lenin. That's all. But at the same time, the Democrats running for office have to demonstrate some cojones, for crying out loud. That's called leadership and that includes standing up for what's right when the odds are against you. Life is not easy but it is far more difficult if you don't face up to its challenges.

When so many call for leadership, including myself, fear is to often the motivation. Is that the issue here?
As for what is "right", that is a whole different nut to crack and not part of this conversation. Life is not easy nor fair so for most the odds will always be 'against them'. Such is the gradient of life, or so I learned in biology many moons ago.



Time and historical precedent is very strongly in favor of same-sex marriage. NEVER in US history has a civil rights movement lost.

Most do not view this struggle in the same context as gender or race. As mentioned previously the gov't is usually behind what the majority of people want and do. It is not the case here. At best the people do not care with whom you sleep. That is progress in our lifetime and although some may not accept it, folks won't "support" the issue. At best, as stated, they will not care. And I fear the minority will not be content with that and will act out demanding attention which will only negate and dampen the issues.


The great majority of the younger generation, people under 30, strongly support same-sex marriage. It's just a matter of time before all 50 states legally recognize gay marriage. In California, we could get Proposition 8 repealed in a few weeks by a pending federal court decision, or by state ballot initiative this November. If both of those fail, same-sex marriage will inevitably become legal in California by 2012 or 2014 or sometime between now and November 2014 because of legislative or judicial action. Edward

There is some of the rub...it is mandated by a few judges; even if all the judges made a fiat judgment in your favor the people will only separate more from the gov't. The "leaders" sense that and wish to be elected....square one returns!
Thanks for your response.

[Valley Oak]

The American people do not have either the constitutional right nor the moral right to vote away other people's rights, especially when those are Constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to marry.

The right to marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. A state that votes in a referendum to strip away the right to marry, or denies that right, comes into direct conflict with the US Constitution.

It is written into the US Constitution the duty of American political institutions to protect minorities' rights from the abuses of the majority. Those institutions charged with this responsibility include the 3 branches of government: judicial, legislative, and executive. It is the obligation of the courts, including the US Supreme Court, the President of the United States (or lower executives such as mayors and governors), and Congress (or lower legislative bodies) to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Actions and attitudes to the contrary clearly demonstrate ignorance of the American Constitution, our democratic process, and the philosophy and spirit of the framers of the Constitution when they created the United States of America.

Edward



Your approach using a conversation is the BEST way to proceed, as in all things human, which are those that touch the heart. Thanks. I am sure they would change their minds after a decent conversation, but then again if you were talking to the spineless ones that lead us, they may STILL vote against your wishes and that is due to their response to their constituents.
Please allow me to respond without getting too angry and maligning me, which is a way to lose the issue. I do not wish to talk about you, nor your feelings, as I know my own are as vaporous and changing as a candle in a draft. I wish to discuss the issue as if it were a legitimate part of a dialog in the public square.



The right to get married! I do not find that anywhere in the original papers. Nor should we find it any right to be granted by our government. If you base your right, correctly so, on elements outside and beyond the reach of gov't, then you have a chance to be heard, IMO. If you your love issue, as you infer, is beyond the purview of the gov't, then why not go for Civil Unions and domestic partners? That matter is "controlled" by gov't and affords all the same. Plus it is clear the country would not be so divided by such a crucial issue. As you know identity is important, and sexual identity is so important that the old Woody Allen joke becomes a oxymoron, "Why are sex and death so much alike"?
Actually one of the miscegenation laws that was overturned was here in California in 1948. My mother and fathered were married when it was against the law! From this I realized that the gov't is most ALWAYS lagging behind what the people want to do: live their lives without gov't interference.



When so many call for leadership, including myself, fear is to often the motivation. Is that the issue here?
As for what is "right", that is a whole different nut to crack and not part of this conversation. Life is not easy nor fair so for most the odds will always be 'against them'. Such is the gradient of life, or so I learned in biology many moons ago.



Most do not view this struggle in the same context as gender or race. As mentioned previously the gov't is usually behind what the majority of people want and do. It is not the case here. At best the people do not care with whom you sleep. That is progress in our lifetime and although some may not accept it, folks won't "support" the issue. At best, as stated, they will not care. And I fear the minority will not be content with that and will act out demanding attention which will only negate and dampen the issues.



There is some of the rub...it is mandated by a few judges; even if all the judges made a fiat judgment in your favor the people will only separate more from the gov't. The "leaders" sense that and wish to be elected....square one returns!
Thanks for your response.

[Valley Oak]

The bigots don’t have any new arguments against same-sex marriage. Their big hot button now is the children learning that homosexuality is a normal part of the human condition. That terrifies them because they lose control of the next generation. The trend is already happening, fewer young people are embracing religion. More atheists and more fair minded people mean the end of radical religious bovine effluvia.

[LenInSebastopol]

The American people do not have either the constitutional right nor the moral right to vote away other people's rights, especially when those are Constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to marry.

Morals are a "shared values" and not all share the same values especially in such a matter. If it were then all 31 states that have voted against gay marriage would settle the argument once and for all! The moral approach is an odd stance to take as folks have different thoughts, and mostly feelings, about what is moral, so setting that moral position aside I had to think about the other parts of the issue. And people DO have a Constitutional right to vote anyway they choose as the issues are presented to them. What you are kind of saying is that the gov't is bound to examine the result and make a ruling based on law and its precedents. However even those decisions may be considered "wrong" or not addressed via the Constitution, as with the Dread Scott decision being the most infamous.


The right to marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. A state that votes in a referendum to strip away the right to marry, or denies that right, comes into direct conflict with the US Constitution.

I find large leaps in the argument for democracy here as well as the political process itself. Folks voted in 2000 about marriage recognition which was invalidated by the court a few months later. As you know the public tried to address the issue with Prop 8 claiming the court in error. I find it amusing that the court reviews itself to see if it erred. But then that IS the process. On the whole the takings are painted in the light of racial rights and approached in that manner, but I find it fallacious. For example there is a proposal to have a LGBT housing project built locally, and I hope they get it due to real civil rights matters (the right to assemble and consort) but let us see how far it would get legally if white folks decided to have their own housing, and then expressed that life style in 'white folks' terms. Yes, "colored" folks could move in but would have to be subjected to a lot of accordion music and parades honoring The Carpenters, as well as like festivities.


It is written into the US Constitution the duty of American political institutions to protect minorities' rights from the abuses of the majority.

It also is their duty to protect folks from the tyranny of the minority, as it is a very well organized exerting tremendous influence in proportion to their size, when redefining 'marriage' for everyone else. Especially in light of the same issues given under "Civil Union". Even now California law will enable all rights given to spouses to domestic partners, but there are a few more papers to sign, or is this not the case?



Actions and attitudes to the contrary clearly demonstrate ignorance of the American Constitution, our democratic process, and the philosophy and spirit of the framers of the Constitution when they created the United States of America. Edward

You know, I hear that a lot from all kinds of folks with a side to scratch! And there never seems an end to their itch, collectively speaking that is!
And thanks for presenting the case.

[Valley Oak]

(I have edited this message.)

LenInSebastopol/Jack Read, I would like to challenge you with a question, if you are willing:

Why should the LGBT community settle for less than "marriage?" In other words, why should the LGBT community only accept the legal status of Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships? So what really is the issue here then? Why are you looking for any little nook and cranny so that we get anything BUT "marriage?"

Let me lay the cards out on the table for you. I'll make it real easy and simple for you, Lenin. Okay? I'll tell you the real reason why this is such an issue (not necessarily yours, by the way). For most opponents (not all) of same-sex marriage, the bottom line to all of this debate, bruhaha, and culture war regarding the stiff opposition to same-sex marriage is the strongly held conviction that "there is something wrong with LGBT people. There is something fundamentally wrong, perverted, immoral, unhealthy, or ungodly about being gay." That is it in a nutshell.

Hence, we "should not" call a legally recognized union between a same-sex couple "marriage" because that's only reserved for "normal" people who engage in a "natural," "healthy," "morally correct," as well as a "religiously correct" relationship that is "supposed to be" between just one man and one woman.

Care to respond or are you going to throw in the towel, which is what I strongly recommend you do.

Edward



"...why not go for Civil Unions and domestic partners?"

[LenInSebastopol]

(I have edited this message.)
LenInSebastopol/Jack Read, I would like to challenge you with a question, if you are willing:
Why should the LGBT community settle for less than "marriage?" In other words, why should the LGBT community only accept the legal status of Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships? So what really is the issue here then? Why are you looking for any little nook and cranny so that we get anything BUT "marriage?"

Yes, you certainly did edit this message: by publishing my name. Well, OK, now that we know the integrity of your character, what and how you are made of let's continue. But all should know what a despicable thing you have done.Your agenda in doing so is revealed. I was under a mis-impression that such would not happen! This appears to be the usual mode of operation when challenged, or no? Is this simply an exercise of your prerogative or power? So no matter my answer my name is 'out' and 'whatever happens to me personally due to your action, then....what? I've no recourse except to answer!

Allow the reverse: why not accept civil union as a designation? There has been a co-opted and evolving language designation for so many things involving self-identification in all sorts of areas, what is the deal with one more? The word 'gay' once meant something different than the meaning now example. As some folks may be out, loud and proud, why not move forward with that term 'Civil Action'? It's not an 'every nook and cranny' issue unless you wish it so, it is standing for proudly for what it is: gay! One could compare it to the words 'Negro', or 'African-America'. Whatever the "group" identity is, it seems important that they derive some self identity with their own language, and in so doing makes them 'stronger' in that issue. Same could be said for CU or DP.



Let me lay the cards out on the table for you. I'll make it real easy and simple for you, Lenin. Okay? I'll tell you the real reason why this is such an issue (not necessarily yours, by the way). For most opponents (not all) of same-sex marriage, the bottom line to all of this debate, bruhaha, and culture war regarding the stiff opposition to same-sex marriage is the strongly held conviction that "there is something wrong with LGBT people. There is something fundamentally wrong, perverted, immoral, unhealthy, or ungodly about being gay." That is it in a nutshell.

So it is you that brings the "moral" and "right & wrong" matter to the table! Listen, old man, that is as dying as you are. Or do you believe that racial folks are still a bit like savages, or as upright and smart as you, and not quiet human beings? Yeah, it is true, there are folks like you around in that vein, but when you die off the upcoming folks will be just as clear about things as a new day. So head off in your misery and die with your thoughts of "right" and "wrong".
However it is noted that you were right: up until the psychiatric associations voted in the early 1970s to remove being homosexual from their bug-book, just being gay was thought to be mentally ill, so that may be in your memory banks and if you cannot purge it, then live with it; time will alter that, old man.


Hence, we "should not" call a legally recognized union between a same-sex couple "marriage" because that's only reserved for "normal" people who engage in a "natural," "healthy," "morally correct," as well as a "religiously correct" relationship that is "supposed to be" between just one man and one woman.Care to respond or are you going to throw in the towel, which is what I strongly recommend you do.
Edward

Your conclusion is as valid as your premise, which will be outdated and as rare and laughable as, for example, racism, so don't lose hope. Some day we will have a gay president as well, don't you think? Oh, and I advise you no longer give me your recommendations, as outing my name is unworthy of a "co-creating member" OR giving advice.

[Valley Oak]

(I have edited this post. I had to find the right smiley face and a good web link)

I'm 48 years old.
:lol2:

Don't fret, Aliye Kavaf agrees with you, "Lenin."
(You really should change your handle, you do the real Lenin gross injustice.)
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=8216homosexuality-is-a-disease8217-says-minister-2010-03-07
.
.

Yes, you certainly did edit this message: by publishing my name. Well, OK, now that we know the integrity of your character, what and how you are made of let's continue. But all should know what a despicable thing you have done.Your agenda in doing so is revealed. I was under a mis-impression that such would not happen! This appears to be the usual mode of operation when challenged, or no? Is this simply an exercise of your prerogative or power? So no matter my answer my name is 'out' and 'whatever happens to me personally due to your action, then....what? I've no recourse except to answer!

Allow the reverse: why not accept civil union as a designation? There has been a co-opted and evolving language designation for so many things involving self-identification in all sorts of areas, what is the deal with one more? The word 'gay' once meant something different than the meaning now example. As some folks may be out, loud and proud, why not move forward with that term 'Civil Action'? It's not an 'every nook and cranny' issue unless you wish it so, it is standing for proudly for what it is: gay! One could compare it to the words 'Negro', or 'African-America'. Whatever the "group" identity is, it seems important that they derive some self identity with their own language, and in so doing makes them 'stronger' in that issue. Same could be said for CU or DP.



So it is you that brings the "moral" and "right & wrong" matter to the table! Listen, old man, that is as dying as you are. Or do you believe that racial folks are still a bit like savages, or as upright and smart as you, and not quiet human beings? Yeah, it is true, there are folks like you around in that vein, but when you die off the upcoming folks will be just as clear about things as a new day. So head off in your misery and die with your thoughts of "right" and "wrong".
However it is noted that you were right: up until the psychiatric associations voted in the early 1970s to remove being homosexual from their bug-book, just being gay was thought to be mentally ill, so that may be in your memory banks and if you cannot purge it, then live with it; time will alter that, old man.



Your conclusion is as valid as your premise, which will be outdated and as rare and laughable as, for example, racism, so don't lose hope. Some day we will have a gay president as well, don't you think? Oh, and I advise you no longer give me your recommendations, as outing my name is unworthy of a "co-creating member" OR giving advice.

[LenInSebastopol]

Opps. My error. As a "co-creator" I ASSumed you had such 'rights'. My bad. Didn't know one can do what is now obvious! :whackasmilie:
Oh, you might be right about me, but I doubt it. Well, except for being an idiot, as in the above. However if the medical society democratically votes to strike cancer from the 'disease' side to 'facilitating evolution' does that make it beneficial to have cancer?
As for my handle, LenIn, that is accurate, but as far as V.I. goes, you are right and true: I've not killed about 40 million people over my lifetime. No apologies there.
As for your chronology on the sphere, how meaningful, as one is not even a man until at least 40, and fully mature by 50.


(I have edited this post. I had to find the right smiley face and a good web link)

I'm 48 years old.
:lol2:

Don't fret, Aliye Kavaf agrees with you, "Lenin."
(You really should change your handle, you do the real Lenin gross injustice.)
‘Homosexuality is a disease’ says Turkish minister - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review (https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=8216homosexuality-is-a-disease8217-says-minister-2010-03-07)
.
.

["Mad" Miles]

Yes, you certainly did edit this message: by publishing my name. Well, OK, now that we know the integrity of your character, what and how you are made of let's continue. But all should know what a despicable thing you have done.Your agenda in doing so is revealed. I was under a mis-impression that such would not happen! This appears to be the usual mode of operation when challenged, or no? Is this simply an exercise of your prerogative or power? So no matter my answer my name is 'out' and 'whatever happens to me personally due to your action, then....what? I've no recourse except to answer! ...

as outing my name is unworthy of a "co-creating member" OR giving advice.


Dear LenInSebastopol,

Surely you're just bloviating here, right? Your "name", Jack Read, is from the information that you provided in your personal profile page. Accessible by anyone who is a member on this board. It just takes two clicks of the mouse. Edward/VO didn't "out" anything.

And I really kind of doubt that your real name is Jack Read, or is it just a coincidence that it is phonetically the same name as John "Jack" Reed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reed_(journalist)), author of, Ten Days That Shook The World? Whose biography was portrayed by Warren Beatty in, "Reds"?

And the fact that "Jack"/John Reed was a big fan of V.I. Lenin is also a coincidence?

Yeah, right. :lalalala:


You're now on record as being no fan of Lenin's, and that is about the only place I find that we agree. So why do you use a nomme de keyboard / waccobb user name which evokes him?

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

[theindependenteye]

>>> I am against gay marriage. Period.

Sorry to hear it. Have you had a bad experience with it?

>>>Here comes the attack. This is just my opinion and I do have a right to express it......AKA Bill of Rights.....

Yes, I agree. Do you not want to say why you hold that opinion?

>>>The problem I have is if a Democrat votes his/her deep beliefs (which you elected) why are they crucified in the media? PC sucks and does no good. PC limits free expression.

What qualifies as "PC"? Any liberal view you disagree with? For vast parts of the population, opposition to gay marriage is not only PC but PE — politically essential. Personally, I don't like the vileness of political debates any more than you do, but I hardly think it's chargeable to one side. I believe you have every right to vote your deep beliefs, but if your vote (in my opinion) is harmful to people I love, don't expect me not to have a few words to say about it.

My own DB (deep belief) is that people who're against gay marriage shouldn't engage in one; that churches who forbid it shouldn't perform such marriages; and that the tradition of Marriage is done far more harm by a couple of opposed-sex idiots who get hitched, have a kid, and split when the novelty wears off than by people who believe so passionately in marriage that they'll campaign for years to make it happen for themselves. My own legal, state-sanctioned marriage is now at the 49-1/2 year mark, and we don't feel seriously threatened by our gay friends who, by all reports, are seeking to destroy our marriage.

But you're welcome to give me reasons why I (or my kids, or God) should have reason to fear. The floor is yours.

I should confess that I don't share the view of gay activists who feel their opponents are all a bunch of fascists or that progress on gay rights has been insignificant. Where I grew up, being a "fairy" was infinitely worse than being a "nigger," even, and the only "rights" issue was whether they had any right to exist at all. That's changed even in Iowa.

But when change happens, it takes its own course, and it's very hard to be satisfied with half a revolution. (Though we Liberal Democrats would generally be satisfied with even 1/10th of a revolution.)

I think your main point was that you have a right to your opinion. Yes, you do. But political opinions are like chihuahuas. If you let them loose in the public park, it's reasonable to ask that they won't be ripped to shreds by rotweillers. But still they're gonna have their butts sniffed.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[boB Phelps]

Ok... So I will catch a lot of heat for this post but here we go. I am against gay marriage. Period. Here comes the attack. This is just my opinion and I do have a right to express it......AKA Bill of Rights..... The problem I have is if a Democrat votes his/her deep beliefs (which you elected) why are they crucified in the media? PC sucks and does no good..... PC limits free expression. Free speech should be promoted. Even if you disagree.

Got a surprise for you, "just me". Legislators (be they democrats or republicans), by obligation, should be voting according to the wishes of the constituents that voted them in, not for their own personal beliefs. What they vote at the polls is one thing. What they vote in congress should be the will of the people that voted them in. But, you hit on a great point. I think the whole process is broken, as special interest, right wing religion and the lobbying industry have taken over as the voices of america. Both parties have totally caved in.

Oh yeah, as is my right. Open your eyes. It's a big, world out there and how is your little world turned so upside down, just because you can't cope with two individuals, of the same gender, wishing to legally obligate to one another. Sounds phobic to me.

[justme]

No, not phobic. Just an opinion that I knew would probably stir up other's views. Which is fine. And by the way, my world is more vast than you might imagine.

I am not conservative and I am not liberal. I stand for my views without having to align myself with any group or popular agenda.

My point about politicians voting their beliefs was meant to mean that the people that voted them in did so because of their views. Granted, I could have worded it better.

And FYI, I am not against a civil union or whatever you call it with all the benefits. I am just against the "marriage" aspect, which is religious based. And trying to force an issue with religious groups is futile. You said "legally obligate", I thought the original post was "marriage".




Got a surprise for you, "just me". Legislators (be they democrats or republicans), by obligation, should be voting according to the wishes of the constituents that voted them in, not for their own personal beliefs. What they vote at the polls is one thing. What they vote in congress should be the will of the people that voted them in. But, you hit on a great point. I think the whole process is broken, as special interest, right wing religion and the lobbying industry have taken over as the voices of america. Both parties have totally caved in.

Oh yeah, as is my right. Open your eyes. It's a big, world out there and how is your little world turned so upside down, just because you can't cope with two individuals, of the same gender, wishing to legally obligate to one another. Sounds phobic to me.

[LenInSebastopol]

Dear LenInSebastopol,
Surely you're just bloviating here, right? Your "name", Jack Read, is from the information that you provided in your personal profile page. Accessible by anyone who is a member on this board. It just takes two clicks of the mouse. Edward/VO didn't "out" anything.
And I really kind of doubt that your real name is Jack Read, or is it just a coincidence that it is phonetically the same name as John "Jack" Reed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reed_%28journalist%29), author of, Ten Days That Shook The World? Whose biography was portrayed by Warren Beatty in, "Reds"? And the fact that "Jack"/John Reed was a big fan of V.I. Lenin is also a coincidence?
Yeah, right.
You're now on record as being no fan of Lenin's, and that is about the only place I find that we agree. So why do you use a nomme de keyboard / waccobb user name which evokes him?
"Mad" Miles

wow. You found me out! Oh, wait, you are as wrong as me. V.I. didn't kill 40 million. And I have no idea about Warren Beatty, Reds, or John Reed. I don't understand how someone could understand that there are more than one person that has my name and not be.....oh, wait, you are playing that Kevin Bacon game 6 Degrees, of Seperation is that it? Sorry, it is the case that more than one person can have my name and not be related to anything/anybody else. Oh, and one may use a middle name on the board, no? And one may live in Sebastopol, yes? wow. Small circles. wow.

[LenInSebastopol]

>>> I am against gay marriage. Period.
Sorry to hear it. Have you had a bad experience with it?


Not personally as I've only been married once, but every single same-sex couple I've known has had horrendous, emotional, issues that have torn them up, and those around them. And then the break-up, the reuniting, over and over again. To the point of hysteria.
OK, we all know of many straight marriages that have done the same. No numbers and difficult to quantify "hurt", etc. But the when the numbers are kept, it will bear my above statement out.



My own DB (deep belief) is that people who're against gay marriage shouldn't engage in one; that churches who forbid it shouldn't perform such marriages; and that the tradition of Marriage is done far more harm by a couple of opposed-sex idiots who get hitched, have a kid, and split when the novelty wears off than by people who believe so passionately in marriage that they'll campaign for years to make it happen for themselves.


Your notion of churches that do not support gay marriage....that issue will be coming up within two years after it is legal. Correct me where wrong (could be a full time job) but isn't Canada suffering that issue via the courts? Or was that resolved? Small churches have nothing to fear, yet, but large churches will be targeted for refusing to marry such. Of course it's all based on how many employees it may have, and I think that number is...over 15? Anyway, point being it will happen here, you bet.
Your issue about harm being done to those that marry easily, "opposite sex idiots" just strengthens the marriage issue so that not only gays may marry, but EVERYONE. So, I would support THAT. Or maybe marriage isn't a sacred vow? Witnessing gay couples and the life style I've seen growing up in San Francisco and environs for the first 60+ years clearly indicates that to many gays find marriage inhibiting. One old gay friend put it, "being gay MEANS not having to be married".



My own legal, state-sanctioned marriage is now at the 49-1/2 year mark, and we don't feel seriously threatened by our gay friends who, by all reports, are seeking to destroy our marriage.

Congratulations! We've only been plugging away for 30, in a few months, and I am sure you don't feel threatened by our marriage as well. But why put it in "threatened" terms? Isn't that a straw man argument? Gays claim I feel threatened, then admonish me for being so....when the issue is not that at all.




But you're welcome to give me reasons why I (or my kids, or God) should have reason to fear. The floor is yours.

Do not fear that man, he is only straw!


I should confess that I don't share the view of gay activists who feel their opponents are all a bunch of fascists or that progress on gay rights has been insignificant. Where I grew up, being a "fairy" was infinitely worse than being a "nigger," even, and the only "rights" issue was whether they had any right to exist at all. That's changed even in Iowa.


Ya, know, so many of these issues are with folks from Iowa or other hinterlands! Or New York, but that is a whole different post. Where WE grew up, S.F., being a homosexual (that's what WE called them as the word "gay" meant something else) it was what YOU did or what you were and NO ONE CARED. There WAS some discretion due to children, but neighbors knew, whole enclaves knew, and it was NO BIG DEAL. I can't seem to get that notion across lately because everyone is from BUM STUNK, Idaho, and are so proud of their "progressive" position!



I think your main point was that you have a right to your opinion. Yes, you do. But political opinions are like chihuahuas. If you let them loose in the public park, it's reasonable to ask that they won't be ripped to shreds by rotweillers. But still they're gonna have their butts sniffed.
Peace & joy--
Conrad

I like your analogy. The problem is compounded by the fact that when the gay issue is the chihuahua the yapping gets louder simply because a collie sniffs at the issue and barks. So the little one calls the dog catcher who takes away the collie, whom all the neighbors like. One judge is the dog catcher. The neighbors are the folks you left behind in Iowa.

[podfish]

nope. You may believe that but I doubt you can pinpoint why you do. In a 'representative democracy' such as ours there are representatives of the people who are charged with representing their interests. It's not just a pre-computerization technique to aggregate the votes of the population.


Got a surprise for you, "just me". Legislators (be they democrats or republicans), by obligation, should be voting according to the wishes of the constituents that voted them in, not for their own personal beliefs. What they vote at the polls is one thing..

[justme]

Correct me if I am wrong but the Amendment you state and the clause prohibit states from overruling federal law. Gay marriage isn't protected by federal law. I researched the amendment and clause and didn't fined any mention of "marriage". Straight or gay.




The American people do not have either the constitutional right nor the moral right to vote away other people's rights, especially when those are Constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to marry.

The right to marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. A state that votes in a referendum to strip away the right to marry, or denies that right, comes into direct conflict with the US Constitution.

It is written into the US Constitution the duty of American political institutions to protect minorities' rights from the abuses of the majority. Those institutions charged with this responsibility include the 3 branches of government: judicial, legislative, and executive. It is the obligation of the courts, including the US Supreme Court, the President of the United States (or lower executives such as mayors and governors), and Congress (or lower legislative bodies) to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Actions and attitudes to the contrary clearly demonstrate ignorance of the American Constitution, our democratic process, and the philosophy and spirit of the framers of the Constitution when they created the United States of America.

Edward

[justme]

Here is an email sent to me today. I guess he didn't want to post it on the forum. I won't post the senders name though. This, I guess is in response to my post about the 14th Amendment.

"I did not write the note you responded too, but bigots are bigots. Your distaste and inability to accept gay unions is born out of deep seated dysfunction and the inability to respect people for who they are. Even though they do you no harm, you choose to not to show them the same courtesy." quote

Why do you call me a bigot? Distaste and inability to accept? I stated earlier I have no problem with civil unions for gay couples.

To the sender. You show no respect for me being the way I am. You don't show me the same courtesy even though I have done you no harm. I guess that makes you a bigot too! Right?

The quote I posted earlier about the 14th amendment was just what I read in a legal summary. It addresses the amendment, not the issue of gay unions.. I also stated that neither gay nor straight unions are mentioned in it.

It is unfortunate you didn't have the nerve to post this response on the thread. Maybe you aren't as progressive as you think.

I just wanted to share this with others to show what a response is given to those that don't necessarily follow the "group" in every topic. This wasn't the first I have received, or the last I am sure.

But, I will stand by my posts so far anyway...

[theindependenteye]

Dear Len (is it Len?)--

Thanks for your response to my post, though it seems as if you're presenting a wildly shifting target. Which maybe we all do, but it's hard to grasp where & why you stand on this issue, except that presumably you think (a) gay marriage is a bad idea and (b) it's a big stink about nothing. If I'm misinterpreting, let me know.

>>>every single same-sex couple I've known has had horrendous, emotional, issues that have torn them up, and those around them.

We've known different sets of people. But aside from that, please consider that if you were in a relationship that might cause severe hassles with your extended family, that might get you fired, that was lauded by some of your friends, mocked by others, and with a partner who, like you, had had to take all kinds of shit from adolescence on, then indeed that relationship might be prone to fray. But are you suggesting we should disallow gay marriage to save them from themselves?

>>>Small churches have nothing to fear, yet, but large churches will be targeted for refusing to marry such. Of course it's all based on how many employees it may have, and I think that number is...over 15?

Two separate issues. Will churches be required to perform religious ceremonies for those who don't subscribe to their tenets? That's absurd and would go nowhere in the courts. The issue of employment-related benefits is a different issue, and that might indeed get somewhere in the courts, though I doubt it, given the "separation" clause that so many of the Religious Right try to deny exists. As a voter I would be against requiring churches to support unions they disapproved of.

>>>Or maybe marriage isn't a sacred vow? Witnessing gay couples and the life style I've seen growing up in San Francisco and environs for the first 60+ years clearly indicates that to many gays find marriage inhibiting. One old gay friend put it, "being gay MEANS not having to be married".

There's a single "life style" for gays? I think not. Sure, the equivalent of the bath house and the leather bar still exist, as do het swingers or the more prevalent serial-monogamists. But there are many worlds out there. The people who don't want to get married (homo- or het-) definitely should not. Again, you seem either to be trying to save them from themselves or saying they really don't know what they want other than to make a big noise. And again, I guess we have different sets of friends.
But is it a "sacred vow"? It's my understanding that the political debate is about it being a state-sanctioned legal status. Its sacramental nature depends on the individuals involved.

>>>But why put it in "threatened" terms? Isn't that a straw man argument? Gays claim I feel threatened, then admonish me for being so....when the issue is not that at all.

Obviously I used "threatened" tongue-in-cheek, because in the rhetoric of the last balloting, the anti-marriage people were constantly putting it in those terms: gay marriage THREATENS this sacred institution.

>>>Do not fear that man, he is only straw!

I would certainly agree.

>>> Where WE grew up, S.F., being a homosexual (that's what WE called them as the word "gay" meant something else) it was what YOU did or what you were and NO ONE CARED. ... it was NO BIG DEAL. I can't seem to get that notion across lately because everyone is from BUM STUNK, Idaho, and are so proud of their "progressive" position!

Ouch: Bay Area chauvinism, anyone? I commend you for your good fortune in being naturally enlightened rather than having to evolve into a fake progressive like me. It might have been better in the days when any queer person in the USA had the choice of moving to a couple of neighborhoods in San Francisco or staying slam in the closet. But those days are past, alas for Howdy Doody.

>>>The problem is compounded by the fact that when the gay issue is the chihuahua the yapping gets louder simply because a collie sniffs at the issue and barks.

It's called political activism, and as irritating as that damned chihuahua might be to the neighbors, it's the only way he's gonna get a biscuit.

All that said, I enjoy your posts. Keep on being wrong (:-)), so I can procrastinate on the work I'm supposed to be doing and instead scribble this for the six people who actually read this stuff.

Peace & joy--

Conrad

[Thad]

Screw this, too many nuances, gay marriage is the thread, gay issues are private except for the aspect of partners rights in legal issues,

Marriage is for people who want to have children together biologically everything else is recreation. Marriage is for a man and a woman who want to have a baby and give it a name for provenance and destiny

this entire argument is otherwise idiocy an affront to nature and a result of decadent devolution

Return to nature, purge






wow. You found me out! Oh, wait, you are as wrong as me. V.I. didn't kill 40 million. And I have no idea about Warren Beatty, Reds, or John Reed. I don't understand how someone could understand that there are more than one person that has my name and not be.....oh, wait, you are playing that Kevin Bacon game 6 Degrees, of Seperation is that it? Sorry, it is the case that more than one person can have my name and not be related to anything/anybody else. Oh, and one may use a middle name on the board, no? And one may live in Sebastopol, yes? wow. Small circles. wow.

[LenInSebastopol]

Screw this, too many nuances, gay marriage is the thread, gay issues are private except for the aspect of partners rights in legal issues,
Marriage is for people who want to have children together biologically everything else is recreation. Marriage is for a man and a woman who want to have a baby and give it a name for provenance and destiny
this entire argument is otherwise idiocy an affront to nature and a result of decadent devolution
Return to nature, purge

Purge is one of those words is rather ugly. If we are to 'purge' anything it should be hate and anger. But politics being what it is, we should start by killing the violent!:banned:

[LenInSebastopol]

Dear Len (is it Len?)--
Thanks for your response to my post, though it seems as if you're presenting a wildly shifting target. Which maybe we all do, but it's hard to grasp where & why you stand on this issue, except that presumably you think (a) gay marriage is a bad idea and (b) it's a big stink about nothing. If I'm misinterpreting, let me know.

You caught it perfectly. In this "political activism" era we all are coerced to "taking sides" and becoming "cultural warriors". Posh. We can develop ourselves and thoughts WITHOUT the politically active push to do so. I know the 'act now' leaders love to have folks behave as deemed necessary to 'get r done' but that is simply bullying hogwash and none need stand for it.



>>>every single same-sex couple I've known has had horrendous, emotional, issues that have torn them up, and those around them.

We've known different sets of people. But aside from that, please consider that if you were in a relationship that might cause severe hassles with your extended family, that might get you fired, that was lauded by some of your friends, mocked by others, and with a partner who, like you, had had to take all kinds of shit from adolescence on, then indeed that relationship might be prone to fray. But are you suggesting we should disallow gay marriage to save them from themselves?

Are you saying you know gay unions that have not had hassles that turn out to be dramatic, more so than by far if one could measure such, than most married couples? Using statistics, you could envision such, but can you honestly it exists now? I truly doubt it ever will, but it is possible with all the givens of the universe. It's just the givens of the human psyche that makes me doubt it. And we do know different sets of couples. Based on experience none can judge another couple's internal dynamics on the success of that relationship. The idyllic public notion of marriage has only been promulgated in the gay media, but not in practice. And now it has been raised to the level of "demand" by same media and with the kinetics of the political will it has been given some validity, even though it truly does not.



>>>Small churches have nothing to fear, yet, but large churches will be targeted for refusing to marry such. Of course it's all based on how many employees it may have, and I think that number is...over 15?

Two separate issues. Will churches be required to perform religious ceremonies for those who don't subscribe to their tenets? That's absurd and would go nowhere in the courts. The issue of employment-related benefits is a different issue, and that might indeed get somewhere in the courts, though I doubt it, given the "separation" clause that so many of the Religious Right try to deny exists. As a voter I would be against requiring churches to support unions they disapproved of.

Maybe you didn't notice, but as a voter your vote can be negated by fiat rulings which is part of the issue. And the notion as to "why won't X church marry this couple" will open up the civil issue of "hate & discrimination" based on their scripture which has been interpreted as wrong/bad and then marginalized out of existence. How many race churches does one find now? It is a false dichotomy to compare race & sexual orientation but it serves a function for this purpose.



>>>Or maybe marriage isn't a sacred vow? Witnessing gay couples and the life style I've seen growing up in San Francisco and environs for the first 60+ years clearly indicates that to many gays find marriage inhibiting. One old gay friend put it, "being gay MEANS not having to be married".

There's a single "life style" for gays? I think not. Sure, the equivalent of the bath house and the leather bar still exist, as do het swingers or the more prevalent serial-monogamists. But there are many worlds out there. The people who don't want to get married (homo- or het-) definitely should not. Again, you seem either to be trying to save them from themselves or saying they really don't know what they want other than to make a big noise. And again, I guess we have different sets of friends.
But is it a "sacred vow"? It's my understanding that the political debate is about it being a state-sanctioned legal status. Its sacramental nature depends on the individuals involved.

Your understanding of the political debate issue is correct, thus Civil Unions fulfill all those requirements which ends the debate. As the courts identified the issue the legislature can address that matter.
And please, as you attempt to fractionalize the "life style" notion of gay life, don't; you are throwing the baby out along with the bath water.



>>>But why put it in "threatened" terms? Isn't that a straw man argument? Gays claim I feel threatened, then admonish me for being so....when the issue is not that at all.

Obviously I used "threatened" tongue-in-cheek, because in the rhetoric of the last balloting, the anti-marriage people were constantly putting it in those terms: gay marriage THREATENS this sacred institution.

As the whole approach was used in the public arena your end run around using the old "wink, wink, nod, nod" seems to fall short of the goal. It was used, and used well, by that faction. Guilt always works with most "liberals", as I've seen it done with race most all my life.



>>> Where WE grew up, S.F., being a homosexual (that's what WE called them as the word "gay" meant something else) it was what YOU did or what you were and NO ONE CARED. ... it was NO BIG DEAL. I can't seem to get that notion across lately because everyone is from BUM STUNK, Idaho, and are so proud of their "progressive" position!

Ouch: Bay Area chauvinism, anyone? I commend you for your good fortune in being naturally enlightened rather than having to evolve into a fake progressive like me. It might have been better in the days when any queer person in the USA had the choice of moving to a couple of neighborhoods in San Francisco or staying slam in the closet. But those days are past, alas for Howdy Doody.

Well, you caught me: I am proud to be an original guy from Frisco and enjoying the Black Cat Bar Parade for Halloween in the Tenderloin having a great time in the streets, but it was only drag sans public fornication, sodomy and fellatio and one could bring their children to have a fine time and good show. Now? Phaaa! Glad you like the Howdy Doody times. I think discretion and discrimination are virtues, but often viewed as vices.



>>>The problem is compounded by the fact that when the gay issue is the chihuahua the yapping gets louder simply because a collie sniffs at the issue and barks.
It's called political activism, and as irritating as that damned chihuahua might be to the neighbors, it's the only way he's gonna get a biscuit.


But that little noisy pest wants to have all the biscuits, control and change the way other dogs eat theirs, bark, plus where, how and when to relieve themselves as well......When that little guy want to shut down all the other dogs' barking? Trouble, right here in Wacco City.


All that said, I enjoy your posts. Keep on being wrong (:-)), so I can procrastinate on the work I'm supposed to be doing and instead scribble this for the six people who actually read this stuff. Peace & joy-- Conrad

I too find the exchange gratifying, but I've yet to find me wrong!:thumbsup:
And you flatter all by thinking at least six folks are reading this; some may respond but I have doubts as to what they are really reading! As for the work we are suppose to be doing......got to go make hay in such sunshine. It's spring!

[theindependenteye]

>>>Marriage is for people who want to have children together biologically everything else is recreation. Marriage is for a man and a woman who want to have a baby and give it a name for provenance and destiny

Thad-

This suggests a few questions.

1. We're in our late sixties, our kids are financially independent and we're not going to have any more. Do you mind if we stay married?

2. Must young people prove their fertility before they're allowed to marry? Adoption or artificial induction of pregnancy, by your definiton, doesn't count.

3. Should we forbid divorce to any couples who have dependent children?

4. Why do you care?

It's a curious definition, so I wonder where you've derived it from. All my relatives were farmers, and as far as I can tell they got married (a) to have sex and (b) to farm. Having kids was generally in the picture because it helped with the farm labor. When my mom and dad married, she wanted five kids, he wanted none; they got me. It was a lousy marriage, but I approve of the product.

-Conrad

[podfish]

>>>Marriage is for people who want to have children together biologically everything else is recreation. Marriage is for a man and a woman who want to have a baby and give it a name for provenance and destiny

Thad-

This suggests a few questions.
<snip......>
4. Why do you care?

It's a curious definition, so I wonder where you've derived it from. All my relatives were farmers, and as far as I can tell they got married (a) to have sex and (b) to farm. Having kids was generally in the picture because it helped with the farm labor. When my mom and dad married, she wanted five kids, he wanted none; they got me. It was a lousy marriage, but I approve of the product.

-Conrad
nice reply, Conrad - I lost an earlier one I was writing when our internet connection crashed, and it was a lot more hostile.
When someone holds an opinion (and supports efforts to enforce it on other people) that's based on imaginary "facts" like his statement about marriage, that strikes me as offensively ignorant. I don't understand "why he cares" as you said, and I really don't understand how he can wave away the effects those kind of ideas have on other people's lives.

[Thad]

Heterosexual and homosexual matters are private , I am offended when someones voyeurism throws it into my face as exhibitionism, I believe in a private world and that there should be more of it.

When someones sexual orientation becomes a public forum then its a violation. If its to gain partner rights then that's different and called something different, civil union, Having that would secure all that one should hope to gain from that other thing called marriage which is a different thing historically and functionally.

Its just playing dolls to me having to call it marriage when its not.


There are too many grown children playing adult. It used to be the woman I would accuse of using real people for their childhoods game of dolls

Serial Matrimony leaves the question of how many times can one say "I love you more than any one in the world" to a different person before the farce becomes toxic.



Thad-

This suggests a few questions.

1. We're in our late sixties, our kids are financially independent and we're not going to have any more. Do you mind if we stay married?

Not at all, more power to you, This is what I would think organic meant


2. Must young people prove their fertility before they're allowed to marry? Adoption or artificial induction of pregnancy, by your definiton, doesn't count.

Blood tests are done because of compatibility for child bearing, A true care for raising a child would have available a proper balance of genders and access to the childs peers, Young people today are much younger than the same aged people of earlier days just because of the lack of continuity in social context .

Because of the effect on others of a poorly raised child I think the idea of having rules governing who is qualified to become a parent might be worth thinking about

Not much more different than having a higher criteria and oath to who became an American Citizen



3. Should we forbid divorce to any couples who have dependent children?

Earlier in History a person was born into a clan and it was the clan/tribe who was the parent and who one was married to, divorce in those days was death...sex was not so long delayed it perverted things and people were much more of an adult at an earlier age


4. Why do you care?

I see the direction and inevitable outcome as devolution continues its Helter Skelter pace Sacred things turned to mud by children too long in the tooth

I have a deep seated ire from being a child of those who treated matrimony as a farcical game of musical chairs

It's a curious definition, so I wonder where you've derived it from. All my relatives were farmers, and as far as I can tell they got married (a) to have sex and (b) to farm. Having kids was generally in the picture because it helped with the farm labor. When my mom and dad married, she wanted five kids, he wanted none; they got me. It was a lousy marriage, but I approve of the product.

:thumbsup:

-Conrad


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote=theindependenteye;109315]>>>Marriage is for people who want to have children together biologically; everything else is recreational excercise. Marriage is for a man and a woman who want to have a baby and give it a name for provenance and destiny

[justme]

nice reply, Conrad - I lost an earlier one I was writing when our internet connection crashed, and it was a lot more hostile.
When someone holds an opinion (and supports efforts to enforce it on other people) that's based on imaginary "facts" like his statement about marriage, that strikes me as offensively ignorant. I don't understand "why he cares" as you said, and I really don't understand how he can wave away the effects those kind of ideas have on other people's lives.

Although Thad's opinions may not ring true with all of us, why write a "hostile" response. To maybe change Thad's mind? You more than likely re-enforced it with your belligerence.

Because Thad's definition is different from yours, he is "offensively ignorant"?

How about the effects "your" ideas have on others.

So it is ok for you to insult, belittle and put down others, but because Thad spoke his mind, he is something "less worthy" than you. That is the problem with some of the postings here. Not one bit of tolerance or politeness in a "conscious community".

[theindependenteye]

>>>Although Thad's opinions may not ring true with all of us, why write a "hostile" response. To maybe change Thad's mind? You more than likely re-enforced it with your belligerence.
>>>Because Thad's definition is different from yours, he is "offensively ignorant"?

>>>So it is ok for you to insult, belittle and put down others, but because Thad spoke his mind, he is something "less worthy" than you.

Dear Justme--

If you'll notice, it was me Thad responded to, with phrases like--

>>>...Its just playing dolls to me

>>> There are too many grown children playing adult...

>>>...turned to mud by children to long in the tooth

I'm not sure how much of that refers to me, but I'm presuming he's castigating someone he feels is contributing as "devolution continues its Helter-Skelter pace." And I don't see those as terribly respectful either. Personally, I do my best to avoid ad hominum attacks, but probably to someone else I'm a mad dog. The libertarians & conservatives who have posted here have no problem with labeling liberals as motivated totally by group-think PC, notwithstanding Rush's "ditto-heads," or, as indicated above, calling us "children long in the tooth." The Right -- despite owning & controlling damn near everything and setting the national agenda for the past 30 years -- has rapidly outstripped the Left in proclaiming its victimhood.

This happens to be a *discussion* forum, and while I, like you, wish the discussions could be more mutually respectful, we're dealing with topics where there's radical disagreement and where many people have strong emotional investment. I do, anyway. No one is denying you your right to be heard, yes? But free speech comes with the corollary that it's very likely to engender more free speech, and some of it may not be a love song.

And to me, I don't see "conscious community" as one where everyone states his opinion, no one responds or reacts, and we sit there in a New Age haze. As I said, though, I do share your feeling that calling people stupid, degenerate, bigoted, or childish doesn't make for a very sane exchange.

-Conrad

[LenInSebastopol]

>>>Marriage is for people who want to have children together biologically everything else is recreation. Marriage is for a man and a woman who want to have a baby and give it a name for provenance and destiny

Thad-
This suggests a few questions.
3. Should we forbid divorce to any couples who have dependent children?

4. Why do you care?

It's a curious definition, so I wonder where you've derived it from. -Conrad

Two very different questions, both taking longer than I have for the day, so here's the short quiz version:
#3 Should we forbid divorce to couples WITH dependent children? Yes! Short enough? Better yet, make marrying an adult-oriented affair, more difficult, so that the reason for separation would be a bit more than 'convenience', yet the modern culture-media not only encourages such, there appears to be an alteration of marriage; more to reflect all this current thread holds dear. You are old enough to remember the 1950's and possibly the difficulty in obtaining a divorce...at least until Nelson Rockefeller wanted one...then the laws changed starting in NY and burning across the nation. The public view of marriage started changing dramatically then. So now we have what could have been predicted by anyone with an ounce of vision, and more than a few did. Of course women and children are the first to suffer from divorce; we've lived long enough to see it and know the statistics that bear out the social deterioration that we've witnessed in our lives: increase in crime, poverty on a grand scale, social infrastructures created along with gov't bureaucracies to address the deterioration of the family via divorce. No one ties it together for these youngsters as they see it like "it's always been so", but we know it has not.
This #3 question has the hidden notion of marriage and it's effect on the #4 question. Especially at our age. We've seen it, been there, done that and now as we turn towards the sunset we have material to reflect upon and a legacy we wish to leave behind. And it is more than Marxism/Leninism/Republicrate etc. We actually worry about what we came in with but more importantly what is next for our kin and loved ones that we are responsible in making. The question really is why does one NOT care? And how can one stop? I mean outside of dying, which will take care of it for us....which leads us around to the issue one more time!

[theindependenteye]

Thad--

I respect that this is something you feel strongly about. Don't have time to respond to your whole post, but will just touch on a couple of things:

>>>When someones sexual orientation becomes a public forum then its a violation. If its to gain partner rights then that's different and called something different, civil union, Having that would secure all that one should hope to gain from that other thing called marriage which is a different thing historically and functionally.

The gains the gay-rights movement have made in the years since Stonewall have all been "in your face," no different from the blacks sitting at the lunch counter and suddenly, to many people's discomfort, making race an issue.

The marriage issue is indeed largely about partner rights. But even if civil unions guaranteed absolutely the same rights, which is not remotely a universal thing, for me and for many others "marriage" is also the strongest commitment one can make to another person. the fact that for many people it still *does* connote permanent commitment is what scares so many people away from it. I believe that anyone who's crazy enough to make that ultimate vow should be allowed to do so.

>>>1. We're in our late sixties, our kids are financially independent and we're not going to have any more. Do you mind if we stay married?
>>>Not at all, more power to you, This is what I would think organic meant

Then I don't understand why you say the only purpose of marriage is to raise children. Been there, done that. My marriage is a lot more than that, always has been.

>>>3. Should we forbid divorce to any couples who have dependent children?
>>>Earlier in History a person was born into a clan and it was the clan/tribe who was the parent and who one was married to, divorce in those days was death...sex was not so long delayed it perverted things and people were much more of an adult at an earlier age

I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand. I asked that question in response to your insistence that the sole purpose of marriage is for two people to raise their own biological children.

>>>I have a deep seated ire from being a child of those who treated matrimony as a farcical game of musical chairs

Well, and I saw my mom married three times, none very happily. Those marriages fractured for a number of reasons, none of which had to do with gays or with some abstract devaluation of marriage.

I agree with you completely that our culture exhibits bizarre dysfunction when it comes to sex and relationships. But on this particular issue - gay marriage - I see only the potential for gain. You decry those who treat matrimony as a game: with pro-marriage gays, I see the exact opposite.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[podfish]

Ignorant because his claim isn't justifiable and could be disproven with a little historical knowledge. Marriage has more commonly been dealt with as an economic issue - but I'm not offering "my" definition as much as I'm saying his is easily seen as false. Offensive because his opinions lead to discrimination against others, which I do personally find offensive. Those are not ad-hominem attacks, I make no claim against his worth as a person compared to anyone. I would claim that his position - more because it's not just his - leads to demeaning the worth of others and actively causes them harm. So this isn't some argument where all opinions are equal. His other statement - "I am offended when someones voyeurism throws it into my face as exhibitionism" - can't be seen as an equal and opposite 'offendedness'. They may be offending his sense of aesthetics or correctness. I'm offended because people are denied the opportunity to make a full life with people they love. Those don't seem commensurable to me. I fail to see how any of the above is out of line with the seriousness of the issue, or has deteriorated to a personal attack on anyone. It certainly -is- an attack on such ideas.


Although Thad's opinions may not ring true with all of us, why write a "hostile" response. To maybe change Thad's mind? You more than likely re-enforced it with your belligerence.

Because Thad's definition is different from yours, he is "offensively ignorant"?

How about the effects "your" ideas have on others.

So it is ok for you to insult, belittle and put down others, but because Thad spoke his mind, he is something "less worthy" than you. That is the problem with some of the postings here. Not one bit of tolerance or politeness in a "conscious community".

[Thad]

:thumbsup:


Two very different questions, both taking longer than I have for the day, so here's the short quiz version:
#3 Should we forbid divorce to couples WITH dependent children? Yes! Short enough? Better yet, make marrying an adult-oriented affair, more difficult, so that the reason for separation would be a bit more than 'convenience', yet the modern culture-media not only encourages such, there appears to be an alteration of marriage; more to reflect all this current thread holds dear. You are old enough to remember the 1950's and possibly the difficulty in obtaining a divorce...at least until Nelson Rockefeller wanted one...then the laws changed starting in NY and burning across the nation. The public view of marriage started changing dramatically then. So now we have what could have been predicted by anyone with an ounce of vision, and more than a few did. Of course women and children are the first to suffer from divorce; we've lived long enough to see it and know the statistics that bear out the social deterioration that we've witnessed in our lives: increase in crime, poverty on a grand scale, social infrastructures created along with gov't bureaucracies to address the deterioration of the family via divorce. No one ties it together for these youngsters as they see it like "it's always been so", but we know it has not.
This #3 question has the hidden notion of marriage and it's effect on the #4 question. Especially at our age. We've seen it, been there, done that and now as we turn towards the sunset we have material to reflect upon and a legacy we wish to leave behind. And it is more than Marxism/Leninism/Republicrate etc. We actually worry about what we came in with but more importantly what is next for our kin and loved ones that we are responsible in making. The question really is why does one NOT care? And how can one stop? I mean outside of dying, which will take care of it for us....which leads us around to the issue one more time!

[LenInSebastopol]

The gains the gay-rights movement have made in the years since Stonewall have all been "in your face," no different from the blacks sitting at the lunch counter and suddenly, to many people's discomfort, making race an issue.

Whoa, Negroes sitting in a lunch counter in the South showed a passive, quiet action in an attempt to gain their rights. I know we are near the same age, so maybe you forgot Martin and his method? That was part of the outrage we felt....here some folks simply, quietly and peacefully sit and the dogs were turned on them! Just for SITTING they were clubbed! ACT OUT as well as the Stonewall riots were nothing in comparison. Most of the riots based on race were in the North. Ever wonder why? The answer would make us all around here feel uncomfortable about race, so let me put it the way comedian Dick Gregory said, "Up North you can get big, but not too close; down South you can get close, but not too big".


The marriage issue is indeed largely about partner rights. But even if civil unions guaranteed absolutely the same rights, which is not remotely a universal thing, for me and for many others "marriage" is also the strongest commitment one can make to another person. the fact that for many people it still *does* connote permanent commitment is what scares so many people away from it. I believe that anyone who's crazy enough to make that ultimate vow should be allowed to do so.

How can Civil Unions "not remotely a universal thing"? What does that mean? That they couldn't be the same? OK, they are not....that is the pride and life style of being gay! They DO stand apart in, probably, the most fundamental way! Self identity IS fundamental, and sex is probably THE most fundamental; it is even beyond the word "sex" as that is so limiting in meaning and I am not that smart to think of another word. What is amazing is that they demand NOT to have their own way. How folks can be so easily lead around the bend is beyond me. But if Adolph can do it to a whole nation, I suppose it's not entirely impossible to lead 3 to 10% of the populace to follow such.

My marriage is a lot more than that, always has been.


Ditto and it's more amazing than I thought possible, and you honestly think it can be realized by gay folks? From what I've seen, folks I've known, etc, I doubt it. Not that the desire is there, as we've all strong desires to be loved and accepted for who we are, but even after SO many years of marriage we realize it is hard enough for ANYBODY and given the setting of EZ-Divorce these days, it is getting closer to impossible.


I agree with you completely that our culture exhibits bizarre dysfunction when it comes to sex and relationships. But on this particular issue - gay marriage - I see only the potential for gain. You decry those who treat matrimony as a game: with pro-marriage gays, I see the exact opposite.


And in our dysfunction does it not appear that gay marriage is simply a symptom of what's been identified? Many find it so and further express it as the "in your face" crowd demands grow greater. As race is so poorly used for examples in these exchanges, please allow another:
what if one race demanded to marry only those outside their race? Not simply date, but demanded marriage! Of course it's absurd, but then many things are when it comes to trying to think things out.
And then, of course, why limit marriage to one? Or children? Or to the dead? Or animals, as in India? No, the excitant feelings of being able to 'create' one's own reality does not work within a social structure no matter how hard we wish.

[justme]

Agreed, the New Age haze you mention doesn't get to the heart of the issues at hand. Just because I defend Thad's right to speak doesn't mean I fully agree with his/hers views. Just like to let everyone be able to post without the hate and put-downs. I know this is against basic human nature though.

With all the issues this country has on the plate, I just feel calm, intelligent discussion and an ability to just listen to another point of view is a better start.

Kind of funny though. Liberals and conservatives do have one thing in common these days. Intolerance for opposing views. Not everyone but most.

I dont need to quote catchy phrases or use above others intellectual wording. It is time to talk on the level of everyone. Person to person without a lot of posturing and self aggrandizement.


>>>Although Thad's opinions may not ring true with all of us, why write a "hostile" response. To maybe change Thad's mind? You more than likely re-enforced it with your belligerence.
>>>Because Thad's definition is different from yours, he is "offensively ignorant"?

>>>So it is ok for you to insult, belittle and put down others, but because Thad spoke his mind, he is something "less worthy" than you.

Dear Justme--

If you'll notice, it was me Thad responded to, with phrases like--

>>>...Its just playing dolls to me

>>> There are too many grown children playing adult...

>>>...turned to mud by children to long in the tooth

I'm not sure how much of that refers to me, but I'm presuming he's castigating someone he feels is contributing as "devolution continues its Helter-Skelter pace." And I don't see those as terribly respectful either. Personally, I do my best to avoid ad hominum attacks, but probably to someone else I'm a mad dog. The libertarians & conservatives who have posted here have no problem with labeling liberals as motivated totally by group-think PC, notwithstanding Rush's "ditto-heads," or, as indicated above, calling us "children long in the tooth." The Right -- despite owning & controlling damn near everything and setting the national agenda for the past 30 years -- has rapidly outstripped the Left in proclaiming its victimhood.

This happens to be a *discussion* forum, and while I, like you, wish the discussions could be more mutually respectful, we're dealing with topics where there's radical disagreement and where many people have strong emotional investment. I do, anyway. No one is denying you your right to be heard, yes? But free speech comes with the corollary that it's very likely to engender more free speech, and some of it may not be a love song.

And to me, I don't see "conscious community" as one where everyone states his opinion, no one responds or reacts, and we sit there in a New Age haze. As I said, though, I do share your feeling that calling people stupid, degenerate, bigoted, or childish doesn't make for a very sane exchange.

-Conrad