So....rainbows

[Stranger]

I'm not going to start an abortion debate, but my point is if little Susie in Oklahoma gets an abortion, it doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever, whether I agree with it or not.

but it does affect someone.

basically, what i'm saying is that the original intent of the Founders was that gov't would ONLY get involved when one party infringes on another party's liberties. Yeah, I realize that original intent has been so watered down now as to be unrecognizeable, but I still like to use it as a guide.

by the way, this is perhaps one of the most civilized discussions I've ever seen online re: Abortion & Gay Marriage. This group should pat itself on the back for not hysterical.

 

[LazyWinker]

I think the Man usually gets screwed in most parts of the country. Hey, maybe we should organize a parade or something?

I had a colleague that has full custody of his children. He moved out of the state and took them with him. I've never asked the details but it does seem odd that he would have full custody when his ex-wife holds a job and all that. Maybe he had the better lawyer or something. That's the only instance I know of a man having full custody.

by the way, this is perhaps one of the most civilized discussions I've ever seen online re: Abortion & Gay Marriage. This group should pat itself on the back for not hysterical.

Agreed.

 

[Rmfnlt]

This group should pat itself on the back for not hysterical.

I think I pulled a muscle... LOL

 

[Mackeyser]

Well, I have a stake in this, but due to privacy issues, I really can't talk about it. Suffice it to say, it's a huge stake.

This was a huge ruling, but it's only the beginning. It didn't solve everything. Plenty more to be done. Check this infographic.

Now, I just despise facebook and really can't stand it, so I won't defend any of the bandwagoners and attention whores who are trying to steal the limelight and make this all about them (which seems to be what so many make everything these days, so it's not this issue or any issue, it's the people and the "reality show generation").

But going back to the folks at Stonewall in NY and Harvey Milk in SF and a LOT of people who've fought and died, some horribly (Matthew Shephard is one example), it would be nice if we could just celebrate some progress without every narcissist coming out of their hole when they see a crowd to announce that this gathering must be for them and even if it's not, they were for it all along.

I have been for it all along. I'm mixed and grew up with a cousin of my dad's who was black and gay and couldn't hide it. And even the family wasn't kind about it, so he took all kinds of hell. My grandmother was the only person to show him any grace and that behavior informed me from an early age what showing love meant and looked like. I've been blessed to have some awesome, quality people in my life.

Are there idiots out there? Of course. And the narcissists drive me crazy, too.

But I've learned this. If we let the idiots distract us from grace, then WE lose track of that grace. Grace doesn't shout at us, it's in the quiet moments and small things and adds up and compounds. It's only when we neglect it and turn away that we lose it.

I'm not surprised that facebook looked like "the confederacy was at war with skittles" or whatever the saying was. Sounds about right.

But we also saw the Charleston community forgive a mass-murderer. Who spent much time praising that? Did Facebook go into an orgiastic frenzy over that? Of course not. Not sensational enough.

And we saw huge progress on same sex marriage. Considering when my black grandmother and white grandfather got married in the late 1930s, their marriage wasn't even legal in most states. I can relate to this struggle because my family went through society dismissing their love as a crime and unnatural.

This site and a few others are great because we take the time to discuss things. And that is great. Really great.

It also strikes in great relief how LITTLE thoughtful discussion actually goes on in society in general and how desperately thoughtful discussion like happens here SHOULD be happening.

It's really not the issues because this nonsense happens over and over again no matter what happens. We've got this cult of personality that we've got to get over. And right quick...

 

[Legatron4]

Well, I have a stake in this, but due to privacy issues, I really can't talk about it. Suffice it to say, it's a huge stake.

This was a huge ruling, but it's only the beginning. It didn't solve everything. Plenty more to be done. Check this infographic.

Now, I just despise facebook and really can't stand it, so I won't defend any of the bandwagoners and attention whores who are trying to steal the limelight and make this all about them (which seems to be what so many make everything these days, so it's not this issue or any issue, it's the people and the "reality show generation").

But going back to the folks at Stonewall in NY and Harvey Milk in SF and a LOT of people who've fought and died, some horribly (Matthew Shephard is one example), it would be nice if we could just celebrate some progress without every narcissist coming out of their hole when they see a crowd to announce that this gathering must be for them and even if it's not, they were for it all along.

I have been for it all along. I'm mixed and grew up with a cousin of my dad's who was black and gay and couldn't hide it. And even the family wasn't kind about it, so he took all kinds of hell. My grandmother was the only person to show him any grace and that behavior informed me from an early age what showing love meant and looked like. I've been blessed to have some awesome, quality people in my life.

Are there idiots out there? Of course. And the narcissists drive me crazy, too.

But I've learned this. If we let the idiots distract us from grace, then WE lose track of that grace. Grace doesn't shout at us, it's in the quiet moments and small things and adds up and compounds. It's only when we neglect it and turn away that we lose it.

I'm not surprised that facebook looked like "the confederacy was at war with skittles" or whatever the saying was. Sounds about right.

But we also saw the Charleston community forgive a mass-murderer. Who spent much time praising that? Did Facebook go into an orgiastic frenzy over that? Of course not. Not sensational enough.

And we saw huge progress on same sex marriage. Considering when my black grandmother and white grandfather got married in the late 1930s, their marriage wasn't even legal in most states. I can relate to this struggle because my family went through society dismissing their love as a crime and unnatural.

This site and a few others are great because we take the time to discuss things. And that is great. Really great.

It also strikes in great relief how LITTLE thoughtful discussion actually goes on in society in general and how desperately thoughtful discussion like happens here SHOULD be happening.

It's really not the issues because this nonsense happens over and over again no matter what happens. We've got this cult of personality that we've got to get over. And right quick...

I enjoyed this post very much thank you.

 

[bluecollarram]

It is too bad that many people don't know what their rights are. Our American idea is that we are born free, we should live and die free. Simple as that.
There is no such thing as a right to marry, or a right to abortion, or a right to healthcare insurance. These"rights" require another person to do something for you. That is a transaction.

 

[snackdaddy]

What I wanna know is, will this benefit me financially? Or cost me more money? If the answer is no to either, then I don't give a f***.

 

[bluecoconuts]

There is no such thing as a right to marry, or a right to abortion, or a right to healthcare insurance. These"rights" require another person to do something for you. That is a transaction.

People can argue that some of those can fall under "life liberty and pursuit of happiness"

 

[Stranger]

I'm not going to take a positoin here one way or the other, but let's look at what LGBT "protections" really means. Ultimately, it means that the Feds want to be able to step-in and compel one private party to do business with another private party. So, when talking about all of these issues, let's not lose site of what we're really asking for here.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm not going to take a positoin here one way or the other, but let's look at what LGBT "protections" really means. Ultimately, it means that the Feds want to be able to step-in and compel one private party to do business with another private party. So, when talking about all of these issues, let's not lose site of what we're really asking for here.

Just extend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to sexual orientation as well.

 

[beej]

It seems clear to met that the two factions of people for our against use the same words when arguing but the words have different meanings to each. They might use words like :marriage, love, acceptance,or tolerance. But one side defines those words differently than the other side which makes it nearly impossible for the 2 sides to have a conversation. And neither side wants to really try to understand the other.
Personally, I'm against gay marriage, but I can live with the ruling so long as the LGBT community would be ok with letting me believe and practice my faith unabated. I don't believe that will happen though.

 

[Rynie]

What I wanna know is, will this benefit me financially? Or cost me more money? If the answer is no to either, then I don't give a f***.

THIS. X1,000

 

[Angry Ram]

It seems clear to met that the two factions of people for our against use the same words when arguing but the words have different meanings to each. They might use words like :marriage, love, acceptance,or tolerance. But one side defines those words differently than the other side which makes it nearly impossible for the 2 sides to have a conversation. And neither side wants to really try to understand the other.
Personally, I'm against gay marriage, but I can live with the ruling so long as the LGBT community would be ok with letting me believe and practice my faith unabated. I don't believe that will happen though.

Why wouldn't they?

If anything, those opposing (not you, the really loud ones) are those saying it goes against their religious beliefs. Ironically, tho when has the LGBT community tried to prevent religious practices? Never that I've heard of.

All they (LGBT) want is equal rights guaranteed by the law, not religion. That's where separation of church and state come in. You can't make law based on religious influence.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. I'll just leave it as this...all this does is let 2 people get married. The country is not going to fall because of that.

 

[beej]

Why wouldn't they?

If anything, those opposing (not you, the really loud ones) are those saying it goes against their religious beliefs. Ironically, tho when has the LGBT community tried to prevent religious practices? Never that I've heard of.

All they (LGBT) want is equal rights guaranteed by the law, not religion. That's where separation of church and state come in. You can't make law based on religious influence.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. I'll just leave it as this...all this does is let 2 people get married. The country is not going to fall because of that.

This law does more than that. All you have to do is start asking yourself "what-if" questions.

What if a Catholic adoption agency, doesn't want to help a gay couple adopt a baby?

What if a Catholic university or high school refuses to hire a homosexual married teacher, are they allowed to do that? Etc...

as far as the examples of LGBT leaving churches alone to believe what they believe, I could give examples to show how they are in fact trying to stop churches from practicing and believing what they believe, but it would come across like I'm hating and I don't want to do that.

 

[Angry Ram]

This law does more than that. All you have to do is start asking yourself "what-if" questions.

What if a Catholic adoption agency, doesn't want to help a gay couple adopt a baby?

What if a Catholic university or high school refuses to hire a homosexual married teacher, are they allowed to do that? Etc...

as far as the examples of LGBT leaving churches alone to believe what they believe, I could give examples to show how they are in fact trying to stop churches from practicing and believing what they believe, but it would come across like I'm hating and I don't want to do that.

Of course there are going to be "what if" scenarios. And all of them are going to be "it depends" answers.

I haven't heard of any LGBT trying to stop church services. That's news to me.

But as U.S. citizens, they have a right to well, equal rights. That's all I'm saying. It's amazing to me in the 21st century this is met with such scrutiny.

 

[Mackeyser]

This law does more than that. All you have to do is start asking yourself "what-if" questions.

What if a Catholic adoption agency, doesn't want to help a gay couple adopt a baby?

What if a Catholic university or high school refuses to hire a homosexual married teacher, are they allowed to do that? Etc...

as far as the examples of LGBT leaving churches alone to believe what they believe, I could give examples to show how they are in fact trying to stop churches from practicing and believing what they believe, but it would come across like I'm hating and I don't want to do that.

Well, that's easy. If ANY faith based org accepts public money (that means GOVERNMENT money) then that means they have to follow ALL of the PUBLIC laws... or go private.

Simple as that. I'm sick, sick, sick to death of FBOs using government money to do essentially contract work that's no different in principle than a highway contract except the church thinks it can dictate terms. Hell, no. Don't like working for the benefit of ALL of the American people (btw, gay people pay taxes, too, so a percentage of every government check comes directly from gay people, like it or not), then DONT TAKE THE DAMNED CHECK. But, I'm up to my eyeballs with this passive aggressive nonsense these churches are engaged in. No one is forcing them to do anything. And as some religious based hospitals and colleges have done specifically so for this reason so it can and has been done.

As for marriage, it's not a problem. Many conservative churches have a policy that they only marry members, so someone off the street can't compel them to marry anyone. It's been that way for Orthodox Jews forever in this country.

And like the myth of voter fraud, no LGBT group is coming to destroy or inhibit religion. C'mon.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Well, that's easy. If ANY faith based org accepts public money (that means GOVERNMENT money) then that means they have to follow ALL of the PUBLIC laws... or go private.

Ding Ding. There were a few high schools and colleges that refused to allow military recruiters onto their property during the Iraq war, so the government said "Okay, we wont send them, but we wont send any money either until you let them recruit without standing in the way."

Amazing how fast the schools opened their arms to the recruiters.

 

[beej]

Well, that's easy. If ANY faith based org accepts public money (that means GOVERNMENT money) then that means they have to follow ALL of the PUBLIC laws... or go private.

That's sounds simple and I think most would agree. I know I do. However, with catholic charities adoption agencies, there is know way to operate without public money. Kids and babies become wards of the state and govt licensing and technical laws actually force those agencies to take public money. Which is why the Catholic adoption agencies in illinois had to either shut down or act against their religious beliefs. They shut down.

 

[beej]

haven't heard of any LGBT trying to stop church services. That's news to me.

2 days after the judgment, the new York times ran an article stating that since churches are tax free organizations, they are basically subsidized by the govt and therefore taking public money. Which of course would make them liable for discriminating against an LGBT marriage. I have no doubt that the majority of the LGBT community just simply wants to marry the person they love and they are good people. The people in church are also good people. There would be no problems if this was left up to Congress to make the laws, but instead they are using the court system where a few fringe wackos can undermine the democratic process.

 

[Tron]

I think the gov't should not be in the marriage business. There are no victims here, just two consenting adults. Leave 'em alone.

One of the main reasons I didn't want to get married(had to for green card status). I think it's complete bs and no reason why the government should be involved.