I am also leaning that direction, something i am changing my mind about is questioning how rewarding traditional marriage for the last 30 years has been a government investment with a return - financially, culturally, whatever.

Though I will always agree with the principle of it, perhaps it was poorly designed.  This failure is certainly not a positive development.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Yep.  So if we are now agreeing, what will we argue about?

Ok, you edited.  I'm am not 100% on the first sentence of the second paragraph, but in general, sure.

I think the forum servers are tired from this workout, so i am logging off..  Goodnight

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Good night.

I mean no one on this forum, or for that matter, anywhere, any offense for anything I say in expressing my opinion on this topic. 

Leah, my respect for you is based solely on what I have known of you as a person, which has been quite good.  I do not give my respect to anyone on any other basis than my evaluation of how a person represents himself/herself.  Sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether I give my respect and friendship to a person. any more than race or gender should play a part.  Frankly, even if someone on this forum declared one way or the other, I wouldn't care and it wouldn't affect how I would feel about that person.

You have asked me why do I care. 

If I am any kind of person, I have to be true to my perspectives as a christian.  To deny this perspective is asking me to be a hypocrit and this I will not do.   Therefore, even if it does not directly affect me personally,  I have to stand for what I believe because I sincerely believe it is the way God wants to world to be.  However, I am equally content to let Him work it all out for Himself, which He will anyway.  No, this issue does not "threaten my life", but I do feel it threatens our society. 

There is a wise saying that goes like this.   All it takes for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

I believe this is true. 

---

Make each day count to improve yourself and those around you

Leah, you also ask me on what evidence or criteria have I made a decision that gay is not a natural state.   Without revealing too much, I will tell you that I have first hand experience and observation on this issue.  I read with interest the exchange between you and Egor last night and from what I have seen first hand, Egor's analysis is correct.  (thought I don't exactly know where or how he figured all that out.)  As I said, my experiences were first hand.

I have no more scientific information concerning this issue than the gay side does.  Both sides of this issue are merely stating what they believe to be true.  No side has a monopoly on 'scientific evidence".

In fact, the only true scientific evidence that does exist is that a purely homosexual society would cease to exist in one single generation. Also, an afterthought, a purely homosexual society could NEVER exist because there would be no way to procreate one.

Secondly, all those children that the gay community wants the ability and rights to adopt came from sexual relationships between two heterosexual partners, not from any procreation activities they themselves participated in.

---

Make each day count to improve yourself and those around you

Did everyone notice how the two main stories in the media view this and similar topics i.e.:   how the media ridiculed Sarah Palin's daughter now a single mom saying abstinence is the best and only sure way to avoid being a teen single mom, focusing only on the supposed conflict between her and her ex fiance, who, of course, favors sex before marriage...  (what a suprise since he isn't around to care for his kid 24/7,  he only has his parents send a check once a month or so),     and poor Ms. California being excoriated by the left and gay rights activists for simply stating her opinion that she supports the definition of traditional marriage? 

This is tolerance?

If the left wants tolerance, they need to show a little tolerance.

---

Make each day count to improve yourself and those around you

I think the ridicule was directed at Palin rather than her daughter, and at the irony of a politician who thinks abstinence advocacy is the way to prevent teen pregnancy, but cannot even keep her own daughter from getting knocked up.  The coverage was more like a collective, sarcastic "Yep. That works."

As for Ms. California, she has the right to her view and the right to express it, and the public has the right to be disgusted by it and her.  She made herself a public figure by competing for that title, so she is fair game for the public outcry.

Hi Leah, long time no talk. :)

 

Leah:

I think the ridicule was directed at Palin rather than her daughter, and at the irony of a politician who thinks abstinence advocacy is the way to prevent teen pregnancy, but cannot even keep her own daughter from getting knocked up.  The coverage was more like a collective, sarcastic "Yep. That works."

As for Ms. California, she has the right to her view and the right to express it, and the public has the right to be disgusted by it and her.  She made herself a public figure by competing for that title, so she is fair game for the public outcry.

 

You're 'dodging the bullet'.  Mark never questioned anyone's rights.  So all you did was sidestep and declare a fact that has not been challenged by anyone.  What Mark is saying is that the left (including gay activists) are showing a lack of tolerance, while they are themselves requesting to be tolerated.

 

Now, I know that the left (and not the 'public', as you word it) has the right to 'outcry' but let me ask you what Mark asked you:  do you think this is a display of tolerance?

 

Regarding Palin:  just because her daughter messed up and broke her mother's rule does not mean it is a bad rule or that it does not work.  So ridiculing her is not justified (though they have a 'right' to do so).  I've seen a gay guy on TV once, saying he got AIDS (because he didn't practice safe sex) and he was advocating for people to engage only in safe sex to prevent (as much as possible) HIV infection.  Unlike you, I didn't feel that just because he messed up and was now teaching how to avoid his mistake that he should be laughed at, or ridiculed for 'irony'.  Though you, on the other hand, would have found the ridicule of him normal (or justified), as you do with Palin/Palin's daughter, correct?

 

 

---

I've always found the left to be more intolerant than the right, ironically.  Specifically towards religious people, social conservatives, supporters of individual issues, etc.  The things they do and say would be enough to charge a conservative with a hate crime, had the double standard not existed.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Speaking of intolerance... and who displays it....

I went to see "Fiddler on the Roof" last night, a stop on Topol's farewell tour, and he was amazing.  On our way into the theatre, as we were approaching it from the parking area, I noticed a man with a big sign standing there across the entrance, about half an inch from theatre property.  One side of the sign said "Tradition", referencing a major them of the show.  The other side said something like "Guess what happens when Jews reject Jesus", or something very close to that.  I assumed he referred to the events at the end of the show, seemed to be saying they deserved their fate.  I felt sick.  Then I noticed he also wore a t-shirt proclaiming his alleged Christianity.  I felt sicker.

I suppose he is one of those on the religious right who are more tolerant than your average journalist or left winger?  

Or maybe that guy earlier in the topic who basically said that everyone who didn't believe in him is going to hell?  Page 3 or 4 I think.  Yep, he's tolerant too.

If I am militant, it's from dealing with people like the two above on a daily basis.  And believe me, living in the south, in the bible belt, it is indeed daily.  And I'm not even an atheist, not even an agnostic really.  I just can't stomach the so called church people.  Sometimes I suspect God can't stand them either.

I can't address the rest of what has been said in this topic at this exact moment.  Typing this has upset me.  But later I will.

Egor:

I've always found the left to be more intolerant than the right, ironically.  Specifically towards religious people, social conservatives, supporters of individual issues, etc.  The things they do and say would be enough to charge a conservative with a hate crime, had the double standard not existed.

Yep, that's exactly right.

Weird, ain't it ?

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

I think its hard to make any argument with individual cases like this, for every intolerant f*ck on one side, there is a worse one on the other.  My statement was more on the balance, and the hypocricy of one of these sides actually preaching tolerance day and night.  I am personally very discriminant in my own tolerance of others (though am fully tolerant of private behaviors such as religion or sexual preferances), so i am not judging.. just making an observation.

on a brighter note, saw this article today posted on my broker's website..  You can subtract federal budget from my list of reasons :)

Gay marriage can serve as boost to economy

10:49a ET May 8, 2009 (MarketWatch)

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

I can't stand it.

So,  we should allow gay marriage because it will boost the economy.   What?   Two gay men or women don't already spend money on each other like normal lovers?  Are we truly to believe they don't actually "commit" to each other without the bond of traditional marriage,  they're just faking it until they really get a marriage license?  That if only those darn "traditionalists" would just shut up and go away the economy would just boom due to gay marriage? 

Oh and forget all about the increase in social security benefits, it's okay because the gay couple will "take care of each other" when they are old and this will offset the additional cost to the government.   Oh, I get it now.  Gay would not really stay together and take care of each other when they get old because they aren't really "married" .   This is way too much BS.

I compare this form of thinking to the thinking that it's okay that people drink themselves to death because think of all that luscious tax money they paid on all that liquor.  Drinking yourself to death actually helps the economy, and therefore it's all okay.

---

Make each day count to improve yourself and those around you

It is clear that the author is a gay marriage supporter to begin with.  So your analogy with drinking to death would escape him/her :)  He is arguing for 2 positives :)

P.S.  I also do not get the majority of these arguments.  When people "take care of each other" do they forget to collect their social security checks just because they are gay?

And what about the cost of filing taxes jointly, what offsets that?

Overall it sounds like he is assuming that if a gay person is not allowed to mary they will sit in solitude all their lives and not spend their income.

 

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher