Is the ACLU anti-Christian?

[mimartin]

mimartin, they said that after the School District refused to back down and the specifics of the case went public. Otherwise the ACLU would have kept up the attack, they didn't bother to investigate, they demanded the sign be taken down and when the particulars of the case went public and the District wouldn't back down, the ACLU had to back down.

 

Yes and the ACLU are known for repeatedly backing down at the first sign of public pressure. Somehow I think there is more to the reason they back down than the school and Fox news standing up to them. The ACLU did not have to back down they choose to back down. I could not find any information as to why they backed down, other than Fox news claiming victory. My suspicion is it had something to do with Congress and this all happening so close to 911.

[Samuel Dravis]

The Consitution does not protect any right to marriage. It does protect the right to an abortion.

 

The right to happiness is inscribed in the Declaration of Indepedence, not in the Consitution. Anything the Consitution did not give power to the federal government over belong to the states to decide.

 

The Consitution is silent on the matter of what you say is correct. It is up to the people...

Article I, section 10, clause 1. The state may not impair the obligation of contracts. The test for violation of this clause is: "First, the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." If you can explain how denying such marriages remedies a "broad economic or social problem" go ahead. Until then, the state simply isn't allowed to do so. Of course, the people can change that if they feel like it - but they haven't so far, have they.

 

Sounds a bit ironic when you realize that there is a lot of homophobia that would easily help protect my viewpoint. And, of course, this also means that if people disagree with your viewpoint, then don't be disappointed when people don't support it. It works both ways.

Thing is, I haven't been disappointed yet. Apparently the homophobia isn't strong enough to pass a Constitutional amendment.

 

 

 

Not all ideas are equal? I disagree.

If someone says something that is untrue, and another says something that is true, then the latter has a greater truth-value and is more useful to me than whatever the first one cooked up. I'm not getting into what's "really" true because I have no use for that discussion.

 

Justice: treating like cases alike. What is a like case? What is an unlike case? If the case of a man and man marrying the same as the case of a man and a woman marrying?

I don't consider someone's sexual orientation to be of interest whatever. If two men want to enter a contract between themselves, fine. Same with a man and a woman, etc. They are responsible for their own decisions. I'd say a like case is one that enters into a similar contract, and in this respect I see very little difference between M-F and M-M/F-F.

 

So are we left with a society where both the majority and the minority are intolerant? This destroys my faith within society.

I simply don't expect people to be so tolerant (of the majority view, or whatever) that their own considerations are ignored completely.

 

And indeed, I do agree, once more, that gays should have the right to get married. However, I disagree with people who do say that because it seems intolerant to other people, by suppressing their viewpoints and calling them wrong. I want to be tolerant to all sides, I don't want to be tolerant to one group while at the same time be intolerant to another group. We need tolerance for everything, EVERY idea, otherwise society won't function.

If they're wrong, then I have no problem calling them that. I don't see the need to be politically correct about something. Saying something false causes harm to everyone affected by it, and I consider it important that people know why I think so. You might even consider that a patriotic duty.

 

It's not about religion however. It's about viewpoints. The viewpoint Jae has is that gay marriage should not be allowed. Now, this viewpoint may have some religious arguments, but I am sure there is some secular arguments as well. It is this viewpoint that you are all saying is wrong, and it is a viewpoint that Jae does not want to drop.

What secular arguments? I'm quite interested in these. Do explain.

 

Incorrect. In 1776, there were few openly gay people in America. Why? Because there were lots of homophobia all over the world. Even in the 1890's, Wilde, in Great Britian, writer of The Portriat of Dorain Grey was sent to a labor camp...because he was a homosexual.

It's incorrect that the US is not supposed to control people's religious views, and that that opinion is in law?

 

Even in Washigiton, D.C., the capital of the United States of America, there is a ban on kites that is still in existence. Why? Kites are bad, since they make people have fun and being unnatural, a religious law quite similar to the law that bans Kites in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is not enforced today, but it is there to show you that in fact, America followed had some aspects of religion, and it was not deeply secularized and insulated.

Well, I'm happy that we've evolved as a society which becomes more enlightened as time goes on.

 

Religion plays no role in society, but it is the viewpoints that religion backs that does. Hostile views towards gay marriage has been present in 1776, which I suspect all the men who signed the Declartion of Indepedence believed in. Back then, people believed that gay marriage was wrong. Why put it in the Consitution after all, since nobody would ever do something like this in the near future?

I don't know if that was the reason. However, I am glad they didn't, since it's worked out well for people's freedoms.

 

It is now that we have this discussion about civil liberties for gay people, as well as other important issues. Back then, everyone probraly had the same viewpoints as Jae, who was semi-religilous, but focused more on secular affairs as well. So, I don't think they were actually thinking about gay marriage. This is an idea that has came up rather recently.

Are you trying to say that, since people back then were homophobes, it's appropriate to protect that kind of discrimination today? Since people way back when owned slaves, it's appropriate to protect that ownership today? I disagree.

 

 

 

The people of the ENTIRE United States, in 1776, would object to women's rights, ending of slavery, prohibiation, anti-prohibition, limits on wages, and ban on poll taxes. Even in that period, the people of the entire United States did not even get the chance to vote, only those who had property. The people who were voting in 1776 would surely object to the enfransching of all free white men (this was done on a state level with the presidental elections, and later, they started to get people to elect Senators as well), then later all free black men, and then all women...but they happened today. Amendments were needed to get the US in line with what Americans want today. It is a fluid documenation that sometimes, the people living under it want to change and modify because they see some faults.

And some parts haven't been modified because people recognize their value.

 

Actually, religious people don't need to change the Consitution, since they can circle their ways around, by passing amendments in the states and figuring their own ways to solve the crisis. It's up to you to change the Consitution to fit your own views. I'd back you and support you in that struggle. I agree with your reasons, however aribtray. Let get this to a vote, get it passed, and end this cultural war once and for all. But until then, you're the ones living under their laws.

As far as I'm concerned, they are interfering with personal rights and that comes under the Constitution's current protections.

 

But what if they pick 'wrong'?

Then I'd oppose it, just like anyone can in a democracy.

 

Since gay marriage, or even marriage at all, is not defined in the US Consitution, it is the matter of the states to decide. Also, check here:

I would say that the states not giving equal rights to gay marriages are interfering with the fulfillment of the couple's personal contract.

 

Note however that it never says that Congress should not pass any laws that happens to concide with and enforce religious teachings. That is why we got that kite ban in Washigtion, D.C. That's also why we got blue laws on the books as well that mandates that there must be days off from school, as well as bans of prositution. If a state bans gay marriage, that is, in no way, endorsing Chrisitanty. It is likely to be banning gay marriage for purely secular reasons (it's tradition).

If there are legitimate secular reasons for banning gay marriage, then do tell. If all you have is an appeal to "tradition", then I'm afraid you haven't got much of a case. It was traditional that many things we find immoral now were done. It's traditional for genital mutilation to be practiced in Africa. It was traditional for women to be property of their husbands. Etc, etc. I'm not buying tradition.

[GarfieldJL]

Yes and the ACLU are known for repeatedly backing down at the first sign of public pressure. Somehow I think there is more to the reason they back down than the school and Fox news standing up to them. The ACLU did not have to back down they choose to back down. I could not find any information as to why they backed down, other than Fox news claiming victory. My suspicion is it had something to do with Congress and this all happening so close to 911.

 

 

It had to do with it being so close to 9/11, because if they made too big of a deal over it, there would be a huge backlash against the ACLU, which is why they went skitish when it went public.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I could go even further about how this library in Denver, Colorado banned the American Flag, but put on display a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises. Pages 119-121 of Let Freedom Ring

 

I have not read anything about that, but I wonder if it's a public or a private library.

 

If public, then they have little reason to ban the American flag.

 

If it's private, they do whatever the hell they want.

 

As for ceramic penis, it seems that some Americans still cannot understand nudity for art. Then again, what do those who don't know anything about nudity in art know about art?

[GarfieldJL]

Sorry my bad, the initial flag being taken down issue was the Boulder Public Library in Boulder, Colorado.

 

Colorado Senate Democrats were responsible for:

 

Check out this headline: "DEMOCRATS KILL REQUIREMENT FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE."

I kid you not.

It was from the Associated Press--dateline: Denver--February 5, 2002.

 

Then it was followed by.

 

But that wasn't all. Nine days later there was more news from Denver: "FLAG-DISPLAY MEASURE KILLED."

That was a Rocky Mountain News headline on February 14, 2002--a little liberal Valentine to the country. Sure enough, Colorado Democrats had killed a bill protecting the right of Coloradans to display the American flag in their workplaces and other public places.

The bill had been written in response to an incident in October, when the head of the Boulder Public Library prohibited employees from flying a 10- by 15 foot flag at one of the library's entrances...

 

Bleh it involved Denver but missed the bit about Boulder when I was reading back through.

 

What was particularly offensive about this incident was that days later the library had no qualms about displaying something a little less mainstream: a collection of "brightly colored penises attached to a clothesline."

 

Page 119 of Let Freedom Ring.

[Jae Onasi]

As for ceramic penis, it seems that some Americans still cannot understand nudity for art. Then again, what do those who don't know anything about nudity in art know about art?

 

I understand nudity and nudity in art. Rainbow-bright ceramic penises aren't art. They're about as kitsch as pink flamingos.

 

 

Let me clarify something--I'm not opposed to civil unions/partnerships/etc. There are a lot of situations where someone would like to be in a legal relationship with someone else, and not necessarily in a manner that includes hetero- or homosexual activities, e.g. two long-time friends who have no other family and want to have legal rights to make health-care and financial decisions as needed for each other. My mother-in-law got married to her second husband not out of love but out of friendship--she was taking care of him as a health-care aid, and he didn't have any family nearby. He married her so that she could make health and financial decisions if he wasn't able. A civil union probably would have been a better choice for them if that option had been available.

 

However, I think the term 'marriage' is very specific and involves a man and a woman coming together, usually to form a family unit. Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit, I think that model needs to be acknowledged and supported with sane private and gov't polices. For instance, welfare right now actually penalizes people for getting married--if you make too much as a household, you can't get welfare. Getting married often puts a couple above the threshold for aid but not necessarily out of poverty, so it sometimes makes more financial sense for them _not_ to get married. Sometimes it means someone with chronic health problems can no longer get Medicaid (US version)--if the couple makes too much money they lose the Medicaid benefits, but often times don't have enough money to afford their own insurance. Again, for them it's better financially if they _don't_ marry, or even forces them to get divorced. I think this is just crazy.

[shamelessposer]

I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.

 

Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit

 

The studies I've seen actually show that children develop best in any situation where they have two parental figures instead of one, so long as the relationship between those two parental figures is a stable one. That can mean your mother and father, your aunt and uncle, the gay couple who adopted you, your godparents, your mother and her sister, or just about any other combination you can think of so long as it's a stable one.

 

The idea that only a man and a woman should be able to get married because of family stability is a dangerous one regardless. By the very same reasoning you're using, a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they plan on having children. Actually, scratch that: a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they have children. I guess that means infertile couples and couples who agreed to not have kids are SOL under the system you're advocating.

[GarfieldJL]

I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.

 

 

Are you also going to say that the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Associated Press, etc. are all making it up?

 

 

Furthermore, that's not what Jae was saying...

[Jae Onasi]

The studies I've seen actually show that children develop best in any situation where they have two parental figures instead of one, so long as the relationship between those two parental figures is a stable one.

I've not seen those studies so I don't have an intelligent comment. Of the studies I have seen or heard about from Jimbo who's done some research into the importance of fathers, they do _best_ with loving parents where they see people of both genders interacting appropriately with each other. Note that just because I say 'best' does not imply the others are 'bad'. Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal, but other situations may be 'good' or 'adequate', especially compared to some bad parenting situations.

The idea that only a man and a woman should be able to get married because of family stability is a dangerous one regardless. By the very same reasoning you're using, a man and a woman shouldn't have a legal right to marriage unless they plan on having children.

That's precisely why I specifically said it's not _exclusively_ that way. I'm saying the institution of marriage should be recognized and respected for the important role it plays in society, not that other things are 'bad', and that's a very important distinction.

 

The benefits of marriage are not exclusively limited to child-rearing. Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.

[Totenkopf]

Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.

 

Don't you mean suffer longer?

[Prime]

That's precisely why I specifically said it's not _exclusively_ that way. I'm saying the institution of marriage should be recognized and respected for the important role it plays in society, not that other things are 'bad', and that's a very important distinction.

Apart from child rearing, what important role are you refering to? What roles break down when the couple is not heterosexual?

 

The benefits of marriage are not exclusively limited to child-rearing. Men, for instance, live longer if they're married than if they're single, and women have lower rates of poverty if they're married.

But men and women can still get married and have those benefits if they choose. How does homosexual marriage hurt this? What if there are similar benefits to gay couples? Why should they be denied this?

 

I would advise the people in this thread who are making intelligent arguments to just back down. When your opposition is quoting a crackpot like Sean Hannity, it gets to be pretty obvious that reason and logic aren't welcome in the discussion.

Easy tiger.

 

If you have alternate views about a source provided, please comment directly on that information (preferably with information that counters) or show with evidence why a source is untrustworthy. Comments like the above don't further the discussion any. Thank you.

[shamelessposer]

Easy tiger.

 

If you have alternate views about a source provided, please comment directly on that information (preferably with information that counters) or show with evidence why a source is untrustworthy. Comments like the above don't further the discussion any. Thank you.

 

You're right. I'm better off doing myself and my panic disorder a service through judicious use of my ignore list instead. I'd advise others to do the same.

 

I'll add that anyone using a Fox News personality as a source of information has immediately started a conversation on the wrong foot. If the information in question is valid, then there should be another, reputable source you can cite instead. If the information isn't valid, you're just using Fox News as an excuse for being uninformed.

[GarfieldJL]

Actually, I've found it to be the opposite, simply because they are the only cable media source without a left-wing slant. The other media outlets would jump on them if they started spewing out rampant propaganda. Only Fox News will go after those media outlets if they start spewing propaganda, so Fox News is held to a higher standard.

 

All you've done is fired off blatent attacks at Sean Hannity about his credibility without anything to back it up. Whereas Sean Hannity had at least 2 sources in each thing I've mentioned.

[Totenkopf]

You're right. I'm better off doing myself and my panic disorder a service through judicious use of my ignore list instead. I'd advise others to do the same.

 

I'll add that anyone using a Fox News personality as a source of information has immediately started a conversation on the wrong foot. If the information in question is valid, then there should be another, reputable source you can cite instead. If the information isn't valid, you're just using Fox News as an excuse for being uninformed.

 

Perhaps you can provide a list of "reputable" sources......or perhaps you mean anything BUT Fox is reputable by default?

[shamelessposer]

Perhaps you can provide a list of "reputable" sources......or perhaps you mean anything BUT Fox is reputable by default?

 

I'd say that "anything but Fox" is a good start. We're talking about a news network that's made its name off of having a visible right wing bias to everything it reports.

 

And to GarfieldJL, I would advise you in the future to not buy into the generally anti-semitic "liberal media" conspiracy theory. You are on my ignore list, so please don't bother replying to my posts in the future.

[True_Avery]

I'd say that "anything but Fox" is a good start. We're talking about a news network that's made its name off of having a visible right wing bias to everything it reports.

 

And to GarfieldJL, I would advise you in the future to not buy into the generally anti-semitic "liberal media" conspiracy theory. You are on my ignore list, so please don't bother replying to my posts in the future.

You may want to be less aggressive in your posts or you may end up on the forum's ignore list.

 

Let me clarify something--I'm not opposed to civil unions/partnerships/etc. There are a lot of situations where someone would like to be in a legal relationship with someone else, and not necessarily in a manner that includes hetero- or homosexual activities, e.g. two long-time friends who have no other family and want to have legal rights to make health-care and financial decisions as needed for each other. My mother-in-law got married to her second husband not out of love but out of friendship--she was taking care of him as a health-care aid, and he didn't have any family nearby. He married her so that she could make health and financial decisions if he wasn't able. A civil union probably would have been a better choice for them if that option had been available.

Civil Unions and Marriage are different things. Why should same sex couples be denied the rights and privilages of opposte sex couples when all that is different about their love is the fact they have a few different physical traits?

Two of my favorite guys to be around are a couple and they have loved eachother for going over 20 years now. They consider themselves "married", but their jobs don't consider them because it is not legal. Thus, they lose out on a lot of benefits that could help them. One of them, because he argued, was fired from his job and is having a hard time finding another.

 

However, I think the term 'marriage' is very specific and involves a man and a woman coming together, usually to form a family unit. Since a number of different studies have shown that children _generally_ (not exclusively) develop best in a household where a loving husband and wife are committed to the family unit, I think that model needs to be acknowledged and supported with sane private and gov't polices.

I've not seen those studies so I don't have an intelligent comment. Of the studies I have seen or heard about from Jimbo who's done some research into the importance of fathers, they do _best_ with loving parents where they see people of both genders interacting appropriately with each other. Note that just because I say 'best' does not imply the others are 'bad'. Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal, but other situations may be 'good' or 'adequate', especially compared to some bad parenting situations.

Please show me these studies done by legitimate doctors (Nothing against Jimbo). I know people who have same sex parents and they are just as loving and nice as other people, if not even more accepting of others lifestyes than kids with parents of the opposite sex. To my knowledge there is no proof that having a man and a woman as parents make you turn out better, as the majority of people I know have had terribly abusive parents, parents that didn't give a damn about them, and parents who even offered them drugs and alcohol.

 

In my personal opinion, the last thing this world really needs is mass amounts of babies. We are at over 6 billion people, 4 billion more than a little less than a hundred years ago. If people -really- want kids, then please. Please! Adopt kids who wants parents more than anything in the world instead of adding to the growing population. Orphanages are filled up, baby girls are killed everyday in China since their population is over 2 billion, and it is -almost- always better to grow up with parents (same sex or not) then to never have anybody to look up to in life as a father or mother figure.

 

interacting appropriately with each other.

But who is to say what is appropriate or not?

 

Mother/father is the A+ position when it's at its ideal

Why?

 

For instance, welfare right now actually penalizes people for getting married--if you make too much as a household, you can't get welfare. Getting married often puts a couple above the threshold for aid but not necessarily out of poverty, so it sometimes makes more financial sense for them _not_ to get married. Sometimes it means someone with chronic health problems can no longer get Medicaid (US version)--if the couple makes too much money they lose the Medicaid benefits, but often times don't have enough money to afford their own insurance. Again, for them it's better financially if they _don't_ marry, or even forces them to get divorced. I think this is just crazy.

I'd like to ask you a personal question. After writing that, would you go back in time and decide not to get married for financial reasons(This is assuming you are married, sorry if I am wrong)? I'm assuming you got married because you love your husband. Telling people, especially people who want nothing more than to be legally married, that they are better off because of money...

 

I can see your viewpoint and you have some good points, but I still have a hard time seeing the fact you don't seem to be opposed to them being together when you put so much evidence up saying that they should just live as roommates. Your opinion is good and has some good info in it and I respect it.

[shamelessposer]

You may want to be less aggressive in your posts or you may end up on the forum's ignore list.

 

I wasn't aware that I was posting in an overly aggressive way. I'll try and tone it down.

[True_Avery]

I wasn't aware that I was posting in an overly aggressive way. I'll try and tone it down.

If I misinterpreted I'm sorry. Just seemed a little aggressive to me

[lukeiamyourdad]

I understand nudity and nudity in art. Rainbow-bright ceramic penises aren't art. They're about as kitsch as pink flamingos.

 

Why would it be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

 

I have a problem with this stupid argument about allowing ceramic penises and not the American flag. They shouldn't be linked at all. It's almost as if a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were inherently anti-American.

[GarfieldJL]

Why would it be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

 

I have a problem with this stupid argument about allowing ceramic penises and not the American flag. They shouldn't be linked at all. It's almost as if a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were inherently anti-American.

 

 

They were saying a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were less controversial than the American Flag in a Public Library in the United States... Excuse me but there is a problem.

 

Also shamelessposer, to be completely blunt I've provided evidence that the liberal bias in the mainstream media exists. I've yet to see you provide any evidence that it doesn't exist.

 

I'm referring the the study by UCLA, as well as the books Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity, and numerous other sources. There are ample examples of a left-wing bias in the media. Fox News is the only cable news network in the US that isn't slanted to the left which ticks off the Left-wing mainstream media, so therefore Fox ends up being held to a much higher standard than the other outlets, which is why I trust Fox News a lot more than networks like CBS (also known as Clinton Broadcasting Service), CNN (also known as Clinton News Network), New York Times, MSNBC, NBC, and ABC.

 

And now for my word, in my opinion the line about me being on the ignore list is an attempt to insult me and my intelligence, albiet a laughable attempt. You can attempt to try to make it sound like that you were overly agressive, but in fact you were going beyond agressive and attempting to insult someone because they had a different opinion. Now to get back on topic...

 

Please do not flame each other here. If you all have a problem with a post, contact one of us mods or use the report post function. Any further discussions on the ignoring thing should be done by PM because if it continues here, it will be considered flame-baiting and it will earn you a warning.

 

Garfield, anyone has the right not to read someone's posts, and frankly, I don't care if someone doesn't read what I have to say. It's not an insult if it's done because they recognize that they themselves are uncomfortable with reading something by someone.

 

shamelessposer, quit posting that you're ignoring people. You don't have to announce that--just ignore them quietly.

 

If you all have questions, PM me or one of the other mods. --Jae

[Jae Onasi]

Civil Unions and Marriage are different things. Why should same sex couples be denied the rights and privilages of opposte sex couples when all that is different about their love is the fact they have a few different physical traits?

I never said deny same-sex couples (or other couple types that may not be involved sexually) legal rights. In fact, I wish they wouldn't. From a doc point of view, it's much easier on the family and staff if we don't have to deal with stupid legal crap (I hate HIPAA regs) when there's a medical emergency. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often in my field, and the gay/non-married couples I see usually are good about letting me know about the relationship so I make sure to include everyone appropriately.

 

but their jobs don't consider them because it is not legal. Thus, they lose out on a lot of benefits that could help them.

In Cook county (Chicago, IL) civil unions and non-married couples are recognized and given the same legal benefits as married couples, and I think they're working on that for IL.

 

Please show me these studies done by legitimate doctors (Nothing against Jimbo).

Kind of tough to find studies done by illegitimate doctors in reputable journals. I'll add it to my stack of medline searches. Jimbo will get me the titles of the books he's read, and I know one of them is Fatherless America.

I know people who have same sex parents and they are just as loving and nice as other people, if not even more accepting of others lifestyes than kids with parents of the opposite sex.

I never said they couldn't, and was very careful to specify that.

To my knowledge there is no proof that having a man and a woman as parents make you turn out better, as the majority of people I know have had terribly abusive parents, parents that didn't give a damn about them, and parents who even offered them drugs and alcohol.

I specified loving parents. Abusive parents aren't loving. If I knew a parent was giving a child drugs and alcohol, I'd be on the phone with 911 so fast for abuse and neglect, their heads would spin.

Adopt kids who wants parents more than anything in the world instead of adding to the growing population. Orphanages are filled up, baby girls are killed everyday in China since their population is over 2 billion, and it is -almost- always better to grow up with parents (same sex or not) then to never have anybody to look up to in life as a father or mother figure.

We actually looked at that. And at 20k and up, decided we couldn't afford it--we didn't have that kind of money. Orphanages in other countries have so many problems there'd be no guarantee that we'd get a healthy child, and at the time, both of us were working full-time and did not have the funds or time to be able to take on a special needs child. Frankly, with all the problems with Baby M getting taken from her adoptive parents after living with them for 3 years because the birth mother wanted her back, we didn't want to deal with that heart-wrenching possibility.

 

Interacting appropriately--in a loving way to each other that shows respect for each gender and teaches children how men and women should be treated. I used to think we could teach things in a gender neutral way, but after 2 kids, I've discovered that their different genetic makeups mean they really are wired differently as boys and girls. They do need to learn how to interact with the opposite gender and learn how to treat each other and what's acceptable and unacceptable treatment of themselves.

 

 

I'm assuming you got married because you love your husband. Telling people, especially people who want nothing more than to be legally married, that they are better off because of money...

We got married for love, yes, but we didn't have the same issues some others have. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I'd been The I was speaking about live together a lot of the time. In fact one of my dad's good friends lives with a woman in a pretty platonic relationship, but they haven't gotten married for financial reasons (alimony I think in both their cases). I've seen more than one patient who's in a relationship with someone else, and they've told me they wanted to get married but couldn't because they'd lose their Medicaid (we talk about a lot of things in my office ). In fact it was one of the concerns of my sister-in-law when she was considering marriage a few years back, because she has some serious health problems that require a lot of care and medications that she couldn't afford.

I can see your viewpoint and you have some good points, but I still have a hard time seeing the fact you don't seem to be opposed to them being together when you put so much evidence up saying that they should just live as roommates. Your opinion is good and has some good info in it and I respect it.

Having a civil union affords the same legal rights--I never said they shouldn't have rights.

 

Why would it [brightly colored ceramic penises] be kitsch? Why can't it be a display about different representations of male genitalia?

 

Because it ranks right up there with brightly colored ceramic Chia Pets. It's something my kids would make, for heaven's sake. At least do something that has real artistic value. The human body is an amazing thing and deserves better than something you'd find in the picnic section of the dollar store.

[True_Avery]

I never said deny same-sex couples (or other couple types that may not be involved sexually) legal rights. In fact, I wish they wouldn't. From a doc point of view, it's much easier on the family and staff if we don't have to deal with stupid legal crap (I hate HIPAA regs) when there's a medical emergency. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often in my field, and the gay/non-married couples I see usually are good about letting me know about the relationship so I make sure to include everyone appropriately.

Hmm, that does bring up an interesting point.

 

In Cook county (Chicago, IL) civil unions and non-married couples are recognized and given the same legal benefits as married couples, and I think they're working on that for IL.

Thats great, only wish we had that here. Civil Unions are different from marriages here, but to what degree I'll look up and see. I know Civil Unions don't get marriage benefits from jobs and some other silly legal stuff.

 

Kind of tough to find studies done by illegitimate doctors in reputable journals. I'll add it to my stack of medline searches. Jimbo will get me the titles of the books he's read, and I know one of them is Fatherless America.

I never said they couldn't, and was very careful to specify that.

Fatherless America? I'll look that up then. Might be interesting. I think I might actually have it, but never read it.

 

I specified loving parents. Abusive parents aren't loving. If I knew a parent was giving a child drugs and alcohol, I'd be on the phone with 911 so fast for abuse and neglect, their heads would spin.

Good point, misread what you mean't.

 

We actually looked at that. And at 20k and up, decided we couldn't afford it--we didn't have that kind of money. Orphanages in other countries have so many problems there'd be no guarantee that we'd get a healthy child, and at the time, both of us were working full-time and did not have the funds or time to be able to take on a special needs child. Frankly, with all the problems with Baby M getting taken from her adoptive parents after living with them for 3 years because the birth mother wanted her back, we didn't want to deal with that heart-wrenching possibility.

Yeah, that is the rather unfortunate side of adoption. Always found it odd how adopting a child who needs a parents takes years of paperwork and thousands of dollars, but having a child yourself with no background check by the officals is perfectly legal...

 

Interacting appropriately--in a loving way to each other that shows respect for each gender and teaches children how men and women should be treated. I used to think we could teach things in a gender neutral way, but after 2 kids, I've discovered that their different genetic makeups mean they really are wired differently as boys and girls. They do need to learn how to interact with the opposite gender and learn how to treat each other and what's acceptable and unacceptable treatment of themselves.

Ah, gotcha. Makes sense completely, even though I'm more neutral than most people

 

We got married for love, yes, but we didn't have the same issues some others have. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I'd been The I was speaking about live together a lot of the time. In fact one of my dad's good friends lives with a woman in a pretty platonic relationship, but they haven't gotten married for financial reasons (alimony I think in both their cases). I've seen more than one patient who's in a relationship with someone else, and they've told me they wanted to get married but couldn't because they'd lose their Medicaid (we talk about a lot of things in my office ). In fact it was one of the concerns of my sister-in-law when she was considering marriage a few years back, because she has some serious health problems that require a lot of care and medications that she couldn't afford.

Yup, I'll agree with you that the medical stuff is a real pain. I'm more of, let everybody have the option of marriage and choose to have it or not. Nobody -has- to get married and a lot of people don't, but having the option out there for everybody is mainly what I want. Even if it was available to everybody, marriage really has no interest for me. Neither does having kids, so my personal opinion on this might be a little off.

 

Having a civil union affords the same legal rights--I never said they shouldn't have rights.

Maybe where you live, but not everywhere. And it's less of Civil union and more of Marriage for me. They are titles for sometimes the same thing, true, yet calling the "marriage" of another couple a civil union because it is "supposed to be male and female" seems rather absurd and possibly selfish to me. It's just a title, but the title means more to some than others. Hmmm, it's like saying (In some areas, not all) "that drink is soda!" and then turning to another can and saying "that is flavored bubbling water!". They are both soda, so why not call the second soda as well?

 

Anyway, sorry if I missread some of your posts. I understand what you are trying to say now... I think!

[Prime]

Fox News is the only cable news network in the US that isn't slanted to the left which ticks off the Left-wing mainstream media[/color]

But it is very much slanted to the right, is it not? So you have an issue with organizations slanted in one direction but not the other?

[GarfieldJL]

Actually it wasn't slanted too far right, it was a lot closer to center than what some people would like to believe. Furthermore, Fox News has people from both sides of the Political Spectrum, also every mainstream media outlet would love for Fox to report something bogus so they could jump all over them and try to make a mockery of the network. However, when one of their own report something bogus they don't even report it.

 

Easy example is the memo-gate fiasco of CBS, the only cable media outlet that actually went after CBS on reporting false information (i.e. forged documents) to slander a sitting President is Fox News. NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc., all refused to acknowledge it.

 

Yet they all went crazy towards Fox News letting the Swift Boat Vets account their time with John Kerry, and Fox News invited Kerry on to refute it. Letting people who are whom they say they are, give accounts cannot even be compared to using fraudulent documents to slander someone. Bush could have and arguably should have, pressed charges against Dan Rather and the man that created those fraudulent documents.

 

When I get back the book Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg from a person I loaned it to, I'll have additional examples to further prove my point.

[lukeiamyourdad]

They were saying a bunch of brightly colored ceramic penises were less controversial than the American Flag in a Public Library in the United States... Excuse me but there is a problem.

 

 

In some country...it actually is. The comparison still is stupid. An art display has nothing to do with the American flag. Both can coexist peacefully and both can be separate without problem. In fact, the simple mention of the ceramic penises seems more like an attempt at making the entire thing sound more extreme to the eyes of good thinking Americans.

 

 

 

Because it ranks right up there with brightly colored ceramic Chia Pets. It's something my kids would make, for heaven's sake. At least do something that has real artistic value. The human body is an amazing thing and deserves better than something you'd find in the picnic section of the dollar store.

 

Wow, never thought there was a dollar store/sex shop somewhere in the world...

 

Seriously though. Still art and the brightly colored ceramic penises were obviously part of an art display. Whether you like it or not, whether you think of it as in good or poor taste, it still remains art.

 

 

Actually it wasn't slanted too far right, it was a lot closer to center than what some people would like to believe. Furthermore, Fox News has people from both sides of the Political Spectrum, also every mainstream media outlet would love for Fox to report something bogus so they could jump all over them and try to make a mockery of the network. However, when one of their own report something bogus they don't even report it.

 

Yeah..."commentators" from both side of the spectrum. "Journalists" too...

 

I have no doubt that every human has a bias, it is rather stupid however, to believe in plot theories, without serious proof. Also, every "mainstream" media outlet is out there waiting for Fox to report something bogus so they can bash it? Seriously. One of their own? An alliance of the "liberal" media? No offense, but this is either one huge joke or...well, one huge joke.

 

Frankly, this is hopeless. You have your mind set on it and to further things, you read and listen to media only reinforcing your belief. I doubt you even know what the word "liberal" even means. Before I get accused of being a leftist, I'm actually more center-right, but this is Canadian center-right, which probably means something like raging communist in the eyes of the "American conservatives". This discussion should never have even started...