Ad: Same sex marriage will take my freedom away

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

People like that don't live in the burbs.

There's one house in my neighborhood that has trucks with swastikas. Just one

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People talk...from my short experience of working at a small private school, people know things without even having to ask. Word gets around, I doubt anyone would let their kids go play at someone's house that they knew almost nothing about.

Of course they wouldn't. But its rather unlikely that you're going to interview them in depth to see what ideology they follow to determine whether or not their house is "appropriate" for your child, and all of the examples brought up here involve some sort of blatant extremism that the person would have to wear on their sleeve.

People like that don't live in the burbs.

There's one house in my neighborhood that has trucks with swastikas. Just one

Well there was that couple who named their kids after German leaders from the Nazi era..

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well there was that couple who named their kids after German leaders from the Nazi era..

In fairness, that part of Hunterdon is barely suburban..it's pretty country out there.

[Sprailenes 47]

Again your comparing it to apples and oranges.

But I guess without a valid argument, one would go that low.

These are all possible situations one could have to make a decision about, yes they are all different

from each other and depending on your outlook in life, one might be an apple or an orange.

The only thing amazing about this thread and many of the posters is how "out of touch" they are.

I say I would not let my child play over at the gay couples house and some of you get -wind in your mouth-.

You must have a limited group of friends with a small perspective in life because my view is in the majority.

How is it my POV is so... shocking to you?

On the other hand I know plenty of people who WOULD think it was "wonderful" to expose their kids to all kinds of (left-leaning) diverse people.

This does not get me all wound-up or cause me to not hang out with them or to try to convert them to my "enlightened" style of raising kids, but boy the left, wants to control everyone.

Live and let live my friends.

It's not about being wonderful, it's about having tolerance. I doubt you'd know if the parents of the child is gay. I had many friends come over and play with me as a child and my mother is gay. Never did it come up when asking if they could come over... they just did. I had birthday parties, sleep over parties and had friends over to play. Never did those kids ask: "Where's your dad?" It never came up. They were too interested in my awesome collection of my little ponies.

Unless you have an application process for the parents, you aren't always going to know something as small as their sexual preferences. And it is small, it's not as serious as a drug dealer, it's not as serious as an abuser... its their sexuality... something that has nothing to do with you, something that is none of your business.

[Peikko 1,575]

People talk...from my short experience of working at a small private school, people know things without even having to ask. Word gets around, I doubt anyone would let their kids go play at someone's house that they knew almost nothing about.

It's not osmosis, you don't know just by being a parent at a school you would have to be told and what comes around in gossip, surprise surprise is not always true - hence I don't indulge in it personally.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... hence I don't indulge in it personally.

How high is your pedestal right now?

[Peikko 1,575]

Not really, as long as one assumes that all conservatives oppose equal rights for homosexuals. If you're one of those rare C's that doesn't, then I have to ask... are you sure you're a C?

There is a broad spectrum of issues, so I have a broad spectrum of attitudes. I tend to be more libertarian for most lifestyle issues. In more pratical matters, I tend to be more conservative. And even between those two topic areas, there is some crosshatching. If I can find a pragmatic solution to a problem, I will go for that. K.I.S.S.

Gay marriage rights is shaping up to be the conservative litmus test that abortion rights once were.

STILL are, don't brush it off. At least in the midwest and south, laws have been slowly cutting off abortion rights for years, if the favor of fetal rights.

Wondered why so many equated homosexual rights with slavery. It's so much more equal to segregation. Does anyone remember how the majority of people fought against integration of schools? Interractial busing? Interractial marriages?

How are gays segregated? What rights are they missing? They can marry, they just have to marry like the rest of us - to someone of the opposite sex. By allowing them to marry the same sex, they're not getting the SAME rights as hetros, they're getting SPECIAL rights. Interracial marriage is certainly not analygous to gay marriage either, because that is also between a man and a woman, not two of the same sex. It's actually insulting to most Blacks to have their struggle equated to gay marriage, for they tend to be very conservative in regard to gays.

Let's see now. If it's correct, as you claimed before that the only real objection you have to same sex marriage is that allowing it 'devalues' your own marriage (A claim that is extremely dubious, but for sake of argument I'll go along with that for now). How are marriages between homosexuals/lesbians and members of the opposite sex not 'devaluing' your marriage? They can hardly be based on honesty. The only 'logical' explanation is that in your view the only legitimate reason for marriage is procreation, which would put you in the position of being in a marriage that devalues your own marriage values.

[chri'stina 190]

People talk...from my short experience of working at a small private school, people know things without even having to ask. Word gets around, I doubt anyone would let their kids go play at someone's house that they knew almost nothing about.

It's not osmosis, you don't know just by being a parent at a school you would have to be told and what comes around in gossip, surprise surprise is not always true - hence I don't indulge in it personally.

It doesn't have to be a big gossipy situation. I know I have found out lots of things in life somehow...so if one doesn't know much about other parents, who do you let your kids play with? I wouldn't let them go hang out at someone's house I knew hardly anything about. Yeah you aren't likely to know every detail of ppl's lives but you can at least get a sense before deciding where they play.

[Peikko 1,575]

... hence I don't indulge in it personally.

How high is your pedestal right now?

Very high. Seriously, it just doesn't interest me, there is no 'value' to be placed on that either way, it's just not my personality.

[Peikko 1,575]

People talk...from my short experience of working at a small private school, people know things without even having to ask. Word gets around, I doubt anyone would let their kids go play at someone's house that they knew almost nothing about.

It's not osmosis, you don't know just by being a parent at a school you would have to be told and what comes around in gossip, surprise surprise is not always true - hence I don't indulge in it personally.

It doesn't have to be a big gossipy situation. I know I have found out lots of things in life somehow...so if one doesn't know much about other parents, who do you let your kids play with? I wouldn't let them go hang out at someone's house I knew hardly anything about. Yeah you aren't likely to know every detail of ppl's lives but you can at least get a sense before deciding where they play.

Me personally? Anyone he wants to play with as long as I know where the house is and the kid seems ok. I have no interest in the values of the parents of the kids he plays with.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not really, as long as one assumes that all conservatives oppose equal rights for homosexuals. If you're one of those rare C's that doesn't, then I have to ask... are you sure you're a C?

There is a broad spectrum of issues, so I have a broad spectrum of attitudes. I tend to be more libertarian for most lifestyle issues. In more pratical matters, I tend to be more conservative. And even between those two topic areas, there is some crosshatching. If I can find a pragmatic solution to a problem, I will go for that. K.I.S.S.

Gay marriage rights is shaping up to be the conservative litmus test that abortion rights once were.

STILL are, don't brush it off. At least in the midwest and south, laws have been slowly cutting off abortion rights for years, if the favor of fetal rights.

Wondered why so many equated homosexual rights with slavery. It's so much more equal to segregation. Does anyone remember how the majority of people fought against integration of schools? Interractial busing? Interractial marriages?

How are gays segregated? What rights are they missing? They can marry, they just have to marry like the rest of us - to someone of the opposite sex. By allowing them to marry the same sex, they're not getting the SAME rights as hetros, they're getting SPECIAL rights. Interracial marriage is certainly not analygous to gay marriage either, because that is also between a man and a woman, not two of the same sex. It's actually insulting to most Blacks to have their struggle equated to gay marriage, for they tend to be very conservative in regard to gays.

Let's see now. If it's correct, as you claimed before that the only real objection you have to same sex marriage is that allowing it 'devalues' your own marriage (A claim that is extremely dubious, but for sake of argument I'll go along with that for now). How are marriages between homosexuals/lesbians and members of the opposite sex not 'devaluing' your marriage? They can hardly be based on honesty. The only 'logical' explanation is that in your view the only legitimate reason for marriage is procreation, which would put you in the position of being in a marriage that devalues your own marriage values.

An interesting moral conundrum.

In any case - it seems to me that suggesting that gays can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex (i.e. someone that they're not in "love" with, and don't want to build a monogamous relationship with) is not unlike telling a homeless guy that he should go and buy a set of patio furniture.

In other words - completely useless.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well there is that too of course

[Danno 1,228]

Not really, as long as one assumes that all conservatives oppose equal rights for homosexuals. If you're one of those rare C's that doesn't, then I have to ask... are you sure you're a C?

There is a broad spectrum of issues, so I have a broad spectrum of attitudes. I tend to be more libertarian for most lifestyle issues. In more pratical matters, I tend to be more conservative. And even between those two topic areas, there is some crosshatching. If I can find a pragmatic solution to a problem, I will go for that. K.I.S.S.

Gay marriage rights is shaping up to be the conservative litmus test that abortion rights once were.

STILL are, don't brush it off. At least in the midwest and south, laws have been slowly cutting off abortion rights for years, if the favor of fetal rights.

Wondered why so many equated homosexual rights with slavery. It's so much more equal to segregation. Does anyone remember how the majority of people fought against integration of schools? Interractial busing? Interractial marriages?

How are gays segregated? What rights are they missing? They can marry, they just have to marry like the rest of us - to someone of the opposite sex. By allowing them to marry the same sex, they're not getting the SAME rights as hetros, they're getting SPECIAL rights. Interracial marriage is certainly not analygous to gay marriage either, because that is also between a man and a woman, not two of the same sex. It's actually insulting to most Blacks to have their struggle equated to gay marriage, for they tend to be very conservative in regard to gays.

Let's see now. If it's correct, as you claimed before that the only real objection you have to same sex marriage is that allowing it 'devalues' your own marriage (A claim that is extremely dubious, but for sake of argument I'll go along with that for now). How are marriages between homosexuals/lesbians and members of the opposite sex not 'devaluing' your marriage? They can hardly be based on honesty. The only 'logical' explanation is that in your view the only legitimate reason for marriage is procreation, which would put you in the position of being in a marriage that devalues your own marriage values.

An interesting moral conundrum.

In any case - it seems to me that suggesting that gays can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex (i.e. someone that they're not in "love" with, and don't want to build a monogamous relationship with) is not unlike telling a homeless guy that he should go and buy a set of patio furniture.

In other words - completely useless.

Then again so is the right to free speech when one has a speaking impairment.

Or the right to bare arms when one has no money to buy one (or pay for the permit).

ETC

[Peikko 1,575]

Bare arms? Whatever next?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not really, as long as one assumes that all conservatives oppose equal rights for homosexuals. If you're one of those rare C's that doesn't, then I have to ask... are you sure you're a C?

There is a broad spectrum of issues, so I have a broad spectrum of attitudes. I tend to be more libertarian for most lifestyle issues. In more pratical matters, I tend to be more conservative. And even between those two topic areas, there is some crosshatching. If I can find a pragmatic solution to a problem, I will go for that. K.I.S.S.

Gay marriage rights is shaping up to be the conservative litmus test that abortion rights once were.

STILL are, don't brush it off. At least in the midwest and south, laws have been slowly cutting off abortion rights for years, if the favor of fetal rights.

Wondered why so many equated homosexual rights with slavery. It's so much more equal to segregation. Does anyone remember how the majority of people fought against integration of schools? Interractial busing? Interractial marriages?

How are gays segregated? What rights are they missing? They can marry, they just have to marry like the rest of us - to someone of the opposite sex. By allowing them to marry the same sex, they're not getting the SAME rights as hetros, they're getting SPECIAL rights. Interracial marriage is certainly not analygous to gay marriage either, because that is also between a man and a woman, not two of the same sex. It's actually insulting to most Blacks to have their struggle equated to gay marriage, for they tend to be very conservative in regard to gays.

Let's see now. If it's correct, as you claimed before that the only real objection you have to same sex marriage is that allowing it 'devalues' your own marriage (A claim that is extremely dubious, but for sake of argument I'll go along with that for now). How are marriages between homosexuals/lesbians and members of the opposite sex not 'devaluing' your marriage? They can hardly be based on honesty. The only 'logical' explanation is that in your view the only legitimate reason for marriage is procreation, which would put you in the position of being in a marriage that devalues your own marriage values.

An interesting moral conundrum.

In any case - it seems to me that suggesting that gays can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex (i.e. someone that they're not in "love" with, and don't want to build a monogamous relationship with) is not unlike telling a homeless guy that he should go and buy a set of patio furniture.

In other words - completely useless.

Then again so is the right to free speech when one has a speaking impairment.

Or the right to bare arms when one has no money to buy one (or pay for the permit).

ETC

Well... given that these are constitutionally protected rights you're talking about - everyone enjoys them.

But ok - a lot of people have problems speaking in public (regardless of having an actual speech impediment). It doesn't mean that they're wholly incapable of expressing themselves. You (and others) seem to have no trouble expressing yourself on a message board, despite having a less than perfect command of English grammar and spelling. That's about equivalent to a speech impediment isn't it? But here you are - expressing yourself.

Secondly (and this intepretation is related to the above point) it doesn't cost any money to bare arms. There's no tax for removing ones shirt (though with some people there surely ought to be )

Edited April 14, 2009 by Private Pike