Yea, and don't forget we still use Robert's Rules of Order too.

What I think is most confusing has been the various changes in direction that seem to be misdirecting the debate. First, a link to a website contained part of the argument, but it turns out that no one really reviewed the link (except me). So others were confused about the arguments being set out and rightfully so because, as I pointed out, the article was a biased opinionated piece which even you failed to critically evaluate which is why others missed what you were trying to argue.

Then the debate turned and suddenly homosexual marriage offered nothing of social significance on any front because they could not reproduce. Unfortunately, that argument was disconnected from reality because homosexuals can reproduce at the same rate as the general heterosexual population. But they offer something of great significance, they offer to adopt and love children which, to most poeple, would seem like a rather significant social contribution.

Then the debate become about sex. The only way to enforce this illogical train of thought was to introduce a totally new concept to the discussion, namely other people, like family who adopt or become legal guardians of other family members (grandparent raising grandchildren, or older siblings taking responsibility for younger ones)but those situations are not the same in that the law does provide protections for those legal situation. So the only other avenue is to bring incestuous relationships into the debate. But we are not talking about such relationships, that is different topic altogether.

Finally we are back to sex, the issue is all about sex but NOW it's about making sure that heterosexual sex continues to be supported by the government so that the nation will never lack for a large population. The world is on population overload, it seems heterosexuals are quite prolific, with or without marriage.

We have also put to rest the idea that the welfare of children is of greatest concern, because you agree that the civil unions, you would support,provide the strong foundation that developing children will benefit from, so ss-sex parenting is not a problem.

What we are left with is constant refernce to an abhorance of certain physical expressions of love and the following quote:

.

If you think but do not speak an abomination, must you repent? If you support a civil union denying that "desires of the flesh" are bound to surface as expressions of love are you not reinforcing an abomination (according to your beliefs)?

Would it not be more truthful to your faith to simply say that your faith forbids you from being complicit in allowing 'others' to sin, even if that means you must discriminate against others to avoid being complicit in thier sins? At least that is more consistent and more defensible becasue your reasons are ready made, just pick a chapter and verse.

Religious marriage, will be the same as it has always been, no religion will be forced to marry same-sex couples in thier religious ceremonies or even in their places of worship.

No one complained all these year that a perfectly common word 'marriage' was used in association with legal codes, not even given the fact that our government state clearly that it cannot establishment of a national religion NOR give preference by to one religion over another.

Now they crawl out of their wooden pews and claim foul. It's a common word for a common practice that does not necessarily have anything whatever to do with religion.

That seems to be the biggest problem - no one has been able to come up with some reasonable examples of any detrimental effects of ss marraige on heterosexual marriage or on society.

Reasonble being the key word as defined by the Supreme Court.

The laws associated with marriage are a right (equal protection/Constitution) - if there is no reason that same-gendered couples cannot marry, then they are being denied their right to enter into a contract through which they would gain access to the laws associatd with marriage.

So far no person or group has set forth an argument that qualifies as a reasonable claim against same-sex marriage.

So far it's the various Supreme Courts, in which some of the less obsurd arguments posted here, have lost in court.

But the government supports extra-marrital sex and our of marriage conception. How is that better than supporting a same-gender couple who make the same monogamous committment and are very much want to adopt those children for whom heterosexual sex has failed to provided a loving family, and a secure home.

About the only thing same-gendered couples have a problem with, when raising children, is the prejudice and discrimination that continues to undervalue the 'legitimate' and worthy act of raising children, which could be alleviated by marriage.

So we can surmize that marriage by any other name can include all the same protections for children, property and its inheritance, social security & insurance benefits, medical and end of life decisions, legal entry of foreigners to be naturalized citizens when partnered with an American, and all of the other 1,000 laws - as long as the couple maintain seperate bedrooms.

Is that correct? How do we assure that no sex is taking place in the privacy of - well, any room in the house?

What has been indicated is that marriage is ONLY about sex while homosexual partnerships are about social acceptance, being involved in community affairs to make a better community for everyone, including children. Those partnerships are not about SEX, but about being an accepted part of a family, and legitimizing their role and the lives of any children they should raise.

All the while, heterosexual marriage is all about the SEX.

So you are not in favor of making divorce illegal but you are in favor of making sex between homosexuals illegal or at the very least you simply want it to be something left in the closet and never spoken of.

Isn't that how the overwhelelming prejudice and discrimination against gays developled in the first place? Isn't that what they want in Uganda where gays and lesbians fear for lives and safety?

You know I remember a time when we didn't speak of homosexuality, outside of the disgusing, hateful terms. I remember friends who feared discoverey because even as an adult that person could be swept up and taken to place for the psychologically disturbed. Their rights taken from them via court order.

That's what your kind of denial amounts to and then people question why there is hate toward the groups who insist on turning us into some kind of fiendish, unnatural, being who will destroy society, convert children, and bring God's wrath upon whole nations.

It's good excuse for those politicians who claim climate change is a myth and that it's only God's wrath against homosexuals that's causing our current natural disasters.

NOW THAT IS SCARY.

With regard to the DoDo_David’s post: messagetrade responded:


There are two arguments that could made against civil unions replacing the term marriage; the first has to do with the over 1,130 federal laws relevant marriage. It has taken our current level of technology to identify the laws in which marriage is relevant and there is no certainty that all laws have been found. New laws and updated laws seem to occur fairly regularly and each one must consider the possible effects on other laws. Attempting to insert a new term is not logical nor a constructive use of time and resources.

The second and simplest one, is for people who are against gays and lesbians being able to marry, to present logical and socially relevant reasons that are not related to religious values. To date, in numerous legal cases, no person or group has successfully argued a rational point of view against same-sex marriage, but many have successfully argued points of social validity for same-sex marriage.

I might add, that no points were won in this thread for the side against ss marriage.

According to the article listed by msharmony as “interesting”


Msharmony stated:


The article actually begins by defining the terms that will be used to assess what the Declaration of Independence meant to say.

A little further down “endowed by their Creator” is interpreted as God-Given Rights. Again, these are a poor choice of words, as many people (even back then) did not view “their Creator” as the Judeo-Christian God, or any ‘separate’ god at all. But the interpretation of “God-Given Rights” is useful in supporting a totally biased point of view. The problem with supporting bias is that it doesn’t always make sense and therefore those who try to use the rhetoric to back up their own opinions, often make critical mistakes.

A contract of marriage, issued by the state must be respected equally by the laws of the Federal government. A contract (as the article portrays) is not a God-given right. Therefore marriage is a LEGAL RIGHT in which gays and lesbians are ‘fighting’ to partake in just like


and people sought to validate interracial marriage.

Obviously, since the contract of marriage has nothing to do with the biased view that it is a God-given right, then attempting to interpret the State/Federal laws presiding over the marriage contract through any religious point of view must eventually fail because the State/Federal laws must seek agreement and the Federal law does not allow any particular religious view (as such) to be coded into law.

Actually MARRIAGE, “has nothing to do with the creation of children who need a foundation”.
Marriage does not beget children and the only assurances that children will have a stronger foundation for lifelong development, though marriage, can be found in many of the LAWS relevant to the marriage contract.

That’s a good reason for social acceptance, and government reinforcement (via legal privileges) to support the contractual agreement of marriage.



“HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONS” , we must assume means ‘sex’, which does not have to occur only within marriage, nor does it have to lead to (child creation), but it can --- so, must we then assume that a child that was not produced through marriage is in fact the bastardly thing that is associated with bad and unequal? (POOR WORD CHOICES are our enemy, unless they are chosen for their use as weapons).



In red: Is this a poor choice of words or do you really mean to say that children being raised in a family headed by two moms or two dads are not worth the same protections that are guaranteed to children being raised in a family headed by a mom and a dad? Pulling the rug out from under a table without disturbing the glass of water is a great magic trick but it’s hardly amusing to pull the foundation out from under the children. Don’t you agree?

GreenEyes48

msharmony response to GreenEyes48


Does the response to GreenEyes48 sound like – hatred? First of all, “deadbeat dads” – does that conjure up good or bad images? Do we have disdain for those labeled deadbeats? Secondly, drug addictions” – does that conjure up thoughts of someone who is bad and just simply refuses to take responsibility for ‘self-control’. And when you see the words “those lifestyles”, do we not look at what precedes the term in order to determine the relevance of the term?

Why yes we do – ‘those lifestyles’ are obviously equated to some picture of really bad things. Is that hatred, bigotry, ignorance perhaps, or maybe it’s what happens when we grasp deeply for straws to confirm our bias. What really matters is that this is precisely how hatred develops. Poorly chosen words and illogical associations strung together like a weapon.

So in response to the OP (many pages ago)
When a person or a group fashion and sling such weapons, they are bound to create animosity and are likely to have similar weapons cast back at them.

How can we expect civility and non-violence from those who are caught in the midst of such a war and are already unstable? We can’t, so we have a gunman shooting at a religious group, a bomber blasting and killing medical staff at Planned Parenthood facility. And still we have politicians who prefer to believe their religious hierarchy over generally accepted scientific information – let the weapons continue while the unstable among us make victims of us all.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-g03.html



Above is a combination of quotes and paraphrase, the reference for that information and the list of Federal laws it refers to can be accessed via the url above the quotes.

Let us put away our individual moral codes for the moment and consider some of the 1,138 laws in the document provided in the url. I won’t hand feed, this is work each person must do for themselves.

Consider why the laws are beneficial and for whom they are beneficial, in the broadest sense (e.i., individuals, social groups, states, federal ). Do not fall into the trap of assigning gender to any of those categories, in other words, if the term wife and husband are used consider them gender neutral for this exercise. The reason has nothing to do with same-sex marriage but has everything to do with confusing gender discrimination with other discriminations being discussed in this thread.

When considered as a whole, these laws not only benefit individuals who choose to marry and remain married throughout a life together, but they also benefit social accord, state governments, and federal governments and for those who claim that children are the primary reason and function of marriage, there is no doubt that marriage benefits children both in the nuclear family and the extended families. Note that children benefit by the marriage of their parents because the law protects them (as a married couple) as they age and because the law protects the inheritance that may be passed on to the children.

Perhaps people think that children benefit the most, and that may be so, but the state and federal government have much to gain when any individual voluntarily agrees to be responsible, not only for another human being (a spouse) but when the two of them (together) take responsibility for any children they bring into their nuclear family, regardless of how those children came to be in the first place.

With all bias put aside, I don’t believe it is possible to imagine that marriage (as it is coded into our laws) holds any more or less relevance to opposite-sex couples than it does for same-sex couples. Nowhere in these laws are references that would indicate that the importance of marriage is solely related to the ability to produce children as a couple. There are however references in Judicial statutes (and within adoption law) that indicate children do not have to be born of both partners in a marriage for the child to be considered THEIR child for whom they both take responsibility.

Let’s see how good people are at setting aside their bias, or how deeply ingrained prejudice can be.

It doesn't seem that people are too willing to label their source of morality. Let's try asking them to set it aside - see my next post.

Do you love your god unconditionally? In other words, is there anything that your god could do to make you love him/her less or not at all?

Do you think that the way you love your god is what love is supposed to be?

Does your god love you unconditionally - is there anyting you could do that would make your god love you less or not at all?

Is the love you exchange with your god what you think love is suppose to be?

Now think - based on your answers to the other questions:

What kind of love do you think your god expects you to give to others?

Has your god demonstrated how you should love and be loved or has your god given you mixed messages about love?

You might want to ask these same questions of the girl you love too. That might tell you how you can expect to be loved by her too.

Faith is a concept that we all use to alleviate worries, fears, and concerns in matters of which we feel inadequate or incapable of controlling.

Many examples appear in this thread similare to:
People can have faith that their relationships are sound and that home is a place of safety.
Children can have faith that their parents will protect them from harm and provide them with the necessities.
People can have faith in medicine, as evidenced by the placebo effect.
People can have faith in a just world, one in which reciprocation always equalizes and people get what’s coming to them.

Notice that none of these things are assured and not all people have such faith – but even in the most devastating of situations (think about genocide (Sudan), and war ridden Middle East, and others in Africa living without shelter, little food, and no clean water)people can still have faith that ‘someone’ will see their plight and send help.

But when we can’t control our environment, when our efforts to understand situations fail to provide 'comforting' answers, we must find relief from stress of worry, guilt, and fear because if we don’t we let it rule our lives. We can become depressed, or violent, incapable of thinking rationally or compassionately and sometimes succumb to a sense of utter helplessness.

Faith is necessary because it allows us to set aside (ignore) the worries and fears, that are always there, so that we can act (do what we need to) in order to survive and contribute to the survival of our loved ones, our society, and humanity itself.

But faith in the continuance of our physical realities (people, medicine, the sun, or in any of the observable natures of our universe) can be betrayed, war happens, people get sick and die, bad things happen to good people, and climate can be destabilized by the presence of humans. So what prevents people from becoming depressed, or violent, incapable of thinking rationally or compassionately and succumbing to a sense of utter helplessness?

Whether it’s due to attaining knowledge about a variety of things or to nurturing, culture, or other experiences or a combination of these things, some people feel self-assured and more in control of their own destiny and less encumbered by worry or fear of naturally occurring events while others prefer to place their faith in something outside of their control such as spirits, angels, and all manner of supernatural forces.

However, there can be (and is) an unfortunate side-effect of faith in the supernatural and it stems from the creatively devised doctrines that most often accompany such faith. In the attempts to understand the interaction between the supernatural and the natural world, people assign natural qualities and characteristics to the supernatural and then they must conform in some way with the ‘created’ mind and thoughts of that supernatural 'other' which is thought to control the natural world.

Unfortunately, that kind of faith does not free people of their worries, fear and guilt; instead, they become prisoners of their faith; what they fear most is that they will betray their own faith. Instead of setting aside their incapacitating concerns, they limit their freedom by being forced to act in accordance with a doctrine of faith. Instead of feeling responsible for their actions, some people who are bound to a religiously acquired doctrinal moral code have eliminated guilt on many levels and often tend to think irrationally and can be hostile toward the actions of others who are not living up the letter of their own limiting doctrinal moral codes.

There is a reason why faith is necessary, but faith in the supernatural can be dangerous to self, society, the environment, and ultimately the survival of the human species.

So what do you think we need to do to eliminate the need for the kind of faith that can lead to devisive and destructive tendencies; how can we build a sense of 'self-determination' while continuing to instill a sense of responsibility for self-behavior and compassion for all the physical others that share our physical reality?

The following stems from corporate rule - I'll explain but first

from a previous post.

There has recently been a LOT of political activity attempting to break the unions - here are some of the scams

"no one can be coerced to join the union"

I totally agree but I don't agree with what follows the statment

"non-union workers in a unions environment must still have to right to vote for union official AND to recieve all the benefits whic union workers negotiate for" BULL ONY

Now back to the quote: Here's my gripe "CITIZENS UNITED"

Not only are corporate funds unlimited but they are PRIVATE as well.
REALLY maybe I don't want to work for a corporation who supports fossil fuel or DOMA or Mit Romney but I'm not allowed to know if my corporation supports any of the things that offend my sense of values EVEN POLITICAL CANDIDATES.

So what's with the bullcrap that unions have to notify employees of outlays for political activity AND to reimburse the portion of those funds that a person would not have contributed --- IT'S NOT A DAMN DONATION - the union votes JUST LIKE CORPORATIONS (with the power of their money) - for the party that is sympathetic to its needs.

Any union member who doesn't understand that is probably buying into the corporate propaganda.

Corporations do not want unions - they are competition to the ownership of government.

mmm sounds like a management problem.

If we continue to work for the corporate kings, who will really served in the end?

Not to mention that the latest in unemployment news is that some 25% of minimum wage jobs, that used to go to high school kids, are now manned by college educated poeple - and that's on top of the 40% of college graduates who are unemployed.

Your words of wisdom are so 1970.