Freedom of Thought...

[5-0 Kenpo]

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 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:

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?

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]

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:

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?

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]

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

Thats actionable.

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

.

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 :

Why can’t people, at the very least, just leave others alone? Who among us doesn’t have enough of his/her own issues to resolve without trying to take care of everybody else’s business? If you believe in the literalness of the Bible, and you wish to live your life according to that literalness, why can’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?

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.

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.

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?

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:

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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]

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.