Obama 7 - now what?

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

No, I don't really care what other people do, excused or not. It's not my argument. I was just advancing another view of birth/choice.

Not sure I follow. So you weren't saying what you were saying, you were just advancing another view? What is that view exactly?

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Ok, settle down. I was just trying to understand the argument. I'm a little sensitive about it cause I was born predisposed as well.

I'm settled. My point of it being a dumb argument is because being born any way doesn't preclude having a choice in anything. There is no birth vs. choice. Some choices are just more difficult for some people to make happen, just because "chit happens". Life isn't fair.
Being born a slave in 1840 doesn't mean you can't own a railroad someday. It sure makes it a difficult "choice" though.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I do hate bigots. Big deal. Would you call me a hypocrite if I said I hated the KKK?

No, you hate people that disagree with your point of view. Most people who voted to repeal the Maine law are not bigots, you turd.

There are just too many problems trying to track property and benefits given by the government in polygamous marriages that would tie up courts, private sector employers, and administrative agencies. The issue of fraud in polygamy is also more problematic. By only being able to commit to one person for your bundle of rights, you've got a decent hedge against people cyncially trying to acquire the advantages marriage confers.

And I guess I'm not following your gay couple example? Lesbian couple has the child via insemination from the gay couple? The same situation could arise between infertile straight couples.

The gay couple analogy is probably similar to polygamy. Female couple gets insemination from the male couple - potentially 4 parents to deal with regarding the "administration" you mentioned earlier if/when it comes to kids. Polygamy - still only two parents per child. Hetero couple, still only 2 parents per child. Again, this was only to point out the possible flaw in your argument about taxing the system with administration issues.

And how's that different from two heterosexual couples, gender differences aside?

Because it doesn't take two hetero couples to conceive. Duh.

Stop quoting Plante26 people. I'm ignoring his brutal stupidity and ignorance.

:: picture of glass house here ::

Just got this: "Go back to your hole, you ****ing idiot." on a negative rep. Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could, whoever you are. And unfortunately, there are many such people in our society. I choose to keep my profile low and try to avoid subjecting myself or my wife to such.

Just what I posted earlier about the hateful left. They're everywhere.

Bob - sign up for Extra. I'll send you the 15 bucks. It'll be worth finding out who the spineless, intollerant weakling is. Then we can have some fun with him...or we can just take a logical guess, say its Bassale and commence with the beatdown.

Could be TBA, but usually he at least signs his name to his neg. reps

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Not sure I follow. So you weren't saying what you were saying, you were just advancing another view? What is that view exactly?

My point was that birth and choice are not mutually exclusive. It's a free country.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Oh please...look Bob I like you and respect your posts about 99% of the time (whether I agree or not) but this is a bunch of crap. How are you respecting gays by openly praising their discrimination? You don't like gays because a book tells you not to, you show them no respect. If you were born 100 years earlier would you be respecting Blacks too by considering them less than a man?

And give me a break on how the moral will be persecuted at some point...the problem with any religiously pius group is that it stagnates, never realizes that things change. The thing is though there will always be the pius, they just make themselves irrelevant. Like the orthadox jews who hate any interpretation of God below theirs to the point of hatred. Assuming for a second that God is the Creator and that everything is going according to his/her/its plan, dont you think God wants people, religions and societies to evolve? Isnt that why he/she/it gave us the ability to learn, reason and grow? If Yahweh exists, and if Jesus is his son, do you really think that he wants us all living the life and times of the Roman Empire?

You really don't understand how you can strongly disagree with someone on an issue, yet conduct yourself respectfully? That's unfortunate. You make a lot of assumptions about me that are not true. I never said I don't like gays. At times I don't like the behavior of some and the agenda some push. I know a number of them including working with them, serving on our neighborhood board with them, etc. I get along with them fine and like them, no different than other folks I work with, etc. Now, if I was forced into a position where I somehow had to endorse their gay relationship, then I'd courteously avoid doing so. But, thankfully, most people in real life are a bit more decent than the shouting we all see on the internet. But I understand that they've very successfully framed the subject in the media in a way that makes those who disagree with their agenda out as backward and bigots and all the other unpleasant things that get thrown out there. I'll avoid the religious discussion, as this is already getting far enough afield and heated enough, and I've never had a decent religious discussion on this board. I'll just say that you assume that things changing is good, an assumption I don't make.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Btw Bob, don't think I forgot that you didn't answer my questions.

That goes for the rest of you conservatives too.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

My point was that birth and choice are not mutually exclusive. It's a free country.

That's a valid point, but I don't buy the forced analogy. Drinking is a behavior -- even the drinking of an alcoholic is a behavior, even if it isn't under his control. Sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of identity. It isn't just about volition of an act, it's about who you are.

Try telling a Christian that they could deny their Christianity as an act of will. They'd tell you acting out Christian rituals isn't the key, or even particularly important, to being Christian. Now consider how much more true for something that isn't a choice or cultural but is a hardwired and biological.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

But I understand that they've very successfully framed the subject in the media in a way that makes those who disagree with their agenda out as backward and bigots and all the other unpleasant things that get thrown out there. I'll avoid the religious discussion, as this is already getting far enough afield and heated enough, and I've never had a decent religious discussion on this board. I'll just say that you assume that things changing is good, an assumption I don't make.

Bob -

Who is asking you to "endorse" anything? Accept, maybe, but endorse?

I think the issue is how the different sides see "their agenda". Some see it as attempting to achieve equal rights. I presume you see it as something else?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Bob -

Who is asking you to "endorse" anything? Accept, maybe, but endorse?

I think the issue is how the different sides see "their agenda". Some see it as attempting to achieve equal rights. I presume you see it as something else?

Exactly.

Bob is free to have his views, but why should his views impose on the rights of others?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Ok, two things.

The real reason people went after Miss California was not for her beliefs but because of the way she conducted herself. She was a partying ho-bag who didn't see anything wrong with the way she conducted herself but was considered moral because she was anti-gay. That's my problem with her. If you want to sling stones you better be the Virgin Mary.

Second, you expect people to become less tolerant of your intolerance like that's a bad thing.

Traditional Christian views, let me ask you some personal questions. You're married now. Have you been married before? Because while Jesus never talked about Gay Marriage he definitely talked about divorce. Did you have premarital sex? Also not ok. The way I read it is if you have been married before and you get divorced then re-marry when you have sex with your second wife you've committed adultery under the strictest interpretations of the Bible.

I am all for banning gay marriage if we ban divorce and stone adulterers and people who have premarital sex and make them crimes. And I demand all the anti gay marriage people get punished first.

Edit: Whoever negged Bob Gray is a jerk.

If you don't think Miss California was gone after for her beliefs, you are very naive. Basically, something like this, a big sign has been hung out, saying those who don't endorse gay marriage or other such issues need not participate.

On the personal questions, I'm not going to answer them, as I don't like getting to personal on a public forum like this, except to say that I'm very careful about how I do things, and although I'm far from perfect, you won't have ground to find fault with me in the areas you ask about. Divorce isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. For example, in Matthew it talks about how Moses permitted divorce due to the hardness of your hearts. That said, even if you fail in this or other areas, there is grace and mercy if you repent and seek the Lord. (cue to take a religious thumping). Look at King David. He basically had Uriah killed, because he lusted after Bethsheba. And he suffered judgment in a way, as the Lord told him the sword would never depart from his house, and his first child by Bethsheba died. Yet, he was known as a man after God's own heart, and out of Bethsheba came his son the great king Solomon. Well, there I've gone and gotten the religious fires stoked. But, if people don't understand the capacity to both not condone something, yet show respect and care for those who do such a thing, there's no hope that they'll understand where someone like me is on this.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Btw Bob, don't think I forgot that you didn't answer my questions.

That goes for the rest of you conservatives too.

Show a little patience! Can't a guy eat lunch with his wife on their 4-month wedding anniversary?

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

That's a valid point, but I don't buy the forced analogy. Drinking is a behavior -- even the drinking of an alcoholic is a behavior, even if it isn't under his control. Sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of identity. It isn't just about volition of an act, it's about who you are.

Try telling a Christian that they could deny their Christianity as an act of will. They'd tell you acting out Christian rituals isn't the key, or even particularly important, to being Christian. Now consider how much more true for something that isn't a choice or cultural but is a hardwired and biological.

This is sort of true as well. It's kind of what I had in mind when I said that there are many ways to define "being gay" (the act, the personality type, the biological imperative) and I also agreed when someone said there is a continuum of sexual orientation. Everyone is unique.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

But I understand that they've very successfully framed the subject in the media in a way that makes those who disagree with their agenda out as backward and bigots

All political battles are fought on a meta-, "framing" level, true, but recognize that your side has successfully (for its niche audience) created a completely fictional, monolithic gay conspiracy that's deliberately trying to destroy marriage. That's at least as unfair as the portrayal of Walmart hay-seeds with a Bible in one hand and a Bud in the other.

And at the end of the day, however you frame it, queers are not limiting straights' rights. This is not some balance of rights -- it's asymmetric warfare where one side's annoyance is pitted against the other's right to exist. At the very, very worst, this is the Illinois Nazis' right to march.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

All political battles are fought on a meta-, "framing" level, true, but recognize that your side has successfully (for its niche audience) created a completely fictional, monolithic gay conspiracy that's deliberately trying to destroy marriage. That's at least as unfair as the portrayal of Walmart hay-seeds with a Bible in one hand and a Bud in the other.

And at the end of the day, however you frame it, queers are not limiting straights' rights. This is not a clash of rights -- it's asymmetric warfare where one side's annoyance is putted against the other's right to exist. At the very, very worst, this is the Illinois Nazis' right to march.

Having society endorse gay marriage is a far different thing than anything to do with their "right to exist", which almost no one argues against. I don't think they're purposely trying to destroy marriage, but that it is just necessary collateral damage in their eyes to achieve the endorsement of society on their relationships. And they are so focused on achieving that endorsement that they aren't worried about the collateral damage.

It's a clash of a claimed right versus a desire to maintain certain societal mores and standards.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Show a little patience! Can't a guy eat lunch with his wife on their 4-month wedding anniversary?

It's been 4 months already? Sheesh!

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

It's been 4 months already? Sheesh!

And a wonderful four months it's been. Some things in life are definitely worth waiting for, though I'd have never expected to wait this long. Though I have to admit, life is a good deal busier. I'm not spending as much time on here or even following Arsenal football. As Proverbs 31:10 says, "A wife of noble character, who can find? She is worth far more than rubies."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

And they are so focused on achieving that endorsement that they aren't worried about the collateral damage.

No. I'm a married straight man (my wife gets all the good lines) who, hopefully, puts some thought into things. And I'm supposedly so focused on somebody else's abstract political battle that I'm willfully ignoring the vital center of my family and personal happiness? (I know, I love being married -- call me p-whipped) Who do you know who acts that way?

Who is more threatened in this debate -- gays or anti-gay marriage protesters? Do you think gay people are impinging on you by getting married to the same extent that you are impinging on them by dictating their personal decisions? I think that is an implied existential threat, in the same way that, say, preventing a religious group from public worship is a threat to them. True, they could just practice in secret, but putting the force of law into play strips away all the niceties and tells them exactly where they stand.

Congrats on 4 months! My wife and I have been married 5 years and together 10, and it only gets better every year.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Having society endorse gay marriage is a far different thing than anything to do with their "right to exist", which almost no one argues against. I don't think they're purposely trying to destroy marriage, but that it is just necessary collateral damage in their eyes to achieve the endorsement of society on their relationships. And they are so focused on achieving that endorsement that they aren't worried about the collateral damage.

It's a clash of a claimed right versus a desire to maintain certain societal mores and standards.

How does gay marriage destroy the institution of marriage at all, collaterally or otherwise? Are "traditional marriages" suddenly going to fall apart or decline in number?

It sounds like you recognize there is disparate treatment, but are okay with it because to grant homosexuals the same rights or "recognition" as heterosexuals would somehow make you uncomfortable.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

It would be a violation of Fair Lending Laws if someone wants to apply for a loan, and you turn them down because you, as a banker, don't think they are creditworthy. You have to take the application REGARDLESS.

That doesn't mean you have to give them a loan. Obviously not everyone that applies for a mortgage is approved, yet for some reason there was a dramatic increase of at-risk buyers receiving loans. Again, no one forced the lenders to provide them.

btw - I'm not in any way absolving the low-risk buyers - there were far too many applicants that either had no business buying or bought way past their means, but that wasn't possible in the end were it not for the lenders.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

How does gay marriage destroy the institution of marriage at all, collaterally or otherwise? Are "traditional marriages" suddenly going to fall apart or decline in number?

It sounds like you recognize there is disparate treatment, but are okay with it because to grant homosexuals the same rights or "recognition" as heterosexuals would somehow make you uncomfortable.

I've never understood the "assault on traditional marriage" line either. Right now, "traditional" marriage is about a 50-50 shot. I don't understand how gays getting married will create any greater risk of failure. If someone like Dick Cheney voices support for gays getting married, I'm not sure why the argument persists.