Gay population
Posted by AmericanGreatness 8 years, 11 months ago to Culture
This tiny fraction of the population is shredding property rights, religious freedom, and the definition of marriage... the tyranny of the minority.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Since no one starts from fundamentals, we get a hodgepodge of meaningless laws and rulings based on whoever is in power or influential. For example, why should I want to acknowledge exemption from the law based on religious beliefs over someone who wants exemption from the law for their philosophical beliefs? Exemptions just promote groups fighting against groups. In the case of the bakers not wanting to perform for potential customers that is their right, religious or otherwise based on property rights and the right to freedom of association (which follows directly from a proper understanding of property rights). It should be all of us-not just those who are religious or special identified group. So, you are seeing the natural outcome of such thinking. Groups pitted against groups and murky court decisions and ultimately AVA will win-because as the one judge said, "state's rights trumps all rights." how chilling that is
The central issue is property rights. As a business owner I should be able to refuse to serve ANY person for ANY reason. The free-market will win in the end. If refusing service costs me business, I must be able to absorb it or change my position.
I'm preternaturally opposed to the government allowing a tiny fraction of a minority (no matter the minority) to shred property rights. Do I own my business/property, or do I simply manage it for the government?
The tyranny of the minority must be stopped.
Then, the local media published names and addresses of citizens who contributed money to fight the right to gay marriage. To me, that seemed pretty Nazi. Scary, really.
It's indeed using the full force of the government to do so, but they (LGBT) are setting agenda.
You're absolutely right about government intrusion into GDP, which is why we see such anemic economic growth.
Yet, the tyranny of the minority (thought judicial fiat) tramples on the freedom of business owners. Again, I don't think government should be involved in the marriage issue at all. Government should protect property rights (in all it's forms) inviolate.
I'm not saying that every member of the LGBT community is militant, liberal, etc., but LGBT activists are leading the charge on this issue. Likewise, all Muslims aren't terrorists, but when you look at terrorism around the world, there is a common thread. The LGBT community is overwhelmingly liberal (modern political meaning).
A is A.
Either you believe in equal rights under the law or you do not. A is A does apply to that.
My son was very clear about why he wanted marriage equality: he and his partner want the favorable legal rulings concerning taxes, health care, Social Security, etc., to apply to them. I get it. Yes, it sucks that it doesn't apply equally. It sucks even more that such benefits exist in the first place.
I suggested that he and his partner could accomplish much from a legal standpoint by drafting appropriate powers-of-attorney. It wouldn't get him freebies, but it would make their relationship more like what a marriage should be.
He is thinking about it.
If you have to, fight dirty. One of the strongest things you can say to a gay man is "What does having some protection hurt?"
Since the government IS involved in legal shit that applies to Anyone and Everyone who is "married," that does not strike me as any logical reason to deny homosexuals the Right To Marry!
Their 'goal,' unless I completely misunderstand it, is to avail themselves of any and All legal rights that Couples Get through the Marriage License "process."
I have never heard a coherent, logical set of reasons to deny them access to those rights.
What I have observed is a root system which inevitably goes back to someone's Holy Book as the Be-All/End-All Source of Truth for Their Side of The Argument.
And from this atheist's POV, that's really ... hilarious, stupid, illogical and VERY A=/=A.
Does that proclude government from setting up laws that treat the two disparate circumstances in the same way? Not at all. If both are judged to have equal outcomes and value to society, this might be an entirely rational choice. But to argue that prima facie the original situation of a homosexual couple is equivalent to a heterosexual couple is complete and utter nonsense.
It seems that you're defining the differentiation based on the genders of the two people in the "couple" and not at ALL on what should be the commonality that, no matter what the genders, a "couple" should have the right to .... what is it?.... oh, yes.... "Self-Identify As A Couple" and be accorded the same rights as anyone else who 'self-identifies' the same way.
Why does that seem to be a problem?
:)
If my 'self-identification' [as whatever] is a lie, is anyone ELSE'S Identification OF ME more valid, or valid At All?!
Your conclusion seems to be hinging on the folks' NOT being 'satisfied with who[m] they are' as if YOUR conclusion is, somehow, more valid than theirs or has some Higher Power of Logic and Awareness.... It seems that if you were to ask Anyone if they were 'satisfied with who they are,' the only valid, honest answers can come from heterosexuals whom you know are heterosexual. Anyone self-identifying or appearing to you to be homosexual are immediately concluded to be incapable of Being Satisfied with who[m] they are, and You are the judge, jury and executioner.
How Un-'Rand'-y can one be!?
So, I continue to dispute your assertions.
It's a comparison of actions, not sexual orientation or religious beliefs.
I would disagree. Actions come from valuations of consequences. Those who "act" gay are those who act on the impulses - regardless of source. They equate the actions of homosexuality to be in their best interests. Thus it is a philosophy.
Monogamy is also a philosophy, as is rape, bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc. They are all actions based on values. Are all preceded by impulses to act in a certain way? Assuredly. But the impulse is not the action.
but let's go there. What are the Metaphysics, epistemology and Ethics of being gay? Monogamy is a choice. Polygamy is a lifestyle choice which may be based on a philosophical point of view. Acting in rational self-interest is just that-choosing an action. It is not in and of itself a whole philosophy.
have -- with whomever, preferably good women --
the better the society will become. . your blood is
royal. . delusion takes many forms, and self-interest
may become all one has for a philosophy, no? -- j
.
philosophy conflicts with his nature. . and yet, my
desire to be monogamous may conflict with my
desire to be king. . hmmmmm. -- j
.
I think the better question is one you hint at here: what IS the nature of that which we call a human being? Is it merely to procreate and further one's lineage? Is it to acquire wealth? Power? Prestige?
In order to claim that one is going against one's nature as a human being, one must claim to know what that nature is. That is a pretty lofty claim.
There are many partial philosophies out there in life that nevertheless rule peoples' lives. This is a good example of one which is threatening to affect all of society one way or the other. So to me, incomplete as that philosophy is, the extent of its reach is such that it should be treated as a philosophy.
Let's examine rape. Now, I know you are going to argue that rape involves force, and I completely agree. But really, the point one makes there is philosophical in nature with the real question being: is it acceptable to express one's sexuality without the consent of the other person. That _is_ a moral and philosophical question. The same applies to necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, sado-masochism, polgyamy ... ad infinitum. All are splinters of the same shaft.
I don't see any denial from any side that people have sexual urges. The base question of the entire debate is simply this: under what conditions is it appropriate to express one's sexuality. The answer to that question is one of morality. The choices made to answer that single question of appropriateness of sexuality very much determine how a person defines "happiness". Thus, it becomes a philosophy because it becomes the driving factor for value assignment and alternative valuation with wide-ranging effects and outcomes for that individual's life. The fact that a large part of our social debate rages around the topic tells me that this is all the _more_ reason to label it a philosophy.
If 'being gay is a philosophy,' as you seem to argue, what is the source of such 'philosophy'?
Socratic investigation, followed by decision and choice?!
Or are you trying to imply that there is absolutely no genetic or other physiological relationship that 'creates gayness' in humans?
I don't think you can have the one position without acknowledging the other.
As to the source of the philosophy, it is nothing more than allowing one's emotions to determine one's course of action. Is it a logical philosophy? No. But is it uncommon? Hardly. Many people allow their emotions to rule their actions and focus their life's activities on one thing or another centered around that emotion. It could be power. It could be desire for wealth. It could be a fear of insects.
Scientists have admitted that they can find no genetic cause for same-sex attraction. I have a brother-in-law (married to my sister-in-law) and they have two boys. His identical twin brother, however, is attracted to men - not women. All that aside, however, it is not the proclivity which defines the individual, but the actions taken on conscious choice. One can have feelings toward squirrels but without doing anything, one does not become a ... whatever that would be. One does not become a heterosexual until one engages in sexual activities with a member of the opposite gender any more than one becomes a homosexual until one engages with a member of the same gender.
Sorry, blarman, but that's a classic 'chicken or egg' non-explanation. It's fairly logical, even under the umbrella of your assertion, that the 'conscious choices made' just MIGHT be driven by some 'proclivity' of which nobody has yet discovered a scientific, experimentally-proven reason.
And how can you even make your last statement?! Does EVERY person decide their sexual preference AFTER some mystical exposure to the same OR other gender?!
Toddlers kiss and get kissed by their moms AND dads. Is THAT the instigating event? I can assure you that when I started to notice Mary-Ann's gorgeous tits around sixth or seventh grade, it was certainly NOT because I'd had ANY sexual experience with her or anyone else. So many gays report that 'they'd been attracted to the same gender since they were very young' to fairly well gainsay your 'proclivity proclamation.'
Pitch another, thanks.
If you want to allow your emotions to rule you and give a pass to anyone who believes the same, that is your choice. The other choice is to accept that you have the ability to choose differently than your feelings: that your logical mind has the ultimate say. That choice is an individual choice that must be made by every single person on the planet. Control or be controlled.
On the other hand, you seem to be glued to the concept that gay/straight is some kind of 'intellectual/rational decision that everyone makes on their unique Sexual Orientation Day-of-Epiphany, an I believe that premise is not accurate or reasonable (or logical or borne out by comments from many gay friends).
It's not a matter of 'let's agree to disagree,' it's a matter of your mind is made up, based on the assumptions and beliefs you've chosen, and you're (YOU ARE) not open to the possibility that your premises are false and that, consequently, your conclusions and beliefs might be erroneous, too.
But they're not, right? Because they're yours! And you're right. End of possible discussion!
Cheers!
If you want to claim that the emotional, irrational man is king over the logical, rational man, you are welcome to that opinion. I will not be swayed into thinking such.
But personally, I wouldn't bet on that bad shit happening... We'll see.
Jan
Also, many modern primitive tribes have staged homosexuality - all of the young boys in the Men's House have a homosexual relationship with the older men there. The adult men who have moved out into their own houses are sometimes forbidden to have any further homosexual relationships (but sometimes not...think it depends on the tribe).
There is a theory that homosexuality can promote genetic survival if it leads to greater affluence for siblings. (Think of a Medieval abbot from a poor family using his influence to improve circumstances for his brothers and sisters and cousins.)
Jan
I have a brother-in-law who is married to my sister-in-law and they have two boys together. He is most assuredly heterosexual. His identical twin brother, however, is attracted to men. If there is something genetic, I'm sure both these two would like to know what it is.
I am wondering about the impact of drugs, chemicals, and other bio influences that may bend genders during fetus development. Is a gay orientation increasing? If so, could that be a reason?
Ah, the arrogance and hubris!
of gross domestic product? . is my IRS bill a product?
I guess that the military constitutes product. . and
the quarter in my pocket. -- j
.
made us the servants. -- j
.
They never ask simply for equal treatment, they always want redress for past wrongs. No matter how far in the past the wrongs were...aka slavery reparations.
The single exception to this demand for special treatment up front as a large political movement was women's suffrage.
They realized that getting suffrage would enable them to get anything else they wanted through political means afterward.
So they didn't demand the special treatment during the suffrage fight.
They got themselves declared a minority afterward, despite the fact they are the gender majority, to get special treatment.
from engendering horrible attitudes by men to
the belittling of the primary family anchor role
of the mom. . Well Said Emma!!! -- j
.
women as a minority in the workplace, deserving of
consideration as such. . I took some heat for asking
that the students consider this. . yet, our workforce
was less than 15 percent female, while the "outside
world" was 51 percent female. . one of the big
principles about people management is to make
the workforce look like the outside population --
else, you get strife. . it struck a chord, sometimes
negative. -- j
p.s. do you consider your Mom job as the lead
in the foundation of your family?
.
my guide and dad was my anchor. . but Rand taught
me how the guide role might best be done, and the
whole family cringed with my realization. -- j
.
sociology from Agnes Scott in hotlanta . . . I was
abdicating my heritage and being unfaithful to the
clan. . it got worse when I fell in love with an atheist
and told them. . but that era only lasted 23 years.
I got single and dated her and changed my mind.
we're still fine friends. -- j
.
though they didn't talk about it. -- j
p.s. and Emory is super;;; hooray!!!
.
If a company's management decides that they, for ANY reason, want to Only Service Clientele who fit in some Defined Category or Description, SO BE IT! I say, let the marketplace decide if they've made a good or bad decision.
If a merchant doesn't want to sell a product or service to me because they Think I'm gay... or black or Jewish or Muslim or a libertarian, I'm happy to 'vote with my feet.'
And to support any other group I want... For example, Chick Filet and Hobby Lobby have never enjoyed the benefits of any sales of anything to me.
They're not suffering all that much without me. And neither am I.
I think you've got some bug up your butt over gays and the 'business argument' is an excuse for your opposition.
So, if all businesses were free of 'activist pressure' to serve gays if they didn't want to, would you [still?] oppose gay marriage?
And WHY?
Thanks for triggering a great discussion. Really!
My argument is entrust based on rights and my disdain for the tyranny of the minority. Property rights are perhaps the most important rights The Constituiton grants.
If we do not own our property (business, intellectual, home, water, etc.), then what do we own. Theses thing are the fruits our labor to do with as we choose.
We should be able to sell/not sell to anyone/group we choose. I would feel the same way if, in the discussion, gays were replaced with Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Caucasions, whatever.
An angered group should not be able to enlist the power of the government to force a property owner to sell them... period.
You said it very well, let the market vote with its feet.
If you want to provide some backup for your argument, please do so, because the evidence backing up AmericanGreatness' claim is substantial.
Talk about false claims?! Those are accusations leveled at any and all gay rights groups BY extremist religionists and conservatives who could no more prove those assertions than show the sun orbits around the earth...
Good try, though. Predictable, common and false.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homose...
The second was also highlighted in an interview with Glenn Beck.
Lots more available just via a simple Google search. These were the first two. Search term: "gays admit their goal is to destroy religion"
Assertion: supported. Refutation: rebutted.
http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2015/05/2...
There is absolutely no shortage of "evidence" to "prove" BOTH sides of ANY 'discussion.'
So I'm not going to click your generously-supplied links.
Thanks.
:)
Of course most gay folks are rational. Of course they have, since they are non-normative, been treated in an unfair manner by society. They do not like it any more than I would or have. (Have I ever told you about not getting my expert ribbon in the USAF?)
As I see it, people should be able to interact with whomever they want, but they should have to abide by the repercussions of their decisions. For example: A baker should not have to let someone who is gay buy stuff at his bakery. But if a major bakery chain is thinking of buying his business, they should be able to find out that this has been the bakery's policy. If the CEO of the big chain is gay, then she should be diss the baker because of his prejudice.
All of this is pretty obvious, and with Yelp and similar apps it certainly be done. (We introduced a S African gentleman to one of our employees - who happened to be big and black - to see if he would shake hands with him - before we would even discuss letting him invest in our company.)
As khalling has so clearly delineated, we have caught ourselves in a morass of special situations instead of clarifying basic rights and freedoms.
Jan
The woman to the left of me also shot Expert by the end of the class, and she got a ribbon for this accomplishment because she was in a Law Enforcement type job in the AF. The man to the right of me similarly shot Expert by the end of the class, and he got his ribbon because he was a man, even though he was in a medical squadron like I was.
I outshot them both but did not get the Expert rating ribbon because I was a woman in a medical squadron. Fortunately, I am not petty and I do not still feel rancor about this, 40 years later. I don't.
I REALLY DONT CARE. DO YOU HEAR THAT? YOU CAN TAKE YOUR BLASTED RIBBON AND JUST STU....!
OK, all better now. Thanks for asking.
Jan
stage fright that, despite being a crack shot with my
dad in the woods, I missed the ribbon when I got a
one-hour chance at a usaf range. . got rid of the
stage fright in grad school, about 12 years later. -- j
.
Grrmph, ravhgha, fmrph.
Jan
this warrants a real grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. -- j
.
How did you get rid of your stage fright (/buck fever)?
Jan
final class session for the mba -- I realized 1. that
they wanted me to do well, 2. that I had done my
homework and could do it by memory, and 3. that
my notes were great, just in case. . made an a. -- j
p.s. had not heard of "buck fever" -- Thanks!
.
Jan, generally has a good time
inventor / philosopher / biologist with attitude
and armor!!! -- j
.
(It is always a relief to know that other redoubtable folks have had the same problem I have experienced insofar as freezing up under pressure for some physical tests, though.)
Jan
the old manhattan project k25 plant and needed to
address the engineering group. . I wrote my notes
on a roll of toilet paper, and they howled when I used
the word "role" and waved it in front of the group. -- j
p.s. that was the transfer to y12.
.
Jan
that I decided to retire.... -- j
.
Could be, but you also might want to look into whether there's some unappealing downside to Being That Winner, too. Lots of ideas and feelings can influence performance....
:)
Audio Visual Aid? . perplexed. -- j
.
to state flatly that this analysis shows how great
you are at cold hard rational thinking. . Thank You! -- j
.
and hispanics are used to prop up the buy-the-votes
industry ....... lotsa exploitation going on out there!!! -- j
.
This is not meant as an indirect refutation of the this possibility...the movement toward globalization is real so this is just an expansion of mamaemma's thought.
.
A "WTF" appears to be out of proportion to mamaemma's suggestion.
responsible. But one problem is the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. It was right to abolish the de jure
segregation that existed in the South and replace it with laissez-faire. But this is not what
was done. Instead, the government arrogated to
itself the "right" to invade private property and
violate the right of freedom of association. If a
private property owner or private business is
guilty of racial discrimination in the people he,
or it, chooses to deal with, the proper way to
handle it is through boycotts and other such
forms of ostracism; not by government intrusion.
Where the state/municipal governments were
guilty of such discrimination, of course they
should have been stopped by force of law. But,
since individual rights were ignored in the pas-
sage of the measure, now we are getting the
consequences.
"Two people who love each other should have the right to spend the rest of their lives together with ALL the freedoms AND benefits (the real issue here) as their heterosexual counterparts. On the other hand, why MUST it be called Marriage, Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and woman as sanctioned by a religious and/or governmental organization over the last millennium."
Thus, man/woman = marriage, same sex = domestic partnership (or any other designation that is rational): same rights (which exist by man's nature [qua man]), same legal protections and privileges, same benefits, etc., etc.
Not sure I understand why a business owner can't decide who they want to serve, even forgetting about the religion, but there is a lot of wisdom in your comment.
Today's world has seen a rise in atheism like the world to this point has never known: a moral system that denies deity entirely. What is the result of this? They too continue the age-old practice of merging theological doctrine with practical government, they just substitute the intelligence of man as their deity. Thus they, too, appeal to their own deity for basic governmental authority and rule of law, it just becomes a circular reference back to themselves. To delegate to an organization which believes ideologically to the contrary of their own philosophy is contradictory and simultaneously validates that opposing point of view, thereby undermining their own validity! Can you see now that the conflict isn't about marriage at all, but is really only one side of the theism vs atheism debate to which neither side can yield to the other?
I, personally, am extremely opposed to their ways of 'recruiting members' and 'disagreeing with non-believers.'
How's that different?
Rand might have some juicy retort to an accusation about 'substituting the intelligence of man as their deity,' too.
If you want circular references, look into the claims of veracity Of The Bible... "It's true because the Bible says so! And the Bible says so because it's True! And the Invisible, Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity Said So, and THAT'S WHY it's all True."
I <3 atheism... :)
My only point was to note the lines of authority of the two different belief sets. A theist belief set places all governments of men in subservience to the deity so worshipped - regardless of the barbarism or dissonance of its precepts. An atheistic belief set places man as its own deity and the governments to be a derivative of it. An atheistic government built on the policy of man as the ultimate ruler can not countenance competition for that claim to authority with the divine. That to me is the real nature of the entire argument about government and gay "marriage" - WHO has the authority to write the rules regarding marriage.
I forget which of the Supreme Court justices it was, but one of them noted that at no time in recorded human history had the definition of marriage attempted to be changed by government itself - until now. If one considers the theism vs atheism argument presented, it seems to me to be a logical source of this disagreement, since historically, the vast majority of governments (usually monarchies) were theistic in origin. That's why this question has been so pivotal and why there is such concern about its outcome.
You are welcome to provide an alternate suggestion as to the source of the debate.
"An atheistic government built on the policy of man as the ultimate ruler can not countenance competition for that claim to authority with the divine. That to me is the real nature of the entire argument about government and gay "marriage" - WHO has the authority to write the rules regarding marriage. "
..... it's a shame the Founding Fathers had no concept of large-magazine automatic rifles... would have been easier to clarify the 2nd Amendment for our consideration....
But a THEISTIC government can not countenance that same competition for the possibility of NOT being based on the Existence of a Deity.
Oh, and by the way, homosexual activity has been documented back into Roman times and I've read that homosexual "couples" were socially and legally recognized, too. Funny thing is, that after the Christian Religions grew in power, THEY seemed to DO the DEFINING of "marriage" to Their Standards, and consequently, many folks now think 'it's always been that way' (it hasn't) and it Will Always Be That Way... (witness: Ireland today and the growing percentage of US states that are changing their laws in response to cultural changes in society.)
cheers!
If voters want to legalize, that's fine. However, judges should not be able to overturn the will of millions of voters in states across the country.
Sorry about that.... Like I said many times... and here, too... when the hot-button word "marriage" leaves the building, progress will result.
I still favor "civil union license" for the Legality crap and "Holy Matrimony Ceremony" for anyone and everyone who feels they must do it in front of a church official.
Just for grins... http://www.plusaf.com/pix/homepagepix/pr...
:)
"But a THEISTIC government can not countenance that same competition for the possibility of NOT being based on the Existence of a Deity."
Most religions don't care about atheists because they have reason to hope for something beyond this life - something better. Most religious people look at atheists and go "Why would you accept that oblivion and annihilation are the end product of existence?" If you want to claim that it amounts to religious persecution NOT to redefine marriage, I would also point out one more observation made by the Supreme Court questioning. The Solicitor General was specifically asked if a decision to redefine marriage would affect the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. He was forced to agree that it was definitely a possibility. So who is really at jeopardy of persecution for their beliefs here: the religious or the atheists?
You're still conflating the concepts that marriage has been or can be defined by something or someone other than members of a culture and that Laws and legal systems 'merely' reflect the codification of the mores of the society into rules it collectively agrees on.
Redefining marriage seems to be the hot button for the Religious Right, and to accuse 'gay activists' of that still looks like a red herring to me.
The gay community wants to enjoy the LEGAL rights and privileges currently enjoyed by COUPLES who are now referred to as "married couples" and it's the Churched groups that have their knickers in a twist over losing Power and Control over what They Want and Need to Define and Control.
Follow the Money? Hell, no! Follow the Power and the Control!
Why are 'you' so unwilling to give up the Power and Control over the WORD "Marriage" when the gays are looking for Equal Treatment Under the Law... things that include hospital visitation rights, inheritance laws, tax laws, and so on?
What is so scary about that?! Since nobody's been able to demonstrate any TANGIBLE negative effects, what else could 'you' have as a basis for argument?!
If one accepts a theistic viewpoint, one can not accept that man determines the definition of marriage. If one accepts the atheistic viewpoint, one can not accept that anyone other than man defines marriage - or any other social construct either. This entire debate is one of theism vs atheism, which is what I have pointed out ad nauseum.
"The gay community wants to enjoy the LEGAL rights and privileges currently enjoyed by ... "married" couples"
Yes, because they want to ignore the real differences between the two situations rather than acknowledge them. They want to pretend that the two situations are identical even though they are not. Could they get what they want by simple acknowledging that they are different and then asking for similar privileges? They certainly have that course of action open to them. Why don't they, then? It worked in Vermont, but that wasn't enough even though legally they had all the same privileges.
Ask yourself THAT question. Why go to all the trouble of trying to redefine marriage if you can achieve the same goal of legal privileges by simply and honestly acknowledging the difference in the first place? The answer is simple: because it never has been and never will be about "equal rights" and that argument is a facade. The real goal is to attack theism.
Your foundational premise is that, according to... (what, again?) "it's different." So according to Your Foundational Source, het and homo 'marriage' "are different" so the logical conclusion should BE that 'they're different'?
A=A, or is that C=?=G ???? We need to 'acknowledge the difference' in order to see/understand that there IS a difference as you assert there IS?
Any debate coaches out there? Pass/Fail?
In a theist society similar to the ones we have seen throughout history (and I am not advocating any particular one here, merely the existence), the ruler ruled at the behest of and subservient to the authority of whatever deity or religious system of that particular society. It matters not which one. If they divested any authority from themselves to the clergy or left things in the clergy's hand, it was a nod to that fact that their claim to authority was subject to "external" (shall we say) approval. So when such a government assigns authority to the clergy, it acknowledges its own roots and formation and derived authority.
The premise of an atheistic government is that right of government stems solely from man himself. It simultaneously denies the existence of any higher authority. If the atheistic government cedes authority to a religious institution for the administration of marriage, it is in fact undermining not only its claim to authority in the first place, but also ceding authority to the very thing it denies - religion. Thus while this solution may seem practical, I fail to see an atheistic government - a government which places itself as its own authority - doing this.
I will have to remember that phrase. Point.
Unfortunately, I think that Hitler was supported by a majority.
Jan
Once they did, his faction took advantage of a rule of the Weimar parliament, that if parliament started arguing so much that nothing could be done, then the Chancellor was allowed to rule by decree. From that rule (and the Reichstag fire, his excuse to declare an emergency) came his promotion to dictator.
I guess my point is that it is possible for a person to rule without majority support. Like Obama
I knew some Germans from that era; Eric had marched in the German army (and spent WWII in a Russian prison camp. Did you know that however hungry you are, you cannot eat crane?). He still really thought that Hitler had been right and that the Jews were the 'problem'...but you had to know him really well before he would say anything like this out loud.
Jan
The outline is that the Germans had defeated the British; Zionist Jews wanted British Palestine; American involvement to save Britain was the reward for British transfer of British Palestine; when Germans realised that they had been routed they were pissed.
http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au/...
Of course one group that manipulates to gain advantage for itself draws resentment. Others that claim similar identity suffer as a consequence of manipulation they had no knowledge of or support for.
[Modern day Australian politics has something analogous - when one of the two major party suffers overwhelming defeat at the ballot box, the opposition claimed "mandate" to pursue all of its policies.]
EDIT: making the URL link work.
Anti-Semitism is as old as Judaism. And every Racist has their reason.
http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/
Such a Source! .... [not].
Jan
Try refusing service to a black person, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman amd you'll get the same result.
I'm gay and as long as government is involved in marriage then I fully support gay marriage rights. I DON'T believe that any religious organization should be required to recognize it or participate in it.
When it comes to private businesses, they should be free to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The free market will ultimately determine that business' survival.
The point of commonality (that I think many people have) is to get the gov out of personal decisions. The explicit rules for non-prejudice behavior need to apply to the government, military, judicial, voting, legislative, etc arenas and not the personal ones.
Thank you for being bold enough to support freedom even when it may cause you personal inconvenience.
Jan
EXACTLY! I've been saying precisely that for years. Government must never discriminate for any reason.
Individuals and private businesses are free to do as they please and only need to answer to their customers.
My inconvenience has never been a consideration. If it were then I'd be supporting the abominable notion that some people have more rights than others.
Because I am a confident and independent woman (who does martial arts as a hobby) I am frequently (as in 50% of the time by new acquaintences) thought to be gay. So, while personally straight, I have acquired something of an insiders' eye on gay rights.
Jan
The problem is that one side of the argument is attempting to equate one quantity with another: homosexuality with heterosexuality. This is prima facie false. They are not the same. They have not the same inputs nor the same processes nor the same outputs. To give them equal standing is a disgrace to logic and to ignore reality. Each should be taken on its own merits and on its own merits alone.
?! Did you mean 'quality' or 'aspect' instead of 'quantity'??? Where are any assertions that homosexuality and heterosexuality Are Equal?
That makes no sense at all. You could say that both groups desire Equal Treatment Under Law or Equal Rights under Law, but there's Nothing in those statements or claims that implies that the Groups Are Equal.
Could one do as Vermont and pass a law providing for civil unions? Of course. But that is not sufficient for the activists because that's not really what the fight is about. It's not about equal treatment and never was. If it had been, the homosexual community would have been satisfied with civil unions and wouldn't have cared about the definition of marriage.
I only read the beginning of your reply because I have a busy day... I didn't say one should never discriminate, I said that government should never discriminate. That's a vital distinction.
Also, I was using the word discriminate's meaning of bias against a group based on criteria that they have no control over.
In the broader sense everyone discriminates hundreds of times every day. You would clearly die if you didn't! (I chose a glass of milk over a glass of bleach this morning; good job!)
Moreover, those men very specifically noted that it _was_ the role of government to discriminate or judge between what would encourage the betterment of individuals. Only someone who advocates for moral equivalency (the notion that no moral doctrine is superior to any other) would attempt to push the idea that government should not intentionally attempt to promote one set of ideals over another. Should the application of those ideals be applied equally? Absolutely. But the ideals themselves do not all have the same merit and thus should be examined with a judicious eye prior to becoming policy.
Anti-gay marriage folks seem to hold the belief (position) that Any kind of Living Together With Legal Rights MUST be Called "Marriage," and that upsets them!
I have frequently suggested that the concept(s) be separated under the Law to cover "anyone who wants to sign a specific legal certificate gets ALL the legal rights accorded by Law(s).
If, separately or in addition, they wish to have a ceremony performed which "bonds them into Holy Wedlock," they should be free to do that, too, but ALL the Rights Under Laws came from the Legal Contract, independent of anything a Church Person says to them in front of a gathering of friends, relatives and annoying cousins.
If you keep tying the one to the other as "Marriage," the 'discussion' can and will Never End.
I could agree with your proposal under this ONE condition, that EVERY event takes place that confers 100% of the rights and responsibilities as marriage that is NOT a religious ceremony must not be called marriage. Do you think that if a man and a woman exchange vows in front of a Justice of the Peace that they will tolerate being forced to call that a civil union? NO, they will call it a marriage.
How about a same-sex couple who have their ceremony in a church that recognizes such pairings, are they allowed to call it a marriage?
Your latest post is beyond confused. Here's the bottom line. In ANY ceremony that joins two people together and confers 100% of the rights and responsibilities as marriage and in which a heterosexual couple can call it a marriage, then a gay couple MUST also be able to call it a marriage. Anything less defies logic.
That's the roadblock.
I'd +1 your comments above, were it not for that. Sure, lots of people will call themselves 'married' even if they're gay and got the legal paperwork signed and their State grants them the Legal Rights.
But to get ALL worked up about the use of a term that can be Defined or Redefined legally and culturally is a red herring!
You can argue for different terminology, and I and many others may gather around and agree and support such a motion, but all that is is "consensus" and all That is is Agreement.
There is no inherent Underlying Truth behind the definition and usage of the term "marriage."
It's ALL 'agreement and consensus.' Until folks can let go of that anchor, ain't nobody gonna be happy with the progress...
So, how's Ireland look today? Different from last week? Catastrophe? Down the Drain? What's the current prediction for how soon they, too, fall into the ocean?
:)
Tedious conversation with a person who speaks nonsense is now terminated.
Hopefully all the people feeling as these people do will support them in this fight, just like the people supporting gay rights.
The definition of marriage is a wholly separate item. I would argue that this belongs 100% as a religious item, and has no place in government at all.
I don't like the outcome of the gay people forcing a business to do anything, but it is a little better than burning gay people at the stake or throwing them in jail (prev. UK). You realize the Italian colloquialism for gay is "finoccio", which is fennel. Why? Because they used to burn gay people, and covered the smell of flesh burning with fennel. Thus, when you smell fennel...it is a gay person being burned.
The point that needs to be made is that diversity in opinion is allowed. The left, just loves to address persecution with persecution, and the right counters with fundamentalist arguments, rather than freedom arguments.
Jan
Without looking up the etymology, those sticks were likely for building a fire, but I doubt it ever referred specifically to a fire to burn gays.
As an etymological aside, the Irish Gaelic word for rat is also the word for Frenchman.Why, you ask? There were no rats in Ireland until the French brought therm over on their boats. Or so I was told by my Gaelic teacher!
So..."French rat" is redundant?
Jan
But anyone, grievously abused, will cry for justice.
Is it any wonder minorities look to the left - we never have anything to say to them. We never take up their cause.
Perhaps if we had handled this ourselves instead of ignoring them.
I do see the need for nome kind of funding vehicle to provide public schools and infrastructure in the community, and to me, property tax seems to be the most equally unfair.
with gay and lesbian friends in this life. . none has
been a proponent of nasty stuff, and one is a
close friend of Sybill Shepherd. . fine people! -- j
.
# of thumbs-up for the original post, divided by the number of Comments....
:)
My belief/observation/conclusion is that what you call 'rational choices' ARE, nearly always, created out of 'emotional reactions' to life's situations. And sometimes Nature and sometimes Nurture... or a combination!
There was an old 'est' exercise about "Choice" and how it differed from "Decision."
What I got from it was that Everything you did, rationally or emotionally, was part of the Decision Process, but when that process was complete, the next move was that of Choice... picking the alternative, and Choice was the culmination of ALL of the processes that went before.
If you think that ALL 'choices' (including sexual preferences) are the result of Rational Thought, so be it... your 'conclusion' is congruent with your premises....
So long as you never re-evaluate your premises.
Ah, but you've done that and "the science is in... the Facts are Complete.... Everyone [should] Agree that Global Warming is.... oh, sorry... conflated those 'arguments' again... damn!
:)