Here's a hot potato....

[rocknK]

Prop 8 here in CA. Gay marriage. One part of me says those folks deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us. The other part says to preserve "family" values. :popcorn:

[ItsPrimeTime]

I believe thats prop 102 here in AZ. I say let marry whoever wants to marry. There are teenagers repopulating at such young ages, so gay marriages aren't "stopping" or preventing anything...

[WashingtonBay]

That is a hot potato... :) Glad I don't have to handle it.

Here, we're deciding if we should be able to off grandma.

[rocknK]

Poor grandma, maybe if she was gay she would be protected.

[WashingtonBay]

~chuckling~

Apparently though, she wants us to off her.

I gotta read through that thing.

On gay marriage... Unlike a lot of conservatives gay marriage is one of those that beyond the weirdness of how it would work in future introductions around the office, I don't really care one way or the other. Consider it the libertarian part of me. I wouldn't look forward to voting on it.

[cowpuncher]

~chuckling~

I don't really care one way or the other. Consider it the libertarian part of me. I wouldn't look forward to voting on it.


I'm with you on this WB! I don't personally approve of the idea, and would vote against it, but it is a case of needing to be put to a general election. I'm the walking definition of a :"constitutional libertarian." If it wins in whatever state I happen to be living in, the okay. The problem I've had is the whole judicial activism issue, where the voters say "NO!" with the ballot box, and the judges turn around and overturn it. There is no constitutional right to marriage, beyond it's aspect as a religious ceremony. Since there is NO religion, at least that I'm aware of, that says gays should be married, it's certainly not a religious issue, so it's not a constitutional issue.

If the people choose to make "being married" a constitutional right, THEN the judges have something to say about it. In the meantime, the judicial branch has no business overturning laws that are not unconstitutional.

Or, at least, that's what I remember from all those poli-sci and constitutional law classes all those years ago......

[oursarge]

WB what do they want to do with grandma??????

I have no issue with gay marriage. I don't feel like it's my business like I don't want anyone in my business. My uncle is gay, he's with his partner longer than most non gay people are married, they're together almost 50yrs. They have always been nice to me and have great dogs that are treated well [what I judge a person on how they treat me and their animals!!!!].

What I found comical was that my uncle never told anyone in the family that he was gay 'til grandma died [Nobody offed her, she had a heart attack at 91] then my uncle "came out". My mother who messes up the English language big time came here all serious one day and said she had to talk to me. I was a wreck and thought someone died or was sick. She started out by saying "Uncle ****** came out of the Wardrobe" I couldn't stop laughing, she was so serious then told me he came out of the wardrobe meaning closet. It was such a relief to know that's all it was. I told her I knew since I was about 6 yrs old. She was surprised I knew?????

I got a real shock awhile back. When I worked before I was married one of my friends was a nice guy [a hippie guy like most of my friends were, now we're all old hippies] who loved animals. My friend had a crush on him and I always thought they'd be a good couple. Unfortunately we lost my friend to cancer. I found his name on classmates.com. He was also friends with my friend who had the crush but he didn't know about the crush. I thought I'd let him know she died because he had moved and didn't know. This can only happen to me but I sent him a note and got a very nice e-mail back. Told me all about his life which has been a good one then said he is now living his life as **** [Insert woman's name] and is transgender. It's really very sad to be trapped in the wrong body. I would have never guessed except for his long hair he was all man back when I worked with him but we never really know the people we think we know I guess. He was a nice guy and is a nice girl and we e-mail all the time. It just shocked me since I would have never guessed. I'm learning alot though.

Anyway I'm a live and let live kind of person. I don't want people in my business and I am not in theirs unless it's animal abuse then I'll call who ever I have to call to get the person in trouble.

[Sundays Man]

I say that the fact that this being an issue AT ALL is a sharp testimony to the sad state of our society. And like ole Forrest, "that's all I'm going to say about that".

[cloedoll]

Heh, that would be a hot potato. I don't know what the rules here or specifics (yeah, I'm great with terms, I know -sarcasm- hehe), but I'm for gay marriage...that's probably not surprising, though! :D Haha.

[WashingtonBay]

WB what do they want to do with grandma??????


We have an assisted suicide initiative on the ballot.

Heh.... way back in college I had a now-funny experience of telling some kind of gay joke to someone who looked at me and said "I'm gay".

Well, I was relaying this experience to another friend, telling her how embarrassed and sorry I was that I had offended this person... "I never even tell gay jokes. I'm not sure I've ever told a gay joke before, and look who I choose to tell my first one to!"

She looked at me and said "Go get a beer, I'm Gay".

I didn't believe her, thought she was just yanking my chain. She'd say "come on.... look at me, I've even got short sensible hair and comfortable shoes"

Hah! She'd even been living with a roommate awhile and I'd not suspected anything more from it.

She and her current 'partner', are, by the way, staunch libertarians who always vote Republican. Her partner is ex military and very proud of that. They care more about defense, taxes and their guns than they do any special OKAY from the government to live together.

Just sayin' is all. :)

[vicklynn]

Just because people are gay, dosnt mean its right for them to marry. As far as how nice or mean they are, has nothing to do with it. Ive known some very cool gay people, and some hatefull straight folks, and vice versa.
I have no issues with gay people, thats not my call, but if I can vote NO to them marrying, I will.
It wasnt written in the book to be like that.

[Tatesgram]

[quote=vicklynn;23178]I have no issues with gay people, thats not my call, but if I can vote NO to them marrying, I will.[quote]

I personally don't care what a persons preference is, as long as they don't try to make me accept it. That's my whole problem with the gay movement, don't try to shove it down my throat, don't teach my grandkids in school that it's acceptable, that is stepping over the line. I also don't buy the arguments they give, you can make anyone your beneficiary or give them legal rights to your property. I think they are looking for moral approval, and that I cannot give.

[Sundays Man]

She and her current 'partner', are, by the way, staunch libertarians who always vote Republican. Her partner is ex military and very proud of that. They care more about defense, taxes and their guns than they do any special OKAY from the government to live together.

Just sayin' is all. :)

Now that's what I'm talking about. Why can't people just do what they've got to do and be happy without trying to make "issues" out of every little thing. Yes, I know that there are issues of medical insurance and benefits and the like in situations like that, but come on, those things can be worked out without dragging marriage into it.

[Sundays Man]

[quote=vicklynn;23178]I have no issues with gay people, thats not my call, but if I can vote NO to them marrying, I will.[quote]

I personally don't care what a persons preference is, as long as they don't try to make me accept it. That's my whole problem with the gay movement, don't try to shove it down my throat, don't teach my grandkids in school that it's acceptable, that is stepping over the line. I also don't buy the arguments they give, you can make anyone your beneficiary or give them legal rights to your property. I think they are looking for moral approval, and that I cannot give.

Agreed. The government and special interest groups cannot legislate my moral values and beliefs. Don't EVEN try to tell me from Washington what is right and wrong. A bunch of misfits with selfish motives trying to tell the populace what they should think and believe doesn't cut it in my world. My grandparents, mom, dad and life itself have taught me all I need to know about right and wrong. It may be different from what someone else believes, but don't even try to force me to accepting and believing something that I don't!!!! You want to live a gay lifestyle, fine, do it, but leave me the heck alone, it's your choice and your problems, deal with it. I have enough worries of my own.

[Horseaholic]

just because some "book" supposedly defines marriage doesn't make it wrong. Who are you to say who people can love and who people can marry? If you so strongly beleive that God disagrees just let them be who they want to be and have God deal with them when he pleases. If you so strongly beleive it's wrong dont you think your God will take care of it. It's not your job.

Whats it to you? Are they asking you to celebrate with them? Are they asking you to be gay with them? Are they asking your children to be gay with them? Absolutely not..so let them have the right they deserve as HUMAN BEINGS not labeled for their sexual orientation.

You know I love it when everyone uses God to back them up on a judgmental comment yet no one realizes that wasn't it God who said DONT JUDGE.

"Don't judge, so that you won't be judged.... "

[Horseaholic]

tates - if you teach your grandchildren what you think they should believe don't you think their independent minds will know the "right thing".

[Horseaholic]

[quote=Tatesgram;23208][quote=vicklynn;23178]I have no issues with gay people, thats not my call, but if I can vote NO to them marrying, I will.

Agreed. The government and special interest groups cannot legislate my moral values and beliefs. Don't EVEN try to tell me from Washington what is right and wrong. A bunch of misfits with selfish motives trying to tell the populace what they should think and believe doesn't cut it in my world. My grandparents, mom, dad and life itself have taught me all I need to know about right and wrong. It may be different from what someone else believes, but don't even try to force me to accepting and believing something that I don't!!!! You want to live a gay lifestyle, fine, do it, but leave me the heck alone, it's your choice and your problems, deal with it. I have enough worries of my own.


Why wouldn't you listen to your own advice...leave them alone and how come you can tell them whats right or wrong but Washington cant tell you...?

[mtnmollie]

It wasnt written in the book to be like that.

Do you mean the book our founding fathers read?

The book our nations laws was built upon?

The book we don't read anymore? That book?

[mtnmollie]

Agreed. The government and special interest groups cannot legislate my moral values and beliefs. Don't EVEN try to tell me from Washington what is right and wrong.

What is right and wrong?

Is it right and or wrong for gay couples to adopt?

WE never even asked these questions from 1776- 1950 or 1960 or was it 1970 or 1980?

I guess we have to ask the question now because somebody came out of the closet;
and said, tell me I'm ok too.

I'm ok- your ok- that's the American way.
Our new way, I guess?

[NJrider]

They might be more in want of that "special OKAY" from the government when one of them is in the hospital deathly ill and her partner cannot go see her. And all the other things that they are denied that married people get.

I'm for gay marriage. And I'm for assisted suicide. I'll never understand why we get to ease the suffering of our pets but when it comes to a human that right is denied. Why is it ok for horrible suffering in people? And no, I'm not talking about a little pain. I'm talking about long, drawn out unbelievable pain and suffering that leads to death.

[WashingtonBay]

They might be more in want of that "special OKAY" from the government when one of them is in the hospital deathly ill and her partner cannot go see her. And all the other things that they are denied that married people get.

I was never carded or made to prove my relationship to go see my mother when she was deathly ill, nor were any of her other visitors. I've visited critical patients who were not even related to me.

There is something about release of information, and that's a real issue I'll allow that can and should be worked out for these couples. But much like a person with no real relations might give power of attorney to a trusted friend, gay couples can and do formalize these wishes and legal relationships every day, without 'marriage'.

[Tatesgram]

tates - if you teach your grandchildren what you think they should believe don't you think their independent minds will know the "right thing".

I'm proud to say I raised 3 very independant children that think and decided things for themselves. And hopefully my grandchildren will also. My oldest son and I often have animated discussions, we seldom agree, but that doesn't change our love for each other.

My point is, I don't believe schools have the right, or the government for that matter, to teach my family about what they think is right or wrong, or about sexual orientation. Unfortunately, I also realize that many families fail to teach their children anything, they leave it up to the teachers to imprint their children with the teachers beliefs.

I strongly believe in reading and encouraged my children to read, anything and everything and then form their own opinions. I don't believe in letting the popular beliefs sway how you think, my mom often quoted "If everybody else was jumping off the bridge, would you jump off too?". Don't follow the crowd, think for yourself.

For the record, I don't care who you love or how you love them. I don't want to know about it. And, I don't want anyone to try to force me to accept their beliefs.

[oursarge]

They might be more in want of that "special OKAY" from the government when one of them is in the hospital deathly ill and her partner cannot go see her. And all the other things that they are denied that married people get.

I'm for gay marriage. And I'm for assisted suicide. I'll never understand why we get to ease the suffering of our pets but when it comes to a human that right is denied. Why is it ok for horrible suffering in people? And no, I'm not talking about a little pain. I'm talking about long, drawn out unbelievable pain and suffering that leads to death.


I agree with all of this, I always say if I get so sick I can't stand it I hope I have the courage to take myself out, I will never let an animal suffer, I can't stand to see people suffer and I worry about me suffering. I'm not sure how assisted suicide works so I can't say much but I believe if someone wants to end it it's their call. My father in law was suffering with lung cancer, he was miserable. He tried to take matters into his own hands but it didn't work, he was really mad and bitter after that, he lived 2 more weeks in agony. That was 1985 maybe pain medications are better, they never gave him anything, they gave him sleeping pills to help him sleep that was it. Most of the hospitals and Drs around here aren't worth much. My uncle died in 2000 of lung cancer, he also tried to end it but it didn't work. He was on morphine but not enough, they told him it might damage his kidneys. My aunt screamed at them "he's dying what does it matter if it damages his kidneys, give him the *&^ *&^%$# pain medication". Maybe it depends on the Drs but he lived his last days in total agony. The hospital sent him home to die, said they couldn't do anything else for him so go home and get Hospise which they did and they liked the ladies but he was still in pain. Then there was my friend who got cancer at 44, they didn't do much for her pain either, she had to scream and scream for morphine, my parents were in the hospital with her then and my mother can still hear her screaming for it. I think that it depends where you are how they manage your pain, she was in Mt Sinai [sp] in NY City and they made her suffer something awful. I could write a book on just her illness and how it was handled but it is over with now. That made me know that I will do something if I can. I am really sorry about your mother WB but it was probably a blessing they had her out, I wish they did that to my loved ones instead of making them suffer so badly. It still haunts me.

What worries me is if there is a way to keep it the person's call so if there are relatives who can't wait to get Grandma's money they can end it too soon for her. I'm assuming there are protections for that but I don't know.

I said it in my other post I don't care if gay people get married, it's not my business. Most times I can't figure out why anyone would want to be married. I wouldn't trade my husband for anything but I'd never get married again and he says the same thing. We're both afraid that we're so happy if something happened to either of us we might end up with some idiot like so many of our friends and relatives [his mother for one] did. That's just my two cents not that it's worth anything really.

[WashingtonBay]

I'm for assisted suicide. I'll never understand why we get to ease the suffering of our pets but when it comes to a human that right is denied. Why is it ok for horrible suffering in people? And no, I'm not talking about a little pain. I'm talking about long, drawn out unbelievable pain and suffering that leads to death.

I've had the unfortunate experience of losing many of my family to Cancer. It may have been longer and more drawn out than it could have been with a shot to end it, but there was not pain. We are very good at relieving pain, up to the point of a coma if needed. Doctors and hospice people are very serious about pain, and can and do treat it every day in terminal patients. I asked if my mother's morphine could be reduced so she could wake up for a short time and know that we had come. The doctor said no, if she was awake she'd be in too much pain. I asked "Can't we let her decide that? She doesn't know we are here." We were camping when she was admitted, she was out when we arrived. I wanted her to know, but my motives may have been selfish. The dying do not need to suffer now.

I'm torn on it. I'm not sure to whose benefit ending my mother's life 24 or 36 hours would have been. We suffered the wait, when it was inevitable, but she was not there. When it's over, it's over for good and we miss it. More options would not have made it any easier.

Less clear are the ethics involved when the person is NOT dying, such as Terri Schiavo.

[mtnmollie]

I have a picture of a boy about 13 in handcuffs headed for a police car.

His crime?

Trying to take water to Terri Schiavo.

WE learned in Nazi Germany how difficult a death it is to deny one food and water.

[Tatesgram]

I'm torn on it. I'm not sure to whose benefit ending my mother's life 24 or 36 hours would have been. We suffered the wait, when it was inevitable, but she was not there. When it's over, it's over for good and we miss it. More options would not have made it any easier.



Aww, WB, I feel for you. You got to sit with her (I'm assuming) and speak with her, even if she couldn't respond. My Dad went in the hospital last December for some test, and died in the night. And I will always regret that I didn't have a chance to talk to him one more time. Thankfully, and it's does give me solace, that he didn't suffer, he apparently had a heart attack in his sleep.

[WashingtonBay]

Aww, WB, I feel for you. You got to sit with her (I'm assuming) and speak with her, even if she couldn't respond. My Dad went in the hospital last December for some test, and died in the night. And I will always regret that I didn't have a chance to talk to him one more time. Thankfully, and it's does give me solace, that he didn't suffer, he apparently had a heart attack in his sleep.

I think we always have reason for some regrets. Yes, I got to be there and touch and talk to her, and suffer the decline she was oblivious to. I decided I'd rather be hit by a truck than having people suffer over me, or put tubes in me and tend to me when I am all but gone, but that too, is selfish. In some ways, maybe you had it better, in that my image of my mom was forever changed by that time in the hospital, and it took years to picture her any other way.

There's no easy answers on it.

And the boy arrested for taking water to Terri was a disruptor who was part of a circus of busybodies no one wants in their own life. Terri was no more able to drink water than she was able to eat a steak cooked how she liked it. She wasn't in pain, I'm sure of it, any more than my mother was, as she died. The question is whether there could or should be a better answer for people like her, and her family, than years of a loved one lingering in a non-life, or starvation. I couldn't care less about the circus outside and what they wanted.

[Tatesgram]

I think we always have reason for some regrets. Yes, I got to be there and touch and talk to her, and suffer the decline she was oblivious to. I decided I'd rather be hit by a truck than having people suffer over me, or put tubes in me and tend to me when I am all but gone, but that too, is selfish. In some ways, maybe you had it better, in that my image of my mom was forever changed by that time in the hospital, and it took years to picture her any other way.



I agree. We watched my nephew die in a very long, drawn out ordeal. In the end, it wasn't my sister that had to decide to let him go. His poor body had been through so much. Everything just shut down and he was gone. There were times when we thought he would be coming home, we, nor the doctors, knew how much was wrong. And yes, it is selfish to want them to know we are there and to want to hang on just one more day, but that is human nature. To cling to those we love.

[Sundays Man]

[quote=Sundays Man;23377][quote=Tatesgram;23208]


Why wouldn't you listen to your own advice...leave them alone and how come you can tell them whats right or wrong but Washington cant tell you...?

Well, I didn't start this thread and I'm not exactly bothering them. Just stating my opinion just as you are. But since you bring it up, who said "God"? This was just personal opinions I thought. And I would leave them alone if they would return the favor. If it were just about marriage that would be the end of it. Don't even get me started about their groups and the liberal well meaning educational systems trying shove their crap about their lifestyle down my childrens throats financed by my hard earned tax dollars. I don't attend or organize any straight people parades to act a fool and embarass the community with my antics and I don't go around with a chip on my shoulder because the gays don't agree with my straightness. I don't tell them what's right or wrong. God does and neither are they going to tell me I'm right or wrong just because I don't agree with you......I don't care what your agenda is. You can eat cow patties for a living I don't care. Just stay in the pasture and leave me the heck alone.

[WashingtonBay]

You know I love it when everyone uses God to back them up on a judgmental comment yet no one realizes that wasn't it God who said DONT JUDGE.

"Don't judge, so that you won't be judged.... "I'm no biblical scholar, and I don't usually use it in debate, but I do recognize, sometimes, when a biblical principle is being misquoted, as this one is.

People often quote the principle above incorrectly and without context.1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24 (http://www.bartleby.com/108/41/4.html#24)
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
See... Mathew 7 was not really saying "don't judge". I think he's saying "don't judge other people by any measure you are not willing to be judged by yourself. Don't judge others for sins that you also commit. Don't be a hypocrite. Perhaps help others overcome their failures instead of merely judging them, and they may in turn help you with yours.

People judge all the time. The bible is not telling us not to judge, it's telling us not to judge unfairly or in a way that we would not want to be judged. The decision not to condemn something is a judgment to accept it. To force others to accept something is no less judgmental than it would be to try to suppress it. Both are judgments societies make and rules societies form about how we want to live. And which is right and which is wrong is not always clear. That's why these things get argued about so much.

My two cents.

[mtnmollie]

I read a different version about the Schiavo case,
but hay, I was not there. ;)

[WashingtonBay]

Persistent Vegetative state, comatose, whatever you want to call it, her brain and cognitive functions wer all but gone. Lots of people wanted to run in and make a big public display of trying to "save her", but she could not drink or swallow water from a bottle (or even know she needed it, realistically) and had not for years. If he'd tried to pour that water down her she'd drown. It was a display for the cameras. Nothing more, nothing less.

That someone sent their kid to be arrested in a public demonstration does not speak ill of our laws at all, IMHO, but it does speak to the poor judgment of some parents.

[Horseaholic]

I'm no biblical scholar, and I don't usually use it in debate, but I do recognize, sometimes, when a biblical principle is being misquoted, as this one is.

People often quote the principle above incorrectly and without context.1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24 (http://www.bartleby.com/108/41/4.html#24)
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
See... Mathew 7 was not really saying "don't judge". I think he's saying "don't judge other people by any measure you are not willing to be judged by yourself. Don't judge others for sins that you also commit. Don't be a hypocrite. Perhaps help others overcome their failures instead of merely judging them, and they may in turn help you with yours.

People judge all the time. The bible is not telling us not to judge, it's telling us not to judge unfairly or in a way that we would not want to be judged. The decision not to condemn something is a judgment to accept it. To force others to accept something is no less judgmental than it would be to try to suppress it. Both are judgments societies make and rules societies form about how we want to live. And which is right and which is wrong is not always clear. That's why these things get argued about so much.

My two cents.


.Sundays man - The "book" someone referred to is about God is it not? Thats where God came into this when someone brought up that the book states its wrong. The gays have parades whether they have a right to be married or not. I didn't say I was in agreance with all of that. I just agree with everyone getting equal rights when it comes to two PEOPLE who love each other.

WB -I knew where my quote was coming from and i absolutely agree with what you say. As everyone judges the gays for being gay - they dont judge you for being straight do they?

[Horseaholic]

as the for the assisted suicide. Other countries do offer it. You have to be reviewed by a psychiatrist and cleared for the procedure. I don't see why as humans we can't make a decision on our own about OUR bodies

[WashingtonBay]

WB -I knew where my quote was coming from and i absolutely agree with what you say. As everyone judges the gays for being gay - they dont judge you for being straight do they?

I don't think I agree that your 'test' is a valid measure of right and wrong. They aren't equivalent in the eyes of many, that's why it's argued about.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, except where it has opened the floodgates on accepting nearly any kind of casual relationship as the legal equivalent of being married. Here in WA, state workers can qualify nearly anyone as their partner for the sake of insurance coverage at taxpayer expense. Gay or straight. That has a very real cost.

[WashingtonBay]

as the for the assisted suicide. Other countries do offer it. You have to be reviewed by a psychiatrist and cleared for the procedure. I don't see why as humans we can't make a decision on our own about OUR bodies

Well, as long as you're successful and not asking someone else to help you, I guess there's no way to stop you.

This is assisted suicide. You're asking someone else to do it. Or asking someone else to interpret your desires if you can't do it yourself. That does make it stickier.

[mtnmollie]

I read a different version about the Schiavo case,
but hay, I was not there. ;)

I was reading the website the family (parents) put up and they had a different version
than what so many read in the news. But hay, I was not there - so which side told the truth? Who will ever know?

I just dont believe everything I read in the news.

I just remember Terri recognized people, Terri was thirsty, and Terry did not want death.

[Sundays Man]

.Sundays man - The "book" someone referred to is about God is it not? Thats where God came into this when someone brought up that the book states its wrong. The gays have parades whether they have a right to be married or not. I didn't say I was in agreance with all of that. I just agree with everyone getting equal rights when it comes to two PEOPLE who love each other.

WB -I knew where my quote was coming from and i absolutely agree with what you say. As everyone judges the gays for being gay - they dont judge you for being straight do they?

OOOH, I see. I missed that I guess. I see that we agree then. The right or wrong of it has never really been a issue with me. I'm a firm believer in what WB posted. I can't see well enough to judge someone else, like I said, I got my own problems. I don't dislike or stay away from someone just because they are gay unless they are one of the in your face, hair trigger tempered type (actually, that goes for anyone like that). I do agree they should have the same access to the medical and insurance and visitation benefits or whatever else married couples have, but give me a break with the rest of the stuff. I do not like or agree with some of the conduct at most of their parades. You try it on a street in your town and you'll go to jail. Maybe we straights need to have equal rights to be lewd, lacivious and naked in public like some of their parades seem to promote.

And yes many of them DO judge me for being straight. I do not and will not ever agree with their agenda, but neither will I try to force my straightness on them. Let them get the rights they want and go some place and leave the rest of the world alone like most straight married people do. Groups like ACTOUT have gone a LONG way in turning me off to their cause and agenda. And yes there are many people like the friends WB mentioned that have my respect, just living their life the way they choose and being a productive member of society. I don't have to agree with their lifestyle to respect their person. Heck I have good friends that I don't agree with the way they live their lives, but I don't judge them, they don't judge me and we get along fine and have for years.

[WashingtonBay]

Her state of consciousness as they claim it was far from 'proved'. In fact, the evidence was to the contrary. But all those issues were argued in court and a judge had to decide it. And he did. And it was appealed, and tried again, and again, and others got involved who had no business being there and it was a hideous mess that did NOTHING to help us decide how to handle these kinds of conflicts in the future.

Heck, personally, I think if her parents wanted to take care of her, they should have been allowed to. But beyond that I looked at the circus they helped create and didn't see a lot of truth and reason coming from it. Only hysteria that made my husband and I vow to never let those people anywhere near us or our family decisions.

[WashingtonBay]

You know... it is a little odd that we are talking about assisted suicide and gay marriage on the same thread, and it actually makes sense to us. :D

I guess they're both hot potatoes. :)

[Cat]

I believe gay marriage should be legal. For those who don't want to step on the toes of their religious beliefs - maybe a compromise. Call it something different, yet allow some of the same legal rights such as being able to insure each other and such. I don't think those type of things should be withheld from two people who love each other - no matter who approves or disapproves.

[Sundays Man]

I'm no biblical scholar, and I don't usually use it in debate, but I do recognize, sometimes, when a biblical principle is being misquoted, as this one is.

People often quote the principle above incorrectly and without context.1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24 (http://www.bartleby.com/108/41/4.html#24)
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
See... Mathew 7 was not really saying "don't judge". I think he's saying "don't judge other people by any measure you are not willing to be judged by yourself. Don't judge others for sins that you also commit. Don't be a hypocrite. Perhaps help others overcome their failures instead of merely judging them, and they may in turn help you with yours.

People judge all the time. The bible is not telling us not to judge, it's telling us not to judge unfairly or in a way that we would not want to be judged. The decision not to condemn something is a judgment to accept it. To force others to accept something is no less judgmental than it would be to try to suppress it. Both are judgments societies make and rules societies form about how we want to live. And which is right and which is wrong is not always clear. That's why these things get argued about so much.

My two cents.
Thank you WB. You are so correct. I think the problems we get into is when we don't agree on what standard should be used to decide what is right and wrong. It seems the further our society has gotten away from using the Bible as our "standard" the more confusion and fighting we've had over right and wrong. Those of us who still hold the Bible as ultimate truth and "The Manufacturers Handbook" get a lot of ridicule for not being with the times and old fashioned and many other sort of tags. Another problem is that fact that many hold the Bible up in such a manner but only know about 1/100th of what it says. Like Kung Phu, you can know just enough to get yourself in trouble. The truths of the Bible can be greatly misinterpreted if not taken in light of the "whole truth" presented. Many like to take the words and make them say what fits their beliefs rather than make their beliefs fit the truth. I'm not talking about you Shadyhill, but others who use the Bible as a battering ram on people. We humans don't give the Bible it's power. All we can do is present the truths and let God take care of the power issue. It is, after all, His Word.

People will argue with me all day long, that being gay isn't a choice or that alcoholism isn't a disease. I won't argue that issue, because I've never been able to convince anyone gay that it's a choice or an alcoholic that he doesn't have a disease. If it works for you, go with it. I just know what I've learned and believe. If someone doesn't agree with me, I'm o.k. with that, I'm not their judge. We will all be judged and it will be the most perfectly just and righteous judgement. And, I think we are all going to be shocked at how many things we got wrong.:eek:

[WashingtonBay]

I'd tend to agree Cat, just because I think it's where we actually are as a society.

I'd like to argue against it on the grounds that the only societal interest in legalizing marriage is to help make legal and permanent the framework where children will be raised. But when so few marriages are permanent anymore, and certainly don't all produce children even if they are... the reason for the state being involved in marriage at all seems rather lost on me.

Why are they?

[rockyridge]

i would be for assisted suicide.....my mother,aunt and uncle were for it...mom is going to be 96 12/1 and my uncle is 96....my mom is very clear still ...my uncle is not...
i would be for it if i knew they were for it...and that they had made their wishes known.....but what happens in a case of an accident to someone young and unprepared ...no will ..no mention of wishes....
so a vote would just be for those that knew they were dying...in pain and choose death?...and who gets to say they are sound in their request.....

in any relationship ....if families have not written wills or done what is necessary to protect their loved ones....bad things can happen....
so if a couple can get insurance....can write wills....request adoption .....in others words....protect themselves with the law.....which many ''married'' couples forget.....i don't see the need that they be a special interest group...but i do understand a yearning to be ''married'' it is what most of us have grown up thinking we would do....when we found our mate.....so are their hearts to no longer desire what they have always believed they would do if they find a mate that is their same sex?......i would like to think that if i were gay i would cover the legal bases and then find a minister to have my wedding......but since i am not gay...and my choice to marry an easy path......perhaps i can't know what someone else would yearn for...

in history...marriage united families and created legitimate heirs......it was sacred....a union precided over by the families.....the man had to ask permission...a girl was kept maidenly to ensure that children that came from the union were the husband's........marriage today is a different colored horse!

[Cat]

I'd tend to agree Cat, just because I think it's where we actually are as a society.

I'd like to argue against it on the grounds that the only societal interest in legalizing marriage is to help make legal and permanent the framework where children will be raised. But when so few marriages are permanent anymore, and certainly don't all produce children even if they are... the reason for the state being involved in marriage at all seems rather lost on me.

Why are they?

Who knows why - just because no one has pushed to change it? control?

[WashingtonBay]

Because there was an interest in acknowledging families as a legal entity, committed to each other for life, for their children, for their illnesses and deaths, and inheritances.

But that's when we actively encouraged these relationships to be ... PERMANENT.

Now they are not. Children are born both in and out of wedlock and no one thinks any worse of it any more, marriages end, children end up living with several versions of their now-split families over their lives, and there is little assumption that any one of them will be permanent. I see no real reason for the state to pretend a marriage is any more permanent or binding than "going steady".

I think when we decided we should be able to divorce for any reason, we should have decided the state didn't have an interest in protecting the relationship either. For any relationship, gay or straight.

[mtnmollie]

You know... it is a little odd that we are talking about assisted suicide and gay marriage on the same thread, and it actually makes sense to us. :D

I guess they're both hot potatoes. :)

I guess. I wonder why we have not been doing gay marriage and assisted suicide for the last 50 years or so?

[mtnmollie]

In 1956 you went to jail for being a homo- sexual, in America.

A guy in Mancos, Colorado got hung for rape.

How times change.

Some fella got six months in jail for being found guilty of
rapeing a minor in my small town in Idaho within the last ten years or so.

No big deal really. You might get seven years for being a dope dealer.

Who determins right and wrong anyway?

Does right and wrong change over time?

[Sundays Man]

In 1956 you went to jail for being a homo- sexual, in America.

A guy in Mancos, Colorado got hung for rape.

How times change.

Some fella got six months in jail for being found guilty of
rapeing a minor in my small town in Idaho within the last ten years or so.

No big deal really. You might get seven years for being a dope dealer.

Who determins right and wrong anyway?

Does right and wrong change over time?

I too remember when rape was punishable by execution. Good point Mollie. As I recall, you hardly EVER heard of a rape in those days. Funny how that works.

[Arrow]

I believe gay marriage should be legal. For those who don't want to step on the toes of their religious beliefs - maybe a compromise. Call it something different, yet allow some of the same legal rights such as being able to insure each other and such. I don't think those type of things should be withheld from two people who love each other - no matter who approves or disapproves.

I'm with you on this one, cat.

[Flair]

Oh, Prop 8. I know about this one.

About a month and a half ago, I had some people come to our door. I guess they were canvassing, although they said they were doing a poll (seemed like push polling to me) and they started off about how gays would have all the same rights and some other stuff (I admit, I was sort of hearing "Blah blah blah") but that they just wouldn't call it "marriage"

So after a while they asked me if I had any questions, and the first thing out of my mouth is "What defines a man and a woman?" Because honestly, this is really an issue for me. Well, it's an issue, and it's not an issue. Part of the reason is because of some genetic stuff -- as modern science and medicine improve, there's been a lot of research that shows that a 'man' does not merely equal an XY chromosome and a woman does not merely equal a XX chromosome. I guess it could be termed splitting hairs, and hasn't really come up in an sort of court case regarding marriage, but eventually, it wouldn't surprise me if there was in the future.

Anyway, they asked me how I'd vote if the election were held today, and I said I'd vote no. And then asked how my spouse would vote, and my answer was... "Well, here's the thing, I'm not married, nor am I in any kind of a relationship."

Honestly, I don't care. I voted no because I don't approve of Prop 8 as it stands. As far as I'm concerned, if two people deeply care for each other and want to make a life together, let them. Let them get married, it's no skin off my back whether they're both men, or both women or a man and a woman (but how do you define that one, eh) -- it's got no bearing on how I live my life. I'm all for gay marriage, seems like they have to put up with a lot of 'separate, but equal' stuff, but Britney Spears can go and get married in Vegas for 24 hours and the media puts it on the front page. Pfft.

Actually, another reason why I would probably support gay marriage is because I'm a child of mixed race. Dad's Caucasian, Mom's Philippino. They got married in 1973. Only 6 years after the Supreme Court declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional. A lot of what people were arguing for miscegenation is almost the same kind of rhetoric you hear today about gay marriage.

Of course, I also suggested to a cousin that nobody should be able to get married. Make 'em all civil unions or something.

[twofingers]

simply put two people of the same sex can diddle about until the cows come home and leave again and the result of that diddling will not create a family.[ IE 1+1 =3 ] yea you can adopt yea you can do in vitro and yes you can hire a womb but the two of you making love is not going to create a new life. that is not to say that there is no love there, nor commitment nor respect and honor for the other person. but without science your just a couple of pals hanging out and diddling about. and there are all ready laws on the books which insure survivorship, inheritance and power of attorney.

[Flair]

simply put two people of the same sex can diddle about until the cows come home and leave again and the result of that diddling will not create a family.[ IE 1+1 =3 ] yea you can adopt yea you can do in vitro and yes you can hire a womb but the two of you making love is not going to create a new life. that is not to say that there is no love there, nor commitment nor respect and honor for the other person. but without science your just a couple of pals hanging out and diddling about. and there are all ready laws on the books which insure survivorship, inheritance and power of attorney.


And there are plenty of heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids. Does that then mean that because they're not part of the ideal 'family' then they shouldn't have those rights either?

[oursarge]

And there are plenty of heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids. Does that then mean that because they're not part of the ideal 'family' then they shouldn't have those rights either?

Well said, we chose not to have kids so does that mean that we are not a family?

[rocknK]

It's not the "family" part, they want to change the definition of "marriage".

[oursarge]

I forgot to say I really liked what RR said too.

Marriage is a funny thing. I said it before, my uncle and his partner have been together for almost 50 yrs if it's not 50. I am 53 and I can't remember them not being together. They are committed to each other, they have not had a marriage ceremony but they are together and they are happy. They might not be everyone's ideal family but they are a family. They don't try to convert anyone they just live their lives with their dogs. I'm sure many people would think they are evil and sinners because of what they are....it's sad, they are good people who are different, if the people who condem them got to know them they might like them. I am betting that if they were given a choice in the matter they wouldn't be different since life isn't always easy.

I have one aunt who wants me to judge them, I told her I don't judge anyone. She says when I die I will have to say that she told me gays are bad but I didn't believe it and I won't get into heaven. I will not repeat what I told her since I won't get into a religious battle here but I got into a huge one with her.

We went to a wedding of a man and woman last week and if that thing lasts a yr it'll be a miracle. I think they did it just to have a party. The minister even questioned the marriage. We're together 32 yrs, married 31. We have a marriage that most people would this is really "different" but it works for us. I'm sure gay people who are married will get divorced too, stuff happens. Some people are meant to be together, some aren't. I feel if they want to be married let them be married. I have never been quite sure what the big issue is and why people get upset about it.