It was due to happen...

[5-90]

The NAACP got something right.

http://news.yahoo.com/naacp-backs-s...5tZW50fGNlbGVicml0eQRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (once around here - I use 24-hour analogue clocks.)

Either I'm a hardcore social libertarian, or I just don't care - but I can't see what all the kerfuffle is about WRT homosexual couples getting married. Doesn't bother me a whit.

It's been said that they'll end up having short marriages - but what about Hollywood? What about Kim Kardashian?

And, if a couple of guys want to link up, or a couple of girls want to do so, how does it affect my own marriage?

Besides, if it's all about religion, what's stopping them from forming their own church and obviating the argument? "The Firtht Thurtcth of Jethuth Chritht" (sorry, I couldn't help it. Read it out loud with the lisp - the gays I know thinks that's just funny as Hell!) "Gay Christianity" would make more sense to me than "Scientology," and it's not any odder than anything else that came down the pike...

 

[8Mud]

My question is why they insist on marriage and equality with heterosexual couples? There could be a system put into place for social (personal) contracts. gay couples without children, gay couples with children etc.

These one agenda crusades, in my experience, have a tendency to evolve into things that don't vaguely resemble the original intent. Most any great social reform, I can think of, has had unforeseen consequences.

And basic math enters into the equation, say ten percent of the population is gay. It makes them uncomfortable to be considered second class citizens. It is all about what they want, a minority. And they want to legislate the majority into accepting it, no matter how uncomfortable it may make a significant portion of the majority feel. They are telling them to discard centuries of tradition and teachings.

There is no such thing as an all inclusive social system. You include or elevate one group and another suffers the consequences. The social order is a bell curve. Most theories and social models have been tried in the past, those that succeeded stuck, even though imperfect or marginally functional. Those that failed were in most cases discarded or proscribed by civil or religious law.

To put it bluntly, I wonder how many poor children don't get the latest blood sugar test sets and how many male homosexuals get rectal surgery? It may be life and death with a poor diabetic.

Or when the insurance companies recalculate, we all end up paying more for medical insurance. Medical insurance that is already unaffordable for a large portion of the population.

Or when they recalculate taxes, using the new formula, heterosexuals will end up paying more. It almost has to be.

They say it is all about civil rights, IMO it is almost certainly about dollars and cents and/or simply a feel good gesture.

I haven't a clue about how many perverts are attracted to prepubescent boys and girls, seems to be a lot of them around, maybe even more than gays. Gays are setting a precedent that can be followed by many other special interests and they can use almost the same arguments. They have civil rights too.

 

[themangeraaad]

And basic math enters into the equation, say ten percent of the population is gay. It makes them uncomfortable to be considered second class citizens. It is all about what they want, a minority.

And why should they be considered (and/or feel like) second class citizens? They shouldn't. They are not second class citizens and deserve every right given to other citizens of the USA. I don't care if they make up 50%, 10% or 2% of the population... they deserve the same rights given to the rest of the population.

And they want to legislate the majority into accepting it, no matter how uncomfortable it may make a significant portion of the majority feel. They are telling them to discard centuries of tradition and teachings.

and if those centuries of tradition and teachings are bigoted and hateful then GREAT! Discard those traditions and replace them with new/modern ones. I don't see what the problem is. Years ago interracial marriage was [more than] frowned upon, yet it's legal and (mostly) accepted today, aside from some within some specific demographics.

Most theories and social models have been tried in the past, those that succeeded stuck, even though imperfect or marginally functional.

Exactly. MOST have been tried. However we, as a people/society, are still growing and changes will be made. New models will be tried and those that succeed will stick, as they have in the past. So why not give gay marriage a chance? Per your own argument: if it succeeds it will stick, if not it won't. Where's the harm in trying?

Those that failed were in most cases discarded or proscribed by civil or religious law.

Civil and religious law are two COMPLETELY different things.

Civil law governs all people within a given country. Religious law governs people within a single faith. Separation of church and state says these don't influence each other.

E.g. The Qur'an restricts Muslims from eating pork... so they don't. They don't try and force civil/national legislation banning everyone from eating pork. They just don't do it themselves and I'm OK with that.

The bible bans Christianity/Catholicism/other faiths from gay marriage, so therefore members of said faiths can't participate in gay marriage. I'm OK with that, whatever works for them... however catholics (and members of other applicable faiths) have no right whatsoever to try and force their personal religious beliefs on members of other faiths through civil/national laws banning gay marriage.

To put it bluntly, I wonder how many poor children don't get the latest blood sugar test sets and how many male homosexuals get rectal surgery? It may be life and death with a poor diabetic.

Or when the insurance companies recalculate, we all end up paying more for medical insurance. Medical insurance that is already unaffordable for a large portion of the population.

Or when they recalculate taxes, using the new formula, heterosexuals will end up paying more. It almost has to be.

Let's not bring health insurance up in this subject. Why aren't you out lambasting smokers, or heavy drinkers, or obese people, etc... I'm pretty sure all of those groups have more of an influence on insurance availability/costs than homosexuals, yet their behavior is completely legal and, for the most part, considered socially acceptable.

I haven't a clue about how many perverts are attracted to prepubescent boys and girls, seems to be a lot of them around, maybe even more than gays. Gays are setting a precedent that can be followed by many other special interests and they can use almost the same arguments. They have civil rights too.

The exact same argument was used to fight interracial marriage. I don't see how ANYONE can use this argument against gay marriage.

Additionally, gay marriage is a decision made by two consenting adults. Pedophilia is an invasion of privacy of a minor by an adult, aka not two consenting adults. These are two completely different things.

And I'd like to point out that one of the largest special interest groups against gay marriage is the catholic church, however the catholic church (up to and including the pope himself) are working to cover up their own MAJOR pedophilia cases and have been for years... and pedophilia is arguably FAR worse than gay marriage.

But anyway

/rant

 

[8Mud]

And why should they be considered (and/or feel like) second class citizens? They shouldn't. They are not second class citizens and deserve every right given to other citizens of the USA. I don't care if they make up 50%, 10% or 2% of the population... they deserve the same rights given to the rest of the population.

and if those centuries of tradition and teachings are bigoted and hateful then GREAT! Discard those traditions and replace them with new/modern ones. I don't see what the problem is. Years ago interracial marriage was [more than] frowned upon, yet it's legal and (mostly) accepted today, aside from some within some specific demographics.


Exactly. MOST have been tried. However we, as a people/society, are still growing and changes will be made. New models will be tried and those that succeed will stick, as they have in the past. So why not give gay marriage a chance? Per your own argument: if it succeeds it will stick, if not it won't. Where's the harm in trying?

Civil and religious law are two COMPLETELY different things.

Civil law governs all people within a given country. Religious law governs people within a single faith. Separation of church and state says these don't influence each other.

E.g. The Qur'an restricts Muslims from eating pork... so they don't. They don't try and force civil/national legislation banning everyone from eating pork. They just don't do it themselves and I'm OK with that.

The bible bans Christianity/Catholicism/other faiths from gay marriage, so therefore members of said faiths can't participate in gay marriage. I'm OK with that, whatever works for them... however catholics (and members of other applicable faiths) have no right whatsoever to try and force their personal religious beliefs on members of other faiths through civil/national laws banning gay marriage.

Let's not bring health insurance up in this subject. Why aren't you out lambasting smokers, or heavy drinkers, or obese people, etc... I'm pretty sure all of those groups have more of an influence on insurance availability/costs than homosexuals, yet their behavior is completely legal and, for the most part, considered socially acceptable.


The exact same argument was used to fight interracial marriage. I don't see how ANYONE can use this argument against gay marriage.

Additionally, gay marriage is a decision made by two consenting adults. Pedophilia is an invasion of privacy of a minor by an adult, aka not two consenting adults. These are two completely different things.

And I'd like to point out that one of the largest special interest groups against gay marriage is the catholic church, however the catholic church (up to and including the pope himself) are working to cover up their own MAJOR pedophilia cases and have been for years... and pedophilia is arguably FAR worse than gay marriage.

But anyway

/rant

All legitimate arguments, seems like a complex subject.

My guess is, like all such subjects, our superior intellect will prevail in the end, and we will make it work out in the long run, not.:banghead: Been there done that.

Occams razor be darned, full speed ahead. I remember the last great "Civil rights Crusade" seems like it succeeded just fine and everything is just hunky dory today.(Sarcasm).

My guess is many millions of people have to give up traditions that go back many centuries, so a few can feel better about themselves today. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, some will stubbornly resist and may likely generate a fanatical fringe. I can see the end results being more divisive than inclusive.

Civil law and religious law are intertwined, civil law is pretty much based on religious law. Instead of trying to fix what we have, "Sex, the final frontier. These are the social experiments of the liberal left. Our mission is: to explore strange new experiences, to seek out new agendas and remake civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

The trouble with liberal agendas, is eventually there is a backlash, it has been compared to the pendulum on a clock. The farther it goes one way, the farther it goes the other. The trick is to make it as stable as possible without stopping it completely and avoiding the extremes.

We'll see how it all turns out, I have my doubts about it turning out as planned and there are bound to be unforeseen consequences. IMO

If a baby cries, some stick a bottle in it's mouth just to shut it up. Which may or may not be the right thing to do.

Two guys shared a house right across the street from me, no conflict I can remember. One of my best friends growing up was gay, no conflict I can remember. IMO much of the conflict is manufactured and didn't really exist before the vocal few started making demands and started recruiting activist followers..

The only real conflict I can ever remember was, a an alpha personality gay manager in government, who quietly told me one day, if I'd bend over, all of my troubles would disappear. I always wondered how many young men he had subverted over the years? I remember it eventually costing me my job, I was replaced by a gay contractor and eventually by three new full time gay employees. I wonder how he feels about the whole controversy? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. My guess is this is just the beginning.

My youngest son is 26 years old and I've never seen him with a girl or a woman. The only conflicts we have are generational.

Rant-out.

 

[kastein]

I'm not sure whether I am hoping you're trolling or afraid you're serious.

 

[8Mud]

I'm not sure whether I am hoping you're trolling or afraid you're serious.

Not trolling, just a discussion, my end position is unlikely to appear for decades. Like the black civil rights crusade, various law and order crusades, affirmative action , no child left behind. school busing and many other social initiatives. The results can take a long time to manifest and the results may not be exactly what was envisioned.

You can even throw the great wall of Mexico in there and illegal immigration. Some initiatives just wither, some have no solution.

If you take abridge to my rant that may be a good thing. A bad thing if it is pure emotion, a good thing if it is reason.

 

[5-90]

And why should they be considered (and/or feel like) second class citizens? They shouldn't. They are not second class citizens and deserve every right given to other citizens of the USA. I don't care if they make up 50%, 10% or 2% of the population... they deserve the same rights given to the rest of the population.

Concur. The idea behind our Republic (read: "Representative Democracy") was to prevent the "Tyranny of the Majority" that true democracy always brings.

Which was quite workable, until the "ruling class" lost touch with the "deer peepul" (or, as they'd probably put it amongst themselves, "the great unwashed.")

and if those centuries of tradition and teachings are bigoted and hateful then GREAT! Discard those traditions and replace them with new/modern ones. I don't see what the problem is. Years ago interracial marriage was [more than] frowned upon, yet it's legal and (mostly) accepted today, aside from some within some specific demographics.

Again, concur. Just because it's "tradition" doesn't mean it's right. How long did "traditional knowledge" maintain that:
- the Earth was flat, and was balanced on the back of cosmic elephants?
- the Earth was the centre of the universe, and everything revolved around it?
- Negroes (and later Asians) were inferior to Caucasians in all regards (mentally and physically?)
- it was proper for one person to fully own another, to use them as they saw fit, and that it was acceptable to kill them if they decided to do so - without repercussion?
- Negroes were unfit to serve in the Armed Forces - in any capacity?

I could go on, I'm sure - but there's a few highlights.

Exactly. MOST have been tried. However we, as a people/society, are still growing and changes will be made. New models will be tried and those that succeed will stick, as they have in the past. So why not give gay marriage a chance? Per your own argument: if it succeeds it will stick, if not it won't. Where's the harm in trying?

Evolution. Happens with species, happens with societies. Biological evolution usually works out well; social evolution usually has mixed results. However, we've been wrong more often than we've been right before we've made a change, and the change has (often) corrected an imbalance.

Civil and religious law are two COMPLETELY different things.

Hm. We have two systems of law in this country:
- Criminal law. This governs transgressions by individuals against society as a greater whole.
- Civil law. This governs transgressions by individuals against other specific individuals.

While there is some basis in religious principle governing both laws (cf: the Ten Commandments, and their analogues for "ethical/moral conduct" in other faiths,) the Social Contract also comes into play, and these efforts are also either overreaching (due to the actions of individuals, who stated "it wasn't illegal when I did it") or corrupted ("the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.")

However, using a system of faith as a strict basis for law is a mistake - because not everyone is going to share that faith.

Civil law governs all people within a given country. Religious law governs people within a single faith. Separation of church and state says these don't influence each other.

See previous comment on law.

E.g. The Qur'an restricts Muslims from eating pork... so they don't. They don't try and force civil/national legislation banning everyone from eating pork. They just don't do it themselves and I'm OK with that.

Which is all I've ever asked. "Believe however you like, just don't foist it on me because you don't like how I do it."

The bible bans Christianity/Catholicism/other faiths from gay marriage, so therefore members of said faiths can't participate in gay marriage. I'm OK with that, whatever works for them... however catholics (and members of other applicable faiths) have no right whatsoever to try and force their personal religious beliefs on members of other faiths through civil/national laws banning gay marriage.

As I've often said - if gays want church weddings, they are perfectly free to form their own church. I'm not going to stop them, and it may make more sense than a number of other things that have come along (Scientology is a good example. The Church of the Sub-Genius is a farcical example, as is Pastafarianism. And there have been people in Europe of late who have been putting their religious preference down as "Jedi" over the last several years.)

Let's not bring health insurance up in this subject. Why aren't you out lambasting smokers, or heavy drinkers, or obese people, etc... I'm pretty sure all of those groups have more of an influence on insurance availability/costs than homosexuals, yet their behavior is completely legal and, for the most part, considered socially acceptable.

Healthcare/health discount plans (I hesitate to call it "insurance," because it doesn't usually follow the traditional insurance model) don't need to be revamped to allow for homosexual marriage - although they do need report (moreso now since the 2,000+ page "Affordable Health Care Act" atrocity.)

The tax code would need minor changes to allow homosexual marriage - but that's needed wholesale revision for years. Have you seen 26CFR lately? Yech!

The exact same argument was used to fight interracial marriage. I don't see how ANYONE can use this argument against gay marriage.

No further comment at this time.

Additionally, gay marriage is a decision made by two consenting adults. Pedophilia is an invasion of privacy of a minor by an adult, aka not two consenting adults. These are two completely different things.

And I'd like to point out that one of the largest special interest groups against gay marriage is the catholic church, however the catholic church (up to and including the pope himself) are working to cover up their own MAJOR pedophilia cases and have been for years... and pedophilia is arguably FAR worse than gay marriage.

True, and true. Pederasty ("paedophilia" is a preference for minor children that may proceed into fetishism, but is not necessarily acted upon. "Pederasty" is the acting upon of paedophilic impulses) is not something that I can condone in principle - although I do have difficulty with the idea of the "Age of Consent" being set at eighteen (how many of us here did not see our eighteenth birthday with virginity retained? How many of us lost our virginity in cases that could have been prosecuted at "Statutory Rape?" Come on - show of hands! I was fourteen, she was fifteen. We stayed together for three years, until I graduated high school and had to unass the area.)

Considering that pederasty is often predatory in nature, and depends on the impressionability of minors (particularly when pederasty is undertaken upon children under the age of twelve or so,) it is definitely a mental illness.

However, paedophilia occupies a grey area - how many pornstars are cashing in on youthful appearances (such as, for instance, Molly Rome - who still looks underage and bears a striking resemblance to Emma Watson - fulfilling two different sets of fantasies)? Probably almost as many as are cashing in on the "MILF" genre (isn't Nina Hartley still doing shoots and movies? Juliet Anderson started when she was 39, and continued well into her sixties.)

Ergo, it is possible to indulge in paedophilic fantasy without resorting to pederasty - maintaining sexual congress between two legally consenting adults.

(Don't haul Traci Lords into this - that's very much a special case. Considering that she entered the industry using a fake ID - a United States passport with 'revised date of birth,' - the government ended up dropping the case out of embarrassment. And, anyone who seriously would have believed she was underage when shooting port did not see her movies. She was sixteen when she did her shoot for Penthouse, but I don't think anyone would believe that without foreknowledge...)

But anyway

/rant

I don't see how "homosexual marriage" can be equated to "predatory pederasty" (of any mix - male/male, male/female, female/male, female/female,) since marriage of whatever sort is a contract - and a contract can only be entered into by competent legal adults.

It probably doesn't help that I've never been one to view marriage as a religious institution, either. I view marriage as a socioeconomic construct whose primary purpose is to provide mutual support for adults, particularly in providing a stable home environment for the care, raising, training, and education of children.

And, if the Church wants to protect marriage, why have they allowed divorce to be so easy to obtain? I've said it before, I'll say it again - I know a homosexual couple who has been together for the last 25 years or so. Married in every sense except the piece of paper and acknowledgement by the State of California.

Kim Kardashian was married for 72 days.

But letting Mick and Jeff get married would cause "irreparable harm" to the "institution of marriage," and no-one batted an eye at Kim K.? Please.

(And I seem to want to recall that there were a few Hollyweird marriages that were even shorter than Kim K's. Didn't Britney Spears have one marriage dissolved inside of a week? Or am I thinking of someone else?)