OT It shall come about! HOPE NOT

munk said:
I tend to believe in letting people choose their own way unless it hurts someonelse.
I believe Society has a right to protect itself, and therefore the institution of marriage can be limited. I've nothing against a civil union with consenting adults. I believe abortions past the first trimester should be limited in all but the most extreme situations. I do not believe the seperation of church and state was ever intended to limit religious expression, but merely to prevent the Govt from taking sides. I believe many drugs should be legalised.

I am always against the Fed govt assuming more power. I believe the second amendment provides the teeth for the first.


munk
Click to expand...
Munk my friend it sounds like you are pretty much in line with what Nam and I said.

munk said:
about now I should mention all the gay and lesbian couples I know in order to compete in this conversation

not in order

not the issue

munk
Click to expand...
Munk you don't have too mention the two spirit people you know to compete, actually I didn't think there Was Any Competition in this conversation.:confused:

And I didn't mean really to hijack this thread.:eek: My point was to let Nam know that maybe he wasn't as liberal as he thinks he is sometimes.;)

I agree with you about the seperation of church and state not intending to limit religious expression and that it's supposed to prevent the government from taking sides. I'm also in agreeance pretty much with your stance on abortion as well. A person ought to have decided long before the end of the first trimester whether or not to abort a pregnancy IMO.
The mores of the Five Nation Confederacy the best that I know were designed to protect society, and in many ways.
I could know much, much more about it but since it wasn't about my people and there is so much to learn, well.....

It does bother me that the Republicans seem to be trying to do away with the seperation of church and state as well as taking more and more of our personal freedoms away in the name of National Security.
That brings us back on topic of this thread and the amount of information that's available on each and every individual in our great country.:eek:

Our daughter Kelly came up to use my computer the other day to see about some information on the court docket of the State of Oklahoma.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/start.asp?viewType=DOCKETS

She went to the website above and checked on what she wanted to know. When we got home we were talking about it and Kelly started typing in some family member's names.
I knew that the amount of information available to the public on individuals was ridiculous but I had No Idea it IS so extant!!!!:eek: :grumpy:
I didn't check but I'm betting that each and every state has their own version of the above website.
Now I'm wondering just how long it will be before the crap in the first post becomes reality and worse.:grumpy: :barf:

George Orwell's 1984 was a little early but I can see it eventually becoming reality if something doesn't change.:(
 
To clarify, Munk, my posts may seem more caustic than intended. As you've probably noticed, sometimes I accidentally do that when I feel strongly about something.

Munk, you are the one who got me started on Khuks (the first one to reply to my first post :) ), and I deem you a friend.

Point was to provoke thought, not attack. Please don't misread. I've nothing but the greatest respect for you, my friend.

To get back on topic ( I think... :) ), I really do agree with you on a lot, Munk and Yvsa. A larger gov. scares me. It would have scared the founding fathers IMO. As for the second ammendment, I can't count the conversations I've had with people who think guns are the problem with society. They think people should only have guns if they hunt with them.

I don't like to kill, personally, but I love to shoot. I like the idea of protecting myself, my liberty, and right to fend for myself. As somebody said here before (different thread), cops can't protect everybody. They just catch the bad guy after the fact. For me, that's not good enough in the moment.

On a positive note, a friend got me a bunch of 00 buck shot for Xmas!!! Can't wait to go shooting. Nothing brings holiday joy like tearing apart a target!! :D

Happy holidays. No hard feelings. :)

Nam
 
Nam
You are one of the best new voices on the forum.

Of course there are no hard feelings, and I owe my gay friends and even family an apology for my coarser remarks- I'm sorry!

I resent most public movements- and much of my emotion is about this, not about Gays. There have always been gay people, and they are a part of our society. However, Marriage is an institution to protect children and families. What is it about the Gay lifestyle you wish to add to this institution? Their higher break up rate- lack of long term relationships? The higher drug and alcohol abuse? The prevalence of aides?

When you see society as I do, having rejected it and then gradually come to see the wisdom in many restrictions, you will understand my position. Even when I was an atheist I was glad there were church going folks around me- I saw the good it did for our world. In the 50's and 60's we saw a civil rights movement- a good thing, and long overdue. But this wave of 'do goodness' has become an institution of it's own. Some people even want to extend equal rights to animals!

I've watched society change over the years, and not often for the best. The Kinks once wrote a song about this- Village Green Preservation Society
I want to preserve the good things; the Village Green. Christmas is under attack. God is being driven from the Shore.

If and when gays can join the marriage contract, be prepared for gay adoption, and bigamy. I suspect these things will come eventually. I'm just not going to help it arrive.

If that makes me my own bigot - so be it. People are delusional about what a society and even an individual are. They are systems of limits- of denial, of discriminations and choices.
I would rather not be 'against' anything- it is very unfashionable and seen as heartless. I believe though, that there will be far more heartless acts if we diffuse an institution as important to society as marriage is. Out of wedlock birthrates in minority populations, (and the larger anglo one as well) do not provide very good stats on any measure of health. Children from such backgrounds do much worse than their counter parts with a mother and father.

This is terrible news for many of you- but all things and choices are not equal. In many ways, we can afford a higher gay population right now because we have so many people. But if times were hard again, the number one biological and emotional choice, man and woman, would be paramount.

munk
 
Yvsa

On a sidebar, I've wondered what I would do if one of my son's became gay. Just love him, is all, love him just the same.



munk
 
Munk,

We agree to disagree... :)

I love this place.

And thank you for the kind words. I sure *feel* at home here, and it's always good to hear of one's acceptance.

This ability of ours to state our positions and walk away on good terms is truly unique. If this world knows what's good for it, it will surrender authority to the HI forum! World peace will ensue, or at least a universal khukuri carry law! :D

Nam
 
You're a good man, Nam.

I think most of the things I fear will come to pass one way or another.
Do you want to hear a wild thought? Heinlein used to write about crazy relationships, and SF took that up as a cause.

I'm not convinced polygamy and other set ups would be bad. Does that surprise you? But I have to give the nod to what has worked for thousands of years. Psychological studies of polygamist groups are not positive, with the children taking the problems. With any of these situations, it could be argued that wthout societal approval the stigma will always have negative consequences. I'm mentioning polygamy again because that is a reasonable extrapolation of what will become acceptable some day. I still remember the CSN&Y song 'Triad'.

There was a time I would have been for all changes. I've grown cautious my old age.

I believe we may have some common ground, though, on this: a gay mate should be entitled to benefits from their companion's work contract. They should have right of access during a hospitalisation, and inheritance of SS benefits and others.

Putting this another way, Gay people are our people. I'm just not willing to give them the marriage contract. I think the Boy Scouts acted very wisely- imagine the law suits.

The DSM stopped listing homosexuality as a deviance 15 years ago or so. That was right. It has always been here. God doesn't make junk.


munk
 
I agree with you on this issue, munk. I have some gay friends that have chosen to be in a life-long relationship with their partners. From talking with them their biggest fear isn't not being accepted, but the much more serious and pratical matter of next of kin rights. Right now if anything happens to one of them their parents will be entitled to everything they have. They also don't approve of the lifestyle they are leading. That means the one that is left willb e high and dry. I'm all for civil unions. Love is love is love. Let anyone be with anyone. However, i would like to keep "marriage" for straight people. It's not a religious thing to me at all. For me it's a social identification. When i say "I'm married" I personally would like that to be understood that I have taken a vow to stay with one woman and with that woman procreate. I don't want any more rights than a gay person. i just want a little niche carved out those of us that take marriage as a contract and agreement to go forth and multiply with one person only.
Maybe the idea of what marriage "traditionally" means is taken to be way to loosey goosey by most. Hence, the divorce rate. You know, i wouldn't be opposed at all to have ALL unions be called civil unions for the first five years. Straight or gay you are in a civil union until you can prove that you are taking monogamy seriously. After 5 years (or whatever) straight people would be "married" and gay people would be "life partners" (or whatever is would acceptable to them that would mean for-ever-and-ever).
We would all have the same rights, but those of us that are serious about staying with one person should get a special title;) Hell, come to think of it, after passing the civil union trial period I wouldn't mind if couple was called "married", gay or straight. I guess my big hang up isn't who you're doing the deed with as much just doing it with one person forever;) It's all hypothetical, i know. I don't want gay people to be treated any differently than I am, but i really wish a good firm line in the sand could be drawn. I really don't want NAMBLA or something like that to get its foot in the door.

Good conversations in this thread:)

Jake
 
...btt

I don't think it will be a Pizza company doing a back ground on their customers, but a car dealership, maybe a public swimming pool. It might be smart for a Bar to do a check. And so it goes. The argument will go much like the camera in public places; if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?



munk
 
Jake

Remember Starship Troopers, where you had to earn citizenship? Interesting idea about earning marriage.

Marriage is a 'system' designed to protect women and children from exploitation. And children need a stable and safe environment to grow up in. Without marriage being highly regarded, you have the out of wedlock birth rates skyrockteting. It then becomes the State's obligation to care for children. We can't afford that.



munk
 
munk said:
Marriage is a 'system' designed to protect women and children from exploitation. And children need a stable and safe environment to grow up in. Without marriage being highly regarded, you have the out of wedlock birth rates skyrockteting. It then becomes the State's obligation to care for children. We can't afford that.



munk
Click to expand...
We're almost to this point now.:(
IMO all values start, are learned, at home but with todays society not many kids are being taught values that will serve them in good stead throughout their lives if they're taught any values at all.
It's sort of ironic that what happened too the ndn people because of the actions of the US Government; the breakup of the ndn family, has now happened to almost everyone in the country.
Families used to be closer and role models for the kids were around them every day in the way of one kinship or another.
No longer are aunts, uncles, cousins, grandma and grandpa around to guide and shape young lives.
And it's hard for mom and dad to do it alone although not totally imposssible.

I wish I could state my views as well as many here do but when it comes to the written word I often have problems trying to say what I want to say without it coming out the wrong way.:(

I'm in agreeance that the gay community needs some sort of civil union, marriage or whatever, doesn't matter what it's called to me as I don't see any difference between the two.
Actually maybe a civil union might be better for everyone with marriage saved for a select few that like Jake says, "Have proven their desire to be monogamous with a life partner."
AFAIC marriage isn't necessarily for procreation because there are many people that marry that never have kids.
Then there are us older folks like Barb and me that have already had our kids and can't have, and don't want, anymore.
In many ways marriage is a state of mind as there are many couples that have never had a ceremony that have been together, and monogamous, for years, and years, sometimes with kids and sometimes without.
 
munk said:
This page was sponsored by the ACLU? Too bad they don't support the Second Amendment.
munk
Click to expand...

I listened to a guy from ACLU on "Justice Talking" on PBS a while back. He said that he felt that gun ownership was protected by other amendments, but that the courts had ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect the individuals right to bear arms.

I believe the original intent was to protect the individual right. But I think anyone who looked at how it has been interpreted over time would have to say that it does not protect it. Why are guns illegal in DC? Why is SF talking about banning them?
 
You make an excellent point, Yvsa. I think i hammered on the procreation part way more than its actual importance. You and munk are right. Marriage is more than churning out babies. Its real value lies in the that of shaping a younger generation down a moral path so that they become self-reliant and productive in society. That not only means having children and teaching them the right way to live their lives, but it can also just be married people setting a social example about committment and responsibility. I am not yet married, but i have dated my junior-high sweet heart for 10 years. We'll be married 4 days shy of our 11th anniversery (out of state college and grad school is a bit%$ on a relationship). However, there hasn't been one time when we were faced with a problem that we could not see the value of sticking it out together and solving it as a couple. She is the perfect woman for me, and i never want to be without her. Gay or straight, I think that the important thing is that a couple that has children needs to raise them with Golden Rule values and ethics, and a couple that doesn't have children or want children should at least set an example of general good will and productivity in society.
Discussing this subject really has shown me where my true feelings on this topic stand. Being productive and a good example is the main pre-req for marriage to me, i suppose. That's why i have no problem with a man and a man or a woman and a woman living/sleeping/and sharing their lives together and being seen as a "married" couple. These are people that can do good things for us as a whole and do not harm anyone. It's when you get into more sexual devient groups like NAMBLA and their ilk that i draw the line. I'm also not a big fan of poligamy. I know it a stange practice to me, but i would see lack of trust as a big issue. Kind of along the lines when a female chimp joins a troop of other chimps they sometimes murder her first born because it is not 100% that the little one is "theirs". I know it's nothing along those extreme lines, but the damage potential to children is a high, IMHO.

Jake
 
[QUOTE Munk]Nam
There have always been gay people, and they are a part of our society. However, Marriage is an institution to protect children and families. What is it about the Gay lifestyle you wish to add to this institution? Their higher break up rate- lack of long term relationships? The higher drug and alcohol abuse? The prevalence of aides?.... [/QUOTE]

I don't know that that's really true anymore. I can't see that hardly anybody seems to stay married. I think a saying a "gay lifestyle" is kind of stereotyping.
Most gay folks I know are no different as far as lifestyle(other than sexuality) than I am.


[QUOTE Munk]Christmas is under attack. God is being driven from the Shore.[/QUOTE]

I was just walking thru the mall and there were kids singing "Oh Holy Night " About the only way I can see Christmas being under attack is from commercialisim, and if the elections of this year and the rise of Islamic Fundamentalisim tell us anything is that God is not being driven from the shore, but that his fan clubs are fighting with each other and trying to tell the rest of us what is right and wrong.

[QUOTE Munk]If and when gays can join the marriage contract, be prepared for gay adoption, and bigamy. I suspect these things will come eventually. I'm just not going to help it arrive. [/QUOTE]

Already has come. The gay folks I know who have adopted kids or had kids seem to have nicer kids than straight folks I know. I think that is because they really wanted kids, and didn't just "have an accident" ;)

In many ways, we can afford a higher gay population right now because we have so many people. But if times were hard again, the number one biological and emotional choice, man and woman, would be paramount.

munk
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting concept. I have always speculated a similar thing. You know the earth has an intelligence all it's own. World population is out of control. So now we have AIDS killing a lot of people in the most overpopulated region. We seem to have a lot of gay people, who theoretically can't have children, we have declining fertility rates. If that doesn't work what happens next? Asteroid? New Ice age?

I saw an interview with Rolling Thunder once and he was comparing earthquakes and natural disasters and saying it was like a bird that rolls in the dust to kill parasites off of it.
 
Hollow- either the asteroid or Yellowstone errupting.

The ACLU takes the view that the Second is not an individual right, saying the Courts have decided. However, the court decisions are inconclusive on this. Recent decisions by 5th Circuit supports an individual right, but that like any rights, there are limits.

The ACLU did not take the Second as a case to fight because they did not want to- finding it a 'case closed' that suited their ideology.
Though some courts have made questionable decisions regarding the Second- see the Ninth Circuit District Court of Appeals, there are no credible Historians of stature who will debate the Second was and is not an individual right. Thus historians are ahead of our politicians, and even some civil liberties groups.

The ACLU does some good stuff, and some awful. They deny an ideology- which is a shame, since they have one, and the first step towards clearer sight is recognizing where you are coming from.

I disagree with them enough so that I would never join them. They did defend Rush Limbaugh, though, but Nambla too.

I won't debate whether or not Christmas is no longer politically correct and is disapearing. I don't beleive the high percentage of secularlists in population enjoyed by France, England, Germany and Canada are doing their society much good.



munk
 
side note

If a Supreme Court was ever loaded with Barbara Boxers and Feinsteins, it would be easy to get a collective right decision on the Second Amendment which Does Not Follow either law or intent of the BOR's. If this ever happened, it would put me in a strange position regarding the Federal government. The rights are given to us by God, the Creator, not the Feds. It would seem a breaking point for the Republic.

I've thought Native Americans have a good lever on this issue- they are in some quasi legal jumbo- but still 'Soveriegn Nations" You know, they could be the first to tell the Feds to take a hike if the Feds ever come for the guns.

So far, polls given to military personel do not suggest they would assist the Govt in house to house confiscation. I dread their attitudes will deteriorate over time and generations, to the soft sell of "sporting usefulness' and they one day will not be so robust.

munk
 
munk said:
side note

If a Supreme Court was ever loaded with Barbara Boxers and Feinsteins, it would be easy to get a collective right decision on the Second Amendment which Does Not Follow either law or intent of the BOR's. If this ever happened, it would put me in a strange position regarding the Federal government. The rights are given to us by God, the Creator, not the Feds. It would seem a breaking point for the Republic.

I've thought Native Americans have a good lever on this issue- they are in some quasi legal jumbo- but still 'Soveriegn Nations" You know, they could be the first to tell the Feds to take a hike if the Feds ever come for the guns.

So far, polls given to military personel do not suggest they would assist the Govt in house to house confiscation. I dread their attitudes will deteriorate over time and generations, to the soft sell of "sporting usefulness' and they one day will not be so robust.

munk
Click to expand...

Wonder why, given the resources of the NRA, if they really believe that the 2nd guarantees individual right to bear arms, that they have never challenged the DC gun ban based on the Second and taken it to the supreme court. You'd think with the court having a fairly conservative base right now that it would be a good time to try this?
 
There are battlegrounds all over the US, what makes DC so important? Also, don't you think the NRA is doing something? The suggestive tone of your comment implies they gather our funds and are dishonest;
'given their resources, and if they really believe..."

I know in recent years there has been concern that if a second amendment case arrived in the wrong context, the result would hurt gun owners, not help. IT's called picking your battles.

You do not believe the Second an individual right? Or is it you don't believe our courts think it is?

I'm not going to flame out here, Hollow. You don't have to respect the NRA, just as I don't respect the ACLU


munk
 
Both orgs. are biased. Obviously. I don't belong to either for the following reason: I like some things they do, but not other things. Like political parties. I'll agree with them when they do something I like but not when they do something I don't.

Munk, serious question: I've considered NRA membership before, because I sometimes think they do more good things than bad. My question is this: Do they do things beyond 2nd ammendment? Like, do they support other conservative agendas other than weapons? If so, which? I'm honestly asking because I don't know.

This is a good thread. Lotsa controversy! :D Papa likey!


Nam
 
munk said:
There are battlegrounds all over the US, what makes DC so important? Also, don't you think the NRA is doing something? The suggestive tone of your comment implies they gather our funds and are dishonest;
'given their resources, and if they really believe..."

I know in recent years there has been concern that if a second amendment case arrived in the wrong context, the result would hurt gun owners, not help. IT's called picking your battles.

You do not believe the Second an individual right? Or is it you don't believe our courts think it is?

I'm not going to flame out here, Hollow. You don't have to respect the NRA, just as I don't respect the ACLU


munk
Click to expand...

I was a member of the NRA all thru the 90's.

I personally believe that it IS an individual right(see my other post in this thread) That is that was the original intent.

However I don't believe the second amendment protects the individuals right.
If it did then why would we have the DC gun ban? If the NRA believed that it really did, that it was really defensible in court I cannot imagine that they would not appeal the DC gun ban.

If the DC police decided to do random house to house searches without a warrant the ACLU would be there to say it was unconstitutional. However why has the NRA not done this with the DC gun ban. Based on their interpretation of the second it is unconstitutional. Bush admin has come down as saying it is an individual right, mostly conservative supreme court. I just can't see any downside other than them losing. And if they lose, then we should push for another amendment that DOES clearly spell out it is an individual right. In todays political climate it would pass hands down.
 
I'm no lawyer, but DC has a problem not found in other localities- it's domain and rights are less apparent than in a State, for instance. It has to do with how it was set up.

The NRA does not go far enough. But for that, there is Gun Owners of America, which WAS in involved in the recent fith circut decision, ( l believe) and has other cases pending.


I am always sad to here of former NRA members.

Hollow, if the second was written as an individual right (as were all other bills) why would this not be valid today? I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court has reversed itself and law from time to time. Bad law does not establish precedence for more bad law. They don't exactly brag about this. But the question remains, it is my right; why should I believe any court?
Why should I not make a reasonable assumption, that the Second was written for me and all of us, as Historians have determined by exhaustive research. Ask Lawrence Tribe if the Second is an individual right- he used to say no, to say exactly what the ACLU dismisses it as today. But MR Tribe, to his liberal credit, researched the issue and reversed his former opinion. It is his opinion today that the Second will have to be removed before gun control can progress past a certain point.


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top