RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Poll: Should the Constitution be ammended to preserve ...(94 posts)

Poll: Should the Constitution be ammended to preserve ...loki_1
Jul 10, 2003 7:49 AM
traditional marriage?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-07-09-opcom_x.htm
Live and let live.Spoke Wrench
Jul 10, 2003 8:28 AM
While I find the concept of homosexuality to be pretty disgusting, I don't see how it affects my lifestyle very much. If two individuals want to have a legal document that allows them to share a medical insurance policy, make medical decisions if the other is incapacited, and resolve community property disputes if they decide to split, how does that threaten my marriage to my wife?
why disgusting? -nmMJ
Jul 11, 2003 12:13 AM
noDougSloan
Jul 10, 2003 9:06 AM
I can think of about 100 amendments I'd propose to the Constitution, and that would not make the list.

Create "civil unions" with a package of appropriate rights, then you don't have to aggravate people by calling it "marriage." Gets the job done.

Doug
no (nm)JS Haiku Shop
Jul 10, 2003 9:39 AM
NoContinental
Jul 10, 2003 9:46 AM
The traditional marriage cannot be preserved or resuscitated by a constitutional ammendment. Unwed parenthood and high divorce rate are the major symptoms of a society that does not value traditional marriage. What would the ammendment do about that? Homosexual unions are a hot-button issue, primarily for the religious right. "Preserving traditional marriage" is simply a euphamism for eliminating homosexual rights. Why not word the question to say what you mean? Should there be a constitutional ammendment to prevent homosexuals from entering into civil unions? The answer is still no.
I couldn't find any reference to "marriage" in the Constitution.czardonic
Jul 10, 2003 9:52 AM
So, Constitutionally speaking, what "legal status" are people trying to protect?

That is, if we waste our time pretending that the issue is marriage rather than fabricating a legal basis for discriminating against and ostracizing homosexuals.
Czar, we agree. I'm scaring myself. nmContinental
Jul 10, 2003 9:57 AM
fwiw, "privacy" is not there, either, and we protect that nmDougSloan
Jul 10, 2003 9:59 AM
Not with a Constitutional Amendment.czardonic
Jul 10, 2003 10:16 AM
It seems clear that the reason these people are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment is that they know that the underlying aim (blatant discrimination with no basis in law or the compelling interests of the State) is unconstitutional.

Thus far, I don't think that the concept of "privacy" has been deemed (by the SC) to be unconstitutional. Perhaps that is not a meaningful distinction.
I agree, butDougSloan
Jul 10, 2003 10:24 AM
I agree with what you are saying, but wanted to point out that Constitutional rights are recognized that are not expressly stated in the Constitution. You seemed to imply that there is not right to marriage, because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. I think the Court actually has recognized a right to marriage, despite it not being mentioned (but it might take a while to find a case). The point is that you can't rule out rights purely on the basis of their not being expressly mentioned.

Doug
I agree too, but. . .czardonic
Jul 10, 2003 10:31 AM
. . .while there may be no mention of the right to privacy, I think it can be reasonably inferred from other rights that are mentioned.

In contrast, the right to elevate the status of heterosexual unions at the expense of homosexual ones stikes me as completely without basis, and in fact contrary to rights that are mentioned.

I'd be interested to see cases that recognized marriage, and especially if they specify that the marriage is exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman.
caseDougSloan
Jul 10, 2003 11:02 AM
I just looked at this quickly:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/481/537.html

The Court has recognized that the freedom to enter into and carry on certain intimate or private relationships is a fundamental element of liberty protected by the Bill of Rights. Such relationships may take various forms, including the most intimate. See Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 -504 (1977) (plurality opinion). We have not attempted to mark the precise boundaries of this type of constitutional protection. The intimate relationships to which we have accorded constitutional protection include marriage, Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383 -386 (1978); the begetting and bearing of children, Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and cohabitation with relatives, Moore v. East Cleveland, supra, at 503-504. Of course, we have not held that constitutional protection is restricted to relationships among family members. We have emphasized that the First Amendment protects those relationships, including family relationships, that presuppose "deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs but also distinctively personal aspects of one's life." Roberts v. United States Jaycees, supra, at 619-620. But in Roberts we observed that "[d]etermining the limits of state authority over an individual's freedom to enter into a particular association . . . unavoidably entails a careful [481 U.S. 537, 546] assessment of where that relationship's objective characteristics locate it on a spectrum from the most intimate to the most attenuated of personal attachments." 468 U.S., at 620 (citing Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 187 -189 (1976) (POWELL, J., concurring)). In determining whether a particular association is sufficiently personal or private to warrant constitutional protection, we consider factors such as size, purpose, selectivity, and whether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship. 468 U.S., at 620 .
As I suspected, no mention of relative gender included. (nm)czardonic
Jul 10, 2003 11:22 AM
fwiw, "privacy" is there - hint: read 'Bill of Rights.' nmbicyclerepairman
Jul 15, 2003 3:19 PM
Sure, why not?OldEdScott
Jul 10, 2003 10:38 AM
That and the much-anticipated second-term passage of the Bush-Cheney Alien and Sedition Acts II should just about perfect the American experiment.
I've come up with an acronym you might appreciate...bicyclerepairman
Jul 15, 2003 3:41 PM
when pondering heated issues such as these: WWND? (What would Noam do?)
No.Turtleherder
Jul 10, 2003 11:05 AM
Why don't they just call it what it is, "I don't know you but I hate your guts because of my own internal prejudices amendment" I hear alot of spouting off about the "sanctity of marriage" but I never hear a definition of what that is. Is it the over 50% of marriages fail, adulterating, spouse and child beating sanctity or is it the rose colored glasses 1950's t.v. version that never really existed? By this little diatribe I am not against marriage just fed up with people trying to crap on others for no other reason than the hob goblins of their own tiny minds. End of rant.
No way.jtolleson
Jul 10, 2003 12:33 PM
Setting aside my own pro-GLBT bias (If I can), I think it is a BAD IDEA regardless of one's perspective on the underlying issue (ie., how do you feel about gay marriage?)

I'm loathe to tinker with the Constitution, particularly for the purposes of political expediency or catering to one side of this century's hotly contested social issue. We should have learned that with prohibition.

Same reason I oppose the flag burning amendment.

In fact, I can't think of a constitutional amendment that I would favor, not even the ERA.
It's a dying institution, let it R.I.P.Starliner
Jul 10, 2003 12:51 PM
Among the last vestiges of our patriarchial past, matrimony as it exists now ought to be left to die out. A high failure rate, and discriminatory standards and judgements in divorce make it a poor gamble for any young man who decides to take the walk down the aisle. For if and when he breaks up, it won't be like high school when it took five minutes and cost nothing.
It's fantastic for us lucky few.Spoke Wrench
Jul 10, 2003 3:32 PM
When I got married I was too young and didn't have a clue. In spite of that, it's the only thing in my life that has far, far exceeded my fondest expectations. I can't imagine a better life than the one I'm sharing today with my wife. I know that it doesn't work out this way for everybody, but for us lucky few it's fantastic!

It'll be 40 years for my wife and me over Labor Day. We'll be celebrating at the Midwest Tandem Bicycle Rally in Dayton.
congratsDougSloan
Jul 10, 2003 4:26 PM
Nice to hear the good things, too. While it can be a mixed blessing at times, I wouldn't know what to do without my wife and son. Riding is wonderful, but in the end it's a bit hollow compared to relationships.

Doug
May you die happy (when your time comes)Starliner
Jul 10, 2003 8:13 PM
I mean that. Sounds like something special you've got; something worth preserving.
I'm not sure how special it is.Spoke Wrench
Jul 11, 2003 6:05 AM
Our registration for the Tandem Rally is 402 and there were still two months to go before the event so it could be a lot bigger than that. Virtually all tandem teams are couples who have strong long term relationships and who choose to bicycle together - really together. That strikes me as a significant group of people who have a much closer bond than just convenience or economics. After many years, we still choose to have our fun together.

I'm not at all sure that my wife and I are all that special.
Dying institution? Patriarchal? I don't believe that.jtolleson
Jul 10, 2003 4:54 PM
As a lesbian in a long term committed relationship, I would love nothing more than to be married. Really married. Claiming that our intertwined finances and monogamous commitment are the same as marriage is a bunch of hooey. I want to get MARRIED.

I want it in name, I want it in concept. I don't want to check "single" on my tax form, and I want her social security death benefit if she gets hit by a bus.

Maybe it is easy to snicker about the irrelevance of marriage if you've already got it. From the other side of the fence, I still think it is an amazing institution, combining emotional, sexual, and financial commitments with governmental and society acknowledgment... maybe even the sanctity of the sacrament.

Bring it on.
Yes.Starliner
Jul 10, 2003 8:41 PM
If I were in charge, you'd get your wish. The problem I really have with the institution is what happens when the marriage is dissolved - how monies are paid out; how child custody is determined. That's where the patriarchial aspects of the institution really show up.

Being in charge, I'd treat alimony similarly to unemployment insurance. Couples would pay a tax when they would get a marriage license which would go towards an alimony insurance fund; instead of getting an annual income tax break, couples would pay an annual tax based upon income which would go into the the alimony fund. In the event of divorce, alimony payments would come out of this fund, and like unemployment they would expire after a certain time. Go get a job.

Child support would be treated differently - I haven't yet thought that one out, but one thing I would institute with regard to custody would be a default custody arrangement of 50/50, with any deviation from that requiring a special modification hearing.
Don't bring it on hererex-ss
Jul 10, 2003 10:56 PM
Move to Holland and live happy in your kind of perversity which real Christians who understand the Bible understand and know is wrong Is that where your friend Harlet ran off to? probably did as we ran her out of here as she was not able to defend her words in this kind of wrong direction and sinful discusion Nothing against you jtollson just your lifestyle and how it is destroying socities
Are all 'real Christians' as illiterate as you?Niemand
Jul 10, 2003 11:21 PM
Nothing against you rex-ss, just your narrow minded, hate-filled BS.
hey fukwitMJ
Jul 11, 2003 12:12 AM
never seen your handle here before

you're way out of line

do you want to tell us exactly how lesbians and homosexuals are ruining societies?

or perhaps the bible verse which says that homosexuality is somehow worse than any other sin - such as passing judgment?

perverse?

you have so much hostility I can only assume you must have some sort of latent homosexuality in yourself that you hate - maybe you can head out to Kansas and go spread your filth with the godhatesfags 'christians'

you're a fukking disgrace to everyone who calls themselves a christian

and Doug - when you delete this post - I trust you'll delete the hate filled post too
No hate here just love for Jesusrex-ss
Jul 11, 2003 12:40 AM
Why am i hating to think that homosexuals are wrong and not good for Christan countries like ours There are plenty of words in Bible that condem it but you not able to hear if I said them anyway You may have latent homosexuality in you to think others do but i dont What i say to jtollson is just the Christan truth and the facts that Harlot couldnt hear the truth either was because she left here after a argment with someone over this same thing when she couldnt write anything to defend a argment against what she said. I say good riddance to her not in hate but saying she was as wrong as jtollson is now to try and say its normal remember God doesnt say so If any post needs to delete its yours for all the hate
No hate here just love for JesusMJ
Jul 11, 2003 1:10 AM
how are they wrong? how are they not good? since when is the US a christian country?

give me the verses in the bible that condemn? explain how some sins are worse than others

you're right I may have some latent tendencies - for all you know I'm gay or lesbian - but I reserve my hostility for narrow minded hatefilled zealots like you

what christian truth? please detail the truth for me

why is it not normal - didn't god make everyone the way they are? where does god not say so?

you may be surprised to know that I don't recall the details of any of Harlett's arguments on the board - but if you want to have a re-hash I'm ready to argue her side

and here's me thinking that christianity is about love and forgiveness - I guess you're one of those eye for an eye old testament christians
No hate here just love for Jesuscritmass
Jul 11, 2003 1:34 AM
The irony here is that Harlett, at least get your names spelled right, would have responded with an eloquent post about the freedom of speech. Then she would have mind slapped you, just as eloquently, to Pluto. I really think your sorry posts shouldn't be deleted but instead just sit there to bake in their ignorance.

Why do I think this is Manto is a really bad redneck dialect
Hey Dude!rex-ss
Jul 11, 2003 7:14 AM
bullsh#$!!!!
You're rightcritmass
Jul 11, 2003 9:40 AM
Maybe you aren't Manto-Jomo Kenyatta or whatever other names he posts under. You're sounding more like Lazywriter today. Drunk last night? But then it is all the same trolling BS either way.
Jesus would be ashamed...Dale Brigham
Jul 11, 2003 6:23 AM
...that his good name is being used to justify your hatred. He commanded us to love each other as we love ourselves. You ignore his teachings and disobey his command. You give Christianity a bad name. Shame on you.

Dale
Spot on! nmLen J
Jul 11, 2003 7:05 AM
Questionsctri
Jul 14, 2003 5:40 PM
If this thread is still alive, and rex-ss is still trolling, then I have a few questions for him, or anyone who wishes to support his particular brand of belief.

Where does the bible say that two people of the same gender cannot have a consentual loving relationship.

I can think of perhaps three instances the are often cited and I have replies waiting for them all, but what I really want to know is if you (rex) even know why you should think the way that you do.

Cite away,

RC
I think he's gonejtolleson
Jul 15, 2003 7:04 AM
it was sort of a "drive by" ... adopted a fake name, lob a few bombshells, disappear.
don't say thatDougSloan
Jul 11, 2003 7:27 AM
Don't use that sort of language. I am tempted to delete your post for that reason alone.
Hey DougMJ
Jul 11, 2003 8:14 AM
it's telling that you'd be more offended by the use of the word 'fukwit' than a hate filled post which calls a board member disgusting because of their sexual orientation - I seriously question your ability to objectively moderate this board if you can't distinguish what's actually over the line - never has there been a clearer example of someone breaking the guidelines than Rex the hystoerical homophobe's post

things here get heated sometimes - usually about politics - everyone seems to respect the rules there even when they get bent

however, just like in the email I sent you which you haven't responded to, nobody here would tolerate some bigot telling us that minorities are disgusting now would they...

it's over the line - here's a bargain I'll stop saying fukwit etc. if you delete the hate filled personal attacks - but until you do I reckon I can post whatever the fuk I want

or do we need to discuss this with Gregg etc.
Hey MJ94Nole
Jul 11, 2003 8:51 AM
If possible, maybe you should try to have an intelligent conversation without spewing vulgar profanity in a public forum.

I don't necessarily find anymore offensive (although I very much differ from his method as I do yours) what rex said than I did how you had your say.

In my opinion, I find the use of profanity is generally an indicator of one's intelligence quotient.

You'll likely never enlighten another with the practice of spewing filth.
if you're more offended by languageMJ
Jul 11, 2003 9:02 AM
than by bigoted hateful comments then perhaps you should join a knitting club where old prejudices can be nurtured with tea and polite conversation

Rex the hysterical homophobe's comments are what constitute filth - that's the issue here - I'm happy to have my posts with (oh Jesus) swear words deleted if the hateful posts are deleted too

do you get upset when they show sex in the movies but you're ok with violence - unless the baddies shoot a dog or a horse?

you need to work on identifying your priorities - why is it ok to make comments about the perversity of board members private lives and sexuality but not ok to swear?

and I'm not really interested in your profanity = dumb argument - my Mom used to use that when I was a teenager and I still don't buy it - IMO the colourful and creative use of swear words should be encouraged - there's no point in having an intelligent conversation with a deranged hate-monger
I actually agree with some of your post94Nole
Jul 11, 2003 9:27 AM
and I addressed a post to rex with my opinion on his comments and his method of communicating them.

In my opinion (because that is what we are talking about here is opinions, right?), it's my right to be just as turned off by your language than I am by his message and/or method of communicating that meesage, because to me, your message gets lost on people like me. But, you likely don't care because if your mom couldn't convince you, I'll certainly not have any influence on your methods.

Also, IMO, the ends do not always justify the means. Like it or not, rex has the right to his opinion just like you or I. You may not agree but that's the way it is.

FYI, I know where my priorities are and need not identify them here for you. That's been done and is personal. I was just trying to help you understand, as your mom tried, that your use of offensive language won't aid your argument - now, I'm repeating myself.

And to answer your question, I do get upset with sex in movies and have made a decision that I will not view movies that contain that material. Obviously, I don't see many movies. I'm no better than you or anyone else, I've just made some choices regarding language, movies, etc.

I don't how how old you are but if you get this irate everytime reflects ignorance or says something that you belief is hateful, bigoted, etc., you have a long, not very pleasing road to travel.
what if Rex tells everyone he hates nigggers and JewsMJ
Jul 11, 2003 9:30 AM
is that his opinion that get gets to pollute this site with?

no I thought not
Just because Rex is wrong........Len J
Jul 11, 2003 9:35 AM
does not make your post right.

Both are offensive.

My oponion.

Len
it's quite clear to meMJ
Jul 14, 2003 12:24 AM
that one is far, far, far more offensive than the other - I used a swear word hoping that it would alert the neo-con board moderator to delete the entire section of posts - I guess when you listen to Rush enough you just stop noting when people are fuelled and motivated by hatred - but the swear words still stick out

clearly I posted profane language and that breaks forum guidelines - you may notice that I don't ever use swear words when I post here regularly - but it's a response to another post which breaks forum guidelines

Doug should delete them both - that Doug would caution me for swearing and not caution Rex for breaking guidelines 1 & 2 is disturbing - and it should be to you too
Maybe you should crank up your own forum.94Nole
Jul 11, 2003 9:48 AM
MJ,

there is a moderator here that will make the decision of what stays and what should be removed. It is not for you or I to make that decision. We decide to participate or not. Those are our choices.

If you disagree (and your posts to him indicate that you do) with his handling of "offensive" (defined individually) material, I suggest that you maybe start your own forum or simply log off. Kind of the old, "if you don't like what is on TV, turn it off". That is likely what many would say as a couple of ways of handling your frustration with the likes of rex. And please don't infer from this my approval or disapproval of rex and his comments.
enforcing standardsDougSloan
Jul 11, 2003 6:27 PM
We have published standards, and I enforce those, and only those. Vulgar language is prohibited. Period.

Doug
so is degrading board membersMJ
Jul 14, 2003 12:04 AM
not the sameDougSloan
Jul 14, 2003 6:47 AM
Someone is certainly entitled to state an opinion about a political view, moral view, religious view, whatever, in general. Heck, we see all the time here posts about how Republicans are Nazi's or Conservatives are racist pigs, etc. I don't see you complaining then.

An attack on a group or view is not the same as a personal attack on a member contributing here. If that were the case, heck, I could say I get attacked every single day.

Also, stating a disproval of a group is not necessarily "hate." People are trigger happy to use the term "hate" for anyone with whom they strongly disagree.

One of the hallmarks of a mature, intelligent, fair-minded person, in my view, is the ability to disagree with someone, even vehemently, yet still respect their position and tolerate their choices. Disagreement or disapproval is not the same as intolerance, either.

Doug
you're right it's notMJ
Jul 14, 2003 11:53 PM
when someone's bigoted views are based on race, religion, sexual orientation which are then used as a platform to attack someone that is entirely different - that is an unacceptable personal attack - perhaps we could have a board for all the queer bashers, Jew haters and assorted racists so they can wallow in their own filth

the 'disapproval of a group' to which you refer to in this thread is clearly over the line

it is reprehensible that you would ever conclude that you should respect a homophobic/racist/anti-semitic opinion - tolerate, perhaps in the strict Supreme Court interpretation, but this site isn't a legal forum - this is a private forum with explicit rules which have been broken - the reason there are such rules is so the site doesn't degenerate in to a forum for queer bashers and racists etc.
reasoningDougSloan
Jul 15, 2003 7:25 AM
I've not seen anything racist, so that's not even relavant.

Let me ask you this. This entire thread really was about whether or not to prevent gay marriage, right? So, was the entire topic off limits? Seems to me, not.

Now, it is an inflammatory topic, but then 90% of the topics in this non-cycling forum are, too.

I think in this instance individuals were entitled to express their opinions about gay marriage or gay lifestyle, etc. One or two people did that, and it was relevant to the discussion. The fact that they did so in an indelicate or crude manner doesn't change anything, and I think that their choices or words, while unfortunate, were not so clearly prohibited to require deletion.

Note from the Guidelines:

The RoadbikeREVIEW staff monitors the message boards, removing inappropriate content. The purpose of these guidelines is to explain what kind of messages are "inappropriate," and therefore will be deleted. We are explaining these guidelines beforehand, so if a message is removed everyone will understand why it was removed. In general, we err on the side of leaving messages up. The entire site is premised on sharing product information, so as one might imagine we are strong proponents of free speech. That being said, here are some specific reasons why we remove certain messages:

*The message insults or degrades another member of the community.

*The message contains profanity, offensive language, or racial epithets.

I have been chastized for deleting messages several times. People claim that I was "censoring" and being "heavy-handed". In light of that, and with Gregg's direction, I have backed off and pretty much let things slide unless they were clearly in violation. Profanity is a very clear violation. Not much deliberation required there. However, you are talking about a much more difficult issue. My view is that the "attack" was generalized and relevant, even if disagreeable, to the discussion, and not a clear violation.

Nonetheless, I understand your point and disagreement and will be sensitive to similar posts getting out of line.

Doug
I actually agree with some of your postMJ
Jul 14, 2003 12:17 AM
I can't believe that you don't get offended by hateful bigots - I guess you're focusing on the really big issues like swearing and sex in movies - you keep being nice and polite while tolerating hatred and bigotry - perhaps you'd lilke some iced tea for the lunching later too?

opinions based on hatred, that degrade other board members don't get the same protection - certainly not in this forum - look at the guidelines - furthermore, I'm gonna challenge anyone who has neandrethal opinions at every chance I get - maybe you're willing to overlook things in your community (however you may define that) and are willing to step around issues that may be difficult to confront, or impolite - I am not it's a no brainer

I'm quite confident in my methods of communication - it astounds me that more appear offended by language than by hatred and bigotry directed at another board member

I don't know how old you are but if you get upset everytime someone uses swear words you have a long and not very pleasing road to travel
Hey Dougcritmass
Jul 11, 2003 9:54 AM
Doug only gets upset when you call our lying prez Dubya, Ashcrotch or Limbaabaa nasty names. Gosh this is just about those perverted gay folks.. Nothing to fret about I guess.
differences (jtolleson???)DougSloan
Jul 11, 2003 6:30 PM
Vulgar language is prohibited. Personal attacks are prohibited. Stating a position in general, no matter how contrary to your point of view, is not. I don't edit for distasteful positions.

Tell you what, on this issue, I'll defer to a resident First Amendent and civil rights attorney, jtolleson. If she says it goes, I'll delete it.

Doug
"your lifestyle and how it is destroying socities"MJ
Jul 14, 2003 12:03 AM
how can you class that line other than a personal attack on someone? "nothing against you just your lifestyle" - how can you class calling someone else's lifestyle "perverse" and "destroying societies" anything other than a personal attack on someone? I really don't get it... please explain how that's not a personal attack on someone - while it may be a general position - it was, in this case clearly directed at one person after she revealed her orientation - that is not merely stating a position that constitutes a personal attack by any measurement

why is jtolleson the only board member who gets to decide if it gets deleted? is she the only lesbian or homosexual here? it offends me - I'm sure it'd offend lots of others, hopefully you included, who may not want to weigh on on the thread

as we've been reminded here before - this forum, being a private site, is not protected by the first amendment - the moderator gets to decide what remains - it seems to me that you are capriciously using the powers of your position and have fundamentally failed to meet the board guidelines (which you were primary author of) particularly numbers 1 and 2:

"The message insults or degrades another member of the community.
The message contains profanity, offensive language, or racial epithets."

it seems crystal clear to me...

if a board member seriously starts posting about their love for Adolf Hitler, their hatred of blacks and hispanics, etc. does that get to remain posted here too?

let's change some words and see what the effect is -

Don't bring your Jewishness/blackneess/Catholicness on here
Move to Holland and live happy in your kind of perversity which real Christians who understand the Bible understand and know is wrong Is that where your friend Harlet ran off to? probably did as we ran her out of here as she was not able to defend her words in this kind of wrong direction and sinful discusion Nothing against you jtollson just your Jewishness/blackneess/Catholicness and how it is destroying socities

I note you never responded to my email - did I not get the right address? tell you what, on this issue, perhaps we should defer to Gregg as you appear to have actually refused to communicate with me, whatever the ultimate decision, when I contacted you regarding a legitimate complaint
you sound intolerantDougSloan
Jul 14, 2003 6:55 AM
Sorry, haven't checked that email. I'm not on duty 24 hours a day, you know.

News flash. People can have beliefs different from yours, and they are just as entitled to state them as you are. The fact that those views may be very strongly stated and very different from yours doesn't change things. All are entitled to voice them.

I vollied to jtolleson because she is a First Amendement lawyer, as well, and has done ACLU work. If anyone should understand this issue, she should. Recall that the ACLU went to court to back the KKK's right to march? Exactly the same thing here. We don't make content based decisions about postings, except as directed in the Forum Guidelines. The posts you reference are not prohibited.

While you are correct that the First Amendment does not control what is said here, still it's not bad to keep in mind that a good goal is to honor free speech, except as noted in the Guidelines.

I'll check my email.

Doug
differences (jtolleson???)jtolleson
Jul 14, 2003 6:52 AM
Sorry, away for the weekend on our Colo MS150. Thanks to those here who offered their financial $$, btw. I raised about $1200 and may have a little trickle in before they close the books. Ha!

As for my name being invoked and told to go to Holland... well, 90% of the time I'm a full empowered live-and-let-live kinda gal.

No First Amendment issue here, just my personal predilections... it can stay for all I care!
coolDougSloan
Jul 14, 2003 6:58 AM
Good job on the 150. Doing a report?

Doug
MJ, just let these idiots trumpet their hate and ignorance.czardonic
Jul 11, 2003 10:30 AM
We need to be reminded that this kind of mindset persists. This jerk isn't winning any minds, at least none of any worth.

I think it is perfectly clear to any decent person which "lifestyle" is disgusting and a threat to society. Fortunately, the kind of "Christianity" represented here is on the wane, while open-minded, tolerant society continues to bloom. That's why these types are so grouchy and nasty in the first place.
Whose puppet are you?jtolleson
Jul 11, 2003 5:59 AM
Your moniker is entirely unfamiliar, though your self-righteous lashing is not.

I did not begin a debate trying to persuade anyone of anything; I shared my true feelings and life with a group of online strangers who I've come to consider friends. If you can't abide that without trash-talking in the spirit of Christian love, that's your problem.

As for Holland, I have no desire to reside anywhere other than the good ole U. S. of A.

I'm not even going to dignify the rest.
I'm proud of you & your response.Len J
Jul 11, 2003 7:04 AM
JT:

Thanks.

I was going to rspond, tried several times but realized that I was "Getting down into the mud with the pigs" & gave up. You said it much better than I could.

We know the truth.

In your previous responses about marriage, you left out an important right of marriage that your current situitation denies you.....the right to be by your partners side if she dies in a hospital, the right to make medical decisions for your spouse (without a seperate legal agreement).

Don't you love it when Jesus, the embodiment of "Love your neighbor" is used to defend hateful exclusion. One of my wishes is to be a "fly on the wall" when zealots like this are standing before the creator in judgement. I want to see the spark of recognition as to how wrong they have been. Vindictive, I know, but I'm only human.

Len
Maybe YOU should read the bible.Len J
Jul 11, 2003 7:08 AM
Jesus would not have practiced the hateful exclusion you profess.

Jesus would not have stood in judgement of anything that flowed out of genuine Love (as many same sex relationships do).

Open up that narrow mind.

Len
Maybe YOU should read the bible.rex-ss
Jul 11, 2003 7:17 AM
You are idiots if you interpret hate or anything else into what I say Homosexuality is WRONG always has been always will
Just remember...94Nole
Jul 11, 2003 7:42 AM
Christ never beat anyone over the head with the gospel. He taught with kindness and love.

Okay, maybe he got a bit miffed at the money changers in the temple but you'd be hardpressed to prove to me that he used profanity (as you have) or virtually yelled and belittled people. He, no doubt, was and would have been sorrowful re: non-believers, but never belittling.

I may not agree with one's philosophy or lifestyle choices, but the beauty of the gospel and the real key of our existence is free agency to choose for one's self. Right or wrong will be determined later and not for you or I to judge that when pertaining to others. Until we can look in the mirror and be comfortable that "All is well in Zion", I would suggest working in one's "own back yard" rather than complaining about your neighbor's weeds(if you catch my drift).

rex-ss, sitteth thou in the judgement seat? Yes, you may judge for YOURSELF what you will (again, this is beauty of the plan) but your words and actions are certainly not Christlike. Christian? Maybe you need some mirror time.
perhaps you, the hate filled bigot couldMJ
Jul 11, 2003 8:20 AM
tell us why

do you dislike minorities too?

what about women generally?
WoweeSteveS
Jul 11, 2003 9:58 AM
Rex, you caused some fun on this one. As I read your post, I don't see 'hate' but I do see 'distaste.' I don't have a problem with distaste or dislike of traditional perversities, especially when the 'hate' is determined by characters such as MJ. (By the way, most of his posts exhibit 'hate' in one way or another for America, but that is a different topic. Did you know he is a big fan of Stalin and Communism?...oh, well, save that for another time)

Recently I have had dealings with two lesbians that has forced me to reasses my preconceptions. I didn't change my mind as to what was right and what was wrong, but I did change my mind as to pre-judging entire groupings of people. I do think these two women are excellent people, I wouldn't support a change to marriage being between one man and one woman. (at a time)

You are right,Holland is the euro poster child of what leftist thinking does for a country, state-supported suicide, state-supported heroin dole, etc. etc. I do consider that a perversity.

As a Christian, if you use scripture as a basis for your life and thinking, you are going to be a target of those who don't believe in such, but have heard that Christianity contains the word 'love.' Funny, they never seem to have learned about 'hating the sin and loving the sinner.' So I get a laugh whenever I read someone's condensation to their own version of what 'love' is after disregarding any other concept in Christianity that they don't like. (I think they drew more from Hugh Hefner of 'love' than the disciples)

Just remember the arrogant liberal response, when they don't like what someone of a conservative bent thinks or says, they resort to the usual following list of ephitets; racist, xenophobe, homophobe, jingoist, closed-minded etc. Oh, the hatred the left exhibits! (See, MJ needed to call you a foul name. He doesn't think it is foul, it made him feel powerful. No doubt his ilk think Holland to be a great example of what non-Christian 'love' would create as a society and they are probably right.)As such, the world views and actions of the radical left are destructive to the well-being of societies.
But that is what makes the plan so great.94Nole
Jul 11, 2003 10:42 AM
SteveS,

MJ, Rex, you, me, we all have the ability to chose for ourselves. Otherwise, Christ died in vain. That is the beauty of repentance. Have you loved your neighbor today? You won't stand and be judged for what MJ says, does, thinks in his life. But you will stand and be judged for what you did/didn't do. And I think if you will check, the instruction to "love your neighbor" is pretty high up there in the list of priorities taught.
YepSteveS
Jul 11, 2003 6:33 PM
Sure t'was, so was "Go, and sin no more," to the adulteress.

He didn't give her a clean slate, that was up to her. Nor did he ask her if 'it' was good for her, was her self-esteem low, etc. Not everything people want to do is approved,good, or sinless nor was it ever, either in the Hebrew Bible or Christian New Testament, Koran, etc.

All He did in this case was to disapprove of the woman's execution by stoning, but he rebuked her for her sin and told her not to do it again.
So I guess you would have remained...?94Nole
Jul 15, 2003 6:05 AM
to stone her?

I never said anything was "approved,good, or sinless nor was it ever", I said it was her choice.

Shall I quote Matthew? "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

It will not be discussed at your judgement what someone else chose to do in his or her life but what will be discussed is what you did or did not do.
LestSteveS
Jul 15, 2003 8:51 AM
Lest your feeling of self-righteous indignation lead you to attempt to judge what I would or would not have done on the occasion previously mentioned, you better be certain that I was wrong as to what Jesus did on that occasion.

But you are correct that at my judgement,if it exists, it will be based upon what I did or did not do and not upon anyone else's conjectures or conceptions of me.

Forgiveness is only part of the picture. Do you really think you can support a scriptural debate asserting that is the be all and end all? I think not.

The reason there is a Judgement in the first and last place is because some things are wrong, sin, or whatever term one would want to use...if using scripture as authority. If it was otherwise, there would simply be forgiveness and there would be nothing to be ashamed of, as we are so often told in current day society.

And He did tell her to "go and sin no more."
If the judgement won't happen...94Nole
Jul 15, 2003 10:31 AM
then I guess this entire discussion is moot. Agree? Otherwise, why worry about what we, or anyone else for that matter, does?

Oh, and I do not mean to give an impression of my own self-righteous indignation. Maybe I am not understanding your point. I do agree that Christ instructed her to go and sin no more. But if she did go and sin again, that is not for us, personally, to be concerned about. We can certainly be concerned about her and her salvation, but what you, I or anyone else choses to do is not our issue. We will answer for our own sins and not for another's transgression(s).

I feel, however, and I think this is where Rex went over the line, that we transgress sometimes in our attempts to save others in our manner of pointing fingers at those who may not live as we live or make the choices that we make (or that we feel is not in accordance with the gospel) and the resulting hellfire and damnation that will come upon those who sin and fail to repent. Truly repent. Who are we to say that people are right and wrong? I guess that is my point. I believe it is our obligation to warn our neighorbors but not serve as judge and jury everytime one veers from the straight and narrow. We do our best in a Christlike manner to teach but not belittle and lamblast, especially on a public forum.

And in my opinion, most, including me, don't always truly repent. Repentance is much more than saying "I'm sorry" or "I messed up". It is a process of completly turning away from the sin never to commit that sin again. "Go and sin no more."
Yes, that's good. (nm)SteveS
Jul 15, 2003 2:01 PM
incremental changeDougSloan
Jul 11, 2003 7:31 AM
I posted in another thread that I think that eventually gays will have marriage, but the public is not quite ready for it (any doubt about that?). Instead, move toward the 'civil union' stage for now, and eventually people will realize it's the same thing as marriage, and any distinctions would then be forgotten. In other words, opt for a little political savy and you'll have what you want probably sooner than pushing hard for the ultimate result right now.

I understand your sentiment completely, though.

Doug
incremental changejtolleson
Jul 11, 2003 8:11 AM
Actually, I agree. My emotional impulses aside, merely providing some reasonable protection and equality via a civil union mechanism (which a majority of voters presently support) would be an important step.

I just have to share other feelings in the inner sanctum of rbr.com...
Yeah, but how about this?Spoke Wrench
Jul 11, 2003 9:54 AM
I commented about the relationship that I have with my wife. It's a lot more significant than the convenience and economic issues. The real issue is the courage and willingness to publically proclaim our love for one another and to openly celebrate that love with our families and friends.

One poster even said he thought marriage was a dying institution. Maybe that's at least partly due to our society putting too much emphasis on economic and convenience issues and not enough emphasis on love. Too much left brain thinking. Don't get me started on what I think of modern wedding ceremonies. That's a another MAJOR rant. Maybe our concept of what marriage is is out of balance.

Now comes jtolleson who would LOVE to make that kind of public proclamation but she isn't allowed to because she doesn't meet one of the rules. I think that's a shame. Fact is, based upon the limited information of that one post, jtolleson's relationship with her partner sounds an awful lot like the one I have with my wife. I'm still not 100% comfortable with it, but as I said in the very beginning, "Live and let live."

Maybe we need to find a way to put more emphasis on love and less on the legalistic and economic aspects of marriage. I say forget incremental change. You're going to get bloodied in the process anyway, you might as well go for the gold ring.
example of incremental change...loki_1
Jul 11, 2003 10:27 AM
How many companies 10 years ago offered benefits to same sex couples? And now?

I was not really aware of the trend until my company offered it. Of course, they have criteria and documentation that a person requesting benefits must provide. Excerpt from my company's policy:

The requires employees to produce documentary evidence that is at least 12 months old to
support the employee's request for insurance coverage for a Domestic Partner and the Domestic
Partner's dependent child(ren). Evidence to support your request must include four of the
following:
1. Evidence of joint purchase of home;
2. A copy of a lease for a residence identifying both parties as responsible for the payment
of rent;
3. Evidence of a joint checking or savings account;
4. A title for a car showing joint ownership;
5. Evidence of joint liability for credit cards;
6. A copy of the enrollment form or beneficiary change form showing that the domestic
partner is the named primary beneficiary of the majority of the -provided employee life insurance;
7. Evidence that the Domestic Partner is the beneficiary of the employee's tax sheltered annuity plan;
8. Evidence of durable powers of attorney for property or health;
9. Wills specifying the Domestic Partner as the major recipient of employee's financial
assets;
10. Or other forms of evidence depicting significant joint financial interdependency.

Seems all pretty much common sense stuff to me.
none of these things happen over nightDougSloan
Jul 11, 2003 6:25 PM
Back-dooring (no pun intended) a few changes here and there without a whole lot of fanfare and public debate probably gets things done quicker than hitting the ultimate issue head on, like ERA. Chipping away seems to work better. A little here and there and all the sudden we find everything changed, and no one ever made a big stink.

Doug
Careful what you wish for.Sintesi
Jul 12, 2003 11:19 AM
The joys of gay marriage will be tempered by the utter sorrow of gay divorce. Might be good for you but I guarandamtee some will be crying to the sky, "Why Lord?!! WHY?!!"

Just the way it is.
What would you offer as an alternative?94Nole
Jul 11, 2003 5:09 AM
1st - Are you married?
2nd - Have you been married?
If 1 & 2 are no, then are you really qualified to make this judgement? I have 16½ years experience having been married to my first and only wife.

I can see where a child of a failed marriage might conclude that marriage has failed.

Marriage is a contract. When one party fails to live up to their end of the deal, then the relationship fails.

Don't look at failed marriages and call it a day. Look at the reasons the marriage failed. There will always be those reasons and selfishness of one or the other of the parties will likely play a key role.

There are far too many good marriages and studies regarding the benefits to children from a solid marital relationship.

After all, it is the next generation that really benefits or suffers from the success or failure of a marriage.

Not to get too personal but there have been times that if my wife and I didn't have children and our faith, we likely would not be married today. Raising children is difficult especially when the belief systems and experiences of the two parents are vastly different.
re: No: Separation of Church and Statejrm
Jul 11, 2003 8:51 AM
Of which this adminstration seems hellbent on bluring the line between the two.
what does church have to do with it? nmloki_1
Jul 11, 2003 9:01 AM
"Traditional" interpreted as Religousjrm
Jul 11, 2003 11:36 AM
Its also the neo-conservative right thats supporting not reconizing gay marriages.
Actually nothing, but...4bykn
Jul 13, 2003 1:53 PM
An awful lot of people bring up the bible and christianity when this subject is breached.

I'm proud of the fact that my workplace(a factory in the middle of conservative central Illinois) now recognizes same-sex relationships when benefits are mentioned.
Well, what an education this thread has beenRidearound
Jul 15, 2003 6:35 AM
if anyone had a doubt what a bunch of mental lunatics populate this board with their no-brain biggoted filth, they've certainly had that cleared up in no uncertain terms.

Great job guys - what an advert for the good ol' US of A. I'm ashamed to be American when I read this kind of filth trash.

What a disgrace. I'm going back to the foreign discussions where people seem to be able to discuss matters with some intelligence and civility.

God help our nation.

Oh and Gregg - the moderator isn't working. At all.
didn't you realiseMJ
Jul 15, 2003 7:15 AM
what really gets people angry here is 'bad language' - biggoted filth, as you so eloquently put it, is a valid opinion to which people are apparently entitled without restriction or censorship
didn't you realisecritmass
Jul 16, 2003 2:06 PM
Gregg never hesitated to delete this kind of offensive attack on a board member. Doug doesn't even seem to think it's offensive. What did he write " stating a disaproval of a group is not neccessarily hate" . Then he puts the burden on the victim of the hate to say if the post should be deleted. This is a good example of his hero Ashcrotch's twisted reasoning.
As Kurt wrote "and so it goes"
not quiteDougSloan
Jul 16, 2003 2:16 PM
This thread was run by Gregg and he chose not to delete, either.

Doug
Then shame on him too. nmcritmass
Jul 16, 2003 3:09 PM
which way do you want it?DougSloan
Jul 16, 2003 3:39 PM
I delete anything, and everyone cries "censorship," "heavy-handedness," and "Nazi thought control." Here, I allow free debate and caution one person for foul language, and the same people gripe? Which way do you want it? Just delete posts that you don't like? The inconsistency and hypocrisy of some of you are unbeliveable.

Sorry for the rant, but you put me in a "no win" -- "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The rule is content neutral. The decision to allow posts has absolutely nothing to do with whether I agree, disagree, like, dislike, or whatever I think about a post, unless it violates the Terms of Use or Guidelines. In my view, and apparently the site's owner's, there has been no violation.

I repeat, messages, particularly in the Noncycling Forum, can be stupid, unthoughtful, unwise, uncaring, bigoted, gruff, silly, and possibly even hateful, and they are not necessarily prohibited unless they otherwise violate the Guidelines. I don't know what else I can say.

Doug
which way do you want it?critmass
Jul 16, 2003 6:00 PM
By the way his posts are written, the deliberate bad English, it's obvious to me that Rex-ss is the same person that Gregg had deleted posts by on two previous occasions because of there gay-bashing. Perhaps Rex has learned from Lazywriter and Manto/Jomo how to gay bash here and get away with it. Maybe he is one of those two. Personally, like I wrote earlier, I think the posts should stay as evidence of ignorance. However, I also think that Gregg should show some courage here, since you don't seem to have it in you, and make a statement about gay-bashing on this site. Rex's post only had a few responses by the time you posted your concern with MJ using Fukwit. I found it interesting that you said nothing in that post about gay-bashing. I also guess using bullsh!$ is okay here as you didn't mention anything to Rex when he wrote that to me. As a matter of fact as the moderator you didn't say ANYTHING to Rex. That you would call MJ intolerant and say nothing to Rex tells me a lot about you. You are not damned if you do and damned if you don't. As the moderator having the mere courtesy to the victim to tell their bigoted hater that they are wrong to use this site to do that is all you needed to do. But then maybe you agree with Rex. I thought that Gregg was more sensitive to this because of his past actions. Kudos to MJ for making such a stink about this and like I said shame on you and Gregg.
personal attacksDougSloan
Jul 17, 2003 6:29 AM
You know, you guys would be more credible if you didn't throw in the personal attacks and snide remarks such as "I also think that Gregg should show some courage here, since you don't seem to have it in you..." You think that makes people want to listen to you?

Doug
Interesting twistcritmass
Jul 17, 2003 8:36 AM
Turning yourself into the victim so as moderator nothing in expected of you? It's interesting that pointing out your lack of courage is a personal attack but telling a board member that they are perverted and should move to Holland isn't. But then when you're thinking like a victim you turn yourself from a cause into an effect. Sorry for asking too much from you as moderator Doug.
re: Poll: Should the Constitution be ammended to preserve ...Me Dot Org
Jul 20, 2003 2:24 AM
Today in America two agnostics can marry, two athiests can marry, two blood splashed satan-worshipers can marry. These marriages are clearly not "sanctified" and therefore do not preserve the "sanctity" of marriage.

While Americans sells their nuptual vows each week for entertainment and Neilsen ratings, people say the institution of marriage is under attack from those who cannot marry.

If people are serious about the state preserving the "sanctity" of marriage, let's just drop all pretense of being a secular democracy and lay out the rules. You have to believe in Islamic/Judeo-Christian monotheism. Merely banning gay marriage (even though such marriage are sanctioned by some Judeo-Christian religeons) isn't nearly enough.

As an aside, a question for those who would support such an amendment: What groups in history do you admire for saying that their rights are predicated on denying those same rights to someone else?