# Freedom of Thought...



## elder999 (Aug 24, 2008)

I continue to get into a lot of trouble for asking questions. Not just any old questions, mind you, but questions about topics that aren&#8217;t supposed to be questioned. My mother always asked why I couldn&#8217;t just accept things and stop asking so many questions. I tried to explain that I really did want to fit in, to be one of the crowd, but that no matter how hard I tried, I simply couldn&#8217;t be quiet. In the past, some people have written and commended me on being a noble seeker of truth. I appreciate that. But, I have to tell you that in the past, I have tried, with all my might, to be a regular fellow, to accept what I&#8217;m told, and not make waves. I just can&#8217;t. Perhaps it has more to do with stubbornness than with nobility. After a while, it became obvious to me that my path was one of questioning the accepted norm. There are, of course, things I can accept, after I&#8217;ve investigated properly. One of those things is my spiritual path. Let me illustrate this knowing by sharing a very personal, intimate story.

At the 1994 Fiestas celebration in Santa Fe,  I was walking across the Plaza, lost in thought. I happened to look up and my eyes locked with those of an old Indian man seated on a bench. He smiled, and motioned for me to come over. There were people crowded all about, yet he was alone on his bench. I walked over and sat down beside him. He told me many things, most of which I cannot share. However, I can tell you some of it. He told me, _&#8220;You have had a hard life because of the path you have chosen. You are a speaker of truth. You chose this. It is why you are always looking for something, as if it were hidden away. Remember this: truth is always in plain sight, never hidden.&#8221;_ I really do wish I&#8217;d been aware enough to find out more about him. I simply sat and listened. Perhaps that was the appropriate course of action. It was a very mystical experience for me. I had the feeling that this elderly man knew me, in fact knew all about me. Yet, I&#8217;d never seen him before, nor have I encountered him since. I accept that summer afternoon conversation as a great gift. I treasure it. Still, I am aware that many people will think I&#8217;m a loony. But, since I&#8217;m not responsible for what other people think, I share my experience today with anyone who wants to hear it.

I have a question:_

If people say they believe in freedom, why do so many of them spend so much time trying to control others? _

I don&#8217;t understand this. Why can&#8217;t people, at the very least, just leave others alone? Who among us doesn&#8217;t have enough of his/her own issues to resolve without trying to take care of everybody else&#8217;s business? If you believe in the literalness of the Bible, and you wish to live your life according to that literalness, why can&#8217;t that be enough? Why must you legislate the rest of us along with you? Why is it so crucial that I behave as you think I ought? I&#8217;ve been asking this for years. Some people agree with me, and some just shout, trying to silence my words. Why can&#8217;t each person establish his/her own relationship with the Creator? Why must we submit to authorities? Of course, I believe we should have the _option
_ of submitting to outside authorities, but why do we have to? Why should we not have the freedom to choose? Why can&#8217;t I share what I&#8217;ve seen of God, you share what you&#8217;ve seen of God, and then let that be enough? Why can&#8217;t we accept what fits for us, and leave behind that which we don&#8217;t need? 

I&#8217;ve recently seen some interesting bumper stickers. One was on a Cadillac Eldorado with Texas plates. There was a stick figure of a man, a plus sign (+), a stick figure of a woman, the equal sign (=) and the word &#8220;marriage&#8221;. Alright, I have no argument with that belief. One man, plus one woman, equals marriage. You&#8217;ll never hear me criticize that sentiment. However, that&#8217;s not enough for the people who have those bumper stickers, along with many who agree with them. Instead of promoting their beliefs about marriage by the way they live on a daily basis, they insist on legislating away the rights of same sex couples to contract marriage, but, I have a question:

_Doesn&#8217;t the Bible allow polygamy, having multiple spouses?_

The answer is, Yes! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage is limited to one man and one woman. In fact, monogamy was introduced by so called &#8220;pagans&#8221;. Now, I have another question. If they are going to use the Bible to justify their bigotry, if they&#8217;re going to claim that any other arrangement would threaten the sacredness of the institution of marriage, one man and one woman, then why do they allow divorce? It seems to me that easy, no-fault divorce is a greater threat to the stability of marriage than my friends James and Robert, after almost 22 years of sharing therr lives, being able to establish a legal relationship. I&#8217;m confused about this. Can someone explain it to me? Perhaps that older couple driving the Cadillac Eldorado with the Texas plates can explain to me why they threaten their marriage-I know they don&#8217;t threaten mine. I&#8217;ve got a suggestion for some creative Santa Fe entrepreneur. Make up some bumper stickers. Put a stick figure of a man, the plus sign (+), a stick figure of a woman, the equal sign (=) and the word &#8220;divorce&#8221;. I&#8217;ll buy several.

In conclusion, asking questions is a good thing. We all have freedom of thought. It is part of our birthright, granted by our Creator. Freedom of thought does not come from any government or religious authority. It comes from God. _For the time being,_ you are free. Act like it.


----------



## Ray (Aug 24, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Freedom of thought does not come from any government or religious authority. It comes from God. _For the time being,_ you are free. Act like it.


Our freedom to think is without limits, our freedom to act is bounded by the limits of the rights of others.  If we acted rightly, we wouldn't need laws and penalties (nor politicians).


----------



## Big Don (Aug 24, 2008)

> Put a stick figure of a man, the plus sign (+), a stick figure of a woman, the equal sign (=) and the word &#8220;divorce&#8221;. I&#8217;ll buy several.


One better:
Stick figure of a guy smiling + Stick figure of girl smiling = stick figure of girl with money bag, still smiling next to a picture of a guy NOT smiling DIVORCE
Can we work some finders fee or something?


----------



## Big Don (Aug 24, 2008)

Ray said:


> Our freedom to think is without limits, our freedom to act is bounded by the limits of the rights of others.  If we acted rightly, we wouldn't need laws and penalties (nor politicians).


But, since not all of us are good people we have laws and laws have penalties as deterrents.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 25, 2008)

Very eloquent though Elder.  One I happen to agree with.

But, what you suggest is not so simple in reality.  And that is because the government has chosen to legislate marriage at all in the first place.  Once that has been allowed, then it becomes a political game.  That means it then becomes a matter of law how many people you can marry, what sex of a person you can marry, even the manner in which the marriage is carried out.

But remember, even most people who espouse freedom on both sides of the political spectrum do not really believe it.  They only believe it in as much as the political realities jibe with their philosophical underpinnings.  To some degree, this is natural, and absolutely necessary.

But, when you start speaking of the concept of *freedom*, things start to become dicey.  Where does one persons freedom end, and anothers begin?  If people really believed in freedom, this would be the most trying, and constantly watched subset of the philosophy of freedom ever.  And we would not leave it up to career politicians to make those decisions for us, at least, not completely.  

When it comes to this marriage issue, if we are talking about freedom, I have to ask why the government is involved at all.  And that runs the gamut from who you can marry, to taxes, to whatever else that you can think of.  It is not necessary for the government to become involved at all.  Marriage should be a private institution between individual human beings, and left alone at that.

I understand your frustration.  Although you have touched upon the subject in the matter of gay marriage, it really does encompass all facets of life under a government.


----------



## morph4me (Aug 25, 2008)

I've had many of the same thoughts, and have had some of the same problems with questioning things that others felt should not be questioned. I think the problem is that once you questions someone, it means that they may possibly be wrong in their beliefs, and that just isn't acceptable to them. People will stubbornly defend their beliefs in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I guess it's human nature :idunno:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 25, 2008)

Elder that was a fabulous post and thread.  Objective questioning is almost always good.

It is unfortunate that people cannot leave other people alone that do not believe the way they do.  Provided of course that those people are not doing something reprehensible ie. killing, stealing, etc.  We as a country need to be open minded and not close minded.  This has helped us tremendously in the past and hopefully it will help us into the future.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 25, 2008)

Government?

You know, when I conduct marriage ceremonies, or in the counseling beforehand, there's a phrase I like to use-I "borrowed" it from a friend:

"God doesn't marry you, a church doesn't marry you, the _government_ doesn't marry you, and *I* don't marry you; _you marry each other."_

The "government marriage," the _civil union_ if you will, is all about property rights, and custody-of children, property, and each other. It's a necessary institution, and one whose rights should be extended to all who wish to share them as a unit, in my opinion. 

While I used the gay marriage as an example, and I'll point out that I don't see how extending such civil rights to gay couples in any way effects that institution of marriage or how others choose to think about it or view such unions, it wasn't really what I was getting at....

My life has been an adventure of learning and reflection. I suppose it must be useful to some people to sit and contemplate their navels, or wonder what the sound of one hand clapping must be. Personally, I've only had moderate success with koans and abstract meditations. I'd have made a very poor Buddhist monk. I've spent most of my lifetime asking questions. It is important for me to know how things work, or how they've come to be. There have been times when I've been in balance and harmony, and I examined how I got there. Conversely, there have been times when I'm confused and unhappy, and I've also examined that experience. I figured, mostly successfully, that if I understood the process, I could duplicate the good experiences, and avoid the unpleasant ones.

For most of the last eight years, I've had quite a lot of conversations with people about the bellicose American Empire, the Imperial President,and our Aristocratic Congress. One thing I've done is examine the roots of our current communal predicament. Most of my friends fall to the left of the political spectrum, while a great many of my co-workers fall to the right. I'm not a wind up robot for any political party or ideology., I've looked right and left, Democrat and Republican, and I've discovered one fundamental principle they both share: the need to have the state(federal government) *control us.* 

The right has been controlled by evangelical fundamentalists, intent on making their interpretation of religion the law of the land, to usher in some _"I like Ike,"_ kind of America that never was. The left is controlled by radical socialists, equally intent on encoding their, often atheistic Marxist, beliefs into law, to usher in some sort of egalitarian utopia that will never be. Even though they come at us from different directions, they both desire to legislate our thoughts, actions, beliefs and morality. They both have good intentions, i.e., to make things better for everyone, but seem not to be aware of the unintended consequences of their actions. Both political parties want to tell you what to believe, what words you may use, what your children must learn or not learn, what books you may or may not read, movies you may or may not see, and music you may or may not listen to.

_*May I ask all of you some questions?*_

Why are you surprised that your governement is out of control, disregarding basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Do you think this situation just arose after a Republican was appointed President by the Supreme Court? Or as an after effect of 9-11?It hasn't just happened. The roots of this go back many years. Citizens long ago surrendered their rights to the federal government, and their place in the process to *professional* legislators-not at all what the founding father's intended. It started with such good intentions, but those noble intentions have had tragically unintended consequences.

The right wants a society based on profit, safety, law and order. Those are noble intentions, aren't they? Some unintended consequences are loss of liberty, personal property and privacy, thanks, in part, to their desire to protect us from some intoxicating substances. The truth is that illegal intoxicants compete with political $upporter$ who manufacture legal toxicants-just look at history if you don't believe that. 

The left wants a society based on equality.That is a noble intention, isn't it? But there are unintended consequences. If you own a business, the government legislates what you may or may not ask your employees or prospective employees, and what you must pay them. You may not sell, or refuse to sell, your private property to whom you choose, for whatever reason you choose. The left have created a Stalinist thought police to enforce their social engineering goals. They are obsessed with gender, race,ethnicity and sexuality. Of course, this is in response to the right, who are detemined to legislate what activities consenting adults may engage in, even in the privacy of their own homes. They legislate who may marry whom, and who may not marry whom, what women may or may not do with their bodies and the life that only they can carry. They are obseessed with capitalism, control and sexuality. So my friends, this is how we've arrived at the point where we are today. Bit by bit, in order to achieve "noble goals," with the best of intentions, freedom has been surrendered to the government. I'm reminded of the Emperor Trajan, as the Roman Senate proclaimed him dictator:

*"How eager they are to be slaves."*

When we refuse to accept the responsibility for telling the truth, for doing the right thing because it *is* the right thing to do, we make ourselves slaves of the state. However, the federal government doesn't grant you the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights come from your Creator. They are part of your birthright as human beings. We can make changes for the better if we all step up to bat and take personal responsibility for justice, law and order, peace and equality. If we keep surrendering that to politicians, they will continuie to betray us, and if you think things are bad now,*"well, you ain't seen nothin' yet."*


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 25, 2008)

elder999 said:


> He told me many things, most of which I cannot share. However, I can tell you some of it. He told me, _You have had a hard life because of the path you have chosen. You are a speaker of truth. _.


 
if he had said you were a speaker of opinions, usually educated, and almost always well thought out, I would buy it.

but truth?

.........

However, that being said.

I agree that gays and plurals should be allowed. There is no reason for the government to be involved in that part of American Culture/Society at all.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 25, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> if he had said you were a speaker of opinions, usually educated, and almost always well thought out, I would buy it.
> 
> but truth?
> 
> ...


 



> *John 18:36-38 (New International Version)*
> 
> 36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
> 
> ...


 
Or, if you prefer, a story of my own: 
I keep chickens, rabbits, and other livestock. The chickens give me eggs, and the occasional chicken. Also, when a rooster gets old, or a hen can no longer lay, I'll slaughter them and stew them for my dog-who really relishes this treat, and watches over the chickens as though they were his own.
So, on the day that I kill a chicken, it's a catastrophe in the world of the chicken, but the truth is that someone is having chicken dinner.....

or, if you prefer, the difference between *facts*, and _truth_:

I like it pretty warm-some might say I'm genetically predisposed. My wife, on the other hand, likes it fairly cool-some might say that, being somewhat Nordic, she's genetically predisposed. In any case, all summer long I'll turn up the thermostat,saying, "It's cold," and she'll turn it down, saying, "It's hot.," when the *fact* is, the temperature in the room is 68 degrees.

68 degrees-that's a *fact*.

"It's cold"-that's the _truth_, and I have the goose-bumps to prove it.

"It's hot"-well, thats also the _truth,_ and my wife is sweating to prove it.


One fact, two truths, all equally valid.

...and, he said what he said. That's a *fact*.

If I'm ever fouind to be wrong on *facts*, I'll be the first to admit it-though sometimes with difficulty.

My _truth,_ though, is as unshakeable as my goose-bumps, most of the time, though the warmth of another truth may make them go away....:lol:


----------



## morph4me (Aug 25, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> if he had said you were a speaker of opinions, usually educated, and almost always well thought out, I would buy it.
> 
> but truth?


 
The same can be said about most people, with the possible exception of the educated well thought out part.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 25, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I agree that gays and plurals should be allowed. There is no reason for the government to be involved in that part of American Culture/Society at all.


 
It depends on how you are looking at it.  If you have mulitple husbands/wives, who gets the stuff?  Divorce is messy enough as it is when it comes to dividing things.  Now let's say you have a trio and only one of them wants out of the arrangement.  How are you going to divide the property?  Is it 50/50, no wait it can't be that.  So is it now a 1/3 split?  How do you decide these things? 

As for the other issue, I think that it acutally protects people if you allow gay marriage.  If a husband/wife decide to split a judge will step in and legally divide the assets.  I had a friend who was with her life partner and they built a house together and she was co-signer on the mortgage.  Guess what her partner found someone younger and more attractive and told her to beat it.  As to the house, no legal standing as to ownership since the partnership is not recognized.  I have heard the argument about the "sanctity of marriage" from people before. COME ON!!!!  Look how easy it is to get divorced anytime you want to for any reason you want to!  Our society has lost that virture long ago.

Others have said about two people "faking it" like on Chuck and Larry to get insurace/benefits etc.  WHAT?  If you are a man and woman you can get married to get benefits now and no one will say anything about it.

Besides, I think most lawyers would be for it, because then it's more money they can make off of divorces. LOL


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 25, 2008)

morph4me said:


> The same can be said about most people, with the possible exception of the educated well thought out part.


 
absolutely right


----------



## Big Don (Aug 25, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I like it pretty warm-some might say I'm genetically predisposed. My wife, on the other hand, likes it fairly cool-some might say that, being somewhat Nordic, she's genetically predisposed. In any case, all summer long I'll turn up the thermostat,saying, "It's cold," and she'll turn it down, saying, "It's hot.," when the *fact* is, the temperature in the room is 68 degrees.
> 
> 68 degrees-that's a *fact*.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the famous explanation of relativity as regards to time:
Five minutes holding hands with a beautiful girl seems a second...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 25, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Sounds like the famous explanation of relativity as regards to time:
> Five minutes holding hands with a beautiful girl seems a second...


 
_Truth_ is *relative*.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 25, 2008)

elder999 said:


> _Truth_ is *relative*.


Crap! My lunch hour is over! I'll get back to you on that.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 26, 2008)

Truth is relative... interesting.

If truth is relative, is not freedom just as relative?

Who gets to decide just what freedom entails?  Is Elder the final decision maker in all things related to freedom?  According to the highest legal interpretors of the U.S., the United States Supreme Court, we are free, and if we are not, they will change it thusly.

Freedom is just as subjective then as is truth.

You say that government needs to be involved in marriage due to property rights issues, parental rights, etc.  I tell you that those laws already exist for those outside of marriage.  And they apply the same to those that are married and those that are not.

We see private companies extending benefits to domestic partnerships, just as they do to married couples.  Again, why does the government need to become involved.

I tell you, the more that the government becomes involved legislatively in an issue, the less freedom we as a people have.  Though the benefits may be seen as just, we still lose a bit of freedom with each new law.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 26, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Truth is relative... interesting.
> 
> If truth is relative, is not freedom just as relative?
> 
> ...


 
In some respects, freedom is in the mind-a perception, a relative truth. In this way a prisoner in a cell might be no different than a monk in his cell-each "imprisoned," yet each one free, in their own way, or at least one of them free.




> I tell you, the more that the government becomes involved legislatively in an issue, the less freedom we as a people have. Though the benefits may be seen as just, we still lose a bit of freedom with each new law.


 
Well, that's very......_Republican_ of you-or something. :lol: I'm not so sure that it's always true, though you may have many examples. 

I know a gay couple who were together for more than 30 years without the benefits of marriage. When one of them took ill, they took the radical step of having his 70 year old mother adopt his partner as her "son," just so the doctors would consult with him-just so he could come and go and sit at the side of his loved one while he died. Not to extend benefits. Not to divide property. _So he could sit there with him while he died._ IF that's the kind of injustice that our government wasn't meant to undo, _then I don't want to live in your "America,"_-in fact, I *refuse[/i] to. And if that's the kind of law that "already exists outside of marriage" then I don't want to live in your "America,"-in fact, I refuse to. In point of fact, ths SUpreme Court-since you brought them is an arbiters of "freedom"-as opposed to "freedom of thought," as I originally posted-in any case, the Supreme Court long ago ruled that "separate is NOT equal," and since we have a government recognized and supported legal contract called "marriage," already, it's only fair to extend it equally to those of the age of consent who wish to enter into it, whether they are of opposite gender or not.

....but you can think whatever you want. :lol:*


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 26, 2008)

i think if your gay friends had been smart, and gotten a power of Atty, and a signed medical directive, they wouldnt have had a problem.

the courts cant make up for a lack of foresight, nor should they


----------



## elder999 (Aug 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> i think if your gay friends had been smart, and gotten a power of Atty, and a signed medical directive, they wouldnt have had a problem.
> 
> the courts cant make up for a lack of foresight, nor should they


 
And, in fact, Michael is an attorney, they had signed medical directives, and the hospital and medical staff refused to recognize them. Sad fact is, if a doctor is treating someone and doesn't want to allow someone else to see them or have a say in their treatment, or doesn't want to talk to them about their patient's condition, thehy not only don't have to, but in some cases are right in saying that they can't-even if the patient is imploring them to, medical directive and power of attorney be damned. Something that _courts_ could have made up for, but by the time they did, his partner would have been dead-of course, the fact that adoption was an easier route through the courts, and actually made their partnership some kind of sick incest joke, is...ironic at best.....

...oh, and they're not my "gay friends"-they're just my friends....I have quite a few "gay friends," maybe even one or two I don't know about.....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 26, 2008)

elder999 said:


> In some respects, freedom is in the mind-a perception, a relative truth. In this way a prisoner in a cell might be no different than a monk in his cell-each "imprisoned," yet each one free, in their own way, or at least one of them free.
> 
> Well, that's very......_Republican_ of you-or something. :lol: I'm not so sure that it's always true, though you may have many examples.
> 
> ...


*


I would actually call it libertarian (notice the little L).  Not Republican.

The reason I bring up the government, rather than staying in the realm of thought for this discussion is because you translated those thoughts into a form of action.




If people say they believe in freedom, why do so many of them spend so much time trying to control others? 

I dont understand this. Why cant people, at the very least, just leave others alone?

Click to expand...




My answer to you is because most people have a limit on that which they believe the group can have in order for them to coexist.  You can argue what those lines maybe, fair enough.  Again, though, what you believe the extent of that freedom to be may be much further then what they believe.

Again, why is your position any more right then others?

And, if we look merely at the idea of freedom of thought, why would you have other not believe that gay marriage is wrong.  Are you not, in fact, stifling their freedom of thought?*


----------



## elder999 (Aug 26, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> IAnd, if we look merely at the idea of freedom of _thought_, why would you have other not believe that gay marriage is wrong. Are you not, in fact, stifling their freedom of thought?


 

Nope-they can _think_ it all they want. I thought I made the difference pretty clear with the example of my marriage-while it was not so long ago that it was illegal in some states for my wife and I to be married, it no longer is illegal,because the government(s) recognized the fundamental injustice of such laws. That doesn't mean, nor do I think, that people don't have the right to think that way-it's just not the law. The same could be said for gay marriage-while people may have their feeling about it, and even express them as they choose, they can't (and to my mind shouldn't) try to legislate away the legal intimate and civil behavior of others....if they don't believe in gay marriage, in other words, they should engage in marriage with the opposite gender only.

Something else you said struck me as ironic, 5-0:



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I tell you, the more that the government becomes involved legislatively in an issue, the less freedom we as a people have.


 
 Today, Aug. 26, is the 88th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which, as you know, gave women the right to vote in this country. Has that legislation  given us more freedom, or less? What about, then, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments? The Voter Rights Act?



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Again, why is your position any more right then others?



Where have I said I was _right_? Or even taken a "position?" I will say that my position *is* my position, nothing more or less-that, at least, makes far more sense than the basis for some positions against gay marriage....


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 26, 2008)

elder999 said:


> And, in fact, Michael is an attorney, they had signed medical directives, and the hospital and medical staff refused to recognize them.



Thats actionable.



elder999 said:


> ...oh, and they're not my "gay friends"-they're just my friends....I have quite a few "gay friends," maybe even one or two I don't know about.....



you have mentioned quite a few friends in this ..............thread. I was just trying to be specific so as to avoid confusion.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 26, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I will say that my position *is* my position, nothing more or less-that, at least, makes far more sense than the basis for some positions against gay marriage....



to YOU

but since you are not to final word on anything for anyone other than yourself, that statements doesnt really mean anything.

mind you, i am on the same side as you are when it comes to this issue, but lets not confuse the matter by speaking of opinion as if it were fact


----------



## elder999 (Aug 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Thats actionable.
> 
> 
> 
> you have mentioned quite a few friends in this ..............thread. I was just trying to be specific so as to avoid confusion.


 
Actually, in addition to Michael and his partner, I've mentioned my wife, and I mentioned another couple in the original post-hardly too many friends you to sort out.

And, yes, it probably was actionable, or at least, seems to have been-hardly a consolation when your life-partner is on their deathbed, don't you think?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> to YOU
> 
> but since you are not to final word on anything for anyone other than yourself, that statements doesnt really mean anything.
> 
> mind you, i am on the same side as you are when it comes to this issue, but lets not confuse the matter by speaking of opinion as if it were fact



Didn't say it was a *fact*, I said it was *my* _truth_.

"Opinion" is another matter altogether-it's my "opinion" that Legende de Milagro Anejo is a much finer tequila than Patron Anejo, especially considering the cost, but try convincing Bill Richardson of that.....:lol:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 27, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Nope-they can _think_ it all they want. I thought I made the difference pretty clear with the example of my marriage-while it was not so long ago that it was illegal in some states for my wife and I to be married, it no longer is illegal,because the government(s) recognized the fundamental injustice of such laws. That doesn't mean, nor do I think, that people don't have the right to think that way-it's just not the law. The same could be said for gay marriage-while people may have their feeling about it, and even express them as they choose, they can't (and to my mind shouldn't) try to legislate away the legal intimate and civil behavior of others....if they don't believe in gay marriage, in other words, they should engage in marriage with the opposite gender only.


 
As you said, you used the gay marriage issue as an example.  Lets use another one regarding freedom.

I own a piece of property in what the government chooses to call a residential district.  I want to convert that property into a business.  But according to the law, I cannot.  Isnt the government infringing on my right to conduct my property as I see fit?

Is that ok in your book?




> Something else you said struck me as ironic, 5-0:
> 
> Today, Aug. 26, is the 88th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which, as you know, gave women the right to vote in this country. Has that legislation given us more freedom, or less? What about, then, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments? The Voter Rights Act?


 
Fair enough.  I was referring to the more mundane legislation enacted by legislative bodies. 



> Where have I said I was _right_? Or even taken a "position?" I will say that my position *is* my position, nothing more or less-that, at least, makes far more sense than the basis for some positions against gay marriage....


 
You took the position that gay marriage should be legal.  Are you saying now that you are not saying that very thing?  And why would you be making that argument if you didnt believe that you were right?

We put limits on peoples behavior so that we as a society can get along.  We can certainly argue about what those limits should be. 

Understand, I am not disagreeing with you as to whether gay marriage should be legal or not.  I am saying that if you allow the government to become involved in marriage at all, then dont think them banning certain types of marriage are unreasonable.  

Would you argue that consenting brother and sister should be allowed to marry?  Or perhaps widowed mother and son?  That is your point after all, that two consenting adults should be able to get married?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 27, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> As you said, you used the gay marriage issue as an example. Lets use another one regarding freedom.
> 
> I own a piece of property in what the government chooses to call a residential district. I want to convert that property into a business. But according to the law, I cannot. Isnt the government infringing on my right to conduct my property as I see fit?
> 
> Is that ok in your book?


 
Yes-it's okay. Of course, it depends upon whether it was zoned before or after you bought it. If -as is most likely-it were zoned before you bought it, then you entered into a contract knowing it was designated for residential use only. If it happened afterward, there would almost certainly be an appeals process available to you, and, in either case, there are procedures in most communities for obtaining variances to zoning. While the government "chooses to call" it a residential district, the fact is that it was zoned by the community-don't forget, in our society, _we're_ the government.

Or, at least we're supposed to be. 

 . 


5-0 Kenpo said:


> You took the position that gay marriage should be legal. Are you saying now that you are not saying that very thing? And why would you be making that argument if you didnt believe that you were right?


 
Don't think or know that I am right-only know what I think is right-get it?

No, I'm not saying (here) that gay marriage "should be legal," though I have taken that position in other posts, and will take it again. I'm saying :



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> Why can&#8217;t people, at the very least, just leave others alone? Who among us doesn&#8217;t have enough of his/her own issues to resolve without trying to take care of everybody else&#8217;s business? If you believe in the literalness of the Bible, and you wish to live your life according to that literalness, why can&#8217;t that be enough? Why must you legislate the rest of us along with you? Why is it so crucial that I behave as you think I ought?


 


5-0 Kenpo said:


> We put limits on peoples behavior so that we as a society can get along. We can certainly argue about what those limits should be.


 
The limit should be that which promotes the public welfare-not what consenting adults choose to do with their lives. If two guys wanna get married, how does that affect me, my marriage, or even, ultimately, children? The only thing it potentially affects is tax revenue...on the other hand, if you get your sexual jollies from raping and killing, well, there's no consent, and there's murder-there are laws against that within the limit of promoting the public welfare. 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Agreed-"gay consenting adults" is *not* a reasonable limit any longer, any more than people of different races is, to my mind.
> There-*now* I've said it. On the other hand, if it is going to be a "reasonable limit," there has to be a _reason_ for it. "Because it upsets the little baby Jesus, so it upsets me" *isn't* a valid reason, to my mind, in our society or form of government. It's plenty of reason to not personally approve, as I pointed out in my original post, but it's no reason at all to try to control what others do.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 27, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Yes-it's okay. Of course, it depends upon whether it was zoned before or after you bought it. If -as is most likely-it were zoned before you bought it, then you entered into a contract knowing it was designated for residential use only. If it happened afterward, there would almost certainly be an appeals process available to you, and, in either case, there are procedures in most communities for obtaining variances to zoning. While the government "chooses to call" it a residential district, the fact is that it was zoned by the community-don't forget, in our society, _we're_ the government.
> 
> Or, at least we're supposed to be.


 
I wouldn't say that I entered into a contract with the government.  But your last line really expresses my feeling on the subject.  But that is for another discussion.. 




> Don't think or know that I am right-only know what I think is right-get it?
> 
> No, I'm not saying (here) that gay marriage "should be legal," though I have taken that position in other posts, and will take it again. I'm saying :
> 
> The limit should be that which promotes the public welfare-not what consenting adults choose to do with their lives. If two guys wanna get married, how does that affect me, my marriage, or even, ultimately, children? The only thing it potentially affects is tax revenue...on the other hand, if you get your sexual jollies from raping and killing, well, there's no consent, and there's murder-there are laws against that within the limit of promoting the public welfare.


 
Here is where we will disagree on the function of government, though I understand your point.  I believe that the function of government is to not hinder the public welfare, not to promote it.  In doing so, we have given them the power to set reasonable (though our government has gone way beyond what is reasonable, IMO) limits on individual freedoms. 




> Agreed-"gay consenting adults" is *not* a reasonable limit any longer, any more than people of different races is, to my mind.
> There-*now* I've said it. On the other hand, if it is going to be a "reasonable limit," there has to be a _reason_ for it. "Because it upsets the little baby Jesus, so it upsets me" *isn't* a valid reason, to my mind, in our society or form of government. It's plenty of reason to not personally approve, as I pointed out in my original post, but it's no reason at all to try to control what others do.


 
Though I may agree with you, can't you see how each person's opinions maybe just as valid a means of defining what should be legal as is yours.  The key phrase that you state was *to my mind*.



> Yeah, sure. Let them get whatever they can out of it. It's not my business, it's not my problem, and, according to the latest data, it isn't usually biologically reckless-at least in the case of a biological brother and sister. I certainly wouldn't do it, but if someone wanted to, I certainly wouldn't keep them from it. Hell, buy 'em a blender and get over it already, huh? :lol:


 
Not sure if you are being somewhat facicious here or not.  If you are being serious, then you are one of the first people here, to me anyway, to be logically consistent in their arguments though to their reasonable extensions.  That is what I was trying to get to in the first place.

And for that, I applaud you.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 27, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not sure if you are being somewhat facicious here or not. If you are being serious, then you are one of the first people here, to me anyway, to be logically consistent in their arguments though to their reasonable extensions. That is what I was trying to get to in the first place.
> 
> And for that, I applaud you.


 

Not being facetious at all-what business is it of mine? For all I know, one or even three married couples of my accquaintance are related in just such a manner.....not saying that I like it or condone it, or have to. Just that it's none of my business.....

...thanks, though.


----------

