OT: State of the Union

[Lwood]

Jar Jar, I'm not going to quote your post this time because the replies are getting too long.

1. The principles of law and democratic governance is not understood by most people because they never studied history. I don't mean the history texts. I mean primary research documents. Liberals will do anything they can to erase the foundation of our laws and democratic governance. It kills people like you that all law is derived from God. If law could be derived from the desires of man then liberals believe it is possible to live life however one wishes. Justifying one social illness with another is a pathetic argument. Gingrich, Limbaugh, and many broken homes are examples of people who have failed in the area of self governance, not a justification for further destroying the institution of marriage in this country
2. The supreme court's recent ruling on sodomy goes to what I am saying about new law. Suddenly what has always been an issue of morality in this country starts to become a civil rights issue. Show me exactly how gays are being discriminated against? What legal protections provided by the institution of marriage are gays currently being denied? According to John Kerry, "What we're talking about is somebody's right to be able to visit a loved one in a hospital, somebody's right to be able to pass on property, somebody's right to live equally under the state laws as other people in the country." Can you honestly show me cases where people are being denied those three rights? There is no tax benefit to being married.

3. I'll let Ann answer this one. "The Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams, who was quite religious. It is the most explicitly Christian document since the New Testament, with lots of references to "the great Legislator of the universe." Adams certainly would have been astonished to discover that the constitution he wrote provided for gay marriage – though one can see how a reference to two men marrying might get lost among the minutiae about the common good and ''duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."

4. You sound like an Alan Brinkley text book. Try this instead. President John Adams stated in a letter to the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

British Statesman Edmund Burke stated in "A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly," 1791: "What is liberty without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils...it is madness without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites...Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."

Jar Jar you have been lied to and you bought it. Now you defend it.

[Deleted]

Lwood said:

Liberals will do anything they can to erase the foundation of our laws and democratic governance. It kills people like you that all law is derived from God. If law could be derived from the desires of man then liberals believe it is possible to live life however one wishes.

Yikes!

Show me exactly how gays are being discriminated against? What legal protections provided by the institution of marriage are gays currently being denied? Can you honestly show me cases where people are being denied those three rights?

Health benefits? For starters...

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Yikes!

[Lwood]

Bete said:

I hated JJB in the Star Wars movies, but, you know, he makes some damned good points.

I don't like JJB in Star Wars either. This guy does provide an enjoyable discussion. His points are good if you like that read it on a cereal box, saw it on CNN line of reasoning.

[Lwood]

Bete Noir. Health benefits? Are you kidding me? Since when are health benefits a civil rights issue? Some organizations and businesses choose to provide benefits to "life partners", some don't. Some don't provide benefits to their employees, let alone their employee's dependents.

[StanfordFan]

I need to make this short because I'm swamped:

1) As much as you would like to argue that this is a nation founded on "morality," it's also a nation founded on the concept of individual liberty. The constitution is designed to protect a person's right to be religious as much as it is to protect one's right not to be bound by another's religion. By your same logic, people should not be allowed to divorce, and adulterers should be burned at the stake. All based on your individual belief about marriage and morality.

2) Nothing you have said about the protection of "marriage" justifies why gay people can't engage in an equally committed relationship. Frankly, two people who are willing to take the extreme measures of forming a gay union in today's current legal scheme are probably a lot more committed than two straight people who head for the little chapel in Vegas on a whim. The statistical data supports me, not you.

3) The list of benefits of marriage are endless. The right to intestate inheritance, the right to hospital visitation, the right to partner health benefits that are offered to straight spouses. And to the extent that you don't think health benefits are that important, consider the fact that companies of a certain size are required to offer health benefits to married spouses. It's really convenient when gay people just can't marry.

4) I find it profoundly shocking that, beyond the issue of marriage, you think that gay people just aren't that discriminated against. In most states, you can be fired from your job just because you're gay. People can refuse to rent an apartment to you because you're gay. And frankly, in a lot of places, people who share your opinions seem to think it's okay to beat the sh*t out of someone who's gay. Seems pretty discriminatory to me.

5) You can quote texts all you want. I don't deny that this country was founded by religious people. See point 1 above. And frankly, I support anyone's right to live their life and practice their religion however they choose. If you don't like gay people, fine, leave them alone.

That's it for now.

[FreeBall]

Lwood said:

President John Adams stated in a letter to the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

My problem with this idea is who decides which people are "moral and religious"?

I consider myself to be moral (but only marginally religious). I also disagree with most of what you and others on your side of the argument have said within this thread. So, you would probably say that I am neither moral or religious.

I don't buy into the idea that you are right just because you claim to have claimed the higher moral ground.

[Lwood]

Stanford Fan.

1&5. I did not quote Adams and Burke in order to make the point that America was founded by religious people. (By the way you might have missed the part where I said that Burke was British.) If you would open your mind long enough to read about the history of democratic law you would find that its origins go beyond America. It is a concept that orginated from Hebrew law - we are talking B.C. To have individual rights the government cannot take away, rights must come from a power "higher" than government. The concept of all citizens being equal before the law, having an equal vote in elections, is based on equality before a Supreme Being. To be a country with "few laws," citizens must have internal laws for there to be order, but internal laws are powerless without a consequence, such as being held accountable to a Supreme Being in some future state.

You are right that by my thinking divorce and adultery would carry greater consequences. Illegal and burning at the stake I think not. However, it used to be more difficult to get a divorce in this country. Have you ever considered what effect no fault divorce has had on the divorce rate?

2. I have no issue with equally committed relationships. I have an issue with what I see as an assault on the family - the foundation of democracy. If you want to discuss stats, then let's talk about the domestic violence and disease transmission rates of the gay community.

3. Inheritance and hospital visitation are not rights exclusively held by married couples. I've never had a problem visiting people in the hospital. I've been present during surgery for athletes of mine who are not my children or spouse. Inheritance - its called a will. Health insurance - some organizations allow "partners" to enroll other don't. If this is something the gay community wants changed, then they should address the specific issue. It is not a justification for redefining marriage.


4. It never fails that if someone like myself says that homosexuality is immoral that someone like yourself takes the leap to accusations of gay bashing. I also think smoking pot is immoral. Does that make you think I run around beating up stoners? At no time during this discussion have I attacked gay people. I said the life style is immoral. Not only have I played volleyball with and been friends with a number of gay men, but I have also recruited and coached at least six gay women.

I did not say that gay people are not discriminated against. I said that in the three areas that Democrats are using to justify gay marriage (inheritance, hospital visitation, and live equally under the state laws) there is not strong evidence of gay people being denied their rights. You can also be fired from your job for no good reason - its called at-will employment. I know plenty of good volleyball coaches who have been discriminated against in the hiring process for being male.

Marriage is not an issue of discrimination. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You are going to be very upset in the near future when you realize that the overwhelming majority of Americans define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. We are not trying to deny gay people the same civil rights that we enjoy. We are just trying to protect the family.

[Lwood]

FreeBall said:

My problem with this idea is who decides which people are "moral and religious"?

I consider myself to be moral (but only marginally religious). I also disagree with most of what you and others on your side of the argument have said within this thread. So, you would probably say that I am neither moral or religious.

I don't buy into the idea that you are right just because you claim to have claimed the higher moral ground.

I did not quote Adams in order to take the moral high ground. If you would open your mind long enough to read about the history of democratic law you would find that its origins go beyond America. It is a concept that orginated from Hebrew law - we are talking B.C. To have individual rights the government cannot take away, rights must come from a power "higher" than government. The concept of all citizens being equal before the law, having an equal vote in elections, is based on equality before a Supreme Being. To be a country with "few laws," citizens must have internal laws for there to be order, but internal laws are powerless without a consequence, such as being held accountable to a Supreme Being in some future state.

Adams recognized and understood this to be true when he made the statement I quoted. Right and wrong is not determined my men, it was established by God. That's become a lost concept in a world full of situational ethics.

[BonJoeV]

Yikes! And Double Yikes! It really must be Off_Season!

We have God, country, left wingers, right wingers, gays, the Founding Fathers, and religious dogma. All in one thread.

What happened to volleyball?

[simplycurious]

Off_Season said:

What happened to volleyball?

That's easy - there isn't any right now! Can't you tell? ;D

[Deleted]

Lwood said:

I know plenty of good volleyball coaches who have been discriminated against in the hiring process for being male.

And the hits keep on coming!


Here's what I don't get. Why is it the Republican party is so insistent on keeping government out of Corporate America's way, but is equally insistent on telling everyone how to live their personal lives?

And why is that they get to define what is Moral? Patriotic?

[Lwood]

Time out. I have made a promise to my good friend simplycurious to not post on any OT political threads for one week. He feels that this is getting too serious for VT and is ruining the good fun we usually have. I'm usually a happy go lucky guy on VT.

So, I will be happy to continue this discussion via IM. I will even play nice. A little background. I went to a small liberal arts college where we spent a lot of class time debating and I often enjoyed playing the role of the right wing @*&hole, because so many students found it easier to defend the left. I am actually just right of center. I simply enjoy arguing with people for the hell of it.

I do not hate gay people. I do not care what they do with their lives. I understand that they can have a committed relationship and raise children. I do think marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. If the laws of the country change to say otherwise I won't agree with it, but I will live with it.

If you still want to debate with me. Please send me an IM. Because as I stated earlier I love to argue with people just for the hell of it.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Bete said:

And the hits keep on coming!


Here's what I don't get. Why is it the Republican party is so insistent on keeping government out of Corporate America's way, but is equally insistent on telling everyone how to live their personal lives?

And why is that they get to define what is Moral? Patriotic?

Probably because Corporate America pays more taxes than regular Folk.

As to your second question, It's simple. Because the Republican Party has control of the Executive and Legislative Branches of American Government. To the Victors goes the Spoils so to speak. For at least 4 more years.

[StanfordFan]

Since Lwood has given his final say on the subject, so will I:

1. I don't deny that law and democracy have, as a basic foundation, an underpinning of morality. What I take issue with is specific people, such as yourself, deeming yourself to be the arbiter of morality.

2. It's really quite astounding that you seem to think that "gays" have the highest rates of domestic violence and disease transmission. Open your eyes, the AIDS epidemic is spreading at the highest rates among heterosexual women. I tend to think they probably get it from heterosexual men. In a lot of cases, it's from cheating spouses. As for domestic violence, what makes you think the gay community has it any more than the straight community?

3. With respect to the rights inherent to marriage, you're right, you can contract around most things. The fact of the matter is, though, when you're married, those things come automatically. You don't have to contract around. And if you think things like medical visitation and inheritance are not real issues, you're deluding yourself. These issues are litigated on a daily basis in state courts, where they rightfully belong. Not on a national scale.

4. Your argument that you know some gay people and have hung out with them doesn't change the fact that you have a fundamentally discriminatory viewpoint. And that's fine. Everyone has personally discriminatory viewpoints one way or another. When you try to enact your personal discriminations into legislation, however, is when we have a problem.

Ok, that's it.

[Lwood]

Stanford Fan. I can't just let it go.

1. I can not define or arbitrate morality anymore than you can define or arbitrate marriage.

2. Health stats is my profession. I'm a college health professor. You are wrong.

3. It always amazes me how the left suddenly stands up for states rights when they want to press their minority agenda on America. What is being proposed is in response to the initial action taken by the gay community to redefine marriage.

4. Since when does disagreement equal discrimination? Your line of thinking is dangerous. You are bordering on being the thought police. Regarding legislation, heterosexuals are not the ones trying to change the legislation.

My apologies to simplycurious