Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escor

[cxt]

IJ

I have nothing against gays, marriage or gay marrige---gays have as much right to be unhappyly married as anyone else.

Again, I still see it as a false distinction.

I don't get how you get from this hypocritical jerk to gay marriage.

In the first place, some peoples relgion holds that gays should not be married.
Demanding that they should accept something they disagree with on ie "you MUST accept our lifestyle!!!!!!!!!"

Which is an odd sort of arguement when you think about it.

Any dissent from "accept our lifestyle" is seen as the hight of intolerence.
Yet the argument would show NO tolerence for the "lifestyles" of those that DISAGREE with them.

Besides, the situtations you describe are little more than bogeymen.

List for me some folks that NEED to get a "partial birth" abortion that COULD NOT get one.

The law allows for each and every legal facet of gettng hitched---it just prevents standing the State in most places--for formally recognizing it as such.

If I loved someone, then there is little that would stop me from makeing them a part of my life.
I would up wills, trust agreements, co-joined funds, power of attorney, joint ownership of property/houseing, etc---each and every part of being married.
All of these and more are freely avalible--nothing is stopping you.

I would not let the State tell me what to do.

Nor would I put my life on hold until the State caught up with me.

Its only says "PURSUIT" of happiness, it does not GUARANTEE that you will get it.

[Valkenar]

IJ
In the first place, some peoples relgion holds that gays should not be married.
Demanding that they should accept something they disagree with on ie "you MUST accept our lifestyle!!!!!!!!!"

Well hold on a second here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that any religion should be forced to marry homosexual couples. Some religions (or particular congregations) accept it, some don't. That's fine. The question is whether the state should be condoning one group and not the other. I'm heterosexual, but it doesn't mean that I'm being forced to accept anything if gay people get married. It has nothing to do with me. If I didn't like it, I could put up signs or whatnot describing (in a non-defamatory manner) what I think is wrong with it. Nobody's religious or free speech rights are being curtailed anymore than they are because people celebrate different holidays.

Some racists think miscegenation is wrong, some even use religious arguments. They have every right to say or believe what they want, but as a society we've decided that the state has no business enshrining that kind of bigotry in law. Those racists aren't forced to accept interracial couples in the sense that they have to like it or say nice things about them. Similarly, if someone has a religious problem with gay marriage, fine, then let them be upset about it. Let them seek out a religious sect that agrees and would never perform a wedding for a homosexual couple. Let them speak out against what they see as immorality. That's fine, but institutionalized bigotry is not the answer. Furthermore, there is a religious freedoms issue with banning gay marriage, if the government wants to deny all religions the right to marry homosexual couples.

As for how we go from Vitter to gay marriage, here's his website.: http://www.vitter2004.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=20
"I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage. "

From a practical standpoint, you may be able to cobble together many of the same rights and privileges as a married couple. But isn't that a separate but equal argument? Why should homosexuals have to go through so much more hassle than heterosexuals?

[cxt]

Val

I don't know--I'm just pointing out that forceing people to accept/legitimaize your lifestyle is essentially the SAME one--regardless of which side of the fence your on.

If you firmly belive that gays should not have the same right to marriage as a stight person--well you would WRONG for one thing.

But for another, there is no real difference between the 2 stances--they BOTH demand that REGARDLESS of a person beliefs--they accept and legitimize somebody elses lifestyle.

As a nation--at the present time, we have decided any number of things are legit marriages.
We don't sanction multiple partners in a single marrige, we don't sanction gay marraige, we don't sanction child brides etc.

(well some States cut it pretty close. )

I seriously disagree with the State's positon on gay marriage BTW.

I just think its weird that both sides are using the same argument--more or less.

Maybe, "seperate but equal" probably does not really apply here.

But as far as I'm concernd, if I can set things up the way I wish, then I could care less what the State thinks or feels.

If I choose to do so I can set up a legal realtionship that accomplishs the same things/provides me the same set of responsibities and benefits that those in State sanctioned marrieges enjoy.

If the State does not like it--the State can go "F" itself.


(BTW since I'm single/stright I have a RAFT of complaints about how I'm getting screwed on all sorts of fronts with people that are "married" getting benefits that I DON'T have access to--both State sanctioned and socity at large.
There is a whole lot of unfair to go around. )

[Bill Glasheen]

But as far as I'm concernd, if I can set things up the way I wish, then I could care less what the State thinks or feels.

It's not as simple as that.

I can understand arguments about "sanctity of marriage" and the like based upon religious beliefs. You are right in that we set limits on what marriage can and cannot be under the eyes of the law.

But there are economic issues involved with same-sex partnership. There's the issues of adoption, child custody, health insurance for a "family", directing medical care in an emergency, etc. Once the honeymoon is over, there are all these other real life things that can become much more important than true love and/or intimacy.

I can equally say that I don't give a flying hoot about the government's view of my driving, and I'll do what I want. But I don't want or need to deal with the law, insuance premiums (insurance companies mine data on your driving record to set rates), and whether or not my state thinks I should have a license to drive my kids to school or to drive while traveling in another state for my work.

Details, details...

- Bill

[Valkenar]

(BTW since I'm single/stright I have a RAFT of complaints about how I'm getting screwed on all sorts of fronts with people that are "married" getting benefits that I DON'T have access to--both State sanctioned and socity at large.
There is a whole lot of unfair to go around. )

Well this I agree with. I think that optimally the state should get out of marriage-based legislation altogether.

I still think there's a difference between being forced to accept something and having something you don't approve of be allowed in society. At the moment I'm not sure how to articulate it better than that, but I'd liken it to cigarette smoking. I think it's completely disgusting and harmful to individuals and society, but I don't feel like I'm being forced to "accept cigarette smoking" just because other people in my country are allowed to do it.

[JimHawkins]

Libertarians don't have illicit sex Adam?

Show me someone who's in a position, which wields great power/fame/money and who ISN'T having illicit sex nor lying and I'll show you Jesus Christ..

Such issues just create more noise for morally confused Americans to jabber about--taking too many folk’s focus off the "ball" .... IMO folks should be a hell of a lot more focused on important issues, things that impact the well-being of the nation and it's people...

[Bill Glasheen]

but I don't feel like I'm being forced to "accept cigarette smoking" just because other people in my country are allowed to do it.

Tricky subject...

I travel at least monthly for business. There isn't a hotel I go to where I don't pass by an area that causes me to go into involuntary sneezing fits from the remnants of someone else's filthy habit. Often smokers will smoke in a nonsmoking room, and I have to get my sinuses trashed dealing with it at a future date.

I do not want my sons to smoke. I don't want them to suffer at a latter age from COPD the way my two uncles did. (They lived long lives, but were in terrible shape in their latter years.) And I don't like how some A-hole kid's habit may cause my own sons to start smoking before they legally should.

So yea, someone else's habit does more than tick me off. I don't want my boys to be exposed to something that'll destroy their quality of life. That's the way I view it. That's the way someone who deals with medical information every day would view it. So while I don't care if anyone chooses to smoke, I don't want them near me, my family, or my health insurance premiums in a pooled risk population.

Imagine someone who thinks the sun rises and sets with Jesus. I don't identify with their beliefs, but I could understand their desire to shelter their familes from things they don't approve of.

How the law gets involved - or not at all - is the tricky part.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Often smokers will smoke in a nonsmoking room, and I have to get my sinuses trashed dealing with it at a
future date.

Now I totally agree that when people smoke in my vicinity, it is adversely affecting me. I'll give you a run for your money in any smoke-hating contest, Bill. But the important difference between smoking and homosexuality is that it is a scientific fact that smoking is harmful. And as far as the inconvenience goes, I think that there's a pretty wide range of annoying behavior that might be unpleasant, but you just have to put up with. Cigarette smoke is unbelievably obnoxious to me, but oh well. If I ever wore a leather jacket, some PETA person would find that unbelievably obnoxious. So we both have to put up with some annoyance. On this basis, while I can recognize that seeing guys kiss makes some people very uncomfortable, I just don't think that discomfort warrants discriminatory legislation. On the other hand, the unarguable negative health effects of cigarette smoking *do* warrant legislation.

To summarize this clarification, the health effects of cigarette smoke are not analogous to homosexuality, but the annoyance factor is.

So yea, someone else's habit does more than tick me off. I don't want my boys to be exposed to something that'll destroy their quality of life.

Far be it from me to tell you how to be a parent, but I disagree that the right way to protect your kids is to keep them ignorant of things that are harmful. If you think something is harmful, then you must have a good reason for thinking that. Teach them why. You can't keep them insulated forever. Better to teach them early so that they're prepared to handle it when they do encounter things that could be potentially harmful. Just my opinion on it. And that's the great thing, you have a right to raise your kids the way you think is best, and I have a right to raise my (future) kids the way I think is best.

Imagine someone who thinks the sun rises and sets with Jesus. I don't identify with their beliefs, but I could understand their desire to shelter their familes from things they don't approve of.

Yeah, well, too bad. What if I want to shelter my kids from religion? Does that mean I have a right to tell Christians to take the crosses of their churches? Of course not. There's a ton of things I don't approve of, and my job as a parent isn't to try to legislate that nobody can do any of these things, it's to make sure I teach my kids what is right.

I get that they hate homosexuality, and that's fine, they can go ahead and champion bigotry all they want. And yeah, I get that they think homosexuality is potentially harmful to their kids. But the bottom line is that we can't, at a governmental level, try and eliminate every shred of anything that could possibly be offensive to someone. Nobody would ever be allowed to leave their house.

[IJ]

"Perhaps it's easy for you to be blind in that way because you've never had to work for a large corporation with oppressive HR policies."

Who's blind?? I work for the University of CALIFORNIA, Bill... they mandate 3 hours of workplace gender/race/whatever sensitivity training. I think you're mistaking my lack of interest in the Clinton scandal for tacit approval--that ain't the case. Next issue....

CXT:
"Again, I still see it as a false distinction."
--I'm aware that you see it thusly, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Unless you were noting Clinton's involvement in the federal marriage act or whatever its called (which most believe was coerced by divisive politics like those of the John in question; Clinton has been otherwise gay friendly), only one of these two men made an active public endeavor of criticizing people for attacking marriage and was doing it himself behind the scenes. In fact, he was ruining his marriage, whereas he was opposing gay marriage without a practical reason, so perhaps its worse. You can "see it" however you want, but its a valid distinction, period.

"In the first place, some peoples relgion holds that gays should not be married. Demanding that they should accept something they disagree with on ie "you MUST accept our lifestyle!!!!!!!!!" Which is an odd sort of arguement when you think about it."
--You must be referring to YOUR argument. This country has freedom of religion. That does not mean you get to tell other people how to practice their private lives!!! SOME religion forbids gay marriage, some religion celebrates it, some people are atheist. The State does not ESTABLISH one of those views over the others. *I* don't get to force my atheism on religious people; they don't get to forbid my marraige (per the Constitution, anyway). Haven't you noticed that some religious people won't take any caffeine or alcohol or pig, and yet, they haven't earned the right to deprive the rest of us?

"Any dissent from "accept our lifestyle" is seen as the hight of intolerence.
Yet the argument would show NO tolerence for the "lifestyles" of those that DISAGREE with them."
--Ok, this doesn't make sense. CXT, I tolerate, and accept, the religions of those who chose them--their right to practice, get married, teach their children the earth is 10,000 years old, and hate me if they want. THEY do not always tolerate my right to live my life. THEY want to bar me from full citizenship; I am not trying to jail, fine, or deprive them of marriage benefits. Maybe you can't see this distinction, either--maybe you need to have your marraige plans thwarted to "get it"--but I can't make it any more plain.

"List for me some folks that NEED to get a "partial birth" abortion that COULD NOT get one."
--This is a nonsequitor. However, if you would like a well reasoned explanation of why the recent SCOTUS ruling was in error, I'll direct you (in antoher thread) to The New England Journal's take on it.

"If I loved someone, then there is little that would stop me from makeing them a part of my life.
I would up wills, trust agreements, co-joined funds, power of attorney, joint ownership of property/houseing, etc---each and every part of being married."
--Thank you for your impashioned defense of my right to spend hours and thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting to approximate the state of marraige because the country bars me from it. By the way, could you direct me to my special water fountain? (NOTE: Virginia specifically bans any attempt to approximate the state of marriage; if you are interested in the exact language, visit Bill's speeding petition thread).

"As a nation--at the present time, we have decided any number of things are legit marriages.
We don't sanction multiple partners in a single marrige, we don't sanction gay marraige, we don't sanction child brides etc."
--So are you saying it would be within the state's power to decide that, oh, whites can't marry blacks? (see "Loving v Virginia--odd that the state that proclaims it "is for lovers" is always in the middle of a Constitutional battle over their discriminatory marriage law, eh). If not, how would this be different? Why is race in invalid criterion and gender is not? Why not... ban Catholic-Jewish weddings? Why not... ban weddings for convicts of spousal or child abuse? Why come after the gays BEFORE banning marraige for violent offenders?!?

"BTW since I'm single/stright I have a RAFT of complaints about how I'm getting screwed on all sorts of fronts with people that are "married" getting benefits that I DON'T have access to--both State sanctioned and socity at large. There is a whole lot of unfair to go around."
--Tell me... what aren't you getting because you're straight? Dying to know. As for your gripes of singlehood, at least you CAN get married... but beyond that, presuming your complaints are legit--two wrongs don't make a right.

[Bill Glasheen]

I disagree that the right way to protect your kids is to keep them ignorant of things that are harmful. If you think something is harmful, then you must have a good reason for thinking that. Teach them why.

The theory is great, Justin. In practice the philosophy falls apart.

A parent can do all the explaining and teaching that they want. Better yet is to live by example. But at a certain age, a kid suddenly listens a lot less to their parents, and a lot more to their peers. Surrounding your kids with good peers at these precious ages is vital.

It goes deeper than that though. With cigarettes as with other addictive or potentially addictive substances (e.g. alcohol) WHEN you are exposed is a big, big predictor for the likelihood that you'll develop a lifelong addiction. If you start smoking before the age of 19 - and that goes well into the rebellious adolescent years - then your chance of being able to kick the habit later in life is pretty poor. The brain's arrangement and numbers of various receptors is very plastic at a younger age, and more fixed later on.

And then let's not forget the well-documented associations between second-hand smoke and ENT/respiratory afflictions for kids. If we didn't ask for it, didn't buy it, and don't want it, no need to be exposed to it.

Your values will change when you have kids and their behaviors are being shaped, Justin.

Note however that I'm not necessarily suggesting government make laws about things I don't approve of. I'm merely suggesting that I understand how social conservatives feel the ways they do. Nobody's going to be doing anything positive if we're assuming the rightness of our positions, and the wrongness of others.

Case in point.
[quote=""Valkenar"]

I get that they hate homosexuality, and that's fine, they can go ahead and champion bigotry all they want.[/quote]
Wow... You remind me of an interview I saw last night of Bobby Kennedy Jr. He was defining Facism as government run or heavily influenced by corporations - according to the American Heritage dictionary. Woah!!!

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion

So there you go. Disapproval of a sexual practice is NOT bigotry.

I disapprove of random sex in bathrooms, Justin. Does that make me a bigot? And yea, that's more than an annoyance. Have I cast aspersions upon any particular group, race, or religion? Are my views irrational?

Many Christians say "Love the sinner, hate the sin." What-ever. If it works for them, I say go with it. Sounds to me like you've got a pretty workable middle ground there. Gays don't have to hate devout christians, and vice versa. Doing either would constitute bigotry - by definition. If you keep government out of it and teach them to love each other, then there's a workable peace.

Is tolerance a one way street?

- Bill

[IJ]

Irrational emotional reactions or pre-judging of someone for their religion or their sexual orientation is bigotry, or prejudice.

Mere disapproval of someone's religious beliefs or sexual orientation is not the same thing. Conservative christians are perfectly welcome to hope their kid grows up without falling in love with someone of the same sex or with the teachings of Muhammed. They just have to recognize I'd wish just as fervently my kid has the courage to be honest about whomever he or she falls in love with and embraces science instead of Biblical literalism, or Muhammed.

Neither one of us, IMHO, ought to use the force of law to prevent other families from conveying those opinions to their kids. Neither one ought to use law to prevent the other from getting married or practicing a religion or whatever private harmless activity they choose in their homes.

We shouldn't compare "yes for gay marriage" vs "no for gay marriage." To get a reality check, you can perceive the sanity of "no for gay marriage" by contemplating "no to christian or heterosexual marriage." In a free country, one ought to have a compelling reason to mess with someone else's lives... I've heard none proposed except the fragile sensitivities of "traditional marriage" advcates for cutting part of our society out of this practice.

[Valkenar]

The theory is great, Justin. In practice the philosophy falls apart.

Well, I think this is an interesting topic, but for now I'll leave it be. Mind if I start another thread by quoting the relevant parts of this one?

So there you go. Disapproval of a sexual practice is NOT bigotry.

Sure, just like disapproval of Hanukkah isn't technically anti-semitism.

Gay marriage isn't gay sex. If you ban gay marriage, you haven't banned any behavior, all you've done is make life difficult for a group of people. Therefore, banning gay marriage is an inherently bigoted act because it targets a group and not a behavior.

That whole argument is just a way of not admitting to being bigoted. Besides, plenty of people who are in favor of banning gay marriage are openly anti-homosexual, not just anti-homosexual activity.

Bottom line: Homosexuals are a group. Irrational suspicion or hatred of them is bigotry.

I disapprove of random sex in bathrooms, Justin. Does that make me a bigot?

No, but I think it's interesting that you always go to the "sex in public bathrooms" argument whenever the subject of gay people comes up. I mean, it's a complete red herring, unless you're trying to argue that homosexuals are morally degenerate as a group because you had to put up with a degenerate subset of them having sex in public bathrooms. Since I'm pretty sure you're not trying to argue that, what is your point?

Doing either would constitute bigotry - by definition. If you keep government out of it and teach them to love each other, then there's a workable peace.

Sounds good to me. Don't ban gay marriage, and don't force any religions to perform marriages for homosexuals. That way, the government is kept clear of it. I think we should all get along, but having our government tell a bunch of people that they're second class citizens isn't the way to do it.

[AAAhmed46]

Libertarians don't have illicit sex Adam?

Show me someone who's in a position, which wields great power/fame/money and who ISN'T having illicit sex nor lying and I'll show you Jesus Christ..

Such issues just create more noise for morally confused Americans to jabber about--taking too many folk’s focus off the "ball" .... IMO folks should be a hell of a lot more focused on important issues, things that impact the well-being of the nation and it's people...

But when a libertarian visits a prostitute, he doesn't preach ' BLARG!!! DURKA DURKA!!! JIHAD JIHAD!!!JESUS JESUS CHRIST LORD BUDHDA!!!!!!KRISHNA!!KRISHNAA!!!
IN THEIR NAME, I STAND FOR GODS WILL, YOU STUPID HOMO/PROSTITUTES ARE EVIL AND SINFUL

FOLLOW ME!!!!!

While libertarian politicians platforms are not dependent on such things...generally.

Although...how many openly libertarian/athiest republicans are there?

[IJ]

I <3 your Team America reference

[cxt]

IJ

I mean no disrespect to you in ANY regard.

But I just don't know how we can keep "talking" when you don't read my posts or understand what I am saying.

Lets just blame it on me and say that its my fault for not being clear.

I'll try again, its a question of "freedom of relgion"--not really.
But lets use that as a basis for discussion.

If you feel that your relgion says gays should not be enjoy offcial government sanction as marriead then people running around trying to get such laws passed ARE "forceing their values" on YOU.

"They" are just as much of sociaty as you. And attempts to legatimize what they see as wrong is just as much of an assualt on their values and beliefs and outlooks as YOU feel when they they do it to you.

I'm NOT makeing a judgement BTW--just pointing out that BOTH groups are weirdly using essnetiall the same argument/makeing the same demands for "other" people to respect THEIR beliefs.

Its a "false distrinction" mainly because despite the parseing your doing, fundamentally, BOTH men proved to be liars and hypocritics.
Your just wanting to be REALLY specific as to EXACTLY where their lies and hypocrosy took place.
Clinton used his wife and child to make political hay just as thee other nitwit did.
Both guys gave the impression of "family" men, while both were runnign around on their wives.
Both gave the impression of being "family" men while betraying that family repeatadly.

Like I said your wating to parse that out far more than is warrented or even useful.

Nope, YOU SAID that people that NEEDED--among other things "a partial birth abortion" all I asked for were the facts the matter--as whom exactly needed one and could not get it.
Its a NOT a "non-sequter" its a request for facts.

My "gripes" as you so charmingly put it is that in order to get all kinds of benefits I HAVE TO GET MARRIED OR LEAGALLY LIST A DOMESTIC PARTNER

Why should I have to???????

Why should married folks and domestic partners get breaks I don't????

(as just one example, I can't get my girlfriend (live in or otherwise) listed on my companies insurence--I could if I married her or if I was gay I could get on as my domestic partner--those are my only options)

If I live with someone I can file things as I could as wedded or legal domestic partner.

( I have to live with them for many many years to even be counted as "common law" relations.)

Is there something wrong with being single?

Why does socity value me less as single person than they do someone that is married or has a domestic partner???

There is little fairness in that--but that is how it works.

I don't blame you for being upset.

But as a victem of socities judgements about single folks, I have problems of my own.

The differenc is that you can solve all or most of your thu legal means.

I have only 2 options--marry or get a domestic partner.