Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Falcon Horus]

I hear you. I just believe that you shouldn't be forced to do something you don't want to do. That's all.

She's working in a public office, so whatever her believes are should be put aside. If she can't perform her duties as she's expected to, then it might not be the best position for her.

And in the 2nd. Now that Gay marriage is legal (according to the Scotus), the LGBT lobby is now going after states that 'prohibit' same sex couples adopting kids..
What i would like to know THERE, is how they feel gay marriage being legal, should have ANY impact on whether a gay (or lesbian) couple should be allowed to adopt?

Yeah, cause straight couples are so much better parents than gay couples...

Paperwork, clearly she hates dealing with forms.. And that rubber stamp they have to use? Really strains the wrist after a while..

I couldn't green you, but you just made me giggle plenty.

[aretood2]

I can't think of any, but like I said, I am trying to give benefit of the doubt here

There are several ways you can argue it to different degrees but in the end you have to realize that most who do argue against it, fervently in the political arena, do so mainly because they look to government for their spiritual salvation and not a church (a case I can make). That's the case at least here in the US.

There's the line in the sand enlargement regarding where you draw the line for marriage once you establish love as its sole and only qualifier. There's the social/cultural enlargement that runs on similar lines. Then there's the procreation argument, but then there's the hurdle regarding fertile couples and then there's the argument as to raising children (A complex argument itself). Then there's the conservative argument of why fix it if it ain't brook. That is to say that it goes against years of tradition and human nature of (keep in mind that this argument does not recognize comparing not being allowed to get married with being beaten and raped by the plantation owner on a daily basis).

Now before you start sounding off of all the perceived flaws and fails of the above arguments, keep in mind that if you were to perceive them to be sufficient, you'd believe in them. That's the nature of the beast, you see one thing and someone else sees another. The problem is whether or not they are arguing on the basis of myth or on actual evidence. Then if it is on actual evidence, what makes different POV's develop is how one interprets the evidence to form an opinion. Someone may have a reasonable argument, but still be "wrong."

[imzadi35]

Like what?

Anything. For example, compromising your faith because of your job. I'm not trying to start anything here, it's just my own humble opinion.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Anything. For example, compromising your faith because of your job. I'm not trying to start anything here, it's just my own humble opinion.

If the clerk's faith is so fragile it can be compromised by other people being different to her, maybe she should be questioning why that is.. Filing paperwork for strangers shouldn't be a test of faith. And if she thinks it is then maybe she should find another job.

Leviticus also says eating shellfish is an abomination, so she might want to avoid working in any food service industries too..

The bible also forbids cutting the hair on the sides of your head, wearing clothes with holes, and mixed fibres.. But I bet she doesn't have any issues with those..

Also figs.. Although I forget why..

Thou shalt not picketh and chooseth.

[jelgate]

Anything. For example, compromising your faith because of your job. I'm not trying to start anything here, it's just my own humble opinion.

People in the legal system have to do that all the time. Lawyers have to go against their beliefs all the time to preserve the law. Do you think the defense attorney for the guy who shot up the Aurora movie theater believed it was right to commit murder? Our system still requires that everyone has a right to an attorney. I know its a little unrelated to your point but it shows that the legal system says that we have to keep our beliefs and feelings separate from what the law says

[Annoyed]

As I said earlier, her job is to act as an agent of the US Government. The government's official policy on the matter is what she represents. It doesn't matter if its marriage or the DMV or the price of tea in China, as an agent of the government, she says what the government says.

[garhkal]

First reaction is it is double standards, and you are right, it is unfair.
My second question would be, how far along was she?
(I see neither article deals with that issue, nor even mentions she is pregnant)

The whole pregnancy issue came about cause of a comment ON that story i saw elsewhere.. Which does make for a valid point. Why is it 'somehow wrong' or cruel and unusual for someone to be put to death cause of their crime(s), but a woman is ok in terminating her pregnancy?

Ummm
What in the nine blazes of hell are you talking about?
The articles deal with a lawyer citing changes to an existing law making previous decisions now cruel and unusual punishment.

To me it's more about "Why should we be conserned with whether how we wish to put them to death (or even IF) cause of their crimes, is cruel and unusual, when more likely than not, what THEY Did to deserve the death sentence, was Cruel and unusual to OTHERS. Are not the victim's families being denied justice/a right to speak ON that, if they now can't even ASK for the death penalty?

The reason they were denied adoption was because they were deemed not to be "stable couples". as LGBT marriage is now afforded the same legal rights as other forms of marriage, that argument no longer applies in those states.
Make sense?

Fare enough. It does in one essence (that they are now legally married, they are stable THAT way), but has there been ANY studies done to show one way or the other, whether a same sex couple raising a kid is any more or less stable/healthy for the child, than being raised by a male/female couple?

Whah!! Whah!! Some people are living their lives differently to how I live mine! I don't like it! Everyone must be like me!



Most arguments are based around "gay sex is icky" and "god says it's wrong". So.. if you don't like gay sex, don't do it. And not everyone follows a religion, so what your god says on the subject really only matters to you..

And how is it any less wrong for someone to push/thrust THEIR lifestyle down other's throats.. Which is how i see it with 'gay pride this, gay pride that, gay pride the other' being celebrated from one side of the country to the other, but in many areas, you even STATE you 'are hetro proud' you seem to get labled a bigot (and yes it has happened to me twice!)?
I used to be a'ok with it. You want to be gay. BE GAY. Just don't push it on me/try to get me to accept and condone it. Now days cause of how much it seems to be pushed around, and how in many areas it seems if you ' "don't fully support it, its cause you must be homophobic" i despise it.

To me its a case of "you preech I need to tolerate YOUR lifestyle/choices etc, but you don't seem to tolerate MY not liking the consistent pushing of it around as 'good'..

Yeah, cause straight couples are so much better parents than gay couples...

Falcon. To me its not about whether gays are or are not better (Or worse), its more about "has there been enough study into whether they ARE better or worse, to prove whether they ARE going to be stable, and benefit the kid(s)?

There's the line in the sand enlargement regarding where you draw the line for marriage once you establish love as its sole and only qualifier. There's the social/cultural enlargement that runs on similar lines.

Very true Artoo. If one does define it as only needing to love someone else, why limit it to just one love? Why not two, three etc?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

And how is it any less wrong for someone to push/thrust THEIR lifestyle down other's throats.. Which is how i see it with 'gay pride this, gay pride that, gay pride the other' being celebrated from one side of the country to the other, but in many areas, you even STATE you 'are hetro proud' you seem to get labled a bigot (and yes it has happened to me twice!)?
I used to be a'ok with it. You want to be gay. BE GAY. Just don't push it on me/try to get me to accept and condone it. Now days cause of how much it seems to be pushed around, and how in many areas it seems if you ' "don't fully support it, its cause you must be homophobic" i despise it.

To me its a case of "you preech I need to tolerate YOUR lifestyle/choices etc, but you don't seem to tolerate MY not liking the consistent pushing of it around as 'good'..

The gay folks are thrusting things down your throat? You should be honoured! You must be very popular

You go around shouting "Hetro Proud"? ...Do you shout "White Power!" too? Or do you recognise why that one is wrong?

[Gatefan1976]

There are several ways you can argue it to different degrees but in the end you have to realize that most who do argue against it, fervently in the political arena, do so mainly because they look to government for their spiritual salvation and not a church (a case I can make). That's the case at least here in the US.

Given that the US has in it's constitution a distinct separation of church and state, don't you think that -that- is patently self delusional?

There's the line in the sand enlargement regarding where you draw the line for marriage once you establish love as its sole and only qualifier. There's the social/cultural enlargement that runs on similar lines. Then there's the procreation argument, but then there's the hurdle regarding fertile couples and then there's the argument as to raising children (A complex argument itself). Then there's the conservative argument of why fix it if it ain't brook. That is to say that it goes against years of tradition and human nature of (keep in mind that this argument does not recognize comparing not being allowed to get married with being beaten and raped by the plantation owner on a daily basis).

Are all these not considerations that are viewed as "acceptable", but gays are somehow "special"? (and I don't mean special in a nice way)

Now before you start sounding off of all the perceived flaws and fails of the above arguments, keep in mind that if you were to perceive them to be sufficient, you'd believe in them. That's the nature of the beast, you see one thing and someone else sees another. The problem is whether or not they are arguing on the basis of myth or on actual evidence. Then if it is on actual evidence, what makes different POV's develop is how one interprets the evidence to form an opinion. Someone may have a reasonable argument, but still be "wrong."

Sure, I agree. There -could- be good arguments against gay marriage. I disagree with the church being forced to do it if they believe that it is wrong. I can even see people not wanting to recognize it in the social environment, and that is their call.
What I cannot find is any reason to deny LGBTQ's the same rights and responsibilities -under the law- as any other group who decide to co-join their lives in a legal way, especially when their main reason for doing so, is for love.
Who am I, or you, or anyone to determine what constitutes love?

[Gatefan1976]

Anything. For example, compromising your faith because of your job. I'm not trying to start anything here, it's just my own humble opinion.

Sure!!
But is your faith a function of your job?
A legal person swears to uphold the law, not the church, and I hold them to that.
By the same token, I hold a priest to put the tenants of their faith first.
On the surface they may look the same, but they really are not.

If your -job- has nothing to do with your faith, WHY is your faith an issue?

[Gatefan1976]

People in the legal system have to do that all the time. Lawyers have to go against their beliefs all the time to preserve the law. Do you think the defense attorney for the guy who shot up the Aurora movie theater believed it was right to commit murder? Our system still requires that everyone has a right to an attorney. I know its a little unrelated to your point but it shows that the legal system says that we have to keep our beliefs and feelings separate from what the law says

I will deny ever saying this...........................
Jel is 100% correct, and he gives himself too little credit for nailing the underlying issue.
Church and State, and the separation thereof -as accorded by the constitution- is not a "new thing", it is the foundation of the very first amendment to the constitution.

[Gatefan1976]

As I said earlier, her job is to act as an agent of the US Government. The government's official policy on the matter is what she represents. It doesn't matter if its marriage or the DMV or the price of tea in China, as an agent of the government, she says what the government says.

See my response to Jel, it applies to this as well.

[Gatefan1976]

The whole pregnancy issue came about cause of a comment ON that story i saw elsewhere.. Which does make for a valid point. Why is it 'somehow wrong' or cruel and unusual for someone to be put to death cause of their crime(s), but a woman is ok in terminating her pregnancy?

The question is one -you- need to consider, not me.
Is a woman who terminates her pregnancy a murderer?
At what point is a foetus alive?
I tend to stick to the notion that if a foetus can exist independently of it's mother, then all notions of abortion should be -seriously- looked at. (and speaking personally, I am VERY critical of what could make a good argument for termination) Before that point however, I don't consider a foetus an independent being, it is a potential human. I am just as willing to slide to the other side and ask if people think having a wank is any less an act of a "murderer", let alone the natural, biological process of a woman having her period to eject what was a potential human from her womb.

To me it's more about "Why should we be conserned with whether how we wish to put them to death (or even IF) cause of their crimes, is cruel and unusual, when more likely than not, what THEY Did to deserve the death sentence, was Cruel and unusual to OTHERS.

Ok.
We can agree that any crime that would possibly merit the death penalty must be pretty bad, right?
Do you think Eye for an Eye justice is a viable concept in modern society?

Are not the victim's families being denied justice/a right to speak ON that, if they now can't even ASK for the death penalty?

How are they being denied justice, if the penalty for murder is 20 years in prison, and the offender gets 20 years in prison?

Do you want justice?
Or do you want Vengance?
Think about that for awhile.

Fare enough. It does in one essence (that they are now legally married, they are stable THAT way), but has there been ANY studies done to show one way or the other, whether a same sex couple raising a kid is any more or less stable/healthy for the child, than being raised by a male/female couple?

Do you need a study to show that when I father a child with a woman, I will be a good parent? come on man!!

Have there been studies about children raised in same sex environments?
Yes.
Do I expect you to actually look for them yourself?
Nope.

And how is it any less wrong for someone to push/thrust THEIR lifestyle down other's throats.. Which is how i see it with 'gay pride this, gay pride that, gay pride the other' being celebrated from one side of the country to the other, but in many areas, you even STATE you 'are hetro proud' you seem to get labled a bigot (and yes it has happened to me twice!)?

Let me tell you a secret.
Gays are people as well, and they too are just as fallible of being arseholes to make a point as well, and should be pulled up on such behaviour. When a LGBTQ person accuses me of not being "100% for the cause" and try to denigrate -me-, I am more than willing to tell them to go suck a lemon, and I don't give a TOSS about their personal crusade. I agree with equality, be it equality for LGBTQ's, or equality for women, and I truly feel that the vast majority of LGBTQ people merely want to be accepted for who they are, and have no designs on "taking over".
Then again...............
People seem to be rather fond of the notion of "revenge" equalling justice, so why do people have a cry when people who have been oppressed, ridiculed, attacked, beaten and killed want to take their own measure of revenge?

I used to be a'ok with it. You want to be gay. BE GAY. Just don't push it on me/try to get me to accept and condone it. Now days cause of how much it seems to be pushed around, and how in many areas it seems if you ' "don't fully support it, its cause you must be homophobic" i despise it.

Those are 2 separate issues my friend, and I hope I addressed some of your issues a few lines ago.

To me its a case of "you preech I need to tolerate YOUR lifestyle/choices etc, but you don't seem to tolerate MY not liking the consistent pushing of it around as 'good'..

And they would say "You preach my lifestyle is evil, and will end you burning in HELL!!!!
Who -really- has a case here?
Tolerate me?
-or-
I have the right to condemn you.

Which one is really "bad"?

Falcon. To me its not about whether gays are or are not better (Or worse), its more about "has there been enough study into whether they ARE better or worse, to prove whether they ARE going to be stable, and benefit the kid(s)?

(Sorry FH, gonna steal your wings for a moment)
DO you need a STUDY to prove if the women you fathered a child with is "good" at being a parent? How about you??
Hows about we mandate temporary sterilization for you until you "prove" you can be a "good parent"
Or is that too much government interference in your life?

Very true Artoo. If one does define it as only needing to love someone else, why limit it to just one love? Why not two, three etc?

Or dogs, or cows, or sheep.
How predictable.

[Falcon Horus]

Falcon. To me its not about whether gays are or are not better (Or worse), its more about "has there been enough study into whether they ARE better or worse, to prove whether they ARE going to be stable, and benefit the kid(s)?

(Sorry FH, gonna steal your wings for a moment)
DO you need a STUDY to prove if the women you fathered a child with is "good" at being a parent? How about you??

By all means, steal my wings.

[Gatefan1976]

but you look good in wings