Gay Nashville

[fieldmarshaldj]

^The fact that any political group thinks the government even has a right to force teachers to tell parents of private confessions on sexual orientation is beyond the pale. Its no different than the Soviet Union on social politics if that's the case.

 

No, it isn't. That's a ludicrous statement, Brandon. I didn't realize public school teachers were invested with the power of priests or attorneys. Parents have a right to know about their children, period. Anything else is deliberate undermining of their authority, which is precisely one of the tenets of leftism (that Soviet ref you made above).

 

I don't think certain groups understand how radicalized they are, or how far to the right they've gotten. Since there isn't really an extreme left anymore the extreme right seems to have taken the cake for lunatic fringe positions.

 

Hillarious cognitive dissonance again. Substitute "right" for "left" and you've got the reality correct.

Agreed completely. I think actions like this are what makes a lot of right wing conservatives hate Haslem.

 

Conservatives never trusted Haslam because he was never anything but a part of the same liberal country-clubber party establishment that holds a perpetual disdain for the majority of the base. Same goes for Lamar! and Corker.

[bwithers1]

In all fairness to FieldMarshalDJ, the rapid public opinion shift regarding same-sex marriage does seem to be catching a lot of the Republican elected representatives off guard.  I honestly think that this is what caused so many of the marriage amendments ballot initiatives in the recent past:  stop same-sex marriage now before it gets enough support to pass.  But Republican constituents seem to be changing their minds, too, albeit more slowly than the American population as a whole.  It still seems to be the case that the Republicans who go on record as supporting same-sex marriage have a child or sibling who is gay.  So again, they are sticking up for their families even though that could cost them in the next primaries.

 

At some point, marriage is a conservative institution, much moreso than cohabitation, and so incorporating LGBT people into that institution is a conservative move.  That's why the Gay Left was so opposed to this idea in decades past.  (Yes, there were demonstations for Gay Marriage in 1971!). 

 

In the near future, maybe even this decade, same-sex marriage will be no more Left/Right an issue than interracial marriage.  It will still be a personal and a religious issue, but will largely exit the political sphere.  Thank goodness.

[fieldmarshaldj]

There is nothing "conservative" about such a move to incorporate it. Indeed, it is nothing but a complete assault on the very foundation of our society and an attempt to redefine what has been a basic bedrock value for thousands of years. Why Democrats, who have visceral contempt for God and moral values (witness the last convention for proof of that), and have served as a vehicle for destroying America and the Constitution for well over a century, would champion this cause is obvious (nevermind the big $$ they get for doing so), but for Republican politicians whom have lied to their constituents about their stances from the get-go (Portman of Ohio), that is even more vile. In Portman's case, he should've resigned, as should any politician that has "changed" their position conveniently AFTER the election (at least in the case of Dem Sen. Kay Hagan of NC, she was honest enough to say so ahead of her reelection next year).

 

I can tell you right now that the base of the GOP is disgusted and angry about being lied to by some of its elected officials, and watching the weasels in leadership decide to take the usual "get along to go along" route, lest they be labelled mean-spirited names by their Democrat friends on the cocktail circuit, is going a long way to assuring that the disconnect remains. I can tell you that I don't belong to causes or groups because they are popular, but because they are morally right and on the side of God. For so-called self-proclaimed Judeo-Christian politicians to bend and contort themselves to support the destruction of the marriage institution is nothing short of evil. If such a move is successful, and I pray that it is not, there will be a continued assault on religious institutions and people of faith to either fully accept this abomination, or be bullied, sued, jailed (or all three) using the force of the law. There will not be, as some supporters claim, "exemptions." Any exemptions would be conceding that this redefinition has merit to be opposed, and that cannot be tolerated by their supporters.

 

It's very curious, and also very telling why places like Russia oppose this movement. Covertly, our old enemies (the Soviets) would've funded and approved of launching such causes in our country for the purposes of demoralizing and undermining our nation. Undermine institutions, the family, and you will swiftly destroy a country. It's the old communist goal of destroying so it can rebuild its own new, bright and shiny utopia. Gays and other designated groups du jour are just pawns, a means to an end. Once achieved, they'll be disposed of.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Marriage Equality. It's a right, not a privilege.

[UTgrad09]

There is nothing "conservative" about such a move to incorporate it. Indeed, it is nothing but a complete assault on the very foundation of our society and an attempt to redefine what has been a basic bedrock value for thousands of years. Why Democrats, who have visceral contempt for God and moral values (witness the last convention for proof of that), and have served as a vehicle for destroying America and the Constitution for well over a century, would champion this cause is obvious (nevermind the big $$ they get for doing so), but for Republican politicians whom have lied to their constituents about their stances from the get-go (Portman of Ohio), that is even more vile. In Portman's case, he should've resigned, as should any politician that has "changed" their position conveniently AFTER the election (at least in the case of Dem Sen. Kay Hagan of NC, she was honest enough to say so ahead of her reelection next year).

 

I can tell you right now that the base of the GOP is disgusted and angry about being lied to by some of its elected officials, and watching the weasels in leadership decide to take the usual "get along to go along" route, lest they be labelled mean-spirited names by their Democrat friends on the cocktail circuit, is going a long way to assuring that the disconnect remains. I can tell you that I don't belong to causes or groups because they are popular, but because they are morally right and on the side of God. For so-called self-proclaimed Judeo-Christian politicians to bend and contort themselves to support the destruction of the marriage institution is nothing short of evil. If such a move is successful, and I pray that it is not, there will be a continued assault on religious institutions and people of faith to either fully accept this abomination, or be bullied, sued, jailed (or all three) using the force of the law. There will not be, as some supporters claim, "exemptions." Any exemptions would be conceding that this redefinition has merit to be opposed, and that cannot be tolerated by their supporters.

 

It's very curious, and also very telling why places like Russia oppose this movement. Covertly, our old enemies (the Soviets) would've funded and approved of launching such causes in our country for the purposes of demoralizing and undermining our nation. Undermine institutions, the family, and you will swiftly destroy a country. It's the old communist goal of destroying so it can rebuild its own new, bright and shiny utopia. Gays and other designated groups du jour are just pawns, a means to an end. Once achieved, they'll be disposed of.

 

 

Soviets? Really? 

 

And there is a separation of church and state to keep people from enforcing their religious beliefs on others. Your church does not have to wed gays if they do not want to.

[BnaBreaker]

I cannot imagine what this nation would be like today had people like fieldmarshall gotten their way throughout the course of our history.  Hateful, fear centered blather like his should not only not be tolerated, it should be outright shunned in a modern, civilized society.  His backward, misguided, hate filled rhetoric would be more at home in a place like Uganda or Saudi Arabia.  This is not a simple difference of opinion, it is yet another battle in the seemingly never ending war between the forces of love and hatred.  Luckily, since the only thing that ever props up the forces of hatred is fear and lack of understanding, which both diminish with time and exposure to the object of hatred, love and progressivism always win out in the end, without much of an effort. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

Marriage Equality. It's a right, not a privilege.

 

No such animal. Marriage is marriage. One man. One woman.

[fieldmarshaldj]

 

Soviets? Really? 

 

And there is a separation of church and state to keep people from enforcing their religious beliefs on others. Your church does not have to wed gays if they do not want to.

 

I love debating leftists. It's like talking to someone living in a fantasy land where up is down, right is wrong, and REAL Marxism has never been tried and always works. Did the Nashville Public School system really do that good a number on you fellas, or was it just a light rinse ?

 

Sorry, again, but the separation of church and state is another leftist myth, existing nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The funny thing is, this faux marriage issue IS the forcing of a "religious" (albeit anti-) belief on the entire nation. You're trying to have it both ways here (another hypocrisy of leftism). Don't foist that old time religion on us, no, sir, but we can foist our bizarre pseudo-religious values on you ! There will be no option for ANY church, once enshrined into law, to say "no" to a gay couple, lest they be sued into extinction (or jailed) for violating their "civil rights." See, we on my side understand this fully. You guys are being deceitful about it.

[UTgrad09]

I love debating leftists. It's like talking to someone living in a fantasy land where up is down, right is wrong, and REAL Marxism has never been tried and always works. Did the Nashville Public School system really do that good a number on you fellas, or was it just a light rinse ?

 

Sorry, again, but the separation of church and state is another leftist myth, existing nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The funny thing is, this faux marriage issue IS the forcing of a "religious" (albeit anti-) belief on the entire nation. You're trying to have it both ways here (another hypocrisy of leftism). Don't foist that old time religion on us, no, sir, but we can foist our bizarre pseudo-religious values on you ! There will be no option for ANY church, once enshrined into law, to say "no" to a gay couple, lest they be sued into extinction (or jailed) for violating their "civil rights." See, we on my side understand this fully. You guys are being deceitful about it.

 

I'm not a leftist, and I am a Christian. And as a Christian, I believe God loves all of his creation. 

 

I'm also a strong proponent for the separation of church and state, because I do not believe that religious values and politics should be married in law. Government should not rule anyone's faith, just as anyone's faith should not rule the government. Otherwise, we are not a free religious society.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I cannot imagine what this nation would be like today had people like fieldmarshall gotten their way throughout the course of our history.  Hateful, fear centered blather like his should not only not be tolerated, it should be outright shunned in a modern, civilized society.  His backward, misguided, hate filled rhetoric would be more at home in a place like Uganda or Saudi Arabia.  This is not a simple difference of opinion, it is yet another battle in the seemingly never ending war between the forces of love and hatred.  Luckily, since the only thing that ever props up the forces of hatred is fear and lack of understanding, which both diminish with time and exposure to the object of hatred, love and progressivism always win out in the end, without much of an effort. 

 

You mean a nation with established Judeo-Christian values ? A nation of laws ? A nation that respects the Constitution ? A nation with a small government, one that does not insinuate itself into every aspect of our lives right down to the size of a soft-drink cup or our light bulbs ? A nation that does not spend itself trillions into debt ? Those just for starters. You are so thoroughly terrified at such a notion that my even speaking up for such things brings demands to silence me. There is nothing love filled about what you champion. It is hatred and oppression, a championing of immorality and hypocrisy. A "1984" world. An abject fear and loathing of anything and anyone that doesn't adhere to and agree with your twisted worldview. And you wonder why you leftists, have rightly earned you the moniker of fascist.

 

Again, I ask, is this what you fellas learned in the Nashville Public School system ? Thank heavens I rebelled against that truly evil and misguided brainwashing at a young age.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I'm not a leftist, and I am a Christian. And as a Christian, I believe God loves all of his creation. 

 

I'm also a strong proponent for the separation of church and state, because I do not believe that religious values and politics should be married in law. Government should not rule anyone's faith, just as anyone's faith should not rule the government. Otherwise, we are not a free religious society.

 

Your position is leftist. Your stance on this issue is not Christian. God commands us to LOVE the sinner but HATE the sin. Do you understand what that means ? As for the rest, I already destroyed your faux argument on "separation" and you just merely repeated a talking point and you ignored the rest of what I said as to the end goals of what this would bring about. If you are a true Christian, you cannot justify it. It is a full-on assault on the church (which then violates your fake "separation" argument).

[BnaBreaker]

LMAO!  I can't get enough of this.  Please, continue!  This is better than any television show.  Tell me more about how liberals are "Marxist", "Communist", and "Facist" all at the same time.  I found that part of your pathetic, paranoid little rant particularly enjoyable.  Do you even know what you're saying, or why you're saying it?

 

Answer me this.  If Christian scripture is your supposed baseline for being so adamently opposed to homosexuality (we all know it's just because you're terrified of change you don't understand, but I'll play along), then why don't you also feel that divorce should be illegal?  Why do you eat pork or wear clothing made of a mixture of materials?  Why aren't you an advocate for slavery?  When it comes to slavery, aren't you nothing more than a weak brainwashed pawn of the communist, fascist, leftist, any-other-bad-word-you-know-that-ends-in-ist public school system, just like the rest of us?  Or are you simply a product of a society that has learned from past errors and progressed past slavery as a concept despite the best efforts of people like you who made nearly identical arguments in the past to those you are making now in your fight to keep homosexuals as second class citizens? 

[UTgrad09]

Your position is leftist. Your stance on this issue is not Christian. God commands us to LOVE the sinner but HATE the sin. Do you understand what that means ? As for the rest, I already destroyed your faux argument on "separation" and you just merely repeated a talking point and you ignored the rest of what I said as to the end goals of what this would bring about. If you are a true Christian, you cannot justify it. It is a full-on assault on the church (which then violates your fake "separation" argument).

 

lol, yeah, my position is leftist in the sense that Thomas Jefferson was a leftist.

 

 

And is the Christian church a singular entity? Last time I checked, there were many facets and denominations of Christianity. 

 

Or are you the type that likes to tell people who is and who isn't Christian?

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Davy, (fieldmarshalldj) As I remember the last time we met at a forum meet was at Provence next to the library, you lived at home, lived on disability, had your girlfriend break off an engagement, and were a former liberal as you described yourself. Maybe that is where the anger is coming from?

 

Is your dislike of homosexuals actually hatred towards yourself for maybe being gay? You have described from time to time how Latino's destroyed Antioch. Was your former girlfriend Latino? Where is this coming from? 

 

You used to be a very articulate and intelligent conservative, and now all I see is anger. You rail against people participating in entitlement programs, yet you live off them. When was the last time you worked and paid taxes? How long have you been on disability for tinnitus?

 

I pose these questions because when I meet an ex-conservative or an ex-liberal, all I see is someone frustrated with their beliefs, and who is desperate enough to try to explain their beliefs to themselves, or to justify their new found positions which are generally opposite to their old ones.

 

Please clarify where you are coming from because most people cannot go from the far left to the far right as quickly as you have, and you are not even 40 years of age yet.

 

I am truly concerned about you. You were a nice individual the  last time I saw you. Your ideas were not this extreme.

 

John

[fieldmarshaldj]

LMAO!  I can't get enough of this.  Please, continue!  This is better than any television show.  Tell me more about how liberals are "Marxist", "Communist", and "Facist" all at the same time.  I found that part of your pathetic, paranoid little rant particularly enjoyable.  Do you even know what you're saying, or why you're saying it?

 

Answer me this.  If Christian scripture is your supposed baseline for being so adamently opposed to homosexuality (we all know it's just because you're terrified of change you don't understand, but I'll play along), then why don't you also feel that divorce should be illegal?  Why do you eat pork or wear clothing made of a mixture of materials?  Why don't you advocate for slavery?  On the issue of slavery, aren't you nothing more than a weak brainwashed pawn of the communist, fascist, leftist, any-other-bad-word-you-know-that-ends-in-ist public school system, just like the rest of us?  Or are you simply a product of a society that has learned from past errors and progressed past slavery as a concept despite the best efforts of people like you who made nearly identical arguments in the past to those you are making now in your fight to keep homosexuals as second class citizens? 

 

Oh, stop whining. Can't you ever acknowledge you lost the argument here ?

lol, yeah, my position is leftist in the sense that Thomas Jefferson was a leftist.

 

 

And is the Christian church a singular entity? Last time I checked, there were many facets and denominations of Christianity. 

 

Or are you the type that likes to tell people who is and who isn't Christian?

 

You dodged the points completely, as did BNA. No surprise there.

[UTgrad09]

Oh, stop whining. Can't you ever acknowledge you lost the argument here ?

 

You dodged the points completely, as did BNA. No surprise there.

 

What points? The separation of church and state? You think you win that point because there's not something in the Constitution that says specifically "there shall be a separation of church and state"?

 

The first amendment covers it pretty well IMO with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

 

I would take that as there is no established state church (like the church of England was) so the government and the church would not act as one.

[BnaBreaker]

LOL, well, seeing as how all you've said up to this point is some variation on: 'homosexuals are evil, and they shouldn't be allowed to marry, because God said so', I thought that was your only point was that.  So I responded by asking you why you were picking and choosing only certain things from The Bible to follow.  You declined to comment, as you have done throughout this whole thread.  So...uh...not sure what else you want me to do.

 

Also, what is it, exactly, that I'm whining about?  I'm practically begging you to not only continue your rants but to elaborate on them!  You're the one screaming bloody murder over two men being in a committed relationship with each other.  Who's the one whining again? 

[fieldmarshaldj]

Davy, (fieldmarshalldj) As I remember the last time we met at a forum meet was at Provence next to the library, you lived at home, lived on disability, had your girlfriend break off an engagement, and were a former liberal as you described yourself. Maybe that is where the anger is coming from?

 

I do not live on disability, but I have not hidden the fact that I've had physical health problems for almost 2 decades. I haven't been a "liberal" since the mid-1980s, and that was largely due to having been brainwashed by a one-sided agenda in school and by the media/culture, et al. Once I understood what it meant, and where it was leading the country, I jettisoned it. In fact, calling it "liberalism" is insulting. Classic liberalism has nothing to do with the statist, fascist totalitarian/criminal ideology that claims that phrase today.

 

Is your dislike of homosexuals actually hatred towards yourself for maybe being gay? You have described from time to time how Latino's destroyed Antioch. Was your former girlfriend Latino? Where is this coming from?

 

John, you're getting a bit ridiculous here. Why is it that when one refuses to support and condone a cause, such as the homosexual lobby, that its adherents immediately claim that one actually IS one ? This is the kind of bizarre mindset of the left that is disordered. I have also never claimed "Latinos destroyed Antioch", either. It was the Nashville political leadership that destroyed Antioch, through a combination of neglect and using us as a dumping ground. The Metro experiment was an abject failure in Antioch. My former fiancee was mixed-race, every ethnic group but African (though that was unresearched, she might've been that, too). I harbor no hatred towards any racial group.

 

You used to be a very articulate and intelligent conservative, and now all I see is anger. You rail against people participating in entitlement programs, yet you live off them. When was the last time you worked and paid taxes? How long have you been on disability for tinnitus?

 

What you see is someone forcefully responding to mostly personal, Alinsky-style attacks because they have lost the argument and cannot keep to the discussion at hand. I DO NOT take ANY disability, John. I never have, and I refuse to take it. I do not take a dime of either taxpayer money, nor from any charitable institution. I would have no standing to rail against welfare if I did.

 

I pose these questions because when I meet an ex-conservative or an ex-liberal, all I see is someone frustrated with their beliefs, and who is desperate enough to try to explain their beliefs to themselves, or to justify their new found positions which are generally opposite to their old ones.

 

Since I left that ideology 26 years ago, the only "frustration" I have towards it is that how I was gullible enough to have bought into it, even at a young age. I assure you, I'm quite comfortable with my belief system. It's you guys I worry about. BNA and UT Grad are both younger than I am. I hope they'll grow out of their brainwashing. And John, to quote that guy in "Lethal Weapon", you're too old for that $hit.

 

Please clarify where you are coming from because most people cannot go from the far left to the far right as quickly as you have, and you are not even 40 years of age yet.

 

I am truly concerned about you. You were a nice individual the  last time I saw you. Your ideas were not this extreme.

 

John

 

I'm coming from where I've always been since political maturity, John. I don't bend with the fads or toss out morality, values, basic truths, ethics, et al, to appease selfish groups and causes that seek to undermine and destroy our great country. If that's "extreme", it shows how far off your side has gone (and John, it really has gone off the deep end). Take care and God bless.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Davy, FMDJ, I think there are more pressing moral issues such as famine, war, homelessness, disabled veterans, lack of education, healthcare and the like. Who people choose to love and marry is of no consequence and God, if he or she exists, has no interest. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality.

 

Maybe Evangelicals should look at the divorce rate of heterosexuals, and the pedophile scandals of the Christian Church (and not just the Catholic Church). Society will be a lot better off if Christians were to stop having sex with children and started caring for them with food, clothes, shelter, and education.

 

Maybe conservatives could ask GE, Carnival Cruise lines, and other companies to actually start paying taxes. Maybe the CEO of Wal-Mart could actually give his employees a living union wage rather than making 1034 times the amount of his average worker.

 

Many conservatives forget what the real moral issues are. Agnostic (maybe even atheist) Democratic Socialist's like me have been trying to point out economic disparities for years, yet conservatives would rather give tax breaks to the rich, allow big corporations to pay no income tax, allow churches to pay no income or property taxes (although churches are indeed for profit businesses like everyone else), allow companies like Monsanto to bully family farmers out of business, provide little or no healthcare for veterans, start campaigns against teachers, firefighters, and police, yet try to establish a Fawellian Moral Authority against Gays and Lesbians. Many conservatives are only concerned with what goes on in the bedroom rather that what real concerns are for the American people.

 

 

The real moral dilemma Davy is the racist conservative plutocrats who insist President Obama is not an American citizen, they insist he is a Socialist, and believe me coming from one, he is not, they insist he is a Muslim, all to undermine him and refuse to attack real moral problems in this country.

 

The real moral problem is an American society who puts faith in a mostly fictional book called the Bible written 2000 years ago by men with no knowledge of cosmology, medicine, or science. These men tried to explain complex scientific and moral problems with fairy tails that have been passed on for thousand of years. (Yes, the Muslims have an equally crafted character like Jesus who was born in a manger by a virgin, and is killed and rises to heaven, not to say either character  does not have the moral vision that mankind should aspire to, and neither of them ever condemn homosexuality.)

 

So the greatest moral dilemma of our time Davy is not Gay Marriage, but keeping them from it. Gay marriage is inevitable. And your reference to modern day leftists, may in some cases be correct. Men like Michael Moore are not true progressives, the are progressives in name only. They are Capitalists making a buck just like anyone else. I'll take Leon Trotsky or Guy Debord any day of the week. At least they were willing to stake their lives for their progressive liberalism causes while the Michael Moore's and Rob Reiner's of the Hollywood elite  hide behind the progressive cause to further their agendas.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^I'd be happy to engage you on some of those points, but it is merely going off topic with the subject at hand... and, as was already stated, the mods don't seem to want a broad-based political discussion here - so it's a waste of my time to write up a post that might get deleted. It's already way too constraining for me as it is, but has gone a long way into exposing just how "tolerant" those are of those who lecture others on the subject. No surprise, of course, as I've known just how tolerant the "tolerance" crowd is since I escaped the plantation. We're just not going to see eye to eye.

[UTgrad09]

^I'd be happy to engage you on some of those points, but it is merely going off topic with the subject at hand... and, as was already stated, the mods don't seem to want a broad-based political discussion here - so it's a waste of my time to write up a post that might get deleted. It's already way too constraining for me as it is, but has gone a long way into exposing just how "tolerant" those are of those who lecture others on the subject. No surprise, of course, as I've known just how tolerant the "tolerance" crowd is since I escaped the plantation. We're just not going to see eye to eye.

 

As if you are not lecturing others?

[BnaBreaker]

Hey, well you know what, despite our differences on this issue, at least we can all, I'm sure, find common ground when it comes to the concept of Civil Unions. Why am I so sure?  Well, it's because fieldmarshall has stated multiple times that he "loves the sinner" (in this case, homosexuals), and loves freedom for law abiding individuals.  Furthermore, he also clearly feels offended at any assertion that his stance on gay marriage might have to do with some sort of negative attitude towards gays, and most importantly, claims to only oppose the idea of gay marriage because he sees marriage as a religious institution created by God.  It is for these reasons that I feel very confident in assuming, and I think it is safe to say, that fieldmarshall is a big supporter of Civil Unions, along with the majority of us.  I mean, surely, fieldmarshall, you wouldn't be opposed to allowing committed gay couples the simple access to some of the same legal priviledges that straight married couples enjoy.  Surely not.  Because, as you said, you love gay people, and your position on gay marriage is strictly religious and has nothing to do with any personal resentment you might harbor toward homosexuals.  So there isn't any logical reason why you wouldn't want a gay man to be able to have, say, hospital visitation rights if his lover of ten years is on his death bed.  For that, I am certain, and I am relieved.  So thank you, fieldmarshall, for your comittment to Civil Unions.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Hey, well you know what, despite our differences on this issue, at least we can all, I'm sure, find common ground when it comes to the concept of Civil Unions. Why am I so sure?  Well, it's because fieldmarshall has stated multiple times that he "loves the sinner" (in this case, homosexuals), and loves freedom for law abiding individuals.  Furthermore, he also clearly feels offended at any assertion that his stance on gay marriage might have to do with some sort of negative attitude towards gays, and most importantly, claims to only oppose the idea of gay marriage because he sees marriage as a religious institution created by God.  It is for these reasons that I feel very confident in assuming, and I think it is safe to say, that fieldmarshall is a big supporter of Civil Unions, along with the majority of us.  I mean, surely, fieldmarshall, you wouldn't be opposed to allowing committed gay couples the simple access to some of the same legal priviledges that straight married couples enjoy.  Surely not.  Because, as you said, you love gay people, and your position on gay marriage is strictly religious and has nothing to do with any personal resentment you might harbor toward homosexuals.  So there isn't any logical reason why you wouldn't want a gay man to be able to have, say, hospital visitation rights if his lover of ten years is on his death bed.  For that, I am certain, and I am relieved.  So thank you, fieldmarshall, for your comittment to Civil Unions.

 

I'd have to review whatever that particular definition means. The argument I've seen going back more than a decade ago is that it was marriage in all but name. In any event, where I recall any point of agreement in long-ago discussions was on that of inheritance (since anyone should be able to will their property/estate to whomever they please), or your example of "hospital visitation rights", since it's solely up to the patient to decide whom they wish to be with them, dying or otherwise. It's no business of anyone else. I also do not think a reinstitution of anti-sodomy laws would be desireable, as some on my side support (the government policing sexual habits of two adults in private is also not something I favor -- though that doesn't apply to the exhibitionist and sordid behavior of the creeps near me at Percy Priest Lake cruising and hooking up in the bushes out in public, and same goes for any straights behaving inappropriately. "Get a room !")

 

Yes, BNA, be assured I'm not one of those who demands homosexuals be flogged, stoned, or hanged in the public square (although I do favor that for many of our political officials, but for different reasons).

[spenser1058]

Nature’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/opinion/natures-case-for-same-sex-marriage.html?hp&_r=0

 

Biology professor David George Haskell puts the lie to the right's notion that homosexuality is somehow "unnatural." Best of all, he teaches at that paragon of tradition high atop Monteagle, The University of the South. Kudos for Enlightment from our friends just down Interstate 24!

[smeagolsfree]

HEY GUYS,.

 

THE DISCUSSION ON THIS THREAD IS STARTING TO VERGE ON SOMETHING WE HAVE AVOIDED HERE FOR A LONG TIME. LET’S CUT THE POLITICS, RELGION, MORAL VALUES, ETC. THIS IS A HOT BUTTON ISSUE RIGHT NOW AND I DO NOT WANT THINGS TO GET OUT OF HAND. BE CIVIL TO ONE ANOTHER AS SEVERAL OF YOU KNOW ONE ANOTHER. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE THE ISSUES, THEN DO IT BY PRIVATE EMAILS SO OTHERS WILL NOT TAKE SOME COMENTS THE WRONG WAY.

 

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN GREAT AND I KNOW YOU CAN SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE OVER A CUP OF COFFEE AND TALK THINGS THROUGH.

 

I WILL NOT CLOSE THE THREAD YET TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO POLICE YOURSELVES AND DONT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY. ITS JUST AS MODERATORS, WE CANNOT LET THINGS GET OUT OF HAND.