HA! Growlin' in empathy.

How did you get rid of your stage fright (/buck fever)?

Jan

They don't have to have a say, and they shouldn't have a say. But in today's reality they do so that's what we have to cope with.

No, what's the point? If the legislation extends all the rights of marriage then it's marriage! What ever happened to A = A?

But government is made up of individuals. Therein lies the rub. It is fallacy to say that government is going to conduct itself any differently than a business would, it's just that the profit motive changes. A government's currency is in power and the individual employees are all about its accumulation. If you think they will maintain unbiased decision-making criteria any more than the common person, I would point out the variety of government scandals all around us as evidence to the contrary. I would further point out the Constitution itself was meant to attempt to limit the aggregation of power in government, precisely because the Founders _knew_ that the currency of government is power.

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.

being atheist is not a moral system. Man is not a deity. what organization are you referring to?

I agree that it shouldn't be- but it is and for the purposes of this quite illustrative :)

rape, bestiality, and pedophilia are all acts of violence.

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.

"I would be very hesitant to say one should never discriminate."

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!)

I'll give you something to think about: it's called secularism. You see it used to be that governmental leaders were understood by the peoples they ruled to be acting under the accord of whatever deity or pantheon that civilization took as its own. One can see it into antiquity. Thus religion and government were intertwined and the actions of government were assumed to mirror the actions of the divine.

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 would be very hesitant to say one should never discriminate. By definition, discrimination is to make a judgement call - a value assessment. One can make an irrational judgement call known better as bigotry and we can choose to recognize and seek to correct these. But I see absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing differences between A and B and treating them differently. That is reality - identifying discrete thoughts, ideas, or objects and then intellectually processing a value assignment to those and then acting. But we can't act rationally be trying to pretend that everything is the same. That's just utter nonsense.

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.

Why is it a false claim when gay activists have gone on record saying that their exact cause is not for so-called equality, but to tear down the family and religion? If it was for equality, why would they specifically target businesses and seek to put them out of business through legal means than simply seek another establishment through which to get what they want?

If you want to provide some backup for your argument, please do so, because the evidence backing up AmericanGreatness' claim is substantial.

The fallacy here is in equating heterosexuality with homosexuality. A = A would be saying that one heterosexual couple deserves the same rights that another heterosexual couple has or that one homosexual couple deserves the same rights as another homosexual couple.

"Being gay is not a philosophy."

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.

Gay or straight is just not a big deal. Who cares really. If two people want to create a unit, let them. The legal ramifications should be the same however whether they are men, women , or combinations of more than two. If there are specific religious ramifications, let certain joinings be endorsed by those religions, but they should not be endorsed or controlled by government. At least that's how I see it

Agreed. Being forced to accept is a far cry indeed from endorsing. As to the function of government, well, I fear that ship has already sailed. Our government has so far exceeded its mandate that I don't believe we'll ever get it back into its crate. At my age, all I want to do any more is to be in a position to ignore it as much as possible.

I understand. And I think you and I agree that saying that public education is not going away does not mean that we sanction it. I think it's important that I keep in mind what is the proper function of government versus what we live with.

Don't get me wrong...I don't disagree, particularly about the schools. Further, my annual tirade about property tax always includes the question, "why do I have to keep paying for right to own what I already own?". But the schools do exist, and public education is not going away. Hence the qualifier about the tax being equally unfair.

Counterpoint. It's not fair at a ll that I will never own my home, or that I pay more property tax on my beach house than the mortgage. Maybe if people didn't have to pay property taxes they could afford tuition and we wouldn't have public schools, which I don't believe in, either

This is similar to the argument that my gay son used. If marriage was going to be a government established institution, it needed to apply to everyone equally. I argued that to equally apply a deeply flawed legal concept was not just a waste of time, but an endorsement of the injustice. Better that time and effort be spent removing government sanctioned marriage for everyone.

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.

And what will they use to replace it, Mama?

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.

Exactly! "Gay" is not a yes or no question for many people, it's more like "sometimes." An earlier study concluded that about 10% of men have had homosexual relations. I do not see this as a contradiction of the current poll because the men in the earlier study were not asked to self-identify, just to report on their sex lives. Imagine how the anti-gay bible thumping preachers who also cruise gay bars (there have been several revelations in recent years) would self-report! Solidly hetero!

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?

How about abolishing school and property taxes for everyone, equally?

That's interesting, John. My hatred of feminism is declaring women a "protected class" and bestowing jobs, positions in professional schools, etc. that they did not earn. Interesting that you and I focus on different things.

Yeah, nobody ever hated Jews before that.
Anti-Semitism is as old as Judaism. And every Racist has their reason.

People have no idea how to do it right anymore. MLK and civil disobedience is long since out of fashion.

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.