barman,
You couldn't be that stupid and still be able to write (type), so I assume you're trying to make a Socratic point with your question.
I'm refering to the institution of marriage as it has been for the past several thousand years - you know, the act of matrimony between a man and woman - for procreative reasons.
Marriage can't exist between man and man, or woman and woman because they can't bear children: the sexual act between these people is generally referred to as sodomy.
If marriage is being re-defined, what's to stop a pederast from marrying the child he so desires, or to stop the animal lover from marrying their favorite dog or cat; what's to stop mother from marrying daughter or son, or the father from marrying son or daughter, and of course, sister and brother shouldn't be halted in their desire for each other.
And while we're at it, what other social institutions do we want to destroy?
As a traditionalist, I prefer to save and preserve the institutions I grew up with, and not redefine them to suit the requirments of some minority group.
Whether you like it or not, there's your answer - all marriages between a man and a woman are now jeopardized by the social engineering judges of Massachusetts.
You couldn't be that stupid and still be able to write (type), so I assume you're trying to make a Socratic point with your question.
I'm refering to the institution of marriage as it has been for the past several thousand years - you know, the act of matrimony between a man and woman - for procreative reasons.
Marriage can't exist between man and man, or woman and woman because they can't bear children: the sexual act between these people is generally referred to as sodomy.
If marriage is being re-defined, what's to stop a pederast from marrying the child he so desires, or to stop the animal lover from marrying their favorite dog or cat; what's to stop mother from marrying daughter or son, or the father from marrying son or daughter, and of course, sister and brother shouldn't be halted in their desire for each other.
And while we're at it, what other social institutions do we want to destroy?
As a traditionalist, I prefer to save and preserve the institutions I grew up with, and not redefine them to suit the requirments of some minority group.
Whether you like it or not, there's your answer - all marriages between a man and a woman are now jeopardized by the social engineering judges of Massachusetts.
You still haven't answered the question, because you know that you can't point to a single marriage that has been 'destroyed'.
It's all in your homophobic imagination.
If every gay couple in Massachusetts gets married, not a single heterosexual marriage will be threatened.
Unless you can tell me something I'm missing.
You're the one that started this exchange with your sillyass comment.
If you're afraid of same sex marriages, just say so.
But don't hide behind some bogus assertation that someone is being damaged if I marry another man in Massachusetts.
If there's any damage being done to heterosexuals, it's all self inflicted in the mind.
It's all in your homophobic imagination.
If every gay couple in Massachusetts gets married, not a single heterosexual marriage will be threatened.
Unless you can tell me something I'm missing.
You're the one that started this exchange with your sillyass comment.
If you're afraid of same sex marriages, just say so.
But don't hide behind some bogus assertation that someone is being damaged if I marry another man in Massachusetts.
If there's any damage being done to heterosexuals, it's all self inflicted in the mind.
And while we're at it, let's examine your specific comments for increased sillyness quotient.
BBL: Marriage can't exist between man and man, or woman and woman because they can't bear children: the sexual act between these people is generally referred to as sodomy.
BAR: This is the first I've heard that marriage by definition must include the potential for reproduction.
Yes, it's called sodomy. And as of last summer the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that this can no longer be considered a criminal act. Perhaps you'd like to see a return to putting homosexuals in jail, but sorry, wrong country.
BBL: If marriage is being re-defined,
BAR: It's not.
BBL:...what's to stop a pederast from marrying the child he so desires
BAR: Children cannot legally enter contracts.
BBL: or to stop the animal lover from marrying their favorite dog or cat
BAR: Cats and dogs cannot legally enter contracts.
BBL: what's to stop mother from marrying daughter or son, or the father from marrying son or daughter, and of course, sister and brother shouldn't be halted in their desire for each other.
BAR: Actually, there's nothing that stops any of those pairings from marriage, as long as both parties are 18 or older. But you say this as if you know someone who wants such a relationship. Do you?
BBL: And while we're at it, what other social institutions do we want to destroy?
BAR: None, thanks. Do you?
BBL: As a traditionalist, I prefer to save and preserve the institutions I grew up with, and not redefine them to suit the requirments of some minority group.
BAR: There's your problem right there. You're stuck in the stone age.
BBL: Whether you like it or not, there's your answer - all marriages between a man and a woman are now jeopardized by the social engineering judges of Massachusetts.
BAR: Well as you certainly know, those judges did no social engineering. They simply ruled properly based on how your state Constitution is written. And they were so correct in their ruling that not a single legislator in your state is willing to challenge the ruling because they know it would be legally foolish.
But if you can gather together enough of your homophobic friends to force a legal amendment to your state Constitution then you may still realize your dream of a state that only permits heterosexuals to marry and enjoy the numerous tax and legal benefits heretofore denied anyone that is not heterosexual.
Giving up your dreams of discrimination against people who are different is painful, but you are likely big enough to handle it.
BBL: Marriage can't exist between man and man, or woman and woman because they can't bear children: the sexual act between these people is generally referred to as sodomy.
BAR: This is the first I've heard that marriage by definition must include the potential for reproduction.
Yes, it's called sodomy. And as of last summer the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that this can no longer be considered a criminal act. Perhaps you'd like to see a return to putting homosexuals in jail, but sorry, wrong country.
BBL: If marriage is being re-defined,
BAR: It's not.
BBL:...what's to stop a pederast from marrying the child he so desires
BAR: Children cannot legally enter contracts.
BBL: or to stop the animal lover from marrying their favorite dog or cat
BAR: Cats and dogs cannot legally enter contracts.
BBL: what's to stop mother from marrying daughter or son, or the father from marrying son or daughter, and of course, sister and brother shouldn't be halted in their desire for each other.
BAR: Actually, there's nothing that stops any of those pairings from marriage, as long as both parties are 18 or older. But you say this as if you know someone who wants such a relationship. Do you?
BBL: And while we're at it, what other social institutions do we want to destroy?
BAR: None, thanks. Do you?
BBL: As a traditionalist, I prefer to save and preserve the institutions I grew up with, and not redefine them to suit the requirments of some minority group.
BAR: There's your problem right there. You're stuck in the stone age.
BBL: Whether you like it or not, there's your answer - all marriages between a man and a woman are now jeopardized by the social engineering judges of Massachusetts.
BAR: Well as you certainly know, those judges did no social engineering. They simply ruled properly based on how your state Constitution is written. And they were so correct in their ruling that not a single legislator in your state is willing to challenge the ruling because they know it would be legally foolish.
But if you can gather together enough of your homophobic friends to force a legal amendment to your state Constitution then you may still realize your dream of a state that only permits heterosexuals to marry and enjoy the numerous tax and legal benefits heretofore denied anyone that is not heterosexual.
Giving up your dreams of discrimination against people who are different is painful, but you are likely big enough to handle it.
barman,
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to take the stance that as long as it's legal it's all good when it comes to civil liberties. For example:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BBL:...what's to stop a pederast from marrying the child he so desires
BAR: Children cannot legally enter contracts.
BBL: or to stop the animal lover from marrying their favorite dog or cat
BAR: Cats and dogs cannot legally enter contracts.
BBL: what's to stop mother from marrying daughter or son, or the father from marrying son or daughter, and of course, sister and brother shouldn't be halted in their desire for each other.
BAR: Actually, there's nothing that stops any of those pairings from marriage, as long as both parties are 18 or older. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why shouldn't children or dogs be allowed to enter in a contract? Let's say that children were given such a concession, would it then be OK with you if they entered into matrimony with their mom or Fido? If not, why not?
Other issues come to mind where you preach against legislative expansions but I'll stick to this one instead of bringing up other threads in which different topics have been discussed.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to take the stance that as long as it's legal it's all good when it comes to civil liberties. For example:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BBL:...what's to stop a pederast from marrying the child he so desires
BAR: Children cannot legally enter contracts.
BBL: or to stop the animal lover from marrying their favorite dog or cat
BAR: Cats and dogs cannot legally enter contracts.
BBL: what's to stop mother from marrying daughter or son, or the father from marrying son or daughter, and of course, sister and brother shouldn't be halted in their desire for each other.
BAR: Actually, there's nothing that stops any of those pairings from marriage, as long as both parties are 18 or older. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why shouldn't children or dogs be allowed to enter in a contract? Let's say that children were given such a concession, would it then be OK with you if they entered into matrimony with their mom or Fido? If not, why not?
Other issues come to mind where you preach against legislative expansions but I'll stick to this one instead of bringing up other threads in which different topics have been discussed.
UMB, it's a bit of a red herring to reverse the angle of the discussion like that, though I don't think that's what you intended.
Kind of like asking the guy on the witness stand, "Are you still beating your wife?" and either answer makes him look terrible.
I think I can best tie to the current thread by saying that I am very comfortable with limiting the ability to legally contract to adults (18+) only.
There's a long list of reasons why I would not like to see minors legally being able to contract, and marriage is one of them.
I also like the current model which prohibits animals from doing likewise.
Would I support their right to marry IF they could enter contracts?
Well first they would have to overcome my objection to their entering contracts in the first place. And if they got by me on that one, we'd have another discussion.
See, Unc, all I'm doing is being a bit of a dick to BBLight and pinning him down on his blanket statements which have no basis in reality.
It's much less about my defending same sex marriage rights as it is to challenge his blanket statement, "Marriage has been destroyed in Mass".
He can freely state that. I'm just wondering if he can support the statement with reality.
It's a fact that gays can now marry in Mass.
Now show me (BBL) how heterosexual marriage has been damaged physically (can't do it)...how heterosexual marriage has been damaged monetarily (can't do it).
That pretty much leaves mentally. And thus my statement that the only damage being done to heterosexuals by permitting same sex marriage is that done in their own minds.
Fortunately, such damage is curable, but it requires a reprogramming of faulty data. I can't do that for BBLight, or anyone else who feels mentally damaged or threatened by same sex marriage. But I can certainly challenge their stated fears.
Just like this: "There's nothing to be afraid of here, people. Move along. The show's over. Get on with your own marriage and have a happy productive life. Please quit blaming someone else for your fears and saying they have 'destroyed' you, when in fact, nothing of the sort has happened."
Or has it? If so, please elaborate.
So far, he's been unable to do so, though he has got off several personal shots at me, which I guess makes him feel better.
Cool, I'm an easy foil. Just seeking information.
Kind of like asking the guy on the witness stand, "Are you still beating your wife?" and either answer makes him look terrible.
I think I can best tie to the current thread by saying that I am very comfortable with limiting the ability to legally contract to adults (18+) only.
There's a long list of reasons why I would not like to see minors legally being able to contract, and marriage is one of them.
I also like the current model which prohibits animals from doing likewise.
Would I support their right to marry IF they could enter contracts?
Well first they would have to overcome my objection to their entering contracts in the first place. And if they got by me on that one, we'd have another discussion.
See, Unc, all I'm doing is being a bit of a dick to BBLight and pinning him down on his blanket statements which have no basis in reality.
It's much less about my defending same sex marriage rights as it is to challenge his blanket statement, "Marriage has been destroyed in Mass".
He can freely state that. I'm just wondering if he can support the statement with reality.
It's a fact that gays can now marry in Mass.
Now show me (BBL) how heterosexual marriage has been damaged physically (can't do it)...how heterosexual marriage has been damaged monetarily (can't do it).
That pretty much leaves mentally. And thus my statement that the only damage being done to heterosexuals by permitting same sex marriage is that done in their own minds.
Fortunately, such damage is curable, but it requires a reprogramming of faulty data. I can't do that for BBLight, or anyone else who feels mentally damaged or threatened by same sex marriage. But I can certainly challenge their stated fears.
Just like this: "There's nothing to be afraid of here, people. Move along. The show's over. Get on with your own marriage and have a happy productive life. Please quit blaming someone else for your fears and saying they have 'destroyed' you, when in fact, nothing of the sort has happened."
Or has it? If so, please elaborate.
So far, he's been unable to do so, though he has got off several personal shots at me, which I guess makes him feel better.
Cool, I'm an easy foil. Just seeking information.
And a little more on point to your specific post, Unc...I would in a friendly way reverse it back on you.
Would you be comfortable changing the laws for minimum age to enter a contract? If not, why?
I bet your list of reasons would not be much different from my own. It's simply solid, workable policy for the past couple centuries and I've no motivation to change it.
Would you be comfortable changing the laws for minimum age to enter a contract? If not, why?
I bet your list of reasons would not be much different from my own. It's simply solid, workable policy for the past couple centuries and I've no motivation to change it.
barman and Wil, why is it when someone disagrees with the homosexual agenda, they're refered to as "homophobic" - as though to sound like a bigot or hate m onger.
I neither fear nor hate homosexuals - but I do disagree with their agenda. If they want a legal civil union, then by all means, let them have one, but leave marriage alone.
barman, so what you're saying is that pederasty and all forms of incest and sodomy would be fine with you if we can find a few judges to legalize them?
According to your tenets, all social institutions are now subject to modification, depending on how powerful the minority is that wants those changes - especially if it's a minority that you support; but what about the NRA and the Evangelicals - would you also go along with their social agenda's?
Good luck, it's people like you that allowed Adolph Hitler into power, and supported him, because he gave them what they wanted.
I personally consider that old adage "Beware of what you wish for, you might get it."
I neither fear nor hate homosexuals - but I do disagree with their agenda. If they want a legal civil union, then by all means, let them have one, but leave marriage alone.
barman, so what you're saying is that pederasty and all forms of incest and sodomy would be fine with you if we can find a few judges to legalize them?
According to your tenets, all social institutions are now subject to modification, depending on how powerful the minority is that wants those changes - especially if it's a minority that you support; but what about the NRA and the Evangelicals - would you also go along with their social agenda's?
Good luck, it's people like you that allowed Adolph Hitler into power, and supported him, because he gave them what they wanted.
I personally consider that old adage "Beware of what you wish for, you might get it."
Nope, pedarasty is properly illegal because a minor cannot legally consent to sexual relations with an adult. I'm fine with that.
Ok, so you're just against homosexuals being able to marry.
So you support discrimination against adults who wish to marry someone of the same sex instead of someone from the opposite sex?
Fine. Just acknowledge that and it's easier to respect your different point of view.
But also acknowledge that your first statement above, "Marriage has been destroyed in Mass" has no basis in fact.
Unless you have something you haven't shared yet about who and what has been destroyed.
Ok, so you're just against homosexuals being able to marry.
So you support discrimination against adults who wish to marry someone of the same sex instead of someone from the opposite sex?
Fine. Just acknowledge that and it's easier to respect your different point of view.
But also acknowledge that your first statement above, "Marriage has been destroyed in Mass" has no basis in fact.
Unless you have something you haven't shared yet about who and what has been destroyed.
See, discrimination is not neccesarily a bad tactic.
I agree with discriminating against minors and not permitting them to enter contracts.
I agree with discriminating against minors who wish to have sex with adults.
I do NOT agree, and neither does the Mass Supreme Court, that discriminating against adults who wish to marry same sex is a good idea. In fact, it's been deemed illegal to discriminate in that manner in Mass.
If YOU (BBL) agree that such discrimination against those who wish to marry same-sex is good, just say so. But don't act like you're doing it for some kind of altruistic reason that is protecting someone or something. Your discrimination is doing neither, though you certainly have a right to your view.
I agree with discriminating against minors and not permitting them to enter contracts.
I agree with discriminating against minors who wish to have sex with adults.
I do NOT agree, and neither does the Mass Supreme Court, that discriminating against adults who wish to marry same sex is a good idea. In fact, it's been deemed illegal to discriminate in that manner in Mass.
If YOU (BBL) agree that such discrimination against those who wish to marry same-sex is good, just say so. But don't act like you're doing it for some kind of altruistic reason that is protecting someone or something. Your discrimination is doing neither, though you certainly have a right to your view.
By the way, damage doesn't necessarily rear it's ugly head immediately - look at tax policy.
With the great Society, tax policy was changed to help support single mothers; a few minor changes were made:
1. The deduction was made higher for single "head of household"
2. The "earned income credit" was instituted for single "head of household".
3. Combined incomes for married filing jointly or married filing seperately were increased - so, in todays terms, a family earning $65,000 is taxed at 15% up to about 42,000 and at 28% for $23,000; while two people living together with two kids, earning $65,000($32,500 each) would get a conmbinrd deduction greater than the deduction for the married couple, would pay 15% on all of their income, and might be elligible for an earned income credit - which the married couple would never get.
For mqany, not getting married and living together is a financial matter based on sound economic policy - because of government tax incentives.
So now we have millions of bastards running around (the parents shame, not theirs), divorce is rampant, and society suffers dozens of ills from juvenile problems, all caused in great part to a tax policy that was intended for the finest reasons to help a needy portion of society.
Life ain't always easy - especially when you have kids - our laws and goals should be aimed at stregnthening the institution of marriage, not weakening it. I don't care who doesn't like it - when you have kids, it's now all about the kids - not whether two people can't figure out how to coexist - people with kids who get divorced should be held responsible and held to the highest standards oin support of their children.
As to homosexuals - I don't care what they think - marriage is for procreation - homosexuals can have civil union - it's better than what they have historically had!
With the great Society, tax policy was changed to help support single mothers; a few minor changes were made:
1. The deduction was made higher for single "head of household"
2. The "earned income credit" was instituted for single "head of household".
3. Combined incomes for married filing jointly or married filing seperately were increased - so, in todays terms, a family earning $65,000 is taxed at 15% up to about 42,000 and at 28% for $23,000; while two people living together with two kids, earning $65,000($32,500 each) would get a conmbinrd deduction greater than the deduction for the married couple, would pay 15% on all of their income, and might be elligible for an earned income credit - which the married couple would never get.
For mqany, not getting married and living together is a financial matter based on sound economic policy - because of government tax incentives.
So now we have millions of bastards running around (the parents shame, not theirs), divorce is rampant, and society suffers dozens of ills from juvenile problems, all caused in great part to a tax policy that was intended for the finest reasons to help a needy portion of society.
Life ain't always easy - especially when you have kids - our laws and goals should be aimed at stregnthening the institution of marriage, not weakening it. I don't care who doesn't like it - when you have kids, it's now all about the kids - not whether two people can't figure out how to coexist - people with kids who get divorced should be held responsible and held to the highest standards oin support of their children.
As to homosexuals - I don't care what they think - marriage is for procreation - homosexuals can have civil union - it's better than what they have historically had!
barman - you say that you think this and you think that - don't you gert it? Social institutions are being changed - and you agree, so it's OK.
What if social institutions that you like and don't want to see changed, are modified because a few jurists with extreme agendas are elected to the bench; what if they allow everyone over twentyone and without a record of violence to carryu a concealed weapon - what then? What if those Judges determine that all Jews or Muslims or Asians should be gathered up and placed into protective housing, pending a final solution; what if they decide that all blacks should ride at the back of the bus; and what if...., well I could go on and on - all I have to do is open a history book and there it is.
What if social institutions that you like and don't want to see changed, are modified because a few jurists with extreme agendas are elected to the bench; what if they allow everyone over twentyone and without a record of violence to carryu a concealed weapon - what then? What if those Judges determine that all Jews or Muslims or Asians should be gathered up and placed into protective housing, pending a final solution; what if they decide that all blacks should ride at the back of the bus; and what if...., well I could go on and on - all I have to do is open a history book and there it is.
Well two days and multiple Replies later, I still haven't been shown how 'marriage has been destroyed in Massachusetts', so I will presume that when you said that it was only a scared opinion with no basis in fact.
That's cool, you can have an opinion with no risk to others. But when you told me marriage had been destroyed in Mass, I wanted to find out why and how so I could avoid it happening here in Florida.
Good to know it's all just mind games, and nothing based in reality. Thanks for the replies.
Meanwhile, you continue to imply that the Mass Supreme Court ruling was led by 'a few extreme judges', yet no one in your state with more legal knowledge than you is willing to appeal that ruling.
Now I'm not a lawyer in Massachusetts, but I gotta figure that if no one in that state is willing to stick their legal necks out to appeal, then the ruling was solid as a rock, legally.
No offense to you and your knowledge of the law. But your fellow Massachites make it clear how correct that ruling was legally.
That's cool, you can have an opinion with no risk to others. But when you told me marriage had been destroyed in Mass, I wanted to find out why and how so I could avoid it happening here in Florida.
Good to know it's all just mind games, and nothing based in reality. Thanks for the replies.
Meanwhile, you continue to imply that the Mass Supreme Court ruling was led by 'a few extreme judges', yet no one in your state with more legal knowledge than you is willing to appeal that ruling.
Now I'm not a lawyer in Massachusetts, but I gotta figure that if no one in that state is willing to stick their legal necks out to appeal, then the ruling was solid as a rock, legally.
No offense to you and your knowledge of the law. But your fellow Massachites make it clear how correct that ruling was legally.
barman - I think you're capable of understanding in the abstract, so I assume you have no other argument but this "what marriage, name one marriage" business -
I'm getting mixed signals here, so I assume you're either a teenager or a homosexual - in either case, it appears that you don't have the experience or maturity to understand my position.
I'm getting mixed signals here, so I assume you're either a teenager or a homosexual - in either case, it appears that you don't have the experience or maturity to understand my position.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And a little more on point to your specific post, Unc...I would in a friendly way reverse it back on you.
Would you be comfortable changing the laws for minimum age to enter a contract? If not, why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a non-issue for me one way or the other. That being said, I probably would have been aided by being able to do so as a child instead of jumping through various legal hurdles to get where I needed to go. Generally, children lack the necessary experience to make those kind of decisions but they could improve their standing if given some leeway in that area. What they're trying to do is to try to shield children from making those mistakes and I think that's a real disservice to them because when they do mess up it might be too big for the parents to handle. I see it all the time where I live. It seems like every other month that I pay my rent I see a kid and their parent looking over a condo. The kid can't afford the condo. They have a 15 hour a week job that covers their beer and club money. The parents pay rent, car, medical and car insurance, food and utilities. These parents are doing this at their own peril. One gentleman with whom I speak occasionally pays half his daughter's expenses (grants and loans the other half) plus his own. He's living hand to mouth because he feels an obligation to his daughter. Meanwhile I put more in my Roth IRA in one year than he has put in their whole retirement portfolio in 8 years. When you add my 401K it becomes obscene. By the time his 3rd child is out of college, he'll have 9 years before he retires (assuming he does so at 67) to save like a madman. Hearing things like this on a regular basis is what makes me so cynical.
Back on topic if they made it possible tomorrow for children to stand on their word, it would be fine with me as long as the ramifications of their decisions would follow them as well. Regardless of what's done it's high time that children bear at least a portion of the punishment that the parents receive on behalf of their children's shortcomings.
Would you be comfortable changing the laws for minimum age to enter a contract? If not, why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a non-issue for me one way or the other. That being said, I probably would have been aided by being able to do so as a child instead of jumping through various legal hurdles to get where I needed to go. Generally, children lack the necessary experience to make those kind of decisions but they could improve their standing if given some leeway in that area. What they're trying to do is to try to shield children from making those mistakes and I think that's a real disservice to them because when they do mess up it might be too big for the parents to handle. I see it all the time where I live. It seems like every other month that I pay my rent I see a kid and their parent looking over a condo. The kid can't afford the condo. They have a 15 hour a week job that covers their beer and club money. The parents pay rent, car, medical and car insurance, food and utilities. These parents are doing this at their own peril. One gentleman with whom I speak occasionally pays half his daughter's expenses (grants and loans the other half) plus his own. He's living hand to mouth because he feels an obligation to his daughter. Meanwhile I put more in my Roth IRA in one year than he has put in their whole retirement portfolio in 8 years. When you add my 401K it becomes obscene. By the time his 3rd child is out of college, he'll have 9 years before he retires (assuming he does so at 67) to save like a madman. Hearing things like this on a regular basis is what makes me so cynical.
Back on topic if they made it possible tomorrow for children to stand on their word, it would be fine with me as long as the ramifications of their decisions would follow them as well. Regardless of what's done it's high time that children bear at least a portion of the punishment that the parents receive on behalf of their children's shortcomings.
Nope, neither. As noted earlier I'm a flaming 44 year old heterosexual, which is very good news to my wife and also to the mother of my three children. (my ex-wife)
I'm not exactly anonymous on the web, though I retain my 'sports forum' moniker "BARMAN" when posting here.
Among other roles, I work for the world's largest online drug policy reform website http://www.mapinc.org
You can see me live and in person here:
http://www.cannabisconsumers.org/gallery.php?gal_id=52
I offer this simply to counter any suggestion that I am some kind of web neophyte or troublemaker.
When I'm not gardening for $$, my primary work is education. A lot of my work is done on the web. That's why in between sports capping ideas here at the RX, I enjoy participating in the Politics room.
BBL, I realize that neither you nor anyone else may share same political views as I do, though I bet we have more in common than we don't.
When it comes to "I think this team is better than that team, or this wager is better than another" I realize it's all about opinion.
But when we're tossing political ideas around and someone makes a statement of fact, I often am the annoying dick who asks for a little supporting information.
I think what you intended to say way up at the beginning of this thread is something like this:
"Hey, the Democrats are coming to Boston, which makes sense because Massachusetts is a very liberal state. Why look at how they are the first major state to acknowledge the legality of same sex marriage. I think same sex marriage is a bad idea and it seems mostly liberals support it."
Or something kinda close to that.
But what you actually said was, "Marriage has been destroyed in Massachusetts".
Now like you, BBL, I think marriage is a very important form of relationship in stable societies. So when I read that, I thought (seriously), "Oh my, how is marriage being destroyed in Mass. I need to find out so it doesn't happen here in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter"
And you can't provide a single example of how marriage has been destroyed in Mass.
So big deal. You typed something that was a bit hysterical. I'm sure I've done the same thing when discussing a topic that I consider personally important.
I'm done busting your balls. And now you can owe me one when I make a similar style comment in another thread, cuz I'm just as capable as anyone of doing that.
See I know that even if every gay couple in the country rolls thru Mass and gets married legally, marriage won't be harmed in the slightest in Mass.
Successful and strong marriages are made by those who participate in them. They cannot be undone by a court ruling. They cannot be harmed because some other couple marries in a different way.
What's important is that those who do choose to marry respect the foundation of the relationship. And that trust and confidence is not an exclusive characteristic of one sexual orientation or another.
But you already know that.
Keep jammin' up there...and if you are married yourself, tell your wife that you love her tonite. That will build YOUR marriage. And don't give into the silly notion that two gays can marry and somehow threaten YOUR marriage.
You're a bigger person (and couple) than that, I have a feeling.
And I bet most married couples in your state are no less secure.
I'm not exactly anonymous on the web, though I retain my 'sports forum' moniker "BARMAN" when posting here.
Among other roles, I work for the world's largest online drug policy reform website http://www.mapinc.org
You can see me live and in person here:
http://www.cannabisconsumers.org/gallery.php?gal_id=52
I offer this simply to counter any suggestion that I am some kind of web neophyte or troublemaker.
When I'm not gardening for $$, my primary work is education. A lot of my work is done on the web. That's why in between sports capping ideas here at the RX, I enjoy participating in the Politics room.
BBL, I realize that neither you nor anyone else may share same political views as I do, though I bet we have more in common than we don't.
When it comes to "I think this team is better than that team, or this wager is better than another" I realize it's all about opinion.
But when we're tossing political ideas around and someone makes a statement of fact, I often am the annoying dick who asks for a little supporting information.
I think what you intended to say way up at the beginning of this thread is something like this:
"Hey, the Democrats are coming to Boston, which makes sense because Massachusetts is a very liberal state. Why look at how they are the first major state to acknowledge the legality of same sex marriage. I think same sex marriage is a bad idea and it seems mostly liberals support it."
Or something kinda close to that.
But what you actually said was, "Marriage has been destroyed in Massachusetts".
Now like you, BBL, I think marriage is a very important form of relationship in stable societies. So when I read that, I thought (seriously), "Oh my, how is marriage being destroyed in Mass. I need to find out so it doesn't happen here in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter"
And you can't provide a single example of how marriage has been destroyed in Mass.
So big deal. You typed something that was a bit hysterical. I'm sure I've done the same thing when discussing a topic that I consider personally important.
I'm done busting your balls. And now you can owe me one when I make a similar style comment in another thread, cuz I'm just as capable as anyone of doing that.
See I know that even if every gay couple in the country rolls thru Mass and gets married legally, marriage won't be harmed in the slightest in Mass.
Successful and strong marriages are made by those who participate in them. They cannot be undone by a court ruling. They cannot be harmed because some other couple marries in a different way.
What's important is that those who do choose to marry respect the foundation of the relationship. And that trust and confidence is not an exclusive characteristic of one sexual orientation or another.
But you already know that.
Keep jammin' up there...and if you are married yourself, tell your wife that you love her tonite. That will build YOUR marriage. And don't give into the silly notion that two gays can marry and somehow threaten YOUR marriage.
You're a bigger person (and couple) than that, I have a feeling.
And I bet most married couples in your state are no less secure.
UNCMB, I'm not far from you on that closing commentary.
I understand that quite a few countries treat teens as 'adults' as of age 16 for a variety of contracts and laws.
I wonder if that might be a better move here.
I've watched more than a few parent/kid deals like you describe above, and like you, I scratch my head and wonder why parents do some of those things.
I understand that quite a few countries treat teens as 'adults' as of age 16 for a variety of contracts and laws.
I wonder if that might be a better move here.
I've watched more than a few parent/kid deals like you describe above, and like you, I scratch my head and wonder why parents do some of those things.
barman,
We were just in your neck of the woods on vacation. Had business in South Carolina for a couple of days before we went to Ft. Lauderdale to relax. My little brother is going to leave tomorrow. I probably could have taken a detour to Clearwater when we left Augusta just to put a face behind the name.
We were just in your neck of the woods on vacation. Had business in South Carolina for a couple of days before we went to Ft. Lauderdale to relax. My little brother is going to leave tomorrow. I probably could have taken a detour to Clearwater when we left Augusta just to put a face behind the name.
barman and Unc,
first, barman - I thought I laid some foundation for my position on the destruction (of the institution) of marriage by using the tax breaks for single mothers as an example - intentions being to help single mom's, result is much more destructive in other areas of the family as a direct and indirect consequence of the tax break.
You say that all of the other forms of possible unions are illegal - but so weren't homosexual activities until a few years ago. I look at Nambla as a bunch of single men with a lot of resources (no marriage and children to soak up the resources) to spend on their agenda - who knows where we could end up - also, how many unintended, unforseen consequences could we face as a result of this decision - this social instiutution (marriage) has stood unchanged for thousands of years - and for good reason. Messing wityh an institution that has evolved in exactly the same way in all of the disparate cultures that have occurred in the history of mankind, is messing with social and cultural danger.
Next, as for kids - up until the mid-teens, only a fraction of a % of kids are capable of good decision making due mostly to inexperience and education - and only a small % until 17 or 18 are capable at all - and they're mostly women!
In todays society, children aren't always held responsible for their actions, and as young adults they tend to make some very stupid and immature, and sometimes self-destructive or life threatening mistakes. Young unwed mothers and their children, are gtreat examples of a lifetime of living beneath capabiliities due to a failure in holding her responsible for her actions.
Finally, barman - the Socration method is fine - but sometimes it gets old - this is a forum, not a school. I'm sure you understood my point - just as I'm capable of understanding yours. I enjoy the give and take on forums such as this, especially with adults who recognize that there are other, valid points of view -
first, barman - I thought I laid some foundation for my position on the destruction (of the institution) of marriage by using the tax breaks for single mothers as an example - intentions being to help single mom's, result is much more destructive in other areas of the family as a direct and indirect consequence of the tax break.
You say that all of the other forms of possible unions are illegal - but so weren't homosexual activities until a few years ago. I look at Nambla as a bunch of single men with a lot of resources (no marriage and children to soak up the resources) to spend on their agenda - who knows where we could end up - also, how many unintended, unforseen consequences could we face as a result of this decision - this social instiutution (marriage) has stood unchanged for thousands of years - and for good reason. Messing wityh an institution that has evolved in exactly the same way in all of the disparate cultures that have occurred in the history of mankind, is messing with social and cultural danger.
Next, as for kids - up until the mid-teens, only a fraction of a % of kids are capable of good decision making due mostly to inexperience and education - and only a small % until 17 or 18 are capable at all - and they're mostly women!
In todays society, children aren't always held responsible for their actions, and as young adults they tend to make some very stupid and immature, and sometimes self-destructive or life threatening mistakes. Young unwed mothers and their children, are gtreat examples of a lifetime of living beneath capabiliities due to a failure in holding her responsible for her actions.
Finally, barman - the Socration method is fine - but sometimes it gets old - this is a forum, not a school. I'm sure you understood my point - just as I'm capable of understanding yours. I enjoy the give and take on forums such as this, especially with adults who recognize that there are other, valid points of view -
