Social I have been married for a year and a half...

[m52nickerson]

My reason is clear and consistent. I think this debate over SSM is ugly and causes divisions. I would like to go ahead and recognize SSM so that we as a society can no longer fight about it. I don't think gay people are being wronged if SSM isn't recognized and I don't support you guys forcing this onto everyone through the courts.

The reason you give shows that you don't support SSM you just don't want to argue about it anymore. That in itself is a strange statment for you to make since you spend a lot of time arguring against SSM. The only clear and consistent thing you have been is wrong.

 

[m52nickerson]

What two ways am I trying to have it? I don't think SSM will lead to incest and never argued it therefore there is no slippery slope. But I also think SSM advocates(those claiming traditional marriage is discriminatory) are being hypocrites in regards to incest.

Again, not sure what the big conspiracy is. Seems to me you guys just don't want to defend your hypocrisy, or evolve your philosophy, and you shout "slippery slope" as a smoke screen so you don't have to.

You are the one that brought up incest, the only reason to do that in the SSM argument is to invoke a slipperly slope argument. So saying that you did not do that after the fact is laughable. Also, since incest and the differences between it and SSM were discussed at lenght to claim that anyone simple said "slipperly slope" and did not discuss it is a lie.

Again, incest "angle"? There is no angle. What I am arguing regarding incest is straight forward and clear. It is also clear that I am not saying SSM will lead to incest...ie slippery slope.

This is what I mean...you guys just get to a point where you stop responding to the actual arguments presented and instead insist that someone is really arguing or really feels something different.

"I don't hate gay people" - Yes you do.

"I don't think SSM will lead to incest" - Yes you do.

"I've never argued that SSM will lead to incest" - Yes you have. You've been pushing this angle for days!

Lol. This is what its come to.

The arguments I am making are why its not a civil right...not that we shouldn't recognize SSM. I've never spent time arguing about why SSM will harm society.

"I support SSM" - No you don't.

I don't believe SSM is a fundamental right and I have presented arguments supporting that. I don't believe traditional marriage is discriminatory and I have presented arguments supporting that.

I have never argued that SSM is harmful and shouldn't be allowed.

Again, respond to what I type not what you think I really think.

What a complete and utter load of crap. People are responding to what you type, and calling you out on it when the things you type don't go with each other. It's simple, saying that you are for SSM and than arguing against it as long and hard as you have means there is some type of disconnect.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

There is simply no reason for those groups to change names because they let a few kids of the opposite sex in.

Again, I'm not saying encourage, but let the kids join if they want to. I gave you a few valid reasons why, but you have failed to even give one single valid reason why not.

Officially the scouts offer Venturing and Exploring for Life programs that are gender neutral - but there have always been female Scout leaders, which is supposedly a no no.

Semi-officially most troops simply mark through a line of the charter that promised to follow all scout bylaws when they renew their charters and wouldn't have a problem with the opposite sex joining.

Unofficially many troops (my twins included) have never been on a summer camping trip that girls didn't go on.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

You are the one that brought up incest, the only reason to do that in the SSM argument is to invoke a slipperly slope argument. So saying that you did not do that after the fact is laughable. Also, since incest and the differences between it and SSM were discussed at lenght to claim that anyone simple said "slipperly slope" and did not discuss it is a lie.



What a complete and utter load of crap. People are responding to what you type, and calling you out on it when the things you type don't go with each other. It's simple, saying that you are for SSM and than arguing against it as long and hard as you have means there is some type of disconnect.

I believe that I'm the one that brought up incest; not TCK.

It was in response to one of the ss-marriage proponents calling those against bigots. So I was trying to show that we all are bigoted against 1 thing or another if we simply follow the same reasoning for allowing ss-marriage.

Unfortunately most people claimed that being bigoted against incest wasn't the same as being bigoted against ss-marriage or the "incestors" weren't a protected class.

Just thought I'd keep you honest on TCK's post in this thread.

 

[spamking]

So which times was god wrong?

Not sure I get your question. What did I post that made you feel God was wrong about this issue?

 

[m52nickerson]

I believe that I'm the one that brought up incest; not TCK.

It was in response to one of the ss-marriage proponents calling those against bigots. So I was trying to show that we all are bigoted against 1 thing or another if we simply follow the same reasoning for allowing ss-marriage.

Unfortunately most people claimed that being bigoted against incest wasn't the same as being bigoted against ss-marriage or the "incestors" weren't a protected class.

Just thought I'd keep you honest on TCK's post in this thread.

Regardless, TCK pick up the ball and ran with it.

Most people understand that incest is different from SSM marriage, so a person can be for one and not the other and not be hypocrites.

 

[spamking]

There is simply no reason for those groups to change names because they let a few kids of the opposite sex in.

Which is why they need to stick with the separation.

Again, I'm not saying encourage, but let the kids join if they want to. I gave you a few valid reasons why, but you have failed to even give one single valid reason why not.

You did? Guess I read right over those valid reasons.

Like you read right over mine . . .

We disagree, I'm moving on . . .

 

[m52nickerson]

Which is why they need to stick with the separation.

You did? Guess I read right over those valid reasons.

Like you read right over mine . . .

We disagree, I'm moving on . . .

Valid reason - Kids maybe more interested in programs offered by one group than the other.

Invalid reason - The name of the group.

 

[TheBox]

It seems that they chose faith of money...

They've chosen to fight the law.

I don't think so; I can clearly think of dozens of laws that don't interfere with my faith and only 1 that does , possibly 2 depending on your profession.

Have an example?

But that's just your particular faith.

- My beliefs say taxes are evil. Forcing me to pay taxes is a violation of my beliefs.
- My beliefs say women must be subordinate to men. I refuse to hire women for anything but the lowest job positions. Anti-discrimination hiring law are a violation of my beliefs.

 

[spamking]

Valid reason - Kids maybe more interested in programs offered by one group than the other.

At a certain age I might not have a huge problem with that . . . but boys and girls do play different roles and need to learn those roles and understand how to perform those duties. I'm sure there are some activities that either offers that would benefit everyone, but I'd choose to encourage my son to join the Boy Scouts over the Girl Scouts regardless.

Invalid reason - The name of the group.

Maybe I was thinking one thing and typed another . . . if that's all you got from my posts I did a poor job of explaining my POV.

Boys need to do "boy" things. Hang out with other boys. I just don't see the benefit in them joining the Girl Scouts for any reason.

Accompanying them on a joint trip with your Boy Scout troop is one thing, becoming a member is another.

 

[m52nickerson]

At a certain age I might not have a huge problem with that . . . but boys and girls do play different roles and need to learn those roles and understand how to perform those duties. I'm sure there are some activities that either offers that would benefit everyone, but I'd choose to encourage my son to join the Boy Scouts over the Girl Scouts regardless.


Maybe I was thinking one thing and typed another . . . if that's all you got from my posts I did a poor job of explaining my POV.

Boys need to do "boy" things. Hang out with other boys. I just don't see the benefit in them joining the Girl Scouts for any reason.

Accompanying them on a joint trip with your Boy Scout troop is one thing, becoming a member is another.

So it comes down to gender roles. My questions is than why are such gender roles needed? There is no reason that I can see that boys and girls have to play different roles.

 

[spamking]

So it comes down to gender roles. My questions is than why are such gender roles needed? There is no reason that I can see that boys and girls have to play different roles.

They are needed because boys become fathers . . . girls become mothers. You do see the differences between the two right? I respect single parents and the hard work that many of them are forced to handle to try and fill both roles the best they can, but my personal preference is that kids need both a mother and a father. I understand many parents are failures and that has a bad influence on their kids. You can't ignore those who are doing things the right way and raising good, well rounded kids.

I guess I would have to say that my biggest beef with kids joining groups predominately made up of the opposite sex is that as they get older and certain situations develop people start making mountains out of molehills (maybe I'm doing that now) and causing trouble for all involved.

All of the other junk that comes along with being an adult and filling this role or that role isn't as apparent as it once was . . . the line between roles has been blurred over the last 20-25 years or so . . . some for the better and some for the worse.

 

[m52nickerson]

They are needed because boys become fathers . . . girls become mothers. You do see the differences between the two right? I respect single parents and the hard work that many of them are forced to handle to try and fill both roles the best they can, but my personal preference is that kids need both a mother and a father. I understand many parents are failures and that has a bad influence on their kids. You can't ignore those who are doing things the right way and raising good, well rounded kids.

I guess I would have to say that my biggest beef with kids joining groups predominately made up of the opposite sex is that as they get older and certain situations develop people start making mountains out of molehills (maybe I'm doing that now) and causing trouble for all involved.

All of the other junk that comes along with being an adult and filling this role or that role isn't as apparent as it once was . . . the line between roles has been blurred over the last 20-25 years or so . . . some for the better and some for the worse.

Yes, you are doing it right now.

Regardless of there "roles" women will become mothers and men, fathers. However there is nothing wrong with a kid growing up with a mother that knows how to work on cars or a father that knows how to sew new buttons on a suit.

As far as the siutations you are talking about, well those come about in regular life as boys and girls are together in schools and other activities all the time as it is. If anything we should deal with those situations and tell the people who freak out about small things to sit down and shut up.

In the end things change, as you said some for the better some for the worst. All in all we are better than we were in the past. Might not seem like it, but look at any the cold hard fact and it is undeniable. Crime is down, teen births are down, ect.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

But that's just your particular faith.

- My beliefs say taxes are evil. Forcing me to pay taxes is a violation of my beliefs.
- My beliefs say women must be subordinate to men. I refuse to hire women for anything but the lowest job positions. Anti-discrimination hiring law are a violation of my beliefs.

What is your faith? Is it one that you're simply making up to avoid taxes and hate on women?

I'm not sure that there are any valid faiths that promote outright discrimination (although I know supremacist groups form different tenets) or call for withholding taxes.

 

[m52nickerson]

What is your faith? Is it one that you're simply making up to avoid taxes and hate on women?

I'm not sure that there are any valid faiths that promote outright discrimination (although I know supremacist groups form different tenets) or call for withholding taxes.

Be careful, you don't want to start picking which beliefs and which faiths are real or not. That is a losing proposition for a lot of the so called faithful.

 

[ripskater]

Yes, you are doing it right now.

Regardless of there "roles" women will become mothers and men, fathers. However there is nothing wrong with a kid growing up with a mother that knows how to work on cars or a father that knows how to sew new buttons on a suit.

There is nothing wrong with women working on cars or men sewing buttons on a suit (tailoring).
The problem we have today is what do men and women do when the get home? If the dad is not leading, loving and instructing in the home, he is not doing his job. That is where the real problem is (that is if dad is even in the home).

 

[TheBox]

What is your faith? Is it one that you're simply making up to avoid taxes and hate on women?

All faiths are made up, but I didn't have to make one up for either of those positions. I didn't even have to leave the realm of your religion: Christian anarchists oppose taxes because they view God (not government) as the only valid source of authority.
And one could justify not hiring women for leadership positions with Paul's "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

I'm not sure that there are any valid faiths that promote outright discrimination (although I know supremacist groups form different tenets) or call for withholding taxes.

By what method can a court determine that a faith is valid or invalid? A judge cannot read minds. If a judge can declare that my beliefs about taxes/women are phony baloney, then he can do the same to a Christian who opposes homosexuality.

 

[m52nickerson]

There is nothing wrong with women working on cars or men sewing buttons on a suit (tailoring).
The problem we have today is what do men and women do when the get home? If the dad is not leading, loving and instructing in the home, he is not doing his job. That is where the real problem is (that is if dad is even in the home).

Leading, loving and instructing are what parents, fathers and mothers, should do. It is not just a man's role.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

In the end things change, as you said some for the better some for the worst. All in all we are better than we were in the past. Might not seem like it, but look at any the cold hard fact and it is undeniable. Crime is down, teen births are down, ect.

I'd say teen births are down due more to the fact that women go to college and have careers these days. We also have abortion on demand. We have a nation of kids on drugs for ADHD, depression, anxiety, etc. Doesn't prove effect, but I wouldn't call it undeniably better.

Crime is down and poverty is up - better?

 

[kflo]

I'd say teen births are down due more to the fact that go to college and have careers these days. We also have abortion on demand. We have a nation of kids on drugs for ADHD, depression, anxiety, etc. Doesn't prove effect, but I wouldn't call it undeniably better.

Crime is down and poverty is up - better?

do you think kids of the past didn't have depression, anxiety, etc?

is teens going to college instead of having babies a bad thing?