are we really that naive?

@Frank Apisa,

Yeah, exactly! :

Quote:

We are changing in that regard...slowly...and on a state by state basis

Just like slow cooking frogs. As long as you doing slowly, non of them will jump out, and before they realize, they are cooked. Are we "cooked" nation? Or still cooking?
In my opinion this is exact reflection of what is happening.

About religion. Frank, let's look at it the other way: let say the left decided to change some of our values, throw out some principles but... there is a problem. They have Constitution in the way... but o well... that's easy to ignore. But now, America being religious nation, will be another obsticle. So the left has to exclude all believers from the process as fanatics so their voice should not matter. But now...there is somebody like me, non religious and you not quite know what to do with it. Being unable to categorized roots of my beliefs, you are so desperately attempting to put religious label on it, because this way it would be the easiest to dismiss my voice.

Isn't that precisely what is happening here Frank. Please be honest?

Yes it was B. Franklin and Constitution.

Maybe some yers from now we will concider ladies and man's bathroom as being discriminatory. Maybe when filling up form for marriage license we will have to put check mark on how many and who we want to marry. Maybe there will be multiple choices. Everything is up to us today, and how we want to see ourselves tomorrow.

Yes we are changing but shouldn't we preserve at least the core values?

You keep asking what posible harm or injury gay marriage can inflict. No harm, Frank, other than defies our rules we have in place. The point is, if you get a finger, you will ask for hand.

1 Reply

@andy31,

andy31 wrote:

Yeah, exactly! :

Quote:
We are changing in that regard...slowly...and on a state by state basis

Just like slow cooking frogs. As long as you doing slowly, non of them will jump out, and before they realize, they are cooked. Are we "cooked" nation? Or still cooking?
In my opinion this is exact reflection of what is happening.

About religion. Frank, let's look at it the other way: let say the left decided to change some of our values, throw out some principles but... there is a problem. They have Constitution in the way... but o well... that's easy to ignore. But now, America being religious nation, will be another obsticle. So the left has to exclude all believers from the process as fanatics so their voice should not matter. But now...there is somebody like me, non religious and you not quite know what to do with it. Being unable to categorized roots of my beliefs, you are so desperately attempting to put religious label on it, because this way it would be the easiest to dismiss my voice.

Isn't that precisely what is happening here Frank. Please be honest?

Okay...I will be honest.

NO...that is not what is happening at all.

I am asking you to give a basis for your assertion that marriage is meant to be for one man and one woman...and, since you claim it is not the result of religion, to gives a non-religious root for it.

You haven't done so...and I suspect that is because the only root for it can be in religion. There is nothing in nature that can be used that I can see...but I am willing to hear you out.

But you do not make a coherent argument...you just rail, Andy.

For the record...I do not think it is a religious motivation or basis. I think the basis is pure, unadulterated, visceral bigotry toward gays. So stop saying I am looking to put you into a religious category. What I am trying to do is to show there is nothing but religious bases...and if you are not there, your attitude is the result of bigotry. I've hidden that I feel that way...read what I have written about it CONSISTENTLY.

Quote:

Yes it was B. Franklin and Constitution.

Yes it was.

Quote:

Maybe some yers from now we will concider ladies and man's bathroom as being discriminatory. Maybe when filling up form for marriage license we will have to put check mark on how many and who we want to marry. Maybe there will be multiple choices. Everything is up to us today, and how we want to see ourselves tomorrow.

In some countries of the civilized world...the notion of men and ladies rest rooms ARE out the door.

I'm an old man. If I gotta take one of my frequent leaks, I don't care how many people are around...or if they are men or women.

So???

Quote:

Yes we are changing but shouldn't we preserve at least the core values?

I do not want your "core values" (which I consider, in this case, to be nothing more than petty bigotry) to play any part in my life.

Quote:

You keep asking what posible harm or injury gay marriage can inflict. No harm, Frank, other than defies our rules we have in place. The point is, if you get a finger, you will ask for hand.

Well...it is not defying the rules we have in place in many areas...and the areas where the rules are changing is expanding.

You are not losing on this issue, Andy...you have lost! Come to grips with it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, pay attention. I will start here:

Quote:

You are not losing on this issue, Andy...you have lost! Come to grips with it.

If you're referring to what you have said here: ...

Quote:

Well...it is not defying the rules we have in place in many areas...and the areas where the rules are changing is expanding

,

... than sadly I have to agree with you. Well...maybe I wouldn't say that the country is already lost, but well on the way to it. There is still some chance in 2016, but demographic is changing, people loosing morality, progressivism rampaging through all states and hijacking both parties... And you know Frank, that is very sad. There is no other country like America out there. We are (or if you are corect - we were) "the last chance". After we're done, there's no place to run to.

Do you know why it is fascinating talking to you? Because I believe you are representing, or thinking a like, the core of people who have active influence on all changes that are talking place in this country.

You said something so significant, and important to remember in respect to the way of your thinking, and to your attitude, that I would freeze it in history, frame it, and use as a reference point, as a landmark of this movement, so 200 years from now when someone ask what happened to America, the answer will be, "because of the attitude like belowe took over":

Quote:

I do not want your "core values" (which I consider, in this case, to be nothing more than petty bigotry) to play any part in my life

But... that's my humble opinion, and everyone is entitled to have one (here... still).

I hold nothing personal against you. In fact I like you for your openness. You are willing to present your case the best you can, and you are being honest with everything. We have strong disagreements here but I would like to know your opinion on many other interesting subjects as well.
I'm sure we will have some ocasions.

1 Reply

@andy31,

andy31 wrote:

Frank, pay attention. I will start here:

Quote:
You are not losing on this issue, Andy...you have lost! Come to grips with it.

If you're referring to what you have said here: ...

Quote:

Well...it is not defying the rules we have in place in many areas...and the areas where the rules are changing is expanding
,

... than sadly I have to agree with you. Well...maybe I wouldn't say that the country is already lost, but well on the way to it. There is still some chance in 2016, but demographic is changing, people loosing morality, progressivism rampaging through all states and hijacking both parties... And you know Frank, that is very sad. There is no other country like America out there. We are (or if you are corect - we were) "the last chance". After we're done, there's no place to run to.

In you want to have that bleak view of our country simply because the changes taking place because a majority of the people want to grant gay couples the same right to "marriage" as straight couples...that is your right.

I do not share that bleak view, Andy...and I still do not understand why you have this negativity toward gay marriage. My position is: If two people love each other and want to be "married"...let 'em.

I hope that some day you will see the value in that position, but in the meantime, I respect your right to have a position in opposition.

Quote:

Do you know why it is fascinating talking to you? Because I believe you are representing, or thinking a like, the core of people who have active influence on all changes that are talking place in this country.

You said something so significant, and important to remember in respect to the way of your thinking, and to your attitude, that I would freeze it in history, frame it, and use as a reference point, as a landmark of this movement, so 200 years from now when someone ask what happened to America, the answer will be, "because of the attitude like belowe took over":

Quote:

I do not want your "core values" (which I consider, in this case, to be nothing more than petty bigotry) to play any part in my life

But... that's my humble opinion, and everyone is entitled to have one (here... still).

I hold nothing personal against you. In fact I like you for your openness. You are willing to present your case the best you can, and you are being honest with everything. We have strong disagreements here but I would like to know your opinion on many other interesting subjects as well.
I'm sure we will have some ocasions.

I suspect that "200 years from now"...people will more likely be wondering why people like me had to fight the battles we fight with people like you, Andy. I doubt there will be the kinds of concerns with sexuality there are now...and I dare to suppose the country will be the better for it...not, at you seem to suspect, the worse for it.

I like your openness, too, Andy...and I like the way you can present an argument without all the nonsense that seems to accompany so many disagreements here in A2K.

Considering our considerable philosophical disagreements in so many areas, I am sure we will cross swords often.

Keep fighting for the principles you hold...and I will keep fighting for the ones I hold dear.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Fair enough Frank. I think I'm gonna start new topic about Islam religion, if you can call it religion. I'm dying to hear your voice about that. It would be fascinating to get progressive point of view.

Regarding our subject here I have couple more points. My position is similar to yours: if two people love each other they can stay together and mingle together. Nothing wrong with that. But isn't that enough? Now they want the marriage, and mess with our accepted civil customs?

I was thinking about some way to explain to you, how gay marriage itself is NOT especially bothering me nor terribly offending me that much, as the scary fact that tendency to those changes demonstrate complete lack of stable principles, rules and believes. So here is the example. Let's say all the spanish speaking people here (and there is more of them then gays) start demanding by lobbying our government to change our official language to Spanish. For sake of argument, may I pointed that this is not so detached from the
reality like one can think. Despite the fact IT is complete lunacy, it is ludicrous. Would you support that.

You see, it is one thing to free the slaves, and other is changing directions according to which way wind blows.
People around the world getting confused; they don't know anymore what we stand for. It is a sad fact. And I think I should bring the above from the beginning for better understanding.

2 Replies

@andy31,

Quote:

Regarding our subject here I have couple more points. My position is similar to yours: if two people love each other they can stay together and mingle together. Nothing wrong with that. But isn't that enough? Now they want the marriage, and mess with our accepted civil customs?

Here's the problem with your statement. It maybe something you are unaware of. It has to do with the legal system and equality and not special treatment.

Marriage is a legal agreement which come with certain legal privileges that are automatic and recognized as such... that common law arrangements do not come with.

For example in legal marriages if one partner dies all rights and properties goes directly to the remaining spouse...this is protected under the law.

In most common law arrangements papers have to be written before or during the periods spent together or by will for properties to be passed onto the remaining loved one. Though in some states a partner may or may not be covered by the others medical coverage.

None of this is necessary when people are legally married. If you say you want equality these people should have the same rights as any one.

If one of the spouses dies the remaining spouse should have the same rights and consideration as in any legal marriage. He should or she should not have to go through the court system to obtain what should be legally his oe her right to his or her spouses property.

1 Reply

@andy31,

andy31 wrote:

Fair enough Frank. I think I'm gonna start new topic about Islam religion, if you can call it religion. I'm dying to hear your voice about that. It would be fascinating to get progressive point of view.

Regarding our subject here I have couple more points. My position is similar to yours: if two people love each other they can stay together and mingle together. Nothing wrong with that. But isn't that enough? Now they want the marriage, and mess with our accepted civil customs?

No...they (correctly in my opinion) do not see it as enough. If marriage is an alternative offered to straight couples...they want it offered to gay couples.)

Quote:

I was thinking about some way to explain to you, how gay marriage itself is NOT especially bothering me nor terribly offending me that much, as the scary fact that tendency to those changes demonstrate complete lack of stable principles, rules and believes. So here is the example. Let's say all the spanish speaking people here (and there is more of them then gays) start demanding by lobbying our government to change our official language to Spanish. For sake of argument, may I pointed that this is not so detached from the
reality like one can think. Despite the fact IT is complete lunacy, it is ludicrous. Would you support that.

No, I would not. And if someone wanted to require that no women wear pants...I would not support that. And someone wanted to require that all of us wear a banana sticking out of our ear...I would not support that.

But if gays want to be able to partake of marriage...I do support that. And I do not see anything strange or hypocritical in that.

Quote:

You see, it is one thing to free the slaves, and other is changing directions according to which way wind blows.

Okay...but so what? Sometimes it makes sense to change directions depending upon the way the wind is blowing. And this is one of those times.

Frankly, I wish the government would get out of the "marriage" game completely...and allow it only to be a religious institution. Completely out of it...with no laws that deal with the institution...or with laws that seem prudent to be extended to any couple or group "married" by a religion. And then the religions that want to marry people can marry them with the restrictions they want or do not want. Some religions will marry gays...and the government will have to honor those marriages.

I do not want the government deciding who can and who cannot be married. That would be my vote...and I will abide by the process vote. As the practice of marriage is extended by law (and probably by the courts)...that I will accept.

Quote:

People around the world getting confused; they don't know anymore what we stand for. It is a sad fact. And I think I should bring the above from the beginning for better understanding.

Nonsense.

And anyone who is confused...let 'em stay confused. If the worst confusing factor they have is that we may allow gays to marry...we are in GREAT shape.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Well hello again agrome. I'm not gonna say you have no point. But I knew exactly that legality benefits that arriving from marriage will be brought up. So yes, you and Frank are right, that's precisely why gay couples demand marriage. It is hard to blame anyone for their sexual orientation, but they are what they are, and we have our laws. And we are coming to point where we disagree: I say "tugh luck", and you say "yeah, just go right ahead. Never mind the law. We'll changed it if we have to". ... And some states already doing just that.

Agrome we could probably argue this issue until we turn blue on our face and both run out of bullets, and we still are not going to convince each other of anything simply because we have different convictions and beliefs. That's obvious and even you should agree with me on this one.
Maybe we came from different background, and we were brought up in a different environment.

May I suggest an alternative to gay marriage. How about we will give them spousal health coverage benefits and anything else that they worry about, instead of changing law of "one man and one women marriage "? I would go with it in a heartbeat! But... please don't disagree with me just because you have to say "black" when I say "white". Be reasonable, please.

2 Replies

i want to put a naiveté scene on the lawn next holiday season, i thought of the family from Ozzie & Harriet surrounding and staring reverently at a tv set playing a Rock Hudson/Doris Day movie, probably Strange Bedfellows

1 Reply

@andy31,

Quote:

May I suggest an alternative to gay marriage. How about we will give them spousal health coverage benefits and anything else that they worry about, instead of changing law of "one man and one women marriage "? I would go with it in a heartbeat! But... please don't disagree with me just because you have to say "black" when I say "white". Be reasonable, please.

You certainly have a right to suggest it.

However, I would say: Why not just give them the right to marry if they want it?

I, for one, am not disagreeing with you just to oppose you, Andy. (Argome will have to speak for himself.) I disagree with you because I see absolutely no reason why gay people should not have the right to marry just as straight people do. I honestly have no appreciation for your challenge to the idea at all.

I can understand someone opposing this from a religious perspective...although if the perspective is from the Abrahamic god perspective, I think it to be a loser.

But the opposition to it from the secular perspective just seems totally without merit...although once again, I affirm that you have the right to oppose it for whatever reasons you choose...just as those of us who have no problem with it can do so for whatever reasons we choose.

I hope you found my disagreement to be reasonable.

1 Reply

@andy31,

Quote:

May I suggest an alternative to gay marriage. How about we will give them spousal health coverage benefits and anything else that they worry about, instead of changing law of "one man and one women marriage "? I would go with it in a heartbeat! But... please don't disagree with me just because you have to say "black" when I say "white". Be reasonable, please.

I'm not going to say black because you say white. I'm only pointing out that you are against special treatment..am I right? So we don't need to make special laws, like spousal health beenfits, all we have to do is give everyone the same rights and benefits under the same laws equally. Isn't that what you were talking about .no special treatment?

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

Isn't that what you were talking about .no special treatment?

No...but if YOU would support this as a special treatment than I'm for it!
The reason why is, we would not change existing laws, but add couple of amendments. Argome, it is very import to notice that that is how our system operates (or reather was design to operate). Not to change our laws, but implement amendments for sake of sustainable system, and to preserve our core principles.

Apart from that, I have to complement you for being very clever, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic. That was very well thought.
Well at least you not calling me troll anymore. Lol. And I'm doing my best not to be one, either.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

i want to put a naiveté scene on the lawn next holiday season, i thought of the family from Ozzie & Harriet surrounding and staring reverently at a tv set playing a Rock Hudson/Doris Day movie, probably Strange Bedfellows

Sounds perfectly naive.

0 Replies

I conceive it possible the term 'marriage' will lose its meaning and civil unions will be made available to any pair of consenting adults.

This might not be so bad an idea, actually. Then 2 widow(er)s could form a bond to share insurance and survivor benefits, etc., perhaps a more equitable arrangement than is currently available?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, long ago I started to respect the ground of our disagreement and I think it is very reasonable. We both crystallized our views and I can pinpoint where you coming from. I would only hope, that my conscience would be so easily adaptive as yours is.

I will still support my statement, that majority is not always right, so if all 50 states will go with the new law, it will be my turn to say: "So what?".
Most Germans supported Hitler either by fear or by conviction and where did that take them?

0 Replies

@neologist,

the perfect solution, i love the fact that traditional marriage folks are so quick to defend a very broken system

0 Replies

@andy31,

Quote:

No...but if YOU would support this as a special treatment than I'm for it!
The reason why is, we would not change existing laws, but add couple of amendments. Argome, it is very import to notice that that is how our system operates (or reather was design to operate). Not to change our laws, but implement amendments for sake of sustainable system, and to preserve our core principles.

Marriage from the beginning is and always will about business. Arranged marriages, dowries, and even the definition of the words fiance and fiancee and bachelor have monetary and business elements in their origins.

These laws and agreements (contracts) are made between people and people can change laws as they see fit. The US claims to be a democracy, a government of the people by the people. This is a contract between the government and the people of the US.

Codifying human behavior is almost impossible and for the most part it appears to be relative and subjective from what I can tell.

Personally, I don't like to get into running other people life, save for the occasional exchange of ideas, simply because the less interference by others in my life suits me quite well.

I believe in Live and let live and try to do as little harm ass possible.

But there are also laws in our system that protects the little guy. Just because we are a democracy,meaning the major isn't the sole ruler, we have built in a default mechanisms that protect the rights of minorities.

Otherwise it would be possible for one large group to make a smaller group who disagrees with the large group to make them extinct or in slave them etc.
But our government is constantly evolving, self correcting to do better I hope in the long run.

Perhaps the US greatest and admiral strength comes directly from its' diversified and elective human resource?

2 Replies

@argome321,

correction: that's eclectic not elective

0 Replies

@argome321,

In reference to everything you said here Argome, I will say you have all the right motivation but wrong reasoning. And so, our Constitution was created by our founding fathers as a ideal recipe for prosper society, and perfect nation. The very core idea of this system according to what professors of political science, and American history ware teaching me here ( in 1988-1989, and both of them democrats from what I remember ), was that, there shall be no changes nor alterations to wording of our Constitution. The only way to improve and evolve this nation to something better, as you argue we're doing, is through the amendments to the Constitution (some of which democrats fighting to abolish). Furthermore our Constitution should serve as a guidance to create all the federal and all local laws.

Argome, as I argued with Frank before, it is not so much about gay marriage law itself, but about little by little changing character of our nation. Either you, or Frank, or others here, or elsewhere, like it or not, we are republic, built base on Christian principles. Therefore we can't and we shouldn't become Muslim nation, nor transform into something else, other than what were designed to be.
And that's all I'm saying here. We, the people declared freedom to all, that includes all religions, all rases, and sex orentations.

The interpretation of that very freedom is what we are debating here. So my point is, we should not let one group, (religion, race, or gender) to hijack our laws for their own benefits.

Am I being really that unreasonable?

1 Reply

@andy31,

Quote:

In reference to everything you said here Argome, I will say you have all the right motivation but wrong reasoning. And so, our Constitution was created by our founding fathers as a ideal recipe for prosper society, and perfect nation

An ideal recipe to proper society and perfect nation is a subjective ideal, nothing more than a human construct. Did it include freedom and liberty for everyone? If you check our history you will find that wasn't the case.Who is to say what is Ideal for everyone.

Quote:

The very core idea of this system according to what professors of political science, and American history ware teaching me here ( in 1988-1989, and both of them democrats from what I remember ), was that, there shall be no changes nor alterations to wording of our Constitution. The only way to improve and evolve this nation to something better, as you argue we're doing, is through the amendments to the Constitution (some of which democrats fighting to abolish). Furthermore our Constitution should serve as a guidance to create all the federal and all local laws.

Again, the constitution allows for the states to make their local laws.

Quote:

Argome, as I argued with Frank before, it is not so much about gay marriage law itself, but about little by little changing character of our nation. Either you, or Frank, or others here, or elsewhere, like it or not, we are republic, built base on Christian principles. Therefore we can't and we shouldn't become Muslim nation, nor transform into something else, other than what were designed to be.

Please list this changing character you refer to.

Quote:

And that's all I'm saying here. We, the people declared freedom to all, that includes all religions, all rases, and sex orentations.

NO, all of a sudden you want special laws for gay couples
How do you explain slavery for hundreds of years? how do you explain women's suffrage?

Quote:

The interpretation of that very freedom is what we are debating here. So my point is, we should not let one group, (religion, race, or gender) to hijack our laws for their own benefits.

I don't know where you are getting this opinion that they are high jacking our laws. What they want is equal treatment under the law as every American. Many of these people have fought and died in our wars protecting our freedoms and liberties and they deserve to be treated equally.

Further more many of our founding fathers were Deist, not Christians. Look up the treaty of Tripoli article 11.

Quote:

Am I being really that unreasonable?

I believe you are.

Because we differ on this topic would it be fair to deny you the same rights as me?

1 Reply

are we really that naive?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know