 |
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/30/2003 3:50 PM (GMT -6) |   | THE SAME CIVIL PROTECTION (ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW) MUST BE PROVIDED TO ALL PERSONS, REGARDLESS OF MARRITAL STATUS, ETC. AND, CIVIL CONTRACTS/ENCORPORATIONS THAT ADDRESS JOINT PROPERTY OF LEASE AGREEMENTS, OWNERSHIP OF POSSESSIONS, ETC. MUST BE PROVIDED TO ALL PERSONS, REGARDLESS OF MARRITAL STATUS, ETC.
NEITHER OF THESE HAVE TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. THEY MUST BE PROVIDED TO SINGLE, LIFE-LONG COHABITING STRAIGHT PEOPLE TO0.
That is all. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/31/2003 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hey, DLW, I vote every two years. Isn't that enough?! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW's Poll: Yes, but allow for Gay Civil Unions with some benefits/rights
I just CANNOT vote for that.
I CAN vote for freedom for individual persons (of any "orientation") to participate in legal forms that protect personal incorporations.
I also believe firmly in society's need to regulate behavior and express cultural norms. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
DLW's Poll: Yes, but allow for Gay Civil Unions with some benefits/rights
I just CANNOT vote for that.
I CAN vote for freedom for individual persons (of any "orientation") to participate in legal forms that protect personal incorporations.
I also believe firmly in society's need to regulate behavior and express cultural norms.
I don't see what the difference is. I think only allowing them civil unions is an expression of cultural norm. And I think tying the rights/benefits to only unions meant to be long-standing, i.e., it could be more difficult to break up and then re-enter another union would be a way to regulate behavior.
dlw
dlw
DLW: I don't see what the difference is.
PoW: Here's whats AMAZING about many of your posts. Just because you don't know what the other person is saying (and you know it, and comment on that fact) does not stop you from saying how they aught to think differently. Amazing. 
THESE TWO ARE SO SEPARATE THAT THEY NEEDED DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS. And in the society at large these two have significant distinction separating them. (If DLW does not know this, then he can not possibly know the details and the values behind those who hold these possitions.) I just gathered them. I did not formulat either of these positions.
Dave, patience is a virtue. Take time to understand what you don't know. The time, effort, and care those you disagree with have put into what matters highly to them merits your acting other than rashly.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
DLW's Poll: Yes, but allow for Gay Civil Unions with some benefits/rights
I just CANNOT vote for that.
I CAN vote for freedom for individual persons (of any "orientation") to participate in legal forms that protect personal incorporations.
I also believe firmly in society's need to regulate behavior and express cultural norms.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Clearly, these are different, and have entirly different legal documents.
- Civil Union?..........DEFINITELY NOT!!!
- Personal Incorporation?..........YES, DEFINITELY!!!
I (think that I) am done. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Now I'm not allowed to post my OWN view, but have to follow the structure that grows out of DLW's view on things. And DLW will go follow the links to the sites where I researched this for two hours before forming my opinion, and he's goind to tell THEM that they have to change too.
Sh.................... | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | Dave, I "showed mine" (though you proved it wasn't safe to do so). Now YOU say what YOUR view is, and EXPLAIN WHY you hold to that view. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/31/2003 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | So we aren't playing Scavenger Hunt then?
I picked the second one that you were opposed to. I am somewhat nonplussed over the need for a change in the constitution, but if that gathers momentum, I think only allowing homosexual couples, civil unions would be an expression of cultural norm. Only heterosexual relationships are "Marriages". However, since gay-couples do exist and we obviously can't do anything about that and not giving them legal rights or economic benefits is unlikely to discourage them from their homosexuality then there is reason why, by compromising, we can take this issue out of the political sphere and not let the media give a whole lot of air-time to the gay/civil rights activists groups, whose rhetoric we would rather not have aired so publicly a whole lot.
And I think that, by tying the rights/benefits to only unions meant to be long-standing, (i.e., it could be more difficult to break up and then re-enter another union) then this would serve to regulate behavior some. It would give approbation only to supposedly "monogamous" relationships and deny the freedom to switch partners as often as they may wish and still retain the benefits/rights. But I think we have to be willing to go to the table to ensure that conditions like that will be added to the laws.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
...
I CAN vote for freedom for individual persons (of any "orientation") to participate in legal forms that protect personal incorporations.
I also believe firmly in society's need to regulate behavior and express cultural norms.
NOW, GET THIS!
DLW said on the Zygote thread:
quote:
My thoughts are on the desirability of seeking to make secular laws according to what we believe is right conduct. I believe the separation of Church and State means their autonomy, not their segregation. As such, I am with Stephen Carter in believing that there is nothing wrong with people seeking to change laws based on their religious convictions.
So, I'll call DLW as my first witness as to how much footing to claim in saying that: "I also believe firmly in society's need to regulate behavior and express cultural norms."
I rest my case!!!   | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
I picked the second one that you were opposed to. ... Only heterosexual relationships are "Marriages". However, since gay-couples do exist and we obviously can't do anything about that and not giving them legal rights or economic benefits is unlikely to discourage them from their homosexuality ...
And I think that, by tying the rights/benefits to only unions meant to be long-standing, (i.e., it could be more difficult to break up and then re-enter another union) then this would serve to regulate behavior some. It would give approbation only to supposedly "monogamous" relationships ...
I REFUSE TO MAKE A LOOK-ALIKE UNION. *THAT* WOULD BE TO ERODE THE 'SANCTITY' OF MARRIAGE -- A SANCTITY IT HAS IN ITS OWN RIGHT, WHETHER ANYONE ACKNOWLEDGES IT OR NOT.
BUT THE *INCORPORATIONS* AVENUE IS ONE THAT I'D ENCOURAGE. (SO, IF YOU WANT, IN SOME WAYS WE ARE NOT FAR APART; IN OTHERS VERY DIFFERENT.)
I hear you, but think it is you who are being "naive" when you say: "...there is reason why, by compromising, we can take this issue out of the political sphere and not let the media give a whole lot of air-time to the gay/civil rights activists groups, whose rhetoric we would rather not have aired so publicly a whole lot."
I don't think that a team making a big win is going to call it quits. I think they will just think of themselves as being 'on a roll.'
THAT IS WHY I THINK THAT REESTABLISHING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN ESTABLISHING CULTURE IS SIGNIFICANT, AND VALID.
But that does not mean mercy should be lacking. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/1/2003 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | 1. Of course there is politics.
2. Of course there is no way that everything is done well, or rightly, or fairly -- this is a fallen world.
3. Of course there is still a mandate that in government it try to do its best, and that all who are able try to do so too.
4. Of course there is a calling upon government to do so, and upon groups of people too.
5. Of course, even given the now-not-yet 'thing' there is still that same mandate to do what is possible -- even though some domains are beyond the realm of politics and "order."
6. Yet, this world does bear on the next, and there is constantly and everywhere the possibilities of "thinness" between them. (C.S. Lewis' descrition--comment only if you are pretty well familiar!) Of course. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/2/2003 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | More excerpts from Lehrer NewsHour.
TERENCE SMITH: There was one thing that might not have been in the playbook at the beginning, which was a question about gay marriage to the president.
DAVID BROOKS: That was the one time where he actually gave a pre-prepared policy statement, which was two steps: One, I feel for homosexuals, but I am against gay marriage.
And, something amazing has happened in the last couple of weeks, which is that since the Supreme Court sodomy decision, the percentage of people who even say gay relationships should be acceptable has, the people who say it should be unacceptable has risen 10 percent, which is basically erases a 10-year evolution of increasing acceptance, all of that gone in the period of a couple of weeks; it may come back, who knows, but there is clearly a sense in the public that if gay marriages come, wait a second, I've been quiet about it but I'm against it, there has been a sharp shift in public sentiment.
TERENCE SMITH: What did you make of the politics of the president's statement?
MARK SHIELDS: I think the president wanted to get on record. I mean, you're absolutely right; that was a prepared answer.
I didn't know if he was going to find the word codified. He looked long and hard at his notes, and it did pop up on the screen, but I think the president wanted to get on record as being both personally tolerant and politically traditional, which he did. He said the barriers with which he would fight to maintain the barriers against gay marriage.
I think what we have here is the word marriage. I don't think there is any question. It is a buzzword. It suggests a religious sanction; it suggests churches deciding who among its communicants or members can be married. And that...
But when you individually ask, don't you think a couple that has spent 25 years together and one of the partners is an extremist and facing death's decision, that the surviving partner (a) should be able to see that person and help in the final resolution of their health? People overwhelmingly agree with it.
But David is right. The numbers have changed dramatically and we don't know if it is an escalator going down or if they're stopped and they'll start going up again.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:36 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|