Indexes
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
November 13th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (149)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (65)
- Despite budget cuts, some Lodi Unified School District salaries continue to rise (55)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (46)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Lodi Flames slim playoff chances vanish in setback to Tracy Bulldogs (25)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Nightmares about America's future (22)
- Tokay Tigers blow late 27-point lead in loss to Wolf Pack (22)
ADVERTISEMENT
What do you think of the Supreme Court
Friday, May 16, 2008 6:52 AM PDT
decision that could legalize gay marriage?
Marlene Clay
Lodi
Homemaker
Lodi
Homemaker
"I don't care too much for it. I believe that a man and woman should be married, and not the same sex."
Mark Bravo
San Francisco
Health care manager
San Francisco
Health care manager
"I think that's what the Supreme Court is for: to overturn foolish laws. People should be allowed to marry anyone, period."
Rudy Vargas
Lodi
Barista
Lodi
Barista
"I'm not for it personally, but it's not really up to me. People are going to do what they want and ultimately the state shouldn't tell people they can or can't get married."
Matt Tisher
Lodi
Student
Lodi
Student
"I think it's great. Gays have a right to marry. Everyone has a right to marry. It shouldn't be up to sexual preference."
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on May 26, 2008 11:47 AM:
Lodian wrote on May 26, 2008 11:45 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 11:56 AM:
I think the famous quote from Adrian Cronauer pretty much sums up my feelings on that subject.
Still, we are having a blast. You can't go anywhere here without running into someone playing live music.
I went to the grocery store the other day and they had a jazz band playing in their cafe. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 11:53 AM:
Far from trying to start a debate, I was in fact trying to do the opposite.
"
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 11:50 AM:
Please excuse my punctuation error. Where there is a semi-colon (;), that should have read '...share your concern.' I would have better...'
I figured you could figure that out, but since it was so glaring and my thoughts could have been interpreted as being a part of your original quote, I feel it necessary to post the correction. Sorry for any confusion. "
Lodian wrote on May 23, 2008 11:47 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 11:42 AM:
I will concede this up to one point. When you stated that, 'I don't believe that life begins at conception. Consequently, abortion is a non issue for me. If I did believe that life began at conception, I would undoubtedly share your concern; I would have better understood you had you not stated your belief as to life not beginning at conception.
You see, debate can be initiated by the smallest of points being set forth. Had you simply stated that you won't debate the issue of abortion and left it at that, then I would have had no where else to go; you would have provided me with nothing to argue. However, since the matter of 'life' is so very germane to the abortion issue and you put forth your opinion on it, I was compelled to discuss this with you further.
However, after reviewing your posts subsequent to your initial statement I should have been capable to determine that you weren't going to budge; for not recognizing that I do apologize.
Since I have a basic understanding of your position, I would find it fruitless to discuss the matter off-line. Thanks for the offer.
Take care. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 11:24 AM:
However, I find it telling that one side of an argument absolutely refuses to answer what should be simple questions to advance their stand on an issue.
G: There is no argument. I have said again and again that I will not debate this subject with you on this blog.
If you REALLY want to discuss the issue, drop me a line at lenny_pone@hotmail.com and, when I have the time, I will try to succinctly summarize my feelings on the subject. I imagine they will come as something of a surprise to you, given the preconceptions you have obviously formed regarding my views.
Either way, I have not debated you on this issue here and I will not debate you on it here.
"
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 11:23 AM:
You entered into the discussion on your own. You presented your stand on the issue with what anyone would have expected an understanding that you would be challenged. This is the purpose of these boards.
There are many bloggers and issues that I read that I pass over; my reasons are mine of course, but mostly because I've learned that there is simply no point in debating with people who don't know how to debate and there are certain subjects that simply have no possibility of being ended on a 'happy' note. Certainly abortion is one such 'unhappy' issue.
My best to you; I hope Texas is more enjoyable for you than it was for me when I lived in Houston during the mid-70s - hot and humid (although this time of year you may be enjoying a short respite) - I sure do love Lodi! Take care. "
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 11:17 AM:
However, I find it telling that one side of an argument absolutely refuses to answer what should be simple questions to advance their stand on an issue. 'Life' IS the issue with regard to abortion. When you stated that you believe that 'life' does not begin at conception (you later qualified that to include 'human life,' something that was not lost on me), it naturally follows then that there should be a point that you believe 'human life' does begin. If you won't answer the question I certainly can't force you to; so maybe you could explain why you won't/can't answer the question. Doesn't this go to the heart of abortion controversy?
I am not in a bad mood nor am I angry - I have no reason to be. I sense from you a certain level of angst that confuses me. While abortion will never be resolved on this blog, it is an issue that demands to be fully examined. Roe v. Wade was not the end of the discussion; it was merely the beginning. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 11:13 AM:
I have tried to be polite in conveying this fact but you seem to be determined to push it.
I will not be pushed.
I'm sorry but that is just the way it is. "
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 10:56 AM:
Leonard, I DO take your statements as honest. Yet why would you think I'm in a bad mood simply because I want to understand where you are actually coming from? Why is it so easy for you to state that life does 'not' begin at conception, yet is so difficult to reveal when you believe life 'does' begin?
How does this put me in a bad mood or that I am attempting to use you as a punching bag.
It find it curious that only 'you' are right - insisting that I take your statements as 'truth' over and beyond my own deep seeded beliefs. Just how arrogant is that? I've stated my position as well as I can and you have refused to answer one very salient question in support of yours. You put forth European nations in support of your argument; and I have likewise set forth the issue of abortion in Europe to counter yours. To avoid providing an answer you accuse me of being 'wrong' and knowing it. Just because a practice is legal doesnt make it right - you believe that as much as I do. Therefore, why should I be wrong in my beliefs? "
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 10:48 AM:
That 'boom' was unexpected. C'mon Leonard you should know better than this. Much of the reason that the south was against abolition was their concern that their industries (cotton, tobacco) would suffer to the point of bankruptcy.
Certainly you also know that Lincoln did not go full bore into abolition. As reprehensible as slavery was, this great president had to consider many factors (other than the most important, human ones) prior to determining that it should be ended. Remember, the Civil War started in 1861; Lincoln did not execute the final Emancipation Proclamation until 1863. Just why did he wait so long?
I have never liked the posting of web links to advance an argument; Ive tried to rely upon my own knowledge as well as what I research as I go along. However, you might want to review history here: http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000803.shtml.
To get a better understanding of just how complex this issue was, if interested take a look here: http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolnabolitionist.htm.
As I said, I dont like debating through links; yet I also dont enjoy ceding an argument without presenting a full understanding of the issues. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 10:44 AM:
I can understand your fondness for what occurs in European nations because abortion there is as acceptable as it is here
I get it G. You are in a nasty mood and you want to pick a fight.
I'm sorry, but I do not have time to be your punching bag today. I know you are wrong on this and I suspect you know it too.
Why don't we talk on another day, when you are willing to take my honest statements as such? "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 10:39 AM:
Equally as 'wow' is your attempt to dissect what I have presented as something evil and sordid
G, I do not think that you are either evil or sordid. What I do think is that you share an unfortunate mindset with many white Americans that unintentionally minimizes the role of slavery in our nation's history.
When considering history I often try to imagine myself in some previous era. As a white man, I naturally imagine myself as a white man in the past. Consequently the past is not an entirely uninviting landscape.
If HOWEVER, I try to change my point of view and imagine myself as a black man in, say, 1830, things change radically. Suddenly, I am utterly defenseless. My wife can be taken from me and raped or sold, again, without any legal recourse. My two year old daughter can be sold to people who will, in turn, sell her into prostitution, again with no legal recourse. If I do ANYTHING to try to stop any of this, my master can have me beaten to death or hung.
What was a pleasant ancient idyll is suddenly transformed into a nightmare that I don't think any modern American can truly encompass in their mind. We take our place of privilege for granted but the truth is that not all Americans in our history have been granted those privileges. The black slaves were not some foreign aliens to be put aside, they were AMERICANS who for generations were abused in an unbelievable fashion.
Any version of history that sets aside that experience is, in fact as well as in spirit, a vicious lie.
"
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 10:34 AM:
United States: Slavery Abolished 1865.
While I may have the time, I do not have the inclination to research, study and analyze the evolution of slavery in Europe. I can understand your fondness for what occurs in European nations because abortion there is as acceptable as it is here. I do not believe that slavery was abolished in the United States because our European counterparts ceased its practice. The United States had its own reasons. Likewise, I dont care about any of the reasons why these same nations have no compunction against the destruction of human life prior to birth. Their reasoning has absolutely no impact on me; just as the legality of it here is completely unacceptable to me.
You know it has been said that one can tell the level of compassion in a person by the way he/she treats their pets; I would submit that a better insight into the true compassion of a society is how they treat the weakest and most defenseless of our human race. As of now, the United States is woefully inadequate. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 10:31 AM:
As for what Europeans were doing then and what they do now - keep in mind that the United States has always been independent, not only in its governmental concepts, but also in the fact that we, as a nation, rarely ever care what Europeans (or anyone else) do or what they think of us
Going back to my original point, few people ever cite the Nazi's flagrant disregard for international opinion as a reason to "set aside" the Holocaust. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 10:29 AM:
It WAS necessary if for nothing else than to continue the industries that were built upon the backs of the slaves themselves.
An interesting assertion given the fact that the United States actually experienced an economic boom once it was abolished.
Where do you get these intriguing facts? "
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 10:22 AM:
Equally as 'wow' is your attempt to dissect what I have presented as something evil and sordid.
As for what Europeans were doing then and what they do now - keep in mind that the United States has always been independent, not only in its governmental concepts, but also in the fact that we, as a nation, rarely ever care what Europeans (or anyone else) do or what they think of us. We are one of a few nations left that provide for the death penalty for the worst of our offenders. Certainly this is contrary to what many Europeans believe to be acceptable; yet I submit that their opinions as to what we do in this regard are given little weight. This, of course may be an argument for another time.
Slavery WAS legal. It WAS acceptable. It WAS necessary if for nothing else than to continue the industries that were built upon the backs of the slaves themselves. It was an integral part of society that demands it to be viewed in its correct historical context. To skew its impact goes a long way to avoid learning from it. To do otherwise invalidates history; to what end does that serve?
As for your refusal to discuss 'life' as it pertains to abortion, I certainly respect and accept your decision. It is curious though in light of your adamant stand that life does not begin at conception that you are silent as to when life does begin. I would think that this would be a relatively simple question for you to answer. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 10:19 AM:
1761 Slavery abolished in Portugal
1772 Slavery abolished in the British Isles
1783 Slavery abolished in the Hapsburg Empire
1794 Slavery abolished in France
1803 Slavery abolished in Canada
1829 Slavery abolished in Mexico
1833 Slavery abolished in all British Colonies
1836 Slavery abolished in all Portuguese Colonies
1848 Slavery abolished in all French Colonies "
jess wrote on May 23, 2008 10:10 AM:
"
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 10:04 AM:
I did not 'put aside' slavery as you define it. My 'notwithstanding' remark was simply inserted in an attempt to view life in the United States in its proper context.
What I am failing to grasp here is how the legality of this institution ought to influence our view of it in the context of the society that allowed it.
If anything, the fact that the laws of the time allowed such an abomination is just a further stain on those who allowed it.
Relatively few people living then would have found it difficult to discuss slavery in any other context than as it was - acceptable, normal and necessary. I didn't 'dismiss' its existence - I emphasized it.
Again, given the fact that most European nations had either banned slavery or were in the process of banning slavery, this assertion simply does not hold water.
Your belief that human life does not begin at conception is simply a way to justify its destruction, nothing more
Wow G. I sure am glad that you are able to look into my heart and tell me what I feel.
The fact is that you are wrong. My belief is based on the biological facts, tempered by years of listening to both sides debate this point.
Do you deny that an amoeba is life? If you do, then you deny science. When a sperm and an egg are joined within a human being, a living cell is formed. It quickly divides exponentially over a short period of time to create a human being.
Again, I am not going to waste both of our time debating this issue with you. I accept that you sincerely hold your view, please accept that I hold mine with equal sincerity. "
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 9:53 AM:
I did not 'put aside' slavery as you define it. My 'notwithstanding' remark was simply inserted in an attempt to view life in the United States in its proper context. Slavery WAS legal, reprehensible as it was/is. As such, it was accepted as part of society. My 'setting it aside' was more of a way to highlight its existence in society at that time; it WAS that important in historical reference. Relatively few people living then would have found it difficult to discuss slavery in any other context than as it was - acceptable, normal and necessary. I didn't 'dismiss' its existence - I emphasized it.
Your belief that human life does not begin at conception is simply a way to justify its destruction, nothing more.
Do you deny that an amoeba is life? If you do, then you deny science. When a sperm and an egg are joined within a human being, a living cell is formed. It quickly divides exponentially over a short period of time to create a human being. It IS human life; to even attempt to argue to the contrary is disingenuous in the highest degree. Someone as intelligent as you seem to be cannot expect that to fly.
I did, however offer you to respond to the fact that since most abortions occur well beyond (in relative terms) conception, do you continue to advance the notion that at four to six weeks of incubation that what is growing inside of a woman is not 'human life?'
If not, then I am very curious as to when you believe human life is actually created. You've told me when life is not; please tell me when it is. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 9:34 AM:
I'm sorry but I have seen the evidence, I have heard the arguments from both sides and I simply don't buy it. I could lie and say that I did but that, after all, would be just a lie. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 9:32 AM:
I made no comment that would even suggest that I support slavery in any form. In reference to the subject being discussed, it was important to put slavery into its proper context. Today, we vehemently condemn it - during the period in history I was discussing, the majority of people accepted it as normal, acceptable and necessary.
G: I never suggested that you supported slavery. What I did demonstrated was that your version of the contextual history of the early 19th century was flawed to the point of being fundamentally incorrect.
I do, however, think there is something wrong with an understanding of history that would allow someone to "put aside" the horrible suffering of generations of ones own countrymen. "
Ivan Dixon wrote on May 23, 2008 9:27 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 23, 2008 9:26 AM:
Personally I was offended with Leonard's assertion that abortion is a non-issue to him because of the fact that he did not consider life to begin at conception as it relates to the subject of abortion. Accepting his mindset, as ludicrous as it is, I fully understood that I am unable to influence his beliefs and attempted further discussion of the murder of unborn children as rationally and objectively as I could. To further expound on this particular issue, rarely is any abortion performed on a woman at or even near conception. I could have raised the argument that after four to six weeks, about the time when most abortions are performed, the fetus has certainly developed beyond the point that anyone with an iota of sense would declare it to be 'living.' Yet, abortion is a legal procedure in the United States, wrongfully deemed to be the Constitutional right for a woman hidden behind a nonsensical veil labeled as the 'right to choose. It 'is' murder.
Slavery, as it existed for hundreds of years in the history of our nation was legal. It was part of every day life. Yes, there were those who opposed it, just as there are many who oppose abortion today. Those who oppose abortion (like me) are constantly attacked and ridiculed for our insensitivity against women and their right to control their own bodies. Those who opposed slavery were attacked to the point of actual violence perpetrated against those who had the moral temerity to stand up against such a morally deficient practice. And for hundreds of years those in the opposition were kept down.
I made no comment that would even suggest that I support slavery in any form. In reference to the subject being discussed, it was important to put slavery into its proper context. Today, we vehemently condemn it - during the period in history I was discussing, the majority of people accepted it as normal, acceptable and necessary.
If discussing history requires that how we feel about something today demands that we apply those feelings to the people living during that time practicing legally-acceptable things, this results in an attempt to change history. It simply cannot and certainly should not be done.
The casual way that we destroy human life in this 'enlightened' time will almost certainly be condemned by our progeny - and rightfully so. I would submit that those who practice abortion will be judged more harshly than those who owned slaves. The simple fact that up until 1973 it was illegal proves that our society knows the practice to be wrong. At least our ancestors are provided an excuse in that until slavery was abolished in 1865 there had been few or no laws in what would become the United States forbidding the practice in spite of the relatively few who opposed it.
I dont write these words here to defend my stance; there is nothing for me to defend. I had simply hoped that the Lodi News-Sentinel blogs were a forum where issues (from comical to serious) could be discussed with just a minimal amount of intellectual honesty. Perhaps this particular tangent was created in an attempt to avoid seriously discussing the most disgusting and morally reprehensible activity that exists in our own period in time - abortion. In absolute reality, there is no defense for the destruction of the unborn aside from legitimate health issues or if conception was at the hands of a rapist. The argument that to outlaw it would only force women back into the alleys to commit the crime is outrageous. If that line of thought would be applied to all illegal activities then nothing would be illegal. Any society that refuses to outlaw any crime simply because it is too difficult to enforce is destined for destruction from within.
To re-emphasize my point, our current society seems to be more concerned about trees and owls than it is about the future of our children. It IS that simple; and it IS something that will need to be addressed. I just hope this problem can be corrected soon. "
Lodian wrote on May 23, 2008 8:47 AM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on May 23, 2008 8:29 AM:
And what about hermaphrodites? Should they be allowed to marry as well? Every hermaphrodite marriage is a gay marriage. Just look at the parts! "
Metric Time System wrote on May 23, 2008 8:23 AM:
"
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 5:12 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 5:11 AM:
Your comparing it to the Jews and Nazis has no merit at all. The holocaust was at the time considered to be a terrible criminal act by a hideously run nation. The annihilation of a race of people was not deemed to be legal accept by the perpetrators of the crime themselves. They knew they were committing murder as it was happening. The owning of slaves was not considered a crime. Slavery was not considered criminal until after the Civil War ended. Based upon your apparent outrage at 'my' words I would then suspect that you completely condemn our government as it existed from the Revolution until the end of slavery in 1865.
To begin with, the idea that a historical act should be judged on the basis of the way in which it was viewed by the perpetrators contemporaries is absurd. To return to the example of the Holocaust, what if it had not been condemned by the other nations of the time? Would we now tell students of history that they have to understand that this was just the way it was, that "Germans just murdered millions of Jews in the 30's as part of their regular institutions"? Would that make it better? The fact is that a sizeable portion of the worlds Moslem's still believe that it is OK to murder Jews. Does their moral endorsement make Hitler's actions something that we can, to use your words, "put aside"?
All of which is to ignore the fact that your basic premise is completely incorrect. By the the advent of the period you referenced, most European were moving towards the abolition of slavery. By the end of the period, all of them, with the arguable exception of Russia had abolished the practice. To say that people didn't consider slavery to be a moral outrage is to completely ignore the history of the period in question. "
Leonard wrote on May 23, 2008 4:59 AM:
Your response is so shockingly wrong that I don't know how to even begin to respond to it.
You will have to forgive me, this may take some time and I have a lot of work to do today. "
Trackback wrote on May 22, 2008 10:49 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 10:45 PM:
To me this sentence is perverse to the point that it is practically unintelligible.'
It is so simple to look over one's shoulder and determine that things were perverse. Slavery has been a part of the human condition since practically from the beginning of man's existence. Your moral outrage at my statement only belies your lack of understanding as to how things were accepted during those times. Slavery, like it or not, was an integral part of our history. If you were to read my posts a little closer you will note that I specifically stated that I 'abhor' slavery, as virtually every American 'probably' does today. Yes, I state 'probably,' simply because there is an element in our present society that would welcome the return of this repulsive institution.
Your comparing it to the Jews and Nazis has no merit at all. The holocaust was at the time considered to be a terrible criminal act by a hideously run nation. The annihilation of a race of people was not deemed to be legal accept by the perpetrators of the crime themselves. They knew they were committing murder as it was happening. The owning of slaves was not considered a crime. Slavery was not considered criminal until after the Civil War ended. Based upon your apparent outrage at 'my' words I would then suspect that you completely condemn our government as it existed from the Revolution until the end of slavery in 1865.
My words were not to denote any sense of acceptance of the practice; only to emphasize that slavery was, in fact the 'law of the land,' and as such was as much a part of our American heritage as anything else. Yes, it was a dark period in our history, but it did exist in ways that were deemed to be perfectly acceptable at the time by the majority of our citizens.
I hope your outrage is also directed at Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Hancock, et. al.; while not all of these 'Founding Fathers' owned slaves, none of them did anything substantive to end its practice when declaring that all men are created equal.
Your 'shock' at my discussing this issue only reveals your inability to study our history in an objective manner. Yet, I am equally 'shocked' that you have absolutely no problem with abortion (the killing of human beings), but since it is the law of the land now, my only recourse is to simply openly condemn its practice. I am hopeful that 150 years from now there will be bloggers who will be as equally outraged about our society's denial of the most basic of rights to our unborn as you declare now as it relates to slavery - a legal practice 150+ years ago.
History must be able to be studied as it was, without assigning todays mores against those of the past. Nothing can change history; attempting to try and view it as something that it was not is dangerous. "
voter wrote on May 22, 2008 7:37 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 7:26 PM:
Slavery notwithstanding, things were not as complicated and divisive than they have been since.
To me this sentence is perverse to the point that it is practically unintelligible.
You might as well have written something to the effect of "The Holocaust not withstanding, Nazi Germany....."
I really have to say that I am deeply shocked by this. Any nation that tolerates a system in which toddlers are torn from their mothers arms and sold to men who will almost certainly mistreat them and quite possibly kill them is broken on such a profound level that it would take centuries to repair it. "
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 7:20 PM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on May 22, 2008 7:06 PM:
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 6:54 PM:
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 6:53 PM:
voter wrote on May 22, 2008 6:51 PM:
voter wrote on May 22, 2008 6:50 PM:
" Voter, why would you want to exclude an alien? Have you ever met one? "
No, but according to the excellent literature I read while standing in line at the supermarket they have some unusual customs. Something about a probe . . . "
Lodian wrote on May 22, 2008 6:46 PM:
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 6:43 PM:
voter wrote on May 22, 2008 6:40 PM:
" . . .Why limit my possibilities?"
I thought that was the whole point of the discussion--some of you wanting to limit who an adult could marry. Now you've flip-flopped and are apparently not averse to a little alien action. LOL! "
sam wrote on May 22, 2008 6:34 PM:
voter wrote on May 22, 2008 6:14 PM:
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 5:31 PM:
Bingo. I will refrain from my judgement UNTIL I meet an alien. Why limit my possibilities?
How ridiculous of us to think we are the only intelligent species out there. What if we are the dummies? "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 5:23 PM:
No, have you? Considering what we know (based upon scientific information) about other planets and solar systems, it has been determined that the only known planet capable of sustaining human life is Earth; ergo the possibility of any alien life-forms being human is highly unlikely. There is, of course the distinct possibility of human life somewhere in the cosmos. When such life is discovered I will immediately retract my statement that marrying an alien would be outside one's species. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 5:13 PM:
And yet another piece of evidence indicative of a society in severe trouble. "
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 4:43 PM:
Have you ever met an alien? "
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 4:42 PM:
girard74, is not that what we have now? First marriage, second marriage, half brothers, half sisters?
"
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 4:39 PM:
Talk about marrying outside of one's species! "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 4:38 PM:
No, I don't think my political leanings would be a good addition to the Venezuelan community.
Also I visited Caracas in the 90s and was not overly impressed with their Ranchos on the outskirts of the city. I think I'll stick around here for the duration. In spite of the problems that exist in the United States, I cannot think of anywhere else on the planet that would be better. (See, Leonard - not half empty.)
I was happy, however to note your opposition to the marrying of animals idea. "
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 4:29 PM:
Rhodie, true. I would not mind having more than one spouse. I just would not want to be the extra husband or the extra wife. I would hate the competition. "
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 4:22 PM:
And why not marry an alien? What if aliens are more intelligent or just drop dead gorgeous? I have to wait on that vote. I prefer to meet the alien first.
The dog or animal thing? No thank you. "
jess wrote on May 22, 2008 4:18 PM:
Sounds like Venuzuela would the place for you. My friends live there and just had a baby. They love it. They describe it as small town USA 1940. Doors are left unlocked at night and everyone know everyone elses business. They say life there is so simple. "
Rhodie wrote on May 22, 2008 3:44 PM:
The same arguments you make against Polygamy are made by some against same sex marriage. That raising children in such a confusing enviroment would add to the difficulty of having well-adjusted children. Those in favor of polygamy say that multiple parent figures adds to stability because there is more parent involvement. I, on the other hand, agree with you. "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 3:32 PM:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3707222?seq=1
Apparently, they were in despair over the decline of America.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 3:24 PM:
Absolutely not. The 'family' unit has already been diluted to such an extent that children are being raised by strangers.
Having multiple mothers and multiple half-siblings would only add to the difficulty already existing in raising healthy, well-adjusted human beings.
Note that polygamy normally defines such a relationship as one man and multiple wives. While such an arrangement would be incredibly difficult to manage, how would such a relationship exist with one wife and multiple husbands?
Human nature as it is, just the ego (jealousy) issue would be a day-to-day, even minute-to-minute challenge to control, wouldn't you think? "
Rhodie wrote on May 22, 2008 3:14 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 3:13 PM:
Not quibbling at all. My answer was to be clear that not all periods in time were 'all' good. And since I do not remember any specific decade before the 60s (being born in '56), except for what I have read and have heard from others who did live in previous time periods, it is difficult to answer your question with any degree of certainty.
If pressed, I would expect that the 1940s would be a good starting point. During that time national unity was at an all-time high as we were fighting a war on multiple fronts (although entry into the war before Pearl Harbor was not a popular idea). Faith-based organizations were not eliminated from the political scene and radio was not designed to influence people but was used to inform and entertain.
Families were intact; divorce was low (and no, I don't have exact stats at this time but I will certainly research the numbers) and life 'appeared' to be simpler and more wholesome.
However, it wasn't until after WWII that blacks were permitted to be integrated with the rest of the armed forces; living in the south and being black was a terrible ordeal.
With corrections on the racial front moving in the right direction, most of the other social norms began to head downward. From all accounts the 50s was an idyllic period; the economy was in great shape; God was permitted virtually everywhere; chewing gum and smoking in the boys room were the biggest concerns for high school principals. No, race relations had not been solved (and still have not), but with the Great Society the idea of equality was not completely dismissed as an acceptable idea. The 60s and 70s experienced social revolution the likes of which had not been experienced in such a small time period before. Because of this, we 'evolved' into where we are today - the pendulum has swung so far the other way that I am hopeful (see, not half-full) that perhaps soon certain things may return to center, hopefully avoiding the wide swing in the other direction.
However, I am really interested in the period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War. Slavery notwithstanding, things were not as complicated and divisive than they have been since. Do not misunderstand, I abhor racism and discrimination of all kinds; yet that doesnt run contrary to my concerns regarding the lack of morality in our nation.
By the way, when did the 100-word limit go the way of the dodo? Its removal does nothing to control my bloviating. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 2:50 PM:
My dog marriage example, as I clearly stated, was designed to be ridiculous and provocative; meant to elicit reaction and boy did I get reaction. Thankfully, there were none who advocated a move that far, but my question as to where will it end was not meant to be sarcastic nor rhetorical. "
Rhodie wrote on May 22, 2008 2:20 PM:
Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic with your whole response. I'm asking a serious question.
I see polygamy the next marriage taboo adressed for legalization.
As for the limit you inquired about, I hope we stop before human/animal marriage. Maybe the limit will stop at human/alien marriages. you know, when they finally make contact.
"
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 2:16 PM:
I don't wish to go back to any decade. I simply want the future to be better, that's all.
I don't mean to quibble but doesn't a decline imply a high point? "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 2:12 PM:
Of course it will; why would anyone think that it would not? And then beyond that how far will it go? What are the limits? And why should we have any rules of conduct at all? Hey, it's a 'free' country; do whatever you want. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 2:10 PM:
No, I'm not so naive to believe that the 'good old days' were so good. Time has a unique way of erasing much of what is bad and artificially highlighting the good times; I believe this is how people are able to move on.
I don't wish to go back to any decade. I simply want the future to be better, that's all.
With the advent of the Internet, cable/satellite TV/Radio, instant sharing of information between miniature telephones, much of what used to be taught by parents has now fallen upon the likes of YouTube, FaceBook, the Huffington Post, etc.
It has grown increasingly more difficult for children to actually distinguish between 'right' and 'wrong' in light of such a permissive society that puts forth the notion that nothing is wrong as long as it 'feels' good.
For me personally it is important to instill in my kids the idea that our lives here are not the beginning and end of our existence in the universe. There is something more beyond the good times to be had by all resulting in such little regard for answering for ourselves once our time here is through.
I am not a 'half-full' kind of guy as you suggest. But I am also not one to bury my head in the sand as I have stated before. "
Rhodie wrote on May 22, 2008 2:10 PM:
Again sorry for the double post. "
Rhodie wrote on May 22, 2008 2:09 PM:
Do y'all think that an outgrowth of legalizing same sex marriages will be a re-evaluation of polygamy? We're still talking consenting adults marrying people they love. If one is legal, shouldn't the other be as well.
"
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 2:01 PM:
For me, this isn't a place to make friends or form personal relationships, although I do not begrudge anyone who desires to use this for those purposes. For those folks I will curiously read what they post and move on to those who put forth issues worth discussing and debating.
I have and will continue to argue with conviction and respect to any and all that treat me the same way. For those who do not, I will not engage in discourse with them.
This is my sentiment as well. Occasionally, I do run into someone so objectionable that I cannot possibly respect them and in doing so continue to respect myself but, for the most part, I prefer the even keel. "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 2:00 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 1:59 PM:
I will not deny that, if I believed as you do regarding the the point at which a human life begins, I would find the abortion situation very discouraging. That said, I simply do not believe that you are correct with regards to the facts of this matter.
As for the rest of it, people have always been convinced that they are living after the fall. There has not been a single decade in our history when someone or another has not harkened back to a Golden Age.
It is only when you actually examine those Golden Ages, when you think about what it must have been like to live as a black man or woman under Jim Crow or to have been a woman aspiring to a career before women were allowed to think of such things that you realize that every period has had its blights as well as it blessings. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 1:57 PM:
Are you quitting coffee or something?'
No, I could never give up my morning cups of coffee. I've just learned a couple of lessons through the latest episode on this forum that required that I step back and re-evaluate my purpose here.
For me, this isn't a place to make friends or form personal relationships, although I do not begrudge anyone who desires to use this for those purposes. For those folks I will curiously read what they post and move on to those who put forth issues worth discussing and debating.
I have and will continue to argue with conviction and respect to any and all that treat me the same way. For those who do not, I will not engage in discourse with them.
I do enjoy our banter; it's good to flex the brain with constructive thought and research. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 1:51 PM:
I cannot possibly set forth a more serious matter than the careless destruction of human life as an example that our society is in decline. There are other examples: Hollywood and those who literally worship people who do nothing than imitate other people, yet when one of these people speaks on issues they know nothing about, because of their celebrity status, their opinions are taken as fact; the disrespect and destruction of the family unit; the handing over of the rearing of our children to others, including the government; the acceptance of increasingly immoral behavior by our elected leaders dismissed as silly or not the business of the people who elected them; the dismissal of the outright lies and deceit by our current crop of presidential candidates that are accepted as mis-statements, or out of context remarks. Wow, the list goes on.
I know youll snap back with all of the lies that Bush made regarding the war and other matters. Yet I hope you will recall that I have continuously wondered out loud just why no one has moved to remove this man if, in fact he has committed any crimes. The answers I received to this question are ludicrous and completely unacceptable. If the man is a crook - impeach him. The House should have no fear of the Senates ability to convict. If they believe that he is guilty then they should move forward; to do anything less is irresponsible and immoral. Also please remember that I have withheld my opinion of these accusations against the President until all the evidence is in; hopefully after his administration is over those who are silent now may garner some courage and come forward with empirical evidence.
Oh yeah, were headed in such a wonderful direction. "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 1:46 PM:
Certainly I am unable to think for myself; must be talk radio or FoxNews that has its hand up my butt using me like a puppet to further their agenda
G, while I do not believe that you personally have had your nether regions demonically possessed by the evil that is FOX News, I have to give it to you for so poetically describing the malady that afflicts so many of the conservatives one encounters on the internet.
Frankly, both you and Cogito have given me new hope over the last couple of months. I really had begun to believe that there were no conservatives with the ability to form their own opinions. "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 1:42 PM:
Certainly I am unable to think for myself; must be talk radio or FoxNews that has its hand up my butt using me like a puppet to further their agenda
Man G, you've been feisty since you came back.
Are you quitting coffee or something? "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 1:34 PM:
This is one of a few patent responses to anyone putting forth ideas contrary to the far left crowd. Certainly I am unable to think for myself; must be talk radio or FoxNews that has its hand up my butt using me like a puppet to further their agenda. Have no fear, Billy - my thoughts are my own; I search out the best sources that I can to support what I believe; and I sleep well at night.
While I don't expect to change too many minds, particularly those who actually do 'not' think for themselves, I certainly won't sit by and do/say nothing.
As you have your right to speak what you believe; so do I. It is my 'opinion' that without government to provide virtually everything for the lunatic left fringe, they would then actually have to 'do' for themselves in their quest for happiness; I fear that such a prospect is terrifying to them and as such they have my due pity. "
Rhodie wrote on May 22, 2008 1:11 PM:
For the record I wouldn't do either, for the first I think men are scum (for the most part) and for the second one wife nagging is all I can stand, I don't need them tag-teaming me.
I ask because I see this as a natural outcropping of Gay marriages though there is not as large of activist group. "
Billy Rubin wrote on May 22, 2008 1:00 PM:
Girard, while trying to bolster his argument that society burdened with the gross immorality of gay marriage will surely fail, brings up what he sees as the moral equivalent, beastiality, to somehow prove his theory. When that doesn't fly, he goes further afield of the topic and, illogically, adds abortion of all things.
Leonard points out the non-sequiter of abortion/homosexuality and Girard calls foul. Apples and oranges. Silly and cndescending, he calls it.
But his earlier dog-marriage analogy, he feels, is an honest and legitimate comparison. Apples-to-apples.
Gays/dogs - same thing evidently to Girard.
Too many abortions, he rails - links to gay marriage and the decline of society. We're going to hell in a gay picnic-style handbasket. Not enough houses of worship he laments, as if churches will stop gays and abortions - everyone knows that religious people aren't gay and church-goers of all ages don't have accidental pregnancies.
I fear Girard has taken to getting his news from AM radio and molding his opinions based on those of his favorite personalities. "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 10:09 AM:
My only purpose of discussing this subject with you was in response to your insistence that our society is not in decline. I only offered this as evidence to the contrary. "
Given the fact that the majority of Americans who are pro choice are bound to dismiss this evidence, do you have any more compelling examples to support your assertion that America is in decline? "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 9:49 AM:
My only purpose of discussing this subject with you was in response to your insistence that our society is not in decline. I only offered this as evidence to the contrary. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 9:47 AM:
Now that is simply silly and condescending. The only thing that cures abortion is for society to stand up and condemn it. People need to take responsibility for their actions and not correct their mistakes by making much bigger, everlasting errors along the way. Before making such mistakes they need to be grown up enough to protect against something that they do not desire to have; running down to the Planned Parenthood clinic after engaging in unprotected sex is the height of irresponsibility and immorality.
Yet, since you have determined that abortion is a non-issue for you and you did ask me to agree to disagree, unless you have further thoughts on the issue that require further discussion on my part, perhaps this is where this will now end. That's up to you. "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 9:46 AM:
My statement regarding the relationship between homosexuality and lower abortion rates stands. If it seems to contradict some earlier statement that I made, that is only because I have more carefully considered the issue. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 9:41 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 9:39 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 9:37 AM:
While you're certainly right to have your 'opinion' on anything, my biology education revealed to me that even a single-celled amoeba is considered 'life.'
Therefore a fetus, at whatever stage of development simply cannot be dismissed as non life. Since this organism exists within a human and given time will develop into an independent, functioning human being, a fetus must be classified as human life.
My opinion of those who state that a fetus is not living is that it is used simply as an attempt to relieve them of any responsibility in its destruction. Surely there cant be any negative ramifications from stepping on something so tiny; much like squashing an ant scurrying over the pavement.
And many of those with this same opinion for the smallest of human life are usually so adamant against killing a tree or are the force behind destroying an entire human industry to insure the survival of an owl. When human life is reduced to such a degree, what is left? And again, as Ive asked before in this blog - where will it end? "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 9:17 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 9:15 AM:
But you get the point.... "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 9:14 AM:
gay relationships have nothing to do with the numbers of births or abortions>/i>
Sorry, I didn't read your post all the way through before responding.
This statement is patently absurd. If all of the homosexuals were having heterosexual sex instead there is a statistical certainty that some of them would have unwanted pregnancies and some of those unwanted pregnancies would result in abortion (legal or, in your dream world, illegal).
It is an incontestable fact individuals who are exclusively homosexual through there actions reduce the total number of abortions. "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 9:10 AM:
Since I don't, however, there isn't really anything for us to argue about on this subject.
I merely mentioned the low rate of abortions among homosexuals because I thought that, for someone with your POV, this would be one actual advantage to homosexuality that you might of overlooked.
I certainly did not mean to offend. "
girard74 wrote on May 22, 2008 9:00 AM:
If you truly did wish to 'agree to disagree,' then you shouldn't have made that statement followed by the quote above. That's rather disingenuous. You accused me of mixing apples and oranges awhile ago. That is exactly what you did with your statement regarding gay sex and abortion.
My inserting abortion into the conversation was in direct response to your (and others) insistence that our society is not in decline, which has been the impetus of my entries into this particular blog. Any society that kills its unborn while hiding behind the silly notion that it is anyone's 'right to choose' to justify such killings is surely headed for difficult times, to say the least.
Recall the analysis of the types of humans murdered during the holocaust. There have been many thoughts committed to books and other forms of literature 'wondering' how many great and wonderful people were snuffed out whose contributions would have advanced virtually every field of human existence. I suggest the same study be conducted to determine the loss to our planet due to the millions murdered by abortion.
Finally, gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers of births or abortions; gay relationships have nothing to do with the numbers of births or abortions. You statement is simply ridiculous; it neither justifies nor disproves anything.
If you would like to 'agree to disagree,' that is fine with me. But please don't expect me to sit on my hands after making such an offer followed by that kind of drivel. "
Lodian wrote on May 22, 2008 8:49 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 8:13 AM:
" Leonard wrote: I should not write before I have my coffee, the lack of caffeine clouds my judgment.
L, You forgot about your liberalism.
Regarding judgment, it wasn't a liberal who started a war based on intelligence that even a four year old could have told was faulty and it wasn't a liberal who sent me an email last night that the same four year old could have spotted for a fabrication without reading it twice.
If I were you B, I wouldn't dwell on the subject of judgment. "
Brian wrote on May 22, 2008 7:29 AM:
L, You forgot about your liberalism.
This cloud could cover the whole state of Texas. :)
"
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 5:39 AM:
I have the jump on everyone! "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 5:38 AM:
Sorry.
Really. "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 3:07 AM:
But I repeat myself.... "
Leonard wrote on May 22, 2008 3:07 AM:
" Leonard - just the fact that unborn children are killed by the thousands on a weekly basis with no societal guilt is in and of itself proof of this society's decline.
I see. I suspect you and I could tie up this blog for a week debating whether life begins at conception but frankly, after spending three days painting and moving furniture, I have neither the time nor the inclination.
Lets agree to disagree on this one for now.
That said, if it is any comfort to you, I think I can guarantee you that the number of abortions resulting from gay sex will continue to hover right around zero.
"
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 11:26 PM:
Oh, one thing I've always possessed has been hope. Yet, I'm confused as to where the positive signs are respecting this election year.
The Democrat primary has proven to be the most inept, poorly conceived/run set of campaigns I've ever witnessed. Hillary especially has fooled too many into believing that she really 'cares' about the voters which is why she wants all of the votes in Florida and Michigan to 'count.' It couldn't possibly be her sense of entitlement that somehow she deserves to be president regardless of the rules put into place.
Most of the concerns of voters is about what can any of these candidates 'do' for us; further enforcing the notion that we the people are simply unable or incapable of conducting our lives without governmental intervention.
I long for a true leader to emerge one day. Since 1932 there have been only two presidents who actually had the qualities necessary to 'lead' this nation - Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald W. Reagan.
FDR's leadership during the depression and especially the day after Pearl Harbor with his 'fear' address to Congress (and through WWII) set the tone for what is considered by many to be the most successful presidency in history.
Reagan, after the Nixon to Carter debacles led people from malaise into prosperity not by 'giving' anything to the people, but by leading them to achieve on their own.
What is missing now is the inabilty to lead. For some reason the people have come to accept that our government is designed to 'carry' us by not only guaranteeing our 'pursuit' of happiness, but by providing for it as well.
The current batch have been promising virtually everything and there are those who truly believe they can deliver. The sad part is that when it becomes apparent that these have been all lies, many simply won't care. So we'll drift through another four years of nothingness until the next campaign season when it will all start over again. Hopefully soon there will be someone who will have the skill set necessary to again instill a sense of pride and dignity in the people to want to throw the government off of our backs allowing us to seek true happiness. I am hopeful for that day; we aren't there now. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 9:20 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 9:15 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 9:14 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 9:14 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 9:09 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 9:04 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 9:03 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 9:01 PM:
That's where you got me wrong. I don't believe it's 'hopeless' at all. But I certainly don't bury my head in the sand and go along simply to get along. There are some things that are inherently wrong in our society. And many of these things are celebrated; those that don't join in the celebration are deemed to be weird, strange and out of the 'mainstream.'
I am concerned about the future of our nation, that's for certain. While many around me have lost their moral 'compass,' I do try desperately to not only keep mine pointed in the right direction but to teach my children and grandchildren to actually 'think' for themselves AND to be responsible for what they say and do. Regardless of one's beliefs/faith, I am convinced there is a day when we will be called to answer for what we've done here. For those of you who believe there won't be, that's your absolute right and you have nothing to worry about.
But I do believe that there are some things that are simply wrong - and I don't want to take the chance of being on the wrong side of the fence. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 9:00 PM:
Age is more or less right, though. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 8:59 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 8:58 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 8:57 PM:
Ah no way... ACDC or Mettalica is a must. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 8:56 PM:
What, moi? I resemble the implication! "
JD, like I said, you are too cute.
"
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 8:55 PM:
Is our society better because of this 'right' or is it worse? "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 8:54 PM:
Crank up the John Denver, Glen Campbell, Barry Manilow or what/whom ever. The world is not as hopeless as you seem to feel. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 8:53 PM:
What, moi? I resemble the implication! "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 8:52 PM:
You did tell me you liked Boston Legal, right??? "
Lodian wrote on May 21, 2008 8:52 PM:
"Hey Voter, did you just get the impression that we got the runaround by a soon to be new lawyer practicing his "arguing" skills??"
Typical lawyer. Ya can't live with them and ya can't live without them. ;-)
"
Lodian wrote on May 21, 2008 8:50 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 8:50 PM:
And again I never mentioned 'sex.' That was assumed by others. Another point is that gay marriage (or any other type of marriage) has nothing to do with sex, does it? Is sex what this is all about? By getting married this validates their sexual activities? If so, then they are in direct opposition to the rest of our society. Rarely do people actually wait until the wedding night before engaging in sex for the first time. It is also not about 'love.' To suggest that by being permitted to marry validates their love is preprosperous. No one ever suggested that people cannot love whoever they wish. Marriage doesn't create nor destroy love.
Marriage is a contract; in this society it is nothing more. By achieving this status it helps economically as well as legally permitting one partner to make certain decisions for the other in case of injury, absence, illness and/or death.
If gay marriage is overturned by a Constitutional Amendment, will it mean that these people will no longer be in love or that they will no longer engage in sexual activity? "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 8:50 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 8:49 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 8:44 PM:
Do some believe? That is their right. I will not condemn a woman who believes she needs an abotion. But I could never ever murder a baby in me.
I know you addressed your comment to Leonard, but I felt the need to respond. I apologize if I offend you. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 8:37 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 8:29 PM:
Whenever human life (in whatever form it may take) is so easily disposed of indicates a serious problem in the society that supports it. Why is it that there is so much support against the death penalty for those who take human life; yet the taking of 'unborn' human life has become so common that many neighborhoods seem to have less houses of worship and more clinics designed for just this purpose.
Societies that care more for trees than they do for humans are destined for certain disaster. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 8:24 PM:
And when you see a gay couple, give them a smile.
Peace Out. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 8:03 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 8:01 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 8:00 PM:
Partly right. I'm relatively young, but I am married with two kids. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:59 PM:
Lodian, I think I've said about everything I can/should say on the pedophilia issue. Perhaps my 6:44, 6:58 and 7:18 PM post will clarify it a little more (though judging by the reactions they got, I doubt it!) "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 7:59 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 21, 2008 7:56 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 7:55 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 21, 2008 7:55 PM:
Great posts. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:53 PM:
scout wrote on May 21, 2008 7:51 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 21, 2008 7:49 PM:
"Lodian-- As I understand it, the same hormones are at play. Same neurological pathways. Same physical and emotional sensations. Very possibly the same codes within the human genome. The difference is in the outward manifestation. That's what I think the debate should focus on."
JD: I am confused by your logic here. The desire I have to be in a committed, loving relationship with my husband, including sex between us, in no way resembles pedophilia. A pedophile has the desire to be with a child and molest/rape a child that has not, cannot, consent to such an act. How are these two similar in any way? This whole connection seems extremely twisted to me. I’m uncertain as to what you are trying to get at here, but maybe you just need to spell it out for me or something. I’m a smart cookie, but all I am hearing you say is that heterosexuals, homosexuals and pedophiles are all one in the same. You say, “The difference is in the outward manifestation”. Well, I have to vehemently disagree with you. If this were true then wouldn’t I be a heterosexual, a homosexual and a pedophile? Am I then just choosing to be with my husband after deciding to dump the other options in your view?
"
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:49 PM:
That was not, as I understood it, the gist of your May 19, 5:31 PM post.
If I misread you, then I owe an enormous apology to everyone who's had to wade through my ramblings. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:45 PM:
Oh, great. NOW you tell me! Where were you six years ago? :-P "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:44 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 7:41 PM:
"
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:41 PM:
I do believe homosexual sex is sin. I am concerned about my church's being forced to change its stance on that a few centuries down the road.
I do not believe the church has any right to influence the activities of non-members. As such, I was not on board with my church's support of the "Defense of Marriage Act" in California. Moreover, I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution (which my church supports)--for that reason and also because of my belief that marriage is a state, not a federal, issue. "
scout wrote on May 21, 2008 7:40 PM:
2) I also care about the formation of good law. So yes, when you make a post implying that the "civil rights" of a group should be defined and determined by no more and no less than what a particular group wants and how deeply they want it--I'm going to comment and criticize. "
1) As a lawyer you should know your freedom of religion is protected under the first amendment.
2) The decision by the court was based on constitutional law not on simple "wants" of a group. Read the ruling. You admitted you have not done so yet. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:40 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:36 PM:
Let me try to get back to the main topic:
1. Voter suggested that gays should be allowed to marry because of the pain of going through life without a meaningful sexual relationship, and because homosexuality is not a choice.
2. The adoption of such a rule, without more, naturally means that anyone faced with a lifetime without sexual fulfillment because of sexual feelings which they cannot change, should also be permitted to act according to their desires.
3. I pointed out that such a rule would justify pedophiles, and suggested adding a second prong: that the depth of the feelings should be weighed against the harm that would be created by acting out on those feelings.
Apparently what troubles everyone is my assertion that the sexual urges of gays, straights, and pedophiles differ only in their direction and not in their strength. This is a minor point, and probably I shouldn't have stuck to it so tenaciously.
Nevertheless, I have difficulty understanding why the pro-gay-marriage crowd would find my line of argument. As I've said repeatedly, this balancing test probably favors gay marriage.
I'm basically outlining a legal theory that would debunk the slippery-slope, "gay marriage leads to polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, et cetera" argument that gay marriage opponents often put forward. I'm a little bewildered as to why you guys are so hostile to that.
Maybe I should just go to bed. "
scout wrote on May 21, 2008 7:36 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:35 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 7:34 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:32 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:30 PM:
JD, this is what is confusing me. Why do you keep bringing pedophiles into a conversation about civil, same-sex marriages? "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 7:28 PM:
JD, if I remember right, you are a Mormon? Your religion has taught you that homosexuality is a sin, yes? You come to this argument with all sorts of inculcated prejudices that have nothing to do with science or civil rights or even common sense. The "wants" of homosexuals are equal rights. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:26 PM:
"
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:25 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:24 PM:
1) I don't care much about gay marriage, except to the extent that it may eventually affect my own religious liberty. That was why I made my initial posts to this thread.
2) I also care about the formation of good law. So yes, when you make a post implying that the "civil rights" of a group should be defined and determined by no more and no less than what a particular group wants and how deeply they want it--I'm going to comment and criticize. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 7:23 PM:
JD has become a troll. "
scout wrote on May 21, 2008 7:23 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:22 PM:
"
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:20 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:19 PM:
When? "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:19 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 21, 2008 7:18 PM:
"
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:18 PM:
Sam, why are you making this about me personally?
But to answer your question, I would surmise that nearly all people, regardless of sexual orientation, share a desire to be involved in a meaningful sexual relationship of their choosing.
I have seen the effects of child abuse on all involved--victim, family, perpetrator. That anyone would desire it is repulsive. The act is vile. The effects are devastating.
But I have also seen what happens to pedophiles who don't understand their feelings, who don't know why they have them, and spend a lifetime repressing them. We should never make allowance for child molestation, but we should certainly foster a climate where those afflicted with pedophilia can get the help they need for recovery by addressing their issues openly and honestly.
Telling them they're evil for an inclination over which they have no control helps no one. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:17 PM:
Marriage IS worth fighting for. "
scout wrote on May 21, 2008 7:16 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 7:15 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:14 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 7:11 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 7:05 PM:
So your motives then are the same as the pedophiles... to meet you sexual urges? "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 7:02 PM:
Please tell me you see the difference. Pretty please? "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 6:58 PM:
Scout, I am different, quite simply, because my sexual urges are channeled towards adult women (I'm a male, in case you haven't guessed) rather than men or children of either gender.
But the hormones; the neurological reactions; the sensations; the emotions--again, I have seen no scientific evidence that they are any different. The difference lies in what arouses those feelings.
"
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 6:58 PM:
And Voter, I am feeling your frustration too.
I cannot even comprehend how someone can compare a loving, committed relationship between two adults with a crime committed by a pedophile on an infant. "
scout wrote on May 21, 2008 6:52 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 6:49 PM:
It is quite sick how you are trying to tie this to two loving, consenting adults. I still do not understand your logic.
"
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:47 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:44 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 6:44 PM:
The thing is, Sam, I take issue with your statement that pedophiles (true pedophiles--not the ones just acting out on some kind of power play) want to force themselves on children (at the risk of grossing you out, most of them wish the children were capable of giving meaningful consent). To the degree that force, victimization, loss of innocence and the other ill effects of child molestation occur--they are consequences of the desire, not the desire itself. Does that make any sense?
Take a pedophile and tell him he must live a lifetime of celibacy. Take a heterosexual and tell him he must live a lifetime of celibacy. Take a homosexual and tell him he must live a lifetime of celibacy. The loneliness; the lack of fulfillment; the frustration--they are the same. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:39 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 6:39 PM:
Voter, I'm saying that "mental illness" tends to be a catch-all category for behaviors society deems unacceptable. When society's standards change, certain "illnesses" become "sexual orientations".
By the way, pedophilia apparently does have a "pleasurable and positive precursor" (I won't quibble with your terminology at present). So are you saying that it, too, should be considered a "sexual orientation" and not a "mental illness"?
(I'll carry on further discussion tomorrow; need to get back to studying the vagaries of real property law tonight.) "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 6:36 PM:
Well there ya have it. We do not agree here. A pedophile forces his desire on a victim. A pedophile takes away the rights of an innocent, non-consenting child and does harm to that child. There is a perpetrator and a victim.
Homosexual couples are loving, consenting adults. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:34 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 6:33 PM:
Are you just taking pleasure in jerking around the bloggers?
Oh, good heavens. I would never dream of doing that!!!!
You seem unwilling to address the issue of civil rights
I asked you why the ability to have sex with whomever, whenever, and in whatever way one wanted constituted a "civil right". To my knowledge, you have not yet responded. When we get our definitions down, we can continue (but at this point, that'll probably have to wait until tomorrow).
Excuse me, JD, but more of us are familiar with marriage than bus riding in a big city. I'd say marriage is common ground.
What, you never rode a school bus?
I just noticed you said that gay marriage was new territory, but did not say that black bus riding was new territory.
Are you really trying to tell me that people are generally more familiar with all of the legal, moral, and philosophical implications of marriage than they are with all of the legal, moral, and philosophical implications of bus-riding? "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:29 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 6:27 PM:
Again, what I'm advocating is that we do a two-step analysis in the gay marriage discussion.
The first step--and the one Voter emphasizes--is what homosexuals want; their feelings, desires for companionship, et cetera. All well and good. But what I am saying is that if you go by subjective feelings alone, those of the pedophile are just as powerful as those of the homosexual or the heterosexual. So, a second step is needed.
The second step I suggest is an evaluation of the harm that may come if you allow the individual to act upon his or her "desire". Gay marriage? Low harm. Should probably be allowed. Pedophilia? Big harm. Should certainly be disallowed.
All the things you've mentioned--consenting adults, the effect on 4-year-old Eve, et cetera--simply fall under the second step of the analysis. So I think we're talking about two facets of the same issue.
Voter, I'll try to answer your questions eventually, but it'll be easier on me if you consolidate them all into one post, OK? "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 6:20 PM:
If you can provide me with sources stating that pedophilia is never inborn, by all means please do so.
As for confusing "wants" with "civil rights"--the group for whose "civil rights" you argue is defined entirely by their wants. Deep-seated, psychological, probably genetically-based wants--but wants nonetheless. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:17 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:15 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:13 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 6:12 PM:
Yes! It is practically subliminal, but our agreement that Rosa Parks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus reflects an unstated assumption that she will not be causing any legitimate harm by sitting there. That assumption hardly needs to be discussed--we've all ridden buses, know how they operate, and know the implications (or lack thereof) of sitting in the front seat.
Gay marriage is still, in many ways, unfamiliar territory. Moving forward isn't a bad idea, and we're learning a lot. But I don't think we're quite at the stage where we can afford to take anything for granted. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 6:06 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 5:56 PM:
I do seem incredible harm if Adam2 wants to rape 4 year old Eve.
By what you say, Adam2 is wired to desire Eve. But she clearly is a victim. What am I missing to logically tie this two cases together? One is love and one is a crime. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 5:56 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 5:55 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 5:52 PM:
This trivializes what is at stake here. Would you also say, "Just because Rosa Parks wants to sit in the front of the bus, doesn't mean she gets to? We need to discuss as a society whether Rosa's sitting there would cause harm or offend others."????? "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 5:49 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 5:46 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 5:45 PM:
For what it's worth, I have worked with both child molesters and victims of child molesters. It should be noted that, like heterosexual rape, child molestation is often more about power dynamics than sexual attraction. But as far as "true pedophiles" (people who are genuinely sexually attracted to children) are concerned--yes, from what I've been told, there is an urge to have a lasting sexual relationship with a child among pedophiles that is just as powerful as the urge to have a lasting sexual relationship with an adult is among straights or gays. And at least in some cases, it appears to be inborn.
To the extent that you get into discussion about "consenting adults" and the like, that comes into consequences of the behavior--which clearly outweigh any underlying feelings. It is that balancing test that leads us to condemn pedophilia.
The same balancing test probably comes out in favor of gay marriage. And it should be applied. A pro-gay marriage case based on feelings alone is fundamentally flawed, and sets dangerous precedent. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 5:37 PM:
If I am right here, then I have to say again it is the 2 consenting adults that makes the difference. The 4 year old victim of a pedophile does not want to "play".
JD, I am not trying to attack you... I am trying to understand your thought. I had one hour sleep last night and 2 hours the night before, so please be patient. thnx. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 5:31 PM:
I think the key here is two consenting adults. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 5:28 PM:
I guess it is when you compare the "urge" of a homosexual (or heterosexual) with the urge of a pedophile.
"
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 5:21 PM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 5:19 PM:
I'm not saying that heterosexual or homosexual relations are the moral equivalent of pedophiliac behavior.
I'm saying that the distinction lies in the behavior and the consequences thereof, not in the feelings themselves.
Does that even begin to make sense? Or should I just go bang my head against a brick wall until I regain my sanity? :-) "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 5:16 PM:
Why in the world would any sane person pick such a lifestyle that sets them up for hate attacks and condemnation?
"
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 5:12 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 5:10 PM:
The sexual act of a pedophile does not include two consenting adults.
"
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 5:06 PM:
The majority of sites stating that gays are born that way were predominantly medical journals and scientific publications. The majority of sites proclaiming that homosexuality is chosen were religious sites.
I thought that was interesting. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 5:05 PM:
But why is the ability to have sexual relationship with whomever one wants, whenever one wants, and in the way that one wants, a "civil right" for people of some sexual orientations (straights, gays) but not people of another sexual orientation (pedophiles)?
Let me re-state: I do not oppose gay marriage in California. But you need to be very, very careful in crafting the governing law. If you justify gay marriage with a rule that someone who is genetically hard-wired to have something (to the point that their life will be utterly shattered if they don't get it) therefore deserves to have it purely as a matter of civil rights--you're making a rule that will come back to haunt you in the determination of a multitude of issues that you steadfastly refuse to even begin to consider.
"Because I want it really bad" doesn't get a lollipop for Johnny; it doesn't get a pony for Suzy; and it doesn't get a marriage for Bill and Fred. "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 4:58 PM:
Do you have any sources or web URLs you can share about homosexuality being a condition one is born with rather that a chosen life style? "
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 4:55 PM:
The reason for my question is that one has to wonder with all the added hormones in our food supply and water, what type of effect this is having on fetuses.
"
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 4:31 PM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 4:19 PM:
sam wrote on May 21, 2008 3:35 PM:
Wow, Leonard, nicely put. "
Leonard wrote on May 21, 2008 3:11 PM:
Today we not just the highest standard of living on the planet but the highest standard of living that has EVER been enjoyed on the planet. This standard of living continues to improve, decade after decade. We have, in the last 80 years, granted effective suffrage to large groups of citizens who were disenfranchised for the entirety of our previous history. Our military might is preeminent throughout the world and, in-spite of the current Administrations efforts we remain the largest economy on the planet. Our way of life is the envy of people the world over and our values of democracy and freedom continue to proliferate in the wake of our near total victory over the tyranny of the Soviet Empire.
While many people may hearken back to some golden age when homosexuals hid for fear of prosecution, when blacks didn't vote for fear of lynching and women were seen and not heard I ask you now, where is the decline? "
Leonard wrote on May 21, 2008 3:04 PM:
Even on this blog here, if anyone had the audacity to raise the issue of 'God,' 'Scriptures,' or anything else as ammunition against gay marriage they would have been blasted into oblivion. Fundamental belief in God (and the tenets prescribed thereto) at one time was an axiom in the American societal fabric; now the mere mention of His name draws ire and disdain. This alone is further proof of society’s decline.
An interesting idea given the fact that it was the opposite phenomenon that contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire, an event that inevitably comes up in any discussion of the supposed decline of America.
"
Leonard wrote on May 21, 2008 3:02 PM:
I am certain that you understand my point.
Well, you are wrong then, since I honestly don't. From where I am sitting, you are talking about apples and oranges. "
scout wrote on May 21, 2008 2:58 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 2:27 PM:
I am certain that you understand my point. Further argument is almost fruitless. However, what you are stating here would be proof of our continuing societal decline.
While there are no 'vows' between people who simply decide to live together, have children and live 'as' married, such relationships not established with a modicum of commitment attached are doomed to failure. I would still like to see these statistics placed against those who actually marry.
As far as marriages failing, keep in mind that prior to the 60s, the divorce rate was very low. It was because of the commitments made between these people (and their belief in them) that kept couples from simply walking away from their lives and children as is so prevalent today.
The 'liberal' attitudes foisted upon society as a result of the tumolt of the 60s and 70s have created incredible pressure on religions to keep their congregants on the straight and narrow. Even on this blog here, if anyone had the audacity to raise the issue of 'God,' 'Scriptures,' or anything else as ammunition against gay marriage they would have been blasted into oblivion. Fundamental belief in God (and the tenets prescribed thereto) at one time was an axiom in the American societal fabric; now the mere mention of His name draws ire and disdain. This alone is further proof of society’s decline.
Fundamental Christians, like anyone else are human; they are subject to human frailties and temptations. When the institution of marriage has become so disposable in society at large (which it HAS), why would anyone not expect this to seep down into America's churches. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy - there is an ongoing war in the church to attempt to keep the 'family' together in spite of society's clamoring for all to simply do what 'feels' good, and not necessarily what is 'right' or best for their families. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 2:12 PM:
As I understand it, the same hormones are at play. Same neurological pathways. Same physical and emotional sensations. Very possibly the same codes within the human genome.
The difference is in the outward manifestation. That's what I think the debate should focus on. "
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 2:08 PM:
The reason these comparisons are being made is simply because it has not been that long ago when nearly the entire population of many societies actually placed homosexual activity into 'criminal' status. Those who actually believe that we as a society have 'evolved' very far from the Elizabethan era or before that are terribly naïve. The fact is there are many (MANY) Americans who do not consider homosexual relationships to be normal - this is a fact well proved by the fact that the Supreme Court of California actually needed to overturn what they found to be a flawed law that WAS approved by the majority of voters in a state many believe to be the most 'liberal' in the nation.
We've got a very long way to go, folks, to actually having a society in nearly full acceptance of these types of relationships. My 'silly' analogy posted a few days ago highlighted that. As provocative as my example was, the immediate opposition to it was indicative of how many formerly reacted to bi-racial marriages. No, of course I don't advocate marriage OR sex between people and animals. But no one here can tell me that I'm not permitted to love my dog - just as I have no right or place to tell any other human who or what they may be permitted to love.
Society DOES, however have the right and responsibility to make its determination as to the requirements/limitations necessary in the establishment of certain types of relationships, including marriage. While I would expect that the laws abhorring relationships between humans and animals to be upheld, keep in mind that there have been countless laws passed against homosexual behavior. Leonard rightfully stated that many of these laws have been deemed to be unconstitutional, as they should be. Just don't forget that these laws were, in fact once written, voted upon and enacted by a society that actually believed they were created for the public good.
A scant few years later we're here telling our living ancestors just how wrong they were. Such changes in society have rarely taken place as quickly as what we've seen over the past 50 years - I only suggest that those who so vehemently condemn those not as 'enlightened' as they to simply stop and attempt to understand that it takes people time to change. It is likely that many will never change.
And Billy - I have not before and have not now established my stance on the issue of homosexual marriage. It is simply not necessary for me to do so to debate the issue at hand. If you wish to ‘guess,’ that is your prerogative. "
Leonard wrote on May 21, 2008 1:56 PM:
Therefore, these statistics you presented appear to only include 'divorces,' (inferring that there must have been a marriage involved) - and not including those relationships that ended which were not established by marriage.
But we are talking about a supposed threat to marriage, not co-habitation.
The fact that evangelicals enter into marriages that they probably should not have entered in to and, consequently, break their marriage vows at a rate higher than any other faith group is most certainly a serious threat to the institution of marriage, not to mention an amusing anecdote illustrating the crass hypocrisy that festers at the core of the evangelical movement. "
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 1:45 PM:
First, does anyone actually believe that the reversal of this law that now permits homosexuals to actually marry has anything to do with sexual activity? Those of you who assumed so also have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what exactly occurred with this ruling. Note that I posted nothing about having sex with animals. I spoke of love for something out of the 'norm.' My example (which I tried to definitively quality) was meant to be provocative; this entire episode in societal evolution is provocative.
Like it or not, homosexuality has been contrary to societal norms for centuries; it is only in relatively recent years that acceptance of this type of relationship is being positively considered.
That being said, prior to this ruling, does anyone seriously suggest that homosexuals were somehow not permitted to 'love' one another or participate in sexual activity? Is this change now the starting point for these relationships?
Of course not! The only things that have changed are economical and who is first in line when certain decisions need to be made regarding one's partner.
While the California Supreme Court may very well have overturned a law that is flawed constitutionally, thereby correct in their ruling, it would behoove all those who truly desire for this situation to remain as it is now had better look closely to November or soon thereafter when a Constitutional Amendment may very well find its way onto the ballot. While it will take a two-thirds majority in each house to send such an amendment to the people, like the current law it will only take a simple majority to enact the change. With this being such a hot topic, get ready for a barrage of controversy that will likely match or exceed the illegal immigrant issue. "
Lodian wrote on May 21, 2008 1:29 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 21, 2008 1:27 PM:
While I have no empirical data to actually determine your sanity, you have either missed or intentionally refused to understand my point in this regard.
Marriage is no longer a requirement for cohabitation in our society. In 'religious' communities, marriage is often a prerequisite for membership in various churches; there is actual 'value' placed upon the institution.
Therefore, these statistics you presented appear to only include 'divorces,' (inferring that there must have been a marriage involved) - and not including those relationships that ended which were not established by marriage.
Since 'religious' people, by and large, are married compared to what has become a very large portion of society that no longer believes in the institution, these statistics are likely skewed. My question was to provide 'thought' as to what if it included ALL breakdowns of marriage and marriage-like relationships. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 11:55 AM:
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 11:53 AM:
No; only about a third of it at this point.
At any rate, I was referring specifically to Voter's May 19, 5:31 PM post and not to the court's opinion. "
Scout wrote on May 21, 2008 11:47 AM:
Gay and lesbian couples are same as straight couples in that they are two consenting adults who choose to be in a loving relationship that enhances both of their lives in a positive way.
"
Scout wrote on May 21, 2008 11:42 AM:
I think the discussions have taken and continue to take place. I do not think the California judges made their decision spontaneously, in haste, or without careful thought. This has been going on for decades. Have you read the 179 page decision yet? "
Rhodie wrote on May 21, 2008 8:35 AM:
See, what I see happening is exactly this. In every population there is a SMALL group that goes for shock value. What is there legally to protect Church A from being strongarmed in the courts into marrying Bill and Tim because Bill and Tim want to send a political message? Nothing.
And voter: I see you think man's limited science has killed God. I'll cling to my "ancient superstition" you cling to man's science. You're right in the end we must do what we think is right. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 8:33 AM:
I agree that the allowance of civil gay marriage probably will not lead to impositions on religious freedom.
The enumeration of homosexuals as a "protected class" under the 14th Amendment, however, very well could. There is precious little legal precedent preventing it. "
JD wrote on May 21, 2008 8:30 AM:
I do not believe there will be significant social "collateral damage" caused by the allowance of gay marriage. I find it hard to get terribly worked up over the issue of gay marriage per se--only to the extent that it may infringe upon religious freedom in the long run.
What I'm saying is that the discussion needs to take place. The person seeking to change the status quo always has the burden of proof. I'm pleased, Voter, to see you at least begin to address this question. (though I think it dangerous to allow any court to do our thinking for us, as you seem to imply that we should).
My reason for bringing up pedophilia is not that it's "criminal", nor to paint gays as "sex maniacs". Again, my fault for not clarifying. My point was that pedophiles (like gays, or even straights) have very, very powerful urges that are difficult to repress; moreover, nearly all people (straights, gays, and pedophiles) find it well-nigh impossible to establish a meaningful long-term relationship with someone outside of the bounds of their preferred sexual orientation. Kleptomania, too, arises out of a deep-seated psychological (though non-sexual) desire.
Clearly, then, even the most visceral desire for something is not, in and of itself, sufficient justification for being allowed to have that thing.
Even though you probably will prevail on the issue of "collateral damage", it's a discussion that at least needs to happen. "
Scout wrote on May 21, 2008 8:28 AM:
This is a civics issue not a religious issue. No church will be forced to marry gay couples - though many will choose to. City Hall and the state must simply provide equal civil rights to the citizens it represents. That's it. "
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 5:39 AM:
voter wrote on May 21, 2008 5:32 AM:
Where did you get the notion that you were going to be forced to have a gay marriage? That is what it appears you are saying. "
Leonard wrote on May 21, 2008 5:05 AM:
Scout and the others: What gives society the right to say to one group "you have to accept this other groups actions as moral" when the first group firmly believes it isn't?
No one is telling you what you have to accept as "moral". What the Court is telling people is what, under the Californian Constitution, they have to accept as legal.
There are plenty of people around who still think that it is immoral for blacks to eat in the same restaurants as whites. They are entitled to that opinion as long as they don't try to implement it as a law.
"
Rhodie wrote on May 20, 2008 11:49 PM:
Same is true of being Catholic (or any other denomination or lacking one), shopping at the wrong store or expressing ones views on a website or just about any other group. Shoot, we as "Americans" hate each other with little more criteria than the ball team one supports (Go Lions), the truck you drive or the political affiliation you have. And yet these and other CHOICES that get us hated are made daily. I've been told I'm going to hell because I go to the wrong church, Umpires for little leagues are attacked every year by parents who hate them, and how many teachers even just in California fear for their lives when they go to teach?
This conversation is a perfect example of the attacking someone because they are differant. In my very first post ever on this site I said fine let them be married but protect groups who believe it immoral. Yet now I am attacked as a homophobe who is intolerant and hates them all.
Up in Oregon a few years back in the town I lived in there was a gay pride parade. Good, fine, no problems save the few trouble makers on the side of the road screaming non-love words at them. But what hit the paper was that the same day a multi-faith leadership group filed for a permit to march to show solidarity in their mission (which was to help third world countries) and was denied by city council because "it would send the wrong message." A year later a giant condom won the top prize for best Float in a "family" orentated parade while Christian groups were banned. So why does society say I have to welcome with loving arms gay and lesbians but turns around and says your lifestyle is an embarassment?
So let's twist the discussion, what kind of immoral behavior should I, as an American, be protected from (by protected I mean not be forced by the social collective as having to accept)? Obviously the violent ones? What about cultural? Rooster fighting is wrong, I think, but it is a historic part of people in our society. Should I accept it then? What about pedophiles? Age gone by, 13yrold girls were married off, now it is illegal. But if there was a movement to say 15yr olds (you get the gist there), should we as a society accept that? We all believe in freedom of speech so why is vulgarity in public frowned upon? It will get you kicked out of parks in the area, I've seen the signs up.
Scout and the others: What gives society the right to say to one group "you have to accept this other groups actions as moral" when the first group firmly believes it isn't?
Now you should also see that I have not said anything about discrimination for jobs, benifits or club membership. Everyone but criminals should enjoy the same right you and I have. But one of those rights is Freedom OF religion. A Church should not be legally forced to marry a same sex couple because the courts forces the church to.
Boy all my posts and that's really what I wanted to say. A group whose teachings says that same sex marriages are wrong as a matter of faith should not be legally forced to do things that compromises their beliefs. And before the "race" issue is thrown back out, there is not a passage in the Bible that says any one race is better than another. Any white person that says otherwise should really do a quick look at the color of the people who live and have lived in the Isreal for the past 2000 years+. People are "removed" from their churches every year because they do things that are seen as immoral and aren't homosexual.
"
scout wrote on May 20, 2008 10:27 PM:
scout wrote on May 20, 2008 10:25 PM:
PFLAG San Joaquin/Stockton
4410 N. Pershing Ave, Suite C-22
Stockton, CA 95207
pf2ndmonday@yahoo.com
Phone: 209-670-4712 "
Lodian wrote on May 20, 2008 10:20 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 20, 2008 10:18 PM:
scout wrote on May 20, 2008 10:10 PM:
JD: explain to me how two women getting married, who have already been in a monogomous for 12 years, harms or even impacts your life in anyway. Is it the joint tax returns?
Pedophilia is when an adult sexually assaults a child, a minor. Kleptomania is an addiction to sex. A significant majority of kleptomaniacs are straight. Neither of these labels are in anyway close to describing the two women given in the example above who want to live in peace and file joint tax returns. "
scout wrote on May 20, 2008 9:59 PM:
nextel wrote on May 20, 2008 9:44 PM:
voter wrote on May 20, 2008 9:24 PM:
Your continuing to bring up criminal activity and mental illness as comparative evidence of harm smacks of homophobia. You need to stop making this comparison. It is offensive.
I do not need to prove that gay sex does not cause "collateral" damage. The highest court in the land and the medical community have already answered this question. It is not illegal--it causes no harm to others. It is not an illness. How many times do I need to say this? Let me turn the tables on you--If you are married, can YOU prove that sex with your spouse does not cause collateral damage to society? How silly to make such a demand.
Underlying your words is an assumption that a committed gay relationship somehow is harmful and yet you don't explain why. How do loving couples hurt you?
Finally, in response to your argument , "What I object to is this mantra of "I want it; therefore, I should have it." How blind you are!!! This is what all people say who are denied their civil rights! This is what blacks said, and what women said, and what the disabled said--we want our civil rights. I guess we know what your answer was-- "Shut up."
"
voter wrote on May 20, 2008 9:09 PM:
Your entire argument is based on homosexuality being a "lifestyle choice." This is incorrect. People more learned than you or I have devoted lifetimes to studying this. The AMA and APA(Amer. Psych. Assoc.) both have made it very clear that sexual orientation is not a choice, nor is it a mental illness. You are wrong--a person can not control their sexual orientation any more than they can control their skin tone. "
Rhodie wrote on May 20, 2008 8:56 PM:
Why do you feel compelled to compare gays and lesbians to criminals and the mentally ill?"
I'm sorry if I gave this impression, I don't remember comparing gay and Lesbians to any other group. I'll assume I was included just because I am on the opposing side.
girard74: The difference between blacks, hispanics and Gay and lesbians, in my mind (realizing this is a limited enviroment) is simple, one is genetics, one is in the brain. A black can not choose to be white, A white man (even wannabe rappers) can not be black. Gay and lesbian behavior IS a choice. Cheating on your spouse IS and choice. The church you go to IS a choice. Being compassionate to others IS a choice. A choice is made in the brain, not in your genes. I have a predisposition twords anger, I choose to control it.
Potentially immoral behavior should not and can not in a civilized society be "forced" on another group. By force I mean taking behavior you (you as a collective, not you specifiacally G74)know offends others and making it a legal imparative that they accept you when the organization is clearly against such behavior.
Personal freedom has to include everyone. Bill and Bob are free to be gay, but I should be free to celebrate my marriage in an enviroment where I am not offended. In the same way I hate profanity. The way I understand your arguments means that if I were at a religious celebration and someone started screaming profanity, I should accept it because they were raise that this was acceptable behavior -or- they are genetically predesposed to using vulgarity.
The science is simple, our genetics are very simple. In our DNA was all have the same genes as gay and lesbians, we have the same genes as the profanity screamer, or the guy that picks fights, or the passer by that helps when everyone else chooses to go by. We, as individuals are not made up by our genes, we are made by our choices. Lex Luthor decided to be evil, Kal-el Choose to be Superman. Hatred is a choice, love is a choice. You can love the sinner (and we all are one) but hate the sin. I accept people who are homosexual, but I do not accept what I think is a sin. You'll notice I haven't said they are going to Hell.
So let me lay it out flat on the table on what I think about the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle and it's morality realizing it is not going to be popular. I equate the G&L lifestyle to that of the spouse who cheat on their spouse. I acually had a guy tell me once that he was doing good, he was only having one or two affairs a year. I've been married 12 years and have never choosen to have an affair. In all reality I actually think less of the cheating spouse than gay and lesbian people because what the cheater does hurts someone. I'd socialize with a homosexual as long as they weren't kissing or other stuff in front of me to make me uncomfortable. If I knew someone was cheated on their spouse I wouls not socialize with them at all.
That's enough for now. Fire back, I'm flinched and ready for it. "
sam wrote on May 20, 2008 8:15 PM:
JD wrote on May 20, 2008 7:59 PM:
As I hinted in my previous post, if you would take the time to demonstrate clearly why homosexual behavior does not have collateral, harmful effects on third parties (the way acting out on, say, pedophilia or kleptomania does), you'd convince a lot more of us. What I object to is this mantra of "I want it; therefore, I should have it."
My comments on churches come from my acute awareness that a) "religious tolerance" in this country was never all it was cracked up to be, and b) the tide of public opinion has already begun to turn--and I believe will continue to turn--virulently against denominations that don't jump on the gay marriage bandwagon. "
voter wrote on May 20, 2008 6:00 PM:
Why do you feel compelled to compare gays and lesbians to criminals and the mentally ill? Your arguments along those lines are invalid and disturbing. Sodomy is legal between consenting adults in the US, and homosexuality is not a mental illness.
The slippery slope argument is invalid. Most laws are a limit by degrees. Some drugs are legal, some are not. Alcohol is legal--does this mean that soon heroin will be legal? If you give 18 year olds the vote, does this mean that soon you'll be forced to give 12 year olds the vote? Once women have the vote, will we be allowing kids and dogs to vote next? How silly.
You say loving a same sex partner is not immoral and even desiring them may not be immoral. Only homosexual sex is immoral. I see. Is this how you feel about other of your prohibitions? It's OK to contemplate murder and fiercely desire murder? Just don't do it?
The argument about churches being forced to marry gays is silly. Are they forced to marry Satanists? People of other faiths? Churches are not forced to marry anyone. It is only courthouses that would be required to marry gays.
Sex is part of loving, committed relationships. Love, you all admit, is not immoral. Sex binds two people together emotionally and is pleasurable. How could this be immoral? It hurts no one--on the contrary, it is part of a fulfilling and healthy life. Why would it be the business of the government who someone marries? Gay sex is not illegal.
Each person is permitted to create their own moral code as long as they do not harm others or violate laws. Gay sex is not illegal--so why exclude gays from marriage--it is their civil right. "
OTH wrote on May 20, 2008 3:24 PM:
sam wrote on May 20, 2008 11:56 AM:
They are wicked.. here is a photo.
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/05/19/crazy-raspberry-ants-eat-electronics/
"
OTH wrote on May 20, 2008 11:02 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 20, 2008 8:34 AM:
" Again, you avoid the issue.
No, I am simply pointing out your past difficulties with the issue of logic in general and fallacies in particular.
Besides, my thoughts on this issue are well known and have been thoroughly elaborated upon on this very blog.
"
dyan wrote on May 20, 2008 8:16 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 20, 2008 8:04 AM:
" What's next? Polygamy? Marrying one's sister or dog? The same logic applies
Ah.... Dyan, our local expert on logic.
:) "
dyan wrote on May 20, 2008 6:55 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on May 20, 2008 5:58 AM:
This is an argument near to me because I do, in fact, have a horse in this race, so to speak. But my life has been uncomfortably "action packed" lately - far more than usual - and I haven't had the time to consentrate on the posts here, nor to compose my own thoughts clearly. In re-reading some of my own stuff, it makes no sense even to ME and I already know what I meant.
But I have to complete what passes for one of my thoughts regarding a post by Girard and I can only attempt to answer the statements conversationally. So, with no intent to take anything out of context:
He said, "Billy - did you not understand or perhaps could not accept the fact that I did NOT reveal my stance on homosexuality in this regard...."
Well, yes, Girard, you have. Perhaps it was on a subconscious level, but you have made your position very clear numerous times on this blog.
"...I don't know how many times I made it absolutely clear that homosexuality was NOT the point of my conversation here..."
But Girard, it IS EXACTLY THE POINT. The topic here is same-sex (homosexual)marriage and your posts have been in direct response to it.
"...it does remain frustrating to me that some simply decide not to actually 'read' what is written..."
I did and do read it, Girard. Your posts have been literally crammed with very telling "non-revealing" comments. Your insistence that you have not made your position known is untrue. Please see one of many examples below.
"...While what I have written has so far fallen upon blind eyes (and I certainly accept that), my point was as I've stated before - to emphasize that certain acceptable behavior heretofore deemed unacceptable has caused societies before us to decay..."
Decay? Really? "...caused societies before us to decay..."? This is one of those times when you, "...did NOT reveal my stance on homosexuality." Your meaning was and is apparent. Homosexuality is representative of civil decay, right? If not, how then would you rephrase the statement to accurately project your meaning?
I don't understand why otherwise bright individuals must almost always regress to comparing homosexual humans with beastiality or criminal activities (kleptomania and murders were other comparable activities, I think you said - if it wasn't you, Girard, please accept my apologies in advance).
These are no more valid comparisons than saying biologically heterosexual humans will want sex with any animal or vegetable, living or dead, of any species (including your example of dogs) because they are "born that way" or, even more laughably, that since they "chose that lifestyle" it can only be logically concluded that heterosexuals have, therefore, "...caused societies before us to decay." "
Billy Rubin wrote on May 20, 2008 4:46 AM:
No one here has expressed a desire to stifle another. And yes, you are entitled to your opinion. Yes, yes. But I (we) are having a difficult time getting you to state it, rather than the subtle barbs making your position unmistakeable.
You said you haven't made your position known, ("Without ever pronouncing my stand on homosexuality and couching my remarks accordingly...), but yes, Girard, you have. Nearly every one of your posts includes a dig, aimed at gays, intended to exhibit your disapproval.
To wit:
"You are kidding, right? Of course it's being forced on people."
Forced? On you? How is that?
"This is part of the problem."
Gays are the "problem"? How so? Please, be specific.
"My entire mindset in this regard has been specifically aimed at the decline of morality in our society."
Moral decline? You've alluded to gays being the root of "moral decline" several times, but you've not yet identified *how* your claim is factual. Can you? It is central to your position and, without finishing the thought, you make no sense.
"My only 'wish' here would be for folks to really attempt to read what is being posted. There's so much knee-jerk reacting going on without a good-faith effort to understand what others are saying."
I DO read, Girard. I read the sly attacks and I also recognize the lack of reason. Upon what do you base your claims?
"
Lodian wrote on May 19, 2008 10:51 PM:
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 10:03 PM:
The news say they are in Texas and eat electrical wiring and conduit... and cannot be killed.
I hope and pray you are far from them. Good night. "
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 9:31 PM:
Here Deep in the Heart of Texas.... and I am off to bed.
Have fun arguing and I will see what y'all (see, I am fitting right in) have said in the morning.
-LP "
JD wrote on May 19, 2008 9:27 PM:
Voter, the fact that "they're born that way" isn't sufficient, in and of itself, to justify gay marriage. There's good evidence to suggest that polygamists, kleptomaniacs and pedophiles are also, to a certain degree, "born that way". **I AM NOT SAYING GAYS ARE MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO CHILD MOLESTERS. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME ON THIS!!!!!**
The crux of your argument, I think, needs to be not only that a) "they're born that way", but also that b) "it is not socially destructive", and c) "we will not attempt to bring the force of the government down on anyone whose definition of "sin" differs from ours." "
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 9:24 PM:
If so, may I ask why? "
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 9:19 PM:
" Why vote? Four judges rule the state and answer to no one.
Actually, the judges come up for retention votes every few years. I am old enough to remember when voters canned Rose Bird because she opposed the Death Penalty.
But hey, what do I know Dyan? I'm a liberal and, as you are so fond of saying, liberals don't think.
If I could think, however, I would wonder what the fact that I have to keep on correcting you tells us all about your mental majesty. "
Trackback wrote on May 19, 2008 8:52 PM:
An action or tendency can be determined to be “naturally” motivated, but morality relates to our personal choices governing our actions. I know some have posited that since homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, it is “natural” and therefore “good/moral/pick your adjective.” In my opinion, this rationalization is faulty because, cannibalism, rape, murder, interspecies sex, and yes, heterosexuality are observed among animals. “Natural” is not a justification for anything (I don’t know that you actually mentioned this, so if it is a random tangent please excuse.
Finally, you question why it would be immoral to love someone. I don’t think it is. I don’t think (hope) anyone would think so. But that differs from attraction to (which is still not immoral), and the actual act of sex.
Anyways, I need to run, but let me know what you (or others) think about this response.
"
dyan wrote on May 19, 2008 8:36 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 8:04 PM:
Not included in this study, I would suggest, is the percentage of these Christians who actually DO marry compared to other sectors of society who do NOT marry and whose relationships end (without officially ‘divorcing’).
Hmmm.... Call me crazy but I would think that a study of the success or failure of marriage would naturally focus on those who are actually involved in the institution. "
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 8:02 PM:
However, the idea that there are those who DO oppose its acceptance is met with such vitriol that it is apparent there is a continuing attempt to stifle those with opposing ideas.
There is surely vitriol but much of it is in the hearts of those who steadfastly oppose rights for homosexuals.
When was the last time you heard of someone being killed for opposing gay marriage? I can not think of a single instance but not a month goes by without someone being tortured and murdered for being a homosexual.
Your attempt to portray the bigots as martyrs would be almost amusing if it wasn't so nauseating. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 7:47 PM:
scout wrote on May 19, 2008 6:59 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 6:47 PM:
Now based upon your anecdotal evidence, this 'fact' is nothing more than supposition on your part. Statistics can be used to prove or disprove just about anything we want, including the reason why marriages are failing. Not included in this study, I would suggest, is the percentage of these Christians who actually DO marry compared to other sectors of society who do NOT marry and whose relationships end (without officially ‘divorcing’). Perhaps further empirical studies would help to de-skew the stats. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 6:42 PM:
You are kidding, right? Of course it's being forced on people. Many things that many people disapprove of are being forced on people. Watch the news; television programs; public parades; newspapers; books in schools; etc., etc. This is part of the problem.
Without ever pronouncing my stand on homosexuality and couching my remarks accordingly, the entire subject turned to homosexuality and why there are those who oppose it. My entire mindset in this regard has been specifically aimed at the decline of morality in our society. Whether or not gay marriage adds to that decline is yet to be determined. However, the idea that there are those who DO oppose its acceptance is met with such vitriol that it is apparent there is a continuing attempt to stifle those with opposing ideas. Once ideas are restricted, then there will be little, if anything left. "
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 6:40 PM:
" Leonard - while your statistics may be correct, I don't recall inserting any religious aspect into my argument regarding marriage.
My point didn't have anything to do with religion. It did have everything to do with the fact that the people most opposed to gay marriage are the people who pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage. This leads me to think that, as is so often the case, the crusade against gay marriage is nothing more than a campaign of distraction. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 6:39 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 6:31 PM:
Aww, don't worry; my skin is thicker than an elephants. My point is that many of the posts pointed in my direction are laced with hateful language, that's all. I can take it. Thanks for your concern!
My only 'wish' here would be for folks to really attempt to read what is being posted. There's so much knee-jerk reacting going on without a good-faith effort to understand what others are saying. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 6:28 PM:
'Morality' is not inferred simply by religious standards. There are many atheists and agnostics who are 'moral.' Just as there are many religious fanatics who don't know the first thing about morality.
The point is that immorality is pervasive in all aspects of society; no one group is excluded. And with this continuously permissive attitude being foisted upon our young - that whatever you do is okay as long as it feels good - is going to be our undoing in the long run, regardless of what church people do or do not attend. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 6:27 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 6:27 PM:
I've known a more than one moron who would refuse to attend a marriage counseling session if he thought he would have to sit next to a black couple. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 6:26 PM:
And no one "hates" you, for God's Sake. What happened to your old thick skin? "
scout wrote on May 19, 2008 6:21 PM:
JD wrote on May 19, 2008 6:19 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 6:19 PM:
Funny you should state this in this manner. My analogy about my dog was based upon 'love,' not sex. (Go ahead and read it again.) It was based upon 'marriage,' not intercourse. Yet the immediate response was surrounded by the word 'rape.'
However, there do seem to be some that believe that sexual activity, regardless of what form that it is, is acceptable to be taught by TV, the government, teachers, neighbors, etc., in spite of parents' desire that such education be left to them alone to pursue when they believe their children are ready. I suppose there are many who would welcome the sight of two people copulating under the trees in one of our public parks and gleefully point out these acts of 'love' to their children, expanding their education by the use of these visual aids. For me, I would find such activity offensive and immoral; and I would wager the majority of society would agree with me.
That being said, the entire Gay Pride Movement is rife with this type of public activity. I love San Francisco; it is the most beautiful city in the world (IMO). Yet, I would always need to check the social activities calendar of the City to determine when it would be wise for me to visit, especially with my children. I think there would be far more 'acceptance' if the sexual acts weren't always so public and in such a way as to ram it down others' throats. "
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 6:15 PM:
Divorces are at an all-time high because there is no one to insist that their contract be fulfilled.
Yes, and the American faith group with the highest divorce rate is...SURPRISE... EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS, the very faith group most opposed to gay marriage.
Some might see this as anecdotal evidence that it is, in fact, opposition to gay marriage that most threatens the institution of marriage.
:) "
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 6:10 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 6:09 PM:
Now, according to many who have posted here today, such an attitude should be unacceptable in our society. Everyone should be all-inclusive of everyone regardless of what they truly believe. Otherwise, they themselves are immoral and intolerant.
And how does this make either 'side' right? It doesn't, but just as society of old attempted to force its will on those unwilling to bend, the pendulum has swung far to the other side where those who were once outcasts are now demanding that everyone be accepting of them or be labeled homophobe, intolerant, immoral, etc.
Even I have been pilloried here (and on other posts) for standing up for what I believe. Any opposition on my part was/is met with fierce criticism bordering on hatred.
There is no doubt that we are in need of 'morality police,' because just as there are those here who don't desire to be forced to accept what I believe; I certainly reject the notion that I should be forced to accept what they believe. This is more than apparent in the posts here over the course of just a few hours.
Yup, we're in big trouble! "
JD wrote on May 19, 2008 6:08 PM:
The large, centrally-funded churches with lots of investments (Catholics, Mormons) could survive a revocation of tax-exempt status. But I don't know about small-town, independently run congregations. I suspect a lot of them barely get enough revenue to support a full-time minister and building maintenance; the imposition of a property tax would probably be the death knell for those kinds of congregations unless they knuckled under to the State's social engineering program. "
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 6:07 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 5:59 PM:
And this was because Catholic Family Services is tax-exempt, correct? Well then, I suppose when any organization accepts this status they then become beholden to the entity that permits them to keep money that would otherwise be handed over in the form of taxes. That'll take a little more research on my part, but at first glance I would suggest that those desiring to not be under the auspices of the government should do all things necessary to wrest them away. If otherwise qualified to handle adoptions once the government doesn’t have this influence they should be able to continue with their mission.
On the other hand, what kind of flak does the Church receive from the community as a result of their stand against gay couple adoptions? Not expecting the Vatican to change its stance on the issue, I would submit they’re stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. "
JD wrote on May 19, 2008 5:45 PM:
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 5:44 PM:
Taking for example the organization my wife and I work with. We go on retreats to work on things like communication and understanding. The presence of a mixed race couple would be a distraction and disrupt the retreat and, I suspect, cause future retreats to be cancelled either because of people avoiding being forced to go on a retreat with people they view as immoral or because of couples boycotting a organization they see as supporting interracial marriages even though it was forced on them.
How does that sound?
"
Rhodie wrote on May 19, 2008 5:39 PM:
I may not have explained that very well but I have to run my son to b-bal practice. Feel free to run amuck without me and I'll try to clarify any questions tonight during insomnia. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 5:31 PM:
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 5:24 PM:
JD wrote on May 19, 2008 5:22 PM:
Again, the devil is in the distinction between "belief" and "practice". "Belief" is protected, but "practice" is not--and it doesn't take much judicial sleight of hand for "expressions of belief" to fall into the "practice" category. (Back in the 1890s, Congress actually banned anyone who *believed* in the practice of polygamy--whether they practiced it or not--from voting in Idaho Territory. And the Supreme Court upheld it.)
Re the FLDS - I don't say they're innocent, but I've been following the issue and the associated court hearings closely. There is *not* "more" than we've been shown. If anything, there's less.
/threadjack "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 5:18 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 5:16 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 5:15 PM:
The example of the children in Texas, I believe is somewhat more complex than what you stated. There are safety issues at play there that had the authorities not interceded and something DID occur, there would be incredible trouble. Based upon their best evidence, I believe they did what was necessary.
Even after having the matter reviewed by the courts, it was decided to separate these children. There must be something more than what we've been shown. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 5:15 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 5:08 PM:
We depend upon everyone else for everything we need, want and desire. This is another clear sign that our society is headed in the absolute wrong direction.
Even now, this election is completely about what these dimwits will 'do' for us if they get elected. People with even little brains understand that they're all liars and that there's nothing that they can actually do. Yet, it makes people 'feel' good knowing that they 'care' about us little people. And those with just a little more gray matter in their skulls underestand that all they 'care' about is our vote. "
JD wrote on May 19, 2008 5:07 PM:
" . . . holding that claims of "religious freedom" could not JUSTIFY engaging in behavior . . . "
JD wrote on May 19, 2008 5:05 PM:
It may seem alarmist, but the truth is that there are plenty of routes around the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
--Over a hundred and twenty years ago, we had a line of cases (Reynolds and its progeny) holding that claims of "religious freedom" could not engaging in behavior that society had deemed "socially harmful" and banned by law.
--Just this year we've seen newborn infants taken away from FLDS parents in Texas, based not on the imminent threat of abuse but on the risk that the church teachings may cause the children to engage in abusive behaviors fifteen or twenty years down the road.
So what happens when the state decides that the backward teachings of the Catholics vis a vis homosexuality are "socially harmful" in that they create irrational guilt among that religion's gay adherents? Or that having children growing up believing in "sin" is, in and of itself, a social harm? Or that Father O'Flaherty's latest sermon constitutes "hate speech"?
I have very little against civil gay marriage, as long as I can be sure that I (or my religion) won't be forced to administer it or otherwise redefine its definition of "sin". But as things stand now, I have no legal assurance that this will be the case. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 4:56 PM:
Wow! Someone is morally troubled? How can this be? I thought this was a society of acceptance, tolerance, understanding and love?
Doesn't murder trouble you? Isn't the taking of a human being's life morally reprehensible to anyone anymore? The fact that I made an 'analogy' about marriage with a dog deserves such moral outrage and the killing of human beings is an issue that simply doesn't belong in the morality discussion is exeedingly troubling to me.
We are on a downhill path and we're heading down fast and furious. Most of it has nothing to do with the morons we elect - they're there because we sent them there. We have only ourselves to blame. "
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 4:52 PM:
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 4:50 PM:
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 4:50 PM:
I do believe knowledge is power. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 4:49 PM:
Second, and most important is that I spoke of 'marriage' on purpose. I stated it because it WAS so absurd; that society, by ignoring the downfall that it has been heading in for so long will one day take us to that very point where the absurd will become the acceptable.
Frankly, I am in full support of human beings loving whoever they want. I am NOT in support of being forced to support it; be it heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. I no more support a 'Gay Pride Parade' than I do a 'Heterosexual Pride Parade.' There is no place for either in our society. Yet to suggest such a thing brands me as a homophobe or intolerant.
Also, I will determine when and how I will discuss sexuality or any other subject with my children or grandchildren. To suggest that Madison Avenue should have a hand in that determination is utter stupidity.
Finally, this conversation got where it is for one reason; and it has nothing to do with my comments here. If anyone with half a brain was to read my words as I entered this discussion, there is no doubt as to my intent. While anyone can make any comments they desire here, it becomes so transparent when the parsing and accusations get so far from the actual point. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 4:46 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 4:41 PM:
Voter - you raised the issue of abortion. Knowing full well just how white-hot the issue is, I assumed from what you wrote that there are many who believe that this issue should not be included in the debate over the moral decline in our nation. For me to suggest otherwise would label me as anti-women's rights and would subject me to a barrage of epithets aimed at shutting me down. Yet, since you brought it up, I must state that this one issue actually defines our national morality. How we treat human life (at any level) goes straight to the core of who we are as a society. Human sexuality aside, when we begin to discount human life, as we have so cavalierly done since before 1973, our societal fabric cannot do anything but disintegrate. For me to read your words in this regard and say nothing for fear of blogging retribution would be tantamount to supporting the practice; which I simply cannot do. "
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 4:39 PM:
I personally would think a child's question on an erection should be viewed as an opportunity to have an open and honest discussion about human sexuality. "
scout wrote on May 19, 2008 4:36 PM:
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 4:27 PM:
scout wrote on May 19, 2008 4:22 PM:
How does this statement apply to the recent Supreme Court ruling? An unconstitutional law existed and it was overturned by a primarily Republican court after significant discussion, thought and analysis in order to afford a group of moral, law-abiding citizens equal rights. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 4:04 PM:
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 4:03 PM:
Two points: First, you are asking us to address an issue which is unclear. You have claimed a downfall of morality in our civilization. Many would disagree with you that this is even an issue. Others would say that while we certainly have seen a decline in the moral behavior of our elected officials, the issue of human sexuality should not be included (along with other notions, such as church attendance, abortion, etc.). In what ways do you believe morality to be in trouble and what's your basis for this belief. Second, their is amble precedent in support of the court's right to judicial review. Many of the founding fathers wrote of this extensively--part of the notion of checks and balances. You can't have the public and legislative branch passing laws which violate the constitional protections. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 4:02 PM:
Divorces are at an all-time high because there is no one to insist that their contract be fulfilled. I attend weddings now and scoff under my breath when the 'vows' are spoken knowing full well that they're only 'words,' and nothing more. What's the point in going through the motions?
It wasn't long ago when I could watch television with my children and not be exposed to the absolute filth and vile behavior that is now in 'prime time.'
A little example is how I might easily be asked by one of my grandchildren what an 'erection' is and why having one for more than four hours might be a problem. In the past, commercials like this would never have been aired, but at least when they began putting them on they were confined to after 10:00 p.m. Not anymore; now I've got groups of middle-aged men forming mediocre bands singing the praises of 'Viva Viagra!' at 5:00 p.m. and certainly much worse than these examples.
So, no one sees society heading down the wrong path? Hmm, must be just me. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 3:51 PM:
As I wrote regarding that 'silly' analogy (or did you miss me emphasize that fact and that I used the word 'absurdity' in further definition of my example), my concern was for one particular poster's belief that he/she alone should be the judge of what type of behavior should or should not be acceptable. Nowhere did I even suggest that such human/animal behavior should ever be tolerable. Yet, what happens when someone DOES come forward seeking the same acceptance (and protection) for this type of activity with what he/she will deem to be ammunition by looking to other formerly deviant behaviors that is now considered to be normal and acceptable? Where will it end?!?
Although many here may find this absolutely absurd, there is a large faction of our society that finds homosexuality as repugnant as sex with animals. And there are other societies that have no compunction against slaughtering Fido and putting him on the barbeque for dinner.
Billy - did you not understand or perhaps could not accept the fact that I did NOT reveal my stance on homosexuality in this regard. I don't know how many times I made it absolutely clear that homosexuality was NOT the point of my conversation here; it does remain frustrating to me that some simply decide not to actually 'read' what is written.
While what I have written has so far fallen upon blind eyes (and I certainly accept that), my point was as I've stated before - to emphasize that certain acceptable behavior heretofore deemed unacceptable has caused societies before us to decay.
Also, my very first entry here was to highlight one of the interviewee’s beliefs that the Supreme Court exists to 'overturn foolish laws,' as I hadn't noticed anyone else picking up on that little thought of foolishness. "
Lodian wrote on May 19, 2008 3:47 PM:
It used to be thought that interracial marriages were immoral, but it was addressed, reviewed and realized to be wrong not to allow these couples to marry. Some still take issue with interracial marriage, but that is their issue to deal with now as society has seen the light.
We have to address these issues as they come up. I don’t think we are in a downward spiral because we are to allow gay couples to marry. To the contrary, I see this as an improvement in the moral compass in this country. I’m glad that loving committed gay people will be allowed to marry and have a family, just like every other human being in this country.
"
JF wrote on May 19, 2008 3:43 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on May 19, 2008 3:13 PM:
Is that your position?
Are you of the opinion that gay people should be stopped and not allowed to be with whom they wish as their loved ones? (your dog analogy not withstanding).
Must gays and lesbians be "stopped" in order to provide the grease for the skids of civilization?
One answer would be to adopt Islam. The president of Iran said they doen't have gays there. They must be addressing the problem correctly. "
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 3:11 PM:
A man and an animal is rape. How can anyone compare the two? "
Lodian wrote on May 19, 2008 3:11 PM:
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 3:06 PM:
WOW, excellent post, scout. AMEN. "
voter wrote on May 19, 2008 3:05 PM:
scout wrote on May 19, 2008 2:58 PM:
scout wrote on May 19, 2008 2:52 PM:
scout wrote on May 19, 2008 2:26 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 2:07 PM:
It was all the first step down the slippery slope to ruination and damnation.
Of course, I suppose some people think that was correct.
I don't. "
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 2:05 PM:
History teaches us that societies are destroyed from within because of the breakdown of morality. Can anyone argue that the United States is not headed down that path?
I find it hard to believe that homosexuals committing to monogamous lifetime partnerships is really the first step towards the abyss.
"
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 2:03 PM:
My position is (and has been during this entire discourse) at what point (limit) is society permitted and/or prepared to again define right/wrong based on basic morality?
While there are certainly still kids who either actually hate homosexuals or affect a hatred of homosexuals, in my experience, homophobia is largely an affliction of the over 35 crowd.
My guess is that in 30 years kids will be sitting in their history classes wondering what all the fuss was about. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 1:49 PM:
You're right, Leonard - most of these laws have been reversed, although there are some that are still valid and will remain so until a court reverses them.
My point isn't about the laws on the books; it's more about the fact that they ARE being reversed. My position is (and has been during this entire discourse) at what point (limit) is society permitted and/or prepared to again define right/wrong based on basic morality?
Are we really heading to the society that accepts virtually EVERYTHING thereby dismissing NOTHING?
Perhaps there are many who say that 'common sense' will prevail and provide us with a logical 'line' that should not be crossed. I don't see it that way. The time is quickly approaching when nothing will be prohibited. History teaches us that societies are destroyed from within because of the breakdown of morality. Can anyone argue that the United States is not headed down that path? "
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 1:43 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 1:41 PM:
Homosexuality has been deemed illegal by many U.S. communities and there are still laws on the books that prohibit people from engaging in homosexual activity
Laws which the US Supreme Court has deemed to be unconstitutional.
"
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 1:25 PM:
I'm a single guy. I have a single dog. I love my dog. My dog loves me.
Why can't I marry my dog?
Look past the absurdity of the idea to the day when it simply won't be silly to someone who desires that relationship to be officially recognized and be afforded all of the rights and privileges that go along with such a union.
Of course by that time dogs will have to be recognized as citizens in order to be afforded protection; so that will have to be put into place first. From what I've seen in society's decline, I don't see it being very far in the future.
Again, my argument here stems from a previous post by Rhodie regarding the governments’ role in morality; this does not define my stance on homosexuality. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 1:09 PM:
Your analyses is somewhat flawed in that there are many activities participated in by humans that are considered immoral and there ARE laws restricting those types of activities.
Homosexuality has been deemed illegal by many U.S. communities and there are still laws on the books that prohibit people from engaging in homosexual activity. Are we a more 'enlightened' society by overturning these laws thereby permitting people to behave as they desire? My stock question with regard to issues such as this is where will it end? At what point do we (the people) say enough is enough?
I expect the normal 'homophobe' attacks at my thoughts, yet be advised that I have not revealed where I stand on this one issue; I have been more concerned as to where society is heading by the idea of tearing down all morality-based legislation in favor of individuals being permitted to do virtually whatever they wish with no regard to its impact on society. "
Billy Rubin wrote on May 19, 2008 1:04 PM:
The courts do NOT enforce "morality". they enforce laws.
Lady justice is depicted as blind-folded because individual preference should not cloud the delivery of justice. In some societies it is terrifically "immoral" to touch food with the left hand. Is that what we need here? "Morality Police"? Or how about "Thought Police"? Who gets to set the rules regulating activity in bedrooms in households everywhere? How long until male/female felatio is again made illegal because it is "immoral"? "
Billy Rubin wrote on May 19, 2008 12:57 PM:
There is nothing immoral about homosexuality.
It is a biological fact.
Homosexuality is found in all mammals, in all human societies, on all continents, in all classes and finacial strata. Religion will not change it, hoping and wishing will not change it. It cannot be beaten out of a person. It is there. Like it or not. "
JF wrote on May 19, 2008 12:56 PM:
I believe the job of the court is to interpret the "LAWS" and the laws that society "VOTES" for by majority are to honored and upheld by the court. You cloud the definition of the courts role in society by putting force "morality enforcement". Morality is the invisible laws of each individual ie:good and evil or honest-dishonest. The courts job is to uphold the framework that addresses this already. Courts who ignore the "will of the people" are the immorral ones, and are even more dangerous to society than the original perps. Legislation from the bench is not what a representative republic is about! This type of action by a court is why people give up on voting, WHY BOTHER! "
Billy Rubin wrote on May 19, 2008 12:53 PM:
If benefits are afforded to citizens by entering into a civil contract (as marriage is) then ALL citizens must be afforded the same opportunity to do so.
The religious nuts cane save their stale arguments that gays can marry a person chosen by the electorate. Well, until John and Patsy Christian submit to having their spouse chosen by others, they cannot expect others to willingly accept it. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 12:50 PM:
Would this requirement be applied only to those laws with regard to 'morality' issues? Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court(s) would be unable to hear any matter attempted to be brought before it based upon Constitutional issues?
Or are you perhaps suggesting a Constitutional Amendment to further this 'morality' movement?
You do raise interesting questions with your premise. "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 12:43 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 12:41 PM:
If I understand you correctly, you seek to impose extraordinary protection for one special 'class' of people (non-homosexuals) that you don't appear to support for the excluded group. That is the definition of 'discrimination,' as well as a clear violation of the equal protection doctrine in the U.S. Constitution.
Am I wrong in my understanding of your position? "
Rhodie wrote on May 19, 2008 12:37 PM:
By me...
There is no such thing asa perfect solution. The best I can come up with would be a two part election mandate. First would be that the "morality issue" in question would have to be voted on by the people. The second, so we don't have to keep hearing the same arguments every June and November is that once the messure is voted on it can not be revisited for ten years. So is multiple member marriages was voted down by the people then the issue and any version there of is banned until ten years later. Of course the leeches (or is that spelled lawyers?) would get a hold of it and punch loopholes in it.
Interesting perversion of that law if it ever existed: Someone is defeated for an elected office wouldn't be allowed to run for the same office for ten years??? That would be interesting. "
Cogito wrote on May 19, 2008 12:32 PM:
Cogito wrote on May 19, 2008 12:31 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 12:07 PM:
You're absolutely correct, this is a 'tricky' issue; the part about the government and morality, that is.
Another question would then be just how far should people be permitted to go in their own, independent search for those things that make them 'happy?' Without exposing my position on this one particular issue, I would suggest then that there are, in fact 'lines' that simply cannot be permitted to be legally crossed in allowing for individual exercise of 'morality,' don't you think? Bestiality, multiple marriages, to name just two - should laws not be enacted regarding these?
My actual question is exactly where would the limit be determined; and by whom, if not by the government? "
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 11:57 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 11:56 AM:
Good to see you back. "
Rhodie wrote on May 19, 2008 11:40 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 19, 2008 11:14 AM:
While much of the U.S. Constitution appears "simple" on its face, e.g., 2nd Amendment, the real challenge for the court is to not only determine the validity of any law, but to also attempt to understand what the framer's mindsets were when these provisions were included in the Constitution itself.
With that in mind, one might wonder just how these "men" would have interpreted their own writings if this particular subject had been brought to their attention prior to ratification of the salient portion of the Constitution at issue.
More important today is just how uneducated the population is as it pertains to the actual workings of each branch of government. Long gone, it appears to me, is the fundamental teaching of civics in the public classroom. And that is sad. "
sam wrote on May 19, 2008 9:26 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 19, 2008 8:01 AM:
"
Cogito wrote on May 18, 2008 11:24 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 18, 2008 9:22 PM:
"Lodian, is Scrutiny calling you "lodidude?" LOL
I guess so. LOL
"
sam wrote on May 18, 2008 8:17 PM:
sam wrote on May 18, 2008 8:17 PM:
I did. We talked for hours. They came to the conclusion that if a man wants to love another man they must really love each other, because so many "mean people would make fun of them."
Gee, and guess what? Both are happy heterosexuals who have love and appreciate their homosexual friends. "
sam wrote on May 18, 2008 8:10 PM:
"
sam wrote on May 18, 2008 8:08 PM:
Is it to any of you???? NO, why would it be?
If my male neighbor wants to marry the love of his life, who is a male, that is his business, not mine. My religious and personal beliefs should have no bearing on his religious and personal beliefs. "
sam wrote on May 18, 2008 8:01 PM:
Wierd.
"
Lodian wrote on May 18, 2008 5:54 PM:
Actually, many already do as they have come out of the closet to share that they are gay. "
Lodian wrote on May 18, 2008 5:52 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on May 18, 2008 5:42 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 18, 2008 1:54 PM:
Ya got that right. "
Lodian wrote on May 18, 2008 1:53 PM:
"Scrutiny, you really don't want to bring the Bible's various versions of acceptable marriage and family living arrangements into this, do you? Polygamy, concubines, forced marriage, stoning women to death who weren't virgins, selling female children into sexual slavery. Yeah, those Bible people sure did set a standard for us."
Great post, voter.
"
Lodian wrote on May 18, 2008 1:52 PM:
Please explain how the marriage of gay people accomplish all the horror you describe. What needs to be defended? Will the wedding registries in the mall become to full for your liking? What is it exactly that will rock your world when gay people marry? You do know that many gay people already live as though they are married, so it's not like all of the sudden there will be millions of people moving in together. Are you concerned about moving van rentals? What is it? "
Lodian wrote on May 18, 2008 1:45 PM:
Please explain how you think gay marriage "...will have the effect of destroying the social fabric of the country.". And please be specific. "
voter wrote on May 18, 2008 11:44 AM:
Scrutiny wrote on May 18, 2008 11:22 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on May 16, 2008 10:38 PM:
Scrutiny wrote on May 16, 2008 5:23 PM:
voter wrote on May 16, 2008 3:46 PM:
" This is just another ruling that will have the effect of destroying the social fabric of the country. Not everyone has the right to do everything they would like. There are a great number of laws limiting behavior. Most for good reason. "
Absolutely--People must be stopped from loving each other. "
voter wrote on May 16, 2008 3:44 PM:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N325.DTL
Of the three dissenting judges, one actually wrote a separate dissent that said that Californians should allow their gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage. So really, only 2 of the seven oppose gay marriage--quite something since 6 or the 7 are republicans! "
Science8c wrote on May 16, 2008 2:40 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on May 16, 2008 1:33 PM:
Comments on this story are now closed.