Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 98
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by jfscars48
    this is the TREO forum. take this discussion elsewhere.
    We get a new moderator and someone didnt tell me?
  2. #62  
    Yep! Our morals degrade exponentially with each generation. Kinda sad :-(
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    I have and have had. My wife is a Flight Attendant and so works and is friends with a greater number of folks who are gay then most and she holds the same views I do about same sex marriage. In our opinion the same sex marriage issue is not a gay issue. It's simply about the definition of Marriage.
    Read the Mass court decision. One finding was that, under the Constitution of Mass, the state was not free to define any institution in a way that created a separate, not to say second, class of citizen.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Perhaps but not as tough as your grandparents. I think that your grandchildren will be a lot easier to convince than you.
    Ok I give up....

    whmuray, you are absolutely right. My Son and I are having a great discussion via email on this very subject. He is already convinced.

    But this is the way a progressive, pluralistic society works. Things like the definition of marriage are what define who we are as a society. You cannot make changes to that definition until the society actually reflects the definition. It is a relatively slow process. If you are one of those contemplating moving to Canada, rest assured that the more of you who "take your ball and go home", the slower this process will be.
  5. #65  
    We do have a sense of proportion here. We were attacked without warning. We were attacked without reason. We were attacked. Three thousand people dead for no reason at all. Do not give us this crap that we deserved this attack. We were not at war with the animals that attacked us. Because we were attacked, we needed to do something about it. Reaction is important. Bin Ladin thought he could act with impunity. Well, it shows me cannot. Countries thought they could spit in our face, well, they cannot. Have we done anything we should not have done? To a small extent, possibily; in the over-all scope of the world, heck no.

    If someone hits you, do you ask to be hit again? Should the US just stand there and continue to take it? We took it without any real reaction during the 90's (the good years aka the Clinton years). A point is reached where a reaction with meaningful goals and action must be taken. That was taken by President Bush. Just because Germany, France and Russia did not assist (you are aware they were dealing with Saddam in the background, benefiting from the UN Oil for Food scandal that totally removes any creditiblity from those countries and the UN).

    So, why continue on with this. A real reaction from the US means they think twice before striking us again. A no reaction or nothing of consequence gives them ammunition to strike again and again. Our military might keeps us safe, not our diplomats.

    In terms of the over-all scope of things, we are doing and should be doing even more along the lines that Israel is doing. Get hit --- STRIKE BACK. Make them pay for everything they do. If Israel just sat and took it, the state of Israel would not be in existance.

    Ben

    ---------

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    True but we clearly fear different things. You fear some nameless outside threat while I fear that our government will take our freedom in the name of protecting us from outside threats. Perhaps we need a little sense of proportion.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Read the Mass court decision. One finding was that, under the Constitution of Mass, the state was not free to define any institution in a way that created a separate, not to say second, class of citizen.
    I do not see that restricting marriage to the same sex creates a separate or second class citizen of gays any more than it does siblings.
  7. #67  
    well done, bclinger.
  8. #68  
    And like others, let her marry with a same sex union - not marriage. Government does not need to get involved in marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is for the continuation of mankind. Marriage produces children. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other. No way. Let them live together, but do not water down an instution that is the foundation of society and civilization. I am married and proud to be married to a woman and together we have produced three fine children.

    Ben

    ----------------
    Quote Originally Posted by fmertz
    Walk in someone else's shoes and the road appears a bit different. Years ago I hired a woman that did not hide her choice. In the intervening years, she has become a great friend. She has also built a solid company doing work for Fortune 50 companies. She pays more taxes to this country than the overwhelming majority of Americans. She is smart, friendly, a great cook, and a lover of animals. And she shouldn't be allowed to marry because...?
  9. #69  
    You really are misguided here. Dang shame, I wish I could justify spannikng a definition to the ends of the universe to make it meet what I want it to.

    Ben

    ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Before it was done by government, it was done by the church. If I remember my history, that was the issue between Henry and Becket; Becket lost. Are you ready to go back to that?

    For thousands of years, marriage was about the inheritance of property. In the 20th century it was about reproductive rights. In the 21st century it is about the distribution of economic benefits.
  10. #70  
    You need to look in your dictionary and look up a word or two. Totalitarian? The US a totalitarian government? Our government frightening us with fear of a foreign enemy? Buddy, you are of base by a billion miles.

    Our government has warned us of impending attack and urged us to continue our daily lives with caution. Totalitarian? Get a life. There is no way you can support that with a fifty mile stick pointing at yourself.

    "Godless Communism" as you quote intended to destroy this country during the cold war. Were you around then? Do you know what countries felt the rath of communism? The millions upon millions of people killed in the name of communism by communist leaders?

    Compromising civil liberties? What civil liberties of yours have been compromised. None of mine. Religious zealots? You betcha on that one - they will kill you while you are smiling at them and asking your government to sit on its *** and kiss xxxxx.

    Goodness, what a waste.

    Ben

    --------

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Interesting. In the thirty years after WWII, I was seriously concerned about the trend of the US toward socialism and secular humanism. Incidentally, our government claimed that we had to compromise our civil liberties in the name of protecting ourselves from "Godless Communism."

    However, for the last thirty years, the thirty years that you refer to, I have been concerned about the drift of our society toward fascism. This time we are being asked to compromise our civil liberties in the name of protecting ourselves from religious zealots.

    Like most totalitarian governments, our government seems to prosper most when it frightens us with fear of a foreign enemy.
  11. #71  
    what is wrong with having marriage between a man and a woman, and then having a union between people of the same sex?

    we could unify 2 men or 2 women, they could enjoy the benefits and rights of being a unified couple.

    but marriage is a tradition that goes back centuries. it is not something that people will so easily modify and radically change - ancient greeks were well known to have same - sex affairs, but did THEY get married? or did they simply live as couples or as unions?

    what is so wrong with keeping our traditional values of marriage between a man and a woman sacred, but at the same time coming up with a similar but slightly different type of category for the same sex relationships?

    it won't be marriage, it could be termed a union - one that also brings with it the rights and benefits they are seeking?

    marriage often produces children, therefore future generations. ( not always, but usually)

    same sex relationships will not produce children, ( though they may adopt children ) it is inherently different.

    maybe not marriage, but how about a union?
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Ok I give up....

    whmuray, you are absolutely right. My Son and I are having a great discussion via email on this very subject. He is already convinced.

    But this is the way a progressive, pluralistic society works. Things like the definition of marriage are what define who we are as a society. You cannot make changes to that definition until the society actually reflects the definition. It is a relatively slow process. If you are one of those contemplating moving to Canada, rest assured that the more of you who "take your ball and go home", the slower this process will be.
    I agree completely. I used to be a segregationist.
  13. #73  
    oops, iyou beat me to it ben.
    I had the exact thoughts you did on this matter.
    I nearly posted an identical message!
    in any case, I agree completely.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    what is wrong with having marriage between a man and a woman, and then having a union between people of the same sex?

    we could unify 2 men or 2 women, they could enjoy the benefits and rights of being a unified couple.

    but marriage is a tradition that goes back centuries. it is not something that people will so easily modify and radically change - ancient greeks were well known to have same - sex affairs, but did THEY get married? or did they simply live as couples or as unions?

    what is so wrong with keeping our traditional values of marriage between a man and a woman sacred, but at the same time coming up with a similar but slightly different type of category for the same sex relationships?

    it won't be marriage, it could be termed a union - one that also brings with it the rights and benefits they are seeking?

    marriage often produces children, therefore future generations. ( not always, but usually)

    same sex relationships will not produce children, ( though they may adopt children ) it is inherently different.

    maybe not marriage, but how about a union?

    The young believe that the world has always been as they found it. I will just have to ask you to accept my word when I tell you that modern marriage is as far from marriage of a hundred, or even fifty, years ago, as a definition that included gay marriage would be from what you think of as marriage. Fifty years ago they would have hung us if we had told them that in only fifty years more marriages would end in divorce than in death (do us part).
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I agree completely. I used to be a segregationist.
    Honestly? How old are you?? Or were you being sarcastic.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Honestly? How old are you?? Or were you being sarcastic.
    I am what is called a septagenarian.
  17. #77  
    the strictness of marriage may have been modified over time, but have the basic values within it changed?

    no. you say the young feel things have always been as they are now - um.. that's kind of a condescending tone, isn't it? sounds like you don't give much weight to the views of younger people.

    I will agree that younger people do NOT have the same experience and perspective on life that their elders have, and many are misguided, but that does not mean that other young folks lack the understanding of the issues facing you as well as them.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I am what is called a septagenarian.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    the strictness of marriage may have been modified over time, but have the basic values within it changed?

    no. you say the young feel things have always been as they are now - um.. that's kind of a condescending tone, isn't it? sounds like you don't give much weight to the views of younger people.

    I will agree that younger people do NOT have the same experience and perspective on life that their elders have, and many are misguided, but that does not mean that other young folks lack the understanding of the issues facing you as well as them.
    "....but have the basic values within it changed?"

    Most of my contemporaries would answer "yes" for one man's "strictness" is another's basic value. We thought that "until death do us part" was a basic value. Today I am prepared to settle for "until the kids are grown" but modern marriage may not even go that far. I am prepared to settle and I have no problem with including within the contract all those that will settle.

    [I discourage young people from marrying a divorced person because I suspect that many, if not most of them, lack commitment.]

    How can I say this without sounding "condescending?" I am more likely to agree with the young as to what the basic values of marriage are than I am to agree with you.

    My hope for us is in the young. However, most of them have learned no more history than I had at their age. Trust me when I tell you that that condemns to recapitulate more of it than I would have them do. [Just for example, I am troubled by the bellicosity of much my children's rhetoric. I am troubled that they equate patrioism with the willingness to send others to war.]
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Could it be that I agree with you? I reread what you wrote (above) and agree
    i knew we`d get there, one day, chickdance! its good to find common ground with you!
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions