PDA

View Full Version : DOMA IS DEAD!


Pages : [1] 2

Conklin
06-26-2013, 07:48 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-doma-140330141.html

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 07:50 AM
Sad day for the mouth-breathers. ;D

Smiling Assassin27
06-26-2013, 07:54 AM
The Prop 8 decision (lack of) is the one that effectively ends direct democracy. DOMA was a joke from the beginning, although Clinton will probably be seen today saying something like, 'I KNEW it was bad law and would eventually be overturned, which is why I signed it into law.'

Kaylore
06-26-2013, 08:04 AM
The Prop 8 decision (lack of) is the one that effectively ends direct democracy. DOMA was a joke from the beginning, although Clinton will probably be seen today saying something like, 'I KNEW it was bad law and would eventually be overturned, which is why I signed it into law.'

LOL

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 08:04 AM
Slick Willie never heard a tune he couldn't dance to. Ha!

Mogulseeker
06-26-2013, 08:24 AM
Holy ****, when I saw the title, I thought it said "Doom is dead."

Is it wrong that I assumed he whipped out a gun in B-more and got shot up?

As for the legislation... looks like it's the end of marriage and civilization, because as my grandmother says - every great civilization's downfall coincided with the acceptance of homosexuals. /sarc

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 08:26 AM
This ruling strikes down section 3 of DOMA. The states can still decide to recognize or not recognize gay marriage, but the Federal Government must recognize these marriages. This is the proper ruling from a states rights perspective. Kennedy seems to think gay americans should be a protected class, which is complete nonsense IMO.

bpc
06-26-2013, 08:32 AM
Now switch hitters can go plow their face into some penis legally, anytime they like. Tis a good day for them!

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 08:33 AM
Seems like a good ruling once again proving the conservatives will vote with minds and liberals just tow the line.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 08:33 AM
This ruling strikes down section 3 of DOMA. The states can still decide to recognize or not recognize gay marriage, but the Federal Government must recognize these marriages. This is the proper ruling from a states rights perspective. Kennedy seems to think gay americans should be a protected class, which is complete nonsense IMO.

Its incredible how quickly the tide has turned on the opinion of gay marriage. I assume most states will allow it sooner than later.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 08:33 AM
Seems like a good ruling once again proving the conservatives will vote with minds and liberals just tow the line.

The 4 conservative justices didnt agree with the ruling...what are you talking about?

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 08:37 AM
DOMA was flawed from the beginning but as Smiling Assassine points out, it's the Supreme Courts decision to uphold the lower courts overruling on Prop 8 that is the ball buster. On one hand the Supreme Court is saying "It's a state issue" but then they are saying "Unless a federal court doesn't like how a state votes, then we can overrule the people." This does effectively end democracy.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 08:38 AM
The 4 conservative justices didnt agree with the ruling...what are you talking about?

On DOMA it was a typical split with Kennedy deciding, but genrally and to Cuts point...the "conservative" justices will sometimes side with the "liberal" justices. Where the "liberal" Justices almost never side with the "conservative" justices.

Kaylore
06-26-2013, 08:38 AM
I'm actually a conservative that agreed with this. I think the Federal government should have to recognize the states rights on their respective representations. For me, the gay marriage aspect is peripheral to the broader issue which is how a union is defined at the state level and whether the Feds can choose to ignore that definition based on their own criteria. I think the only way to do it is allow the states to decide and take everything they approve. It's the most democratic way to do so.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 08:41 AM
I'm actually a conservative that agreed with this. I think the Federal government should have to recognize the states rights on their respective representations. For me, the gay marriage aspect is peripheral to the broader issue which is how a union is defined at the state level and whether the Feds can choose to ignore that definition based on their own criteria. I think the only way to do it is allow the states to decide and take everything they approve. It's the most democratic way to do so.

Exactly.

This is really a tax case in a number of ways. Had the IRS recognized the female spouse of a woman for estate tax credits this might have never made it to the SCoTUS. IMO these tax credits shouldn't exist, but whatever.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 08:43 AM
I'm actually a conservative that agreed with this. I think the Federal government should have to recognize the states rights on their respective representations. For me, the gay marriage aspect is peripheral to the broader issue which is how a union is defined at the state level and whether the Feds can choose to ignore that definition based on their own criteria. I think the only way to do it is allow the states to decide and take everything they approve. It's the most democratic way to do so.

LOL, what about Prop 8? CA citizens voted to recognize traditional marriage and the federal court in San Fan said 'no' and this was a homosexual judge who struck down Prop 8. Now the SC is saying "that's ok."

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 08:47 AM
LOL, what about Prop 8? CA citizens voted to recognize traditional marriage and the federal court in San Fan said 'no' and this was a homosexual judge who struck down Prop 8. Now the SC is saying "that's ok."

That's correct. Now I don't know if that overrules the Cally State SC, but it sounds like it does.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 08:47 AM
LOL, what about Prop 8? CA citizens voted to recognize traditional marriage and the federal court in San Fan said 'no' and this was a homosexual judge who struck down Prop 8. Now the SC is saying "that's ok."

Sometimes decency wins out. And, if you recall, Prop 8 had tons of out of state funding behind it, which wasn't exactly kosher either.

To me, the issue of gay marriage is old. The argument is over. The majority of the public agrees with it, and now government is coming around to it.

next.

Archer81
06-26-2013, 08:51 AM
http://tinyurl.com/pdng5ge


:Broncos:

Kaylore
06-26-2013, 08:51 AM
The majority of the public agrees with it
next.

That's not true.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 08:52 AM
Sometimes decency wins out. And, if you recall, Prop 8 had tons of out of state funding behind it, which wasn't exactly kosher either.

To me, the issue of gay marriage is old. The argument is over. The majority of the public agrees with it, and now government is coming around to it.

next.

love the liberal answer to democracy--it works only when you vote the way WE want. Otherwise, we will use the courts to force our agenda down your throat.

If Prop 8 was enacted to lock up gays and lesbians and outlaw homosexuality then you would have a point. But it's supporting traditional marriage which in now way harms the homosexual community. The majority of CA voted for it, including real minorities.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 08:52 AM
DOMA was flawed from the beginning but as Smiling Assassine points out, it's the Supreme Courts decision to uphold the lower courts overruling on Prop 8 that is the ball buster. On one hand the Supreme Court is saying "It's a state issue" but then they are saying "Unless a federal court doesn't like how a state votes, then we can overrule the people." This does effectively end democracy.

The basis of our federalism is that the states can dole out more rights than the Constitution provides for, but they cannot restrict any protected rights. The SCOTUS is saying the California statute is unconstitutionally restrictive. That's what they're supposed to do.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 08:53 AM
love the liberal answer to democracy--it works only when you vote the way WE want. Otherwise, we will use the courts to force our agenda down your throat.

If Prop 8 was enacted to lock up gays and lesbians and outlaw homosexuality then you would have a point. But it's supporting traditional marriage which in now way harms the homosexual community. The majority of CA voted for it, including real minorities.

Obviously it causes some sort of moral harm to them, otherwise they wouldn't give a ****. Get on the right side of history.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 08:54 AM
That's not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 08:56 AM
love the liberal answer to democracy--it works only when you vote the way WE want. Otherwise, we will use the courts to force our agenda down your throat.

If Prop 8 was enacted to lock up gays and lesbians and outlaw homosexuality then you would have a point. But it's supporting traditional marriage which in now way harms the homosexual community. The majority of CA voted for it, including real minorities.

Stop acting like your rights are infringed upon. We live in a ****ing society, sometimes you have to make sacrifices. And stop making it seem like the conservative side is some bastion of FREEDOMS. See: abortion rights. Seems like you want big government when it pleases you too. And both sides don't seem to mind it when it comes to national security.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 08:57 AM
The basis of our federalism is that the states can dole out more rights than the Constitution provides for, but they cannot restrict any protected rights. The SCOTUS is saying the California statute is unconstitutionally restrictive. That's what they're supposed to do.

Ok, so with that logic, how come it's ok for CA to have more restringent gun laws?

You can't have it both ways--oh wait, you're a liberal, so you CAN have it both ways, as long as it suites your agenda, right?

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 08:59 AM
Stop acting like your rights are infringed upon. We live in a ****ing society, sometimes you have to make sacrifices. And stop making it seem like the conservative side is some bastion of FREEDOMS. See: abortion rights. Seems like you want big government when it pleases you too. And both sides don't seem to mind it when it comes to national security.

LOL, ok so make a sacrifice and acknowledge traditional marriage. Why can't you do this?

Oh the irony of the liberals, it's vast and unquenchable.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 09:00 AM
Ok, so with that logic, how come it's ok for CA to have more restringent gun laws?

You can't have it both ways--oh wait, you're a liberal, so you CAN have it both ways, as long as it suites your agenda, right?

Many of California's gun laws are now making their way to the SCOTUS. We'll see what they say. I doubt they will all stand.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:00 AM
Ok, so with that logic, how come it's ok for CA to have more restringent gun laws?

You can't have it both ways--oh wait, you're a liberal, so you CAN have it both ways, as long as it suites your agenda, right?

Yes, gay rights and gun laws. very similar.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 09:02 AM
Obviously it causes some sort of moral harm to them, otherwise they wouldn't give a ****. Get on the right side of history.

I agree with the SC ruling on DOMA, but if they want states rights then they should overrule the lower courts decision on Prop 8. Right?

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:02 AM
LOL, ok so make a sacrifice and acknowledge traditional marriage. Why can't you do this?

Oh the irony of the liberals, it's vast and unquenchable.

Because "traditional marriage" is a ****ing absurd notion based on religion. Allowing gays to marry hurts NO ONE except for hypocrites that hold some sort of odd moralistic standard to their life. Its about equal rights. Should we dial back the civil rights movement too?

Oh the irony of conservatives, its vast and unquenchable.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:02 AM
The basis of our federalism is that the states can dole out more rights than the Constitution provides for, but they cannot restrict any protected rights. The SCOTUS is saying the California statute is unconstitutionally restrictive. That's what they're supposed to do.

And DOMA clearly violates federalism IMO and Kennedy though so as well.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 09:03 AM
Yes, gay rights and gun laws. very similar.

typical liberal answer. Now you'll start calling me stupid and uneducated and a bigot. Amirit?

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:04 AM
Because "traditional marriage" is a ****ing absurd notion based on religion.

Oh the irony of conservatives, its vast and unquenchable.

It's not, but whatever.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:05 AM
I agree with the SC ruling on DOMA, but if they want states rights then they should overrule the lower courts decision on Prop 8. Right?

Youre talking to someone who 1) doesn't think states rights should be the end all be all and 2) makes his decisions based on common sense and the actual truth and justice of a law. I personally think, in the case of gay marriage, being right should overtake procedure. I'm not a lawyer, don't pretend to be, but regardless of legal process, this is a good day for america.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:05 AM
It's not, but whatever.

It is, but whatever.

Fine, if not religion...then what, hate? Is that a better term?

Kaylore
06-26-2013, 09:06 AM
I agree with the SC ruling on DOMA, but if they want states rights then they should overrule the lower courts decision on Prop 8. Right?

You're talking about two different things. One is whether the Federal government can ignore criteria for a marriage in favor of their own. They can't and must respect how each State chooses to define those criteria. That's a win for States rights.

Right to bear arms is technically restrictive of what Congress can or technically can't do (can make no law restricting the right to bear arms) but it doesn't say anything about states rights - and with good reason. The more the Feds bow to the states the better, IMO.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:07 AM
It is, but whatever.



"Traditional Marriage" is not solely a religious institution.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:07 AM
typical liberal answer. Now you'll start calling me stupid and uneducated and a bigot. Amirit?

No, but your arrogance, as usual, can be infuriating. And you won the gun argument too. It's not going anywhere. Democrats like guns, republicans love guns. I personally think the second amendment is beyond absurd and antiquated, but I also understand the majority of the people like them regardless of my personal belief.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 09:08 AM
Because "traditional marriage" is a ****ing absurd notion based on religion. Allowing gays to marry hurts NO ONE except for hypocrites that hold some sort of odd moralistic standard to their life. Its about equal rights. Should we dial back the civil rights movement too?

Oh the irony of conservatives, its vast and unquenchable.

Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution. On one hand you want to criticize me and say gay marriage doesn't harm anyone (except of course people who have a religious conviction on the issue, but they don't matter, right?). Then on the other hand when I say recognizing traditional marriage does not harm homosexual's you all of sudden ignore the religious communities rights and start screaming about how much this hurts gays and lesbians.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Ooops, I'm talking to a liberal, so you CAN have it both ways, just as long as its YOUR WAY.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:08 AM
You're talking about two different things. One is whether the Federal government can ignore criteria for a marriage in favor of their own. They can't and must respect how each State chooses to define those criteria. That's a win for States rights.

Right to bear arms is technically restrictive of what Congress can or technically can't do (can make no law restricting the right to bear arms) but it doesn't say anything about states rights - and with good reason. The more the Feds bow to the states the better, IMO.

And we've seen that over the past year in the gun arena. Especially here in Colorado.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:08 AM
"Traditional Marriage" is not solely a religious institution.

Its certainly what the mouthbreathers fall back on when they object to gay marriage!

It hurts no one. We're supposed to be a society of equals. Get over it.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:09 AM
No, but your arrogance, as usual, can be infuriating. And you won the gun argument too. It's not going anywhere. Democrats like guns, republicans love guns. I personally think the second amendment is beyond absurd and antiquated, but I also understand the majority of the people like them regardless of my personal belief.

It's not. We need to keep guns to protect ourselves against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:10 AM
Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution. On one hand you want to criticize me and say gay marriage doesn't harm anyone (except of course people who have a religious conviction on the issue, but they don't matter, right?). Then on the other hand when I say recognizing traditional marriage does not harm homosexual's you all of sudden ignore the religious communities rights and start screaming about how much this hurts gays and lesbians.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Ooops, I'm talking to a liberal, so you CAN have it both ways, just as long as its YOUR WAY.

You are free to pray to any space god you want. You're not free to take your beliefs and oppress other people with them.

If you believe gays cant marry, then youre a ****ing bigot. Plain and simple.

And an arrogant asshole too.

And conservatives, like all humans, are constantly asking for it both ways. So get off your stupid high horse and go **** yourself.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:11 AM
Its certainly what the mouthbreathers fall back on when they object to gay marriage!

It hurts no one. We're supposed to be a society of equals. Get over it.

Some people fall back on.

Whether it hurts no one is up for debate, but that would depend on your definition of "hurt".

We are not a society of equals, never have been, and never will be. All men are created equal from a nature perspective, but after that,,,from a nurture perspective....not so much.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:12 AM
It's not. We need to keep guns to protect ourselves against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The second amendment was put in place to organize militias, which is an antiquated notion considering we have a gigantic army a million times the size of the rest of the world.

I understand most don't agree, so we can agree to disagree on that, but don't pretend today's society was something the original writers of the constitution could foresee.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:14 AM
Some people fall back on.

Whether it hurts no one is up for debate, but that would depend on your definition of "hurt".

We are not a society of equals, never have been, and never will be. All men are created equal from a nature perspective, but after that,,,from a nurture perspective....not so much.

And this is why we'll fundamentally disagree on just about everything. Actually, pending on how you want to define "equal," we aren't all of equal intelligence, strength, etc. But as far as basic rights are concerned, which I include something as stupid as marriage, we should all be able to marry anyone we want.

There is no argument that this harms society in any way.

Requiem
06-26-2013, 09:14 AM
SoCal and I are super excited about this.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:15 AM
The second amendment was put in place to organize militias, which is an antiquated notion considering we have a gigantic army a million times the size of the rest of the world.

I understand most don't agree, so we can agree to disagree on that, but don't pretend today's society was something the original writers of the constitution could foresee.

IMO you are not considering all the potential outcomes nor are you learning from history with your opinion. A Militia is not a professional army. A militia is made up by non-professional citizens. Aka the civilian population. If called up it's BYOG.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 09:15 AM
No, but your arrogance, as usual, can be infuriating. And you won the gun argument too. It's not going anywhere. Democrats like guns, republicans love guns. I personally think the second amendment is beyond absurd and antiquated, but I also understand the majority of the people like them regardless of my personal belief.

My arrogance, what about yours? All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal agenda.

When a pastor of a church gets arrested because he refuses to marry a homosexual couple, then this whole idea of "gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone" will go down the tube. The homosexual agenda will force the religious community to recognize gay marriage and when the religious community refuses to do so (even though this hypothetical gay couple can go to the local court house or any other place and have a marriage ceremony) it will be persecuted.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 09:16 AM
IMO you are not considering all the potential outcomes nor are you learning from history with your opinion. A Militia is not a professional army. A militia is made up by non-professional citizens. Aka the civilian population. If called up it's BYOG.

I understand your opinion, i just disagree with it.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:17 AM
And this is why we'll fundamentally disagree on just about everything. Actually, pending on how you want to define "equal," we aren't all of equal intelligence, strength, etc. But as far as basic rights are concerned, which I include something as stupid as marriage, we should all be able to marry anyone we want.

There is no argument that this harms society in any way.

And Gay Americans have those basic rights. The Bill of Rights applies to them. Marriage is NOT a right. However equal protection under tax laws is.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 09:17 AM
You are free to pray to any space god you want. You're not free to take your beliefs and oppress other people with them.

If you believe gays cant marry, then youre a ****ing bigot. Plain and simple.

And an arrogant a-hole too.

And conservatives, like all humans, are constantly asking for it both ways. So get off your stupid high horse and go **** yourself.

LOL, name calling, the liberal agenda.

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 09:17 AM
This ruling strikes down section 3 of DOMA. The states can still decide to recognize or not recognize gay marriage, but the Federal Government must recognize these marriages. This is the proper ruling from a states rights perspective. Kennedy seems to think gay americans should be a protected class, which is complete nonsense IMO.

No. They ruled that american citizens can not be denied rights granted to other citizens.

Kaylore
06-26-2013, 09:18 AM
Conservatives need to get back to good principles. Believing that people, not government, make America go. There's a lot of Black and Hispanic groups that have very conservative values but the left has done such a good job of painting Republicans as racists that they turn to the only thing left.

Many Black communities hate the welfare state - the way it encourages Husbandless - even "partner-less" welfare mothers who have more children to get bigger checks. Hispanic communities favor family values and hard work. They really aren't looking for a handout. My gay friend is fiscally very conservative and only votes Democrat because of he and his partner's personal issues.

If Republicans would get onto the fiscal responsibility angle, worked on keeping government off our phone calls and fighting for family values - that's families with parents, preferably two or more, raising children in good homes - they could get a lot of votes and retake power.

I think a majority of Americans don't want a large police state that tries to do everything.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:18 AM
I understand your opinion, i just disagree with it.

Right on.

If the **** every hits the fan to the point that the citizens need to protect themselves from whatever, stand behind me bro.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:19 AM
No. They ruled that american citizens can not be denied rights granted to other citizens.

Yeah...anyway...I read the decision. DOMA section 2 was not struck down.

Have a blessed day

ludo21
06-26-2013, 09:20 AM
its semantics, but the word marriage should be given soley to the man/woman version of being married.

but benefits of being "married" should be equal in this country

Requiem
06-26-2013, 09:23 AM
Relgious nuts, GTFO. ---->

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 09:24 AM
LOL, what about Prop 8? CA citizens voted to recognize traditional marriage and the federal court in San Fan said 'no' and this was a homosexual judge who struck down Prop 8. Now the SC is saying "that's ok."

That's because you can not have a majority deciding what right a minority can have. It's unconstitutional.

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 09:25 AM
That's because you can not have a majority deciding what right a minority can have. It's unconstitutional.

Marriage is not a right under the constitution.

Archer81
06-26-2013, 09:27 AM
People are not bigots for having different opinions. Unless it is the westboro baptist church. Those ****ers are just crazy and should be thrown into a pit.

The reality is, the definition of marriage is changing. In the west, that now includes same sex marriages. It is not even the same country to country. You realize for most of human history marriages were arranged? Your spouse was selected for you. In parts of the world today (India, China, SE Asia, the ME and North Africa) that still happens.

Supreme Court did the correct thing. They have affirmed that under federal law, a marriage is a marriage, regardless of the genders of the two involved in it. It is not an affront or assault on traditional marriage (as we see it). Just an expansion of what marriage is under federal law.

Surprisingly, life will go on.

:Broncos:

Requiem
06-26-2013, 09:28 AM
Requiem has offered six cows, three chickens and four oranges in exchange for the rights to Sirhcyennek81.

Jekyll15Hyde
06-26-2013, 09:29 AM
My arrogance, what about yours? All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal agenda.

When a pastor of a church gets arrested because he refuses to marry a homosexual couple, then this whole idea of "gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone" will go down the tube. The homosexual agenda will force the religious community to recognize gay marriage and when the religious community refuses to do so (even though this hypothetical gay couple can go to the local court house or any other place and have a marriage ceremony) it will be persecuted.

So is Fox News the only channel your TV can tune into or is it just the only one you watch?

bronco militia
06-26-2013, 09:30 AM
Cons
I think a majority of Americans don't want a large police state that tries to do everything.

I don't believe that anymore.....

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 09:30 AM
So is Fox News the only channel your TV can tune into or is it just the only one you watch?

I don't even have a TV...

Archer81
06-26-2013, 09:36 AM
Requiem has offered six cows, three chickens and four oranges in exchange for the rights to Sirhcyennek81.


Great. Gay marriage is legalized and I get a bride price. I'm not sure if I should be flattered or insulted.


:Broncos:

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 09:37 AM
Marriage is not a right under the constitution.

Marriage isn't but everyone getting treated equal is.

ColoradoDarin
06-26-2013, 09:37 AM
I thought we weren't supposed to cater to the 1%?



J/K - I don't care one way or the other about the issue (my only complaint is that people should work to over turn laws instead of running to the courts to do so, because of those who claim it's a majority position and how they're on the right side of history, if you are then you don't need the courts).

ludo21
06-26-2013, 09:41 AM
Thanks sirchris for enforcing the right for people to have an opinion.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 09:41 AM
Requiem has offered six cows, three chickens and four oranges in exchange for the rights to Sirhcyennek81.

Hell. I'll give him to you for one cow.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:43 AM
Hell. I'll give him to you for one cow.

Take the 3 chickens.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 09:44 AM
Take the 3 chickens.

Layers or meat birds?

errand
06-26-2013, 09:46 AM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.

Archer81
06-26-2013, 09:46 AM
Thanks sirchris for enforcing the right for people to have an opinion.


Sarcasm?


:Broncos:

ludo21
06-26-2013, 09:49 AM
Sarcasm?


:Broncos:

nah i mean it as a compliment. Your view of discussion allows for a discussion, so thanks!

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 09:50 AM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.

The cow would have to consent.

SportinOne
06-26-2013, 09:52 AM
My arrogance, what about yours? All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal agenda.

When a pastor of a church gets arrested because he refuses to marry a homosexual couple, then this whole idea of "gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone" will go down the tube. The homosexual agenda will force the religious community to recognize gay marriage and when the religious community refuses to do so (even though this hypothetical gay couple can go to the local court house or any other place and have a marriage ceremony) it will be persecuted.

That's just... that has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with how the laws are enforced. This is a ridiculous scenario anyway. First off, if i'm a part of a gay couple I either have a regular church or I don't. If I have a regular church, i'm 100% sure I would know the stance of the head clergy members on something that is so important to me. ie: I wouldn't be a member of a church that didn't support, basically, me. That seems pretty logical. Now, if I'm not a member of a church, I would simply pick one that does support gay marriage. If I find one that doesn't, so what? Move on to the next one.

Religions aren't anti-homosexuality as a general rule, it all depends on how a given collection of people choose to practice.

There is a good amount of scientific research that indicates that religious fundamentalism is not significantly associated with homosexuality and is actually negatively associated with racism (more religious fundamentalism equals less racism) but this is only when the effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism are controlled for.

Pick Six
06-26-2013, 09:53 AM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.

Human rights aren't granted to horses and cows. That takes care of that. As far as NAMBLA, that's a little trickier of an issue. However, I think a case can be made that a minor can't be married...

houghtam
06-26-2013, 09:54 AM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.

I wonder if cows or horses or children have the ability to consent to sex or marriage under the law.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 09:57 AM
Human rights aren't granted to horses and cows. That takes care of that. As far as NAMBLA, that's a little trickier of an issue. However, I think a case can be made that a minor can't be married...

I don't see why not. After all, human rights are now granted to corporations, and all they are is a box of paper.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 09:58 AM
That's just... that has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with how the laws are enforced. This is a ridiculous scenario anyway. First off, if i'm a part of a gay couple I either have a regular church or I don't. If I have a regular church, i'm 100% sure I would know the stance of the head clergy members on something that is so important to me. ie: I wouldn't be a member of a church that didn't support, basically, me. That seems pretty logical. Now, if I'm not a member of a church, I would simply pick one that does support gay marriage. If I find one that doesn't, so what? Move on to the next one.

Religions aren't anti-homosexuality as a general rule, it all depends on how a given collection of people choose to practice.

There is a good amount of scientific research that indicates that religious fundamentalism is not significantly associated with homosexuality and is actually negatively associated with racism (more religious fundamentalism equals less racism) but this is only when the effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism are controlled for.

The easier answer is that these decisions don't deal with religious marriage. People who get married in a church MUST still get a state recognized certificate. The government cannot have any say in what a pastor can or will do, because the government essentially doesn't "recognize" religious marriage in the first place. You still need to jump through the state sanctioned hoops regardless of whether you were married in a church or synagogue.

ColoradoDarin
06-26-2013, 09:59 AM
I wonder if cows or horses or children have the ability to consent to sex or marriage under the law.

What about same-sex adult siblings? Parent & adult same sex son/daughter? Should those unions be prohibited?

TonyR
06-26-2013, 09:59 AM
I'm completely baffled how any "conservative" could object to homosexuals wanting to do the conservative thing and settle down and have families just like heterosexuals. I'm also baffled how anyone thinks this "harms" anyone. People like Tombstone acting like he's somehow a victim here. Ridiculous.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 10:04 AM
What about same-sex adult siblings? Parent & adult same sex son/daughter? Should those unions be prohibited?

That's kind of the point here. Lawmakers should have to prove why people SHOULDN'T have equal rights under the law. Feel free to post your reasons why you think those groups shouldn't be able to marry. Fact remains there is no logical argument to deny gays that right. The decisions today are yet another step in reinforcing that.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 10:04 AM
I'm completely baffled how any "conservative" could object to homosexuals wanting to do the conservative thing and settle down and have families just like heterosexuals. I'm also baffled how anyone thinks this "harms" anyone. People like Tombstone acting like he's somehow a victim here. Ridiculous.

Gay couples will move into our neighborhoods and make their houses look much nicer than ours leading our wives to say, "Honey? Why can't we have Asian landscaping in our front yard?"

TheReverend
06-26-2013, 10:04 AM
(Had to Google what DOMA stands for)

SportinOne
06-26-2013, 10:05 AM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.

jesus, dude. you are attempting to stretch the comparison way too far and I hope this is something you picked up on a second rate, local conservative radio show and not out of your own mind.

First, you are straying from the topic which is marriage equality and not purely sexual activity. Second, you are basing the word "natural" on the idea that sexual activity (as well as love and commitment) is supposed to be performed solely for the purpose of procreation. We get it, the parts don't match. But that has nothing to do with two people falling in love and wanting to spend their lives together. By your strange logic, can we say that those opposite-sex couples who don't want to have kids can't marry? And don't talk about ****ing animals, dude. We are talking about intra-species union, the type of which you probably have not genuinely witnessed first hand or you would not be comparing it to bestiality.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 10:09 AM
This case is not about marriage equality.
Gay Americans can get married right now, today....anywhere
What's this is about is Government Recognized Marriage relative to tax benefits or in a broader sense Laws.

It's the correct ruling up and down IMO.

Pony Boy
06-26-2013, 10:09 AM
What about same-sex adult siblings? Parent & adult same sex son/daughter? Should those unions be prohibited?

Yes ........

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 10:10 AM
Conservatives need to get back to good principles. Believing that people, not government, make America go. There's a lot of Black and Hispanic groups that have very conservative values but the left has done such a good job of painting Republicans as racists that they turn to the only thing left.

Many Black communities hate the welfare state - the way it encourages Husbandless - even "partner-less" welfare mothers who have more children to get bigger checks. Hispanic communities favor family values and hard work. They really aren't looking for a handout. My gay friend is fiscally very conservative and only votes Democrat because of he and his partner's personal issues.

If Republicans would get onto the fiscal responsibility angle, worked on keeping government off our phone calls and fighting for family values - that's families with parents, preferably two or more, raising children in good homes - they could get a lot of votes and retake power.

I think a majority of Americans don't want a large police state that tries to do everything.

Conservatives should really steal the marijuana issue. if they want less government control, and want to re-energize the young base (or steal democrats), get behind legalizing marijuana. Its there for the taking.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-26-2013, 10:10 AM
Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution. On one hand you want to criticize me and say gay marriage doesn't harm anyone (except of course people who have a religious conviction on the issue, but they don't matter, right?). Then on the other hand when I say recognizing traditional marriage does not harm homosexual's you all of sudden ignore the religious communities rights and start screaming about how much this hurts gays and lesbians.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Ooops, I'm talking to a liberal, so you CAN have it both ways, just as long as its YOUR WAY.

Christ, you're ****ing stupid. So overwhelmingly stupid.

Freedom OF religion... and freedom FROM religion...

What someone else does in the privacy of their own home has precisely ****-all to do with what someone else's religion says. But making a law to restrict someone's ****ing relationship based on YOUR hang ups is just fine and dandy in your eyes because A) you're a ****ing moron and B) there is no B.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 10:13 AM
Conservatives should really steal the marijuana issue. if they want less government control, and want to re-energize the young base (or steal democrats), get behind legalizing marijuana. Its there for the taking.

They'd still get hamstrung on climate change and health care. They're dinosaurs. At some point, even the duped will begin to realize they are sick and tired of Dinosaur World.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 10:15 AM
They'd still get hamstrung on climate change and health care. They're dinosaurs. At some point, even the duped will begin to realize they are sick and tired of Dinosaur World.

And immigration, and voting rights, and abortion, and evolution...

Br0nc0Buster
06-26-2013, 10:17 AM
Rights in this country are not based on a democracy anyways, I dont understand why people think this
Jefferson said a democracy is mob rule where 51% of the population takes away the rights of the other 49%

Civil rights issues should never be put up to a vote
I don't hear people complain about interracial marriages even though it took supreme court intervention in the Loving vs Virgina case to deem interracial marriage bans unconstitutional
That was also a reversal of what the majority of people had voted

Its not like this in any way affects straight couples though
Good day for equality
Bad day for people who still think this its 1964

SonOfLe-loLang
06-26-2013, 10:19 AM
They'd still get hamstrung on climate change and health care. They're dinosaurs. At some point, even the duped will begin to realize they are sick and tired of Dinosaur World.

Yeah but youre forgetting some young people are dumb and vote on singular issues.

SportinOne
06-26-2013, 10:21 AM
Conservatives need to get back to good principles. Believing that people, not government, make America go. There's a lot of Black and Hispanic groups that have very conservative values but the left has done such a good job of painting Republicans as racists that they turn to the only thing left.

Many Black communities hate the welfare state - the way it encourages Husbandless - even "partner-less" welfare mothers who have more children to get bigger checks. Hispanic communities favor family values and hard work. They really aren't looking for a handout. My gay friend is fiscally very conservative and only votes Democrat because of he and his partner's personal issues.

If Republicans would get onto the fiscal responsibility angle, worked on keeping government off our phone calls and fighting for family values - that's families with parents, preferably two or more, raising children in good homes - they could get a lot of votes and retake power.

I think a majority of Americans don't want a large police state that tries to do everything.

I think that this would be a great strategy for them, but not only because minority groups are hard working and fiscally responsible, but because most of America is. The two parties get painted in contrasting colors but the people who vote for them have much more overlap than difference. Anyone who thinks that most conservatives are racist, just as anyone who thinks that most progressives/liberals are free loaders looking for a handout and not believing in fiscal responsibility, is simply not in touch with reality. I know a lot of blue collar type of guys that vote republican because one of the signature conservative message of, "I work hard, and i don't want my money wasted." Does anyone think that your average middle class progressive/liberal family doesn't also hold these views? Granted, that's a very oversimplified snapshot but it's an example.

My point is this, and this is a much traveled road I know, but as long as we have a two party system we are always going to be pitted against each other under the illusion of insurmountable differences like gay marriage and gun control laws with either nothing getting done do to an endless congressional tug of war stale mate, or one party with a super majority forcing laws down everyone's throats without a holistic input.

We need to work together, we need to have conversations like this together and not treat politics like static religious beliefs.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 10:28 AM
Marriage isn't but everyone getting treated equal is.

Now take that on to the next logical step. I knew of a couple of old timers at one time who were brothers. Both were widowed and living together. The first brother passing away created numerous hardships for the surviving, as many of the avenues for transference of property and benefits were not available. At the time it was because they were both males and brothers. But today, that protection would still be denied, if only because they were brothers.

Is this equal protection?

Smiling Assassin27
06-26-2013, 10:33 AM
i'm reading the decision now. court did not 'strike down' DOMA as the moronic media is claiming. it struck down section 3. seems to me it actually strengthened section 2 by protecting 1man/1woman states.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 10:37 AM
i'm reading the decision now. court did not 'strike down' DOMA as the moronic media is claiming. it struck down section 3. seems to me it actually strengthened section 2 by protecting 1man/1woman states.

Yeah, it basically said that the federal government had to respect States' definition of marriage, whatever they determined that definition to be.

So far, it doesn't compel one state to honor another state's definition. But that battle will be on its way next I'm sure. :)

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 10:50 AM
Christ, you're ****ing stupid. So overwhelmingly stupid.

Freedom OF religion... and freedom FROM religion...

What someone else does in the privacy of their own home has precisely ****-all to do with what someone else's religion says. But making a law to restrict someone's ****ing relationship based on YOUR hang ups is just fine and dandy in your eyes because A) you're a ****ing moron and B) there is no B.

hey look everyone a liberal calling someone names who he disagrees with! This is the liberal agenda, intimidation.

The the constitution protects freedom of religion and yes, it also protects the religious from governement and vice versa. No one is forcing religion on anyone. Why do you have to be so dramatic?

Arkie
06-26-2013, 10:52 AM
To me, the issue of gay marriage is old. The argument is over. The majority of the public agrees with it, and now government is coming around to it.


The majority agree with civil unions that are equal to the secular status of marriage. Some religions don't agree with gays joining together in Holy Matrimony or as a sacrament. I don't see the big deal because it's just a word, but I didn't think liberals wanted to mix the state with religion. Why can't they adopt a different word that's not considered sacred among religious groups?

houghtam
06-26-2013, 10:52 AM
Yeah, it basically said that the federal government had to respect States' definition of marriage, whatever they determined that definition to be.

So far, it doesn't compel one state to honor another state's definition. But that battle will be on its way next I'm sure. :)

It's going to be difficult to reconcile a state's right to deny a marriage license with:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."



Furthermore, with regard to Smiling Ass's post...the media (Fox News) is doing the same thing with the VRA Section 5 decision yesterday. It's because the common turd watching television doesn't have a clue what the real text of the laws are, let alone the stipulations in the sections.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 10:57 AM
The majority agree with civil unions that are equal to the secular status of marriage. Some religions don't agree with gays joining together in Holy Matrimony or as a sacrament. I don't see the big deal because it's just a word, but I didn't think liberals wanted to mix the state with religion. Why can't they adopt a different word that's not considered sacred among religious groups?

Because religion stole the word from the secular community in the first place. "Marriage" was a secular institution long before it had sacred and religious implications.

The best solution would be to give the word to the religious community entirely, and adopt the term "civil union" to refer to any state-sanctioned "marriage".

So if you want God to smile upon your matrimonial bliss, you get "married" in a church.

If you want a tax break or power of attorney or whatever, you go down to City Hall or Vegas or wherever and get a "civil union".

That's pretty much how it is already (except for the nomenclature), because anyone who gets married by a religious officiant still needs to get a certificate from the state.

The government then doesn't have to recognize any "marriage", as it is now a purely religious institution, and no church anywhere ever will have to worry about getting in trouble for refusing to perform gay marriages (even though that's the case now).

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-26-2013, 10:59 AM
hey look everyone a liberal calling someone names who he disagrees with! This is the liberal agenda, intimidation.

The the constitution protects freedom of religion and yes, it also protects the religious from governement and vice versa. No one is forcing religion on anyone. Why do you have to be so dramatic?

You're intimidated by being called "stupid" on the internet? You must piss your pants all the time.

And it protects the government and people FROM idiots -- again, like you, pee-pants -- who push religion as a higher law for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs.

By saying "the bible says gay people are wrong, so let's pass a law stating that gay people can't get married," you're pushing YOUR religion on other people. Do you honestly not see that?

Are you really that stupid?

Here, I got you these, Pee-Pants.

http://drugcopharmacy.com/uploads/ecommerce/replica/474_87205503d08091a03ef1255654e8e31c.jpg

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-26-2013, 11:00 AM
The majority agree with civil unions that are equal to the secular status of marriage. Some religions don't agree with gays joining together in Holy Matrimony or as a sacrament. I don't see the big deal because it's just a word, but I didn't think liberals wanted to mix the state with religion. Why can't they adopt a different word that's not considered sacred among religious groups?

Why do the desires of religious groups trump the desires of the people?

Tombstone RJ
06-26-2013, 11:01 AM
i'm reading the decision now. court did not 'strike down' DOMA as the moronic media is claiming. it struck down section 3. seems to me it actually strengthened section 2 by protecting 1man/1woman states.

until you get to their Prop 8 decision which basically counteracts their DOMA decision.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 11:03 AM
until you get to their Prop 8 decision which basically counteracts their DOMA decision.

Exactly. It will be interesting to see what they do next.

sisterhellfyre
06-26-2013, 11:31 AM
Exactly. It will be interesting to see what they do next.

What the Supremes will do next? Nothing, and I'd say it will probably be "nothing" for the next 5 years or so.

That's my guesstimate for the amount of time it will take for a gay married couple to move from a state that recognizes their marriage to one that doesn't, and where the couple suffers some concrete harm from the non-recognition. Tax rates or something like that, most likely, much like Edie Windsor's estate tax bill after her wife's death.

The couple will sue, and the suit will take a while to wind its way up through the court system until it eventually lands on the Supremes' docket again as a "full faith and credit" case. That's when it will get interesting again. ;-) In the meantime, there's a lot of work for LGBT people and agencies to do on legal issues that don't have the gut-punch headline value of "gay marriage."

Also in the meantime there will be much d***-waving and slapfighting on forums much like this one. Remember, boys: winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the 50-yard dash at Special Ed field day. Yah, you won, but....

Flex Gunmetal
06-26-2013, 11:38 AM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.

You are an absolute dipschit and advertise it well.

Archer81
06-26-2013, 11:45 AM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.


http://tinyurl.com/759jfv6


:Broncos:

BroncoInferno
06-26-2013, 11:47 AM
"Traditional Marriage" is not solely a religious institution.

If anyone were truly interested in "traditional marriage," then polygamy would be legal.

ZONA
06-26-2013, 11:49 AM
Seems like a good ruling once again proving the conservatives will vote with minds and liberals just tow the line.

Yes, because no republican has ever towed the line..............what a bunch of ****

BroncoInferno
06-26-2013, 11:51 AM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.

You're a ****ing idiot. Gay marriage is an pact between consenting adults. Animals and children cannot give their consent. There's no similarity.

ZONA
06-26-2013, 12:01 PM
Conservatives need to get back to good principles. Believing that people, not government, make America go. There's a lot of Black and Hispanic groups that have very conservative values but the left has done such a good job of painting Republicans as racists that they turn to the only thing left.

Many Black communities hate the welfare state - the way it encourages Husbandless - even "partner-less" welfare mothers who have more children to get bigger checks. Hispanic communities favor family values and hard work. They really aren't looking for a handout. My gay friend is fiscally very conservative and only votes Democrat because of he and his partner's personal issues.

If Republicans would get onto the fiscal responsibility angle, worked on keeping government off our phone calls and fighting for family values - that's families with parents, preferably two or more, raising children in good homes - they could get a lot of votes and retake power.

I think a majority of Americans don't want a large police state that tries to do everything.

Well there's things the republicans have going for them and some things they don't. Let's just skip over the minority thing, they need to understand they're losing the vote on several issues. Their hard stance or abortion doesn't sit well with the ladies. Many republicans don't even care if it was rape or not. And the fact that they want to deregulate everything, leads to things like we saw on wallstreet several years ago. Their's just so much risk involved with that. And their stance on letting the wealthiest corporations and richest Americans slide through tax loop holes while they ensure a poor person has no loopholes or ways to hide from tax. I've never understood why it is that people think the rich create jobs. Most job in America are small business, the blue collar person who hires a few people. But do they get to hide money in offshore accounts, do they get to pay much less tax then a janitor?

There's a reason why the republicans have been losing of late. They've allowed the tea party to move them even further to the right. I mean, all of the republican presidential candidates have to pledge to something that isn't even law, just to be in the race. The party is being held hostage to a few really F'd up dudes. IMO, they won't win another race unless some serious changes are made. I still don't think they've learned those lessons yet. Some have, but some haven't and it might take another 8 years of not having the white house before they start to make these changes.

Kaylore
06-26-2013, 12:27 PM
The cow would have to consent.

The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.

Kaylore
06-26-2013, 12:28 PM
I totally disagree on Abortion, Zona. The majority of Americans do not favor abortion as a form of birth control. It's like 70%. That's what 99% of abortions are used for.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 12:30 PM
The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.

And family members of course.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 12:31 PM
The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.

I agree.

thumpc
06-26-2013, 12:40 PM
On the flip side,

"In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.

State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

Says Who?

Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first ....
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

B-Large
06-26-2013, 01:01 PM
love the liberal answer to democracy--it works only when you vote the way WE want. Otherwise, we will use the courts to force our agenda down your throat.

If Prop 8 was enacted to lock up gays and lesbians and outlaw homosexuality then you would have a point. But it's supporting traditional marriage which in now way harms the homosexual community. The majority of CA voted for it, including real minorities.

Sure it does. You can't file joint tax returns Federally before, so theoretically youo get discrimatory tax treatment. If your man lover dies, his Social Secuirty he work his entire life for goes back to the Government, not you the surviving partner.

Make everything a Civil Union across the board, hetero or homo, and let the instiution of faith marry people in their place fo worship, marriage is a contract under God anyway.

errand
06-26-2013, 01:10 PM
The cow would have to consent.


LOL

Actually in a case where a man died from having sex with a horse, they didn't charge him with animal cruelty because they couldn't prove the animal was harmed by the incident....

sisterhellfyre
06-26-2013, 01:20 PM
The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.

Under the same rules, that adults consent to join in multiple marriage relationships, the problem is.... what, exactly?

B-Large
06-26-2013, 01:22 PM
Because "traditional marriage" is a ****ing absurd notion based on religion. Allowing gays to marry hurts NO ONE except for hypocrites that hold some sort of odd moralistic standard to their life. Its about equal rights. Should we dial back the civil rights movement too?

Oh the irony of conservatives, its vast and unquenchable.

But my moral vitues are absolute, and it should be legally imposed on everyone.... in a free country


duh!

B-Large
06-26-2013, 01:24 PM
Under the same rules, that adults consent to join in multiple marriage relationships, the problem is.... what, exactly?

right, why does anyone care what other consenting adults do as long as they are law abiding>

errand
06-26-2013, 01:26 PM
The argument follows that homosexuals are consenting adults and have rights to marry. That's fine. Logic follows polygamists should have the same right under that criterion.


not to mention the NAMBLA clowns as they will use the "age of consent" laws.....

for instance the age of consent in Hawaii is 14

ColoradoDarin
06-26-2013, 01:31 PM
right, why does anyone care what other consenting adults do as long as they are law abiding>

Totally going to form a "marriage" with my kids some time when it's legal (probably with their spouses by then too). Then we can get extra tax benefits.... and screw the tax-paying suckers who don't do so.

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 01:39 PM
The majority agree with civil unions that are equal to the secular status of marriage. Some religions don't agree with gays joining together in Holy Matrimony or as a sacrament. I don't see the big deal because it's just a word, but I didn't think liberals wanted to mix the state with religion. Why can't they adopt a different word that's not considered sacred among religious groups?

Because separate but equal doesn't work,never has. Why should anyone worry about religious people? They don't have a monopoly on marriage.
Majorities do agree with marriage.

B-Large
06-26-2013, 01:39 PM
Totally going to form a "marriage" with my kids some time when it's legal (probably with their spouses by then too). Then we can get extra tax benefits.... and screw the tax-paying suckers who don't do so.

yes, this is so typical of the situation that might develop.

ColoradoDarin
06-26-2013, 01:43 PM
yes, this is so typical of the situation that might develop.

Meh, Don't care about that. Actually I hope everyone else doesn't. I'll push for additional benefits for our situation.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 01:44 PM
not to mention the NAMBLA clowns as they will use the "age of consent" laws.....

for instance the age of consent in Hawaii is 14

There is nowhere in the United States where age of consent is lower than 16. Many states, including Hawaii, have close-in-age exemptions. In Hawaii's case it allows 14 or 15 year olds to consent with someone less than 5 years older. Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa do too, to name a few.

Requiem
06-26-2013, 01:45 PM
Lol additional benefits for our wonderful, traditional marriage situation. As if you needed anymore.

ColoradoDarin
06-26-2013, 01:54 PM
Lol additional benefits for our wonderful, traditional marriage situation. As if you needed anymore.

No, you're not getting it. When polygamy and incest marriages become legal, we're going to form one giant marriage in name only in order to benefit from tax laws (additional dependents/deduction and inheritance to name a couple).




PS. I'm not serious. I didn't think I needed to point that out on the 'mane. I'm rarely serious in any thread around here. You people are way too uptight (what do you mean you people?)

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 02:04 PM
Now take that on to the next logical step. I knew of a couple of old timers at one time who were brothers. Both were widowed and living together. The first brother passing away created numerous hardships for the surviving, as many of the avenues for transference of property and benefits were not available. At the time it was because they were both males and brothers. But today, that protection would still be denied, if only because they were brothers.

Is this equal protection?

I'm not getting you. Even without a will your next of kin can inherit your property. I don't think i am understanding your point.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 02:11 PM
I'm not getting you. Even without a will your next of kin can inherit your property. I don't think i am understanding your point.

Not tax free, like they pass to your spouse. Plus there's survivors benefits for Social Security and most pensions.

And more theoretically, there are plenty of scenarios where one family member would like another covered on his/her health insurance. But the federal government won't allow that.

ColoradoDarin
06-26-2013, 02:12 PM
I'm not getting you. Even without a will your next of kin can inherit your property. I don't think i am understanding your point.

You can pass along unlimited amounts to surviving spouses without being subject to taxation, not so with kids/siblings.

Archer81
06-26-2013, 02:16 PM
http://tinyurl.com/pg4de53


:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 02:41 PM
What I see happening is dude and ladies getting married to to steal benefits. We'll have to tighten that up at the federal level.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 02:48 PM
Of course, Little Miss Loopy throws in her two cents:

<param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=52320446&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc1557a3" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=52320446&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

Arkie
06-26-2013, 03:35 PM
Make everything a Civil Union across the board, hetero or homo, and let the instiution of faith marry people in their place fo worship, marriage is a contract under God anyway.

That makes the most sense. There are many non-religious straight couples that could care less what we call it, and some churches will still do the holy marriage thing for gay people too.

Arkie
06-26-2013, 04:07 PM
What I see happening is dude and ladies getting married to to steal benefits. We'll have to tighten that up at the federal level.

Everybody has the same right as you to steal benefits. I don't agree with giving benefits to anybody, but everybody should get them or nobody should. Straight couples, gays, brothers, or any two consenting adults should have equal rights to steal benefits.

Requiem
06-26-2013, 04:11 PM
End the Child Tax Credit.

bpc
06-26-2013, 04:37 PM
Well now that that's over, we'll just wait until the polygamists start their clamoring for equal rights too......not to mention the NAMBLA and beastiality clowns who will soon want equal protection under the law.

.....if a homosexual has the right to **** his buddy in the ass, or munch on her BFF's carpet then how can we as a society argue against a guy or woman who wants to **** a cow or horse? Oh, but wait...that stuff is not natural human behavior you say?

Well, neither is homosexuality, and look where we are today.

Well that's the good thing about progressive liberals... they're always in search for the next 'cause'.

sisterhellfyre
06-26-2013, 08:55 PM
Of course, Little Miss Loopy throws in her two cents:

"Who cares?"

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 09:29 PM
Not tax free, like they pass to your spouse. Plus there's survivors benefits for Social Security and most pensions.

And more theoretically, there are plenty of scenarios where one family member would like another covered on his/her health insurance. But the federal government won't allow that.

Ok but what does that have to do with 2 men wanting to be parteners/mates/husband and wife? You are saying that is unfair to 2 brothers who just want to live together because they don't get marraige bennies? That is ridiculous IMO.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 09:30 PM
its not going to be a big deal I bet not that many gays even marry % wise.

bpc
06-26-2013, 09:38 PM
I personally don't care what gay folks do. However when teachers and lefties start pushing for gay rights month in schools especially elementary/middle & high school along with gay day, classes featuring gay as the new normal in regards to the American family & culture and the rest of the bs indoctrinating propaganda, there will be issues.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 09:52 PM
I personally don't care what gay folks do. However when teachers and lefties start pushing for gay rights month in schools especially elementary/middle & high school along with gay day, classes featuring gay as the new normal in regards to the American family & culture and the rest of the bs indoctrinating propaganda, there will be issues.

Now you know how we feel about religion being peddled in our schools. Worship who you want, really. But do it in the closet. Actually now that I think of it, there's a passage in the bible about that...

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 10:16 PM
Maybe I should take that back lol I just booked my first gay wedding reception gig lol. Man I bet this is going to be really good for me because my city has 2nd or 3rd highest gay population in the country. Something like that. Better for deejays for sure but bands will get some gigs also.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 10:18 PM
I personally don't care what gay folks do. However when teachers and lefties start pushing for gay rights month in schools especially elementary/middle & high school along with gay day, classes featuring gay as the new normal in regards to the American family & culture and the rest of the bs indoctrinating propaganda, there will be issues.

I agree it will be wierd to see the big push to normalize being gay but at this point religious people are just going to have to accept their country is gay for gay now.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 10:19 PM
Now you know how we feel about religion being peddled in our schools. Worship who you want, really. But do it in the closet. Actually now that I think of it, there's a passage in the bible about that...

How will kids be informed if you don't teach religion and the parents don't take him to church?

bpc
06-26-2013, 10:21 PM
Where is the church paraded around in classrooms? The difference now being that liberals favorite argument is to say keep 'your' religion out of my life!!! but when it comes to their 'cause' they are all about trampling over the top of people with it never bothering to notice the hypocrisy of their previous words or actions.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 10:36 PM
Ok but what does that have to do with 2 men wanting to be parteners/mates/husband and wife? You are saying that is unfair to 2 brothers who just want to live together because they don't get marraige bennies? That is ridiculous IMO.

The state can't extend benefits to one but not the other in the name of equal protection. Are you saying state sanctioned partnerships should hinge entirely on the willingness to consummate? That can't be the standard.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 10:48 PM
Where is the church paraded around in classrooms? The difference now being that liberals favorite argument is to say keep 'your' religion out of my life!!! but when it comes to their 'cause' they are all about trampling over the top of people with it never bothering to notice the hypocrisy of their previous words or actions.

As far as I know, there's nothing written in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Houghtam's cause..."

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 10:51 PM
The state can't extend benefits to one but not the other in the name of equal protection. Are you saying state sanctioned partnerships should hinge entirely on the willingness to consummate? That can't be the standard.

So you are saying you think anyone should be able to form a social partnership that gets the same bennies as married people, but without the sex, love, etc etc. Could those 2 men then still have girlfriends lol? I guess i am sort of seeing where you are coming from but to tell you the truth it seems like a last ditch effort to throw poop on an issue you lost on and are unhappy about. I get it though.

I don't really like seeing things like Transgendered 4 yr old gets to use girls bathroom, victory for transgendered everywhere! I mean it gets ridiculous like a bad Southpark episode.

IMO we need to make it easier for people to afford private schools with vouchers so they aren't stuck sending kids to a we let johnny dress like a girl school but you can't say a prayer.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 10:52 PM
I'm more ready to say end all marriage bennies. Treat singles and married the same. End of problem.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 10:57 PM
The state can't extend benefits to one but not the other in the name of equal protection. Are you saying state sanctioned partnerships should hinge entirely on the willingness to consummate? That can't be the standard.

Well Beavis, it's good to know that cut isn't just playing dumb when he argues with me. When he can't understand a fairly basic argument from someone who shares most of his views either, well...

I'm sorry, cut. You're. Very. Special.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:01 PM
Well Beavis, it's good to know that cut isn't just playing dumb when he argues with me. When he can't understand a fairly basic argument from someone who shares most of his views either, well...

I'm sorry, cut. You're. Very. Special.

BS it's a smart man who asks questions. Some of us just don't agree with one side everytime like you Mr Mom.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:08 PM
BS it's a smart man who asks questions. Some of us just don't agree with one side everytime like you Mr Mom.

A smart man asks good questions. An idiot asks "NURRRR WUT DAT MEEN?" after it's been explained twice. You've already shown your propensity to go off half cocked without having read or understood posts before. This just confirms it wasn't a partisan thing; you are brain dead in both sides of the aisle.

chadta
06-27-2013, 03:37 AM
I'm more ready to say end all marriage bennies. Treat singles and married the same. End of problem.

that is truely the best solution

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 05:25 AM
So you are saying you think anyone should be able to form a social partnership that gets the same bennies as married people, but without the sex, love, etc etc. Could those 2 men then still have girlfriends lol? I guess i am sort of seeing where you are coming from but to tell you the truth it seems like a last ditch effort to throw poop on an issue you lost on and are unhappy about. I get it though.

I don't really like seeing things like Transgendered 4 yr old gets to use girls bathroom, victory for transgendered everywhere! I mean it gets ridiculous like a bad Southpark episode.

IMO we need to make it easier for people to afford private schools with vouchers so they aren't stuck sending kids to a we let johnny dress like a girl school but you can't say a prayer.

There are lots of loveless and/or sexless marriages out there. Even marriages of pure convenience with action on the side. Not sure why they deserve special treatment.

"Traditional" marriage essentially died with the easy no-fault divorce. And I've thought we needed to strip state sanctioned marriage down to a naked contract between any two consenting adults for a long time. Regardless of this case.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-27-2013, 06:46 AM
I personally don't care what gay folks do. However when teachers and lefties start pushing for gay rights month in schools especially elementary/middle & high school along with gay day, classes featuring gay as the new normal in regards to the American family & culture and the rest of the bs indoctrinating propaganda, there will be issues.

You know, I don't believe anyone has ever even thought of doing that. Once again, thanks to the right wing of American politics for giving us such a great idea with which to torment them.

Rigs11
06-27-2013, 09:00 AM
gotta love the rightwing homophobesHilarious!

Rigs11
06-27-2013, 09:01 AM
save us from teh gays!

TonyR
06-27-2013, 09:40 AM
...abortion as a form of birth control... That's what 99% of abortions are used for.

I'm fairly confident that most abortion decisions are more complicated than this. Poverty and/or circumstances probably play a large part. I'm not suggesting that makes it more "right". Just that people aren't doing it simply out of convenience as your point might suggest. Probably a very difficult decision for most. Read some of these stories:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/threads/its-so-personal/

TonyR
06-27-2013, 09:44 AM
I personally don't care what gay folks do. However when teachers and lefties start pushing for gay rights month in schools especially elementary/middle & high school along with gay day, classes featuring gay as the new normal in regards to the American family & culture and the rest of the bs indoctrinating propaganda, there will be issues.

LOL I think you're overly concerned about this happening. But, worst case scenario, let's say it does happen. How would your children be harmed? If they learned that it was "okay" or even "normal" to be gay would that be "bad"? Would they possibly turn gay from this "indoctrinating propaganda"?

I guess my overall question for you is, what is your concern? How are your kids going to get hurt by gay people getting married and being happy and having families?

bpc
06-27-2013, 09:50 AM
I've known gay people. Consider the ones I know friends. With that being said the lifestyle doesn't work out in my head but if somebody is happy rolling around with the same sex, hey, do your thing. Just don't try to pass it off as a natural thing especially to kids. As I like to say, natural law rules. If you take a colony of gay people and leave them out on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean, what does their long term future look like? They'll be gone within a generation. I think that speaks volumes right there. Just because America has perfected the test tube baby so gay couples can pretend they're something they're not in the natural sense, doesn't make it so. Anybody upset by that thought needs to come back to reality.

TonyR
06-27-2013, 09:54 AM
Just don't try to pass it off as a natural thing especially to kids.

Could ask a lot of questions about your post but for no I'll focus on this part.

Again, if kids learn it's a "natural thing" what would happen? Would the kids turn "bad"? Would they turn gay? What are you afraid of?

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 09:55 AM
LOL I think you're overly concerned about this happening. But, worst case scenario, let's say it does happen. How would your children be harmed? If they learned that it was "okay" or even "normal" to be gay would that be "bad"? Would they possibly turn gay from this "indoctrinating propaganda"?

I guess my overall question for you is, what is your concern? How are your kids going to get hurt by gay people getting married and being happy and having families?

I think the main concern comes from sexualizing kids' prism on life too soon. Believe it or not, there are advocates for sex education all the way from kindergarten on up.

houghtam
06-27-2013, 09:59 AM
If the ability to reproduce is a prerequisite of marriage, there are a lot of people who are in trouble.

If you put a colony of sterile and infertile people on an island, what would their future look like? I think that says a lot right there.

houghtam
06-27-2013, 10:00 AM
I think the main concern comes from sexualizing kids' prism on life too soon. Believe it or not, there are advocates for sex education all the way from kindergarten on up.

Where have any of us said we want kids to be taught about homosexuality before being taught sex Ed in general?

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 10:04 AM
I've known gay people. Consider the ones I know friends. With that being said the lifestyle doesn't work out in my head but if somebody is happy rolling around with the same sex, hey, do your thing. Just don't try to pass it off as a natural thing especially to kids. As I like to say, natural law rules. If you take a colony of gay people and leave them out on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean, what does their long term future look like? They'll be gone within a generation. I think that speaks volumes right there. Just because America has perfected the test tube baby so gay couples can pretend they're something they're not in the natural sense, doesn't make it so. Anybody upset by that thought needs to come back to reality.

WTF are you even talking about? Why does this threaten you so much?

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 10:13 AM
Where have any of us said we want kids to be taught about homosexuality before being taught sex Ed in general?

I'm not sure what anyone here is really for or against. But there are some pretty incredibly ridiculous ideas out there.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/02/28/chicago-passes-sex-ed-for-kindergartners/

In reality, each kid is different. And as a parent, you need to be conscious of where your kid is as you communicate this stuff to them. School-based sex ed should only serve as a backup, teaching what most good parents likely already taught. It should only exist because in the real world (sadly) there's a good chunk of kids out there whose parents don't give a crap either way.

In this example (Chicago) though, they're preempting what most parents would consider to be appropriate timing. I guess in the name of getting the State's version of events in first. Just another case of public schools using incredibly poor judgement that harms kids to ultimately political ends.

Which is why none of it should ever be made mandatory for any reason.

TonyR
06-27-2013, 10:14 AM
I think the main concern comes from sexualizing kids' prism on life too soon. Believe it or not, there are advocates for sex education all the way from kindergarten on up.

At first glance I understand where you're coming from. But I don't think the focus needs to be on sexuality. Whether love or a marriage is gay or straight shouldn't really make a difference, should it? Why does one bring forth more sexuality than the other?

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 10:15 AM
How will kids be informed if you don't teach religion and the parents don't take him to church?

Nevermind Hey-sues. What if they aren't informed about Shai-Hulud? That's the real danger there.

Archer81
06-27-2013, 10:22 AM
If I ended up on an island with 300 other gay people I'd kill myself within a year or start picking them off one by one in my own version of the hunger games.

There can only be one.

:Broncos:

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 10:27 AM
At first glance I understand where you're coming from. But I don't think the focus needs to be on sexuality. Whether love or a marriage is gay or straight shouldn't really make a difference, should it? Why does one bring forth more sexuality than the other?

I've had kindergartners. And one had a kid in his class with two dads (so to speak.) And for the most part, at that age, it doesn't even occur to most of them that there's anything right or wrong with that, to the extent they even know about it. It just is what it is. Lots of other kids only have a mom. Or foster parents. Or guardian grandparents.

I'm not sure why we have to draw up pigeonholes from our own preconceptions right off the bat and force our kids into them. Let them have their own experiences and give them time to ask their own questions. That's the best way to learn (especially around good parents)

The state's role is the backstop, not the center. They're only there just in case the best method got skipped.

houghtam
06-27-2013, 10:31 AM
I'm not sure what anyone here is really for or against. But there are some pretty incredibly ridiculous ideas out there.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/02/28/chicago-passes-sex-ed-for-kindergartners/

In reality, each kid is different. And as a parent, you need to be conscious of where your kid is as you communicate this stuff to them. School-based sex ed should only serve as a backup, teaching what most good parents likely already taught. It should only exist because in the real world (sadly) there's a good chunk of kids out there whose parents don't give a crap either way.

In this example (Chicago) though, they're preempting what most parents would consider to be appropriate timing. I guess in the name of getting the State's version of events in first. Just another case of public schools using incredibly poor judgement that harms kids to ultimately political ends.

Which is why none of it should ever be made mandatory for any reason.

As long as the "state's version" of sex Ed is based on science, it most certainly SHOULD be mandatory.

You wouldn't believe some of the answers kids gave in my health class in high school. And this is at a parochial school where people's parents are supposedly at home teaching them the "right" sex Ed straight from god's mouth. I can only imagine what those heathen public school kids' parents taught them. But in either case, it wasn't based on anything you could call "science".

I think the real problem here is that you and every other parent out there opposed to someone teaching your kids about their bodies is that you're confusing science with morality. It's the equivalent of not wanting your kid to learn evolution because the bible says we didn't come from monkeys.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 10:41 AM
As long as the "state's version" of sex Ed is based on science, it most certainly SHOULD be mandatory.

You wouldn't believe some of the answers kids gave in my health class in high school. And this is at a parochial school where people's parents are supposedly at home teaching them the "right" sex Ed straight from god's mouth. I can only imagine what those heathen public school kids' parents taught them. But in either case, it wasn't based on anything you could call "science".

I think the real problem here is that you and every other parent out there opposed to someone teaching your kids about their bodies is that you're confusing science with morality. It's the equivalent of not wanting your kid to learn evolution because the bible says we didn't come from monkeys.

Ah yes, freedom of religion must bow to the collective yet again. LOL

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 10:47 AM
Ah yes, freedom of religion must bow to the collective yet again. LOL

So we should continue to teach sorcery over science?

Archer81
06-27-2013, 10:53 AM
So we should continue to teach sorcery over science?


Science is a wonderful thing, but amoral. And I dont mean its inherently evil. But science is pure fact, there is nothing there to gather from a moral standpoint. Its void of it.

Religion/spirituality/whatever has a role in human existence, and should not be automatically shoved to the side or dismissed with hostility. Our culture would be better off if both spheres are taught and applied. Science does not have all the answers. Religion does not either. So why praise one and trash the other? The fundamentalist scientist is just as bad as the religious fundamentalist.

Nameste.

:Broncos:

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 10:59 AM
So we should continue to teach sorcery over science?

Would you ban Catholic Schools? Let's just go ahead and get this out there. Let us see the full on progressive vision of "Civil Liberty"

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:03 AM
Science is a wonderful thing, but amoral. And I dont mean its inherently evil. But science is pure fact, there is nothing there to gather from a moral standpoint. Its void of it.

Religion/spirituality/whatever has a role in human existence, and should not be automatically shoved to the side or dismissed with hostility. Our culture would be better off if both spheres are taught and applied. Science does not have all the answers. Religion does not either. So why praise one and trash the other? The fundamentalist scientist is just as bad as the religious fundamentalist.

Nameste.

:Broncos:

Why embrace something to guide morality which is dishonest to the core? Fairy tales (presented at truth to distract from arbitrary derived "morality") are not necessary.

Archer81
06-27-2013, 11:07 AM
Why embrace something to guide morality which is dishonest to the core? Fairy tales (presented at truth to distract from arbitrary derived "morality") are not necessary.


...Necessary to you. Other people feel differently. If it does not suddenly invalidate scientific fact because people draw strength from a religious world view. I am not also advocating equal time in a classroom. School is a place for fact and learning how to think. Religion/spirituality/humanism should be taught at home.

:Broncos:

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 11:07 AM
Why embrace something to guide morality which is dishonest to the core? Fairy tales (presented at truth to distract from arbitrary derived "morality") are not necessary.

"Science is Truth" is one of the shallower philosophical thoughts I've heard.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:17 AM
...Necessary to you. Other people feel differently. If it does not suddenly invalidate scientific fact because people draw strength from a religious world view.


Didn't say that. People also draw strength, moral lessons and other lessons from Superman. Good for both groups.


I am not also advocating equal time in a classroom. School is a place for fact and learning how to think. Religion/spirituality/humanism should be taught at home.

Educating children -- whether it be facts or on morals -- is a job for the village, not just the parents. Should ethics classes be removed from school? Should teachers not discipline misbehaving children and instruct them on how to behave?

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:17 AM
"Science is Truth" is one of the shallower philosophical thoughts I've heard.

Oh look, an ad hominem. Fun!

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 11:23 AM
Would you ban Catholic Schools? Let's just go ahead and get this out there. Let us see the full on progressive vision of "Civil Liberty"

No, i wouldnt ban anything, and I think time will wash religion away. It might be A LOT of time, but unless the voice of "God" shouts from the skies in the next 500-1000 years, I think it'll go to the fringe.

I do, however, thinks its poisonous to teach kids that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and also counter productive to have dishonest conversations about sex with them.

houghtam
06-27-2013, 11:27 AM
Yes, Chris, there is a place for both science and religion. I would even be in favor of discussing an opt-in program for, say, History of World Religions, or Biblical Texts as Literature courses.

The problem MOST people who are against teaching religion alongside science, as if they are equals. They are not. One has a very specific set of rules and guidelines that are repeatable and for the most part provable. Religion is based off oral tradition. They are not comparable in the least.

Edit: I just read your clarification. Oh my God I just did an errand drive by!

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 11:35 AM
...Necessary to you. Other people feel differently. If it does not suddenly invalidate scientific fact because people draw strength from a religious world view. I am not also advocating equal time in a classroom. School is a place for fact and learning how to think. Religion/spirituality/humanism should be taught at home.

:Broncos:

I can agree with this.

bpc
06-27-2013, 11:37 AM
Could ask a lot of questions about your post but for no I'll focus on this part.

Again, if kids learn it's a "natural thing" what would happen? Would the kids turn "bad"? Would they turn gay? What are you afraid of?

Don't force your lifestyle on my kids, just like I don't force church or religion on yours per your request. No harm, no foul. Might work for some folks, but it's my choice of what I want to expose my kids to. I'll have those discussions with them, not some left wing liberal society spewing a bunch of their nonsense.

bpc
06-27-2013, 11:39 AM
If the ability to reproduce is a prerequisite of marriage, there are a lot of people who are in trouble.

If you put a colony of sterile and infertile people on an island, what would their future look like? I think that says a lot right there.

Spin. Spin. Spin. Nobody said reproduction was a prerequisite of marriage but you.

Nature's law my friend. It doesn't lie.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 11:40 AM
Spin. Spin. Spin. Nobody said reproduction was a prerequisite of marriage but you.

Nature's law my friend. It doesn't lie.

Actually, thats def one of the anti-gay marriage talking points. And its non-sensical.

bpc
06-27-2013, 11:40 AM
WTF are you even talking about? Why does this threaten you so much?

It doesn't threaten me and it won't. That's the point. Why does church threaten people so much? It's up to YOU on what you want exposed to your kids so i'm merely invoking my right as a parent.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 11:42 AM
It doesn't threaten me and it won't. That's the point. Why does church threaten people so much? It's up to YOU on what you want exposed to your kids so i'm merely invoking my right as a parent.

Now you're speaking to a much different point. Religion doesn't threaten me until it seeps its way into public policy. if you want to teach your kids your religion at home, if you want to take them to church, have at. If you are anti-gay marriage because of religious beliefs, and then want to use those beliefs to make a law, then that's unacceptable. Sorry if this is some "liberal agenda" ya know, being tolerant.

bpc
06-27-2013, 11:45 AM
Would you ban Catholic Schools? Let's just go ahead and get this out there. Let us see the full on progressive vision of "Civil Liberty"

Obama would and he's a good source for what the mainstream, progressive liberal conscience is.

bpc
06-27-2013, 11:45 AM
...Necessary to you. Other people feel differently. If it does not suddenly invalidate scientific fact because people draw strength from a religious world view. I am not also advocating equal time in a classroom. School is a place for fact and learning how to think. Religion/spirituality/humanism should be taught at home.

:Broncos:

Spot on take.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:46 AM
It doesn't threaten me and it won't. That's the point. Why does church threaten people so much? It's up to YOU on what you want exposed to your kids so i'm merely invoking my right as a parent.

Talking about a religion and forcing the practice of a religion (or behavior compliant with that religion through law or other force) on someone are entirely different beasts.

Likewise, having people talk to your kids about homosexuality is not the same thing as coercing them to somehow participate in it.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:46 AM
Spot on take.

Care to answer the questions I posed to that?

bpc
06-27-2013, 11:47 AM
Actually, thats def one of the anti-gay marriage talking points. And its non-sensical.

It's not one of my talking points so you can leave it out when discussing the topic between us, here and now. I don't really care if guy and guy want to be married. Just respect wishes to keep what goes on in your home, in your home... same for relationships, spirituality, etc.

TonyR
06-27-2013, 11:49 AM
Don't force your lifestyle on my kids...

Nobody's forcing any "lifestyle" on them. And being gay isn't a "lifestyle". They didn't choose it. Your kids are either straight or gay. And hopefully you'd love them either way. I know I would mine.

bpc
06-27-2013, 11:51 AM
Talking about a religion and forcing the practice of a religion (or behavior compliant with that religion through law or other force) on someone are entirely different beasts.

Likewise, having people talk to your kids about homosexuality is not the same thing as coercing them to somehow participate in it.

Unfortunately there is no gray and liberals have showed that in force with regards to religion. Hell, Christmas at my son's school is now the Winter Solstice. I call it stupid but don't really care. School should serve it's purpose but with regards to some of the conversations listed on this thread, those topics are best left at home for families to teach their kids about and not folks with an agenda.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:53 AM
Only in the mind of lunatics is talking about he existence of something "forcing" that thing on someone.

Is talking about criminal behavior "forcing" the "criminal lifestyle" on someone? No.

Likewise, it talking about religion "forcing" it on someone? Also no.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:56 AM
Unfortunately there is no gray and liberals have showed that in force with regards to religion. Hell, Christmas at my son's school is now the Winter Solstice. I call it stupid but don't really care. School should serve it's purpose but with regards to some of the conversations listed on this thread, those topics are best left at home for families to teach their kids about and not folks with an agenda.

What "agendas"?

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 11:57 AM
Obama would and he's a good source for what the mainstream, progressive liberal conscience is.

Obama is a ****in moderate, stop calling him a liberal. If he's a liberal, hes a bad liberal.

bpc
06-27-2013, 11:57 AM
Nobody's forcing any "lifestyle" on them. And being gay isn't a "lifestyle". They didn't choose it. Your kids are either straight or gay. And hopefully you'd love them either way. I know I would mine.

I know a lot of bi-sexual people that choose to be that way. Huh?

Should my child choose to be gay, i'll still love them. I don't have to love the act to continuing doing so. My thoughts of them as a person would not be impacted by this decision, just like folks I meet all the time that are gay.

TonyR
06-27-2013, 12:00 PM
So then, bpc, you think being gay is a "choice"?

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 12:01 PM
Unfortunately there is no gray and liberals have showed that in force with regards to religion. Hell, Christmas at my son's school is now the Winter Solstice. I call it stupid but don't really care. School should serve it's purpose but with regards to some of the conversations listed on this thread, those topics are best left at home for families to teach their kids about and not folks with an agenda.

I'm as liberal as they come, was raised Jewish (though an athiest), and i love the idea of christmas (and i assume most do). So don't group us in with those people, just as you don't wanna be grouped in with every other religious wingnut.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 12:01 PM
I know a lot of bi-sexual people that choose to be that way. Huh?

Should my child choose to be gay, i'll still love them. I don't have to love the act to continuing doing so. My thoughts of them as a person would not be impacted by this decision, just like folks I meet all the time that are gay.

ITS NOT A CHOICE

TonyR
06-27-2013, 12:10 PM
“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.” - Political theorist and philosopher Hannah Arendt, author of The Human Condition, in 1959.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:13 PM
Oh look, an ad hominem. Fun!

You might want to look that one up.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 12:16 PM
You might want to look that one up.

You post boils down to calling me shallow, and provides no actual argument.

Classic ad hominem bub.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:22 PM
No, i wouldnt ban anything, and I think time will wash religion away. It might be A LOT of time, but unless the voice of "God" shouts from the skies in the next 500-1000 years, I think it'll go to the fringe.

I do, however, thinks its poisonous to teach kids that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and also counter productive to have dishonest conversations about sex with them.

And I think it's more dangerous to teach them that surrendering their challenges and problems to a central political authority is the right way to go.

Anyway, there's no intellectual consistency to allowing private schools (or home schools) and mandatory government-sponsored sex education.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:23 PM
You post boils down to calling me shallow, and provides no actual argument.

Classic ad hominem bub.

I called the idea shallow. Which it is. But an Ad Hominem by any stretch, it is not.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 12:24 PM
I called the idea shallow. Which it is. But an Ad Hominem by any stretch, it is not.

That statement is stupid!

(got it?)

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:27 PM
That statement is stupid!

(got it?)

Right. Not an ad hominem. Good work. :)

Archer81
06-27-2013, 12:31 PM
I know a lot of bi-sexual people that choose to be that way. Huh?

Should my child choose to be gay, i'll still love them. I don't have to love the act to continuing doing so. My thoughts of them as a person would not be impacted by this decision, just like folks I meet all the time that are gay.


The choice is to engage in sexual activity. It goes no further. What you are attracted to does not change, and it is not chosen.


:Broncos:

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 12:33 PM
Right. Not an ad hominem. Good work. :)

If you want to provide a valid argument, rather than an ad hominem, argue what exactly you find wrong with what I said. Don't just call it, and me by implication, shallow.

Though seriously, if you can't even figure out that what you said is an ad hominem, what's the point?

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:33 PM
The choice is to engage in sexual activity.

Is it?

Are you sure you guys really want in on this marriage thing? :)

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:37 PM
If you want to provide a valid argument, rather than an ad hominem, argue what exactly you find wrong with what I said. Don't just call it and me implication, me shallow.

Though seriously, if you can't even figure out that what you said is an ad hominem, what's the point?

Young children continually challenge the difference between "That's stupid" and "You're stupid"

I think for the most part they figure out the difference around 2nd-3rd grade. But keep trying. You'll get there.

(that last part was an ad hominem, for your reference, just in case you need it for your next session as OM Language Professor LOL)

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 12:39 PM
And I think it's more dangerous to teach them that surrendering their challenges and problems to a central political authority is the right way to go.

Anyway, there's no intellectual consistency to allowing private schools (or home schools) and mandatory government-sponsored sex education.

Kids are so incredibly dumb when it comes to sex education because we either 1) teach them incorrectly or 2) are afraid of the conversation because of some moralistic standard. We'd all be better off knowing the truth about our actions so we can make informed, responsible decisions earlier in life. I think sex education should become mandatory, as i think a current events class should too.

Archer81
06-27-2013, 12:41 PM
Is it?

Are you sure you guys really want in on this marriage thing? :)


Not particularly. BUT, gay divorce disputes on Judge Judy will be epic.


:Broncos:

Archer81
06-27-2013, 12:43 PM
Kids are so incredibly dumb when it comes to sex education because we either 1) teach them incorrectly or 2) are afraid of the conversation because of some moralistic standard. We'd all be better off knowing the truth about our actions so we can make informed, responsible decisions earlier in life. I think sex education should become mandatory, as i think a current events class should too.


I think anything before 5th grade is too soon for sex education. Make it mandatory and have actual health professionals teach it, not gym coaches. I remember in 9th grade being broken up into boy/girl classes so we could learn about our bodies. Nothing is as awkward as a lesbian gym teacher explaining to a bunch of 14 year old boys the mechanics of an erection.

:Broncos:

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:44 PM
Kids are so incredibly dumb when it comes to sex education because we either 1) teach them incorrectly or 2) are afraid of the conversation because of some moralistic standard. We'd all be better off knowing the truth about our actions so we can make informed, responsible decisions earlier in life. I think sex education should become mandatory, as i think a current events class should too.

Ooooh, forced federal "current events" lessons. I think Chairman M and JoStal had something like that. This progressive vision just gets better and better.

BroncoInferno
06-27-2013, 12:45 PM
I think anything before 5th grade is too soon for sex education. Make it mandatory and have actual health professionals teach it, not gym coaches.

Agree with this 100%. The school nurse is probably a good candidate. Some of these gym teachers are no better than the parents.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 12:51 PM
Ooooh, forced federal "current events" lessons. I think Chairman M and JoStal had something like that. This progressive vision just gets better and better.

Pretty much every young person i work with is completely ignorant to current events. Hell, most people I work with are clueless if you gave them a blank map of Europe. Open a ****ing new york times and discuss ****.

THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:51 PM
I think anything before 5th grade is too soon for sex education. Make it mandatory and have actual health professionals teach it, not gym coaches. I remember in 9th grade being broken up into boy/girl classes so we could learn about our bodies. Nothing is as awkward as a lesbian gym teacher explaining to a bunch of 14 year old boys the mechanics of an erection.

:Broncos:

That's hilarious, and not exactly the same as my experience, but fits with the overall feel of the whole thing. These guys act like public schools are sending out top tier behavioral psychologists and medical professionals to lead these sessions,

Parents may not be perfect. But 80% of them are better than the walking nut cups that get stuck wrapping bananas for a bunch of heckling punks.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 12:51 PM
I think anything before 5th grade is too soon for sex education. Make it mandatory and have actual health professionals teach it, not gym coaches. I remember in 9th grade being broken up into boy/girl classes so we could learn about our bodies. Nothing is as awkward as a lesbian gym teacher explaining to a bunch of 14 year old boys the mechanics of an erection.

:Broncos:

I agree 5th/6th grade is the appropriate time to start teaching because puberty generally starts about then. And I agree it shouldnt be gym teachers.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:52 PM
Pretty much every young person i work with is completely ignorant to current events. Hell, most people I work with are clueless if you gave them a blank map of Europe. Open a ****ing new york times and discuss ****.

THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One man's NYT is another man's WSJ. Therein lies the problem. The only reconciliation is in individual liberty.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 12:52 PM
That's hilarious, and not exactly the same as my experience, but fits with the overall feel of the whole thing. These guys act like public schools are sending out top tier behavioral psychologists and medical professionals to lead these sessions,

Parents may not be perfect. But 80% of them are better than the walking nut cups that get stuck wrapping bananas for a bunch of heckling punks.

Most parents never have discussions like that with their kids. Then people walk around afraid they might be pregnant from a blowjob. What the hell are you so afraid of?

Archer81
06-27-2013, 12:53 PM
Pretty much every young person i work with is completely ignorant to current events. Hell, most people I work with are clueless if you gave them a blank map of Europe. Open a ****ing new york times and discuss ****.

THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Most young people are completely ignorant of current events. Then they work a few years and they notice a steady decline in the amount of take home pay they get. THEN they pay attention. That is the charm of being young. You really are just dumb about everything.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 12:53 PM
One man's NYT is another man's WSJ. Therein lies the problem. The only reconciliation is in individual liberty.

Youre impossible. You really think learning about the current world around you is a BAD THING? Holy hell.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 12:54 PM
Most young people are completely ignorant of current events. Then they work a few years and they notice a steady decline in the amount of take home pay they get. THEN they pay attention. That is the charm of being young. You really are just dumb about everything.

:Broncos:

Well, most young people are ignorant about politics because they don't understand how it affects them, but Current Events stretches beyond politics.

Archer81
06-27-2013, 12:55 PM
That's hilarious, and not exactly the same as my experience, but fits with the overall feel of the whole thing. These guys act like public schools are sending out top tier behavioral psychologists and medical professionals to lead these sessions,

Parents may not be perfect. But 80% of them are better than the walking nut cups that get stuck wrapping bananas for a bunch of heckling punks.


My parents had the sex talk with me when I was about 14 (it was a big year, apparently). It went as follows: mom: "If you make me a grandmother before you finish college I'll kill you." dad "yeah...your mother will kill you. wrap it up. I have condoms in the drawer by my side of the bed or ask and I'll get you some."

I think it would help if health class was an actual, established class and not an add on for gym. At least that is how it was when I was in HS.

:Broncos:

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 12:56 PM
Young children continually challenge the difference between "That's stupid" and "You're stupid"

I think for the most part they figure out the difference around 2nd-3rd grade. But keep trying. You'll get there.

(that last part was an ad hominem, for your reference, just in case you need it for your next session as OM Language Professor LOL)

LOLLOLLOL

You've just more and more proving your ignorance.

If you want to call me shallow instead of actually addressing my position. Go right ahead. But that's exactly what an ad hominem is. Silly hand waving trying to pretend you weren't doing that is not convincing anyone. It just shows how little integrity you have.

If you want to have some modicum of integrity (and provide a non fallacious argument), then actually address what I was saying.

So, do you have any integrity Beavis or are you happy to rest on an ad hominem?

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 12:56 PM
Youre impossible. You really think learning about the current world around you is a BAD THING? Holy hell.

Didn't say it was a bad thing. Just that it should never (ever) be a forced thing. Schools can teach outrageous things too. Any free individual by definition has to be free to walk away.

Which is why universal vouchers would be the best approach to education in general.

Archer81
06-27-2013, 12:57 PM
Well, most young people are ignorant about politics because they don't understand how it affects them, but Current Events stretches beyond politics.


Current events is the bridge into politics, IMO. And it should be something kids learn about. There is more to the world then Yourcity USA.


:Broncos:

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 01:00 PM
LOLLOLLOL

You've just more and more proving your ignorance.

If you want to call me shallow instead of actually addressing my position. Go right ahead. But that's exactly what an ad hominem is. Silly hand waving trying to pretend you weren't doing that is not convincing anyone. It just shows how little integrity you have.

If you want to have some modicum of integrity (and provide a non fallacious argument), then actually address what I was saying.

So, do you have any integrity Beavis or are you happy to rest on an ad hominem?

If anything is clear, it's that you have no clue what you're saying.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 01:01 PM
If anything is clear, it's that you have no clue what you're saying.

Uh huh. Keep trying bub. No one's convinced.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 01:08 PM
Didn't say it was a bad thing. Just that it should never (ever) be a forced thing. Schools can teach outrageous things too. Any free individual by definition has to be free to walk away.

Which is why universal vouchers would be the best approach to education in general.

Schools have to teach something! I think current events is just as important as most other subjects we learn.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 01:08 PM
Current events is the bridge into politics, IMO. And it should be something kids learn about. There is more to the world then Yourcity USA.


:Broncos:

Oh, absolutely. Its a Bridge into politics, geography, history, everything.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 01:20 PM
Schools have to teach something! I think current events is just as important as most other subjects we learn.

Let me reframe it for you in the context of our discussion.

Kids go to Catholic schools. Lots of them. And there are many other private schools, secular and faith-based. I only use Catholic schools because they're probably the largest group of like-minded private schools in the Country.

Anyway, the kids in these schools are undoubtedly already taught some version of current events. And just as undoubtedly, the selection of and perspective given on those events is different from what a State or Federal government would ever devise for a public classroom. The same principle would apply to sex education.

When I asked if you would ban Catholic schools, in effect I was asking whether you would allow any significant variation from what was described as a state-sanctioned "mandatory" syllabus.

You followed up by saying that current events and sex ed should indeed be 'mandatory' But maybe I misread what you meant, so let me follow up.

Are you saying that children should be forced to learn a state-defined course of education in sex ed and current events with no substantive variation allowed?

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 02:01 PM
Let me reframe it for you in the context of our discussion.

Kids go to Catholic schools. Lots of them. And there are many other private schools, secular and faith-based. I only use Catholic schools because they're probably the largest group of like-minded private schools in the Country.

Anyway, the kids in these schools are undoubtedly already taught some version of current events. And just as undoubtedly, the selection of and perspective given on those events is different from what a State or Federal government would ever devise for a public classroom. The same principle would apply to sex education.

When I asked if you would ban Catholic schools, in effect I was asking whether you would allow any significant variation from what was described as a state-sanctioned "mandatory" syllabus.

You followed up by saying that current events and sex ed should indeed be 'mandatory' But maybe I misread what you meant, so let me follow up.

Are you saying that children should be forced to learn a state-defined course of education in sex ed and current events with no substantive variation allowed?

I think our difference lies in your general distrust of authority and that the "state" is pushing a propaganda issue, which I don't believe. Every high school (or i assume the vast majority) teaches math, history, english, so on...and current events should be equally as important, ESPECIALLY considering our current society. Its a launching point for so many important topics. If you're afraid that a teacher might inject bias into his/her teachings, its a fair point, but he could do that on a multitude of subjects that already exist.

As far as sex ed goes, this is an issue that can help with very tangible problems such as teen pregnancy and STDs. In my high school, we had mandatory health and i found it very helpful.

BroncoInferno
06-27-2013, 02:04 PM
I am assuming that Beavis' concern with a current events course would be the potential for editorializing? Am I right? If so, I'd agree that an op-ed from Paul Krugman or David Frum would be out of place. But there is a way to teach current events sans opinion, no different than a history course.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 02:09 PM
I am assuming that Beavis' concern with a current events course would be the potential for editorializing? Am I right? If so, I'd agree that an op-ed from Paul Krugman or David Frum would be out of place. But there is a way to teach current events sans opinion, no different than a history course.

exactly.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 02:32 PM
I think our difference lies in your general distrust of authority and that the "state" is pushing a propaganda issue, which I don't believe. Every high school (or i assume the vast majority) teaches math, history, english, so on...and current events should be equally as important, ESPECIALLY considering our current society. Its a launching point for so many important topics. If you're afraid that a teacher might inject bias into his/her teachings, its a fair point, but he could do that on a multitude of subjects that already exist.

As far as sex ed goes, this is an issue that can help with very tangible problems such as teen pregnancy and STDs. In my high school, we had mandatory health and i found it very helpful.

Look at the history of the world, man. Its not a matter of if the state will engage in propaganda but when. And if the citizenry isn't free to walk away in good conscience, regardless of what's being taught, then we've lost everything.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 02:37 PM
Look at the history of the world, man. Its not a matter of if the state will engage in propaganda but when. And if the citizenry isn't free to walk away in good conscience, regardless of what's being taught, then we've lost everything.

You're being too paranoid. You could then qualify every single thing we learn as propaganda because elders feel that's whats best to teach. If thats the case, lets just abolish schools all together.

Archer81
06-27-2013, 02:40 PM
I think our difference lies in your general distrust of authority and that the "state" is pushing a propaganda issue, which I don't believe. Every high school (or i assume the vast majority) teaches math, history, english, so on...and current events should be equally as important, ESPECIALLY considering our current society. Its a launching point for so many important topics. If you're afraid that a teacher might inject bias into his/her teachings, its a fair point, but he could do that on a multitude of subjects that already exist.

As far as sex ed goes, this is an issue that can help with very tangible problems such as teen pregnancy and STDs. In my high school, we had mandatory health and i found it very helpful.

As Americans it is a near sacred cow to distrust our government. In the last 12 years we have been told its Patriotic to dissent (even if the sides dissenting have flipped), and that loving your country does not mean you must love the government. Its drilled into us. Our founding happened because of a corrupt government overstepping its bounds. We celebrate breaking away from that. Even our founders knew any government set up to serve the people would in time become corrupted.

So it is not outlandish to be suspicious of government pushed education programs. The potential for propaganda is ridiculously high. On the flip side of that, the federal government is the only one capable of ensuring things that need to be taught are taught. Its a highwire act, and most of the time government falls right off.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
06-27-2013, 03:04 PM
As Americans it is a near sacred cow to distrust our government. In the last 12 years we have been told its Patriotic to dissent (even if the sides dissenting have flipped), and that loving your country does not mean you must love the government. Its drilled into us. Our founding happened because of a corrupt government overstepping its bounds. We celebrate breaking away from that. Even our founders knew any government set up to serve the people would in time become corrupted.

So it is not outlandish to be suspicious of government pushed education programs. The potential for propaganda is ridiculously high. On the flip side of that, the federal government is the only one capable of ensuring things that need to be taught are taught. Its a highwire act, and most of the time government falls right off.

:Broncos:

Sure, but its also not healthy to be paranoid about it. I cant help but notice this belief that the government is some alien body that will stab us in the back at a moments notice. Government, as you said, can fall off the highwire, but it does plenty right as well. And, of course, there's some propaganda teachings (the way we were taught about communism in the 1980s, for example), but youre going to get bias from public or private education.

Current events is, to me, a necessary class so people arent ignorant to the world around them. I think know about Middle eastern countries/African countries/asian countries is more beneficial than random explorers that may or may not have found things 500 years ago. Sex Ed serves a very important role about setting facts straight. Its a science class.

TonyR
06-27-2013, 03:13 PM
Look at the history of the world, man. Its not a matter of if the state will engage in propaganda but when. And if the citizenry isn't free to walk away in good conscience, regardless of what's being taught, then we've lost everything.

What's funny is that you're probably far more likely to get bias in a Catholic school than in a public school. The curriculum in a Catholic school is going to lean "Catholic" and "conservative", as are most of the teachers and administrators. The curriculum in a public school is going to be secular, and the teachers and administrators are going to generally be representative of the community. If your paranoia is at a fever pitch you may want to consider home schooling. That way only you can be blamed for poisoning your children...