# Frustrating fact...



## alongman (Dec 11, 2011)

I added this in response to another posting, but felt it deserved its' own.

Number of states in the US that allow gay marriage - 5 (not including the District of Columbia)

Number of states that all FIRST cousins to marry - 26

Does anyone wonder why there are some problems in the US?


----------



## Jill (Dec 11, 2011)

I am a conservative who is in favor of equal rights for all committed couples and given my profession, I think I know some benefits of marriage that may not be readily apparent to all people. HOWEVER, I do not understand why gay rights seem to be "the" issue with so many people who are gay. Maybe I cannot understand, since I am not gay. Things like National Security and the economy are pretty high up on my list and impact us all regardless of sexual orientation. It almost feels like one more divider. Our president's on going class and racial warfare, the liberal media bias, and the ignorance of the Occupy movement, ETC. are just really adding up and creating an atmosphere of us vs. them (whoever us / them may be depends on who you ask) and that was not the case a few years ago. I think race, sexual and class relations have had a huge setback in recent years.


----------



## alongman (Dec 11, 2011)

Jill said:


> I am a conservative who is in favor of equal rights for all committed couples and given my profession, I think I know some benefits of marriage that may not be readily apparent to all people. HOWEVER, I do not understand why gay rights seem to be "the" issue with so many people who are gay. Maybe I cannot understand, since I am not gay. Things like National Security and the economy are pretty high up on my list and impact us all regardless of sexual preference. It almost feels like one more divider. Our president's on going class and racial warfare, the liberal media bias, and the ignorance of the Occupy movement, ETC. are just really adding up and creating an atmosphere of us vs. them (whoever us / them may be depends on who you ask) and that was not the case a few years ago. I think race, sexual and class relations have had a huge setback in recent years.


Jill I definitely agree with you that there are much larger issues that are facing our country than THIS one, but it is a BIG one to the people who live it daily. The fact that my partner cannot, at some places of employment, be recognized nor included on my insurance (forcing separate insurance plans); the fact that in the state in which I live a gay couple cannot adopt a child - they must be adopted by one or the other parent and even then via private adoption agencies, not the public adoption agencies; the fact that if my partner were injured or ill and not able to make medical decisions for himself, his family could PREVENT me from seeing or being included in those decision; the fact that we pay additional taxes to the government (as again, we have to file separately as opposed to as a couple) to fund some of the other happenings in this world. I could go on and on.

My point is this, eliminate this "divider". Let all people really be able to experience the joys of both marriage (and unfortunately divorce) in a legal sense. Maybe the country would be less divided and we could all rally behind a leader if the leaders themselves were not dividing their potential support.

Edited to add: I think each of us picks our "issue" to stand on a soapbox about. The gay community, as a whole, I think IS concerned about other issues as well. When candidates debate my sexuality and it's ethicality and legality, then it is our politicians who are putting this issue fore-front when in reality, equal should be equal.

Burn away.....


----------



## Jill (Dec 11, 2011)

I hear you, Adam.


----------



## alongman (Dec 11, 2011)

Jill said:


> I hear you, Adam.


Run for President - you have my vote Jill!


----------



## Jill (Dec 11, 2011)

Oh man, I so don't play well enough with others to ever consider it


----------



## ohmt (Dec 11, 2011)

I am with you 100% Adam! I always tell my very conservative anti gay marriage boyfriend, if he would mind his own business, it wouldn't even be a problem. If God has a problem with it, let God deal with it when those people pass. It is none of his business as it does not hurt him or others. I think gay couples should have every single right that a heterosexual couple should have. I have had many arguments with people, so you can flame me all you want, but I have heard all of the reasonings behind why an anti gay marriage person feels the way they feel, and I still don't get it. Actually, I think they don't get it, but that's just me and you can take my 'as liberal as they come' views as you like





And here is a speech that everyone should listen to (at the bottom of the page)

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/12/watch-hillary-clintons-speech-declaring-gay-rights-are-human-rights/45842/


----------



## barnbum (Dec 11, 2011)

First cousins = man and woman. To me that doesn't compare with gay marriage the way you're comparing it. They are not in the same category--in my head. My head can do funny things though.


----------



## ohmt (Dec 11, 2011)

The fact that people are ok with an incestual marriage, but not ok with gay marriage is the point, and I think it's a really good one.


----------



## alongman (Dec 11, 2011)

ohmt said:


> The fact that people are ok with an incestual marriage, but not ok with gay marriage is the point, and I think it's a really good one.


Right! Maybe some people took the phrase "Love thy Brother" too literally.........


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Dec 11, 2011)

I fully agree and find it shameful totally shameful.


----------



## ErikaS. (Dec 11, 2011)

I worked in a grocery store where the Floral Manager was a gay man. He wore the wackiest hats for holidays, especially Christmas. One day he had a heart attack at work and his partner of 30 years(!) wasn't allowed to visit him in ICU because he wasn't "family". He died that day and a few days later his partner took his own life. I am for gay marriage, gay rights, but I may not see it here in NE for a very long time. I hope my gay brother moves to a state that recognizes gay people as equal to straight folks under the law.


----------



## alongman (Dec 11, 2011)

So sad.


----------



## Jill (Dec 11, 2011)

That is awful


----------



## Ashley (Dec 12, 2011)

Adam you just need to find a female to help you out, then whoever isnt the biological father can do a second parent adoptsion. It runs about 1800 as of two years ago.

All things aside I have to agree with you.


----------



## LindaL (Dec 13, 2011)

A lot of straight people (not all...just to clarify) "see" gay people fight for rights as if we should get "special" rights, when that is not the case at all. We just want the SAME rights of marriage as heterosexual couples have...nothing more.

Oregon (where Deb and I became legal "domestic partners") is close, but not quite in giving those rights to gay couples. I just wish that the rights (LEGALLY) we have there would transfer over so to speak to Florida where we now live, but they don't, so basically what we have is a useless piece of paper as far as Florida is concerned. Like ErikaS said above, if one of us were to be in the hospital and not be able to voice our desire to have our partner visit, the hospital could keep our partner away.

I feel like Deb and I are more married than a lot of "legally" married people are...

The whole "man and woman" thing doesn't even fly for me, since many married straight couple choose not to have children...so getting married wasn't about "procreation".

OK, off my soap box for now...





Edited to add...

(Got off my soap box rather abruptly earlier, because there was a loose horse...not mine...outside that I needed to help catch...



lol)


----------



## heartkranch (Dec 13, 2011)

I think people so have the benefits that man and women get. If god had a problem then he wouldn't let it cross our minds that we could be gay.

Smh one small thing that could be given to the people and on to more things.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Dec 13, 2011)

Funny no one seems to have a problem with serial killers , petifiles, rapists all getting married while in jail convicted of these crimes and having legal rights

kinda a sad state for our country when we feel loving same sex couples are somehow not god worthy of marriage but some piece of garbage who killed people, raped children or brutalized victims somehow is.. and that them getting married does not do anything to hurt the sanctity of marriage... it is all like some sick sad joke


----------



## Jill (Dec 13, 2011)

I actually do have a problem with what you outlined above, Lisa!


----------



## bonloubri (Dec 13, 2011)

LindaL.....I understand what you are saying about Florida not recognizing a piece of paper from Oregon. I am straight but I have some very good friends who are not. Some day there will probably be more rights for gay partners. Until then could there be some legal form drawn up by an attorney to at least give one the permission to act on behalf of the other partner as "family" so they couldn't be denied visitation at the hospital etc? Also, designated to arrange funeral when the time came.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Dec 13, 2011)

LOL Jill I guess I should not have said no one and said a majority do not seem to be trying to deny them rights

I figured you would not be ok with that kinda know you better then that after all these years


----------



## Jill (Dec 13, 2011)

Yeah... Depending on the offense, prettymuch a cage and stale food is good enough IMO.


----------



## Matt73 (Dec 13, 2011)

While I love the United States (and Canada and many other countries wouldn't be the countries they are without you...and vice versa), the hypocrisy surrounding so many issues there is insane. Just move to Canada



(gay marriage is legal here).


----------



## LindaL (Dec 14, 2011)

bonloubri said:


> LindaL.....I understand what you are saying about Florida not recognizing a piece of paper from Oregon. I am straight but I have some very good friends who are not. Some day there will probably be more rights for gay partners. Until then could there be some legal form drawn up by an attorney to at least give one the permission to act on behalf of the other partner as "family" so they couldn't be denied visitation at the hospital etc? Also, designated to arrange funeral when the time came.


Yes, we plan to do that. Thanks for the reminder...I do have a will, a living will and a DNR that I had done before Deb and I were together, but obviously it needs to be updated. My sister is my main "person" and she is VERY accepting of Deb as part of the family, so would have no problem with her being involved in anything, but we still want to put it in black and white and vice versa for Deb who has family, but she does NOT speak to them, so I am her family. It would be VERY bad if Deb were to die...her family would NOT let me be involved.





I do want to say, tho, that while it is not "mandatory" for employers in Florida to accept domestic partners as a 2nd person on health insurance, the hospital where Deb works has insurance that DOES! So, we got lucky there!


----------



## bonloubri (Dec 14, 2011)

Sometimes in emergency situations family can put a lot of pressure on a person such as your sister. I would be getting something legal done so there would be no question. Also, some other friends had an attorney drawn up a trust. I am not sure just how that works but supposedly it was better than wills. You might want to check into that.


----------



## Flying minis (Dec 14, 2011)

I truly believe that in the next generation - my son's generation - the "issue" over gay marriage will be past. I see so much more acceptance and tolerance in his generation, that I think the pressure will be brought to bear on lawmakers, and gay marriage will be allowed throughout the US. Maybe I'm just an optimist : ) But as the mother of a 16 year old gay young man, I see the majority of kids his age really don't care if he's gay or straight, and don't have issues with gay marriage. Unfortunately, I don't know that it will happen until his generation is in political power, his is the first generation that I see widespread acceptance of it.

Having said that though, to me, what it will take is for those who agree with making gay marriage legal to start being as vocal as those who don't. Even now, in most polls, the majority of people (sometimes a slim majority, granted, depending on the poll) agree with making gay marriage legal; unfortunately, they don't speak up like those who are in opposition. I listen to my son talk about someday getting married, and while it makes me glad that he can even conceive it (a generation ago, there would have been no question - a young gay man then would NEVER have thought of being able to marry), it also makes me sad that others will decide if he is able to marry.

And for anyone who gives the "religious" viewpoint that god meant marriage to be between a man and woman - here's my standard response which at least sometimes makes them think - Even if I accept that your interpretation of Christianity forbids gay marriage, if we're going to base marriage laws on Christian religious teaching, then why do we let atheists marry? You can't have both - either you let only Christians who agree with your theology marry (and have a non-secular religion run state - the "Christian" version of Sharia law) or you let anyone who can give informed consent marry.


----------



## Jill (Dec 14, 2011)

I am reading Thw Help now and this morning while getting ready, I thought what if black people couldn't marry? No one chooses their color just as no one chooses to be straight or gay. Like I said, I've always supported equal rights for all couples, but that was a new "oh wow" moment for me this morning in terms of importance.


----------



## LindaL (Dec 14, 2011)

bonloubri said:


> Sometimes in emergency situations family can put a lot of pressure on a person such as your sister. I would be getting something legal done so there would be no question. Also, some other friends had an attorney drawn up a trust. I am not sure just how that works but supposedly it was better than wills. You might want to check into that.


I should have added that my whole family accepts Deb as part of our family, but yes, there are things that Deb knows *I* want done that my family may fight her on (no funeral, no casket, no burial)...so having it put in Deb's name in my directive (I think that's the correct term?) would make it her decision on what to have done with my body afterwards...HOPEFULLY!


----------



## sfmini (Dec 14, 2011)

Yes, you can get lots of pieces of legal papers in place that might protect your wishes and rights if people choose to honor them, but what is so wrong with giving same sex couples the same rights as hetero couples?

For that matter, allow plural marriage if that is what makes people happy, what harm are they doing to others? None that I can see, they are living their lives, feeling fulfilled, productive members of society, live and let live, live as you believe you should live and stop judging other people for living their lives as they see fit.

Don't label me as gay because I am single, I am single because I choose to be, never met the right man and will stay single unless the right man comes along.

As I see it, this country has much bigger issues to be working on.

Ok republican party, I hear you are anti health care reform, but what I don't hear is what your solution is to the health care problems in this country. Yes the bill isn't perfect and needs work, but what is the counter proposal? We sure need something because nothing is not an option. I find it funny that the same people who don't bat an eye and even support mandatory car insurance get hysterical at mandatory health insurance. Ok, so if you don't want health insurance, then I want it to be legal to boot you out the door and refuse to give you any health care.

oooo, major rant and ot, sorry.


----------



## ohmt (Dec 14, 2011)

After working at a health clinic for many years, I have seen first hand the problems with insurance (and having to deal with the insurance companies) and no insurance, and from hundreds of different people's sides. It is heartbreaking and I very much agree with you sfmini.

I also agree with you Flying Minis. My age group (20's) is almost there with your son's. So much more accepting than older generations. It makes me very excited for our future


----------



## sfmini (Dec 14, 2011)

I am in the older generation, mid 50's so even us oldesters are are starting to see the light.

I am one of those who is boycotting Lowes while trying very hard not to strangle my roomate's husband and my brother who just get nuts over stuff like the show All American Muslim and don't understand when I get peeved off at them for sending me junk that is anti Muslim and oh, so ignorant. Seems they forget my long term relationship with a Muslim and the fact that I have many Muslim friends and a Muslim boss and that I feel they are the nicest people you would ever want to know.

The Koran like the Bible is open to interpretation and the wording can be twisted to suit the desires of any nutcase like those we are fighting now, and the nutcase called Hitler that we fought years ago. Funny how we don't consider Germans to be the evil people that Muslims are thought of today.

I once asked a Libyan guy I was dating why he didn't just stay in the US instead of returning home once he got his degree and he told me they would torture and kill his family if he didn't. It wasn't his religion that was doing that, it was the nutcases running the country using Allah as a shield.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Dec 14, 2011)

SFMINI I so agree with you. SO much ignorance and rightousnous in this world.

Amazing how stupid people are willing to look and act all to try and appear right


----------



## alongman (Dec 14, 2011)

It is so nice to see what an open-minded group of "horse" friends that are out there. Maybe we just need to enforce gelding of politicians to help improve their attitude in dealing with others in the herd.


----------



## Flying minis (Dec 14, 2011)

alongman said:


> It is so nice to see what an open-minded group of "horse" friends that are out there.



I have to tell you Adam, that's one of the reasons we have gotten into the mini shows more - it's hard enough for my son being a young gay man, but the folks at the mini shows are so wonderful! They accept him and like him and there is no judging (other than in the ring of course!).


----------



## sfmini (Dec 14, 2011)

My horsey friends and I have a saying about the horsey men which is kind of a bummer for us single girls, all the good ones are either married or gay. I find that to be true.


----------



## maestoso (Dec 25, 2011)

I don't frequent the back porch much but I am glad to have come across this thread...thank you, Adam.

And I disagree with both Adam and Jill. Personally, I DON'T think there is a bigger issue than equal rights right now. Equal rights is a much larger issue than gay rights, it's just that gay rights, at the moment, are at the forefront of equal rights. But before this it has been several other issues...rights for women, rights for African Americans, the list goes on.

Why are gays so passionate about this issue when there are so many other issues to consider? It is not because we are gay or because we want to marry. It is because people are equally passionate about denying "us" these rights. If people didn't care so much, we probably wouldn't either. Then again, if people weren't so worried about it, we would probably have the right already.

This is not about religion or beliefs...people need to get that out of their heads. This is about equal rights that are owed to all American citizens. Equal rights are not a privilege, they are RIGHTS. We are people, like anyone else is a person. We work, we pay taxes, we must abide by the same rules and be as responsible as any straight citizen yet we do not have the same rights? Hello? Is anyone home up there?

I hate the religious argument. America was founded on Christian morals and a marriage is between a man and a woman blah blah blah. This argument is a mask to hide what is really going on. If it really was about religion, than the right to marriage would be denied to all known atheists, pagans, agnostics, Jews, Jahovas Witnesses, etc etc etc. But it is the gays that are targeted here, when there are plenty of other non Christians who could be targeted.

The whole concept is as ridiculous as telling people with blonde hair that they can't marry, and anyone who can't see it for that is too stubborn, too ignorant, or too brainwashed. Gay is not contagious, by the way, in case there was confusion. Also, nobody is forcing you to attend a gay wedding. OH! And by the way, the percentage of gays on welfare is FAR less than the percentage of straight people on welfare. The percentage of gay prisoners is FAR less than the percentage of straight prisoners. Honestly, if I wanted to claim that gays were, in general, better people, I would have plenty of evidence to support that. BUT, that is not my claim. My claim is that we are people, who deserve the SAME rights as any other people.


----------



## MyBarakah (Dec 25, 2011)

WOw! That was a very profound GREAT post Matt! I'm not gay.. But I show with Adam & his partner and also around others that are gay.. And by the way! Why are you gay guys SO DANG GOOD LOOKING! Lol!





But you guys are really super nice & great!

But I agree with what Matt just wrote.. that kinda sums it up!

I don't post allot on here... but just had to comment!


----------



## wildoak (Dec 26, 2011)

> Until then could there be some legal form drawn up by an attorney to at least give one the permission to act on behalf of the other partner as "family" so they couldn't be denied visitation at the hospital etc? Also, designated to arrange funeral when the time came.


Exactly. Doesn't solve the larger issue, but should help for the short term. Just be sure it is done by a knowledgeable lawyer and complies with laws in your particular state.

Jan


----------



## Bess Kelly (Dec 26, 2011)

Several of my long time best friends are gay. I am not, so what!? We did not hold that against one another



While all of the "equal" issues are being considered, let's add this one ---- similar to the gay partners who can't/don't have decision making and/or benefits shared --- for those who are NOT married and happily co-habitating.

IF you live in a State that has "common law marriage" laws (hetero partners only), you have the same rights as if you had done the "I do" route. Live in a State where you do not have "common law marriage" and you are still just friends. The Social Security benefits disappear, or not, depending on this fact; also, the Federal Gov't pensions, sharing of health insurance, decisions on illness care, funeral arrangements........etc. THAT isn't fair either. How can the feds feel that paying out is fair based solely on a State law? They sure want everyone to pay fed taxes in every State!

Maybe we could work on that unfairness, also.





I mean why should NC people get SS benefits and VA residents not if couples lived and presented as H/W for same length of time??

There is a great deal of conflict over "equal" situations....for many.


----------



## Sonya (Dec 26, 2011)

I am curious as to what you all think about Polygamy/Polyandry in regards to rights of marriage. Are they being treated equally? ex: should a polygamist be able to have his 3 wives under his insurance plan?

For the record, I am for gay marriage and rights in regard. So technically I should also be for equality of marriage benefits for the polygamist right? So where is the line drawn and why?

Just something to ponder.


----------



## maestoso (Dec 26, 2011)

The line should not be drawn at sexual orientation, that is for sure. I do believe that marriage should be between 2 people. Pologimy is a totally different issue. I also don't necessarily agree (though I am not sure I disagree either...) about the common law marriage. The point is that you have the right to marry. Weather you do or not, is your choice. Gays don't have the choice.

I see common law marriage as almost opening up a can of worms. It essentially allows to people to take advantage of marriage benefits when it suits them, but not suffer the consequences of divorce when they decide to separate. Marriage is a comittment, part of me believes you should make that commitment legally before you receive the benefits.

That said, it's not the same. Domestic partners(boy and girl) are not being denied any rights that they couldnt get if they wanted them. And that is the point, because gays, no matter how committed, are.

You don't want me to marry? Ok... Then I'd like to pay less taxes, since I don't receive all the benefits that other citizens do. How does everyone feel about that? That's what I thought.... It's like the government is having their cake and eating it too.... They get my money but don't give me my right. The idea of taking away rights from women would be obsurd, right? This is EXACTLY the same thing. Any state that doesn't allow gay marriage, is considering gays second class citizens.


----------



## Jill (Dec 26, 2011)

Another thing to ponder actually is why any marriage should be government sanctioned in the first place... or maybe flip that, why government should be the source of marriage validation. That is a little frightening when you look at it in a certain light.

I am in favor of marriage being an option for all committed couples, like I've always said, but still, it is not at the top of my agenda when it comes to political priorities.


----------



## barnbum (Dec 26, 2011)

maestoso said:


> This is not about religion or beliefs...people need to get that out of their heads. This is about equal rights that are owed to all American citizens. Equal rights are not a privilege, they are RIGHTS. We are people, like anyone else is a person. We work, we pay taxes, we must abide by the same rules and be as responsible as any straight citizen yet we do not have the same rights? Hello? Is anyone home up there?
> 
> I hate the religious argument. America was founded on Christian morals and a marriage is between a man and a woman blah blah blah. This argument is a mask to hide what is really going on. If it really was about religion, than the right to marriage would be denied to all known atheists, pagans, agnostics, Jews, Jahovas Witnesses, etc etc etc. But it is the gays that are targeted here, when there are plenty of other non Christians who could be targeted.


I disagree on the "blah blah blah." Christians follow the Bible and it's teachings. To do otherwise would be hypocrisy. And--it's 100% true that our country was founded on Christian morals. All that is secure in my head and I'm always home.


----------



## maestoso (Dec 26, 2011)

Barnbum, I don't argue your points. My problem comes in when religious founding becomes the basis of the argument against gay marriage. As I stated, if this were in fact true, other non-christians would be as equally targeted, and they are not. You or any other Christian cannot reasonably argue that point. When is the last time you heard anyone talking out against marriage among atheists? That's right, you haven't. To make the religious argument a valid one, the government would be targeted anyone but Christians when it comes to marriage rights, since they are not, we are left to believe that there is something else there. And because they cannot isolate that "something else" and manipulate it into an argument that makes sense, we can only assume one of two things. One; they know their argument is ridiculous and unconstitutional and therefor too embarrassed to be honest about it, or two: they really don't know. Someone who argues without knowing why is someone who was convinced to believe something, not someone who has come to their own belief, and personally, I don't want anyone in "charge" who cannot make their own decisions based on their own beliefs that they have developed through education, understanding, and observation.

America cannot claim to be a democracy, and "free" nation when they are offering rights to some citizens and not others, it is as simple as that. No reasonable person could argue this. Murderers, drug addicts, child molesters, women who have lived their lives on welfare, thieves....... all of these people are granted marriage rights. And yet because I am gay I cannot get married. Really? I'm not asking you to justify your religion, that is personal choice. But America does not enforce religion, therefor the rights they choose to offer should not be dependent on them.

I teach. Several of my students come in reeking of cigarette smoke. Some barely see their mothers because they constantly spend the night at their current boyfriends home. I have a student who has 4 siblings by 4 different fathers. Third graders who have been offered alcohol by their straight married parents. But we wouldn't want a responsible gay couple to get married or God forbid, adopt a child.

To deny these simple facts....to deny this logic.... is simply ridiculous. Brainwashed. Again, this is not about religion. If I chose to move to a country who required its citizens to practice a certain religion that did not condone homosexuality, than all of the religious arguments would make perfect sense, and how dare I expect privileges that are against the rules a government has so clearly laid out. But since that is not the case, the arguments are not valid. Right now, when it comes to rights, freedom, equality... American government is filled with hypocrites.


----------



## weebiscuit (Dec 27, 2011)

barnbum said:


> I disagree on the "blah blah blah." Christians follow the Bible and it's teachings. To do otherwise would be hypocrisy. And--it's 100% true that our country was founded on Christian morals. All that is secure in my head and I'm always home.


An understanding of US history would show that many of our "founding fathers," such as Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Monroe, Washington, and Adams, et.al., were Deists. Some deists held Jesus in high regard but did not believe he was "divine." Just a man. (Check out "Jefferson's Bible" by Thomas Jefferson). At any rate, yes, there were "biblical" principles at hand when our nation was founded, as most of the Deists felt that the Bible and the teachings of Jesus were worthy considerations, but that doesn't mean these men were "christians" in the sense that they believed Jesus was the son of God. They thought he made good sense, just like people think Buddha made good sense, but no one considers him "god."

What bothers me about all this denial of equal rights for the gay community is that our legal system is punishing an entire group of people for their basic biology. It's as if are laws are made with the idea that one "chooses" to be homosexual and can therefore choose not to be, so why give them the rights heterosexuals have, because they can just "decide" to not be gay and then have their "rights" as the rest of us do. Homosexuality is simply not a "choice," but a fact of life, yet we allow our laws to discriminate against people who were born "differently" than straight people.

I feel that this issue of equal rights for gays is exactly where the civil rights struggle our African Americans went through before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The gay community will surely someday get their own "civil rights act" but one would think that in a nation which promises justice and equality for all that right should be a given.

The issue of felons being treated more fairly than our gay community is something that anyone with a lick of common sense should be upset with. But take it down a notch.... even animals are accorded more protection under the law than our gay citizens! Shoot a deer out of season and you are stripped of ALL your firearms, you pay a HUGE fine, and even face possible jail time. Abuse a dog, cat, or other domestic animal and face possible jail time. We are devoting a lot of attention to felons and animals while leaving our gay neighbors helpless and UNprotected under the law.


----------



## Jill (Dec 27, 2011)

maestoso said:


> America cannot claim to be a democracy...


She doesn't. The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy.


----------



## alongman (Dec 27, 2011)

I'm so happy to see all the discussion on this topic. It makes me even more upset today, though, as I just found out that one of my second cousins is pregnant and "looking at getting rid of the kid" as we're searching desperately for a surrogate to have a child or to adopt. It makes me so angry.

To touch on the religion aspect - I was raised in a Christian household and went to church regularly. My recollection was that everyone, despite differences, should be treated equally. After paging through the Bible today, there are several stories about forgiveness, treating neighbors fairly, respect. I'm just curious where these stories have been lost in some of todays' arguements.

If you want to go back to the founding fathers and their beliefs, that might also be an interesting topic as a fair amount of our forefathers "had male companions". Alexander Hamilton had a partner, John Laurens, to whom he wrote many passionate letters describing their relationship. If you care for a good read, look at them. It's sad when 200 years ago, our leading politicians seemed to recognize that there were homosexuals and heterosexuals, yet looked instead at the fact that they were productive members of society.

This is a link describing George Washingtons' actions towards gays - even though not legal.

http://www.bilerico.com/2011/10/george_washington_gay-friendly_father_of_our_count.php


----------



## StacyRz (Dec 27, 2011)

I am very much for same-sex marriages. I'm originally from Massachusetts and was delighted when my uncle and also a second cousin were both able to marry their long time partners.

It really saddens me that there are so many people that are opposed to it. I just don't understand _why_. Every straight person I have discussed this topic with always uses the religion card as their reason. My guess is it's an excuse for themselves being uncomfortable with homosexuality, because ALL of them are sinners in one way or another. Hypocrites.

I agree though, that this next generation is much more open minded and even if I don't live to see it, I think the laws in the U.S. are going to change.


----------



## StacyRz (Dec 27, 2011)

Oh Adam,

I am so sorry. I can't imagine how much that must anger and hurt you. I truly hope that you find a surrogate soon.

Hugs


----------



## maestoso (Dec 27, 2011)

Jill, I'm sure that you don't see it as the biggest issue because you are not gay. I wonder if things were flipped, and all of a sudden Virginia did not recognize your marriage and you lost all benefits associate with that marriage, if you you would still feel that it is not the biggest issue. If you can make that claim here, I would guess that you are simply being stubborn and lying to yourself... Judging by the way you right your posts here on a daily basis, I'm sure that you would have plenty to say about it, and it would be a big deal to you.

When it comes down to it, legalizing gay marriage means nothing to you one way or the other, so why should you consider it a big deal? To wonder why "we" consider it the most important issue, well, I just don't get how you couldn't understand that. Seems like a no brainer to me. It's equal rights. If the government decided to take away rights for all African Americans, would you think that issue should take a back seat to our current economical issues? It is the same thing, the exact same thing. If you can honestly say that, then youre right, it's a good thing you don't run for president, because a lot of people wouldn't like you.


----------



## maestoso (Dec 27, 2011)

Adam... why not adopt your cousins baby? I've heard of a lot of people adopting family members because of young pregnancies or unwanted pregnancies...... It would be a much less expensive route than an adoption agency or surrogacy...


----------



## Jill (Dec 28, 2011)

maestoso said:


> Jill, I'm sure that you don't see it as the biggest issue because you are not gay.,,,


Matt, I can promise you that I'm really very much up to speed with my opinions, and I am sure my being straight is not why National Security and the Economy are at the top of my list of political concerns. Ponder gay rights a few years down the road if our National Security continues its weakening path...


----------



## alongman (Dec 28, 2011)

maestoso said:


> Adam... why not adopt your cousins baby? I've heard of a lot of people adopting family members because of young pregnancies or unwanted pregnancies...... It would be a much less expensive route than an adoption agency or surrogacy...


She is not going to carry the baby to term is my understanding.


----------



## alongman (Dec 28, 2011)

Jill said:


> Matt, I can promise you that I'm really very much up to speed with my opinions, and I am sure my being straight is not why National Security and the Economy are at the top of my list of political concerns. Ponder gay rights a few years down the road if our National Security continues its weakening path...


Our National Security has been threatened since the beginning of the United States - it was under attack during the Civil War (subsequently we seen the slaves freed), and has continued to be under attack including 9/11. I see National Security and equal rights as two separate issues - the reason we are under attack from X country or party is not because (at least solely) that there are homosexuals in America, but because our country has chosen to be involved in OTHER countries National Security. I don't walk into someone elses living room and try to fix their family problems - it's not my place. But, if I add a title like Senator or President to my name, then I guess it is completely within my power to stick my fingers in. I do agree that there are some countries who are devising plans of attack and that is why we are involved, BUT would they really be all that concerned about the US if we had just minded our own business initially? Personally, I believe that we should address problems in our own country for one month, one month, then address problems (or what we see as problems) in other countries. If we focused our energy on feeding our own starving mouths (15.1% of people live in poverty in the US according to the most recent census), if we focused on fixing our own economy, if we focused on supplying ourselves with renewable resources instead of relying solely on nations we are warring against, if we fixed our government.....what would the World be like? Do you think that the Founding Fathers cared about what was happening in Iraq? NO! They wanted to create a country FREE OF ANOTHER......

According to facts I found on the US government website, there are currently 196 known countries in the World (this changes regularly). Of those, the US has military presence in 150! REALLY?! So nearly 3/4 of the countries in the World we feel the need to "control" or at least have a presence in saying "if it doesn't go well, we will take it over." Hmmmmm......

I do agree with Matts' statements that, although people may support gay rights and be straight, it isn't QUITE the same. My parents definitely support me and my lifestyle, but they can NEVER understand what it would feel like to not be able to see their spouse in the hospital, they cannot understand why they wouldn't be allowed to adopt simply based on who they are, they cannot understand what it would feel like to have a politician or ANYONE for that matter tell them that it is WRONG to love the person they love. That is the hurdle that we need to address simultaneously with National Security and other matters.


----------



## maestoso (Dec 28, 2011)

Jill, I noticed you didn't answer my other questions...

What would your reaction be today, if Virginia changed, and your marriage was no longer valid and you lost all the benefits that went along with that...simply because they didn't want you to have that right. Based on your postings, I am sure your reaction would be, "No big deal, we have bigger things to worry about..."

Really? Doubt it.


----------



## shadowpaints (Dec 28, 2011)

i am , and always will be for gay marriage. my sister, who lives in oregon with her partener were able to get their

Domestic partenership' . i know that they were happy to get it, and i am happy for them. living here in idaho, i know of several couples that cannot get married.

i believe that love is love, it doesnt matter wether you love the same sex or opposite sex. every single couple in this country should be able to be fully married. i also believe that adoption should be allowed for gay people also, in any state. imagine how many children would be adopted??i dont see why so many are so against it. every one should have the right to marry and divorce.

we love my sisters wife, she is wonderful.

i too love this group, for being able to talk about something that can be so sensitive!!

hugs adam, your baby is out there, i will pray that you will find a way soon!


----------



## ohmt (Dec 28, 2011)

Hugs to you Adam-i very much hope that you get your baby soon!

Now, this is one of my very favorite responses to an anti-gay comment. It's a gay couple with their two young daughters that talk to the tea party affiliated Michigan Mayor that made the very rude comments on facebook regarding gay marriage in New York. The couple's response is beautiful.

I am on my phone so can't do the fancy link stuff -go to this link and click on the video: http://sayitaintsoalready.com/2011/12/13/lesbian-couple-confronts-troy-michigan-mayor-over-hateful-anti-gay-remarks/


----------



## Higgs Boson (Dec 28, 2011)

We are a predominately Christian Nation and as Christians then we must obey and respect Gods word. It is Gods word and the Holy Bible that is the basis of America's view of homosexuality. We cannot choose what we want to believe and what we don't to that would be to say that God is wrong how can we as mere humans ever say that God is wrong!

 

God says homosexuality is an abomination. God is never wrong. Therefore all Christians must feel this way. 

 

"The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God.

 

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. *The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.*

 

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known".


----------



## ohmt (Dec 28, 2011)

The bible says a lot of things Higgs-if you are going to be so adamant about insisting the homosexuality being an abomination because the bible says so, then I hope you follow EVERYTHING the bible says. I can look up some of the ridiculous things it says and post it for you, but surely since you are so intent on following everything the bible says, then you have it memorized. There are a few regarding women when they are on their periods that are especially humorous-will you please refresh my memory as to what the bible says about that?

Are you against fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners getting married too then? Do you believe all homosexuals should be executed? Because according to what you just posted, you do. Homosexuals getting married is absolutely none of your business. It is between homosexuals and God. Since you are obviously not gay then you can worry about other things-like being judgmental. I wonder if there is anything in the bible about being judgmental and treating everyone with kindness and how you wish to be treated?

Now, I am going to go out and play with my horses. My beautiful horses who love everyone good no matter what color, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. No wonder I would rather spend my time with them than people....

Hugs to all of the LGBT people on this forum. It's what's in your heart and your actions that matter, nothing else.


----------



## shadowpaints (Dec 28, 2011)

ohmt said:


> The bible says a lot of things Higgs-if you are going to be so adamant about insisting the homosexuality being an abomination because the bible says so, then I hope you follow EVERYTHING the bible says. I can look up some of the ridiculous things it says and post it for you, but surely since you are so intent on following everything the bible says, then you have it memorized. There are a few regarding women when they are on their periods that are especially humorous-will you please refresh my memory as to what the bible says about that?
> 
> Are you against fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners getting married too then? Do you believe all homosexuals should be executed? Because according to what you just posted, you do. Homosexuals getting married is absolutely none of your business. It is between homosexuals and God. Since you are obviously not gay then you can worry about other things-like being judgmental. I wonder if there is anything in the bible about being judgmental and treating everyone with kindness and how you wish to be treated?
> 
> ...


oh man! where is the like button when you need it!!



great response!


----------



## susanne (Dec 28, 2011)

So many, when faced with conundrums, ponder "What would Jesus do?"

I have no doubt that Jesus would welcome gays and lesbians with open arms and reject those spewing hatred.

As for God telling us that homosexuality is an abomination, that is man's interpretation of what they think God would want. How could your "loving god" would be so hateful?

My parents taught me what is right and what is wrong and to act according to my conscience -- to think for myself and not according to what someone TELLS me to think. At best, I tend to side with the Deists regarding Jesus' supernatural abilities, but he was the ultimate teacher and example of humanity, love and compassion. It's amazing, however, how many so-called people throughout history call themselves Christians yet ignore what he was truly about.

Adam, I hope you find your baby soon. Matt, I so agree with what you've written here, including, sadly, the idea that those of us who are straight never really understanding. All we can do is try, but too many won't even do that.

As for our priorities regarding human rights vs. national security, if we do not fight for everyone's civil rights, then what good is national security? We would be no better than those against whom we're fighting.


----------



## shadowpaints (Dec 28, 2011)

susanne said:


> So many, when faced with conundrums, ponder "What would Jesus do?"
> 
> I have no doubt that Jesus would welcome gays and lesbians with open arms and reject those spewing hatred.
> 
> ...


----------



## StacyRz (Dec 28, 2011)

_"fracture for fracture, __eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him." _

This is in the Bible too...Are you saying you believe this and it is un-Christian to disagree because it is God's word?

Slavery was also not frowned upon...


----------



## Jill (Dec 28, 2011)

Adam -- remember, I'm one of the ones who is actually for gay marriage rights. It's just not my primary political concern.

Matt -- no I'm not going to spend the time to go through your post and address you point by point. Why would I? You and I haven't ever agreed about anything else before to the best of my recollection.. However, if you're going to argue for gay marriage, why bother to pick a "fight" about it with someone who *supports* it?





My perspective on it is we will have very few rights, nor an economy to fret about, if our National Security is not strong. Unless we're unexpectedly conquered by Canada, I don't see a bright future for gay rights in this country without a strong National Defense... I mean, come on now → → → _How tolerant are our Nation's enemies when it comes to gays?_ ................................ !!!


----------



## tagalong (Dec 28, 2011)

Gee* Higgs*.... first, if you are such a Bible-thumping fellow demanding that we must follow all the rules God gave us in the Old Testament... you are in big trouble - and likely a sinner many times over. You cannot pick and choose which ones you are going to adhere to.

For instance... I will quote someone who said it much better than I could... and add to it a bit..



> When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? And what about burn bans?
> I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
> 
> I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24.
> ...


----------



## Flying minis (Dec 28, 2011)

Matt, I agree with you that those of us who are straight cannot ever understand what it feels like for same sex couples not to be able to marry. There is though another piece, that many of us DO feel, the frustration and deep sorrow knowing our gay children cannot marry. My 16 year old son dreams of finding the right person and marrying one day. . . my heart aches for him, that he may not be able to do so, because he is gay. THAT is my motivation in getting laws changed to allow same sex marriages. That pain is reserved for those of us with gay children (along with a host of other worries and concerns that parents of straight children NEVER have to even consider).


----------



## Ashley (Dec 28, 2011)

As a gay person myself I have no desire to ever get married. However, I do wish that everybody gets the option to should they wish.

I also feel for gay men, at least us women can have children. They really dont have much option. Now that I have my daughter I really dont know what I would do with out her.

One thing for sure Adam, someday you will get that baby, you will be a great parent and that child will have LOTS of shoes.

I dont know anybody in this world that has not sinned, an innocent baby yes, but even they eventually sin. Heck my two year old has already sinned.

That said, something from my uncles funeral this summer............."we are born into this world in a white sheet, when we leave this world we are again covered with a white sheet" this is to say our sins are washed way.


----------



## vvf (Dec 28, 2011)

shadowpaints said:


> oh man! where is the like button when you need it!!
> 
> 
> 
> great response!




Thinking the same thing, Where is that Like button??


----------



## Jill (Dec 28, 2011)

susanne said:


> As for our priorities regarding human rights vs. national security, if we do not fight for everyone's civil rights, then what good is national security? We would be no better than those against whom we're fighting.


Just noticed this... and I guess I admit I'm thinking OMG. Compare our human rights right here and now with those "enjoyed" by the citizens of our enemy nations. I mean, for real! If our security isn't in place, it's not like the bad guys don't have all kinds of designs on us and human rights could be something you just remember fondly, and very quietly.


----------



## alongman (Dec 28, 2011)

Jill said:


> Just noticed this... and I guess I admit I'm thinking OMG. Compare our human rights right here and now with those "enjoyed" by the citizens of our enemy nations. I mean, for real! If our security isn't in place, it's not like the bad guys don't have all kinds of designs on us and human rights could be something you just remember fondly, and very quietly.


Jill -

I do agree with you and applaud you for being a vocal advocate for gay rights as well as national security. I do appreciate that in the US, as opposed to some of our enemy nations, I am not killed for being openly gay. But, even though the COUNTRY does not choose to kill me, there are people IN our country who have chosen to take it upon themselves to kill those who are gay.....I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the teenagers who were killed along roads or in other public places simply for being who they are. National Security is, and always will be an issue, based on the state of the World today - I do not question this in the least. What I do question, however, is how can we more equally split the concentration of our politicians to cover MANY issues at once? I believe that there are several things that need to be addressed; 1) Orientation and legalization of marriage, 2) Security (both National and that within our own country), 3) Economy.... these can be addressed in any order our politicians feel is necessary.....just do it.

So here's an interesting question - if I join the military, then a military chaplain CAN marry me to my partner if he/she believes in the marriage and the marriage happens on a base? Is this marriage recognized once out of the military? (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/category/gay-marriage/) So, does the government SUPPORT or DENY the point of gay marriage?


----------



## alongman (Dec 28, 2011)

tagalong said:


> Gee* Higgs*.... first, if you are such a Bible-thumping fellow demanding that we must follow all the rules God gave us in the Old Testament... you are in big trouble - and likely a sinner many times over. You cannot pick and choose which ones you are going to adhere to.
> 
> For instance... I will quote someone who said it much better than I could... and add to it a bit..


I would like to add my personal favorite:

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

So if I go on a spree - who of you will defend me?

According to several websites there are 20-22 "major" religions which account for nearly 10 BILLION people who are NOT Christian......I guess that would eliminate the issue of National Security (based on these facts.....all of our enemy nations would be eliminated), overpopulation, hunger (I mean if there were only 2 Billion of us left, there should be plenty), work load. Does this sound remotely like the Holocaust? Wasn't religion the basis for that "movement" as well?

I also want to plead my case about working on the Sabbath - I sure hope no one gets sick on the Sabbath. Hospital Closed - See you Monday!


----------



## StacyRz (Dec 28, 2011)

Exodus *21:17* And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.


----------



## alongman (Dec 28, 2011)

StacyRz said:


> Exodus *21:17* And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.


Maybe I need to start sleeping with my doors locked :/


----------



## maestoso (Dec 28, 2011)

Jill, for once, please, put your pride away and THINK. The reason you will not answer the simple question, "How would you feel if Virginia all of a sudden eliminated your marriage and the rights associated with it?" is because you don't want to answer it, as it would prove my point instead of your own. You would find it ridiculous, unconstitutional and outrageous, and it would all of a sudden become your number one concern. I'm not picking a fight, I'm trying to answer the question in your first posts, which was something about not understanding why this is "our" most important issue instead of things like national security. You have a secure marriage that you do not have to worry about, so you are blinded by that security. On top of that, you are so prideful that you could not bear to put yourself in another's shoes, or answer a simple question that might force you to reconsider your own statement. You're right, why pick a fight? Useless...


----------



## maestoso (Dec 28, 2011)

Higgs... I respect anyone who has educated themselves, observed, considered, studied, and come to their own beliefs. So I respect your courage to post what you did and standing up for what you believe. My problem is still this... Your argument that religion is the basis for denying marriage rights to gays would only be justified if all non-christians were denied marriage rights.... And for that matter, any sinner who has not repented should also be denied marriage rights, right? Since this is clearly not the case, you, as christians, are choosing to target only what you feel is appropriate to target, and NOT everything that the bible would target.

And, if it were indeed the case that, America is focusing on it's Christian foundations.... than why do we welcome immigrants who practice a wide variety of religions? Why do we welcome atheist immigrants? Buddhists, Muslims, and a laundry list of others. If it's just about religion, the rest of America's actions are not consistent with the "religious" motivation they have to deny gays, and only gays, marriage rights.


----------



## Jill (Dec 29, 2011)

maestoso said:


> Jill, for once, please, put your pride away and THINK. The reason you will not answer the simple question, "How would you feel if Virginia all of a sudden eliminated your marriage and the rights associated with it?" is because you don't want to answer it, as it would prove my point instead of your own. You would find it ridiculous, unconstitutional and outrageous, and it would all of a sudden become your number one concern. I'm not picking a fight, I'm trying to answer the question in your first posts, which was something about not understanding why this is "our" most important issue instead of things like national security. You have a secure marriage that you do not have to worry about, so you are blinded by that security. On top of that, you are so prideful that you could not bear to put yourself in another's shoes, or answer a simple question that might force you to reconsider your own statement. You're right, why pick a fight? Useless...


*Matt Drown*, I really think you need to step back and ask yourself why you are participating in this discussion because, as it's so often seemed before, you take a controversial subject and instead of focusing on the topic, you decide to focus on me and my motivations. If you ask me, that's really kind of weird.

But, since you seem to really want to know, if Virginia or the USA suddenly eliminated my marriage, would I like it? No. Would I be very upset? Yes. Would it eclipse my concerns about National Security and the Economy? No.

You will just have to be content with my word on it when it comes to how I feel. While I may not be able to see things fully from your shoes, I can just as correctly say the same about you.

Again, in your quest to defend gay marriage, why the heck do you want to bicker with someone who sincerely supports marriage rights for gays? I mean, really, Matt. What the heck? I'm on "your" side of this debate.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Dec 29, 2011)

Biblical view. God's view. Jesus' view. Christians are keeping gay marriage from passing into law based on what God tells us in the bible.

http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html


----------



## alongman (Dec 29, 2011)

Jill said:


> *Matt Drown*, I really think you need to step back and ask yourself why you are participating in this discussion because, as it's so often seemed before, you take a controversial subject and instead of focusing on the topic, you decide to focus on me and my motivations. If you ask me, that's really kind of weird.
> 
> But, since you seem to really want to know, if Virginia or the USA suddenly eliminated my marriage, would I like it? No. Would I be very upset? Yes. Would it eclipse my concerns about National Security and the Economy? No.
> 
> ...


Jill -

I don't think Matt is questioning your support ABOUT gay marriage - I would hope that all gay/lesbians would appreicate the support. I think what he IS saying, though, is: If you were put in a position that your marriage were not legal, would you still feel the same about National Security? You have answered a resounding, yes. I can appreciate that - you are entitled to your opinion. But, I think that other people, when posed with the same question, would not answer that their top priority was National Security. THAT is the point he is trying to make - often peoples' opinions or priorities change when it is THEIR life that is in question.

Matt -

I hope that I summed you up correctly and didn't step on any toes





I value both of your viewpoints and hope that we can keep this discussion going - under (what sounds like years of frustration) we are all three on the same team along with millions of other supporters......now, what about that Sunday off business? If I can't get married by the law of the Bible, then Higgs, I am taking a day off and hope it doesn't interfere with your life.


----------



## Jill (Dec 29, 2011)

alongman said:


> If you were put in a position that your marriage were not legal, would you still feel the same about National Security? You have answered a resounding, yes.


Yes, and thank you for understanding that is sincerely how I feel -- as I have expressed that a few times here. If our Nation is not secure, marriage rights could be the least of our concerns. If my priorities would change if I were in Matt's shoes, it is equally correct that his priorities would change if he were in my shoes.

Past experience, though, does tell me that Matt Drown particularly wants to pick apart my opinions, vs. discuss the topic at hand, and like I said -- I think that's pretty weird. *shrug* ... especially on this _historic_ situation where he and I are on the same side of a debate


----------



## barnbum (Dec 29, 2011)

Higgs Boson said:


> Biblical view. God's view. Jesus' view. Christians are keeping gay marriage from passing into law based on what God tells us in the bible.
> 
> http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage
> 
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html


It is possible to love a person who doesn't share a lifestyle pattern and still feel strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman. I've read here that either folks are accepting of gay marriage OR if not, that they hate homosexuals (some have inferred this). There are others who have homosexual friends and do not let the differences get in the way of love and respect, but still feel marriage between same sex couples should not be legal/accepted. I certainly feel a partner should be allowed full participation in all medical situations... as relates to the story about the partner who was not allowed to be with his dying mate. That's not right or fair. But for marriage--I will stick to my beliefs that it should be between a man and a woman.


----------



## LindaL (Dec 29, 2011)

Higgs...I do not think God makes "abominations" when He creates human beings. Why would He do this since we are all made in his image? It is FACT that gay people are BORN gay and not gay by CHOICE. I know this to be true, because I am a lesbian and I knew from childhood that I was attracted to women (and FYI I was raised Catholic, so from my birth I was raised in a strictly heterosexual household with no gay influences). BTW, my parents do not call me an "abomination" and ACCEPT me the way I am...and they are devout Catholics.

I do not feel that God would want you to judge people for the way they were born. Do you also judge people for the color skin they have, their birth defects, etc? They had no control over these things just as gay people have no control over the fact they are gay.

Off the religious soap box...While individual states are slowly making progress in allowing gay marriage and adoptions, I think that it should be made a FEDERAL law, because if you move out of the state you married in, your "LEGAL" paper is worthless in the state you moved to if it isn't legal there. My rights I have in Oregon are meaningless in Florida.

Adam I do hope you will be able to adopt a baby someday. I know you and Jason would make awesome parents.


----------



## tagalong (Dec 29, 2011)

*Higgs* - there are many Biblical views and orders from "God" in the Bible that people do not follow. Not even you. Do you not read anything except what you want to hear? Obviously not. You are purposefully IGNORING "God's view" in the OT where rape and murder is ordered/condoned - along with a long list of "rules" that I guarantee you (and all the Christians who present themselves as being so very devout) do not follow. You have also demonstrated your complete IGNORANCE of the Bible. Maybe before you start preaching fire and brimstone and pointing fingers and condemning, you should take a long hard look at yourself. Oh - and actually _read_ the Bible instead of letting someone lead you around by your nose and ignoring all the bizarre nonsense that is in there...

I got in big trouble with the pastor once (I was about 13) when I asked him to clarify what the Bible meant when it said that David "lay with" Jonathan. And that they were closer than brothers.

Hmmmm. He got flustered. That David - what a character! He coveted his friend's wife Bathsheba... stalked her and watched her bathe... and then ordered his friend to leave for a battle where he was conveniently killed. The OT is one long, violent, soap opera...


----------



## heartkranch (Dec 29, 2011)

Well me for one believes that the "Bible" is very out dated. People who "helped" write that book have been dead for a few hundred centuries atleast. I see the Bible as a big book full of stories, from a lot of people, a lot of opinions also. I love reading the Bible, and a lot of things I really take to heart, but some things that is too "old" for me to really take seriously.

I'm sure God will forgive me for the things I do. Following your heart, loving, and caring for other people(including yourself) I think will earn the ticket to Heaven than following a set rule of standards from a Book and judging others actions and acting "better". Our own relationship with God is our own. If its going to Church every Sunday or having him personal, to be outwardly rude to people that aren't doing what YOU are doing is something I don't think God wants.

Now I asked my fiancee about The gay marriage, he said he wouldn't care if they got the same rights as us. He just think we are going to see a lot more "Larry and Chuck" sort of thing if these rights happen all over the U.S.


----------



## alongman (Dec 29, 2011)

LindaL said:


> Off the religious soap box...While individual states are slowly making progress in allowing gay marriage and adoptions, I think that it should be made a FEDERAL law, because if you move out of the state you married in, your "LEGAL" paper is worthless in the state you moved to if it isn't legal there. My rights I have in Oregon are meaningless in Florida.
> 
> Adam I do hope you will be able to adopt a baby someday. I know you and Jason would make awesome parents.



Linda - I completely agree. We have talked about getting married in Canada or traveling to a state that does allow gay marriage, but as soon as we return home, poof......gone.

Thanks for the confidence in us being good parents......when that day happens, I hope everyone will tell this kiddo how long and hard we FOUGHT to have them in our lives. I was in the grocery store today and saw a mother tell her child "I didn't even want you" as he was crying for his favorite cereal..........I had to turn around and walk away. Almost made me throw up. At the check-out, she was in front of me and made another comment. I volunteered to take her child.....then she shut up. BTW the kid had great taste in cereal - I bought one box for me and gave him one box as he left the store


----------



## Reble (Dec 29, 2011)

alongman said:


> I added this in response to another posting, but felt it deserved its' own.
> 
> Number of states in the US that allow gay marriage - 5 (not including the District of Columbia)
> 
> ...


Can see your point and my mother always said do not point your finger at some one because you have three more pointing back at you.

Wish you luck in your journey. Some interesting reading for sure.


----------



## StacyRz (Dec 29, 2011)

heartkranch said:


> Well me for one believes that the "Bible" is very out dated. People who "helped" write that book have been dead for a few hundred centuries atleast. I see the Bible as a big book full of stories, from a lot of people, a lot of opinions also. I love reading the Bible, and a lot of things I really take to heart, but some things that is too "old" for me to really take seriously.
> 
> I'm sure God will forgive me for the things I do. Following your heart, loving, and caring for other people(including yourself) I think will earn the ticket to Heaven than following a set rule of standards from a Book and judging others actions and acting "better". Our own relationship with God is our own. If its going to Church every Sunday or having him personal, to be outwardly rude to people that aren't doing what YOU are doing is something I don't think God wants.
> 
> Now I asked my fiancee about The gay marriage, he said he wouldn't care if they got the same rights as us. He just think we are going to see a lot more "Larry and Chuck" sort of thing if these rights happen all over the U.S.


This is how I feel too, regarding the Bible and my own faith. I consider myself a Christian, but I do sort through a lot of the violence and smiting in the Bible

My husband (who was raised Catholic) and I have had the gay marriage conversation more than once. He "doesn't care"... I think he _should_ care, since we both have gay relatives. Our conversation always seems to end in what Linda spoke of "being born that way." Oooohhh do I get on my soapbox!! I have gotten so furious with him! The last time we debated it, I refused to make him dinner lol. Some people (like him) just will not believe it's how one is born until there is solid scientific evidence.


----------



## alongman (Dec 29, 2011)

StacyRz said:


> Some people (like him) just will not believe it's how one is born until there is solid scientific evidence.


There is scientific evidence..... http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925


----------



## StacyRz (Dec 29, 2011)

Got it saved to my favorites...Now I'm going to memorize it and lecture him LOL

Thanks for the link. I'll bet it will be an interesting read. I had watched a program some time ago, a documentary, but it ended with "some day there may be evidence" Gah!! It was frustrating because I know I'm right haha.


----------



## KanoasDestiny (Dec 29, 2011)

I for one DO agree with gay marriage, and DON'T know how I feel towards God or religion. I have gay friends and I can understand the gay community's anger towards not having the same equal rights that we straight people have. That said, in this thread I have seen the same animosity and intolerance shown to those who believe in and try to live by God's word. It's the way they were raised, and how most of them try to live their life. Whether you want to believe it or not, the Bible clearly says homosexuality is wrong. If you don't follow the Bible, or you believe some of it is outdated, thats perfectly fine. But I'd think you'd show some respect for those who do feel it's a guideline for their salvation. Just as they should be trying to live a Christ-like life of love, not judging others, and respecting those with differing lifestyles.

Just curious but where do you all stand on a brother/sister marriage? As far as I know the Bible proved incest was ok, and it is a man and woman. How would those who are gay feel if it was your brother and sister wanting to marry, or your mother and uncle?


----------



## heartkranch (Dec 29, 2011)

KanoasDestiny said:


> Just curious but where do you all stand on a brother/sister marriage? As far as I know the Bible proved incest was ok, and it is a man and woman. How would those who are gay feel if it was your brother and sister wanting to marry, or your mother and uncle?


I see its wrong because of what kind of defects the child would have IF they had a kid. So its not hurting only themselves but a child, and by the Bible you aren't suppose to use birth control so 19 out of 20 people they will produce a child whether healthy or with birth defects. Brothers and sisters have a special bond, but not one to be taken "to the bedroom".


----------



## Ashley (Dec 29, 2011)

I dont get why people think that people would pick to be gay. Read Adams story, or many other gay peoples stories then say, oh yea they picked to be that way, because they wanted the struggles.


----------



## alongman (Dec 29, 2011)

KanoasDestiny said:


> Just curious but where do you all stand on a brother/sister marriage? As far as I know the Bible proved incest was ok, and it is a man and woman. How would those who are gay feel if it was your brother and sister wanting to marry, or your mother and uncle?


To be honest - if that's what someone wants to do, then go ahead. Equal rights for everyone does not include clauses. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but I'm not hypocritical.


----------



## KanoasDestiny (Dec 29, 2011)

Thank you Heartkranch. I saw someone post earlier that all couples who love each other should have equal rights to marriage. So I was just wondering if that only went so far, and whether people would still be denied marriage rights because of what society saw as unfit or unclean.


----------



## heartkranch (Dec 29, 2011)

KanoasDestiny said:


> Thank you Heartkranch. I saw someone post earlier that all couples who love each other should have equal rights to marriage. So I was just wondering if that only went so far, and whether people would still be denied marriage rights because of what society saw as unfit or unclean.






I would care as long as it's not hurting innocent people. The only problem, again, I see is people taking advantage of it.


----------



## susanne (Dec 29, 2011)

> Number of states that all FIRST cousins to marry - 26


 

Perhaps this explains the benighted attitudes resulting in:



> Number of states in the US that allow gay marriage - 5 (not including the District of Columbia)


----------



## Flying minis (Dec 29, 2011)

Higgs Boson said:


> Biblical view. God's view. Jesus' view. Christians are keeping gay marriage from passing into law based on what God tells us in the bible.
> 
> http://www.catholic....ts/gay-marriage
> 
> http://www.christian...n/edn-f018.html


Fine, then Christians who believe as you do (note - that is FAR from all Christians - not even all Catholics), can choose to ignore gays who are married. However, last I knew, we have a secular government, not a church sponsored one, and certainly not a Christian only one, so your arguments against legal, government sanctioned marriage for homosexuals are irrelevant.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Dec 29, 2011)

Flying minis said:


> Fine, then Christians who believe as you do (note - that is FAR from all Christians - not even all Catholics), can choose to ignore gays who are married. However, last I knew, we have a secular government, not a church sponsored one, and certainly not a Christian only one, so your arguments against legal, government sanctioned marriage for homosexuals are irrelevant.


Then exactly who do you think is voting against gay marriage initiatives if it's not the religious right?

And don't presume to call me a christian.


----------



## Flying minis (Dec 29, 2011)

Your posts show very fundamentalist Christian beliefs, therefore the presumption that you are a Christian. If you are just trying to state the viewpoint that is held by those persons, then I have erred.

I agree it is the religious right that is opposing gay marriage initiatives, however, I think the argument against that is as I and many others have previously stated in this thread. Biblical reasons against gay marriage are irrelevant in a secular government.

Perhaps you can clarify whether you agree with what you have posted? I think that's where the confusion lies - your initial post especially would seem to indicate you stand fully aligned with the Christian right.


----------



## alongman (Dec 29, 2011)

Flying minis said:


> Biblical reasons against gay marriage are irrelevant in a secular government.


It seems that, based on this study, the majority of non-supporters are white evangelical people.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/08/breakdown-support-gay-marriage-religion/41964/


----------



## Mona (Dec 30, 2011)

Ashley said:


> As a gay person myself I have no desire to ever get married..






Well, that was a sure shocker to read Ashley! You told me quite some time ago (probably close to a couple years now) that you and Lori ( and her son) went away and you and Lori got married. You even sent me wedding photos of you guys on the beach etc. I sent you a wedding gift, and now I read this?? I guess I find this all very confusing now!


----------



## Ashley (Dec 30, 2011)

Mona said:


> Well, that was a sure shocker to read Ashley! You told me quite some time ago (probably close to a couple years now) that you and Lori ( and her son) went away and you and Lori got married. You even sent me wedding photos of you guys on the beach etc. I sent you a wedding gift, and now I read this?? I guess I find this all very confusing now!



Ah let me rephrase that.......LEGALLY married. After everything in the past 5 years, Ill take the non-legal marraige I have. And you are correct we did, in Hawaii and it was 4 years ago.


----------



## alongman (Dec 30, 2011)

Legal marriage means legal divorces, legal separations, etc.... as well. I completely understand that. I think if you talk to ANYONE who has been in a relationship that has "been on the rocks", they would say that it is best to not have a LEGAL anything. But, on the other hand, shouldn't marriage be a life-long committment despite the rocky times?


----------



## Ashley (Dec 30, 2011)

To me, a relationship doesnt need a paper to make it like a marriage. I dont go in a relationship easy and I dont go out easy. Its all the same to me, paper or not.


----------



## alongman (Dec 30, 2011)

Ashley said:


> To me, a relationship doesnt need a paper to make it like a marriage. I dont go in a relationship easy and I dont go out easy. Its all the same to me, paper or not.


You're right - I don't need a paper to show I'm married, but to some people, you DO need the proof (hospitals, insurance, etc...).


----------



## wcr (Dec 30, 2011)

Having just read through this entire post I must say this has turned into a lively post and I do like to see it shaken up around here at times. What I have noticed is that the majority is for gay marriage and equal rights for all. Higgs, although I don't agree with your viewpoints, I applaud you for speaking your mind and taking the heat for all the silent majority that haven't felt the need to speak up.

I have a problem with people quoting the bible word for word and taking it out of context without considering what other parts of the bible say. It is filled with so many contradictions and what is read in one section can be argued in another section. Without worrying all the time about being smitten, stoned or put unto death, I chose to live my life by the good things it says of forgiveness, loving one another as we love ourselves. My grandfather was sent as a missionary from England in 1904 and was a leading theologian of his time and is in several

Who's Who in America issues. As a child growing up with them living on our property, I never heard my grandparents say anything bad about anyone and always lived their lives from a perspective of love, caring, giving and acceptance of others. They were my role model of what a true christian is and I try to live my life as I was shown by them.

I am very much a liberal thinker and do agree that equal rights should be enjoyed by all and not select groups of people. Why can't we celebrate love and commitment without saying only men/women or whatever way someone wants to quantify it as. Why shouldn't gays have the right to adopt a child where they will be raised with loving parents. God knows there are so many heterosexuals out there raising children that have no right to be anywhere near a child. There are too many kids out there in foster homes that could benefit from loving parents if given the chance.

Jill- I firmly believe we should have a strong homeland security. My solution would be to get out of other countries where we have no business being. They don't want us there, will take our money and support then condemn us with the next breath. Fine, take all the money we are throwing away in other countries and use it here to make our country the world power it once was. Our infrastructure is falling apart while we build it up for other countries. Someone said earlier to take a month, heck, take a year or longer.

Gee, if Congress isn't fighting over what to be done in other countries, maybe it would have time to fix the things that are going wrong in our own country. Quite frankly, if other countries want to kill each other more power to them, less time to worry about bombing our country. It is time to put away partisan fighting and do the right thing to build a stronger America and take care of our own.

We don't "chose" our sexual orientation or even who we love. It comes wether we want it to or not. It is what it is. That said, I will now get of my soapbox.


----------



## alongman (Dec 30, 2011)

wcr said:


> Having just read through this entire post I must say this has turned into a lively post and I do like to see it shaken up around here at times. What I have noticed is that the majority is for gay marriage and equal rights for all. Higgs, although I don't agree with your viewpoints, I applaud you for speaking your mind and taking the heat for all the silent majority that haven't felt the need to speak up.
> 
> I have a problem with people quoting the bible word for word and taking it out of context without considering what other parts of the bible say. It is filled with so many contradictions and what is read in one section can be argued in another section. Without worrying all the time about being smitten, stoned or put unto death, I chose to live my life by the good things it says of forgiveness, loving one another as we love ourselves. My grandfather was sent as a missionary from England in 1904 and was a leading theologian of his time and is in several
> 
> ...






Very nicely said. I do also want to comment that I applaud Higgs for having an opinion despite the fact I don't necessarily agree with everything said.


----------



## tagalong (Dec 30, 2011)

I am not sure if Higgs is a new member or or an old member using a new screen name to voice some opinions (an alter - which happens on forums all the time). Not everyone names themselves after a sub-atomic particle that may or may not exist and has recently been in the news....


----------



## Higgs Boson (Dec 30, 2011)

tagalong said:


> I am not sure if Higgs is a new member or or an old member using a new screen name to voice some opinions (an alter - which happens on forums all the time). Not everyone names themselves after a sub-atomic particle that may or may not exist and has recently been in the news....


Aha, an educated fellow how refreshing.


----------



## alongman (Dec 30, 2011)

tagalong said:


> I am not sure if Higgs is a new member or or an old member using a new screen name to voice some opinions (an alter - which happens on forums all the time). Not everyone names themselves after a sub-atomic particle that may or may not exist and has recently been in the news....


Unfortunately, that is true. It is discouraging when people would go out of their way to have an opinion yet hide behind a false identity. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it does happen. It angers me even more when talking about THIS topic - people are literally beaten and scorned for saying WHO they are and WHAT they believe in, yet some people who oppose it are too cowardly to even speak their name. So for everyone who has been (and continues to be) brave enough to admit their opinions, thank you.

Interesting enough, Higgs, it seems that you DO believe that a subatomic particle that has not been proven to exist actually does, yet fail to believe that a genetic link to homosexuality does even though there is scientific proof? BTW....there are MANY educated people on this forum.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Dec 30, 2011)

double post


----------



## Higgs Boson (Dec 30, 2011)

alongman said:


> Interesting enough, Higgs, it seems that you DO believe that a subatomic particle that has not been proven to exist actually does, yet fail to believe that a genetic link to homosexuality does even though there is scientific proof?.


How amusing that you can deduct so much from a user name that may be new to you and this forum but is not new to me or others. I have made no comments about a subatomic particle existing or not existing in any of my posts and please do not presume to tell me where I stand on the issue of homosexuality and it's causes.


----------



## alongman (Dec 30, 2011)

Higgs Boson said:


> How amusing that you can deduct so much from a user name that may be new to you and this forum but is not new to me or others. I have made no comments about a subatomic particle existing or not existing in any of my posts and please do not presume to tell me where I stand on the issue of homosexuality and it's causes.


The deduction about your username was not addressed by me, I just expanded upon it. Based on all of the religious quotes you have made about denouncing homosexuality and the Bible references about ones nature being changed simply by avoiding contact with males or laying down with women, you are right, I did assume you believed that it was a characteristic that was learned, not genetic.


----------



## Jill (Dec 30, 2011)

I'm happy to read Ashley's explaination because I was thinking the same as Mona, but for_ once_, didn't say something





Lots of you know my story when it comes to H and I and getting married and why it was suddenly important to me after so many years of thinking it wasn't. We were a couple for many years before I wanted us to get married and there's lots to the story of course. If it were up to H, we'd have been married decades ago.

I will say that in addition to the legal / medical / rights scenarios you won't get snagged by once legally married, and the estate tax laws that are only available to assist married couples, I feel a level of happiness with being married that I didn't know I was missing until I finally said "I do." I think it would be good for all committed couples to have that available to them, but like I've said already ______________ (you can fill in the blank by now for sure).

For whatever it's worth, just the perspective of someone who used to think being legally married didn't matter to her and now feels it really is very meaningful after all. Marriage rights aren't my biggest fish to fry, but at least it's on my burner.


----------



## LindaL (Dec 30, 2011)

Jill said:


> I'm happy to read Ashley's explaination because I was thinking the same as Mona, but for_ once_, didn't say something


Ditto that...but the reasoning behind her statement I figured out and understood, so didn't say anything. Glad you clarified it for all of us, tho, Ashley! lol


----------



## barnbum (Dec 30, 2011)

_I feel a level of happiness with being married that I didn't know I was missing until I finally said "I do." _

I agree. When my son was near to finishing his Bach of Tech degree I asked him what his intentions were afterwards--if it included living with his girl Jenny. He said "maybe" and thought they were too young to get married. I told him I just wanted to plant seeds of ideas--and I felt since he and Jenny had been together for four years--with no break-ups and obviously very in love and committed--I felt marriage was appropriate. I said if you're old enough to live together you are old enough to get married. They were engaged within two months and married soon after.





Mark and I just celebrated 27 years together. I think the best is yet to come.

I am a teacher and feel for kids who are from divorced families--there are 9 in my class of 23. That's unusually high. But there are kids in the school who were born to two moms--and the moms split and one (she's a teacher) is with another--and they just had twins. This is second hand info--but the boys--the first two sons-have had a hard time with questions about their father. I heard they were really struggling with issues related to who their father is.

Yes--there are many many heterosexual couples who should never be allowed to be parents--and homosexual couples who make great parents--but does anyone ever consider the challenges all this creates for the children? Being a kid...growing up..is tough enough.


----------



## LindaL (Dec 30, 2011)

This topic has put our plans to get all our legal papers in order in the new year. My will is outdated and some other things need to be changed/brought UTD.


----------



## alongman (Dec 30, 2011)

LindaL said:


> This topic has put our plans to get all our legal papers in order in the new year. My will is outdated and some other things need to be changed/brought UTD.


Just write.... Leave it all to Adam. If you need correct spellings or numbers, just let me know


----------



## LindaL (Dec 30, 2011)

barnbum said:


> _I feel a level of happiness with being married that I didn't know I was missing until I finally said "I do." _
> 
> I agree. When my son was near to finishing his Bach of Tech degree I asked him what his intentions were afterwards--if it included living with his girl Jenny. He said "maybe" and thought they were too young to get married. I told him I just wanted to plant seeds of ideas--and I felt since he and Jenny had been together for four years--with no break-ups and obviously very in love and committed--I felt marriage was appropriate. I said if you're old enough to live together you are old enough to get married. They were engaged within two months and married soon after.
> 
> ...



There are 2 different scenarios that came to mind with your post. The 1st is the one you posted about where the kids were born to 2 moms. The 2nd is where the kids were born to a "straight" couple and they divorce and one starts living as gay (which happens a lot).

In the 1st case, I truly believe that the kids can be a part of their "life" from very early on...explaining where they came from in age appropriate language. If a child is aware of who he/she came to be, then I believe that they will not struggle with questions about the "absent" biological parent. They even have books on this to read to kids of same sex parents to help them understand.

In the 2nd case (which is the case with MY kids), most of the time the kids are still in touch with/have visitation with the other parent, yet live with either 2 moms or 2 dads. Again depending on the age of the kids, they should be made aware of the situation in a POSITIVE light. Or in my case (which doesnt normally happen and I don't necessarily recommend it), just let things "be" and not make an issue out of it at all. My 1st partner moved in with me and my kids when they were about 10-11 yrs old...soon after my divorce from their dad. We never said anything about my sexuality or our new living arrangements. They just lived it. By the time we really started to wonder if we should even say anything to them...they were old enough to know and it was a "non-issue". They are OK with it.

Kids are not stupid...I believe in being honest with them at all times. It gives them a sense of self and stability.

I wanted to add, too, that my ex-husband in his quest to get our son away from my living situation (but NOT our daughter



) in a custody battle hired a social worker to do home studies...His $3000 he spent backfired when the social worker came back with a report that MY household was better suited for BOTH kids and I ended up with SOLE custody of both kids (we had joint custody before this happened)!!


----------



## LindaL (Dec 30, 2011)

alongman said:


> Just write.... Leave it all to Adam. If you need correct spellings or numbers, just let me know


Not much there to leave...I think you'd find more debt than anything...you can have that if you want?? lol


----------



## alongman (Dec 30, 2011)

barnbum said:


> _I feel a level of happiness with being married that I didn't know I was missing until I finally said "I do." _
> 
> I agree. When my son was near to finishing his Bach of Tech degree I asked him what his intentions were afterwards--if it included living with his girl Jenny. He said "maybe" and thought they were too young to get married. I told him I just wanted to plant seeds of ideas--and I felt since he and Jenny had been together for four years--with no break-ups and obviously very in love and committed--I felt marriage was appropriate. I said if you're old enough to live together you are old enough to get married. They were engaged within two months and married soon after.
> 
> ...


I know of several children being raised by either one parent or the other, or in some cases foster parents. I also know of a hand-full of children being raised by gay parents. From what I see, the children in a gay two-parent home seem to at least have stability that is not present in a home that has divorce, etc.... Yes, every child faces challenges with growing up, that's normal? But what IS normal these days? One mom, one dad; one mom, one stepdad, one dad; one mom, one stepdad, one dad, one stepmom; grandpa and grandma........I could go on forever. I think the biggest point is that the child comes from a LOVING home. If they are raised in a gay home and their friends are included in their lives, then it won't be an issue - adults seem to have the problem and MAKE it the kids problem.


----------



## REO (Dec 31, 2011)

alongman said:


> I know of several children being raised by either one parent or the other, or in some cases foster parents. I also know of a hand-full of children being raised by gay parents. From what I see, the children in a gay two-parent home seem to at least have stability that is not present in a home that has divorce, etc.... Yes, every child faces challenges with growing up, that's normal? But what IS normal these days? One mom, one dad; one mom, one stepdad, one dad; one mom, one stepdad, one dad, one stepmom; grandpa and grandma........I could go on forever. *I think the biggest point is that the child comes from a LOVING home. If they are raised in a gay home and their friends are included in their lives, then it won't be an issue - adults seem to have the problem and MAKE it the kids problem.*


----------



## barnbum (Dec 31, 2011)

alongman said:


> - adults seem to have the problem and MAKE it the kids problem.


I agree on the loving home part--but in the cases I'm aware of it's never the adults making it the problem--it's the child's peers once he/she hits a certain age. Divorce is a norm--although it rips kids apart--I've comforted several children in the mornings before any teaching can take place. Other kids don't question a divorce situation...they don't question a grandparent, step-parent situation...but there are many questions about a gay parent situation. And reading kids a book isn't going to solve the problem.

Just my opinion... I've been teaching for 21 years, but have never had a student who was being raised by gay parents. As far as I know in our rather large district, there aren't many. I do know the boys who are, have struggled with it. They now have four "mothers" of one sort or another. It has to be awkward for them to explain to to friends. It could be very awkward for the friends. It's not awkward to explain a step situation or a grandparent as a parent. Anyway, loving situation or not, I feel for the kids. They are born to a situation they have no choice but to deal with. And I'm sure they do...and for many I'm sure it makes them stronger. But... not easy, not easy.


----------



## LindaL (Dec 31, 2011)

Maybe this is yet another reason to make gay marriage and adoption legal...So, it will be a "norm" for kids. If kids are exposed to this and see it as "OK" (again kids are not stupid and they SEE what goes on in the world around them and in the news and what their parents talk about) then maybe it will be a "non-issue" if it were legal. Kids wouldn't see on the news about states fighting over whether or not it is wrong or right, etc. and make things hard on the kids who are from same sex parent households.

I'm sure back in the day when divorce was "whispered about" or when inter-racial marriages were not the "norm", kids of those households were made to feel insecure and threatened by their peers as well.

Just another thought....


----------



## Jill (Dec 31, 2011)

barnbum said:


> I agree on the loving home part--but in the cases I'm aware of it's never the adults making it the problem--it's the child's peers once he/she hits a certain age. Divorce is a norm--although it rips kids apart--I've comforted several children in the mornings before any teaching can take place. Other kids don't question a divorce situation...they don't question a grandparent, step-parent situation...but there are many questions about a gay parent situation. And reading kids a book isn't going to solve the problem.
> 
> Just my opinion... I've been teaching for 21 years, *but have never had a student who was being raised by gay parents*. As far as I know in our rather large district, there aren't many. I do know the boys who are, have struggled with it. They now have four "mothers" of one sort or another. It has to be awkward for them to explain to to friends. It could be very awkward for the friends. It's not awkward to explain a step situation or a grandparent as a parent. Anyway, loving situation or not, I feel for the kids. They are born to a situation they have no choice but to deal with. And I'm sure they do...and for many I'm sure it makes them stronger. But... not easy, not easy.


I don't think you could possibly know. There are man-woman couples where one is gay. There are single parents who are gay. I measurable part of the population is in fact gay. I don't think they all wear the tee-shirt.

Additionally, your state is one of the states that recognizes same sex marriages. Someone must have demanded that be the case


----------



## Reijel's Mom (Dec 31, 2011)

If a candidate were to be available who seemed to have all the right answers as far as homeland security and the economy, but happened to feel that black people should no longer have the right to marry in this country, would you vote for them, Jill? I would hope not, and I would hope that it wouldn't only be because they wouldn't stand much of a chance of being elected.

In regards to children being raised by same sex couples. I had a boyfriend, now just a friend, for several years who is biracial. He was adopted and raised by white parents in a mostly white suburb of Chicago. Growing up, he did experience some confusion and some difficulty because he was black and adopted, and his friends were not. But he had a pretty wonderful family that helped him deal with the issues. Later in life he met his biological mother. In this case, he is very grateful now that he had the struggles he did have growing up, rather than the struggles that he would have had had he been raised by his biological family.

I work as a social worker. On my current caseload, I don't think I'm serving anyone who is gay, but I am serving a whole chuckload of straight people that I wish to God had never had children. I'd happily send so many of these kids off to Adam or anyone else decent who would take them if I could.


----------



## barnbum (Dec 31, 2011)

Jill said:


> I don't think you could possibly know. There are man-woman couples where one is gay. There are single parents who are gay. *I measurable part of the population is in fact gay. * I don't think they all wear the tee-shirt.
> 
> Additionally, your state is one of the states that recognizes same sex marriages. Someone must have demanded that be the case


7-10%? I think that's the last stat I heard, but it was a while ago.

I know most my students' parents pretty well--the married, divorced, grandparent, and single parents. The only ones I don't know well are those who never show up to school and never communicate. I'm aware of most of my students' family situations within a few days to a few months. There are parent-teacher conferences.... It's the nature of the job--and the information given on each child as far as the family situation goes and where the child goes after school and who's allowed to pick a child up. Email makes for easy and frequent communication with all guardians. I would know 100% if a child was being raised by two gay parents. It's part of the job.

*There are man-woman couples where one is gay. There are single parents who are gay. * That I might not know and don't want or need to know.

I would bet there are many reading who agree with me, but just aren't willing to speak up. I just felt it was time to voice my opinion, rather than keep it always to myself for fear of flames. But as I stated before--just because one does not want marriage between gays legalized, does not mean he/she doesn't respect or feel indifferent to the lifestyle and have gay friends.


----------



## Jill (Dec 31, 2011)

Reijel said:


> If a candidate were to be available who seemed to have all the right answers as far as homeland security and the economy, but happened to feel that black people should no longer have the right to marry in this country, would you vote for them, Jill? I would hope not, and I would hope that it wouldn't only be because they wouldn't stand much of a chance of being elected.


That isn't anything that's going to happen in this day and age, and to disregard my primary concerns about National Security and the Economy with impossible scenarios is no more or less "dismissive" than the bible thumpers who are sure that God hates gays. When "we" have here (me) a die hard conservative who SUPPORTS same sex marriage rights, I don't get why it's hard to understand that while I find it to be important, I do not count it at the very top of my list of concerns. I can promise you, I will vote for whoever the GOP puts forth. Obama is the most far left liberal president and I see / support not a single part of his agenda of fundamentally changing our Nation. OMG: Obama Must Go.


----------



## Jill (Dec 31, 2011)

barnbum said:


> *I would bet there are many reading who agree with me, but just aren't willing to speak up.* ...


Oh, if I had just a nickle for every time I've had that feeling


----------



## LindaL (Dec 31, 2011)

barnbum said:


> I would know 100% if a child was being raised by two gay parents. It's part of the job.


REALLY??? I doubt it. My kids were raised by myself and my partner. Their dad is in the picture, but being the primary caregiver; I was the one who went to parent-teacher conferences, etc. I never once put it out there that I was gay to anyone in my children's school, so unless someone knew ME they would not know. All they knew was that I was a divorced mom and my kids were being raised by me.


----------



## barnbum (Dec 31, 2011)

LindaL said:


> REALLY??? I doubt it. My kids were raised by myself and my partner. Their dad is in the picture, but being the primary caregiver; I was the one who went to parent-teacher conferences, etc. I never once put it out there that I was gay to anyone in my children's school, so unless someone knew ME they would not know. All they knew was that I was a divorced mom and my kids were being raised by me.


What I said:

_There are man-woman couples where one is gay. There are single parents who are gay__. __*That I might not know and don't want or need to know.*_ 

The children were born to you in a heterosexual situation. I covered that. Silly issue to debate though.

Kids do talk.....


----------



## Marty (Dec 31, 2011)

_The fact that my partner cannot, at some places of employment, be recognized nor included on my insurance (forcing separate insurance plans); the fact that in the state in which I live a gay couple cannot adopt a child - they must be adopted by one or the other parent and even then via private adoption agencies, not the public adoption agencies; the fact that if my partner were injured or ill and not able to make medical decisions for himself, his family could PREVENT me from seeing or being included in those decision; the fact that we pay additional taxes to the government (as again, we have to file separately as opposed to as a couple) to fund some of the other happenings in this world. I could go on and on._

OK here comes your resident hippy who loves PEACE & LOVE:

I've had gay friends since high school. I don't care who they do what with because it doesn't effect me or my year end taxes. I don't know why other people make such issue over it.

I don't think anyone sets out in life to be gay or decides they want to be gay just to do it. However it happens, being gay is a part of life for some. That being said, OMG leave the gay people alone! They are PEOPLE too with a heart that beats and feelings. You don't have to understand it and you don't have to agree with it but their rights are being denied and that's wrong. The only difference between me and a gay person is who they sleep with. Geesh. Get over it. Does it bother me who is sleeping with who? NOPE. Its none of my business so I don't care. But let gay people have the rights they need as citizens and human beings. Seems to me these illegal immigrants sneaking over the borders every darn day have more rights in this country than our own gay people!

My redneck son has a couple of gays in his group of close friends from high school and by golly, if you messed with them, you'd be toast. They have always been welcome in my home, are wonderful fun loving gentle guys would totally be great parents someday. I'd rather see a child raised up by a loving gay couple anyday rather than a child being raised up with stinking old values like being whipped with a switch from a tree or a belt from his daddy's closet. "What the world needs now is love sweet love....."


----------



## KanoasDestiny (Dec 31, 2011)

I agree with Barnbum 100% on the school issue. I too work in an elementary classroom and I've known several students that have two mothers or two fathers. It is very ackward for them to have to tell or explain their situation to their peers (and most of them come from divorced man/woman households where the parent then started living the gay lifestle.) I have found that these kids tend to be the ones who are 'preached to' about their parent's lifestyle because the other kids have learned that it is wrong by their parents. These kids also have less sleepovers because people have this notion that homosexuality is contagious or they don't want their child exposed to it. I'm not saying the children are scarred by it but their parent's lifestyle does affect them. Regardless to whether the parents are quiet about their relationship or not, kids are smart and they pick up on everything...and they keep nothing secret. Whether a parent tells us something or not, the child or their peers almost always do.


----------



## KanoasDestiny (Dec 31, 2011)

I love, love, LOVE Marty's post above mine! Well said!


----------



## alongman (Dec 31, 2011)

Marty - Love the post!

Barnbum - I know you are an educator as well as an educated person, so here's my challenge to you. You teach subjects, such as history, and point out the battles fought and describe both sides of these battles. Teach the children about THIS battle - it's not written in a text book, it's not clear who the "winner" is, but it is a reality to the children growing up today that are LIVING this battle and hearing about it on TV. Teach them about all the different kinds of families - not from a biased perspective, but from a perspectve like you would teach History. Teach them that there are mixed gender, same gender, single parent, biracial and EVERY OTHER TYPE OF FAMILY out there. Some of my BEST teachers in school (K-college) were the unbaised ones who let me form my own opinions after hearing the truth about every side.

Do I want kids to get picked on based on who their parents are? NO, will it happen for any multitude of reasons? Yes. I remember getting picked on because I didn't wear brand-name jeans. My family couldn't afford them. Gosh, you know, it made me a stronger person realizing that there were all kinds of people out there who would try to put me down for NO MATTER the reason.


----------



## alongman (Dec 31, 2011)

Marty said:


> My redneck son has a couple of gays in his group of close friends from high school and by golly, if you messed with them, you'd be toast. They have always been welcome in my home, are wonderful fun loving gentle guys would totally be great parents someday. I'd rather see a child raised up by a loving gay couple anyday rather than a child being raised up with stinking old values like being whipped with a switch from a tree or a belt from his daddy's closet. "What the world needs now is love sweet love....."


Good for your son. I have both gay and straight friends - they don't see anything besides me.


----------



## ohmt (Dec 31, 2011)

I think more people need to move to MN or ND-SO much more acceptance! In my high school one of the most popular boys in school was raised by two moms and he had bonfires for pretty much my whole grade every Friday. Loved it and his parents were the sweetest ladies. We also had a homecoming king that was openly gay. He was so funny and kind, no body cared what his sexual orientation was. We liked him for him. The boy (heterosexual) raised by two moms is now graduated from the U of M with a business degree and anyone that knows U of M knows it is VERY difficult to get into their business program. He is also engaged to one of my best friends



The other boy is now a senior at Concordia and travels to New York every summer where he performs in operas. Neither are doing too shabby.


----------



## Marty (Dec 31, 2011)

This says what I want to say so much better than words


----------



## barnbum (Dec 31, 2011)

alongman said:


> Barnbum - I know you are an educator as well as an educated person, so here's my challenge to you. You teach subjects, such as history, and point out the battles fought and describe both sides of these battles. Teach the children about THIS battle - it's not written in a text book, it's not clear who the "winner" is, but it is a reality to the children growing up today that are LIVING this battle and hearing about it on TV. Teach them about all the different kinds of families - not from a biased perspective, but from a perspectve like you would teach History. Teach them that there are mixed gender, same gender, single parent, biracial and EVERY OTHER TYPE OF FAMILY out there. Some of my BEST teachers in school (K-college) were the unbaised ones who let me form my own opinions after hearing the truth about every side.


If you had any idea what I cover in my class beside academics... your jaw would drop and you'd applaud. I don't need a challenge to be better at my job.





Marty--no one here has said anything other than respect/love/acceptance of the gay community. Different races were a novelty at our high school--usually voted in as king at dances. One gay boy in band, a good friend of Rachel's, was a highly respected drum major. There are no hate issues in this community. Never have been.

Deep breath. Blow the smoke from your barrels.


----------



## Sonya (Dec 31, 2011)

I honestly don't think it's a teachers job to 'teach lifestyles'..yes they are there to ensure kids don't bully, etc in these situations...but it's not a teachers job to teach morals or acceptance...that should be taught at home. Just my opinion.


----------



## Jill (Dec 31, 2011)

Sonya said:


> I honestly don't think it's a teachers job to 'teach lifestyles'..yes they are there to ensure kids don't bully, etc in these situations...but it's not a teachers job to teach morals or acceptance...that should be taught at home. Just my opinion.


I agree. Our schools should not be a platform for indoctrination to what the teacher or teachers feel is the right _(or left, haha)_ path!


----------



## Hosscrazy (Dec 31, 2011)

Barnbum - as an educator, what is your opinion about the new California law requiring public schools (in California) to teach gay and lesbian history? Do you think this will lead to wider acceptance and do you thing other states will follow?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15gay.html

Liz N.


----------



## KanoasDestiny (Dec 31, 2011)

As an educator in California, I can answer your question. Truthfully, I don't believe many other states will follow suit. Like stated previously, I do support gay marriage. I do not however support this new law. I do not believe that education should be taught to our students centering on who people chose to sleep with. Granted if they are gay, then sure mention their partner, but why do the textbooks have to point out that someone is gay or straight? What does it matter? Was the person only important because they were gay or straight? For an example, when a president is discussed, their spouse may be mentioned, but the spouse doesnt really play a part in what they accomplished in their presidency. Since when is our character or importance to society based on our personal love for someone? I do however feel that homosexuality should be discussed in health classes and sex ed.


----------



## KanoasDestiny (Dec 31, 2011)

Oops, my phone deleted half of my message. I know this law is going to get a lot of criticism from parents. I think it will be the parents in other states, not to mention the teachers, who will prevent this law from going countrywide. I think whether or not it leads to more acceptance depends on how detailed the textbooks get. My fear is that students will see this as a opportunity to come out, and if society doesn't embrace it as becoming more tolerant, it can lead to more violence and bullying.


----------



## barnbum (Dec 31, 2011)

Sonya said:


> I honestly don't think it's a teachers job to 'teach lifestyles'..yes they are there to ensure kids don't bully, etc in these situations...but it's not a teachers job to teach morals or acceptance...that should be taught at home. Just my opinion.


Agreed! If lifestyles comes up in a story/book we read--it'll be discussed. I won't bring it up on its own.

There are many many lessons we touch on--such as it's not our job to be born expecting lots--a "gimme gimme" attitude, but it is our job to do what we can to make life easier for anyone around us--to make their walk more pleasant. A big ole smile is a great place to start.

I teach that life is all about the salt as well as the sugar--and if one's life were all sugar--he/she would not be a very strong person. The cake won't turn out well unless all the ingredients are there--the great and the gross. We say things like "What a salty morning I had!"

I teach that random acts of kindness have amazing results.

I model spending life doing something other than watching TV--many catch on to that every year! One girl said a few weeks ago "Mrs. Santoro! I haven't watched TV for a week!"






I model lifelong learning, keeping active and healthy.

We apply the 7 Habits.

AND my class has amazing test score results. One example: last year the 5th grade average of passing the state math test was 72%; my students scored a 92% and I did not have the top math group or even a high cluster. ELA was just as sweet.

They love me, they trust me, they learn. Simple equation.


----------



## barnbum (Dec 31, 2011)

KanoasDestiny said:


> As an educator in California, I can answer your question. Truthfully, I don't believe many other states will follow suit. Like stated previously, I do support gay marriage. I do not however support this new law. I do not believe that education should be taught to our students centering on who people chose to sleep with. Granted if they are gay, then sure mention their partner, but why do the textbooks have to point out that someone is gay or straight? What does it matter? Was the person only important because they were gay or straight? For an example, when a president is discussed, their spouse may be mentioned, but the spouse doesnt really play a part in what they accomplished in their presidency. Since when is our character or importance to society based on our personal love for someone? I do however feel that homosexuality should be discussed in health classes and sex ed.


I agree with all of that! Well--not the gay marriage support part, but some kind of legal rights, yes.

Teachers won't tolerate being forced to teach something they don't believe should be their responsibility. But I could see a high school offering an elective on the topic. There's be issues that came with it though--protests and unwelcome attention. It's a more appropriate topic for college...an elective.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 1, 2012)

Sonya said:


> I honestly don't think it's a teachers job to 'teach lifestyles'..yes they are there to ensure kids don't bully, etc in these situations...but it's not a teachers job to teach morals or acceptance...that should be taught at home. Just my opinion.


----------



## vickie gee (Jan 1, 2012)

Oh, I see you are back Higgs. I was getting concerned that a missing person's report would have to be filed.



I can just see it now: SEX: male or female: yes

hair: possibly

other characteristics: well-versed, articulate, mysterious, imaginative, clever, and witty

While I have chosen not to enter my two cents worth on this thread I must say Higgs that you make interesting.


----------



## alongman (Jan 1, 2012)

But acceptance of ALL lifestyles is learned in the classroom as well - if something is taught in the schools (not necessarily a class), it can be enforced at home.


----------



## Sonya (Jan 1, 2012)

I think it should be the other way around ...learned at home and enforced in the class...I don't have children but I know one thing if I did I wouldnt want the govt (public school system) raising my kid. And too many people expect (and want for some unknown reason) that.


----------



## barnbum (Jan 1, 2012)

alongman said:


> But acceptance of ALL lifestyles is learned in the classroom as well - if something is taught in the schools (not necessarily a class), it can be enforced at home.


It's not taught--it's modeled in every single classroom as the teacher builds a community of learners.

Honestly--as a teacher I want to teach--*academics*! Teachers are _evaluated _on the scores their students achieve on state tests. Higher scores--that's my job. Of course the character lessons/modeling is part of the package, but dang it--if parents would do their job better I could fit in more writing and math!


----------



## Sonya (Jan 1, 2012)

Well said barnbum....teacher=teach, it doesnt mean babysitter /nanny.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 1, 2012)

If I wanted my children to have my values reinforced then I'd enroll them in a private school that was in line with them. I would NOT want the public school system even attempting to force their values on my child. School is for academics and not for teaching anything else unless it's a private school and I have the option of choosing.


----------



## Mona (Jan 1, 2012)

Higgs Boson said:


> If I wanted my children to have my values reinforced then I'd enroll them in a private school that was in line with them. I would NOT want the public school system even attempting to force their values on my child. School is for academics and not for teaching anything else unless it's a private school and I have the option of choosing.


Well, the way it stands already in schools, at least here in Canada, sex education is being taught in schools and I would not consider that to be an academic subject. AND, it is now being started younger and younger! So Higgs, do you have children, and if so, are they/have they been educated in a private school?


----------



## LindaL (Jan 1, 2012)

How did this become a debate on education??? lol


----------



## andi (Jan 2, 2012)

I think Jill had it right at the very beginning. The government should have no involvement in legalizing or regulating any religious ceremony or passage. I myself though don't see the term "marriage" as an exclusively religious word that ANYONE can claim ownership of or insist on its definition. Heck, I have married quite a few Ketchup bottles, some that weren't even the same brand.



The government has the responsibility to honor and protect the rights of all its citizens equally. If a religious group has to insist that Marriage is theirs to define and control, then fine, take it, it shouldn't need the governments’ involvement. But sorry, if you want the government to give you something, it needs to be available to everyone.

BTW, I know it has become more and more "acceptable" to use the term, but it is NOT a lifestyle. Lifestyle is defined as, "the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group." These things are all CHOICES and able to be changed, you choose your lifestyle. You certainly don't get a choice beforehand and can't change being gay.


----------



## LindaL (Jan 2, 2012)

andi said:


> BTW, I know it has become more and more "acceptable" to use the term, but it is NOT a lifestyle. Lifestyle is defined as, "the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group." These things are all CHOICES and able to be changed, you choose your lifestyle. You certainly don't get a choice beforehand and can't change being gay.



You are correct James in the meaning of lifestyle. I do however use that term because as you said, it has become acceptable to do so in the way people mean it. My lifestyle (gay) is not a choice by definition, but my lifestyle IS the way I live...out and proud.





Even tho Deb and I are not "legally" married, we did sign a domestic partnership in Oregon and we had a commitment ceremony on the beach...In our eyes and our hearts we are as married as anyone with a legal document that says they are (in a lot of cases even more so). We call each other "wife" (sometimes "partner" depending on who we are talking to). No one can tell us that we are not "married" because that term means "COMMITTED" and we are that!


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 2, 2012)

andi said:


> I think Jill had it right at the very beginning. The government should have no involvement in legalizing or regulating any religious ceremony or passage.


If marriage was a government only institution then all rights would belong to all parties. When religion is involved it's bible-based based on gods teachings and that's why we have the situation we have today with gay marriage. As I've said before god is against homosexuality that's pretty clearly written in the bible. Any gay rights initiatives trying to get onto the books have to run the gauntlet of an ever increasing religious right.



Mona said:


> So Higgs, do you have children, and if so, are they/have they been educated in a private school?


Yes / Yes


----------



## andi (Jan 2, 2012)

I never said that Marriage was a government only institution, but made the point that is also not a religion only institution.

I don't disagree that the religious right see this as a religious issue, and that they make up the majority of opposition against it.

I wish that people would understand that how strongly you believe something, right or wrong, has no bearing on if the government should pass laws to support it or enforce it on others. Nobody should have to "run the gauntlet" to stop others beliefs from limiting their rights. I support/believe in charity work, as do most, but does that mean that I should vote to force everyone else too?


----------



## Mona (Jan 2, 2012)

andi said:


> I wish that people would understand that how strongly you believe something, right or wrong, has no bearing on if the government should pass laws to support it or enforce it on others. Nobody should have to "run the gauntlet" to stop others beliefs from limiting their rights. I support/believe in charity work, as do most, but does that mean that I should vote to force everyone else too?


*James, and anyone else reading, before I say what I am about to, I want to make it VERY CLEAR that I am a strong supporter of Gay Rights!! I DO think that gay marriages should have all the same rights as straight marriages and also understand you are born that way, and that it is not a choice.*

* *

This said however, I need to question what you have just written James. The way I am reading it, it sounds like you are saying that it is wrong for the goverment to make laws that would stop people from doing *anything the support/believe in*. However, this cannot be the way to work it, otherwise there are plenty of criminals, murderers, child mollesters etc. that can all make claim to strongly supporting/believing in what they do, and this does not make what they do acceptable....TOTALLY WRONG and laws ARE needed for that. (and believe me, I am NOT comparing being gay to these scumbags!) We DO need laws, and with the way you are wording it, that could pretty much take in anything and everything.

I know you are going to say..."Well that is different"...we are not breaking any laws with our being gay or straight, which is totally true, but if the laws were never made by government in the first place (as it sounds like you are saying) making all those things illegal, they could say the same thing, that is is OK to do those things because the government has no right to stop people from doing anything they believe in or strongly support.. So I DO think the government needs to make laws, contrary to people's beliefs, but they should not be able to govern people's personal life decisions when they are not adversely affecting anyone else! I even hate to use that term "personal life decsions", because I also understand it is not a choice.

I totally understand what you are trying to say, but your comparison just doesn't work for me. In this quote, *" I support/believe in charity work, as do most, but does that mean that I should vote to force everyone else too?"* you are stating an example that is a personal choice that is not harming anyone. I know being gay is also not harming anyone. What I am trying to say, is the charity work example is a choice...that is your decision. Being gay is not a decision...you are born that way.


----------



## andi (Jan 2, 2012)

No Offence at all Mona. I believe I meant the exact opposite, but obviously that is open for interpretation or misinterpretation. I might have used a double negative or something. LOL

My point was it is wrong for the government to pass laws enforcing or supporting people's beliefs. They SHOULD pass laws to protect us from our rights being taken away by others beliefs. The Criminals you mentioned have beliefs that directly harm us all and take away our rights, so there are laws against them and there should be.

I actually think you understood my point about a law forcing charity. It is a choice, that we all have the right to make, just like whether or not we support gay marriage. These choices and beliefs do not take away any ones rights, unless the government gets involved and tries to force them on others.

Edited to Add: I'm not sure if I made that any clearer


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 2, 2012)

andi said:


> They SHOULD pass laws to protect us from our rights being taken away by others beliefs.


Hard thing to do when most right wing politicians are strongly touting their personal religious values and have strong views themselves on issues like gay rights based on their religion and are backed and elected by their religious right wing voters. They're not going to check that at the door when they get into office.


----------



## andi (Jan 2, 2012)

I agree that is the position we are usually in with many of the GOP options. What I would love to see would be a conservative who has the religious foundation, but understands and respects the limits of the position they seek enough to know those beliefs are just as strong and true when left outside the office. I think the scariest thing is I truly believe that most of these religious candidates DO understand they are overstepping, but like you mentioned, they know their supporters don't mind as long as it gets their beliefs in the forefront.

Just to clarify: While I do not mind what a Candidates religion is or if they have one, the idea that we could have a President with a strong Religious foundation, but that respect their office enough to not abuse the power to get votes and further their own religion, would show a strength of character and honesty we very rarely see in politics.


----------



## Mona (Jan 2, 2012)

Yes Andi, you are correct...I understood what you were saying the first time, but I guess it was just in the wording. Again, I was not disagreeing with your thoughts/intentions, just the way it was worded. (and I agree with what you are saying too.)


----------



## Jill (Jan 2, 2012)

As far as I'm concerned, government should do very little other than protect our Nation and Liberty, and insure that one person's actions and beliefs do not infringe upon another's right to pursue their own happiness. Beyond this, it all goes south.


----------



## alongman (Jan 2, 2012)

andi said:


> I agree that is the position we are usually in with many of the GOP options. What I would love to see would be a conservative who has the religious foundation, but understands and respects the limits of the position they seek enough to know those beliefs are just as strong and true when left outside the office. I think the scariest thing is I truly believe that most of these religious candidates DO understand they are overstepping, but like you mentioned, they know their supporters don't mind as long as it gets their beliefs in the forefront.
> 
> Just to clarify: While I do not mind what a Candidates religion is or if they have one, the idea that we could have a President with a strong Religious foundation, but that respect their office enough to not abuse the power to get votes and further their own religion, would show a strength of character and honesty we very rarely see in politics.


Very well said James! I agree - a politician should be elected based on what they bring to the table in a political manner, not what religion they represent. With that said, I was listening to day to NPR on my way home from work - they clearly defined that religion will be a HUGE decider in the upcoming GOP caucuses as we have a variety of religions represented. Seriously?! When will people realize that religion does NOT run government. They made us stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in my local school as the word "God" was not recognized or supported by the government, but in the next breath say that the Bible does not support gay marriage, therefore the government is not either. Hypocritical? I think so....if religion and government are two separate entities for one circumstance, then they need to remain that way.


----------



## LindaL (Jan 2, 2012)

Totally agree Adam!


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 2, 2012)

alongman said:


> With that said, I was listening to day to NPR on my way home from work - they clearly defined that religion will be a HUGE decider in the upcoming GOP caucuses as we have a variety of religions represented. Seriously?! When will people realize that religion does NOT run government. They made us stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in my local school as the word "God" was not recognized or supported by the government, but in the next breath say that the Bible does not support gay marriage, therefore the government is not either. Hypocritical? I think so....if religion and government are two separate entities for one circumstance, then they need to remain that way.


Very well said.


----------



## Mona (Jan 2, 2012)

alongman said:


> Seriously?! When will people realize that religion does NOT run government. They made us stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in my local school as the word "God" was not recognized or supported by the government, but in the next breath say that the Bible does not support gay marriage, therefore the government is not either. Hypocritical? I think so....if religion and government are two separate entities for one circumstance, then they need to remain that way.


VERY well said!!


----------



## Jill (Jan 3, 2012)

alongman said:


> Very well said James! I agree - a politician should be elected based on what they bring to the table in a political manner, not what religion they represent. With that said,* I was listening to day to NPR on my way home from work - they clearly defined *that religion will be a HUGE decider in the upcoming GOP caucuses as we have a variety of religions represented. *Seriously?! When will people realize that religion does NOT run government.* They made us stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in my local school as the word "God" was not recognized or supported by the government, but in the next breath say that the Bible does not support gay marriage, therefore the government is not either. Hypocritical? I think so....if religion and government are two separate entities for one circumstance, then they need to remain that way.


Maybe about the same time people realize that the government does run NPR. Talk about a left liberal, tax dollar supported, "news" outlet. It's no secret that the right / GOP / conservatives would like to see tax dollar support of NPR defunded. NPR has an ax to grind. In this day and age, there is no need for a tax funded "news" machine.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 3, 2012)

Jill said:


> Maybe about the same time people realize that the government does run NPR. Talk about a left liberal, tax dollar supported, "news" outlet. It's no secret that the right / GOP / conservatives would like to see tax dollar support of NPR defunded. NPR has an ax to grind. In this day and age, there is no need for a tax funded "news" machine.


So you have an issue with that but not with the Right Wing religious zealots running for the GOP who are pretty darn sure to bring their religious extremism to the White House?


----------



## Jill (Jan 3, 2012)

Higgs Boson said:


> So you have an issue with that but not with the Right Wing religious zealots running for the GOP who are pretty darn sure to bring their religious extremism to the White House?


Your source for my opinion would be?


----------



## andi (Jan 3, 2012)

I think the assumption was you didn't have an issue with the "right wing zealots" because you shifted the focus to the opposite side instead of addressing the topic you were replying to.

Additionaly, higgs' comment was a question.

She was clearly asking if what she thought was your opinion, was correct.


----------



## Jill (Jan 3, 2012)

Honestly, Andi-James, it wasn't "very clear" to me what Higgs was trying to say, and I'm not sure I follow what you're saying either...


----------



## Jill (Jan 3, 2012)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> The NPR was not such a BIG DEAL with some people 3 years ago.. now it is.. why?


The situation with Juan Williams was an eye opening factor.

I've never favored a tax dollar funded news outlet.

The fact that we are wasting too much tax dollars has fiscal conservatives looking for ways to reduce unnecessary spending.


----------



## tagalong (Jan 3, 2012)

NPR may not have handled the Juan Williams thing well - and neither did he... but NPR is highly backed by corporate and public support and donations. Not all tax dollars.

There is no direct government funding of NPR. The only way tax dollars even get to NPR is via station fees - about 10%. So it is fair to state that NPR gets only 10% government funding/tax dollars.

For 2010, NPR accounted for 0.00018% of government expenditure.

The average American spends about 3 cents of his/her tax dollars a year on NPR.

Soooo... not much to fuss about there.

I had a great link with all the numbers etc. but it is not working well - I will find another one.

If it is not FOX, you will not listen to it anyway, Jill... so what does it matter?


----------



## Jill (Jan 3, 2012)

tagalong said:


> NPR may not have handled the Juan Williams thing well - and neither did he... but NPR is highly backed by corporate and public support and donations. Not all tax dollars.
> 
> There is no direct government funding of NPR. The only way tax dollars even get to NPR is via station fees - about 10%. So it is fair to state that NPR gets only 10% government funding/tax dollars.
> 
> ...


Any tax dollars for propping up NPR are too many tax dollars -- at least that's the opinion of this citizen, faithful voter and tax payer. Nearly half of Americans pay NO federal income tax, and 1 cent of tax dollars is more than I want to contribute to a news outlet. If tax payer funding is insignificant to NPR, why did NPR and the liberals freak out when they thought they might lose it?

Additionally, Tag, I'd frankly be very surprised if you read and listen to more sources of news each and every day than I do. While I enjoy FOX, it is just one of many news sources to which I regularly turn.

BTW, anyone want to PM me and fill me in on who Higgs Boson is on this forum, in addition to the current name tag?


----------



## andi (Jan 3, 2012)

Where in higg's one sentence statement did you get lost exactly Jill? I don't mind standing up and saying that I don't think you didnt understand what higgs was saying, you just didnt want to answer. That is fine if you want to continue this habit you have formed of acting like anyone who disagrees with you is confusing you, insisting you are unable to deconstruct a sentence and understand it's meaning.

If that all sounds a bit harsh, I WAS offended by what you had posted before but edited out afterwords. You really didnt need to mention how much you enjoy our conversations, with or without the smiley wave, the sarcasm came through loud and clear.


----------



## Jill (Jan 3, 2012)

andi said:


> Where in higg's one sentence statement did you get lost exactly Jill? I don't mind standing up and saying that I don't think you didnt understand what higgs was saying, you just didnt want to answer. That is fine if you want to continue this habit you have formed of acting like anyone who disagrees with you is confusing you, insisting you are unable to deconstruct a sentence and understand it's meaning.
> 
> If that all sounds a bit harsh, I WAS offended by what you had posted before but edited out afterwords. You really didnt need to mention how much you enjoy our conversations, with or without the smiley wave, the sarcasm came through loud and clear.


Andi-James -- When I edit my posts, it's because I want to clarify, expand or delete something. I never do so following a reply to one. Your opinion (or attempted policing) as to if I should do so, how I should word my posts, or what you think I should think just doesn't hit my list of concerns. When last you and I were an any kind of discussion, you melted down into name calling and for that reason, I don't really want to devote time to discussions with you again


----------



## LindaL (Jan 3, 2012)

And...here we go...and btw...when did this become about radio??

I think I have been the only one on here sticking with the OP's subject...


----------



## andi (Jan 3, 2012)

What ever do you mean Lyn, are you seeing a patern forming. LOL I really did think I was waiving some form of white flag starting my involvment by genuinelly agreeing, trying to leave the past in the past. O well.

Would any body be offended if me and Jill just start our own Never Ending topic: James and Jill, A (cautionary) Tale of two Know it Alls. LOL

All kidding aside I do agree that we all need to get really strict with ourselves about staying On topic. This thread has sooo many interesting well thought out different discusions going on. If we all really tried to just start a new one if we want to branch off that could really work great. You could even reply to this one for example, "Im glad you mentioned NPR, I'll go start a seperate topic." Even if we got flowded with lots of topics, if they didnt interest anyone they would just drop off.


----------



## andi (Jan 3, 2012)

So Jill, Why did you delete the comment to me?


----------



## LindaL (Jan 3, 2012)

LOL James...if only it were that easy!









In all honesty, I have done that "off-topic" thing myself, but I always try to get back on track...lol





I too want to know who Higgs Boson is.....?


----------



## andi (Jan 3, 2012)

OOOOHH, I feel an off Topic coming on !! LOL

I might need to start one:

Anonymity on online forum: A Necessary Safety Precaution, an all to simple way to Troll, or an

acceptable alternative to join in on Hot topic without fear of Retaliation.

OR

WHO THE [email protected]$% is HIGGS BOSON!!

That being said, I don't know if we could all handle the truth. I am still recovering from trying to figure out what an ACTUAL Higgs Boson is, Wikipedia needs a warning label. LOL

Edited to make it look like I can spell words larger than "the"


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 3, 2012)

What a Higgs Boson is, is simple. Who a Higgs Boson is, is irrelevant.


----------



## barnbum (Jan 3, 2012)

The think topics take a bird walk once the original topic has been discussed as thoroughly as it can be for the time being.


----------



## andi (Jan 3, 2012)

OOOO, I don't know if I would qualify understanding what a Higgs Boson is as "simple" LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson


----------



## Jill (Jan 4, 2012)

I think topics that are popular frequently drift as one perspective leads to other insights, sides and spinoffs. It's as it's always been.


----------



## alongman (Jan 4, 2012)

SOOOOO....getting back to the topic(s) at hand, I found it interesting that the Iowa Caucuses last night land-blasted Michelle Bachman who rallied the initiative of her campaign around denying the gay rights marriage. Iowa is one of the states the currently allows gay marriage, and the gay population spoke out LOUDLY last night as she recieved only 6% of the vote compared to EVERY OTHER candidate. There are many polls out that show the numbers (as non-technical as they may be) of the gay population and younger crowds who clearly did not endorse her efforts. I must say, the other candidates have merely avoided this topic during the recent interviews, however, have had opinions about neutrality and pro/con in the past.


----------



## alongman (Jan 4, 2012)

andi said:


> OOOOHH, I feel an off Topic coming on !! LOL
> 
> I might need to start one:
> 
> ...


James, I do think I could handle the truth. I know that not everyone either agrees with or supports my feelings. What does upset me is that people FEEL that they cannot stand up and voice an opinion for fear of retaliation. Is that not what makes for adult conversation - hearing both sides of an issue? Beyond that, I think it is somewhat cowardly to make a statement or join a conversation, no matter what the topic, and then hide behind a screen name. Worse yet, to create a "person" for the sole sake of stating an anonymous opinion.


----------



## Sue_C. (Jan 4, 2012)

Higgs Boson said:


> What a Higgs Boson is, is simple. Who a Higgs Boson is, is irrelevant.


Personally, I don't think you really exist...



:OKinteresting


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 4, 2012)

Why are people on this message board so suspicious of someone posting without using their real name? I just pulled up one old thread, opened a page at random, and counted ZERO "real names" being used. I've never joined a message board and posted with my real name. I always use a screen name. Is it because I'm not afraid to state my opinions so you must presume I'm some mousy person who posts here a lot using another name? I also posted on another thread before I posted on this one so joining just to post on this thread is incorrect.

The last thing I use a screen name for is "fear of retaliation". That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

This happens to be only the second thread I've posted in because I've only just joined. And this happens to be an issue I feel strongly about.

I don't care what people think of my opinions. Would you like me to start them again.

*Back to the OP*

1) The Bible says gays are an abomination. As a result of this the Far Right Fundamentalist Christians are very much against gay marriage as are many moderate Christian voters. That's why so few states are allowing gay marriage or civil unions.

2) The bible is 100% supportive of first cousins marrying therefore it's allowed in a lot of states.

3) There are millions of people out there who are more than happy because of their faith to control just how you and I live your life through the way they vote.

We were founded upon separation of church and state but because we allow voting on issues then those groups with something to gain (or prevent) will produce heavy turnouts.

If you think the Supreme Court can sit in a neutral position look at their religious make up and remember the Old Testament for Christian, Catholic and Jew is the same book.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr..................................Roman Catholic 
​
<br style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; text-align: left; ">

Justice Antonin Scalia................................................Roman Catholic 
​
<br style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; text-align: left; ">

Justice Anthony Kennedy............................................Roman Catholic 
​
<br style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; text-align: left; ">

Justice Clarence Thomas............................................Roman Catholic 
​
<br style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; text-align: left; ">

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.......................................Jewish 
​
<br style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; text-align: left; ">

Justice Stephen Breyer...............................................Jewish 
​
<br style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; text-align: left; ">

Justice Samuel Alito..................................................Roman Catholic 
​
<br style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; text-align: left; ">

Justice Sonia Sotomayor............................................Roman Catholic 
​
<br style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 12px; text-align: left; ">

Justice Elena Kagan...................................................Jewish
​
 
​
EDIT to say....sorry copied and pasted that list and too lazy to edit correctly.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 4, 2012)

Sue_C. said:


> Personally, I don't think you really exist...
> 
> 
> 
> :OKinteresting


Well that's being debated right now lol


----------



## andi (Jan 4, 2012)

I think in these more controversial topics the annonymity does play a larger role. I think many people already have trouble haveing a respectful adult conversation when they are passionate about something. They do not behave how they normaly would, lying, calling names, even resorting to the old, la la la, I cant hear you, la la la. By remaining annonymous you avoid a certain amount of personal responsibility and accountability for you behavior. On this forum many of us, if not all, know one eachother as much more than a screen name. We are miniature horse owners who do business with one another, see eachother at shows, many of us are fb friends, we know eachothers daily lives. All these things make us think twice before being rude or inconsiderate. My personal thought, strong words are reserved for people strong enough to handle the opinion readers might form about them.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 4, 2012)

andi said:


> I think in these more controversial topics the annonymity does play a larger role. I think many people already have trouble haveing a respectful adult conversation when they are passionate about something. They do not behave how they normaly would, lying, calling names, even resorting to the old, la la la, I cant hear you, la la la. By remaining annonymous you avoid a certain amount of personal responsibility and accountability for you behavior. On this forum many of us, if not all, know one eachother as much more than a screen name. We are miniature horse owners who do business with one another, see eachother at shows, many of us are fb friends, we know eachothers daily lives. All these things make us think twice before being rude or inconsiderate. My personal thought, strong words are reserved for people strong enough to handle the opinion readers might form about them.


I'm not sure who you're aiming this at but nowhere have I been rude, lied, called names or disrespectful to anyone. There's one poster who has done the old "la,la,la can't hear you" but I presume the name they are using is their real name. If there's a rule to using your own name here then lets all follow it. Until then, I'm posting under a name I've used many times before.


----------



## alongman (Jan 4, 2012)

andi said:


> I think in these more controversial topics the annonymity does play a larger role. I think many people already have trouble haveing a respectful adult conversation when they are passionate about something. They do not behave how they normaly would, lying, calling names, even resorting to the old, la la la, I cant hear you, la la la. By remaining annonymous you avoid a certain amount of personal responsibility and accountability for you behavior. On this forum many of us, if not all, know one eachother as much more than a screen name. We are miniature horse owners who do business with one another, see eachother at shows, many of us are fb friends, we know eachothers daily lives. All these things make us think twice before being rude or inconsiderate. My personal thought, strong words are reserved for people strong enough to handle the opinion readers might form about them.


Nicely said James - You do not have to agree with me, but being respectful and discussing a topic as opposed to ridiculing me, are what makes a good person.


----------



## alongman (Jan 4, 2012)

Higgs Boson said:


> I also posted on another thread before I posted on this one so joining just to post on this thread is incorrect.
> 
> *This would be incorrect - of the total (18) posts you have posted until exactly 3 minutes ago, seventeen are in the topic of Frustrating fact - this topic. The ONE other post you made on this site under your current name is in the topic of Horses (also on the Back Porch) which YOU started on December 20, 2011. You joined this forum, under this username on December 15, 2011. You did NOT post on another thread before this. Please do not insult me or the others on this site by blatantly lying to us.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 4, 2012)

alongman said:


> Nicely said James - You do not have to agree with me, but being respectful and discussing a topic as opposed to ridiculing me, are what makes a good person.


I must have missed a whole bunch of posts. Who is not being respectful and who is ridiculing? Have people been saying things and then editing their posts? I'd love to know because I've found this thread quite interesting.


----------



## andi (Jan 4, 2012)

The only part I was referring to you Higgs was, "strong words are reserved for people strong enough to handle the opinion readers might form about them. The words that come to mind are,

"We are a predominately Christian Nation and as Christians then we must obey and respect Gods word."

"God says homosexuality is an abomination. God is never wrong. Therefore all Christians must feel this way"

But when people want you to defend that position you tell them not to presume you are a Christian? You won't actually say if these are your feelings, but inferred them as strongly as possible. Later on you begin SEEMING like you have a problem with Right Wing Zealots, but in all actuality you never say that any more definitively than when you seemed like you were a Christian. In the end, allot of strong controversial contradicting statements with no actual commitment to either.

Then you add the ironic name, Higgs Boson. A not yet proven atomic particle, that while based in science, is controversially named "the God Particle". Independent of this forum, your very Name represents a never ending circle of irony. Lastly, your quote at the bottom, taking the whole "who came first, the chicken or the egg? to a whole new level of complexity, importance and irony.

Like you said, this forum has no rule insisting on using your real name, or telling people who you are. But like I said before, I think it adds a level of personal responsibility that makes these controversial conversations so much more valuable than similar discussions on other boards that are just filled with many "anonymous" users.


----------



## andi (Jan 4, 2012)

We must have been posting at the same time Higgs, I think that proves that I am NOT Higgs Boson. LOL


----------



## andi (Jan 4, 2012)

I think I had already brought up the fact that posts have been edited, to remove parts that were directed and meant to aggravate other posters directly.

I do think it is ridiculing and disrespectful to say things like, "Ah, an educated fellow how refreshing." Again that only infers that up to that point, educated fellows were scarce in the conversation. Also calling peoples thoughts ridiculous, with no explanation as to why, that is ridiculing. It is derived from the same word.


----------



## Jill (Jan 4, 2012)

Adam is right. I checked, too. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if Higgs isn't posting on this thread under two different names. I will never be confused for a shrinking violet and I do not understand the desire to hide behind a screen name , and especially not to create a second. Popular or not, I am not ashamed or too shy to own any opinions I'm willing to share.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Jan 4, 2012)

I have stayed out of this post because I generally, not always, reserve my posts on here to be at least somewhat horse related. Even on the back porch. But this topic has been very interesting to follow and has lots of interesting points being made. As to the original point of the thread I am personally amazed that in 2012 we still are debating this. In my mind, yes, it's somewhat small in there, I do not understand how one human being would want to deny another a right such as marriage (under the "law") and all that goes with that. Gay citizens pay taxes just like me. They work, go to school, etc., just like me. I have other "agenda" items that are important to me, but I also carefully follow this one. And will continue to do so.

Just curious about something... For those that do not think gay marriage should be legal, do you think gay citizens should also be denied welfare or medicaid or disability where eligible?

Adam, as for the situation with your cousin, I am so sorry to hear of that. It truly breaks my heart. I too am trying to find a way to bring a child into our family and I am learning just how difficult that is...unless you have $30-40k to spend on it. The adoptable childen in the state system are even difficult to qualify for due to my age and being single.




Really? When did 45 become "old" and just because I'm "only" engaged that isn't good enough. There are mother's and father's murdering their babies, there are children being abandoned and abused. But someone like Adam or me can't find a way to love a child? This world has really lost its collective mind.


----------



## cretahillsgal (Jan 4, 2012)

I totally agree with you Parmela.

My cousin finally adopted a child last August. After 2 years of trying to adopt. They were scrutinized and their entire lives (including the lives of ALL of the family) put under the microscope. It cost them a small fortune. And they are great parents.

At the same time there are many children in our local school system who are abused, neglected, and still left with their parents. And Im talking serious abuse. Molestation, not feeding them, sending them to school without shoes or a coat in 20 degree weather. And not just because they don't have money to buy these items. We (school employees) have given these children coats and shoes only to find out that the parents sold those items to get money for who knows what. Its reported to the authorities and the children are removed, but put right back. It's heartbreaking to say the least. Even more so when there are good people in this world who would LOVE to give a home to these children.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Jan 4, 2012)

> This would be incorrect - of the total (18) posts you have posted until exactly 3 minutes ago, seventeen are in the topic of Frustrating fact - this topic. The ONE other post you made on this site under your current name is in the topic of Horses (also on the Back Porch) which YOU started on December 20, 2011. You joined this forum, under this username on December 15, 2011. You did NOT post on another thread before this. Please do not insult me or the others on this site by blatantly lying to us.


While I'm a little shocked that you went so far out of your way...sorry but your wrong so please don't accuse me of lying. I joined on the 15th. Posted my first post on a thread I started on the 20th and didn't post on this one until the 28th. *"**You did NOT post on another thread before this". *Sorry but yes I did. I posted the "horses" thread on the 20th. Not that it matters. 



andi said:


> The only part I was referring to you Higgs was, "strong words are reserved for people strong enough to handle the opinion readers might form about them." The words that come to mind are,
> 
> "We are a predominately Christian Nation and as Christians then we must obey and respect Gods word."
> 
> ...



I said I was not a Christian. I'm not sure what part of "do not presume I am a Christian" that's hard to understand. The above statement was absolute sarcasm at it's best! Right wing Christian Fundamentalists barely ever "obey and respect Gods word". They 100% pick and choose what parts they want to stand up against and in the case of the gay movement - obviously they are the flavor of the day.

God's never wrong.

Of course he isn't. The world is 7000 years old. Adam and Eve actually existed. A great flood flooded the earth to 20+ feet above Mt Everest. The world is flat, unicorns are real, Slavery is fine. Murder is fine. Rape is fine. Killing for the most pathetic reasons is fine. Homophobia is fine. Hatred of women is fine. Killing babies is fine. Do right wing christians work on Sundays? You bet your booty they do. DO RWFC's forbid women from speaking in church? You bet they don't. Again I could go on and on. Not even the most zealot RWFC's obeys gods words (thank goodness lol) yet look at how aggressively they fight to take away the (gay) rights of others.

No, I am NOT a Christian. Yes I'm in favor of any gay couple who want to commit to each other being able to marry. I find it disgusting that the bible, god is love, toting RWFC's preach love and tolerance from the pulpit but not in real life. Like my opening post so sarcastically put it "it's gods word so all christians must feel that way". How naive of me.



andi said:


> Then you add the ironic name, Higgs Boson. A not yet proven atomic particle, that while based in science, is controversially named "the God Particle". Independent of this forum, your very Name represents a never ending circle of irony. Lastly, your quote at the bottom, taking the whole "who came first, the chicken or the egg?" to a whole new level of complexity, importance and irony.


The god particle. That one missing particle (perhaps not anymore) that started the whole big bang, got the universe rolling and spinning to where we have evolved to today.

Well that's easy. The Egg came first. Dinosaurs evolved millions of years before Chickens and Dinosaurs laid eggs!







Jill said:


> Adam is right. I checked, too. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if Higgs isn't posting on this thread under two different names.


Quite amazing the lengths people go to



. As I said to Adam, and now to you, you're both wrong. I did post on a thread before this one.

And this is quite amusing. Who, pray tell, is my alter ego on this thread. I'm sure they would love to know and I know I would love to? *trying not to snort soda bubbles from my nose*





Is this message board usually this paranoid?


----------



## LindaL (Jan 4, 2012)

Higgs...I do not know who you REALLY are...nor do I care. I do think you hide behind some other name...and I probably don't like that person either...but no matter. So, you wrote one other post before this one. WHY did you join this forum in the 1st place? Your thread you started was a link to some video apparently...I did NOT click on it (in fact did not even notice it til this whole thing started here) and do not plan on doing so...who knows what kind of virus it may be. I don't know you. So, again, why have you joined this forum? Do you own Miniature Horses? MOST new people join and introduce themselves. All you have done is cause chaos and posted a link. HMMM....

I don't care if you respond to this...because any and all posts from you will be blocked by me, so I won't see them anyway. I think you are a POSER.


----------



## andi (Jan 4, 2012)

Explaining it all as sarcasm would have made perfect sense if you had done it when everyone else questioned you about it over 10 pages ago. Not one member posted thinking it was sarcasm and many questioned you over and over about those view points, they all thought you were serious. You ignored everyone, until someone called you a Christian, and you said, "Don’t presume that". You made the conscience decision to NEVER clarify or defend yourself, just let everyone get ticked off and then act offended by them presuming what you said was what you felt. It would have been a simple fix, to just reply and say, I was being sarcastic. But you never did.

I think you, Adam and Jill are all agreeing. I believe what Adam is saying is you never posted on ANYONE ELSES topic, before this one, just started your own, which he is saying isn’t the same thing.

I would not call it paranoid, it's just that everyone here knows one another, so it is odd when a new person comes and seems very focused on being confrontational.


----------



## Jill (Jan 4, 2012)

Higgs Boson said:


> Quite amazing the lengths people go to
> 
> 
> 
> .


Like making up a second alter ego for a message board


----------



## LindaL (Jan 4, 2012)

Hmm...my last post was deleted...?


----------



## LindaL (Jan 4, 2012)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> It was not suppose to be deleted, I am trying to get it back.. SORRY>>> a mistake was made here..


I see it is back...thanks Mary Lou...I was hoping I wasn't being "punished"...lol


----------



## Jill (Jan 4, 2012)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> And HIGGS, time for you to identify yourself if you want to play here with your strong opinions.. It is only fair..
> 
> (IP: 208.100.149.90 )



Mary Lou


----------



## tagalong (Jan 4, 2012)

> Additionally, Tag, I'd frankly be very surprised if you read and listen to more sources of news each and every day than I do.


Well then, be surprised.





I follow a wide range of sources - _as I have said many times._ Why the little dig and sneer? It was not necessary. You have always sneered at me whenever we discussed media and then insisted you used more sources than anyone else ever could - all while pledging your stalwart allegiance to Fox and suggesting that NPR and PBS were liars and you would never watch or listen to them. Which was why I smiled at you a bit about that in my post. I use sources on both "sides". Always have.

And yes, I also understand nothing I say is of consequence seeing as I work hard, pay my taxes, do hours of volunteer work etc. etc. and yet am here on a work visa. LEGALLY. As in, a legal resident. Just thought I would head you off before you started on that tired topic again...





Please everyone - let's not get back on the Not Posting Under Your Real Name nonsense again - and how that makes your opinion unimportant or something to be dismissed. We have danced that dance a hundred times... and some of us have explained WHY we cannot and will not use our real names or provide links to the farms we work on or own.

You do realize that on most forums, the majority of posters use a screen name and stay anonymous - and only share their personal info with friends etc.

Nutty LB posters HERE made sure that I dropped quietly back into the somewhat anonymous zone and removed all links etc. - although I have never been super-secretive about anything and everyone in this area knows who I am. Plus I have loudly cheered on our horses at Congress and Nationals. But if anyone thinks I am going to make it easy to enable another couple of crazy people to contact the farm and whine about my opinion on something - it is not going to happen. Sorry.





Although the nutty people in question no longer post here, you never know...


----------



## Jill (Jan 4, 2012)

Higgs Boson = miniwhinny? I think so


----------



## LindaL (Jan 4, 2012)

tagalong said:


> Please everyone - let's not get back on the Not Posting Under Your Real Name nonsense again - and how that makes your opinion unimportant or something to be dismissed. We have danced that dance a hundred times... and some of us have explained WHY we cannot and will not use our real names or provide links to the farms we work on or own.
> 
> You do realize that on most forums, the majority of posters use a screen name and stay anonymous - and only share their personal info with friends etc.
> 
> ...


Back to the "off topic topic" again...

While many people do not use real names on forums for just as many reasons, most people do tend to get to know others on the forums because they have the same interests...like Miniature Horses!



So, there will be others who do know who that member is. I am not saying you should always use your real name. What I am saying is that if you join a forum at least "introduce" yourself as someone interested in the MAIN topic of the forum...like Miniature Horses!





It is not fair to have a 2nd name to use for topics you do not want to be identified with. Either post under your real forum name or not at all.


----------



## andi (Jan 4, 2012)

Wow, I really wasn't thinking it was a current member. I honestly thought we just had a troll on our hands that gets bored and google's hot topics or something and ended up here. Hmm. Not sure yet how I feel about this alternative.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Jan 4, 2012)

Jill said:


> Higgs Boson = miniwhinny? I think so



Jill, if you're right, that's just creepy.


----------



## alongman (Jan 4, 2012)

If indeed this is the case, a current member who was speculated, then it is interesting to do a member search and see that there are several _variations_ of their original username. Clearly, this is not the first time that an alternate name would have been used.

If this is true, then please realize that I DO value everyones' opinions despite the fact that they may not be the same as mine. You are entitled to an opinion.

I am posting an interesting look that was published by the Human Rights Campaign that evaluates candidates in this election and their pro-gay marriage positions.

https://hrc.democracyengine.com/mbfb


----------



## Jill (Jan 4, 2012)

StarRidgeAcres said:


> Jill, if you're right, that's just creepy.


Pretty sure I'm right. The geographic location of that IP fits, and if you compare prior miniwhinny posts to Higgs Boson posts, they are pretty much interchangeable (and I mean based on YEARS of reading miniwhinny's posts). Same "voice".


----------



## LindaL (Jan 4, 2012)

alongman said:


> If indeed this is the case, a current member who was speculated, then it is interesting to do a member search and see that there are several _variations_ of their original username. Clearly, this is not the first time that an alternate name would have been used.
> 
> If this is true, then please realize that I DO value everyones' opinions despite the fact that they may not be the same as mine. You are entitled to an opinion.
> 
> ...


THANKFULLY, Michele Bachmann has dropped out!!!



:yeah



:yeah

Thanks for the link Adam!


----------

