A Fuzzy Thread

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Normal pertains more to the standards of an area than any one persons deciding what he thinks is normal. Webster:

Normal: A rule conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, or development and etc.

So what is normal for one place may not be for another. And no one person can make that determination it would seem.

Ron

Ron,
Interesting point. We seem to be approaching gay marriage on a regional basis. I have no problem with that, and it makes a certain amount of sense anyway. The states that lean towards allowing gays the same rights (marriage/civil unions) as heteros tend to be the more populated states. I think that the people in most of those states have learned how to mind their own business a bit better because their neighbour is often living just a few feet from them. They may have to deal with a huge variety of people on a daily basis that gays just might not be a big deal, or even something that ever concerns them.

Steve

[Ron61]

Steve,

I have mixed feelings about gay marriage, mostly from my religious beliefs. I have worked with and around gays all of my working life and found both the men and women to be just people for the most part. They have the same radical fringe that all groups have. Working in San Francisco a lot, I really got to know more abut them as 3 of every 4 people working there were gay. One of the best people I ever worked with was gay and a concert pianist. None of them ever made any attempts to bother me and I never said anything derogatory about them. Despite our completely different lifestyles and beliefs, we managed to co-exist and work together with no problems. I still can't quite go along with the gay marriage bit though and they already get every benefit that anyone else out here does. I am not condemning nor judging them. Just stating my personal experiences with them. Heck, in San Francisco it could be called normal for you to see a man dressed as a woman walking down the street. Yet up here in the remote wilderness, that would be far from normal.

Ron

[cobra de capell]

If one is pro-gay but not outed as gay, is one hiding something? In other words, is there something not stated on the agenda of that person?

[Ron61]

Ray,

If you are referring to my post above, I am not Gay nor do I back their trying to ram it down people's throats. But they are people just as you and I. What I said was that I worked around them a lot as my job took me to many places across the country and San Francisco has to be the Gay Capital of the world. I have no agenda and stated that my beliefs were in opposition to gay marriage, but I do not have the right to judge nor tell them or anyone else what to do. I would almost bet that at some point of your life you have worked or been around some gays and never even knew it. When I have something to say, it will be said clearly and not in innuendos.

Ron

[VRM]

Ron,
Yep, religion is usually the sticking point. Religions and other institutions that rely on group strength (military comes to mind) tend to beat down the individual in favour of conformity.

Religions also tend to oppose assisted suicide and birth control. 2000 years ago those sort of things were not very conducive to building the strength of the group.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Ray,

If you are referring to my post above, I am not Gay nor do I back their trying to ram it down people's throats. But they are people just as you and I. What I said was that I worked around them a lot as my job took me to many places across the country and San Francisco has to be the Gay Capital of the world. I have no agenda and stated that my beliefs were in opposition to gay marriage, but I do not have the right to judge nor tell them or anyone else what to do. I would almost bet that at some point of your life you have worked or been around some gays and never even knew it. When I have something to say, it will be said clearly and not in innuendos.

Ron

It's not directed at you, Ron (you were just the next post up) - it's a general question - just wondering what's really on the agenda of those that really are pro-gay but not outed as gay and claim to not be gay. Just wondering if at least some of those people - people that really push the gay agenda have something else in their background - secret thoughts, secret desires that may be pushing the stated agenda of being fair, etc.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with being gay - it's the in your face stuff that upsets people and those that really push the gay agenda that upset people - I'm just wondering what's behind the door.

[Ron61]

Ray,

Thanks for the clarification. I guess we just had the misfortune of my post getting in just before yours. I don't like the In your face stuff either and that should not be done.

Ron

[trularin]

Steve, I am on three bags.

[bomelia]

The gaining of extra political power worries me the most. Granting gay people the institution of marriage opens new doors. I have serious reservations about gay couples raising adopted children or children that they use surrogates for. Why? First, its not normal! Its not biological, it is not natural. Anybody with kids (hetero parents) will tell you that there are distcinct, discernable charactertsitics in children that atttach to dads & moms. They get something different out of each parent. They need that. Yes, in one parent households, that is missing. And in some of those cases, the kids grow up with scars.

Second, these kids get a skewed view on normal life. And, the gay parents benefit politically by training these kids that the gay lifestyle is normal and accepted. This is another way that gays will get political power not commensurate with their population fraction.

If you grant gays "marriage" then you must allow them to adopt. Then what after that? The civil union, imperfect as it is the best answer. Gay couples must not be allowed to compete with hetero couples for adoption of children.

Finally, I know it is a stretch, but what about what today is considered deviant behavior? Adult/child sex. Human/animal sex? Etc? Each time we let go of one of the strings that ties us to the Truth, the remaining strings get put under greater tension. Eventially, they get cut too. There is truth in this world. But accepting non-truth as truth has its consequences. I really despise when folks try to tie the gay issue to the racial issue. They are not even close.

Mike

[cobra de capell]

polygamy would be next up.....

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by VRM

Razor,
Well, you didn't really answer my question about what it does to you specifically, but I see how your concern for society as a whole affects how you view this issue. But you do bring up some other interesting points.

With regard to structure - there were no laws changed in MA to allow gay marriage. Some people tried (and still try) to change laws to eradicate it in MA.

I agree about the deadbeat dad types. I also don't like spousal abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, street gangs, and a lot of other things like that. I think the bulk of gays who want to get married are honest and decent people who are looking for stability. And I also suspect that many of them would be better parents than those deadbeat dad/abusive types. And since they cannot reproduce on their own they might make a perfect place to put kids who might otherwise have ended up as abortions.

It would seem that you are OK with allowing laws to give gay couples certain legal rights that are the equivalent of the legal rights associated with marriage. Calling those legal rights by the term 'marriage' only then becomes a religious or emotional need. I could care less about the religious need - religions are private entities and I do not want to legislate them. The emotional need is identical to straight couples, therefore I have no problem calling a set of legal rights 'marriage' as far as the legal aspects are concerned. Calling it the same thing for legal purposes will eliminate any possible advantage or disadvantage for one group or another.

I understand the argument regarding other types of marriages. Many people who are in favour of gay marriage do ignore potential problems with other types of marriage. I think it is because they do not understand the issues. The reasons are scientific; it is a proven fact that humans have all kinds of offspring problems when close relatives breed. It is 'morally' wrong because humans noticed thousands of years ago that kids of brothers and sisters usually came out sorta screwed up.
As for polygamy - Having 1 wife keeps me plenty busy - having more would probably kill me (though death by multiple girlfriend might be something fun to try). However, there are financial and legal reasons to not allow this. Group marriages would not qualify for the same legal benefits because trying to split spousal rights and benefits between multiple people is just not the same as with a single partner.

Morals do change.
The Bible says that gays can be killed simply for being gay. So 2 thousand years ago 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is gay'.

350 or so years ago people were killing 'witches' right here in the good ol' USA. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is a witch'.

150 years ago people were killing black people simply because they were black. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is black'.

60 years ago people were killing Jews, Gypsies, gays and a whole bunch of other people. That was viewed as morally acceptable by a lot of people.

Today, we shalt not kill, unless you happen to be Palestinian, Communist, Muslim, or whatever - then it is not so much a big deal because they belong to a different group than we do, and everybody knows that they are not quite as human as we are. I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but we do tend to get a bit cavalier about wiping out a bunch of people we have never met.

'Traditional' marriage has changed through the years as well. A few decades ago it was against the law in the US for a white person to marry a black person. Mormons were allowed to have multiple wives until the late 1800s. Less than 100 years ago half of a married couple could not even vote. India has a different set of marriage laws for a variety of religions. Humanity is constantly evolving (well most of humanity), and even those morals that seem set in stone get tweaked every so often. I would rather we make those tweaks based on the founding principles of this country rather than one group or another's religious beliefs.

Steve

Steve,
The reason I didn't give an answer to your question was that its irrelevant, how it effects me personally, my opposition is how it effects society as a whole, just as I don't vote with my wallet, when deciding on a candidate.
You speak to an emotional need for gays the same as hetros, I couldn't care less for either groups emotion needs, and certainly don't want that as the guiding force on how to make the laws of the land.
You are still making decisions for the polygamist, and as far as close relatives, what is one is sterilized, so no offspring, what do we say to their marriage then?
As far as "thou shalt not kill", "you do err not knowing the scripture", the penalty of breaking many of the commandments was death, and the point being, homosexuality was not approved.
350 years ago in one small New England town, one preacher lead a group of town people to kill 21 women,for witchcraft, although tragic, it hardly set a standard of accepted accepted morality.
150 years ago the killing of blacks, was condemned by the majority and those guilty were of a vigilantly mentality.
60 years ago hundreds of thousands of brave Americans, along with British, Australian, French and others gave their lives to save the Jews, Gypsies, gays.
Today the Muslim, Communist, are strangers just as the Nazi, and Japs were in the 1940's. No we don't know them but if they want to fly planes into our building, wipe out Israel, their ours enemies and we will wipe them out. But I suppose by your statement we need to met them first them wipe them out.
Humanity is fighting the same battles it did 500 years, 1000 years, 3000 years ago. If it is constantly evolving why, is the battle field the same?
The principles of the founding Fathers were over whelmingly based on the Judeo-Christian principles. From the writing of John Locke on government, who also authored a commentary on the book of Romans, and the ideals of Mayflower Compact, in 1620 that favored a elected representative government, as they found in Exodus 18:25,26.
We do not need the government approval of same sex marriage, it is bringing in the religious views that you abhor, but it the religious view of the secular left that wants to rewrite the law, and shove it in our face, to make change as they see fit, and not follow the traditional founding principles that you said we should follow.

[bomelia]

Morals do change.
The Bible says that gays can be killed simply for being gay. So 2 thousand years ago 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is gay'.

Yes Steve, they do. But principles do not.

[cobra de capell]

Here's an interesting response to the Miss California flap over her comment that gay marriage isn't the way to go.....responding to Perez Hilton's comments....

My Apology to Perez Hilton
by Mike Adams
Thursday, April 30, 2009

Good afternoon, Perez. I’m sorry I haven’t yet taken the time to write you in response to your little flap with Miss California. I’ve been down in South Carolina spending the last few days with a beautiful woman who is opposed to gay marriage. I hope that doesn’t offend you. In Hollywood, that’s called bigotry. In South Carolina, it’s called “normal.”


http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeA...&comments=true

[VRM]

Mike,
I really despise when one group of people tries to tell another group of people how to live their lives in a country that is supposed to be full of freedom. So there!

Anyway - deviant behaviour (to me) would be something that is against the law. And that usually covers anything not involving consenting adult(s). Do you consider tattoos and piercings deviant? Should they be outlawed as well, or should they just be be restricted to people over a certain age?

As for gays adopting, I agree that kids are better off with two parents, and I would also agree that a male and female parents would be the ideal situation. I also think that most stable gay couples would be better parents than a number of parents currently raising kids. And I suspect that gay couples may be more open to adopting kids of different races (they are used to dealing with differences) where a lot of WASP types may only want white kids and have to go to Russia to get them. I know this is a personal thing for you as I think you adopted at least one of your kids (Caleb, right?). I'm sure you and your wife are great parents, but if you and other 'normal' families were not available to adopt him would you rather he go to a foster family with 5 other foster kids or a gay/lesbian couple with a nice house in the 'burbs?

Having a 'normal' family does not prevent kids from getting skewed in some way. In MA a gay person has no more political power than I do. A gay married guy has less political power than I do because his marriage is not recognised at the Federal level.

And when you get right down to it I think that the total % of American population that is gay is something like 2%, and I strongly suspect that a large number of gays who marry are more interested in the legal benefits than raising kids.

All that being said - I do wish that gays and other groups would stop marching around telling everyone how <insert adjective here> they are.

Steve

[bomelia]

They are 2-5%. Yet they have (and are gaining) political power beyond their numbers.

I am not totally opposed to gay parents... and I know this will sound awful... but in the case where children are difficult to adopt, any parenting at all is better than none at all. And even here, I am somewhat conflicted.

I just do not ever want to see a gay couple competing with a hetero couple for adoptions. I would assume in MA that you are indeed seeing gay couples now adopting children. Right? And if there are problems with it, laws will be passed that say one can not discriminate (in adoption) on the basis of sexual orientation, etc. THEN, the pregnant mother wanting her child adopted will lose all rights, gays will gain rights... and abortion rates will rise.

Of course, I am just positing, but you can see it if you think about it.

Mike

[Jamo]

Mike, being married is not necessarily a qualification for adoption.

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Mike, being married is not necessarily a qualification for adoption.

Fair enough. That is true. I guess I am getting all wrapped in the issue from my personal perspective.

When it comes to private adoption, anything pretty much goes. Yet at least in the state I live in, and those around me, a "home study" is required by the state. That is how I remember it, since one must go to court and get the judge to sign off. In faith based adoption agencies (intermediaries) they can have their own requirements on top of the state (married, not gay, etc).

None the less, there will be a growing call for "adoption" rights for gays. If they are "married" then the legal issues are moot (insurance, visitation, etc)

Remember, married gay couples are by definition, in a sterile marriage. 100%. The only way to get kids is through surrogacy and adoption. Now, if they want to clone themselves, I have no problem with that. But each clone has 1/2 the "rights" as the original template.

Mike

[trularin]

I am not sure, but this could be the longest you all have stayed on a thread where Jamo didn't close the doors.

[Ron61]

Tru,

That was his goal was to start a thread than wasn't locked down. So he chose a name that didn't deal with any specific topic and it is hard to hijack a thread like that.

Ron

[Joe Wicked]

That is kinda funny that it took a thread titled Fuzzy to actually get a decent debate on an issue. The few that tried to side track it, were deterred and this has been a discussion that has brought up issues and points that I have not thought of. Pretty good IMO.