QUICK LINKS
Tolerance: The New Truth
The traditional meaning of tolerance means, to “endure” or put up with something such as a persons behavior, belief, or attitude, without necessarily agreeing with them.
The statement, “love the sinner, hate the sin” has grown out of the traditional meaning of tolerance.
However, today’s new and revised definition would be better defined as “love the sinner, love the sin.”
The definition of tolerance in today’s world says that a person’s behavior, beliefs and attitudes are inseparable from who she or he is. Therefore, any attack on behavior, beliefs or attitudes is seen as a personal attack.
This evolution of tolerance is the result of the evolution of other aspects of human existence, including the concept of truth.
Simply stated, the evolution has gone through three stages. First, under ethical theism, people believed that all truth was revealed by God. In the second stage, modernism, the emphasis shifted from God to man, and the concepts of truth changed from being what is revealed by God to being something that is discernable by man. Finally, in the third, post modern stage, truth has changed from being something that is collectively true for human beings to something that is determined by each individual person, based on that person’s culture, which in turn consists of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs.
Because each person’s idea of truth is based on their unique culture, we accept the Biblical idea that all people are created equal, but reject the idea that there is any superior truth, such as the Bible. Instead all truth claims are equally valid.
Which brings me to what I wanted to say.
Christians believe that Jesus is God and that “He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” His truth is superior to other “truths” because He is the Truth. These biblical convictions, when viewed through the lens of “new truth,” are seen as intolerant. It is then O.K. for a tolerant society, or group within that society, to persecute it in what ever way is necessary to force it to become tolerant.
The tactic then to make Christians conform is to equate non-agreement with phobia, non-conformity with hate, conviction with fanaticism, Christian creeds, prayers and symbols with discrimination, and selective segregation with justice.
In this environment, which defines our culture today, a crucifix suspended in urine is considered art, animals and the environment are more important than people, sexual perversion is encouraged while traditional families are discouraged.
Every time someone like Faith & Freedom or others take a position in support of traditional marriage, they are called bigoted, and accused of being filled with hate.
When Christian leaders attempt to advance Judeo-Christian values in our society, they are called “narrow” or accused of trying to create a “theocracy.”
The Founding Fathers embraced the beliefs of “ethical theism” that all truth is revealed by God. This is reflected in their letters, their speeches and in the wonderful documents they wrote in framing the laws and society of this great country.
These beliefs gave us the greatest country in the history of the world.
One can only wonder if left unchecked, what kind of country the “individual truth” folks will deliver to our children.
This is why we at Faith & Freedom do what we do. Thank you to all who are standing with us.
Josh McDowell has written a great book on this subject. I highly recommend it. It’s entitled, “The New Tolerance.”
______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
61 Comments:
Tolerance, so called Human Rights Organizations and the PC crowd are perfect examples of how a world view has actually decreased human rights and interactions . I would say this blog is a perfect example .
Conservatives defintely do not have the market on kindness , good manners , being kind to your neighbor . I know of many liberals who are the kindest people in the world , in fact I know some liberal homosexuals also who get an A in kindness. . I also know a few who are about the nastiness people also , but just like conservatives , you get the bad and the good .
BUT world views , with a traditional bent are taboo in many places , like the media , academia , etc . thats not tolerance ... Thats apartheid .
this notion of tolerance by the left is a joke .
Israel a few thousand years ago was conquered twice , a country basically with absolute rules and laws , what liberals today would call oppressed sexuality ,yet were defeated and ruthlessly murdered and beaten down by two empires . Both promoted free sex , any or no gods , and if it feels good do it .. By today standards , the Jews would be intolerant .. Looks to me the Romans were the intolerant ones ..
Thats what gets me with this tolerance dogma , JC could be a nice guy , only knowing him through his world view of his values, the way he JUDGES people , Boyscouts suck , to me they teach kids to be good people , responsible , kind to others , respectful , and provides something for youth to do . Not enough organizations do that . JC bases his views on a world view that tends to get you to think he is a smuck .
However He could be the first guy who stops on the road to help someone with a flat , and I might just drive by .. I think the first example of helping a person has more to do with showing someone tolerance . The left has stolen what is important with a new viewpoint that does little to improve our neigborhoods , in fact , has made them worse .
Yes, and all that is ever asked for is tolerance, just as your particular sect's beliefs are.
Let's be clear, you are not THE Christians, you are just one particular sect's view of Christianity. Christians are the strongest supporters of marriage equality, equal rights, equal access to government and the separation of church from state that makes our way of life possible.
Even the Deist, Thomas Jefferson thought that the philosophy and morality of Jesus Christ was sublime and even produced two versions of the Gospels that reflected what he thought was important about that message.
Of course, no where in these documents could there be found a single phrase that would say that the love of two people is somehow sinful just because of the same gender.
The goal of Gary is to force everyone to live by his view of Christianity whether they belong to his sect or not, a view that has little in way of correlation with the teachings of Christ or the founding father's intent.
Christian values are based on love as per Christ's two greatest commandments, they are not based on the dogma of any particular sect.
- Don't want to eat shrimp, you don't have to, but don't think that gives you a right to stop others from eating them.
- Don't think its right to lend money for interest you don't have to but don't think that means you can stop others from doing so.
- Don't want to build your life with someone of the same gender then you don't have to, but don't think that means you can tell someone they can't or make the government say their marriage isn't as worthy of licensing just because you think it isn't due to solely dogmatic reasons.
Why do you have such a driving need to hurt others who have done you no harm Gary?
Mr. Randall once again use the victimized Christians idea to paint his organization, and other theocratic organizations as merely "taking a stand" against this attack:
"The tactic then to make Christians conform is to equate non-agreement with phobia, non-conformity with hate, conviction with fanaticism, Christian creeds, prayers and symbols with discrimination, and selective segregation with justice."
Once again he ignores that the problem that "secularists" have with conservative Christian politics is that they want to force their personal beliefs of discrimination into the laws of this nation.
Tolerance means making room for many beliefs, faiths, and cultures, so long as they do not infringe on the others. It means having a society where people have the absolute freedom to practice and live out those beliefs. That includes conservative Christians.
Here's a great example. The Amish. The Amish practice a very conservative and ultra-orthodox version of Christianity. They have very strong prohibitions of sexual behavior.
Yet they do not suffer what Mr. Randall and others characterize as the attacks of "secularists." Why, because they are not seeking to force their beliefs on others. They are only seeking to live out those beliefs.
Mr. Randall and FFN wants to legislate their version of Biblical morality on others that do not share their beliefs.
To do this they seek to convince others that share their religious views that they are being attacked, when really it is Randall and FFN that is doing the attacking.
Those that come to christ and have relationship with him are christians....Most christians are strong supporters of Marriage. Just as marriage is. Not what you wish it to be oshi...Gods truth is in the bible it states that no man should lay with another man.
No one has come up with legislation for no eating shrimp. You have free will. No one is saying do not lay with another man(except the bible) your choice again. No one is stopping you from marrying. (the oposit sex) With anything and everything their is limits. And excess. You are a bit excessive-oshi.
You seem to think that Gary is a one man show -hurting people. This is about showing the light of both sides. Yours and mine. I want to know what is going on. I want to hear what others say so I can grow stronger in gods word.. I can pray and read gods word and come here to find open conversation. That is what is here. All of it on one site. You are being allowed to voice your opinion here. As am I. You are blessed to have not been raised in IRAQ where you have no rights under Sadam ..You oshi would be killed. Thank God for your blessings and stop the gripe about how you think Gary is hurting you and your gay relationship. Your relationship is what it is and until you face it-a legal marriage is not going to help you.
yours truely ,ANONYMOUS BY CHOICE!
"Every time someone like Faith & Freedom or others take a position in support of traditional marriage, they are called bigoted, and accused of being filled with hate."
That's a lie. Anyone with half an open mind who spends three minutes around here knows that is a lie. FFN lives to pretend they are the victim all the time and everything they do is on the path to martyrdom. Maybe the problem is that the ONLY threat FFN ever sees to traditional marriage is GAY marriage and nothing else.
"When Christian leaders attempt to advance Judeo-Christian values in our society, they are called “narrow” or accused of trying to create a “theocracy.”"
Judeo-Christian values like destroying the environment for big business profit? Like starting an unnecessary and unwinnable war in Iraq? Like tax cuts for millionaires? Like making sure every kid in America has the right to access a handgun in their own home? Like pretending you are God and therefore have the right to condemn people to death? Maybe the problem isn't Christian leaders trying to have Judeo-Christian values, but it's Christian leaders mistakenly promoting Republican values erroneously as Judeo-Christian ones.
"The Founding Fathers embraced the beliefs of “ethical theism” that all truth is revealed by God. This is reflected in their letters, their speeches and in the wonderful documents they wrote in framing the laws and society of this great country."
The Founding Fathers were people who thought women deserved no rights, non-whites were sub-human, and that the Bible could be edited to include whatever you like. Don't glorify them as Christian leaders or as having all the right answers in the slightest.
Gods truth is in the bible it states that no man should lay with another man.
No it says it is a ritually unclean act, same as wearing cloth of 2 fibers, eating shrimp, having sex with a menstruating woman and a host of other ritually unclean acts which were prohibitions against the ancient Hebrews, no one else.
And I am married - just want a license from the state for my marriage same as yours. Exactly how does denying me equal access to government not demonstrate hatred?
Gary's message is that everyone has to be tolerant of Christian "truths" because they are based on the Bible and that they then should override everyone else.
If you don't believe in Christian "truths" then you are intolerant of his beliefs. And Gary doesn't have to be tolerant of other's non-biblical beliefs because his Christian ones outrank others.
Too bad he doesn't realize that just because his beliefs are "biblical" makes them no more worthy or valid than any others' beliefs. Of course, no one every accused Gary of being tolerant that opposing beliefs could be "true".
Leviticus 18:22 sayss that homosexuality is an abomination. It was ritually unclean, and ethically wicked.
Roman ch. 1 in the New Testament repeats the message. Romans 1 is for all Christians, not just some particular sect. Homosexuality is wrong in the sight of God, and will lead to terrible consequences, not just to the particular people involved, but to whole nations. Read The Pink Swastika, Homosexuality in the Nazi Party by Scott Lively & Kevin Abrams.
The God Hater said ...
Exactly how does denying me equal access to government not demonstrate hatred?
Great debate point ? Have you never heard of separation of perversion and state ?
What you do in the privacy of your home or bathhouse is none of anyone's business, tax breaks for perverts gives me a say in the matter .
Anon 4:05pm,
Wow. Your fear and hatred are truly impressive.
Andrew I would state Oshtur Vishanti is fearfull . Hatred maybe . Tolerance is allowing others to live without making those choices conflict with your life . Homosexual marriage , polygamist , or any extension of the rights of marriage to other groups causes the tax burden to be increased , not to mention the social security taxes and payouts . Tolerance is a two way street , and it does not mean agreement .
A truely tolerant position would be if you think something is sin, don't engage in it. That is not the positions FFN has taken, they think something is sin, so they attempt to prevent anyone else from engaging in it through government force (or threat of violence as conservatives are wont to say when talking about taxes.
"The definition of tolerance in today’s world says that a person’s behavior, beliefs and attitudes are inseparable from who she or he is. Therefore, any attack on behavior, beliefs or attitudes is seen as a personal attack."
So, since you are allegedly opposed to this view, are we to believe that FFN would not see attacks on Christianity as personal attacks against them. The postings on this blog certianly indicate otherwise.
"In this environment, which defines our culture today, a crucifix suspended in urine is considered art, animals and the environment are more important than people, sexual perversion is encouraged while traditional families are discouraged."
Serrano's P*** Christ was made over 20 years ago, get over it. As for animals and the environment, I know of very few folks, who say they are more important than, people, most environmentalists just think that they are important as well. I also know of no groups that are discouraging traditional families, I know of many groups that support recognition of other types of families, but none of them discourage traditional families.
"Every time someone like Faith & Freedom or others take a position in support of traditional marriage, they are called bigoted, and accused of being filled with hate."
I have yet to see FFN take a position in support of traditional marraige. What I have seen them do is take positions in OPPOSITION to same sex marriage. Big difference the former, were FFN to actually take it, would be to encourage folks to partake in their veiw of marriage, the latter is an attempt to prevent anyone, who doesn't share FFN's view from living according to their views.
If you really believed the things in your post, Gary, you wouldn't be advocating laws to legalize discrimination against folks for having beliefs different from your own and living according to those beliefs. Instead you advocate such laws, and then play the martyr when criticized.
-JC
"Thats what gets me with this tolerance dogma , JC could be a nice guy , only knowing him through his world view of his values, the way he JUDGES people , Boyscouts suck , to me they teach kids to be good people , responsible , kind to others , respectful , and provides something for youth to do . Not enough organizations do that . JC bases his views on a world view that tends to get you to think he is a smuck ."
I don't think the Boyscouts suck, I think they do a lot that is commendable. I also know that, per their own admission, they discriminate in their membership based on religous belief and sexual orientation. As such, I do not think they should get any preferential treatment from goverment bodies that are funded by all citizens, including those that the BSA discriminates against.
"However He could be the first guy who stops on the road to help someone with a flat , and I might just drive by .. I think the first example of helping a person has more to do with showing someone tolerance . The left has stolen what is important with a new viewpoint that does little to improve our neigborhoods , in fact , has made them worse ."
I would be the first to stop and help someone with a flat. In fact I just recently voluntarily took a layoff at my job, because I don't have a family to support and am in a financial situation where I could better survive the layoff than others. I seriously doubt many here would have done the same, in fact I suspect that they, as did several professed Christians at my office, would look out for #1 and screw everyone else.
-JC
"we accept the Biblical idea that all people are created equal" can someone provide us with chapter & verse for this claim, I find it highly doubtful that a book, which talks about how a master should treat their slaves, and was actively used by many religious groups (Southern Babptists for one) to defend slavery and Jim Crow would contain such an idea.
-JC
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them, And God blessed them, and God said unto them. Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it;..."
"Thy word is truth"
Whether we believe God or not, HE RULES! He is the source of all truth and righteousness, both of which are necessary to secure "peace."
The most American thing any of us can support is equal treatment of ALL Americans.
That means, if straight people are allowed to marry someone they can love, gay people should be able to also. It's not American to make gays choose between love and marriage when straights do not have to make that choice. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, then thank God he did not make you a homosexual. But don't ask our country to treat your neighbors unequally.
If Christians are free to practice their religion, all other Americans should be free to practice their religions, too. But allowing your gay neighbor to marry is not in any way an infringement on your right to practice your religion. You will never be forced to marry a member of the same-sex. But it is unAmerican to demand your neighbors endure unequal treatment based on your beliefs.
Each of us -- Christian, Muslim, agnostic and atheist -- straight and gay -- black, white or yellow -- MUST FIGHT to uphold these American principles.
The moment that any one belief becomes the "basis" for US law, each of us is susceptible to unequal treatment by our government. Those in power never stay in power forever.
I cringe when I see Christians fighting for a nation of laws based on Christianity... What does it mean to be a Christian nation? Your Christianity might not be the Christianity that wields power. Many Christians support same-sex marriage. Others would deny you a divorce (which I know many of you have, and which are prohibited by the Bible). Many Christians believe in polygamy. Some would ban sex outside marriage, others allow it.
No group stays in power forever. What happens when atheists gain power and decide this country is a "secular" nation and Christianity is banned? Or that Christians cannot marry or reproduce because their religion is "harmful" to children?
I would rather "equality" be the basis of our government's treatment of its citizens rather than the tenuous beliefs of one group or another... Wouldn't you? We might not approve of every action our neighbors take, but we should uphold the right of each of us to live our lives freely and free of discrimination.
JC ,
Bibically it is taught that all men are created equal . If you are really interested I can look up the verses , but it states God is no respecter of persons . I actually like the idea he loves us equally . Regardless of ourselves . Just like a Father loves his kids , even the pain in the butts who keep moving back home .
I was always taught that way .. When you talk about people using the bible to justify slavery or whatever , it is just human nature to justify our prejudices .
You do it all the time yourself .Even in the way you presented your disbelief of what is common knowledge . Ever hear of the Gettysburg address. Where you think those words came from mostly ?
If you study history , the abolitionist were all religious golks , who used scripture to motivate others to help get the slaves out of the south by the under ground railway , also about 600000 people died in our American Civil War ..
Anonymous wrote: I find it highly doubtful that a book, which talks about how a master should treat their slaves, and was actively used by many religious groups (Southern Babptists for one) to defend slavery and Jim Crow would contain such an idea.
Try the book of Deuteronomy, anonymous.
Fairness to rich and poor alike were expected under Jewish law. Deu.t 15:7 and 24:14 for example.
Anonymous wrote:I cringe when I see Christians fighting for a nation of laws based on Christianity...
Just wait a little while. When Islam becomes dominant in our land, perhaps then, you will have a better appreciation for this country which was founded on Biblical principles.
I pray it never happens. I pray you never suffer the wrath of Allah under Sharia law
JC said ,
I don't think the Boyscouts suck, I think they do a lot that is commendable. I also know that, per their own admission, they discriminate in their membership based on religous belief and sexual orientation. As such, I do not think they should get any preferential treatment from goverment bodies that are funded by all citizens, including those that the BSA discriminates against.
Well e mail can be hard sometimes to understand , but you were a bit more negative in your portrayal the last time I discussed this with you . But your world view tells you JC that no religious belief or moral code "traditional moral code" means it is discriminate free. You lack the understanding , or just refuse to acknowledge to concede that no god and no values is just as discriminating .. You look at things from a purely secular view , with no consideration of a world view that disagrees with that .
I would be the first to stop and help someone with a flat. In fact I just recently voluntarily took a layoff at my job, because I don't have a family to support and am in a financial situation where I could better survive the layoff than others. I seriously doubt many here would have done the same, in fact I suspect that they, as did several professed Christians at my office, would look out for #1 and screw everyone else.
-JC
You see you just went up in my view of you and the person you are. God loves us just the same to get back to that all men are created equal view , and your obvious hatred of Christians comes through also .. I know too many people who would do as you would , who are Christian ... You may be a nice guy , but your opinions are still warped with hatred. It will end up eating you up , this blog is not probably a good thing for you .
RE: How can you say gay marriage is a Constitutional Right and a Polygamist Marriage is not?
Here's how: One of our nation's most cherished principles is that of equality. That does not only mean that laws must not exclude people; it also means that all of us must be "similarly situated" under the law.
Marriage laws do not exclude anyone. A gay man is free to marry any woman, as many people have noted.
However, gay people are not similarly situated under the marriage laws as written. One of the fundamental components of marriage is that of sexual attraction / love. For whatever reason, it is clear that there is a constant minority of people for whom opposite-sex attraction and love is not an option. For those people, marriage AND love is unattainable. Gays must chose either or, but they cannot have both. But straights can choose marriage AND love together.
That is discrmination.
Think of it this way. Let's say Christian belief dictates that they cannot shop on Sundays (I'm making this up). A law that stated "all sales can occur only on Sundays" would apply to us equally. Afterall, I could say that the stores are not closed to Christians; they are free to shop any day of the week! But only Christians would be denied access to the sales unless they compromised their chosen religious beliefs. Everyone else would be able to take advantage of the sales without compromising anything so important. Christians would not be similarly situated under the law. That would be discrimination.
Now, let's talk about polygamists. If a polygamist can fall in love with two or more people, he can certainly fall in love with one. It's impossible to not fall in love with someone until you have already fallen in love with someone else (or many someone elses). Therefore, polygamists cannot claim to be excluded from marriage laws nor can they claim they are not similarly situated under the law. That is not discrimination.
With same-sex marriage, all people would be similarly situated under the law. Gays will finally have what straights take for granted every day. But there is currently NO group of people who have any rights akin to polyamorous marriage that is currently denied to polygamists.
babcock_tony@yahoo.com
JC ,
The difference I always understood from the Bible was we were all created by the same God . You and me .
Say evolution you can say one race evolved better , or smarter .. But from all the Bibical text I ever read , I always got out of it that God created us the same , and the whole lot of us messed things up .. The Bible does talk about slavery and such .. The slave owners used those scriptures to support their sins from my perspective . The bible , and my Belief system tells me Jesus loves you where you are . So in your case your the guy who stops and helps the person fix his falt tire , and me well i might be the gy who makes the excuse and keeps on driving . Jesus loves us the same , and meets us and starts the relationship at the same time .
The Bible tells the slave owners to treat the slaves kindly , it does not support slavery ... It also tells the slaves to be trustworthy also . It does not say they should be slaves ... It dealt with the institution of slavery , ...
To me common sense says slavery is wrong , but we have that luxury of our culture telling and teaching us that ...
“God is no respecter of persons.” Acts 10:34
Malachi 2:10
10 Have we not all one Father [a] ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
babcock_tony@yahoo.com
Tony , Thanks for trying to debate those points ., Well done , I find many holes in it though , from my perspective .
One is that marriage being done for love , ? That is not a state requirement is it ? Or are you making it one ... Would then polygamist have to marry for love ? But what happens if they fall in love with someone else when they are married to someone , they can not get married to them with out divorcing their wife they still love ... There values allow them to love more then one person , in fact it encourgages , you say they can't . Thats discrimination Tony.. Follow this ?
How about bi sexuals , ? They have to leave one aspect of their lives empty from sexual satisfaction , or are you just saying cheat on the partner ..
Once you change the rules Tony , the conservative view and mine is you are allowing the flood gates to be open ..
Remember its only our value systems that say marriage is between two people ... And mine says it is between a man and a women , and yours says it is between any two people .. Polygamist and bi sexuals say three or more .
Its all in where you want to draw the line from my perspective , and once you change the line , it gets easier to change it again .
Thanks again for taking the challenge ..
Mick,
I asked for chapter and verse, you haven't provided such.
I am well aware that abolitionists also defended their beliefs on the bible. Why is it that Chrsitianist groups like FFN always want to claim the abolitionists as their own, but not the Southern Baptists?
You are projecting an hatred of Christians on what I said. I fully realize that there are many kind, generous, honest and decent people, who are Christians, there are also many Christians who are mean, dishonest and frankly indecent people, who are Christians. I suspect that FFN, being really a Christianist and not a Christian organization, contains more of the latter than the former.
You aren't aware of the bible being used to justify racism? Are you kidding me? I simply don't believe that you could be that ignorant. Do yourself a favor, google "mark of cain" and "Tower of bable" and learn yourself a thing or two.
"The Bible tells the slave owners to treat the slaves kindly , it does not support slavery ... It also tells the slaves to be trustworthy also . It does not say they should be slaves ... It dealt with the institution of slavery , ... "
If the Bible does not support slavery, why does it not condemn the institution? Why does it not tell slave owners that we are all created equal and hence the concept of owning another human being is repugnant? Why does not it tell slave owners to free their slaves & slaves to revolt and free themselves? The fact that it discussing such an offensive institution without condemnation constitutes de-facto endoresment of said institution! Which again, in my opinion, give lie to Gary's claim that the idea that all men are created equal is Biblical in nature.
-JC
"Once you change the rules Tony , the conservative view and mine is you are allowing the flood gates to be open .."
Well, Mick,that was the conservative view when miscagination laws were struck down by 'activist' courts as well. Seems most conservatives have changed their mind, or at least their public statements, since then.
-JC
Reasonable questions but I think your perspective is skewed:
Marriage is mammalian pair-bonding, pure and simple. You release vasopressin and oxytocin during sex and in anticipation of it and that causes the two people to bond, to 'fall in love'. That's why they silly notion that gay people can 'just marry someone the opposite sex' is, well silly - gay people don't pair-bond with the opposite gender, only their own. They naturally marry someone of the same gender and so saying they can license a marriage with someone of the opposite gender only seems reasonable to those ignorant to the real situation or those that just don't care what the situation actually is.
And the current brouhaha is about equal access issue to a civil contract, not about anyone being able to do anything in the name of 'love'.
Can a polygamist already license a copy of the current civil contract with someone they are pair-bonded with? Yes as long as that person is of the opposite gender.
Can a straight or bisexual already license a copy of the current contract with someone they are pair-bonded with? Yes, as long as that person is of the opposite gender.
Can a gay person license a copy of the current contract with someone they are pair-bonded with? NO! and there in lies the difference, there is the inequality. Everyone else has some chance for access, gay people have effectively none.
The marriage equality issue is all in its name - its about every citizen having a reasonable chance to license the civil contract with some ONE consenting adult they could actually be expected to pair-bond with.
So this isn't just about 'rules' this is about biology and the way our brains and bodies work. We are better off coupled; we are happier, healthier, more productive, our families better, better able to get along with our fellow citizens and take less from society regardless of the gender of our spouse.
One of the frustrating aspects of this topic is how quick people are to compare two law-abiding tax-paying citizens loving each other by the exact same biological mechanism that everyone else does to 'marrying their camel' or the dead or some other entirely off the wall thing picked to BE offensive. And after saying things like that they wonder why the people hearing it think they are hateful, hypocrites to the teachings of Jesus, and more than a bit evil.
So maybe lines do have to be drawn, but they need to be drawn in a space that is consistent with our own biology and the common good. Since gay people are going to exist its obviously better than the couple up than remain single - exactly what real reason is there that the state shouldn't support their marriages?
Hi, Mick…
Thanks for your reply above, but you’re missing the point.
Love doesn’t have to be a legal requirement in order for society to value love in marriage. In the case of the polygamist and the example you gave (what if a person is married and falls in love with a second person and wants to marry both?) – he still cannot claim discrimination because no one else out there has the right to marry more than one person. You cannot claim discrimination if everyone is treated equally.
Gays, on the other hand, have to give up something fundamental about marriage (even if it’s not a prerequisite) in order partake in it. Straights do not have to. Therefore, gays can claim discrimination because others out there have a right to marry someone they can love while gays do not. You are simply being silly if you argue that love is not an extremely important value of a true marriage.
Also, you completely misunderstand bisexuality, and it’s a common mistake. Bisexuals are not people who must love a member of both genders at the same time. Bisexuals are people who can fall in love with either gender. A bisexual who falls in love and marries a man and then later falls in love with a woman, is no different from a straight woman who falls in love with a man and then falls in love with another man. Neither is allowed to marry both so neither can claim unfair treatment.
Also, to be clear, my value system does not say that marriage is between “any two people”. Marriage between close relatives or underage people is not part of my value system. All I’m saying is that gays should have the choice to marry someone they can love, just like straights have. No one should be able to marry a relative, or a child, or more than one person. But if the day comes that straights are allowed this (and let’s hope it never comes), gays should be allowed the same thing.
Finally, I want to make one comment about your last comment, that it’s “all where you draw the line” and “once you change the line, it gets easier to change again.” Marriage is a much stronger institution than you give it credit to be. And the arguments against polygamy and incest (or any other family structure you want to add here) are much stronger than you pretend them to be.
You seem to believe that any change to marriage will cause the whole institution to fall apart. Is it really only a blind adherence to tradition that keeps marriage alive? I believe in marriage more than that, and I know that you really do, too. But you argue from this position just to keep gays from participating in it. Marriage can withstand this change that allows each of us to marry just one person we can love without completely falling apart.
Babcock_tony@yahoo.com
oh for crying out loud--why is this sight monopolized and dominated by the abusive and hateful anti-FFN?
Gary,
As a former "tolerant" liberal who got educated and grew up, I am qualified to say that you are 100% right.
Thank you.
ps--I am also qualified to say that the liberal "tolerant" crowd is very tolerant as long as you agree completely with them. They are actually extremely intolerant of traditionalists, all while calling everyone else a hypocrite.
10:03 -
You would prefer it just be "monopolized and dominated by the abusive and hateful" PRO-FFN?
10:20/22 -
If you really knew ANYTHING about the liberal side you would know that Mr. Randall is very, VERY wrong and that you are too because liberals are very tolerant, even of those who disagree with them - except for some extreme, unfortunate cases.
yes, anon coward, why oh why don't them evil libbruls embrace your intolerance. They obvioulsy aren't tolerant enough.
-JC
This site is the perfect example of why we need to uphold Christianity for our national belief. All other belief systems, once they are in control, try to silence those who do not believe what they do, just as the hate crowd tries to shut down all reasonable conversation between Christians at this site. Right now, Islam is making inroads, trying to use a Koran instead of a Bible to swear in a senator from MN. The gays are making inroads, and have arrested a preacher who spends most of his time working, feeding and clothing and caring for the homeless in Calgary, Canada, for praying in public. How dare he!
Any other belief system tries to shut down what people believe and say, and make them conform to what they believe. That is why we need to become more involved, to not let those who have come before us to have died in vain in their pursuit of freedom.
Babcock_tony@yahoo.com
"Hi, Mick…
Thanks for your reply above, but you’re missing the point."
holy interaction , thanks ...
"no one else out there has the right to marry more than one person. You cannot claim discrimination if everyone is treated equally."
That's where our world views get mixed up , right now everyone is being treated equally . One man and one woman .. A homosexual can marry the same way I can. .. ... You want to change the rules but keep the two person deal ... For some reason keeping it two makes it Ok , I mean we have 11 football players , changing the rules to say field goals are worth 4 points is ok , but to you then changing the rules to 12 players is out bounds . .
"Gays, on the other hand, have to give up something fundamental about marriage (even if it’s not a prerequisite) in order partake in it. Straights do not have to. "
Ha you know we all give up something in a relationship , for instance my football watching ... ;o)but I do understand your point , but disagree with the fundamental point where you start from, because it appears to me you are promoting that gays have more of a right then polygamists or bi sexuals do . I fundamentally don't see any difference , except maybe there is more political and social acceptance of gays then polygamists ... As of now , but 30 years from now , who would of thunk 30 years ago marriage would be allowed in some states for gays ..
"Also, you completely misunderstand bisexuality, and it’s a common mistake. Bisexuals are not people who must love a member of both genders at the same time. Bisexuals are people who can fall in love with either gender. "
Well your right I only know one or twp people , and they are quite young who are bi sexual . But it was more of a what if they wanted to marry both genders . My point is you are willing to discriminate also , just at a different point . In fact most of us have a line that we will draw , mine is rap music and Disco .. Yours is polygamists .
"Also, to be clear, my value system does not say that marriage is between “any two people”. Marriage between close relatives or underage people is not part of my value system. All I’m saying is that gays should have the choice to marry someone they can love, just like straights have."
I would say that basically if you grew up in this country , we share some common values . I had a conversation about two months ago with a flaming gay activists . Use to be a Baptist Fundamentalist Preacher . Divorces and good friends with his wife and has a partner now .. He told me Christians were pretty nasty , because he once was one and he use to preach it .. So perhaps except that view , which I find common with many homosexuals , we remarkably had almost had all the same value systems . But the point is I guess , my church never preaches like he did , are not political , but man we get some hateful stuff said about our God and Belief systems . What I did admire about this guy was he did concede , had to ask him twice the nastiness of some homosexual political organizations and those involved with the movement . I think it was loosing a filling for him to admit , but our conversation got so much better after . So that is another point , the more acceptance of homosexual marriage , the more anti Christian bigotry I see . i guess because if a Christian disagrees say with divorce , they can speak out against it .. And usually do not see too many organizations promoting divorce pride .. Thats another subject , sorry I wandered .
"Finally, I want to make one comment about your last comment, that it’s “all where you draw the line” and “once you change the line, it gets easier to change again.” Marriage is a much stronger institution than you give it credit to be. And the arguments against polygamy and incest (or any other family structure you want to add here) are much stronger than you pretend them to be."
Oh , I don't think homosexual marriage will hurt the institution of marriage in the way you think either .. To me it is just a result , like having police officers at our middle schools . I hope this comes on clear , its not the police officers that is the problem ... They only showed up because no one was paying attention to the problem before hand . Hope that not is insulting , it is not meant to be . I just read 40 percent of all births are from out of wedlock situations . In minorities it is much higher ... But if you look at social sciences , usually minorities are the first to under go negative social changes , the rest soon follows . Marriage and our culture is in trouble , not because of homosexuality , other reasons ,
Politics by the way will not solve this problem . I just don't see the concern at all from the left , almost like acceptance of our culture of today , values such as free speech are more important to people then what our kids are hearing .
You seem to believe that any change to marriage will cause the whole institution to fall apart. Is it really only a blind adherence to tradition that keeps marriage alive? I believe in marriage more than that, and I know that you really do, too. But you argue from this position just to keep gays from participating in it. Marriage can withstand this change that allows each of us to marry just one person we can love without completely falling apart.
Babcock_tony@yahoo.com
No I think you are missing my point , you see I stand up for marriage because I believe it is the best thing to help all of us .. Gays , straights and all of us .. Each gender has a God given quality , or evolved qualities if your a humanist , that is important to the health and nurture of children . That kids function better when they are given both genders .. I don't care if you are a gay kid or a straight kid , you will do better with a Mom and a dad . Sorry your last point misses the debate .. It is strange for a conservative to say its for the children , but I believe that is what this is really about ..
Example of this value system is also in my church and j\how we vote for our leadership . Have to be the Husband of one wife .. I can't be in that role of leadership in my church .. I don't feel the prejudice that homosexuals feel , but I have noticed many people in my denomination get ticked about the rule .. I and so many people are products of our culture , and we divorce , which is more of hurt to marriage then homosexual marriage will ever be . Not fair to homosexuals , and hypocritical on my part I know .. But so be it .
But to me the example of having one man and one woman as lifetime companions , committed till death is so important that I believe that role model should exist .
You made some better comments this time , thanks ... I wish I could communicate better ... Because I believe you are an honest person who would accept what I am saying , I don't expect to ever change your mind ...We start at different points in our belief systems ..
Mick Sheldon
I think too many people on this site are equating engaging in debate with "shutting people down."
It's only through open debate and discussing disagreements that we'll ever be able to come to an understanding.
I think it's best if we refrain from arguing who is the biggest victim, and who is shutting whom down and instead discuss the topics at hand.
Let's stop changing the subject and calling each other names. And let's not discuss whose fault it is or who started it. It doesn't matter. Both sides are to blame.
Now, does anyone here have a reasoned response to my posting above? Can we have a real discussion?
babcock_tony@yahoo.com
Tony,
You want a real discussion? You're in the wrong place. Every person on here who doesn't completely fall in line with the FFN, Republican, hard line has started off trying to encourage discussion and help others to see the other side. And every one of them gets personally attacked and rudely responded to. And it goes back and forth but always getting more and more negative and off the point. The pro-FFN folks here have a huge majority and they know it and they use it behind the mask of anonymity to be mean spirited and belittling to those who disagree with them. And at this point, that is how they like it to be. They don't really want any discussion, but they also don't want to small minority opposition to leave either, because it makes them feel superior to attack with the pack and feel like they actually are "winning" something. Stick around for a bit - or go back and read through the scrolls of comments on almost any posting here. The pattern is true almost every time.
Tony ,
Was that meant for me ? Did I not give a decent response , or did we just miss e mails ?
Mick
Hi, Mick...
I think I posted my response above while you posted your response. At any rate, I thank you for your response.
I think the major difference between our arguments is that you call any denial of a change in law "discrimination" (for example, the desire of polygamists to marry more than one person) whereas I call a denial of one group something that another group has discrimination (as in gays and marriage).
I think there is a big difference there. I don't think you can compare the plight of gays to the plight of polygamists.
And, sure, discrimination in some forms exists throughout our society, but that doesn't make it OK in all cases.
Churches choose to discriminate against some members (ie, women), which is OK because religious choices are protected and churches aren't tied to government or public money. Women who don't agree can find a different church.
The army can discriminate against overweight or unhealthy people for obvious reasons.
But is there really a good reason for continuing to deny same-sex couples marriage?
We know something today that we didn't know 50 years ago -- that gay people truly exist. That sexual orientation -- like every other human trait -- varies among human beings.
Even gender isn't constant among us. We know some people are both with parts and aspects of both genders. It may seem freakish to us, but because we can see it with our own two eyes, we know it to be true. Sexual orientation is just less visible.
We also know that gay people are healthiest and happiest when they find love, just like any other human. That our relationships are more secure when there are legal protections. That our children are safer when the parents are married.
Heterosexual marriage will always always always be the majority, and denying gay people marriage will not increase or decrease the number of people who participate in heterosexual marriages.
All states allow gays to form families and relationships with each other. Nearly every state allows gays to raise their own children or adopt. What purpose can the state have for harming these families by denying them protections?
Let's say that children raised by opposite-sex parents are "better off" than children raised by same-sex parents (even though all non-biased -- ie, not religious based or gay-based -- studies show this to be false). No one can deny that married parents will benefit these children. Why wouldn't the state give these families every possible chance to raise their children successfully?
It's not the state's role to harm those who don't fit the norm. We all pay our taxes; the state should be giving each and every one of us the opportunity to succeed. I'm not saying we are owed success; I'm saying the state shouldn't set up discriminatory roadblocks that impede success, especially when those roadblocks don't exist for other groups.
But that whole argument falls apart anyway. Is sexual orientation truly THE factor that determines successful child-rearing? Who here thinks that abusive, hateful, drunk heterosexual parents are better for children than loving, caring, sober homosexual parents?
Unconditional love, protections (financial and legal for example), and support are the most important factors in determining success in child-rearing. Being straight doesn't give you magic child-rearing powers or handicaps; neither does being gay.
I do want to thank you for your comments again. I know we will not change each other's minds, but I've appreciated having a real discussion with you. I know we want the same things: what's best for society, for our families, and for ourselves. We just have different views on how to go about it.
Feel free to e-mail me to continue talking. I think the discussions are healthy when they don't spin out of control!
Thanks,
babcock_tony@yahoo.com
Hi, Mick...
Again, no that wasn't for you! It was for the postings above yours.
Sorry! I think you posted your reply to me when I was posting the message asking people to stop whining and to start discussing!
Your reply was perfectly fine! :-)
Have a good weekend,
Tony
h for crying out loud--why is this sight monopolized and dominated by the abusive and hateful anti-FFN?
Because this is a blog that supports that is trying to do bad things to people through the political process based on lies and distortions as has been demonstrated many times.
I don't comment for the knee-jerk zealots, I do so for the people that come and actually think about what they read - they see Gary or Anonymous say something, they see it demonstrated to be a lie or distortion and maybe, just maybe, they wonder why they should be even on the same side as people who lie, deceive, and hurt others in the name of Jesus.
As my dad always said,
Marriage and our culture is in trouble , not because of homosexuality , other reasons ,
great point Mick. I have to say our culture is in trouble. The leaders of yesterday were raised in strong father and mother families - Today the result of no fault divorce is effecting or leadership.No fault leaders! Slowly but surely things have slipped down that slope.(somone here said they dont buy that- got news for ya. You can not see it because you are already sliding:-) we all are. To redifine marriage is one more step away from what my grandparents had.And their parents had. A solid foundation. Putting two people of any sex or creature is not going to get us what was. It is just creating more mess. We need to go back to what a marriage really is. It is hard work and the love part.. I laugh. Marriage is endurance. Not love. Love is not easy day by day. And if there is one person out there reading this that is on the edge and can not handle a day more of their marriage. I pray here and now that God lift them up and carry them to the finish line. That is a marriage. And Gods promises are true. If there is a gay couple out there thinking marriage is going to lift them up and make things even better- - Romans (21-28)The bible says they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. God will cast judgement.
The thing is God is watching me too. And I am not casting my ballot for gay marriage.My relationship with God is more important than my relationship with anyone. The people that say who cares let them be married- Just you wait until there are a billion other people weighing in on our social security system and Social services. Then there is health care a system that is already overwhelmingly expensive(could be because gay relationships are now eligible for health care plans. Which there is a law suit out there because Hetrosexual relationships are not allowed health care benifits)Here goes the slippery slope.. Millions now can not even go to the DR. We need to have guide lines we need to have security for all children with lines to be drawn so that there is security to divide. If nothing(no money) is there????then what??
This country is a great nation and helps many nations. We have principles that are slowly caving away. Look at television---great example. The slope is curving and the children are suffering. Seperate beds on Tv ----not a bad idea to go back too...:-) End of my opinion signed tonight as- The Rambler:-)
I think we really need to know we all have something to complain about Gay or Not.
I AM THANKFUL:
FOR THE WIFE
WHO SAYS "IT'S HOT DOGS TONIGHT,"
BECAUSE SHE IS HOME WITH ME,
AND NOT OUT WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
FOR THE HUSBAND
WHO IS ON THE SOFA
BEING A COUCH POTATO,
BECAUSE HE IS HOME WITH ME
AND NOT OUT AT THE BARS.
FOR THE TEENAGER
WHO IS COMPLAINING ABOUT DOING DISHES
BECAUSE IT MEANS SHE IS AT HOME,
NOT ON THE STREETS
FOR THE TAXES I PAY
BECAUSE IT MEANS
I AM EMPLOYED.
FOR THE MESS TO CLEAN AFTER A PARTY
BECAUSE IT MEANS I HAVE
BEEN SURROUNDED BY FRIENDS.
FOR THE CLOTHES THAT FIT A LITTLE TOO SNUG
BECAUSE IT MEANS
I HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT.
FOR MY SHADOW THAT WATCHES ME WORK
BECAUSE IT MEANS
I AM OUT IN THE SUNSHINE
FOR A LAWN THAT NEEDS MOWING,
WINDOWS THAT NEED CLEANING,
AND GUTTERS THAT NEED FIXING
BECAUSE IT MEANS I HAVE A HOME.
FOR ALL THE COMPLAINING
I HEAR ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT
BECAUSE IT MEANS
WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
FOR THE PARKING SPOT
I FIND AT THE FAR END OF THE PARKING LOT
BECAUSE IT MEANS I AM CAPABLE OF WALKING
AND I HAVE BEEN BLESSED WITH TRANSPORTATION .
FOR MY HUGE HEATING BILL
BECAUSE IT MEANS
I AM WARM.
FOR THE LADY BEHIND ME IN CHURCH
WHO SINGS OFF KEY
BECAUSE IT MEANS
I CAN HEAR.
FOR THE PILE OF LAUNDRY AND IRONING
BECAUSE IT MEANS
I HAVE CLOTHES TO WEAR.
FOR WEARINESS AND ACHING MUSCLES
AT THE END OF THE DAY
BECAUSE IT MEANS I HAVE BEEN
CAPABLE OF WORKING HARD.
FOR THE ALARM THAT GOES OFF
IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS
BECAUSE IT MEANS I AM ALIVE.
AND FINALLY, FOR TOO MUCH E-MAIL
BECAUSE IT MEANS I HAVE
PEOPLE WHO ARE THINKING OF ME.
Live well, Laugh often, & Love with all of your heart!
Pretty good Rambler ... Heard a great sermon once which made a point out of saying love is an action word not a feeling . Love is not a feeling , it is a commitment .
JC ,, I am not sure if this is what we are talking about .. I looked under equality in the Bible search pages , . I have read many passages in the Bible though that have gave me the position that God created us all in his image , that we are all his children .. That he does not love us for our works ,
Evolution was used by Hitler to rationalize his murder , I am sure you can rationalize any belief system to make slavery or whatever appear justified .. To me that does not mean Darwin or the Bible were the reasons for mass murder or slavery , it was the people who promoted those ideas that should be blamed .
“God is no respecter of persons.” Acts 10:34
Malachi 2:10
10 Have we not all one Father [a] ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
Evolution was used by Hitler? that's a new one on me. Did it come from some 'scholarly' work like The Pink Schwaztica (the anti-gay bigots' 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion')?
The simple fact is the Bible mentions slavery and doesn't condemn it.
-JC
Hey Tony ,
"I think the major difference between our arguments is that you call any denial of a change in law "discrimination" (for example, the desire of polygamists to marry more than one person) whereas I call a denial of one group something that another group has discrimination (as in gays and marriage). "
I would say so also . I think also from history in our legal systems the precedent changing will cause the arguement to do just that , polygamist , bisexual marriage , even non sexual relationships in order just to gain tax benefits and pensions etc . The legal system appears to be more based on only statutes instead of common law which was aimed at justice . The lawyers will take the precedent of homosexual marriage in my opinion and advance its meanings to other forms.
"I think there is a big difference there. I don't think you can compare the plight of gays to the plight of polygamists."
No not on a moral or prejudicial matters . But legally in the courts is what I am addressing mainly . I would personally rather have two gay folks taking care of a child then say a polygamist . But I would also rather have a man and women have the best legal chance of caring for the child , that of course saying they were all law abiding and sincere ... I think you know what I mean ?
"Churches choose to discriminate against some members (ie, women), which is OK because religious choices are protected and churches aren't tied to government or public money. Women who don't agree can find a different church."
Yes , but my point happened to be from my church setting , but not meant to be government implemented . .. The statement was really explaining that I know divorced folks feel discrimination in that certain situation , that I understood their discrimination , and it even the discrimination was against me , but actually it was best in my opinion because society , kids , and all of us do better in homes that stay together , or were together to begin with .. And I don't see it is wrong for a society to set up rules for what works best ... Of course if you screw up and get divorced , you get to try again ... But at one time divorce had a stigma , and I think there was some good to that ...
Homosexuals never get the chance ... I am not saying it is fair , I am just saying it is what society has determined so far to do that is in the best interest in all of us .. That may change , looks like it will , but I don't see it as a positive , ... wonder if the overwhelming democratic majority in this state will propose gay marriage ? From the democratic platforms I have seen in this state , they sure appear to have the grassroots wanting it ..
"The army can discriminate against overweight or unhealthy people for obvious reasons.
But is there really a good reason for continuing to deny same-sex couples marriage?"
Yes , you just don't agree with them or think they are good enough ... Just like I do not think there is sound reasoning for stopping school choice in charters two years ago in our elections . They were public schools , with oversight , and provided a better chance especially for minorities .. The fear from the left is the precedent , just like stopping partial birth abortion ... Both sides of the political spectrum do it , and our values do have something with what issues are important and more important to others .
"We know something today that we didn't know 50 years ago -- that gay people truly exist. That sexual orientation -- like every other human trait -- varies among human beings. "
I have heard this before Tony .. And you know it has never made sense to me .. The value syatems and social norms I was taught have nothing to do with traits or if homosexuals are born that way , evolve , chemical imbalance , or a mixture of all of them . Just like if my dylexia causes me to really have a hard time with blogs , my gramar still is bad , because it is in my genes or because I am lazy makes no difference to the rest of you ..
The bottom line to me is kids need a mom and a dad , genders are important , each has a gift they offer their kids . That is the main point , and the benefit of having a mom extends to all of us ... I see your point as discriminating against kids , they have a right to a mom and a dad if possible .. That is why we go around , you talk to the unfairness of it , and yes it is unfair to the homosexual , but it is what is best for all of us . Society has said we will put that relationship , marriage at a higher level of all other relationships and support and nourish it . Looks like society is taking those benefits for granted , hence our discussion .
"Even gender isn't constant among us. We know some people are both with parts and aspects of both genders. It may seem freakish to us, but because we can see it with our own two eyes, we know it to be true. Sexual orientation is just less visible."
Well yes , but your getting too deep for me on this one . I am only talking basically in generalties , because reasonable people will see at times for instance two gay parents CAN give a home that is better and more stable then two hetro parents .
"We also know that gay people are healthiest and happiest when they find love, just like any other human. That our relationships are more secure when there are legal protections. That our children are safer when the parents are married."
Yep , when you are loved and in a stable relationship you do better .. That is true .. Also why I believe Religion is important , I do better as a person because my wife loves me and I know God loves me . makes me better then I am without that love , and makes me want to be better .. These principles work for all of us ... And you are right on , and its the shame of the way this is , so for someone like me I will vote against gay marriage but knowing it will actually hurt some people ... But for the greater good .. In my opinion ... Not a good debate for anyone who is sincere actually .
"Heterosexual marriage will always always always be the majority, and denying gay people marriage will not increase or decrease the number of people who participate in heterosexual marriages."
Well statistically in other countries where gay marruiage has been legalized marriage has gone down and living together has gone up .. Could be because the culture was deciding marriage was less important to begin with .. But that is not an accurate fact .
"All states allow gays to form families and relationships with each other. Nearly every state allows gays to raise their own children or adopt. What purpose can the state have for harming these families by denying them protections?"
The state is not denying them ... Corporations can and do provide benefits . You are asking the state to provide benefits designed by society to promote families . My opinion is that hey should promote the best , a Mom and dad . That we should not be encourgaging with tax benefits for gays to have families , but our society should not be stopping them either .. There is a big difference in supporting something with tax dollars , want more of somethign . let government support it ... Use to work , not with Moms and Dads as having the normal head of households like it use to , but then again the government supports families that are broken up with welfare , and then they take the dollars away when the family is away .. I know that was the conservative objection to welfare , the left always made it appear it was based on racism , actually women were being told in order to feed their babies , the male had to leave the home . I don't want believe more gay family households is going to help our culture , I think more Mom and dad households will .
"Let's say that children raised by opposite-sex parents are "better off" than children raised by same-sex parents (even though all non-biased -- ie, not religious based or gay-based -- studies show this to be false). No one can deny that married parents will benefit these children. Why wouldn't the state give these families every possible chance to raise their children successfully? "
I think I answered this , maybe not ... Because I diagree with your premise that it is equal to Mom and dad families . That the state supporting it will cause it to increase ... Thus my poisition is allow it , but not support it with my and your tax dollars ... In this state , all democrat basically , looks like it may happen ?
"It's not the state's role to harm those who don't fit the norm. We all pay our taxes; the state should be giving each and every one of us the opportunity to succeed. I'm not saying we are owed success; I'm saying the state shouldn't set up discriminatory roadblocks that impede success, especially when those roadblocks don't exist for other groups."
Ahh , then we get back to the circular polygamists or whoever feels they are equal , and in the polygamist case , I bet those relationships work in their religious culture . Not as well as I believe our culture of a mom and Dad have . I believe our system of culture and heritage has provided us with the best system and most tolerant of any other nation . Perhaps not from your view point ... But I think tolerance is also allowing people to decide with what they do and do not support with their tax dollars .
"But that whole argument falls apart anyway. Is sexual orientation truly THE factor that determines successful child-rearing? Who here thinks that abusive, hateful, drunk heterosexual parents are better for children than loving, caring, sober homosexual parents?"
Not me .
"Unconditional love, protections (financial and legal for example), and support are the most important factors in determining success in child-rearing. Being straight doesn't give you magic child-rearing powers or handicaps; neither does being gay."
So far so good
I do want to thank you for your comments again. I know we will not change each other's minds, but I've appreciated having a real discussion with you. I know we want the same things: what's best for society, for our families, and for ourselves. We just have different views on how to go about it.
Ever wonder how this will all turn out .. My guess is homosexual marriage will come about .. Just wonder if there will be an issue after that ? Because it was quite weird from my perspective after homosexual found status in our state laws , that gay marriage became so quickly as the discussion ..
Best Regards ,
Mick
Curious whether anyone bothered to look up the word "tolerate" in the dictionary???
I doubt Gary did quite honestly though I would be pleased if he had. For the first time in my life, I looked up the word. I must admit it has some interesting elements.
2. To suffer to be, or to be done, without prohibition or hindrance; to allow or permit by not preventing.
The opposite of "tolerance" would literally be "violence" - you would need to take physical, non-consensual action against those beings/doings. Since Gary hates tolerance, I must assume he as the rest of the Evangelical Religious Right are advocating violence......
You be the judge.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
"If you really knew ANYTHING about the liberal side you would know that Mr. Randall is very, VERY wrong and that you are too because liberals are very tolerant, even of those who disagree with them - except for some extreme, unfortunate cases. "
That is not true. And I know a great deal about liberals. No they are not as tolerant as they claim to be.
It was in the news today that a woman whose husband had
been killed Alfganistan (sp) was able to put her religious
symbol in her husbands grave. What shame that she had to
fight the White House for a year to get a Wiccan symbol on
her husband, who gave his life for his country's, grave.
Is this what Freedom Means to you, to be a first class citizen
in this a country do you have to be not only a Christian
, but your kind of Christian?
Evolution was used by Hitler? that's a new one on me.
Actually that was true - the concept of natural selection was used by racists of all flavors to rationalize their 'reasons' why someone else was inferior. And because they knew nothing of genetics they thought THAT all traits were due to inheritance - and so you lead to a eugenics frame of mind.
Of course the Nazi's also ran as the godly party against the humanistic secularists of his time too so he was on the wrong side of all the fences.
Mick as always you talk from a position that doesn't exist.
All your statements come from the idea that somehow situations don't already exist:
Gay marriages already exist - all they want is license to the civil contract to make them stronger and better just like all marriages.
Gay families already exist - you act as if somehow gay marriages aren't families - a disturbing notion. Or are you thinking a family in the terms of children? Rather restrictive if so but - only about 45% of straight households are raising minor kids - 33% of lesbian, 20% of gay. There is a higher percent of gay families raising kids with a 'stay at home' parent than there are straight families. So again you are talking as if prohibiting access to the contract prohibits the existence of gay families and you are wrong - all it does is put them at a significant disadvantage over other families, both the parents and the children they are raising.
So sexual orientation is NOT a valid criteria if you are correct that the state contract is solely for 'families'. If you want to support that notion we would have to restrict the contract to those that have raised kids or some such criteria.
I think its more likely you aren't correct - people need no state sponsorship to marry and have kids, the state contract is to promote marriage as the preferred state of its adult population whether they have children or not.
Again, you (or anyone else) ever answers the question:
"How is it better for the state and society that gay people are NOT encouraged to couple up and marry?"
Mick as always you talk from a position that doesn't exist."
Ya know , I was having a pretty good conversation with Tony , and we will never change our minds because our belief systems are different , but at least we were learning .I was getting ready to ask him to switch positions , because I think I could do better then most folks on this blog who take Tony's view . his was the fist response I have gotten , except when JC woill allow himself to use logic instead of emotion to having a discussion .
"All your statements come from the idea that somehow situations don't already exist:
"Gay marriages already exist - all they want is license to the civil contract to make them stronger and better just like all marriages."
Then you have not been paying attention , we are talking about the state position , its vested interest in marriage .
I am talking about is government tax payer supports and tax benefits . Want to make laws easier and less expensive for people to unite in a legal arrangement , I'd vote for it .. Why do lawyers have to make all the money ?
"So again you are talking as if prohibiting access to the contract prohibits the existence of gay families and you are wrong - all it does is put them at a significant disadvantage over other families, both the parents and the children they are raising."
Yes I I believe you are right . I don't think I or anyone elese believes stopping a gay parents , or any household where two people are having the responsibility of raising children that loose out on the government's support for marriage is something good in that INDIVUDUAL CASE .. I am debating on the states vested interest in the common good , what is best for all of us , including gay and straight kids .. yeah its about the kids , the future , and our way of life ... "Sorry I use to be a democrat and love doing for the kids spiel "
But you are missing the point , or just not wanting to hear it .. Try to look at it as renting .V owning .
I know this is apples and oranges , but maybe it can take the emotion out of it for you . The state has a vested interest in supporting people who buy a home . It supports the economy , and in fact property ownership can be said to be the cornerstone of a free capitalistic society . So the government gives you "tax breaks" on your mortgage for owning , to help people buy homes . This promotes the economy ... Thus the better for all of us . Now renters , who are usually poorer , maybe not as much these days because more people are chooisng that way , but they get no tax breaks for renting . Is it not unfair to the poor smuck who can't afford a down payment , works his butt off but gets no tax breask , while some guy who maybe inherited his money , or has a easy coprpration job , sends the jobs overseas even , and he gets a tax break that he really does not need .
Thats an unfair individual situation .
You will always find scenerios to use to promote a viewpoint that the system is not fair .. And the system is not meant to be fair , its met to spur the economy and promote the economic health of our nation . Now it does help many many people who barely can afford to buy a home and desperately need that tax break , and that is why the system is good .. It promotes every generation to get out there and promte a free market system that allows people who try really hard to be able to succeed . Case in point , Bill Clinton .. Actually a real nobody , from divorced home , not rich , and he became the most powerfull person in the world ..Our market system is better then countries who own the property like Communism promotes . It hurts the economy ..
Now I transfer that logic to the government's vested interest in marriage .. I think the Supreme Court in this state , a liberal court by the way , sort of gave the same reason . I really could not follow their reasoning totally , but I think this is similiar . But it is the vested interest to use the example of a mom and dad as the best way to promote families .. Now you can have a different way , you can rent or in gays or stariahgts who live together , but you will not get the tax benefit of it . It does not promote the best way for our culture to be nourished .. Thats my opinion , you disagree . But there it is .
I really think I could take your side in the debate on this and do a better job then you ... There are many things "unfair" with the sysem of one man and one woman to the rest of our society , not just to gays .. But it was set up to be promoting a certain way of life , that western civilization has a history and a remant today still believes is the best for all . The problem is you seem not to be able to handle the fact that people with sincere beliefs and sincere concerns can differ on this ..
"So sexual orientation is NOT a valid criteria if you are correct that the state contract is solely for 'families'. If you want to support that notion we would have to restrict the contract to those that have raised kids or some such criteria."
No I never said that , gay kids are raised by straight parents . I would think more gay kids would speak up for the advantage of having a mom and dad . But I guess peeople don't think that is as important as I do these days . The more single parent families is why I believe gay marriage will become a reality , gays did not de value marriage , the straights did .
"I think its more likely you aren't correct - people need no state sponsorship to marry and have kids, the state contract is to promote marriage as the preferred state of its adult population whether they have children or not."
The state vested interest is in tax supports for a man and women to stay together and raise the family . Now the flaws are many , like divorce , yet parents still get tax deductions for the kids . Can't take them away because then the kids could suffer .. like I said , I think I could take your side in this debate better then you .
"Again, you (or anyone else) ever answers the question:"
"How is it better for the state and society that gay people are NOT encouraged to couple up and marry?"
The quetion is answered many times , you are not satisfied with it . One thing tax breaks to be used to encourgage coupling up , and raising children is not given to say veterans as a group ... Because veterans per say do not have those requirements the majority , our culture as of now , believes is the best ingredient for families . Also there is still a mjority of people in the county who believe people who have sex within the same gender is commiting an immoral act . To me the answer is so OBVIOUS it is hard to just put it in words . Like why are you wet when it rains . You want to increase Mom and dad households , don't you ? Or do you see it being equal to have a mom and a dad , and a dad and a dad , or a mom and and mom . ?
Just that understanding of the vital importance to society , the need for kids to be exposed to two loving parents , with a set of God given qualities that are equal in importance , but different in style .
So is it unfair to other groups , gays , polygamists , even say a brothers , sisters , or other family members who have had to step in and help // Also , nothing ever replaces that natural attachment of a parent . Gay folks , straight , step famileis do the best job they casn , sometimes better then the natural parents.
But there is something special about a bond between a child and natural parent . It just can not be cloned .
Mick ....
Why should I vote for gays to have the tax benefits to marry ?
Why is that good for me , my family , my country ?
Apples and oranges maybe , but this is a basic reason of our government and why it does things for vested reasons . Like Marriage , man and a women ,,
In this case the tax code promotes a tax exemtion for those who purchase a home . renters do not not have the same benefit .. Most renters have less money , and its not fair is it ... Many people can buy the home even without the tax break .. But our society , the government has a vested interest in our economic stability .. It is based much on the ownership of homes , land .. Property rights.. It promotes an economic system that has promotes a good standard of living , and supports the free economy we have ... It helps people who are in the middle to be able to buy a home ... There are some renters however who never be in a situation to benefit from this tax break ... Its not fair , but the vested interest in what is best for all of us is promoting home ownership ///
Tax savings and pension benefits were meant to help families be able to support families , children . That is why we as a society chose to lift the Marriage arrangement above other relationships in regards to structured benefits . Some people never have kids , are lousy parents , whatever , and some people who choose to just live together may be great parents , or various other possible situations can make why this benefit is not FAIR to the individual .. Its not meant to be fair , its meant to promote the next generation being able to carry on ... It looks to be having problems that is for sure ,
But to go back to my question to you , why should I support my tax dollars to go to living arrangements that only takes resources we already are borrowing
< national debt> now to support families .
Your best debate points are insults and a belief that tax payers who only believe in your view have a vested interest .
In fact I could debate this from your side much better then you .. Just using basic fairness and common sense , and with respect for other views . Obviously your point is from a view thatmocks anything that it does agree with ..
Thats the best reason I guess , why would anyone want to vote for legislation that allows laws to be changed with these tactics.
hang in there , we become more secular all the time .. Just you may besurprised the country you get and the benefits are not that great when your neighbors have nothing in common with you , each to his own little world .
But to go back to my question to you , why should I support my tax dollars to go to living arrangements that only takes resources we already are borrowing
(national debt) now to support families
Mick, your viewpoint is again ignoring the simple facts. At the moment you and yours are being subsidized by people who can't license the contract of marriage. Remember 2% of the population is self-identified gay tax-paying citizens. Their money is going to support YOUR families via their tax dollars yet they get no equitable consideration for theirs. Your tax dollars aren't at risk - you are leeching off other people's tax dollars. Marriage equality would just mean that their proportion of dollars potentially go also to their families.
Your best debate points are insults and a belief that tax payers who only believe in your view have a vested interest .
Hardly. You are the one advocating that some people have special rights and that they should be financially subsidized by those without those special rights.
In fact I could debate this from your side much better then you .. Just using basic fairness and common sense , and with respect for other views . Obviously your point is from a view that mocks anything that it does agree with ..
Again, your side is the one advocating special rights for some. You are the one that is ignoring that gay families include raising children. You are the one advocating that straight couples should have special tax benefits subsidized by the gay ones. Of COURSE you could debate our side easily - the marriage equality side is the one on the moral high road.
Again the questions are:
- What benefit is there to society to NOT encourage gay people to couple up?
- Why should some law-abiding tax paying citizens be required to provide financial support for government subsidy to other people's families but not for theirs?
- How can a nation based on individual equality not allow equal access to government features for all married couples?
Oh Mick, didn't realize that long message was all to me.
And Mick it seems your only reason not to allow marriage equality is because you are thinking of gay's as some 'group' like veterans. They aren't they are just people, like you and me. That's why this is a marriage EQUALITY issue based on the individual, not on any group. This is saying that all married citizens should be able to license the civil contract of marriage in support of THEIR marriages, THEIR families, regardless of the gender of their spouse.
And the government should only support this specific 'gold standard' type of relationship argument is silly in light of the how broad the government criteria are:
felons in jail have a right to license the contract in support of their families. (high correlation between having a criminal parent and criminality in children)
The poor have a right to license the contract in support of their families. (high correlation between poor child raising outcome and poverty)
The mentally disabled have a right to license the contract in support of their families.
The knowingly sterile without kids have a right to license the contract in support of their families - all 2 of them. (14% of American married adults don't breed for one reason or another )
And yet you say you can draw the line at the gender of the two parents when there is NO correlation between that and any sort of child rearing outcome by every study that's been performed?
Your bar seems like it is just being moved up when some people approach wanting to jump it. Pretty obviously unwarranted discrimination to me - why isn't it to you?
Mick, can I take from your lack of reply that you hadn't considered that you were advocating using gay families dollars to support anyone BUT their families? If so how can you rationalize this and if you can't will you at least concede this is NOT a 'tax dollars' issue?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Vishi you appear to spit out anything you want , and renounce all FACTS that do not fit your perspective,
Of course there are books that support my perspective and beliefs .. Social Science data clearly points to Marriage Households have better consequences for kids , for college , etc ... In fact data shows a single parent making 40,000 and a married couple making 40,000 combines , the kids are better in the married home . Also data goes to say that children actually do better when a parent dies in a single home instead of divorce .. My opinion is that the deceased person influence remains when deceased , its when you have replacements , people moving in and out is when the parent influence in undermined .. Just my thoughts .
Also even adoptive parents do not have as much success as natural parents , I was a bit surprised at that figure myself , I am not sure if the data states what age the adoption took place .. Butin either case , as for as your comments about no books , you are out of the loop unless you read things that only support your views . You need to get and smeel the coffee my friend , the world is bigger then you or I ..
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/hymowitz.htm
Hymowitz is the author of the new book Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age, a compilation of some of her previously published City Journal essays. She examines the breakdown of marriage in the United States and how it threatens the nation's future. The book begins with the proposition that American marriage is designed to further "The Mission"—the shaping of children into self-reliant citizens and workers. Alarmingly, while the children of married parents tend to become married parents themselves eventually, the children of single parents tend not to, fueling a vicious cycle that, Ms. Hymowitz argues, has engendered "two Americas": one marriage-minded, one not; one economically successful, the other perpetually struggling. This is of particular concern to the African American community, in which married parents are increasingly rare. Her previous book, Liberation's Children: Parents and Kids in a Postmodern Age, was widely praised.
Mick,
First, since you have dropped your 'tax' argument and moved on to yet another without comment even though I have specifically asked for your response makes me think you are just arguing to reach a specific answer, not trying to find out the truth. If you really thought this was a financial issue what is your reply to the observation that the current situation is really one of making gay parents subsidize straight ones?
Also, you are a bright guy - you know you can't use studies comparing single parents with coupled parents to tell you anything about comparing same-gender parents and opposite-gender parents. Yes, I know this is what the anti-marriage equality sites do but you should realize they are misrepresenting data - this alone should make you wonder how trust worthy they are.
And then you bring up someone who is talking about the 'breakdown of marriage' when then the issue is about people who WANT to get married. That has been MY contention since day one: that it is better off for adults to be married, that society should encourage people to get married, ALL of them, and letting all citizens some reasonable ability to license the civil contract in support of marriage is a great way to start - even if the married couple are the same gender.
Mick,
- you can't bring up single vs couple rearing as it can't be used to tell you anything about opposite-gender vs. same-gender couple rearing. The studies comparing same-gender and opposite-gender parent child rearing has shown no significant difference.
- you can't bring up divorce rearing as a reason for not allowing same gender parents - just a hair under 50% of US children are being raised in a home that does not include their two genetic contributors. And regardless of how the children got into the family; divorce, adoption, parental death, etc, the absolutely cardinal thing that child-rearing experts say is that the stability of the family environment is the strongest indicator for a good child-rearing outcome. That is true regardless of the gender combination of the parents.
And yes, children of single parents AND children of divorce are 'gun shy' about marriage - that was one of the findings of a Swedish government study on why people were not licensing the civil contract until after they had had a child. But obviously THAT is an argument for making it as easy as possible for children to have married parents - even the ones with two same-gender parents.
If you are sincere about thinking that marriage is 'about the children' and you acknowledge that children are being raised in same-gender parented homes the only reasonable conclusion would be you would be for anything that would help stabilize these family environments also. You would be FOR marriage equality.
But you aren't. Why? You've deserted one unsuccessful rationalization for why some parents should get special rights, and now that this new tangent has been invalidated since not letting same-gender parents license the contract obviously puts their children at a disadvantage compared with parents who can where will you move on to next?
Take a step back and see that you are using these 'reasons' as excuses to rationalize a previously held contention - the text book definition of 'prejudice' (pre-judgement). You have yet to bring up a single 'actual' reason to not let them license the contract other than your particular sect doesn't like it and it hasn't been that way before - neither a reason that should carry much weight in America.
Post a Comment
<< Home