Same-sex matching and same-sex marriage


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Glider_Pilot is offline Glider_Pilot Post #21  November 19,2008, 10:04pm
Glider_Pilot's Avatar

Out there. Somewhere.

Veteran

Joined: May 2008

Orange County, CA

Posts: 2,409

See profile

VictoriaJ,351452 wrote :

Glider_Pilot,351448 wrote :


On a more serious side of this, 'power' usually doesn't rest where you think it might. To put this in 'corporate' terms, any good manager knows that the real power belongs to the staff he/she supervises - outwardly the people with the least visible power. Sure, the manager can discipline or fire anybody under his or her 'command', but if the team doesn't like what's going on, they can wreck the manager's job and 'position of power' ina heartbeat, regardless of what the manager wants or raves about. The same goes with any situation where one person has 'power' over a group of people - they only have that power which comes from the consent of the people beneath them.


Do you know that you are verging on Marxism when you say this?
Not at all. A Marxist would say that there should be no managers - the 'people' should manage themselves without anyone having power over them.


Me, I think that's a receipe for chaos. Somebody has to be in charge and keep everyone working in the same direction.


I'm actually more along the lines of the Founding Fathers - the power of government comes from the consent of the governed. And so I recognize the reality of how things work in an actual workplace: 'Ya can't fire everyone, so you'd better learn to work with them instead. ;-)
 
  Reply With Quote
LizziePooh is offline LizziePooh Post #22  November 20,2008, 6:55am

Unregistered

Joined: May 2008

SoCal

Posts: 7,705

See profile



Here's a little question to stir it up for you Victoria! Remove marriage from the equation and just look at it from a private business standpoint.


Eharmony did not choose to offer their services to homosexuals but was forced to by a court decision. So is that right? Can a private company no longer decide who they would like to offer their services to? What about all the businesses that have signs up stating that they have the right to refuse service to anyone? Is that to go away? And what about the BoyScouts and the Supreme Court decision that barely upheld their right to not allow a g a y man as a Boy Scout Leader? Was that wrong? Where's the line?


(And just for a little humor, the guy that won the decision against eharmony was awarded, among other things, their matching service for a year. Poor guy...I am thinking he should have took the dough!)
 
  Reply With Quote
cindy_lou_who is offline cindy_lou_who Post #23  November 20,2008, 7:13am
cindy_lou_who's Avatar

loves life

Pacesetter

Joined: Apr 2008

Oregon

Posts: 485

See profile

Glider_Pilot,351349 wrote :

I tend to think that polygamy or polyandry tend to become their own punishments. ;-)
I always wonder why the men who want harems never seem to think so far ahead to understand that the women will all be pms-ing at the same time!





 
  Reply With Quote
cynamon68 is offline cynamon68 Post #24  November 20,2008, 7:37am
cynamon68's Avatar

Happy Holidays :-)

Pacesetter

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 355

See profile



To each his own. I personallydo not agreewith the homosexual lifestyle, but, because I had a relative who practiced this particular lifestyle, I had to remember that his sexuality was only one part of who he was.


What I do have a problem with, is when the private sector is forced to accept whatever comes down from the almighty court system.


I agree with an earlier post that civil unions should be held forheterosexual coupleswho do not want a religious ceremony and for those who are entering into a same-sex union. I think that everyone who enters these unions should be held to the same standards of separation and divorce that heterosexual couples must adhere to.


The government has no business telling churches what they can and cannot teach. That smacks of communism. I know that there are some denominations that support homosexual unions. How they justify that is beyond my reasoning ability, but again, to each his own.
 
  Reply With Quote
mdover is offline mdover Post #25  November 20,2008, 7:56am

Unregistered

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 106

See profile

LizziePooh,351536 wrote :

Here's a little question to stir it up for you Victoria! Remove marriage from the equation and just look at it from a private business standpoint.


Eharmony did not choose to offer their services to homosexuals but was forced to by a court decision. So is that right? Can a private company no longer decide who they would like to offer their services to? What about all the businesses that have signs up stating that they have the right to refuse service to anyone? Is that to go away? And what about the BoyScouts and the Supreme Court decision that barely upheld their right to not allow a g a y man as a Boy Scout Leader? Was that wrong? Where's the line?


(And just for a little humor, the guy that won the decision against eharmony was awarded, among other things, their matching service for a year. Poor guy...I am thinking he should have took the dough!)
What if E Harmony didn't want to allow people of color, or Jews, or Muslims, would you feel this was their right as a private business to exclude people on the basis of race or relgion?


What if a restaurant posted a sign saying no negroes alllowed would you support the right of that owner to impose a kind of private apartheid? How about no Jews in a private golf club? or no Catholics?


I don't know what your response to any of the above might be, but personally I believe that if you want to do business in America the price of doing business is that you offer an inclusive service to all people who wish to do business with you. Such is the price we all pay for living in a free society that protects minorities from abuse from the majority.
 
  Reply With Quote
mdover is offline mdover Post #26  November 20,2008, 8:04am

Unregistered

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 106

See profile



Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, anymore than being a woman or a man is a lifestyle choice. It is biology.


I reluctantly agree that given our notions about the separation of church and state that the churches have the right to promote what in effect is hatred based on homophobic fears. But given the separation of state and church the church has no business telling the state who can or cannot get married.
 
  Reply With Quote
cynamon68 is offline cynamon68 Post #27  November 20,2008, 8:16am
cynamon68's Avatar

Happy Holidays :-)

Pacesetter

Joined: Jul 2008

Posts: 355

See profile

mdover,351572 wrote :

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, anymore than being a woman or a man is a lifestyle choice. It is biology.


I reluctantly agree that given our notions about the separation of church and state that the churches have the right to promote what in effect is hatred based on homophobic fears. But given the separation of state and church the church has no business telling the state who can or cannot get married.

I beg to differ with you on this, homosexuality is a choice. I am not homophobic in any way shape or form. I do not hate gay people. As I said earlier, I had a relative, who is now deceased, who was gay. I loved him very much and did not judge him. I did not agree with his choice of lifestyle. I also find it interesting that homosexuals will use science to further their agenda just as much as a church will use their beliefs to further their cause as well. Be careful about putting all church going people as homophobes...not very cool.
 
  Reply With Quote
lizard47 is offline lizard47 Post #28  November 20,2008, 8:21am
lizard47's Avatar

who you surround yourself with tells what you really believe

Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008

Midwest

Posts: 1,630

See profile

mdover,351572 wrote :

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, anymore than being a woman or a man is a lifestyle choice. It is biology.


I reluctantly agree that given our notions about the separation of church and state that the churches have the right to promote what in effect is hatred based on homophobic fears. But given the separation of state and church the church has no business telling the state who can or cannot get married.

I am not going to debate biology over lifestyle choice because you can site studies and I can site studies and we would get nowhere. In cases like that I believe in the philosophy of let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.


I do have to say that not all churches and church attending people promote hatred and fear. I was raised in parachial grade school, high school and college and for a time taught in parachial schools but was never taught to hate or fear. I was taught love and care of person not their lifestyle (basically love the sinner hate the sin, I just hate saying it in those terms).


Here is the thing though, the people voted in regards to marriage. In CA I believe they have had civil unions for quite a while so it is not preventing them from the rights of those things just the phrasing of marriage.


These are just my opinions please note I have shown respect so please do the same.
 
  Reply With Quote
mdover is offline mdover Post #29  November 20,2008, 8:34am

Unregistered

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 106

See profile



cynamon68,351584 wrote :


mdover,351572 wrote :


Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, anymore than being a woman or a man is a lifestyle choice. It is biology.


I reluctantly agree that given our notions about the separation of church and state that the churches have the right to promote what in effect is hatred based on homophobic fears. But given the separation of state and church the church has no business telling the state who can or cannot get married.





I beg to differ with you on this, homosexuality is a choice. I am not homophobic in any way shape or form. I do not hate gay people. As I said earlier, I had a relative, who is now deceased, who was gay. I loved him very much and did not judge him. I did not agree with his choice of lifestyle. I also find it interesting that homosexuals will use science to further their agenda just as much as a church will use their beliefs to further their cause as well. Be careful about putting all church going people as homophobes...not very cool.


You can disagree with what science consistently tell us about homosexuality. But until you can produce a peer reviewed science journalof reasonable repute to back up your opinion, I for one will put little stock in it.


Please observe: I never said anything about you and/or your feelings about homosexuals. I also don't put all church going people down as homophobic. I did though state that our separation of church and state allows churches to practice what is essentially a hateful stance against homosexuals. It is doctrine and they have a number of Bible quotes to back it all up.


But the fact that churches can use the Bible and tradition to promote hate is a simple fact. I am sure there are many people in America's pews who disagree with their churches teachings on homosexuality.
 
  Reply With Quote
mdover is offline mdover Post #30  November 20,2008, 8:45am

Unregistered

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 106

See profile

lizard47,351587 wrote :

mdover,351572 wrote :


Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, anymore than being a woman or a man is a lifestyle choice. It is biology.


I reluctantly agree that given our notions about the separation of church and state that the churches have the right to promote what in effect is hatred based on homophobic fears. But given the separation of state and church the church has no business telling the state who can or cannot get married.





I am not going to debate biology over lifestyle choice because you can site studies and I can site studies and we would get nowhere. In cases like that I believe in the philosophy of let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.


I do have to say that not all churches and church attending people promote hatred and fear. I was raised in parachial grade school, high school and college and for a time taught in parachial schools but was never taught to hate or fear. I was taught love and care of person not their lifestyle (basically love the sinner hate the sin, I just hate saying it in those terms).


Here is the thing though, the people voted in regards to marriage. In CA I believe they have had civil unions for quite a while so it is not preventing them from the rights of those things just the phrasing of marriage.


These are just my opinions please note I have shown respect so please do the same.
The science is in on this matter. The only ones who are arguing that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice are religous backed studies that are all but forced to reach a certain conclusion. You will find no reputable peer reviewed science journals that back up any notion that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. This question is not one that can be just tossed into some kind of relativistic--your guys vs my guys mix. All of the leading scientific bodies in America and abroad are agreed: biology not mere choice is where to look for why some people are homosexual and some are heterorsexual or some are women and some are men.


I am sure that not all church going people promote hatred. But the doctrines that exclude loving homosexual Christian couples from being married in their church is hateful and is based on pre scientific world view.


It is meangingless in principle to tell someone I love you but I want you to stop being a woman, or a man, or a homosexual. I want you to stop being yourself and practice a lie so I can really love all of you.


No one owns the word marriage, so if gays want to call their union a marriage or heterosexuals want to call their marriage a union or a partnership no one has the right to stop them.


Personally given how totally unsuccessful most marriages are these days, I would opt for a term like partners for life or something that doesn't carry all the negative baggage the world marriaged does. But bottom line no one group owns the concept called marriage and no one can vote this right away.


There now was I respectful enough?
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« Barack Obama's campaign promise not to take away our guns is a lie. | Politics | Proposition 8 Passed in California with unusual backers.... »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Excellent, thank you. I think I will leave out the first part, I think it is unnecessary information to give him. I'm not interested in putting myself out there like that and it might be a little ... ” –  generallyyou

Join the “Ending a friendship” discussion

“Alfred Hitchcock - 18 Steven Spielberg - 62 *notice what?” –  dmi

Join the “War of the Directors” discussion

“ I would be "certain people" :P The issue isn't a deal-breaker, but a very strong factor preference-wise, for me.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “How much does race play in your dating someone?” discussion

“Love Texas Hold'em!.. I'm thinking of trying another tournament this summer...not sure yet though.. Never entered a tournament before, outside of online ones. Personally I prefer to play with ... ” –  Freezepop

Join the “Favorite Card Game” discussion

“Make that 3! I also had a crush on Donny Osmond. I think I still have a record or two of his. Suzie ” –  legend29

Join the “Robin Gibbs Dead at 62...How Deep is Your Love?” discussion

“Oh, my revised profile can be seen in the forum in the section where you can ask for a profile review. Suzanne” –  SuzanneScorpio

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“Just remember, everything that you are feeling and/or are capable of he is as well. If he wanted to reach you, he could. Right now he knows that you are hurting, and that this is not what you ... ” –  lynntlb78

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“ Yohio. And the shortened form (Anya) is nice too.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “Where is Becky?!?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:05am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0