Gay Marriage - poll added

[ASH]

:funn::funn:
Not exactly, not even half of one yet. Just come from an area forced through many small town changes to survive in a very short period of time.

I came from a town where people still drive snowmobiles and 4-wheelers to work....through town.

 

[scooterbug44]

ASH, to contextualize this for you: a lot of the guys who spent a lot of time in deer camp and ice fishing, but never shot/caught anything would like insurance benefits too! ;-)

 

[lennonsdarlin]

Seee, not so different than I...John Deere tractors through my town, actually through my state. So I guess back to the original thread and why I'm adamant....I wasn't taught to be tolerant...I just am!!! And, actually, tolerance isn't the word...it's LOVE

 

[Rudyjohn]

Seee, not so different than I...John Deere tractors through my town, actually through my state. So I guess back to the original thread and why I'm adamant....I wasn't taught to be tolerant...I just am!!! And, actually, tolerance isn't the word...it's LOVE

yes, and for some it's all about learning to open our hearts (& our minds) a little.
.

 

[6thGen]

Okay - what do you think morality is? And do you think gay marriage is immoral?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

I believe homosexuality is immoral.

I quoted all of your post, but I broke it into parts to make it easier to respond to.

No, you didn't say that, but you said that family (mother, father, child) is a cornerstone of "social security." What was your reason for saying that? Does it have anything to do with gay marriage? I am assuming it does since you posted it on a gay marriage thread.

More correctly, you broke it into strawmen. My reason for saying that is grounded in reading years of social science research. Per his speech this weekend, Obama agrees as well (I know, weak). Again, that's way down the list on my hierarchy of argument.

I believe it was the idea of "separate but equal." I explained this before. The "unions" in California had all of the rights of traditional marriage, but were called something different. That was what was found unconstitutional.

Don't ask me about marriage in the constitution - the civil unions were voted in by a majority. All that changed was the word marriage.

No, you threw out some terms you remembered from civil rights cases years ago. You didn't explain who granted the court jurisdiction on language, you didn't explain what portion of the law the law overturned violated, you didn't address article II, section 10 of the state constitution.

As for the elgordoboy comment, I'm asking if he thinks the only reason I haven't come around to moral relativism is experience. In other words, does he believe it is inevitable and if I don't come around I haven't had enough "experience".

 

[LuciferSam]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with my argument. The crux of my disagreement is the continued slump towards the belief that morality is whatever one defines it as.

So do you think it's immoral to wear white after Labor Day?

 

[scooterbug44]

A strong family structure is good for society, but that family structure does not have to be a female mom, male dad, and kids. There are a wide variety of configurations and relationships that produce a home and life structure that would strengthen our society.

Discrimination, condemnation, and using 'majority rule' to deny minority groups their rights weakens our society.

 

[6thGen]

No. You should have asked if I'm against cotton-poly blends, since that has scriptural basis in old Hebrew law. For the record, I'm not. New covenant and stuff.

 

[Miss Critter]

How many times have they done that in movies where a camera is sneaking up behind some shapely figure with long flowing hair only to have them stand up and turn around and it's a guy!

My favorite was the TV commercial from many years ago (soft drink, maybe?) showing the gorgeous flowing red hair in the convertible, and as you pass, it's. . . .an irish setter.

 

[6thGen]

A strong family structure is good for society, but that family structure does not have to be a female mom, male dad, and kids. There are a wide variety of configurations and relationships that produce a home and life structure that would strengthen our society.

Discrimination, condemnation, and using 'majority rule' to deny minority groups their rights weakens our society.

Not true. From Heritage -

Adolescents in intact families, as a group, are the least likely to feel depressed compared to those with divorced, step-, cohabiting, or single parents; (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)

The national average grade-point scores of children in intact families is 2.98, compared to 2.79 for children of cohabiting parents and 2.71 for children living in stepfamilies; (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)

The rate of youth incarceration is significantly greater for children raised in single-mother and stepfamily homes than for those raised in intact families, even after controlling for parental income and education; (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth)

Children in non-intact families are three times as likely to have children outside of marriage; (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.) and
Rates of engaging in problem behaviors such as lying, stealing, drunkenness, and violence are sharply higher for children of divorce compared to children in intact families. (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)

Also, ask the Dutch what they think about their experiment with same-sex marriage.

Again, way down the list on why I'm against.