Msharmony -

That quote is something we’ve heard time and again in these discussions. Let me reference TeddyRose



You see, it’s a matter of justice. We have human rights and we have rights conferred by our citizenship. In the USA there are many laws that render the love of same-sex couples invalid suggesting they lack equality with their heterosexual counterparts.

For justice to prevail, the legal contract of marriage must be offered to same-sex couples. Only then will the laws that are granted to heterosexuals and denied to homosexuals be equal to all parties.

So I contend that marrying who you love IS A RIGHT. And hopefully soon, federal law (DOMA) will be realigned to uphold the idea of marriage as a right.

OH TOGETHER – but here’s the problem with that dear, we are talking about POTENTIAL. You and others have already declared that aging heterosexuals AND those unwilling to have children AND those situations in which one or the other partner is sterile DOES NOT PRECLUDE POTENTIAL and therefore does not render illegal their ability to marry.

So we just have to follow that exact same reasoning – Two same sex couples may not be able to produce a child TOGETHER but that does not preclude the POTENTIAL of either one of the partners to provide ½ of the potential that any other heterosexual person can provide.

So your argument fails.






I can only guess what the is being inferred in the above. Are you talking about studies discussing role models or studies discussing marriage or studies discussing unmarried live-in parents ….. what is your line of reasoning here?



Same sex couple HAVE to love each other before expanding their family because pregnancy accidents are ‘practically’ unheard of.



I happen to know two girls raised by their fathers and a multitude of boys raised by their mothers – they are as well adjusted as anyone else.



And what do these number of studies attribute their findings to? Is it just that a single parent head of house faces a lot more challenges raising children alone? And EXACTLY what are these studies saying about the psychological issues of adults who were raised by a single parent regardless of the gender of parent & child?



Just as everything else stated, that statement is overly generalized and has no meaning. Specifics might include quotes or paraphrased ideas from the various sources that indicated a consensus between the authors or scientists.




That’s what was stated before all the BLA BLA BLA BLA - stating it again at the end does not make it any more valid.

1. Only a male and female can produce children – not the full story.
Homosexuals are no less capable of producing eggs or sperm than heterosexuals. It all still works the same way typically, one egg and one sperm. The egg and sperm do not have to come from a man and woman who are married and a child does not have to be the product of simultaneous male/female copulation.

THEREFORE - Just because two same gendered individuals decide to marry does not delegitimize their potential to produce viable offspring. So the argument that presumes to place the potential of one male/female over any other male/female to produce offspring is illogical.

2. Having a male and female dominated home produces the best outcome for children. The available studies do not indicate that two parent, same-sex households have any worse results than two parent heterosexual households.

THEREFORE – the sexual orientation of any given couple does not preclude their potential for producing their own children, or taking in (adopting) and raising children to become healthy well-adjusted, productive and civil minded citizens.

Next argument: Children need both a male and a female role model.
To respond we must first debate what is meant by the terms ‘male role model’ and ‘female role model’.

When providing that information please explain the importance of role differences and why they can only be assimilated by children who are raised in a two parent heterosexual household.

OK – so, without entertaining off topic and unrelated discussions, such as incest, are there any other reasons not to accept and even endorse the value of same-sex marriage?

Will Durant

“Sixty years ago I knew everything; now I know nothing; education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.”

“We have here the fundamental problem of ethics, the crux of the theory of moral conduct. What is justice? -shall we seek righteousness, or shall we seek power? -is it better to be good, or to be strong?”

“And last are the few whose delight is in meditation and understanding; who yearn not for goods, nor for victory, but for knowledge; who leave both market and battlefield to lose themselves in the quiet clarity of secluded thought; whose will is a light rather than a fire, whose haven is not power but truth: these are the men of wisdom, who stand aside unused by the world.”
― Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy

It's alright. I expect that you are much like the rest of us, no real paper that denotes your wealth as it is traded for the necessities of life, even before the powerful have doled it out to you.

The company store is not myth, it is real, and we all consume there.

The issues described in the OP did not begin with Reagan (1980s), they began much earlier. Perhaps it began with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 – or more likely it began with the earliest economic philosophies by people like John Locke and Adam Smith which the U.S.A. purportedly adopted and idealized.

More precisely however, it is about how such philosophies became so twisted that what holds the greatest value is not that which are the commons – the necessary, abstract, hard to pin down common elements for sustainable existence. So twisted the ideologies of value have become that ‘the bottom line’ falls well above the mark of human life or even life at all.

That which holds the greatest value today, in our modern societies, is paper or pieces of metal or plastic through which one’s wealth is conferred. The value of wealth is that it buys either the necessities of life or it buys power to control the commons from which the necessities for sustainable existence were once freely accessed and shared by all life and preserved for the common good of all life.

When individual lives are worth less than a piece of paper, when the necessities of life demand that we conform to the ethics that put paper above life, and then we put the weapons of violence in the hands of the masses – what else is to be expected, but violence?

Msharmony

Absolutely, we uphold the Constitution by creating legislation (law). In order to do that well, one must consider more than just the single line item of one amendment.

Motown

It was the intent of the original Federal government to remain small by giving regulatory control to the State’s care. The ‘small’ federal government did not have, could it afford , and did not want to have control of a single military – hense State Militia’s, trained and governed by the State.

The State could not afford to arm and maintain a paid militia, so every ‘man’ (who could afford a musket) was required to have their own. With all that information the 2nd amendment make more sense, doesn’t it.

However, as time went on it became clear that a controlling agent was necessary in order to mount combined militia efforts, especially when a certain faction of the population decided they didn’t like the popular vote and took arms against the federal government. And so the federal government realized that it had to get involved.

That makes sense as well – we can’t have citizens bearing arms against our governments (state or federal) just because a certain faction is against … abortion… gay marriage…fracking… .

We currently have many pathways to change what we don’t like and they require a huge presence of the population in order to sway opinion and change laws.

Privately owned guns, at this point, can and should be regulated. That is not to say that they cannot be had, but in order to have ‘allowable’ weapons should require proof of responsibility (well regulated).

Motown:


I agree, the bill that Senator Feinstein intends is to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

How could that possibly be conceived as treason?


JustDukky:


Yep.
And by the way, what makes anyone think that privately owned hand guns and rifles of American citizens would be a match for the largest, most technically advanced military complex in the world?


Metalwing:


It wouldn’t take much for any insurrection in the private sector to be declared terrorist acts – how foolish does one have to be to think that such an ‘insurrection’ would stand a chance against the (American) military turned against them. ????

Metalwing:

What history are you relating to: Pre-Federalist paper or Federalist documents themselves? What purpose did the ‘State’s privately armed Militias’ serve in the Whiskey Rebellion?

Why was it important for the ‘Men’ to have their own arms and to be trained in a state militia?

JustDukky:

You are wrong, a variety of handguns and rifles, which include antiques and those that are non-functional, (even at 300 million) with a limited private supply of bullets, would NEVER be called into a single minded force. If that were the case, then this constitution “that any nation would give its eyeteeth for” would not be in any danger as we have many pathways to change or prevent legislation in a peaceful manner.

Any attempt to become violent would be crushed by our professionally trained military.

Rebellioussoul:

What law are you referring to?

And the second amendment is vague because the terms and conditions under which it was enacted are different today. That means we must relate to that amendment differently but in order to do that we have to apply the current terms and conditions that have changed since the inception of the amendment.

Metalwing:

Well – Motowndowntow and I have a similar question: And how many types of guns were there in the late 1780’s

Metalwing:

The response made no sense at all so please read the quote we were questioning:

Clarification please by answering: And how many types of guns were there in the late 1780’s and how many rounds could be fired in say, 5 minuets? AND since each individual was required to have their own firearm for the State militia – do you suppose people could afford to have TWO ‘muskets’, one for shooting food and one to set aside “just in case” they were called to serve the State’s interest?


Per Toodygirl5

The first sentence of this petition is blatant misinformation and the total disregard for facts continues in the next paragraph.



I think I have the answer to all these delusional concepts -- it must be what happens when consuming too many GMO products!!!

Metalwing

Not so amazing really, just a misconception that can be corrected without affront to a person’s intelligence. What is really amazing is how many people buy totally distorted views of history only to become easily led by propaganda.

Jesus spoke of divorce with the Pharisees, for more information about this engagement check out:
Matthew 19:1-15

Marriage is for life:

According to bible, there is little doubt that marriage was meant to last until death. (Matthew 19:6 – Genesis 2:24)

One of the commandments that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai was "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery". Obviously this commandment was a reinforcement measure to assure that people who got married stayed married and faithful.



So serious an offense is adultery that it was worthy of having one of the 10 commandments address it and that being the case any outward sign of it meant death.

How DIVORCE come into the picture?

It seems the concept of divorce came through Moses NOT THROUGH GOD. It is Jesus who provides that information during the engagement with the Pharisees



Perhaps there was a lot of adultery going on or maybe a lot of accusations calling for the ultimate punishment. Could be that trying to decided between ‘he said/she said’ was getting out of hand OR maybe Moses realized something else - that only God knows the heart.



And so says Matthew



No matter his reasoning, Moses put into effect – Divorce.
The point is that Divorce was never condoned by God and Jesus made that clear.

Fornication or Adultery?



The verse Matthew 19:9 has been called into question because it seems to offer a legitimate reason for divorce – something called ‘fornication’, but there seems to be only one thing can separates the married couple – death.

There is a difference between adultery and fornication which is evidence through several bible verses.



Adultery is important enough to warrant a commandment and even in adultery divorce is not an option, which might be the reason adulterers were supposed to be stoned to death – because only through death can either partner be free of their commitment to the other.

Both adultery and fornication have the sex act in common, the difference is that only a married person can commit adultery. The joining of two in marriage before God was not just a commitment that joined the two in flesh, it also joined the two spiritually with God.

With that information it becomes clear why a married couple can never divorce and why adultery is so offensive to God as to warrant being one of the commandments.

On the other hand, fornication is a sex act involving a single person, one who is not married, including those who have been married but widowed. Although the bible still considers sex, outside of marriage, an offence does contain the spiritual elements of marriage.

Now about the quote of Matthew 19:9 in which it fornication is thought to be sufficient for divorce, there is the question of how that could even be possible – because fornication is an act of a single person. However, there could be some confusion as to how the quote is interpreted.

Consider the bible passages



Note, that the man who could not prove his claim must remain married all of his days, but if the man proves his claim, he is not granted a divorce, he doesn’t need one because the penalty for the woman’s deceit is death and thus the man will be single again. ALSO, note that she did not commit adultery because the fornication preceded the marriage bed – it was merely the fact that it occurred at all which gave the husband the right to have her stoned to death and get out of the marriage. (Women of course had not such options as there is absolutely no way to determine if a man is a virgin)

CONCLUSION:
According to the bible, in many places beginning in Genesis and through the testimony of Jesus words, divorce was never acceptable to God, so those who divorce today are not really divorced so any sexual acts would be adultery on the part of the (non-divorced, still married) person.

Of course the individual could always CHOOSE a life of complete abstinence, BUT that won’t help much if lustful thoughts seep in – because God know the heart and even the thought is an act of adultery for a married person.

In effect, (according to the information presented here ) nearly every Christian divorcee is an unrepentant sinner.

Well, solving the problem of the diminishing telomere does not get us anywhere near immortality, unless of course science modifies our genetics to the point of being immune to every disease or immune disorder and every toxic substnace whether natural of man-made.

But even then we would still have to worry about over population,and the human destruction of our environment that would lead to starvation.

Given some sudden ability to be immortal and immune to all those things - humans would also have to, simultaneously, develop a homogenous sense of values with great regard to enviornmental healing and continued sustainablity of the enironment that support us. AND what about the birth rate? Would humans also deny their desire and instinct to breed once Earth's human capacity had been reached?

These are all the reasons why immortality is a fantasy that's confined to the philisophical realm of mysticism i.e. spiritualism and religion.

"The Island of Dr. Moreau" - how far off are we really?

Whether one believes that the climate change is natural or humanly induced, it seems that the human race could likely be facing a severe bottleck situation or even extinction as so many species of animals & plants we depend on for our lives, are already facing.

When GM foods fail to sustain us will humans and other life forms on the planet be the next oranism for genetic modification - to survive the cold, to be less affected by toxins...

Is the current GMO for plants teaching us how to do that?

Just a curious thought.

While we are still, or at least partially, unsure of the long-term health and environmental effects of GM plants, we do know for sure, as metalwing pointed out, that trans-pollination does not just change heritage seed crops, it destroys them and the yield of any seed produced by a cross pollination is poor to non-edible.

How can that possibly be good? Study after study has indicated that the promised yield of GM crops falls far below expectations and worse, it destroys surrounding non-GM crops, bringing fewer crops than before to the market place. But our government promotes it - sad.

The only religion I support (even without a constitutional religious freedom clause) is a religion of one.

TuTu is a prime example.

Well, there ya go, see gays and lesbians can have their own children and like 50% or more of heterosexuals, those children are being raised in a household where at least one of the parents is their natural parent. Somehow thier 'potential' for creating life was not diminished by their gaydom.

Well, I was just applying many of same arguments that are used against gays, I pay attention.

But it was all so 'unnatural', isn't there some religious law against that kind of unnatural birthing. I mean doesn't that pre-empt God, after all, in the Bible didn't he present a baron woman with a child in her old age, where's the patience.

This kind of thing could destroy civil society as we know it, even bring God's wrath down upon a nation. It's confusing to the child to,no the child has two moms and they're related on top of it.

First, only one of these state laws deals with sex and as you said, not all states incorporate it.
Secondly, the only time this law comes to court in when one or the other party seeks dissolution of marriage because of NO SEX in the relationship.
Therefore marriage is only about sex when one or the other of the two people involved WANT to make it about sex. The state simply offers a provision by which ONE or the OTHER partner wants to FAULT the other in order to obtain the dissolution.

At one time, at least most, states required that some fault be assigned for the dissolution to take place which is why the consummation provision was there in the first place. Because it was considered the ‘right’ of every individual to have children and is sex was not present a person who wanted his or her own children, obviously, was being denied a right by another person.

So again, it had nothing to do with marriage or the marriage contract, it had to do with individual rights that were not compromised in any way by the marriage contract.

edited to add: If you want to find a 'legal' avenue to support an opposition to ss-marriage, then you must understand how the legal system works. If you want to find support for a religious concept, then continue to read the biased opinions of others, who ignore the reality of the law.

Yes, indeed. Most religions that have marriage ceremonies also include language of a life-long commitment which is a form of contract between the couple and their God - "let no man put assunder". But the hirearchy of those religions simply accept divorce as if it's just a fact of life.

Then those same people say that ss-marriage is what will bring the wrath of God down on our nation and that such marriages will destroy civil society and somehow diminish heterosexual marriage.

I can only call it what it is: hypocracy that seems to be invisible to those who are perpetrating the blunder.

Your point was not clearly made and for my assumptions, I apologize. However, I hope my previous reply to your post will be of some help to others who might read it.

It's not that you have trouble getting your point across, it's that you seem to have a problem incorporating facts into your bias.

AGAIN, the contract of marriage, as set forth by the government, is only complete when considering the cascading effects of related laws which all have an effect on social connectivity. Couples who wish to marry are seeking 'equality under the law'.

There has NEVER been a conditional privilege associated with any legal aspect of marraige which required sex or children. The only law that EVER restricted sex between consenting adults were the state sodomy laws - which proved to be unconstitutional due privacy issues.

From that episode we can assume that homosexuals can consumate a marriage because sodemy is a form of sex, according to the law.

Please carefully review this information and PLEASE as questions if you do not understand and please review the facts presented with your previous views so that you can stop saying that we don't understand what you are saying.

You're a little behind the facts in the issue so I'll remind you that when marriage was written into the law of this country, it was not a religious law. It was a law in which marriage was defined as a contractual agreement and no law associated with marriage, since that time, has been implemented solely based on a religious belief.

The law is meant to be held in common to provide for the greater good of a civil society in which a wide diversity of people will reside.