Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61

Thread: The Problem with Gays and Voters: Whom can we trust?

  1. #1
    Guest

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Papillion, NE
    Posts
    3,743

    The Problem with Gays and Voters: Whom can we trust?

    If gay marriage were about adults in consensual relationships receiving equal rights, I'd support it. But it's entangled in redefinitions of sexual morality, friendship, parenting, free will, human development, erotic self-control, predation, harassment, and privacy. I don't see how to legalize gay marriage without feeding into an insidious agenda I have much reason to distrust, based on the last four years.

    Gay rights groups need to focus on adults and leave teenagers, never mind children, out of their fight. They should pick their battles; civil unions are more popular than are gay marriage laws. If this is about being left alone, then leave other people alone. Most of all, the movement needs to tell the truth. Only then will America trust them enough to believe what they say and give them what they ask for.
    American Thinker

  2. #2
    Administrator
    Huskermedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    21,850
    Correct both sides are not willing to look at the big picture.

    Marriage as defined by the history of the world is a religious institution between the man and women which was performed by the religious person of the culture at the time. At some point the government got involved in a religions event. (Which was not a big deal back in the day, today it is a big deal by some groups) The government offers and awards all kinds of benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with Religion. Those benefits need to be given to any couple that want them. (civil union) The government see this couple at one when it comes to dealing with the government.

    This goes both ways, if you need a paper that says you love each other and are committed to each other until one of you dies then you are missing the point of a committed loving relationship.

    So let the Government award civil unions for all the benefits and let the religions marry. That way if a church feels the couple does not meet there requirement for the religions rules on marriage they don't have to marry them and have no fear of persecution.


    Born a Nebraskan, raised a Nebraskan, will die a Nebraskan!! Go Big Red!



    Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” - Gamalie the Pharisee - Addressing the Sanhedrin regarding the new group called Christians
    "I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates," he wrote. "Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates." - Art Laffer (on 999 plan)


  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskermedic View Post
    Correct both sides are not willing to look at the big picture.

    Marriage as defined by the history of the world is a religious institution between the man and women which was performed by the religious person of the culture at the time. At some point the government got involved in a religions event. (Which was not a big deal back in the day, today it is a big deal by some groups) The government offers and awards all kinds of benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with Religion. Those benefits need to be given to any couple that want them. (civil union) The government see this couple at one when it comes to dealing with the government.

    This goes both ways, if you need a paper that says you love each other and are committed to each other until one of you dies then you are missing the point of a committed loving relationship.

    So let the Government award civil unions for all the benefits and let the religions marry. That way if a church feels the couple does not meet there requirement for the religions rules on marriage they don't have to marry them and have no fear of persecution.
    Although, this has the EXACT same effect as the current proposal to call them all marriage. This is literally no different, in that it doesn't preserve the social institution of marriage that has been the basis for our social and family structure for thousand of years. It creates a single loosely defined structure...further left open for change. And, then an even more loosely defined and less regulated parallel "religious" definition"

    The only true middle ground that provides for equality for gay couples, preservation of a basic and necessary social institution, and respect for religious tradition is to provide a Federal civil union designation for GLBT couplings.

  4. #4
    All Legend
    utsker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,927
    FWIW...Gays aren't trying to destroy marriage or families....divorce does that...and them heteros got the monopoly on that

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by utsker View Post
    FWIW...Gays aren't trying to destroy marriage or families....divorce does that...and them heteros got the monopoly on that
    Yeah, um...couples will continue to break up just as they have for millions of years. That's not the issue here. Or, are you questioning the fidelity and monogamy of heterosexual couples? Cuz, if you do it's only fair to bring it up for gay couples.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us...etro.html?_r=1

    New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
    But, shhhhh...it's a secret.

    None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

  6. #6
    Administrator
    Huskermedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    21,850
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    Although, this has the EXACT same effect as the current proposal to call them all marriage. This is literally no different, in that it doesn't preserve the social institution of marriage that has been the basis for our social and family structure for thousand of years. It creates a single loosely defined structure...further left open for change. And, then an even more loosely defined and less regulated parallel "religious" definition"

    The only true middle ground that provides for equality for gay couples, preservation of a basic and necessary social institution, and respect for religious tradition is to provide a Federal civil union designation for GLBT couplings.
    "Marriage" is a religious institution. If there was no government addons and you are non-religious there is no point in getting married. I would like to protect that institution and give it back to religion were it belongs. With a civil union you won't have to worry about forcing a preacher or the like from preforming a ceremony to a gay couple when the disagree with it.

    I would like the Government to drop Marriage all together personally. You want to visit in a Hospital get a medical power of attorney. You want to have a kid each party (if two) is 50% responsible until said kid is 18.


    Born a Nebraskan, raised a Nebraskan, will die a Nebraskan!! Go Big Red!



    Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” - Gamalie the Pharisee - Addressing the Sanhedrin regarding the new group called Christians
    "I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates," he wrote. "Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates." - Art Laffer (on 999 plan)


  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by OmaHusker View Post
    That article is just plain idiotic and misleading.

    First and foremost, this paragraph stands out for its stupidity:

    Hidden in 2010 was that the Pentagon knew of
    19,000 annual cases of sexual abuse within the military
    (the latter evidence was published in the Brazilian newspaper Folha in 2011, and I was able to read it because I speak Portuguese; otherwise, I would not even know about the study). We had been led to believe that gay men could naturally "control themselves" in a high-stress environment with few safety barriers around the sex they were inalterably drawn to. Nobody had considered that the spirit of openness might lead gay troops to pressure other suspected gay troops to come out of the closet, ostensibly to exercise their newfound "rights," but really to make them sexually available for exploitation.
    Even though we don't speak portuguese like this apparent genius, luckily Google does. And when you run his link through the translator, one realizes that there is not a single mention of gay sexual assault or harassment. Yet, the author links those assaults to gay men not being able to control themselves.

    And of course he was lying, because the article and information is available in English: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...each-year?lite

    I can't believe anyone links to these nutbag bloggers and thinks it actually strengthens their positions.

  8. #8
    Somebody want to take a guess at how he ties this paragraph expressing his feelings into the "gay conspiracy pushing an insidious agenda" argument he's making?

    In 2011,
    Elmhurst College
    was the first to ask incoming freshmen to indicate voluntarily their sexual orientation on official paperwork. This makes a person's sexual behavior a matter of public record (it could even be, presumably, subject to subpoena years later in a divorce or [COLOR=#009900 !important]child custody case). Other colleges jumped on this bandwagon, culminating in the decision by the 10 campuses of the massive [/COLOR]
    University of California
    system to consider tracking students' sexual orientations. To place such a question on a student application assumes that eighteen-year-olds have had enough sex with multiple partners to compare the experiences and figure out what orientation they are. It also assumes that human sexual behavior is reducible to a few patterns which are innate, unchangeable, and knowable to people in their early adolescence -- all ideological mainstays of the gay rights movement, despite thousands of years of cultural history that show that human sexuality is fluid, changeable, and often affected by situational factors (otherwise, how do we explain Achilles' love of Patroclus and Briseis, or male prisoners or sailors falling in love and then going back to their wives when they have their freedom again?). If every boy who was ever aroused during gym class were gay, the human race would have stopped procreating about 5,000 years ago.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz1utNSeD3y
    And show of hands, (a) how many people think freshman in college can't peg their own sexuality at that point? and (b) who among the men here ever felt aroused during a male gym class?

    Bizarre.

  9. #9
    All Big 10
    huskernut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Louisville, CO
    Posts
    19,083
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    Somebody want to take a guess at how he ties this paragraph expressing his feelings into the "gay conspiracy pushing an insidious agenda" argument he's making?



    And show of hands, (a) how many people think freshman in college can't peg their own sexuality at that point? and (b) who among the men here ever felt aroused during a male gym class?

    Bizarre.
    It's almost funny. I'm beginning to think every person who is very concerned about gay marriage on either side has sexual preference identity issues.

    But maybe I'm making an assumption here. I never got aroused in male gym class, and I wasn't at all uncertain about my sexuality really from the moment I had any. Is that unusual? I thought it was pretty common, but maybe lots of people are more uncertain than me. If that's the case, maybe I and whatever number of others there are like me have stumbled into the middle of a conversation that isn't really about us. Maybe a whole lot of this is really a debate among people for whom this is a big issue, and they either accept who they are or are mad about it, or are truly somewhat bisexual and either embrace it or are ambivalent about it.
    "It doesn't matter where you start or how people perceive you now or what your potential is. ... It's going to be how this football team comes together and meets the challenges ... I like our potential, but there's a lot of teams that like their potential. It's going to be how we put things together, how we grow and how we come together as a team. It's not going to be the best collection of talent, it's going to be the best team. ...." - Bo Pelini, Big 10 Media Days, 2014

  10. #10
    All Big 10
    huskernut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Louisville, CO
    Posts
    19,083
    Quote Originally Posted by huskernut View Post
    It's almost funny. I'm beginning to think every person who is very concerned about gay marriage on either side has sexual preference identity issues.

    But maybe I'm making an assumption here. I never got aroused in male gym class, and I wasn't at all uncertain about my sexuality really from the moment I had any. Is that unusual? I thought it was pretty common, but maybe lots of people are more uncertain than me. If that's the case, maybe I and whatever number of others there are like me have stumbled into the middle of a conversation that isn't really about us. Maybe a whole lot of this is really a debate among people for whom this is a big issue, and they either accept who they are or are mad about it, or are truly somewhat bisexual and either embrace it or are ambivalent about it.
    I walked away from this and realized I may have just shared TMI. I hope no one feels the need to declare themselves on this one way or the other. I'm not saying anyone is only a "real man" if they feel like I do. I don't care what anybody does, or what they like in this respect.
    "It doesn't matter where you start or how people perceive you now or what your potential is. ... It's going to be how this football team comes together and meets the challenges ... I like our potential, but there's a lot of teams that like their potential. It's going to be how we put things together, how we grow and how we come together as a team. It's not going to be the best collection of talent, it's going to be the best team. ...." - Bo Pelini, Big 10 Media Days, 2014

  11. #11
    I think there a ton of complex things going on in the debate, but I generally agree with your thoughts, Nut. There must be some reason some straight people think there's an insidious movement to "recruited more gays" and I can't understand that reasoning because I can't imagine being "recruited" out of a straight lifestyle. It just seems innate to me. I guess for some who oppose gay rights, the feeling is that people's sexuality is malleable. I have to assume that they themselves have felt that doubt. Nothing wrong with the doubt, I think, but I don't understand why some would feel that gay lifestyles are inherently detrimental to society, not to mention that they don't think those perceived problems would be mitigated by encouraging gays to engage in stabilizing relationships like marriage.

    I think the anti-gay movement is flawed on just about every level of examination.

  12. #12
    p.s. I was shocked to discover this blogger was (is?) a professor at a relatively large school. I can't believe anyone could read his "scholarship" and think he's worthy of a professorship.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskermedic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    Although, this has the EXACT same effect as the current proposal to call them all marriage. This is literally no different, in that it doesn't preserve the social institution of marriage that has been the basis for our social and family structure for thousand of years. It creates a single loosely defined structure...further left open for change. And, then an even more loosely defined and less regulated parallel "religious" definition"

    The only true middle ground that provides for equality for gay couples, preservation of a basic and necessary social institution, and respect for religious tradition is to provide a Federal civil union designation for GLBT couplings.
    "Marriage" is a religious institution. If there was no government addons and you are non-religious there is no point in getting married. I would like to protect that institution and give it back to religion were it belongs. With a civil union you won't have to worry about forcing a preacher or the like from preforming a ceremony to a gay couple when the disagree with it.

    I would like the Government to drop Marriage all together personally. You want to visit in a Hospital get a medical power of attorney. You want to have a kid each party (if two) is 50% responsible until said kid is 18.
    Fine to argue that, but it's more than a religious or government institution it's a social institution that many believe provides a social benefit as traditionally defined.

    And for centuries now governments have participated in the structuring and preservation of the institution of marriage. What you are proposing is, in many ways, even more drastic.

    Which is fine if that's what the country determines it wants...but if the country determines it wants to retain the traditional institution I would hope that desire is respected instead of forced upon as in California.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    Fine to argue that, but it's more than a religious or government institution it's a social institution that many believe provides a social benefit as traditionally defined.

    And for centuries now governments have participated in the structuring and preservation of the institution of marriage. What you are proposing is, in many ways, even more drastic.

    Which is fine if that's what the country determines it wants...but if the country determines it wants to retain the traditional institution I would hope that desire is respected instead of forced upon as in California.
    Even if I accepted any of that "historical perspective" stuff, it doesn't provide a cogent argument for why the gay marriage would ruin anything. "It's always been that way" isn't convincing.

    Beyond that, the majority of Americans now believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry... so, it appears the country is determining what it wants. California's prop 8 vote was close, and that was with much of the voting population not voting; meaning that it's likely that the generally conservative values of likely voters don't represent the general CA population's feelings on the issue.

  15. #15
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    Yeah, um...couples will continue to break up just as they have for millions of years. That's not the issue here. Or, are you questioning the fidelity and monogamy of heterosexual couples? Cuz, if you do it's only fair to bring it up for gay couples.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us...etro.html?_r=1



    But, shhhhh...it's a secret.
    So they are better at communicating than the 50% of straight couples who cheat without partner approval!!! Way to go Gays!







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •