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.

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?

Yeah, he's a crazy gunman. I wouldn't be surprised if he was also a bigot.

Thank you for sharing this. It gives me hope in the goodness of people. And now that you mention it, I have known some 70 and 80 year old people who have a much broader and open perspective on things. (And some who are as entrenched in their beliefs as ever).

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.

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.

I'm sure he was. There are all kinds of crazy, hateful people out there.

Are you sure? Maybe some of it has been edited out already.






People who support gay marriage are also pro-marriage. Many of them are more honestly pro-marriage than the hetero divorcees that protest gay marriage.





Yeah, probably, in terms of his actual words. But I bet he also financed groups who lobbied to limit the rights of gays to marry. That's a hateful act.

Red wrote:



Yes, thats exactly the kind of thing I hear from the anti-marriage crowd all the time. The anti-gay-marriage crowd that is.

Many of them don't REALLY care about the children, they just hate gays and use children as their justification for doing so.

I have to wonder how many of these people who protest gay marriage because it ruins traditional marriage are actually divorced. I would think divorce has a more detrimental effect on marriage than gay marriage would.

Yes, yes, yes.


Many in the anti-gay crowd don't even realize how they have internalized a hateful position.

Red wrote:



Yes, I agree. The only way I can see to protect the rights of gay people EVERYWHERE in the county is to legalize gay marriage. Pretending that civil unions protects gay people is a smoke screen. Its like 'separate but equal'. Separate but equal didn't sound terrible to white people, but it was a lie. In part because of these myriad laws that deal specifically with marriage and not civil unions, civil unions do not protect gay people everywhere in the US.

Age is not an indicator of morality nor wisdom.

Homosexuality goes back thousands of years. And in actuality majority is no indicator of rightness either.

Okay, someone else found this for me. If I'm reading this gallup poll correctly, it looks like I was right.

EIGHTY FOUR percent of non-Christians support gay marriage.

EIGHTY FOUR. And non-Christian includes other religions. I bet the numbers for non-religious people are even higher.

But what I really want to know is how strongly people feel about it. I think that among those 16% of non christians who are against gay marriage - they just don't care as much about it as the christians do!



http://www.gallup.com/poll/154634/Acceptance-Gay-Lesbian-Relations-New-Normal.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics+-+Social+Issues

Yes! I agree. My initial comment was not meant to imply otherwise.

Age often IS one indicator (of many!) of what kind of culture you were raised in. This is, I feel, the main reason there are so many older people who don't approve of gay marriage - its because of the culture that they were raised in.



Yes, I agree on both counts.

Cerise, as always, thank you for being civil, polite, and on point in our exchanges.

what conjures up in my mind with a deadbeat dad is someone who made a CHOICE to not abide by societal roles for male parents of children,,,,because they werent able to or willing to,,,

the effect is no less negative when it accumulates in numbers though, for those children...


what conjures in my mind with addiction is that its not the 'fault' of the addicted, it is an illness they cant help and shouldnt be stigmatized or frowned upon, but is still not a DESIRABLE place for large groups of society to be in,,,,


similarly, because 'sexual preference' is toted as a non choice and a consentual lifestyle, it will be accepted along with any other CONSENTUAL activity or lifestyle that feels good and makes people happy INDIVIDUALLY and in the moment

like drinking, like making babies, ,,,,,,I have no hatred towards anyone

I do, however, find it scary that society is so easily lead to look away from so many behaviors on the grounds that they are 'consentual' ,,,,,,


I find it scary that the only things that matter anymore, or which are supposed to matter, are things that directly and immediately harm another person

because, outside of killing and stealing, I dont know too many things which do,,,,,and when all we 'judge' anymore is the taking of life and things,, we will be in sad shape,,,

did I say children are 'bastards'? wow,, no

children need LOVE but they also BENEFIT more from some STRUCTURE and IDENTITY Than from a boundariless family tree that causes identity confusion

anyone raising children , whether its stepparents, adopted, hetero, or grandma, ,needs to have protections in place for raising those children,, they can be addressed with laws that pertain to LEGAL GUARDIANS< and do not require redefining MARRIAGE

so, children are born through sex, heterosexual sex, and once created by HETEROSEXUALS, their best chance is to maintain that structure as a foundation throughout their life,

so I dont think DIVORCE should be encouraged and in fact its pretty pricy and time consuming and DISCOURAGING, so that is no issue in this discussion

I dont think HOMESEXUAL SEX should be encouraged either under the guise of redefining MARRIAGE to include it, there are other ways to address the rights of adults wishing to share their lives, or wishing to raise children, that do not require MARRIAGE to be addressed at all

one is a matter of contract between adults to share legal liability(civil union)

the other is a matter of contract with the government to undertake responsibility for children (guardianship)

civil union should have the protections of marriage without an assumption or expectation for a sexual relationship

Guardianship rights should have the protections over their family that married couples have over theirs, with no regard to biological or sexual relationship


so I would never view any child as a BASTARD

but there is no BENEFIT that extends from a MAN LAYING WITH A MAN, or a WOMAN LAYING WITH A WOMAN

and no reason for the government to be involved with encouraging or supporting its maintenance

neither has anything to do with potentially creating a life, or the effects that life will have as part of society,,,

I agree, that as far as 'rights' go,, ALL CONSENTING ADULTS who wish to share a life should have the option of CIVIL UNION which allows them to do that with NO REGARD To whether there is a sexual element or not,,,,

Many in the pro-same-gender-marriage crowd don't even realize how they are projecting hate onto people who aren't hating.

Like Dan Cathy and the Family Research Council