Libertarians?

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Nitro Owners Forum

Help Support Nitro Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
R

Rich Stern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2000
Messages
2,618
Reaction score
1
OK, pardon, but here comes a little bit of a political rant and some political soul baring.



I've always considered myself a political moderate. I have typically been turned off by extreme positions at either end of the political spectrum. I always felt that logic and reasoning were good ways to arrive at practical compromise that served as many participants as possible.



I was prepared to support the President in the upcoming election. I have problems with specific issues (no WMDs, lack of spending control, poor global diplomacy). But, I think President Bush has provided good wartime leadership in trying and uncharted times for our country. On the other hand, John Kerry, while I admire some things about him personally, is just too much akin to the Democrats I grew up with in the Northeast. Never met a government program he didn't want to fund, never met a tax increase he didn't want to pass.



Seems like my position is clear, doesn't it? Well...



Then the President comes out with this proposal to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.



Folks, I'm bewildered. Imagine: Change the United States Constitution to deny a group of Americans equal legal treatment they are guaranteed by the very same document.



Huh?



I realize many people, based on religious belief and other criteria, feel that homosexuality is wrong. I understand that viewpoint. But homosexuals are not infringing on anyone else's liberty in the context of their consenting relationships. And in our body of laws, marriage conveys specific legal rights. There is no legal basis for denying such rights to homosexuals. There may be moral arguments based on one's personal beliefs, but those arguments are not found or supported in the Constitution. All evidence to the contrary.



I can't get past it. I love the Constitution. It's a brilliant document. The proposed amendment is the most un-American concept put forth by a president in my lifetime.



A law to specifically restrict the liberty of a group of Americans that another group of Americans enjoy. A Constitutional amendment, no less.



Tell me you think homosexuality is a sin. Fine. Tell me you think of marriage is a convention between a man and a woman. Fine. Tell me you want to change the Constitution in order to limit access to equal rights for a selected group of Americans. HOLD THE PHONE!



GW lost me on that one.



Short of a major mea culpa from the President, I am packing my bags and leaving two party politics. For a long time, I have considered formally becoming a Libertarian. I have often agreed with Libertarian views. I think I'm finally there. Tonight, I visited the Libertarian Party home page to review their stated philosophies. While some are tough to accept, I have to say, I can't criticize the logic of any of them. No one set of political/social beliefs is perfect. But these are close enough. Liberty is a hard concept, and can be rough on the participants. I'm still in.



Sorry for the rant. Rant over. As always, I am interested in your opinions.
 
Rich, i agree smoked my post by accident. I do agree with you for the most part.
 
"How do you tell when a politician is lying?"



"His lips are moving."



Jim, I think there is a lot of merit in what you say. Unfortunately, marriage as a legal concept is deeply interwoven into our system of laws.



Perhaps the amendment should be: "All references to marriage in the laws of the United States will be henceforth considered Civil Unions."
 
Rich,

Don't be mad at George W, he's just doing what he's always done, that is exactly what the rich and powerful who placed him in his position tell him to do. For George W it's a political win/win. It satifies the extreme right, who isn't all that happy with him right now, without ostracizing any other large groups. So what if he loses the gay vote, there aren't very many of them on the whole. The average person doesn't really care one way or the other. I have talked to some of my most conservitave friends and they have no problem with gay marriage or at least civil union. They too, think he's gone off the deep end on the idea of a constitutional ammendment but they will vote for him anyway. It is amazing that this country couldn't pass an ammendment insuring the equal protection of the law to our mothers, wives,and daughters but we are ready to turn our bill of rights into a moral statement to satisfy the narrow minded. The audacity of it is outragous.

I just can't imagine how the lives of two other people gay or straight, Christian or Atheist, green or purple affect my life as long as they leave me alone to live my life as I wish. As many other special intrest groups have stated before, it is a slippery slope when you open that door. Once you dictate how a group of people behave then they have the right to dictate how you behave when they gain power. The problem for many people is that it just ain't 1953 anymore and Ike ain't the President anymore. Too bad time does march on.

I agree with you too on the idea of a third party. I have always been a Democrat but I see the need for an alternative but until a real leader comes along it isn't going to happen. I have always hoped somebody with the integrity and leadership of John McCain would come along and give us a rational centrist ideology. However, for now, I believe it is best to make changes within the two party system.



Harpo


http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
 
Well, I am very satisfied with GW's handling of America's response to 9/11. For years we heard "We will hunt them down and they will be dealt with". Never happened.

As for WMD? I think that maybe GWB was overzealous in carrying on what his father handled and never succeeded in doing. "Here Dad, I'll get him for ya".

As for the Constitutional Ammendment... WHAT IS HE THINKING????? To me it would make more sense to make San Fransisco a gay commune. If you're gay go there.

The presidential election is up for grabs. I have thought for the longest time that we need a third party.

My wife would make a good President.

See doesn't tax me too much and she saves our money. (most of our pennies are blue) She lets me have my toys, and she genuinely cares for me and my well being. She is a giver and not a user.



Traits that Mr. President should have don't you think?

Those that have studied Escatolgy (sp?) know where this world is headed. There is no stopping it.



I'm not a learnered man. (my "presidential wanna be" post proves that), and this post is just my opinion.

I believe in trying to do what is right, it makes my life easier.

 
Leave it up to the States to decide if they will or will not recognize "gay marriages".....I'm opposed to a Federal mandate....no need for it.

 
Rich, I'm a life long Democrat, and was VERY upset when Dubya "won" the election, however, I do give him his props for the way he handled 9/11, and think he was exactly who we needed in office at that exact time/place in history.

Will I vote for him for a second term? Not a chance, not because he's a Republican, but because of a number of issues I have with him and Cheyney. (Haliburton, spelling?,

his stance on the gay marriage thing,the way he's alienated so many countries and political leaders around the world by trying to make the USA the world "police" and undermining the UN, etc.

Here's where my problem is, I'm not exactly the world's biggest Kerry fan, and think Edwards is way to inexperienced in politics and think he'd be in over his head even if as a vice president.

I know nothing about the Libertarian party, but will research them, I gotta tell you, "none of the above" is looking pretty good these days.

As far as gay marriages, I think here we have a politician listening to his contributors and advisers and saying what he thinks will get him re-elected. Personally I don't care if they get married or not, they don't bother me and don't infringe on any part of the way I live my life. And who am I to say it's "right or wrong", IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS if two people, whoever they may be,choose to live their life together as a couple. I think the powers that be in Washington would be serving me much better by concentrating on homeland security, economy, fair trade, and trying to develop better relations with world nations. Final note, keep your eyes and ears open, there's ALOT more to this thing going on in Haiti than we are being led to believe.

All of the above is just my opinion and in no way is meant to say anyone else on this board is right or wrong in their beliefs,if we disagree on any of it, we disagree, doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa, have a good day all. egMike
 
He completely lost the 10% of Americans who are Gay and Lesbian with that stand. Add to that their friends and supporters.



By the results of the first election, something he could not afford to do.



Sorry, George..... I supported you last time around..... Too many mistakes in too many areas.







Thank all of you who have been so kind as to say that you felt "we" were deserving of equal treatment.



God Bless you and the rest of America!

And our Canadian Friends, too!

me!
 
I have heard a lot of the "leave me alone to live my life the way I please" and "they can do what they want as long as they don't infringe on my rights".......Listen, we live in a society and you cannot be your own island in the sea. You have to interact with society. That's what America is all about. Cooler heads will prevail and being here in DC, I can tell you politics is a dirty nasty business with very little to do with what is best for the people. That is why we have to be active and make the changes that make our SOCIETY a better place. For all we know GWB made the proposal knowing it would get shot down. He is a Christian and his faith tells him that is the right course of action...it is who he is. He is following his convictions right or wrong. But look at it from another standpoint (and I am not bashing gays!!)...when is a sexual preference WORTHY of being regulated? Putting it another way, if you condone a gay lifestyle, is that any less than say ..incest, pedophila, bestiality, or any sexual preference other than hetero?...my point being what gives you the right to regulate ANY sexual preference? I agree what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is no ones business but when and where do you draw the line and how does that effect us as a society? I have visions of the USA ending up like Rome...the TRUE Rome as an empire in all of it's decadence, if we do not set limits.



I surrender the floor!!LOL



TOXIC
 
It is great to live here in the USA-- we can have a board like this and put in our 2cents worth without the fear of getting thrown in Jail..



Get rid of the lawyers---------------



Trial in the morning -- and hang-um high in the afternoon..



Bring back pubic hang-uns --- Talk about real TV.



The US is not perfect -- nor am I -- but sure beats alot of places.



Have a great Day in the USA-- "You can vote for whom you want" ---- Is'n that great---

HaleDamage



 
Geeez, how dare you make me think this hard so early in the morning?:)

The constitution is an ever changing, living document, based on what the people of this country believe and or want. That's why women, 18 year olds and African-Americans get to vote and why we couldn't drink, then could drink, "adult beverages". The framers of this document had no such ideas.

I personally believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman but that's just my belief based on how I was brought up.

I also don't believe it should be left to the states or what kind of problems will arise if a gay marriage couple have to move to a state that does not allow this type of union? Will they be forced into enclaves where it is legal?

I'm not smart or educated enough to decide these issues except for how I feel about it and I am sitting right on top of the fence as I write this. I have a problem with this issue in regards to children when I see signs at the rally's stating, "let my Mom's marry" or "help my two Daddy's". That's just me.

I also don't see anything wrong with a sitting President recommending that the citizens of a country decide a certain issue..



Just my .02 worth.



Bill
 
Well Rich this will come as no surprise to you or anyone else that has read my posts related to politics but for the very same reasons (in theory if not specific items) I have voted Libertarian for most political positions the last 4 years, including Harry Brown in 2000.



I too consider my self a moderate on most issues, but my hard line is similar to yours, the role of goverment should be limited to necessity and laws/ammendments should be limited to those things that required to protect the life, liberty and property of the INDIVIDUALs, thats You and Me!!



I won't go into detail as this is not the place, but on the republican side I have issue with things like the Gay Marriage laws (what's next, a religious majority deciding Jews/muslims/hindu... shouldn't marry?), issues with the Democrats of taking more of my tax dollars to support "earned income tax credits" (which are for folks who do NOT earn enough income to pay taxes, and is just another term for socialist income redistribution), and BOTH parties of late for POOR fiscal management of MY $$. Yes boys and girls the $ that the federal and state governments manage is NOT THEIRS!! It's OURS, WE pay out of OUR pockets (and the corporations who earn it too) and then they tell US how much we can have back?? What about Pre WWII when there was NO income tax with held from your checks and you just were RESPONSIBLE to save enough each month to pay your tax bill in April!



OK and for those that want a more balanced view then pure libertarian party (some views/members, like all parties, are extreme) try www.boortz.com. Neal Boortz is a libertarian talk show host who I feel 80% of the time provides a balanced view.



Oh and on the Gay Marriage, I agree that there are WAY more important things to spend my hard earned $$ on (meaning the politicians that I pay the salaries of). Georgia is also spending a LOT of $/Time on trying to pass a Georgia constitutional ban on gay marriages. This from the state with the WORST SAT scores, Terrible roads/traffic, still fighing about the Confederate Flag and GAY MARRIAGE is where the politicians think I WANT THEM FOCUSED!!! NOT!!!
 
Its all a political ploy. GW knows that just about all democratic leaders will shoot it down. He then will have that as ammo. Something to hold over thier heads during this next campaign.



If GW wasn't the President of the United States he would probably not worry one way or the other if gay marriage was legal.



As I stated in an earlier post: I hate the way political parties grasp at anything they can to smear the opposing party.



Wolf
 
The problem with changing anything in the constitution is the fact that there is know longer anyone left in politics that is capable of making a un-bias decision.

If we change it for marriage what will follow next? How long will it take them to just rewrite the whole thing ? Do we really want the people that are in politics today rewriting anything in the constitution ? Can you think of all the special interests that might be slipped in the back door ? Like every other piece of legislation they pass.

I don't think so !!

 
Gross - I remember reading something a while back that said something like "through out history, no democratic-like civilized society has existed in it defined form for more then about 200 years. At that point major changes occur that revolutionize the civilization and it is started over" I don't know if it was fact or supposition, but i do think that the way the governement looks, feels and acts today is nothing like what our constitution framers had in mind. Heck how many of them had an idea of motorized cars, let alone airplanes, computers, cell phones and the like. Let alone the sheer SIZE of the land and population of the U.S.A!



I personaly think in my lifetime there will be MAJOR changes in our countries government. What I don't know is will it be good, bad or just different.



Like others, this is a GREAT board to learn!
 
Trep, what you said reminded me of the last page of Orwell's "Animal Farm" where the barnyard animals looked through the window of the farmhouse and looked from man to pig and from pig to man and couldn't tell the differance.



This country was created to escape prejudice and injustice and for the quest for indivdual freedom and a great document was written to protect those freedoms. At most this issue should be handled within the state legislatures.



Harpo
 
I believe every citizen should have equal protection under the law. (PERIOD!) This includes my wife, my parents, myself and every other countless American who entered into marriage. Any attempt to change the almost timeless definition of such a deeply rooted ceremony will be met with overwhelming opposition, as it has in this case. I believe that the same rights should be given, and can be, without dissolving the hard true definition that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Call it whatever else can be accepted by the MAJORITY and give them equal rights and protection. (IMHO)



"Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron. That term's implied definition describes the union between a lesbian female and a homosexual male. I don't think even this miniscule movement would like that!



If it takes a constitutional ammendment, whether state or federal, to put an end to this self-serving minority's desire to enforce their interpretation of "political correctness", I am all for it. What's next, a federal petition to mandate "other" designated public restrooms? (Give me a break!!) I believe the politicians are reacting to a minority's plea, not creating them. Put the funding liability for all of this debate where it belongs.



P.S. GO LIBERTARIANS! (You're the best friends a Republican could ever want!)
 
Dan J - Watch what you wish for, the Democrats were not too crazy about Nader at the last election!!! LOL
 
Trep - Yeah, they said it cost Big Al the election. No, wait! It was the FL "hanging chads". No, wait! It was Big Al's focus creating the internet that cost the election. No, wait! It was Senator Gore's relevance in telling Ollie North that,"Osama Bin Laden did not warrant covert attention", during the Contra Inquisition of the '80's. No, Wait!..........................
 
No Wait it was Al couldn't carry his home state of Tenn!!! LOL
 
Let me know when the politicians ban hunting, fishing, guns, gas guzzler pickup trucks and boats! Yea, I know there are politicians and organizations trying to ban some of them now and I support the organizations that protect them. As for marriage, I don't care who marries who. I'm not sure why anyone would want to get into this "institution" if they didn't have to. The company I work for provides benefits for significant others, regardless of a piece of paper. Oh well...back to my regularly scheduled surfing while eating lunch!



Bob G.
 
We will have two choices. Bush or Kerry.

-In Iraq: WMD-was admitted to we just do not know where they are now (Maybe we would know where they were if the UN would have done the job they set forth to do in the first place); plus the guy kiled thousands, if not millions of innocent people. Not to mention torturing children to create fear for the general population.

-Marriage is a union by a male and a female and is bassed on Christianity. The scriptures point out that same-sex relationships are wrong. Our president is a firm Christian, as is most of our population. Where we messed-up as a country is allowing special benefits to help married couples (man/woman). Being a country with freedom-of-religion, we can not deny to gay people the rights we give to straight people. Gay people can believe anything they want to (even if it is wrong according to their own religion) according to our constitution.

-it breaks down to who you trust the most. I think GW is trying to do the absolute best job he can for the most citizens. I do not like his spending-but I do think he is spending to help in teh long run. I do not like the WMD issue either but I never really though we would find them once we waited so long giving the UN time to take action. I do think that we need to continuously pressure the terrorist groups so that they will not have the opportunity to kill our innocent citizens again and think Bush 43 will do whatever he can to insure that.

G.W. Gets my vote. he gets me mad sometimes but I think he is the most dedicated president we have had in a long time and also think he will continue to do the best job in office.
 
Lot's of views here. Going to throw my two cents into the fray.



Libertairians



If you believe strongly in the Libertairian movement, then you should support and vote for those candidates. However, it should be pointed out that the Libertairian party, for the most part, does not have a voice or a say in the governing of this country. Not saying that they cannot gain a voice, it's just that they don't have one now. If you have previously voted for the Republicans, then a vote for the Libertaarian's is a vote for the democratic candidate (for the most part). And vice/versa.



Constitutional Admendment



I believe that a significant majority of the populace, would like to have a constituational admendment in place to define marriage, as a union between a man and a woman. However, wanting an admendment, and getting an admendment, are two different things. Once the initial items have been passed, it then takes 38 states to ratify. If I start honestly counting, that number should be pretty easy to get to. Each state get's one vote. When you start looking at the heartland of this country, most of the states will vote for it. But it's gotta get through Congress first. And as we all know, just because our President wants it, doesn't mean that congress will do it (regardless if you are the current President, or the immediate Past President).



Equal Rights



Lot's of people complain that they have been denied there 'equal rights' on any number of items. We are allowed to 'keep and bear arms' under our constitution. However, not everyone get's that right. We have Freedom of Speech, but you cannot say anything that you want at any time. There are 'rules' for almost all of the rights.



I fully support the rights of individuals to live their life the way that they want to - within the confines of the constitution and the law of the land. Our laws and the interpreation thereof, are based in large part to centuries old English Law. It has been understood, that 'marriage', traditionally is the union of one man to one woman. There are groups and individuals that want to now change that, for they feel it is there 'right', (as they believe has been afforded by the constitution) to have marriage interpreted as a union of any two persons (regardless of sex).



This country is not the same as it was 200+ years ago - and certainly is not the same as it will be 200 years from now.



Tex
 
Tex - I'll challenge you on "the Libertairian party, for the most part, does not have a voice or a say in the governing of this country."



From http://www.lp.org/organization/



The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing political party. Today, the party is organized in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.



Currently, more than 590 Libertarians hold public office, more than all other third parties combined. In the 2003 elections, we elected 46 Libertarians, nearly half in higher-level races such as city and county council. During the year 2000, we ran more than 1430 candidates, more than twice as many as all other third parties combined.



We fielded candidates for 255 of the 435 seats in the U.S House as well as 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for election - the first time in eighty years that any third party has contested a majority of the seats in Congress. Our slate of U.S. House candidates received 1.7 million votes, the first time any third party has received over a million votes for U.S. House.



They are a force to be concerned about if you are a Rebublican or Democrate. Right now based on membership, size, and Political candidates they ARE The most likely TRUE 3'rd party in this system.
 
My slightly skewed view of this is as follows:



Too often we vote for the candidate who is not necessarily the best candidate for the job, but the candidate whose beliefs most match our own. That is not necessarily best for the county and all the people in it. That is one of the reasons our fore fathers were the great men that they were. They looked at the country as a whole, putting aside their personal and religious beliefs. That is why we are free to practice any religion or are free to speak our minds. We broke free from a government that limited our actions. Government regulation of something like marriage is a giant step backwards. Americans as a whole are to spoiled in what we have, because we always had it (mostly).



Rich D
 
Trep,



How many Libertarians are in the House of Representatives, Senate, or are a Governor?



Yes, on the local level, they certainly have some success and have some swing. But not on the National Level. And even if they start to be successful on getting some membership in the House and Senate, they will have no political clout, until the time they can actually chair committees and be a player at the table.



The current mix of canidates for US Senate:



38 Candidates seeking a Senate Seat

17 Republicans

16 Democrats

2 Libertarians

1 Independent

1 American Independent

1 Peace and Freedom



They have made more progress than many anticipated. One third of the Senate seats are up for election. If they were truly going to be competitive, then they should have a canidate for each office.



Tex



 
While I am currently a bit depressed by presidential politics, I must say I am heartened by the civil, thoughtful commentary by the individuals here.



If the United States endures for another 200 years, it will be because the people are more enlightened and less corrupted than their elected representatives.

 
It's always been that way Rich!..LOL!!...That's why were aren't Russia!!!
 
Trep, I looked for that quite you mentioned all morning and couldn't find it.

"through out history, no democratic-like civilized society has existed in it defined form for more then about 200 years. At that point major changes occur that revolutionize the civilization and it is started over"

I am not sure, But I believe Thomas Jefferson said, and I'm paraphrasing; "throughout history, no democratic-like society has existed for more then 200 years. At that point major changes occur. When the entitled find out that they can vote themselves entitlements, that's the end of the democracy..."

I did find some good quotes though.



"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)



"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), Notes on Virginia



"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..."

Thomas Jefferson (The Declaration of Independence)



"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)



"The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body."

John Adams (1735 - 1826)



"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."

Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988)



"Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices - just recognize them."

Edward R. Murrow (1908 - 1965), television broadcast, December 31, 1955



AND my absolute favorite that must pertain to this board!!



"Do not bite at the bait of pleasure till you know there is no hook beneath it."

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)





Bill

 
The whole issue of gay marriage is divisive precisely because it has political, social, legal, moral and theological implications.



My wife and I have friends who are gay - in our case members of our local lesbian community. We've discussed how we're going to handle this issue when we're around them and I've decided that my feelings boil down to this:



I can tolerate gay "marriage" as long as opponents can tolerate my view that God did not create people to be gay or lesbian (i.e., if I am expected to tolerate you for your views and lifestyle, then I have the right to expect you to tolerate me for mine). After all, this is America, right?



I can accept gay "marriage" as long as opponents can accept me for being someone who bases his moral convictions on the authority of God's written Word rather than on the constantly changing realm of human emotion or on imperfect human reason.



But I will ALWAYS draw a distinction if the ultimate goal of a social/political/legal movement is not to gain tolerance or respectful acceptance, but outright moral and theological approval; to declare something as right which is not.



I believe that the ultimate goal of this debate is not to establish or support equality to secure a MORAL stamp of approval on a particular lifestyle. In America, I am expected to tolerate those who have a different view than me. I may even have to accept the legality of a decision in order to uphold the pincipals of political and religious freedom on which this nation was founded. So be it.



But do not expect me to approve of something that goes against the the Word and will of Him who holds the universe - and our eternal destiny - in the palm of His hand.



However, that same authority commands ME to care for my neighbor and to do good to those who hate me. If the theological meaning of certain words is eventually usurped by social or political forces opposed to God, so be it. Those people will answer to God....not to me....or to GWB...or anyone else.



My only other comment is this, a series of questions that I'd like to have answered: Where and when will we - as a nation - draw a moral line that will not be crossed? At what point will we NOT tolerage, accept or approve of something. And why will we set the line THERE, and not HERE? What's IS my/our/your source of immutable, unchangeable authority that guides what I/we/you do, supports what I/we/you support, or opposes what I/we/you oppose, declares right or wrong, and distinguish good from evil?



And that's MY rant for the day, set forth to test the tolerance of those who don't agree with me.
 
This thread, got my gears to turning, so I went and did a little research.



How many here, are truly aware of the following (I know that I was not):



The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)



The text:



Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.



Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.









The ERA's first section states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." It was intended to place into law the equality of men and women.

It was sent to the states in March, 1972.



The original seven year deadline was extended to ten years.



It expired unratified in 1982.





Tex
 
(Removed because it goes off-topic)



Rich: Go Libertarian. I hate the two-party system too.



I'm for working families, but also believe in the right to reap the rewards of hard work.



I'm for respect and equality, but believe that those principles are a two-way street.



I'm against government believing it is better at making choices for me than I am, but I understand that together we can accomplish things I cannot do alone.



I believe that a child has the right to be born once it is conceived; but I believe that no one has the right to tell a woman what her future is to be.



I believe in personal responsibility and personal accountability.



I believe that the will of the people should supercede the will of the powerful.



I believe that humility and love accomplishes more than power and hate.



And I believe that neither Republican nor Democrats hold a lock on absolute truth.



I am registered as an Independent - the REAL moral majority.



 
What's all this about happy librarians??! I'll have you know that some of my best friends are librarians. My own mother was a librarian in California and in Rhode Island. They are very nice people and have always been helpful to me when I am trying to find a book on a special subject. I just don't understand why anyone wouldn't want them to get married. What does GW have against librarians anyway? I think that........ Oh - the Libertarian Political Party....

That's different.



Never Mind.



Emily
 
Tex - I was looking for the mix of Federal House of Representatives and Senate member 'cause I SWORE there were some. But, as you pointed out "They have made more progress than many anticipated." I think a lot of folks will NOT vote Libertarian (or any 3rd party for that matter) simply because they THINK it is a "throw away vote". If MORE folks truly voted for the people they believe will BEST represent THEIR interests in governement, you'd see a LOT more Libertarians in higher office.



Bill - YOU GOT IT!! Thomas Jefferson's quote that you paraphrased.
 
Trep,



Here is the House of Representatives breakdown:



1213 Candidates seeking a Seat

405 Republicans

396 Democrats

221 Libertarians

62 Greens

33 Independents

22 Write-Ins

11 Reforms

9 Natural Laws

8 Constitutions

8 Right-to-Lifes

7 Conservatives

4 No Party Affiliations

3 Independent Americans

3 Independences

3 United States Taxpayerss

3 American Independents

2 Socialist Workerss

2 Socialists

2 United Citizenss

1 Working Families

1 Liberty Union

1 Vermont Grassroots

1 Concerned Citizens

1 No New Taxes

1 One Earth

1 America First

1 Unaffiliated

1 Liberal



Tex
 
Mo, I appreciate your thoughtful position.



Regarding drawing moral lines: That isn't the business of government. The litmus test is simple, in my view. Does the behavior in question infringe the equal right to liberty of another citizen? That simple test removes moral judgement, which varies greatly with religion, ethnic culture, experience, etc.



Rape, pedaphelia, incest, etc., are usually crimes committed against the will of the victim and infringe the victim's liberty. While they may be crimes alongside homosexualty in someone's religious context, they are explicitly defined crimes in our society, whereas homosexuality is not. Therefore, the comparison is invalid as it applies to the law. Viewing gay marriage as an equal rights issue has nothing to do with those topics, outside the context of a morals debate.

 
What an interesting discussion this has been..

MY HEAD HURTS!!!!

Very few boards could have had this discussion without the equivalent of a fist fight on-line. That's why I love this place and I bet there are quite a few discussions over dinner tonight.



N.A.M.B.L.A.'s goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual sexual relationships. I don't care if it's consensual or not, it is and should be against the law.



The Mormon's used to have many wives. While, if you research this, it was also consentual and oftimes good for all, it is against the law, regardless of the separation provision.



It used to be common for female "children" as young as eleven or twelve years old to marry as long as they were "child bearing" ready. This was consentual also but we don't allow that anymore.



So, these aren't crimes committed against the will of the victim and that infringe the victim's liberty, but they are against the law never-the-less, and should be...



I'm up to about .06 cents worth now:}



Bill





 
I will not waste keystrokes telling you what I think of the last comments.
 
Bill, do you know what the difference is between homosexual marriage and polygamy? Political clout. There are not enough polygamists, and they don't have enough political muscle to effectively challenge the constitutionality of the law.



I don't care if one man wants to marry two women, as long as the two women want to be married to that same man. Again, the test for me: Who's rights have they violated by engaging in their consenting behavior?



As for underage marriage: We have a clear standard between being an adult and being a minor in our body of laws. Minors do not enjoy the same liberties as others until the have reached adult status. Many of their rights are conferred to their guardians until the age of adulthood.

 
Rich,



I can see you side of the arguement. Particularly in this discussion, what would you say is happening to those who hold an historical definition of the word "marriage". The debate, in my opinion, is hot precisely because both sides view themselves as victims of injustice and intolerance.



Gay couples believe - and in many instances RIGHTLY - that their legal right to hold joint title to property, co-sign legal documents, receive distributions from jointly acquired assets, ete., etc., etc... is being unjustly withheld from them on the sole basis of their sexual preference. I brook no issue with removing those barriers under the banner of "equality/equal justice under the law".



On the flip side of that coin, I am empathetic with those who want to hold the traditional meaning behind the word marriage, and believe that the MEANING of the word is being torn from them unjustly; that their right to hold onto the institution of marriage as meaning a union between one woman and one man is being ripped from them without any thought to the impact it may have on society.



If gay and lesbian couples want to pretend that they are 'married', if the mayor of San Francisco wants to pretend that he is 'marrying' them, and even if the U.S. Supreme Court wants to pretend that it has the authority to change the moral connotation of the word to mean something it does not, I say "more power to ya." Call it civil unions and I'm all for it. Call it marriage, and I'll opine that it's living a fantasy.



There is, right now, a group of self-admitted "pedophiles" who are advocating the tolerance/acceptance/affirmation of their lifestyle. Why should we treat that group any differently than we treat hetero- or homosexual couples? If the child is a "willing and knowing participant" (as this group advocates) then by what standard do we declare that lifestyle as being wrong?



Equally, what gives us the right to hammer on PETA for protecting the lives of innocent fish? Aren't we, as fishermen, infringing on the victim's will and liberty? What if the Ninth Circuit Court of California were to declare that animals are afforded the same rights and privileges as human beings - that human beings do not have the right to set themselves up as master over the animal world when we ourselves are animals? What if the Supreme Court of the U. S. affirms that ruling, or Congress moves to add the fifty-fourth amendment to the Constitution affirming animal rights? By what or whose authority do you and I measure those actions as being just or unjust, right or wrong?



Does society ultimately decide what is a crime? Roman emperors used to feed my kind to lions, and it was not a crime. Radical Islamics would like to do the same to Americans and not have it viewed as a crime. Is their society right and ours wrong?



I'm done. I've made my views perfectly clear. If they turn the stomachs of some, then we're finally experiencing equality.

 
I do understand and agree with you Rich. I was by no means advocating such behavior. Anyway, the politicians of the time, because of their mindset, were going to send in the Army to enforce the monogramy laws they passed. Also, the point was, whether consensual or not, certain parts of a civilized society must have protection even if they view it as a burden. I was seeing too much in the posts about "consent". I thought my post was clear on this.

I don't know what Teri read in my comments but I suggest they be read again, and thought about.



That's it, Bill
 
Teri, I really think that Bill was/is trying to distinguish that there are other situations besides homosexuality that have to be considered. Just because it is VERY easy to to say that NAMBLA is wrong and you will get 99.99999% agreement, there are grayer lines that will have to be addressed. Let us not forget there are aspects of gay relationships that are also illegal in some states.



TOXIC
 
Just so you know, I read Bill's comments and I don't think I misread them. You are all free to voice your own opinions. I chose not to voice mine because they would not have been constructive. I read Bill's comments and I also dismissed them as Bill's opinion and I will not think about them any further.



Just thought I would add something so I don't turn into the "closeminded" one of the group, I didn't state my stance on this issue until now. Based on my comments above I think you will assume I am all for gay marriage and I am not in support of certain aspects. Equal rights yes, traditional marriage no. But I do have a problem when I feel the comparison being made to sexual acts with children. Consent or no consent, minors are mature enough in most cases to make that decision and some minors are really suseptable to being taken advantage of. You will never convince me the 2 situations are the same.
 
should say "minor ARE NOT mature enough"
 
I'll bet you'll get no argument from anyone here (including me AND Bill if you look at his post)it was just an example of another situation. We, as a society have a duty to protect our children.





TOXIC
 
Come on, Mo. Fish are not citizens of the United States (they'll have a heck of a time flipping those little switches in the voting both).



My issue is with denying citizens equal protection under the law that the constitution guarantees them.



I've already made it clear that minors occupy a different status in our legal system, and Teri correctly points out that the issues of maturity and decision making ability come into play, which is why minors do have a different status.



Please don't belittle homosexuals with comparisons to fish or pedophiles. Fish don't reason and pedophiles are criminals.



We do have the right to hammer PETA, both verbally and in print, as do they reciprocally. Check the 1st Amendment. Let's not confuse lawful, civil objection with preemption of rights.

 
Folks The only constructive thing I can say is I love this site and as stated before it is because conversations like this can happen. I won't voice my opinion on this because it has gone IMHO so far from where it started only to say as a victim I think GW is right.

BF
 
Good evening all!

Haven't been online for a day or two, and just read all the posts. I guess I'll weigh in here.



I have to agree wholeheartedly with MO on this. (surprise surprise, I know!!) I too am a Christian and I believe there is one thing here that will cause you to side one way or the other.



I think (and some may disagree, thats ok) that the main issue here is whether or not a homosexual has the "choice" whether or not to be gay. If, in fact he or she does not have a choice, and they were created that way, then I agree with most of you. They should have the right to be married and have the same marital rights under the law that heterosexual couples have. Many people use the argument about the lack of rights for African Americans years ago, and how that has changed over the years. If, in fact homosexuals have no choice in the matter, then YES that is a valid argument, and yes they are being discriminated against for being something that they have no control over.



On the other hand, if in fact, homosexuals were not created homosexuals, and they have made a conscious choice to be that way, that would mean that they have simply chosen to deviate from what the Bible, AND society has deemed a normal relationship between a man and a woman.



I have to say personally, that if I believed the first scenario, that gays did not choose to be that way, I would be the first to defend them and their rights. But, as a Christian I do not believe that for a minute. God created man and woman. The Bible says he created man and woman for each other. Thats why He made it possible for them to reproduce. It was His plan and still is His plan. He says time and time again in the Word that homosexuality is wrong. He destroyed two whole cities because of it.



Now, I know that many of you are not at all happy with my opinion so far, but please hear me out on this last point. I realize many of you disagree with me, and therefore you disagree with the Bible. Thats your right, and I'll defend your right to believe as you wish till I die. But, I just want to leave you with a question, and please think about it before you react. If God CREATED some men and women to be homosexuals, why then would he say repeatedly in the Bible that it is wrong. Does the God that you know seem to be a God that would create some people to be something, and to live a certain lifestyle....but then punish them for it??? I have to say I would never serve or trust in a god like that. We are ALL SINNERS, and all of us have desires inside us that are contrary to what God wants us to be. The problem comes when we CHOOSE to act upon those desires. We are not helpless against them, but we choose to give in and do what we want, because it makes us happy or it feels good to us. The God I serve is a loving, compassionate God that WANTS me to live according to His Word. He gives me the freedom to choose, and to act how I wish, but He also punishes and condemns me when I do wrong. I don't believe He is a God who would condemn a certain action, and then sit back and watch us helplessly commit that action.



Thanks for allowing me to speak my mind too.



God Bless,

Ed
 
Wow, just waded through all the many differing opinions through this topic, and all I can say is, this has got to be about the only site around that could approach topics like this, have so many opinions, and not deteriorate into a slug fest or name calling contest. Thumbs up to all the NTOWS members who make this kind of discussion without "fighting" possible. egMike
 
I agree Mike and I would be happy to fish with anyone of you on any given day. Let me clarify that, once the ice thaws and once I learn how to drive my new boat. Ummm, that is if any one would want to. :)



Cass
 
...hard to stay out of a good conversation...



Ed, I respect your opinion(s) until you make a comment like this:



<font color=red><i>I realize many of you disagree with me, and therefore you disagree with the Bible.</i></font>



These are the kinds of comments that, well, infuriate me. We went thru this before, There are examples in the bible and others use of "the bible" to show that there is more than one opinion on the subject.



You are, of course, welcome to your feelings and your faith on the subject, but to say that those that disagree with you "disagree with the bible"... well... what gives you the authority to judge others in this regaurd? It is this kind of attitude that helps the fundimentalist/extremist views appear to have some legitimacy... this is exactly the view that Osama bin Laden has as to his take "on the bible"...



If you take the account in Genesis literally, that God created man/woman... you have to also understand that God created us with "Free Will"... this means that he did, in fact, create man/woman with the ability to be "homosexual"... who are you to argue with that? Yes, it can be said that the primary reason for our sexual nature is for procreation, and I would not argue with that, but I would not dare limit it to that.



<font color=red><i> I don't believe He is a God who would condemn a certain action, and then sit back and watch us helplessly commit that action.</i></font>



This is the fallacy all of its own accord... If he created us as "sinners" or allowed "free will" and then decided he didn't like what we became, who's fault is that? Now, I know you will say that Adam introduced these faults, but who introduced them to Adam? Who gave the "ability" for Adam to become a sinner?



Sorry for the rant...



--sim...













 
Forgot to sign in on the last post. I just read Sim's post again and forgot to mention, I didn't appreciate the reference to Osama Bin Laden. I have a gotee, but its not that long! No, really Osama is an extremeist who refers to God often, but doesn't even know Him. I think you know the difference in how he uses his "so called" bible and the Bible I quote from.



Also, I forgot... you said that God created us all with the ability to be homosexuals. I agree totally!! He also created us all with the "ability" to be murderers, and thieves, and adulterers, and child molesters, etc..... Does that make it right?? Can all those people then say that its ok because they were created that way??



Just wondering.



God Bless,

Ed
 
Ed,



You haven't offended me in any way...



However, you sidestepped a very simple point that I have repeatedly made:



Not everyone agrees on what the bible says on such matters.



You paint with a wide brush based on your beliefs of what the bible says on such matters. This is fine... my disagreement with you does not mean that I "disagree with the bible".



Lastly, and this will be the last I will say on this matter... The bible is a book created by men. It's entire history is repleat with man's interpetations of what they "think" god wants it to be... The bible you have today is different even then the one that was "canonized" in 300AD... the langauage is different, the translations are differnt and the interpetations are different.



In a 100 years, it will be different again... It is largely a cultural document.



Those that think that the United States is a country based on the bible need to re-read the history books. Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were not "christians"... they were "theists"... they rejected all of "revealed" religion (including the bible itself)...





Those that think that "marraige" is a "christian's only" club, need to re-think that... and if that is the case, it certainly has no place as an ammendment to our constitution.



On the political front, the politicians will say what they think we want to hear, they rarely, if ever, say what they actually believe. Worse off, they rarely, if ever, do what the should.



 
The reference to Osama stands, it is not a reference to you...



He uses his "Holy Book" as his "right to murder those that disagree"... he would certainly look at you and state "if you disagree with me, you disagree with the bible (and god)"



It is a comparison, not an equality.



Just because you belive "your bible" to be the correct one does not make "Osama's" version any different... he can say the same to you...



Our society determines that murderers and thieves are not to be tolerated... as do many other societys... but call it a "suicide bombing in a holy war" and another society sees those same murders as marters....



(yeah, I said I wouldnt say anymore...so shoot me!)
 
Again, my slightly skewed opinion...



My problem with using the bible as a source of law is that it wasn't written by God. It is a collection of stories or teachings passed on first by word of mouth, then written separately, then collected and copied as a whole. All that time it is subject to the interpretations and prejudices of the individuals that did the telling and original writings.



Rich D
 
Last comment...



There is a vast difference between a murderer and a homosexual when it comes to "do unto others"...



 
Rich D, to expand on your last point:



If you've ever given an interview to the media, and then watched what happens when it appears in print or broadcast just 24 hours later, it can be an eye opener. What you thought you said and what the reporter and his/her editor heard and assemble often convey a different meaning than what you intended. And this is in the age of computers, video and audio recording devices, wired and wireless communications, modern standards for language teaching, training and standards for journalists, etc.



Now, dial it back a few thousand years. None of the technology, none of the educational standards, crude recording ability, no ability to reproduce and safeguard the information except by hand, and much of the information is maintained by oral account.



If I can say something today and have it appear completely edited, distorted, spun, and full of factual errors the next day in a newspaper, as reported by a professionally trained journalist with modern technology at his disposal, what does that indicate about how accurate recorded information from thousands of years ago is? Even if the information was somehow kept factually intact from generation to generation, it would only take one keeper with a political agenda to distort the record to support the agenda.



To be able to accept the Bible as the word of God under such circumstances requires a great deal of faith.

 
LOL...Now we'er all starting to sound like politicians,...adding our own spins and twists to a very controversial subject just like the dog's we loath!!! Ain't America grand??
 
I think that the Presidents call for a Consitutional Amendment is a positive approach... In order to obtain such a result there will (assuming the most logical path) there will have to be a grand national debate. First, both houses of congress will have to pass a resoltion by a super majority. That will generate a significant debate. Netx, if it is passed it will then have to be ratified by 38 (I think that is the right number) State legislatures, meaning further debate in all fifty states. From that national debate, a clear resolution of the true will of the people and a genuine reasoned result will arrive with time.



This is not a new issue, it is one that has been dealt with and around... Recall the National Defense of Marriage Act... And, similar acts passed in several states...



For a fair and just result, there needs to be a "final" answer. This is a seemingly simple question with very complex side issues. Taxation, inheritance, laws concerning adoption, employee rights, pensions, banking, hundreds of issues are connected to the touchstone definition of "spouse". To have this issue decided by the Mayors of a few cities is not going to result in a just, fair and acceptable result. In fact, I am disturbed, as was Bill Reilly, by the hypocrisy of the high profile politicians and the main stream press. The Mayor of San Francisco is defying the laws of California. That is not tolerable. It is not tolerable for the Governor George Wallace to stand on the school house steps and defy the laws and it is not tolerable for the Mayor of San Francisco. The law is changed by resort to our very complex, but effective, political process of making, changing and enacting new law. It may be "attractive" to see this current civil defiance as a positive step toward effecting change, but it is not. It invites and creates chaos. How are these newly married couples going to file their taxes... Are they or are they not entitled to certain inheritance rights... What they have is a new set of problems.



So, let the debate begin, in the proper forums, Congress and State Capitols. I do not want the Mayor of San Francisco or Chicago or Cleveland, becoming a self appointed dictator of national policy.



Now, for what it is worth... I would like to honor all points of view so far as possible. I do not want to see my belief that same sex couples should be afforded broad rights to force a religious sect or order feel compelled to accept them as married as defined by their religious principles. I would hope for a result that bestows rights on committed "couples" who choose to make a legally recognized committment. And, that "marriage" become more a morally or culturally defined status, than legal, one honored by all in whatever way they seem most comfortable with... Europe has long ago required a legally defined civil committment.... Then, those that choose, also arrange a wedding ceremony in a church, syngogue, mosque, temple... etc. An idea I am quite comfortable with and one that might just work for the most pluralistic, tolerant, free, great nation on this small earth



Just my 2 cents...



And, only here would I ever even consider making this post...
 
Rich S.



My point exactly! Thank you for expanding my thoughts.



While I agree with the basic teachings of the Bible, i.e. The Ten Commandments, I, personally, can't lead my life based upon the rest.



I shudder to think that a person who lives an honest respectful life would be condemned because he or she loved a person of their own gender, choice or not. To me, that is a judgement of Man, not a Supreme Being.



Rich D



 
Anyone remember my post a while back about the number of world wide religious affiliated people? While Christians are the largest group (33%) Hindu and Muslim's together make up 33%, and there is a 12.7% Non religious group.



A few thoughts to consider in this VERY healthy debate and exchange:



- Until we die and meet (or not meet) our god, how do we KNOW that the 12.7% non-religious (or for that matter the 500,000 Wiccans) are not right?



- Since all of the references to Sodom and Gamora (and other times God "cleaned house") were in the Old Testiment, the Jews might be correct and Jesus is not the son of god.



- That is not to slight, demean or criticize Christians. But as a member of a much smaller and older religion (jewish) that has been through centuries of persecution, my biggest concern is honestly NOT with Gay Marriage, its with the precident it will set. What IF the majority of Christians decide to literaly enforce the "conversion" of non-believers (soneone Christian will have to reference the exact wording/context) as I believe the New Testement says something about actively bringing non-christians into the "fold". Or Marriage can ONLY be between "Christains"?



- I might be able to support a ban on Gay Marriage IF we in the same bill we outlawed (with severe Civil, financial and criminal penalties): Divorce, Adultary, Idolatry, and the like. Not gonna happen folks. If we outlaw Adultary and Divorce half of our elected officials would be in jail! (not a bad idea :-0



- Do we go back literal interpretation of "and eye for an eye" like some other countries still do?



See my point, we are one of the truly civilized, free societies in the world. If and when each of meets his/her god (or doesn't) then WE have to answer for our actions NO ONE ELSE!



The role of governement should be to protect our individual RIGHTS to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as WE define it as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.



Trep
 
I guess I understand where most of you are coming from now. We have a great difference of opinion on one major area, which causes us, in fact, to differ greatly on other areas. I believe that the Bible IS the inspired Word of God. I believe that it is error-free, and that it is the only recorded message we have from God. Yes, the Bible has been translated many, many times over the years. And yes, minor grammatical changes have been made. But the God-given message of the Bible, I believe has stayed the same. This, I have come to realize, is really where we disagree the most. I understand your logic, I understand why you may believe what you believe. I understand your unwillingness to believe the Bible the way I do. I accept that, and I hope we can all be good friends and just agree to disagree, because we probably aren't going to change one another's minds.



Rich, I believe you said it best when you said "To be able to accept the Bible as the word of God under such circumstances requires a great deal of faith." That, my friend, is the truth. I believe I have that faith, because I do accept the Bible as the Word of God.....under any circumstances.



Thanks for listening again.

God Bless,

Ed



 
Ed - No problem listening, and like many I wish there were more folks who put stock in their bible and lived their lives as best they can as moral human beings.



As to the bible, that is one difference as there is MANY bibles depending on your faith. Mine happens to be the basis for yours, and that is a good thing not a bad thing.



I would agree that each "bible" is "Bible IS the inspired Word of God." IT's who's god and how you decide to interpret or live your life according to your faith in the teachings that differ among us.



Again, a very good and eye opening (on many fronts) discussion.



Trep
 
The issue I have with the "bible" as the inspired word of god...any faiths "bible"... is simple...



Man wrote it, Man pieced it together.



If the creator, or God, or whatever, wanted us to know him, he would have created within us that ability.



The bible is what man decided "God" revealed to man...You ahve to let go of your "god given" reason to accept certain parts of the bible...



I do not dispute that the "Holy books" of all faiths have certain "universal truths" about them, but generally speaking, those "universal truths" transcend any particular religous "faith".



In addition, the majority of the religous aspects of faith deal with what happens in the "next life"... how to be sure you are "pleasing to God" such that you are rewarded and not punished. I respectfully submit that what Christ taught is that what you do now, for others, is more important then that reward.



This point is missed by so many... they spend time worrying about "death" that they forget to do what's right with this life.



All "religion" is man made, and is practiced in such a way as to control other men... the 10 commandments were simple, easy to follow prinicples... but soon enough after that, more "laws" were revealed about how to be percieved "clean" before god... an impossible task if you believe the scriptures straight forth... and then the messiah comes and shows the pharisees how they missed the point... and they kill him... again, he stated 2 simple principles... and immediately after his crucifiction the apostles themselves seemed to forget the message, and new "rules" were tacked on...and by the way... why did the early church leave out the writings of Thomas? One of the few books that's writing is actually attributed to an apostle, and not some after the fact third party writing...



I will sum it up with the words of Thomas Paine --



<i>"I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with His justice and goodness. I leave all these matters to Him, as my Creator and friend, and I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter."</i>



(in my earier post I said that many of the founding fathers were "theist"...what I meant was "deist")
 
Specifically to the point of the "pieces"...



THe point that is gleefully ommitted in that post is that all of those pieces are POST 300 ad... The NT did not EXIST before then...



Even the books themselves that were used to put together the NT post dated Christs time by atleasst 70-100 years... and of those the earliest known copies are LATER...



So, yes, the Catholic Church did a marvoulous job of preserving what they put together.



As a quick rebuttal... (just to show that you can find information on both sides on the net)...



A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the two thousand years since the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the world of Christendom has seen incredible changes, including a split with the Eastern Orthodox Church and a Protestant Reformation, accompanied by a rejection of much core ideology. Yet throughout it all, the collection of scripture called the New Testament has remained unchanged and largely unquestioned, even though it was assembled by the same church leaders whose beliefs many now refute.



To challenge the veracity of the canonical New Testament is, at best, an uncomfortable position; such questions strike at the very heart of most Christians' faith. Nevertheless, these sacred writings have come to us only after decades of oral traditions and centuries of scribal rewrites, much according to the beliefs of select groups in the early days of Christianity. It is only by attempting to study the origins and evolution of the New Testament scriptures that one can hope to discover the true historical Jesus
 
I feel I need to make one last comment...



I do not wish to harm the faith that others have in the Bible (as the word of God)...



For myself, based on years of reflection, I cannot subvert my "god given" reason to what other men say "God revealed" to them.



If I were to pick a ideology to follow, it would certainly be "Christian", for 2 reasons...



1. Culturaly... like it or not, the majority of the UnitedStates culture is based on one brand of Christianity or another.

2. Principal... The principals of christianity (Love your Neighbore, do unto others, etc..) are universal principles that require both respect of each other and if followed properly, result in a society that works together for the common good.



However, I will follow no man's "Religion". I find it an unneccesary burden... (and I haven't killed anyone yet!)



Lastly,



Ed, Mo, Trep, Rich, Rich, etc...



You are all, always welcome in my home and in my boat. I respect your decisions, your faith. I won't push my beliefs if you wont push yours... I hope that we can always discuss matters such as this with the understanding that we are all on a path of wisdom that can only grow thru conversation and friendship.



--Tony. (sim)

 
My Friends...



I find this thread to be totally amazing...totally! The fact that among the posters there are some very core beliefs that are being discussed, even debated, civily and with respect and friendship on an internet site populated by a random assimilation of people is just amazing. No bashing, no name calling (except with respect to tin vs glass..) I am extremely thankful to all who come here and share their thoughts, their lives, their fears, their hopes and joys.. thank you all. This little community is so much more than boat owners. I wish others could learn from this site. I am aware that is is the product of effort and restraint by the earliest members and posters. I appreciate and support that. As Tony said; we are all on a path of wisdom that can only grow through conversation and friendship. That is all but you glass boat guys... you are lost!!!!
 
Tony,

Its been a pleasure to talk to you, and others about things that are important to all of us. I appreciate your kindness, and your willingness to listen to all points of view. There are some places that I might go, that if I shared my thoughts and my beliefs, I would be shot down and dragged through the fire. Not that it would stop me....but it's nice to be able to share my faith here and not be ridiculed. Even though not everyone always agrees with what you say, they always seem to disagree in a respectful manner. I appreciate that.



Tony,you too would be welcome in my boat anytime. (maybe if I had you out on the lake for a day I could talk some sense into you!) (JUST KIDDING!!) And, I would take you up on your offer too.....AS LONG AS YOUR BOATS NOT TINNNNNNNN! EWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!



Thanks again!

God Bless!

Ed
 
I absolutely agree with several points.



1. My beliefs are mine, yours are yours, I respect yours as much as my own and do not wish to try to change yours.



2. I would be happy to wet a line with any of you.



3. This is an awesome group of people on this board!



4. Tin is better than glass!



Rich D
 
Ed - OK Now you drew a line in the same "AS LONG AS YOUR BOATS NOT TINNNNNNNN! EWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!" I can take the religion, beliefs and faith but do NOT mess with TIN!!!! LOL
 
Hey Trep,



Ain't it comforting to know that when the big mushroom cloud gets us all... There will just be cockroaches and the shells of all our tin boats... Fiberglass eventually rots away... Aluminum is forever... LOL
 
It is a proven fact, that beer tastes better and stays colder in glass than tin. Just ask Trep what he put's his home brew in. It's glass.



That should settle it.



Tex
 
Okay, but we only hug the tin guys....LOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
JR - Yup Beer in Aluminium and Glass for BIG FAT A$$$$!!!! LOL



Tex - Actualy its a proven fact that beer tastes better comming from ALUMINIUM KEGS tapped and poured into Peuter mugs!!!! LOL



So until I can afford to have my beer kegged in Aluminium, i'll have to settle for second class Glass!!! BWWWAAAAA
 
It seems to me that the only people who would actually be effected in any way by such a Constitutional Ammendment are those who are Gay and Lesbian.....



Let those who are effected make the decision.





 
The "the majority" should see that they would not be effected one way or another.....



Allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry in no way lessens the sanctity of heterosexual marriages.



(Although many have violated the sanctity on their own.)



me
 
I believe that if two people want to share thier life together, living together both in a spirtual sense, loving sense and sharing legal status (community property, life/health decisions, financial committment, etc), that is fine. There are ways within our current structure to do all of those items. Are they as easy to accomplish as a man and a woman getting married, no. But they are there.



It is not my job, wish or intent to judge anyone else (unless called to by the court system). However, changing the definition of what marriage entails (which I believe is the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of being a family), I am against. I knew what marriage was before I met my wife. I know what marriage is now. And I know what marriage should be in the future. That is my personal belief.



Instead of a Constitutional Admendment to define marriage as the union/joining of one man to one woman, how about this.



The people in this country that want the definition/legal status of marriage changed, should work within the framework of our constitution and laws to change it. If they are successful, so be it.



If there are laws on the books that I do not agree with or like, it is up to me to either work towards their change. Until they are changed, I must live and abide with the laws as they are now defined.



Tex
 
Jay Leno last night:

"What's amazing is, that a homosexual marraige you have TWO guys that want to get married....at a hetrosexual marraige you can't find ONE guy that wants to get married"



Harpo
 
Mac, majority doesn't "rule" in this system of government, by design.



We elect representatives to make decisions. If 51% of Americans belive something, but only 49% of their elected officials choose to vote that way...the majority doesn't get it's wish.



Also, the founders were very in their thoughts on this matter. They were particularly concerned about the majority trampling the minority, as had just happened under English rule. Their design emphasizes that the majority must honor the rights of the minority.
 
Well that may be true, but I doubt this "issue" will ever become a law or accepted as a norm in our society.......it's way too controversial and it's only being talked about now as widely and openly as it is because it's an election year IMO....and I think that the more often that these minortiy groups try to force their ways and beliefs on everybody...the more conservative society is going to become overall and say enough is enough....look at the uproar a boob caused on TV during the superbowl......I think more and more people (especially the Boomer's who are now the "majority" in this country now) are getting tired of the seemingly overall decline in moral values and the "agenda's" of a relatively small group of people in this country. Personally,..I don't care either way...to each his/her own as long as you don't try to shove it down my throat,....and i think a LOT of people feel it's getting shoved in their faces...and they're going to eventually lash out....Hetero's in this country VASTLY outnumber the gays & lesbians and I really think if it comes down to a vote or a "law",..the MAJORITY will prevail in this instance. I think we'll continue to see the small localized areas where it's accepted continue to grow, like San Fran and other cities and we'll see health care companies and insurance companies offer coverage to same sex partners,...but I don't think we'll ever see a government mandate or law that accepts it or bans it outright. I could be wrong....but that's just my personal opinion about the whole thing and I'm not going to post anymore regarding this whole issue....I'll do my talking in the voting booth from now on!!



Man,..is it spring yet???

Mac
 
Rick illustrates one issue among dozens that will have to be examined and resolved before there is an effective resolution. Merely having a court state that same sex couples ought to be allowed to marry does not begin to resolve the rest of the issues. What appears simple, the... yes or no to same sex couples marrying is not an answer to all of the questions. Illinois, as I presume that most States do, has a statute which resolves the issue of "paternity" in a married couple's lives if the "wife" is artificially inseminated.... That Act uses "paternity" and husband to define factors, facts, and results... How does that apply to a same sex couple? In Illinois, if the husband knows and consents to the artificial insemmination he is the father? He and the child obtain rights and responsibilities... rights and responsibilities that are the business of the State to define and then enforce or protect as the case may be... THat has to be answered...



This, as I pointed out above, is not as simple a questions as it appears to be... Certainly it will require careful consideration and legisaltive action... then it has to be considered as how it effects couples in various states as they move from place to place... Oh, man... this is just not an easy one...
 
So, Greg... using your examples from above...



Doesn't changing the "legal" definition of Marraige to include "same-sex" couples, alleviate much of the headache by applying the existing sets of laws/legal definitions to them...



Aren't we in fact, making sure that the rights of the children in such cases, or the "divorced" or "widowed" partner are equal to those in "different-sex" legal relationships...



Religous/political aspects aside, I think the basics of this question is easily solved... Let those that wish to engage in such relationships have both the protection and "never ending" responsibilitys that current marraiges do.



If it serves no other pourpose, it will force those in "same sex" relationships to consider the same things that others do when it comes to "marriage"... from a legal aspect... make them get divorces, pay child support, etc.. and let the current legal requirements around such things stand as is.



And reality check for those that oppose it... how does allowing this affect your views on your own marriage? Does it change your committment to your "significant other"? Does it change your views on the "morality" of it? In what ways does it truly affect "you"?
 
Sim,



In some cases, merely answering yes to married would resolve some issues, but not all... As in my example, the Act uses the term "husband"... does it apply? Does the "child" have support and inheritance rights? Logically you "could" conclude, sure... But, before the Act was passed by the Illinois Legislature the status of such a child was not assured...in fact it was in question... So, what does the issuance of a marriage license in San Francisco do... is such a child born subsequent to a San Francisco marriage a "child" of both parents or just one... I can see lawyers splitting that hair over and over... What I am emphasizing is that this must be resolved by legisalation... not by piece-meal unilateral actions by "mayors" or even one State's Supreme Court... Can you imagine... a same sex couple marries in Boston... moves to Califormia... buys property... sells it... then moves to Utah... then to Illinois where they agree to have a child by artificial insemmination and then move to Missouri after the child is born and split up... one person moving back to Boston and then suing for property rights, support, etc? In the midst, the other "partner" dies...



I am not opposed to the same sex marriage idea... I am opposed to having it created piece meal by random unilateral acts of mayors and courts... So, as I said, the debate belongs in the various State and Federal legislatures... Where the definitions will be defined anew...
 
Greg...



I think we are in agreement, i did not think you were "against" it... my last question was more of a general "introspective" type of question for all people.. not you...



I know that there are numerous issues, but perhaps again, the couple getting married could decide "who played which role" on the certificate/license application...



the other point would be that we don't need "special" laws... maybe some fine tuning of existing... but nothing special.



it certainly should go thru the "system"... but one of the points of this entire thread is that the system appears flawed in this reguard... we have to work to change it... but we have to start somewhere.





 
Ever see one of those trick birthday candles that seems to almost go out......barely flickering....then comes back to life and burns bright!! Well, I thought this thread was dead and it has come back to life!



Man Rich, you started this too. If you were charging by the post!!!.....WOOO HOOOO you'd be rich. I'd call that a smart business move!!



Anyway, if anyone cares....I'm goin FISHIN SATURDAY!!! I hope many of you guys can do the same. I'm gonna try not to think about any thing political this weekend....just relaxation on the lake. And....I'm gonna spend some time in mourning....over the Martha Stewart verdict. I just hope she can still do her show from prison!



Have a great weekend everybody!

God Bless!

Ed
 
I find it interesting that "most" scientific studies do not define same sex attractions as a "choice" but rather somehow "biological". I certainly didn't "choose" to be heterosexual... I just "am". After 25 years of marriage and countless years of dating (not in that order)... I certainly am not sure I would logically "choose" to be so "close" to women... It isn't easy... LOL You've all seen the comparison switch panels...(right here on this site!) I just cannot believe that given the social hurdles and prejudices that 12-15% of the general population would by "choice" become same sex oriented. There is more at work here...
 
Thad,



I can't guarantee the accuracy of your articles quotes, or mine (see below)... I just know that the two articles disagree of the "scientific issues"... Almost diametrically, so... Interesting...



I do want to stress my agreement with the premise that it doesn't matter to me whether it is genetically or culturally resultant... I do not believe that theologically we cannot learn from the fact that as "Christians" we are released from many of the covenants of the old testament and are encouraged to learn from God's love of man that maybe, just maybe, what was prohibited in the books of the Old Testament may have no relevance to our time... I certainly have never been encouraged to keep a "kosher" household by the Lutherans or the Methodists...



See the rebuttal info at http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dreamweaver/quotes/qthomo.html
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dreamweaver/quotes/qthomo.html
 
Interestingly enough, when Bush first announced he would back an ammendment that would ban gay marriage, there was a reprint of an article in the local paper discussing homosexuality in animals. See the link below. It focuses on two penguins in NYC, but also mentions a text with more research. Can a creature without the ability to rationalize choose to be gay?
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
 
Ahh Greg, now you bring an interesting question/discussion to mind "maybe, just maybe, what was prohibited in the books of the Old Testament may have no relevance to our time" How old is the "New Testement"?? If you can agree that maybe some of the old (kosher for instance, which millions of jews today still practice) testament practices are no langer relevent, then what about the New Testament ones? I don't believe in my life time, or those of my immediate ancestors , any of us were alive to "know for a fact" what was printed/written in ANY of the bibles. we take it on faith, brother. So if you can subscribe to the New Testatment, I don't see how the old one can be written off. If we can, then the whole 10 Commandments in a government building issue is moot, but that is another post.



Just thinking...Trep
 
Thad, I am finding irony in the page you referenced and some of the writing there:



"FACT: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT A PERSON CAN BE BORN HOMOSEXUAL."



Hmmm. What if I asked you to take it on faith?



Seriously, I have trouble when a Christian who professes faith as the basis for their belief challenges the arguments of others by citing a lack of evidence.



If a homosexual tells you he/she didn't choose to be a homosexual, shouldn't you respect that viewpoint as much as you want to be respected for your viewpoint that there is a God in heaven and Jesus Christ is the savior?

 
Rick,



You sound as if you are basing your argument that the gay community would abandon their responsibilities based upon one bitter case.



If that were so, I would never have been smart enough to marry my wife, because my first wife cheated on me so all women "want what they want only as long as it meets their selfish needs, be damn anyone elses needs".



I would bet anything there are more hetero fathers shirking parental/financial responsibilities, than there are gay parents ignoring theirs.



Rich D
 
ahhh...



"Moral Relativity"



"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".



Wether a person chooses a homosexual lifestyle or is "born into it" is largely irrelivent. It cannot be proven to 100% certainty in either case...Why? Becuase most of the people trying to prove it one way or the other have an agenda to thier "study", and intentionally or not they bias the results or the reporting of the results.



Now, to the larger irrelivancy of that discussion... No matter what you believe or feel about homosexuality, the lifestyle that others choose will not go away becuase you dont "like it". They are still human beings, and they are what they are wether or not they "choose it".



Not "specail" rights... the "same rights"



Equal Protection under the law.



I have yet to meet a "homosexual" that felt that they needed "specail" rules, I have yet to meet one that felt they needed to "justify" thier "sins" in any manner.



Trying to apply "your definition" of sin is telling an apple to agree that it is an orange. Just because you believe it is wrong/right does not make it so (in the eyes of others).



Now, as to the biblical aspect, yet again...



The laws of Moses... many are they.. but everyone always starts with the 10 commandments... 1 of them is about adultry, none of them is about homosexuality. While there is the story of Sodom and Gemorah, perhaps that serves as an example, it is still not a "commandment" in that sense... in addition, did not Lot "survive" that disaster yet he still offered up his wife in an adulterous manner? (to protect himself no less).



The Words of Jesus...

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."



So, if you are a christian, and you want to follow christ, this is the basis... all of the "laws" of the prophets hangs there... no exceptions.



Lastly, and yet again, the bible was written in a very different culture at a very different time. even the laws for "normal" marraige and the examples given are not approved of in our time.



<font color=red><i>If you believe it's <font color="green">red</font> and I believe it's <font color="black">blue</font>, one or both of us must be wrong, logically speaking...</i></font>



One of you could be colorblind, or even taught "wrong" from birth. Logically speaking, you cannot see thru another persons eyes, so you must agree that you both see it "differently".







 


<font><b><i>WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- </i></b></font>
 
Trep,



Christian doctrine (loosely paraphrased) is that the covenants between God and his people, embodied in the "laws of Moses"... I am trying hard to remember, in the King James Version of the "Old Testament, I believe contained in Leviticus...were largely nullified by the coming of the Messiah... You would argue of course that that is sort of self justiifed...



Anyway, I have a number of Jewish friends and they run a spectrum... some honoring very conservative doctrine and keep a substantially Kosher household to some very liberal "reformed" who do not and are quite liberal... THeir belief I believe is that such moral rules were really God's message of good healthy living and now not necessary.
 
Just adding to the record number of posts here:) Now I'm headed to the BPS in Baltimore to spend more than I should and buying what I probably don't need or will ever use.



Bill
 
I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. I thank each and everyone that has posted and hope that this thread does continue as it is one of the best I have followed that has not become a bash fest.



Tin & Glass can get along.



Cass :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
I Can't Begin to Describe How Much this upsets me
Replies
12
Views
1K
Bill McElroy
Bill McElroy
G
Pro Staff, Field Staff, Field Testing, etc...
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
TritonGlenn
TritonGlenn
B
History Channel
Replies
11
Views
672
William H. (Bill) Barham
W
R
Angry Mom in NJ
Replies
5
Views
560
Bill Kyte
B
J
Federation Decision
Replies
2
Views
767
Texas Transplant
Texas Transplant

Latest posts

Back
Top