Teacher suspended for comments on Facebook

232 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I think that must vary by state. Here I think only ordained ministers, GP, a judge and maybe someone I am forgetting can marry someone.

We got a friend ordained over the web and our marriage is completely legal.

My husband and I have been married for almost 10 years, and together for about 13. We have two children.

My father and his husband (since they were married in Canada, where we are from originally) have been together for 38 years and have two children. Yet in NY, where they live, their marriage is not recognized. (They are getting married in October on their anniversary, now that it is legal.)

Why is theirs less valid than ours? What about it is different in any way other than the fact that they are both men? How can anyone justify it? My husband and I did not get married "in the eyes of God", we didn't have anyone religious perform the ceremony.

It doesn't make sense. Also the states deciding on their own makes no sense to me at all. If I get married in China and move here, I am married. If my Dad gets married in Massachusetts and moves to Florida, he's not married. HUH?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So why tie it to marriage? Why shouldn't it be a legal contract between any two people?

How is a legal marriage different in your mind between a contract between any two people (except that as it stands now, gay people can't do it.)

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You just posted the law. If you don't get a marriage license you have to register a "common law" marriage. What's the difference you still have to fill out some kind of form and the state still requires you to register the marriage in some way. You may not HAVE to do it but it is the law that to be recognized as a marriage you have to follow these steps. Whether I like it or not at this time legal processes ARE tied to marriage, and I wouldn't have been able to take on the responsibilities I need to for my step-children if I was not legally their mother.

How are you legally their mother? Is there more to it than just being married to their father?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

How is a legal marriage different in your mind between a contract between any two people (except that as it stands now, gay people can't do it.)

The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

So if they changed it legally, which is already being done in some states, you would no longer have an issue with gay marriage?

Are you fine with it in NY and Massachusetts?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

How are you legally their mother? Is there more to it than just being married to their father?

Nope. Thats it. To actually be legally their mother I would have to adopt them and that costs money for all the fee's and stuff. But since their mother is deceased if something happened to their Dad custody would pretty much go to me as their step-mother, especially since there is no one else that would want to take them.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

So if they changed it legally, which is already being done in some states, you would no longer have an issue with gay marriage?

Are you fine with it in NY and Massachusetts?

I wouldn't say I am fine with it, but I would follow the law. I would still object to it being called a marriage, which it isn't. I'm just glad I live in TX because I don't think it will happen here anytime soon.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I wouldn't say I am fine with it, but I would follow the law. I would still object to it being called a marriage, which it isn't. I'm just glad I live in TX because I don't think it will happen here anytime soon.

This is so strange to me. How do you think that your life will change when it does become the law?

ETA: I think this is interesting! Check out how Merriam Webster now defines marriage. Gloria, are you okay with it now? Biggrin

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage


Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3
: an intimate or close union

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

This is so strange to me. How do you think that your life will change when it does become the law?

ETA: I think this is interesting! Check out how Merriam Webster now defines marriage. Gloria, are you okay with it now? Biggrin

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Of course! That changes everything since Websters is now politically correct! In fact just let me put away my Bible and use Websters for all my important life decisions.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Of course! That changes everything since Websters is now politically correct! In fact just let me put away my Bible and use Websters for all my important life decisions.

But homosexuals marrying is not YOUR important life decision.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

But homosexuals marrying is not YOUR important life decision.

No. But it is my life decision to try to keep this country on the right track as much as it is in my power and speak up and vote against things that I feel are wrong for society. Such as changing the definition of marriage and the murder of unborn children. This country was founded by people with Christian values and we wouldn't be where we are today without those values.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No. But it is my life decision to try to keep this country on the right track as much as it is in my power and speak up and vote against things that I feel are wrong for society. Such as changing the definition of marriage and the murder of unborn children. This country was founded by people with Christian values and we wouldn't be where we are today without those values.

While I think that you do have a right to voice your opinions and religious beliefs, it is not up to turn everyone in the US to be like you or to believe in the same things as you. You shouldn't get to 'vote' on another persons life, talk about passing "judgement".

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

I am completely baffled by your response, Gloria. I really don't know how to say what I want to say, and you have always been so firm in your beliefs, that anything I would say probably wouldn't change your mind. You are obviously entitled to think the way you do, but I will admit that I completely judge that line of thinking, as well.

LiveFreeOrDie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 09/15/05
Posts: 115

I haven't read all the responses, but I say "Love the homophobe, hate the homophobia". This dude should be fired just for being an dumbass.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No. But it is my life decision to try to keep this country on the right track as much as it is in my power and speak up and vote against things that I feel are wrong for society. Such as changing the definition of marriage and the murder of unborn children. This country was founded by people with Christian values and we wouldn't be where we are today without those values.

And where exactly "are we today"?

You are divorced and re married. Your child (teen?) has a kid out of wedlock (I think, if I am wrong I apologize). Yet "they" (not you) are "wrong for society".? Wild.

My life decision is to worry about myself. I am glad that (thusfar) my "life decision" has steered me clear of many of the things that your bible says are morally repugnant.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I wouldn't say I am fine with it, but I would follow the law. I would still object to it being called a marriage, which it isn't. I'm just glad I live in TX because I don't think it will happen here anytime soon.

How are you following the law? That's the thing -- it doesn't actually affect you. It ONLY affects gay people who want to be married, for all the same reasons you want to be married to your husband.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No. But it is my life decision to try to keep this country on the right track as much as it is in my power and speak up and vote against things that I feel are wrong for society. Such as changing the definition of marriage and the murder of unborn children. This country was founded by people with Christian values and we wouldn't be where we are today without those values.

I don't know where we would be without values like personal liberty and equality. I actually think that trying enforce your religious beliefs on other people who may have differing beliefs is pretty unpatriotic. It's not what Thomas Jefferson would do. Wink

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virg_bil.htm

[LEFT]

The following text is a draft written by Thomas Jefferson in 1777. It promoted religious freedom for the state of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison promoted the bill for years before it was finally passed by the Virginia legislature. At the time, the Anglican Church was officially recognized as the state religion. The law disestablished that denomination. An alternative proposal that many other denominations be recognized was rejected.

This bill is often called "the precursor to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution. 1 It is this Amendment that guarantees religious freedom for the individual, while erecting a wall of separation between church and government.

[/LEFT]


[LEFT]

[/LEFT]

A BILL FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
[LEFT]SECTION I. Well aware that[/LEFT]

[LEFT]the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; [/LEFT]

[LEFT]that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; [/LEFT]

[LEFT]that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone;[/LEFT]

[LEFT]that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men,
have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own
opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as
such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and
maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and
through all time: [/LEFT]

[LEFT]That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours
for the instruction of mankind; [/LEFT]

[LEFT]that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; [/LEFT]

[LEFT]that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude
his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a
dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because
he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule
of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; [/LEFT]

[LEFT]that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, [/LEFT]

[LEFT]that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.[/LEFT]


[LEFT]SECT. II. WE, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[/LEFT]


[LEFT]SECT. III. AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right. [/LEFT]


[LEFT]

TJ was tha shiznit.[/LEFT]

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't know where we would be without values like personal liberty and equality. I actually think that trying enforce your religious beliefs on other people who may have differing beliefs is pretty unpatriotic. It's not what Thomas Jefferson would do. Wink

Moral values are enforced in the majority of the laws we have on the books. You just have a different line than I do. Why do we not allow babies to be killed after birth yet they can kill them almost up to the time they are born? Why did a man just get sentenced to life in prison for marrying underage girls? He saw nothing wrong with it yet society has put him in jail for it.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Moral values are enforced in the majority of the laws we have on the books. You just have a different line than I do. Why do we not allow babies to be killed after birth yet they can kill them almost up to the time they are born? Why did a man just get sentenced to life in prison for marrying underage girls? He saw nothing wrong with it yet society has put him in jail for it.

The "moral values" that you are talking about typically have more to do with not violating other people's rights. It's not immoral and against the law to steal because the Bible says so (there are lots of cultures that don't read the Bible that still think that stealing is immoral.) It is immoral to steal and against the law to steal because you are actively depriving someone else of their stuff. It's immoral and against the law to kill people because you are actively depriving them of their lives. It's immoral and against the law to marry (and presumably bed) underage girls because that is sexual abuse against minors. As a society, we generally agree that you're not allowed to do things that hurt other people. That's not enforcing our religions on people, that is enforcing the idea that your fist ends where my face starts.

Homosexual marriage is like the very definition of a victimless crime. I'm typically against victimless crimes. You?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

And where exactly "are we today"?

You are divorced and re married. Your child (teen?) has a kid out of wedlock (I think, if I am wrong I apologize). Yet "they" (not you) are "wrong for society".? Wild.

My life decision is to worry about myself. I am glad that (thusfar) my "life decision" has steered me clear of many of the things that your bible says are morally repugnant.

You are wrong, my 23 year old son has a baby with his wife and they were married when she was conceived, even though it wasn't planned. They were both responsible adults and in the Air Force.

I am divorced because my husband cheated on me and then decided he wanted to leave his family for another woman. I'm not sure how that is my fault. So tell me what I should have done... not remarried even though that is the only valid reason given in the Bible for divorce?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You are wrong, my 23 year old son has a baby with his wife and they were married when she was conceived, even though it wasn't planned. They were both responsible adults and in the Air Force.

I am divorced because my husband cheated on me and then decided he wanted to leave his family for another woman. I'm not sure how that is my fault. So tell me what I should have done... not remarried even though that is the only valid reason given in the Bible for divorce?

I think that you should have done the best thing for your life and family in accordance with your beliefs.

Wouldn't it be maddening if someone else was able to stop you from getting remarried because they personally don't believe in second marriages?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

The "moral values" that you are talking about typically have more to do with not violating other people's rights. It's not immoral and against the law to steal because the Bible says so (there are lots of cultures that don't read the Bible that still think that stealing is immoral.) It is immoral to steal and against the law to steal because you are actively depriving someone else of their stuff. It's immoral and against the law to kill people because you are actively depriving them of their lives. It's immoral and against the law to marry (and presumably bed) underage girls because that is sexual abuse against minors. As a society, we generally agree that you're not allowed to do things that hurt other people. That's not enforcing our religions on people, that is enforcing the idea that your fist ends where my face starts.

Homosexual marriage is like the very definition of a victimless crime. I'm typically against victimless crimes. You?

Again....we are still making those decisions for others. Why do we get to decide what is a minor? 14 and 15 year olds have been getting married and having babies for centuries, but now we are enforcing our morals by saying they are minors. Those girls weren't complaining in fact they were very upset when taken away from their families. Why is that not a victimless crime? That is still enforcing our moral values on others who don't have the same values and just because the line you want to enforce is different than the line I want to enforce it is still the same thing.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I think that you should have done the best thing for your life and family in accordance with your beliefs.

Wouldn't it be maddening if someone else was able to stop you from getting remarried because they personally don't believe in second marriages?

Yes. Gloria, I apologize, I had the story wrong Smile But what Alissa is saying here is my point. Life is messy, life is hard. Many people have the legal choice to do things that are morally repugnant to me (say, tricking a spouse into having a baby, or having kids they cant afford, or having affairs etc ). I understand that in the way that you choose to interpret the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. But as long as you aren't the one doing the sinning, why is it up to you to try to keep consenting adults from having the same rights you have?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Again....we are still making those decisions for others. Why do we get to decide what is a minor? 14 and 15 year olds have been getting married and having babies for centuries, but now we are enforcing our morals by saying they are minors. Those girls weren't complaining in fact they were very upset when taken away from their families. Why is that not a victimless crime? That is still enforcing our moral values on others who don't have the same values and just because the line you want to enforce is different than the line I want to enforce it is still the same thing.

LOL Gloria, I don't know how to answer the question about what makes someone a minor and why it has changed over the course of history without taking this debate completely off the rails in a new direction. That's a whole topic unto itself!

So I will leave it at this - it is not my religious or moral beliefs that cause me to call a 14 year old a minor. I believe that the age that we assign adulthood in our culture has more to do with what is currently expected of adults vs what readiness a 14 year old has to meet those expectations. That's more of a logistics thing than a moral thing. My morals come into it when it comes to how I feel about a grown man sleeping with a 14 year - I feel that it is hurting the 14 year old, and therefore I feel it is wrong. The 14 year old in this scenario is the victim, which is why it is not a victimless crime.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I think that you should have done the best thing for your life and family in accordance with your beliefs.

Wouldn't it be maddening if someone else was able to stop you from getting remarried because they personally don't believe in second marriages?

I would have done what was right according to God no matter what the state said. Just as many who are having gay ceremonies now are doing so even without a marriage license. Which is exactly the reason the state shouldn't be involved in the first place. But if they are going to stick their nose in anyway, I am going to fight for the definition of marriage to stay the same.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

LOL Gloria, I don't know how to answer the question about what makes someone a minor and why it has changed over the course of history without taking this debate completely off the rails in a new direction. That's a whole topic unto itself!

So I will leave it at this - it is not my religious or moral beliefs that cause me to call a 14 year old a minor. I believe that the age that we assign adulthood in our culture has more to do with what is currently expected of adults vs what readiness a 14 year old has to meet those expectations. That's more of a logistics thing than a moral thing. My morals come into it when it comes to how I feel about a grown man sleeping with a 14 year - I feel that it is hurting the 14 year old, and therefore I feel it is wrong. The 14 year old in this scenario is the victim, which is why it is not a victimless crime.

I was just using that as an example. You may not think it is a moral decision but I don't see how you can say otherwise. You think she is a victim, and I totally agree with you, but she might not see herself as a victim she may be totally happy in her life as it is. I can bet that those women who are in that situation would argue that you are making a moral decision about their life.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I would have done what was right according to God no matter what the state said. Just as many who are having gay ceremonies now are doing so even without a marriage license. Which is exactly the reason the state shouldn't be involved in the first place. But if they are going to stick their nose in anyway, I am going to fight for the definition of marriage to stay the same.

Just to make sure that I have your feelings on marriage correct, please tell me if this is right. Seriously, I am not trying to be snarky, I'm just having trouble understanding how all of the pieces fit together.

1. You think that the government should stay out of marriage.
2. Except to tell homosexuals that they can't do it.
3. But since the government won't stay out of marriage, you are happy to get legally married and reap all of the legal benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with your religious beliefs (like being able to cover your spouse on your insurance, or inherit your spouse's property should they die.)
4. But you don't think that homosexuals should be able to take advantage of those same legal benefits that have nothing to do with your religious beliefs.

Is that all correct, or do I have it wrong?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I was just using that as an example. You may not think it is a moral decision but I don't see how you can say otherwise. You think she is a victim, and I totally agree with you, but she might not see herself as a victim she may be totally happy in her life as it is. I can bet that those women who are in that situation would argue that you are making a moral decision about their life.

Do you feel there is any difference in making decisions about the lives of children and the lives of adults? Because I do - we make a lot of laws about children that we don't make about adults in order to protect them. I think it's actually really important to make a distinction between children and adults when we talk about autonomy. I think autonomy (when it doesn't harm someone else) is paramount for adults. Notsomuch for kids.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

Alissa has it all covered, man...

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Do you feel there is any difference in making decisions about the lives of children and the lives of adults? Because I do - we make a lot of laws about children that we don't make about adults in order to protect them. I think it's actually really important to make a distinction between children and adults when we talk about autonomy. I think autonomy (when it doesn't harm someone else) is paramount for adults. Notsomuch for kids.

But you are making moral judgements even to determine who is an adult and who is a child. We have somehow picked 18 as this magic number. The laws in our society were based in a large part on the ten commandments. Moral values and the laws in our country have always been intertwined, we can't all of a sudden pretend that they aren't.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Just to make sure that I have your feelings on marriage correct, please tell me if this is right. Seriously, I am not trying to be snarky, I'm just having trouble understanding how all of the pieces fit together.

1. You think that the government should stay out of marriage.
2. Except to tell homosexuals that they can't do it.
3. But since the government won't stay out of marriage, you are happy to get legally married and reap all of the legal benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with your religious beliefs (like being able to cover your spouse on your insurance, or inherit your spouse's property should they die.)
4. But you don't think that homosexuals should be able to take advantage of those same legal benefits that have nothing to do with your religious beliefs.

Is that all correct, or do I have it wrong?

1. I think government should get out of marriage and should have never gotten involved in the first place. You can't legislate a relationship.
2. A marriage is between a man and a woman so there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage. A homosexual has a right to get married now, which is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want to marry the opposite sex, don't get married.
3. Since government won't stay out of it, they at least shouldn't be able to change the definition of what a marriage is.
4. If homosexuals want to fight to change the laws to make it equal so that everyone has to sign a civil contract for these benefits to be assigned I am all for it, and I'm sure that most other people wouldn't have a problem with it either. But since I didn't have a part in making those laws it is not my fight so I am not sure why it is my fault that I have benefits they don't. If they don't like it they should be fighting to change those laws not to change the defnition of marriage.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

But you are making moral judgements even to determine who is an adult and who is a child. We have somehow picked 18 as this magic number. The laws in our society were based in a large part on the ten commandments. Moral values and the laws in our country have always been intertwined, we can't all of a sudden pretend that they aren't.

Whoops! Forgot to answer this part.

I don't think that it's a "moral" judgement to say if someone is a child or not. It's not based on morals, it's based on whether the typical 14 year old (or whatever) is equipped to handle what we consider to be adult responsibilities in our society.

To the bolded:
[LIST=1]


  • [LIST=1]
  • You shall have no other gods before me. - Not a law
  • You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. - Not a law
  • You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. - Not a law
  • Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. - Not a law
  • Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. - Not a law
  • You shall not murder. - This is a law, but this sentiment is not really unique to Christianity. I would say that most people, no matter what their religion or lack there of, are against murder.
  • You shall not commit adultery. - Not a law

  • You shall not steal. - See #7
  • You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. - Not a law, unless you happen to be talking to the police or testifying in court. In which case, see #7 - most people believe that lying about people to get them in trouble (or keep them out of it when they are guilty) is wrong. You don't have to be a Christian to believe that.
  • You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” - Not a law
  • Again, I think that typically we make laws that are based more around not violating other people's rights, as opposed to making laws based on the 10 commandments.

    "GloriaInTX" wrote:

    4. If homosexuals want to fight to change the laws to make it equal so that everyone has to sign a civil contract for these benefits to be assigned I am all for it, and I'm sure that most other people wouldn't have a problem with it either. But since I didn't have a part in making those laws it is not my fight so I am not sure why it is my fault that I have benefits they don't. If they don't like it they should be fighting to change those laws not to change the defnition of marriage.

    This is exactly what they are fighting for. Exactly. They are fighting to change the laws to make it equal for everyone. I'm glad that you agree that they should have the same rights as everyone else. I don't know why you're so hung up on the phrase "change the definition of marriage" (change it for who, and how?) but I'm glad we can count on your support in getting homosexuals equal rights. Biggrin

    Offline
    Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
    Joined: 02/22/10
    Posts: 22

    But I don't think we can pretend that this country still functions well based on laws drafted over 200 years ago. Can you honestly tell me it does? And how?
    Sociological make up is not the same.
    Technology has added a whole new set of challenges and bonuses to life.
    I just...I don't know...it doesn't seem like the US, as changed as it is now, as technologically advanced as it is now...can still adequately function based on an unchanged, static document. If that makes any sense.
    It's almost like I hear that this country is "yours"...based on "your" Christian morals. Darned anyone else who is not the "same."
    Kind of reminds me of the hippo story I was reading to DS the other day.."We Won't Budge" I
    think. On a hot, hot day the hippos would not budge from the cool watering hole shutting out all the other animals...snakes, zebras, antelopes, etc....they just wouldn't share. Because they were bigger, stronger, more stubborn than all the other animals that had asked. Until the elephants came stampeding in and were finally the bigger stronger more stubborn animals above the hippos. Meh...I should stop there as Hans Christian is probably rolling right now Smile Though I don't know who actually wrote it Smile

    Offline
    Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
    Joined: 03/08/03
    Posts: 3348

    Gloria -- what if they changed so gay and straight couples had equal access to legal marriage, and religious marriage was the "separated" one. . .a religious marriage had nothing to do with any legal entitlements. Would that be fair and make sense? Then the religious people can have all their rules and keep them, and the government isn't getting involved in things that aren't their business.

    wlillie's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
    Joined: 09/17/07
    Posts: 1796

    Back to the original topic...Do you think that students in extra-curricular activities that have the same "code" should be treated the same way? Should a student be able to get kicked off the yearbook club or the volleyball team if they post things that could be construed as hateful?

    Alissa_Sal's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
    Joined: 06/29/06
    Posts: 6427

    "wlillie" wrote:

    Back to the original topic...Do you think that students in extra-curricular activities that have the same "code" should be treated the same way? Should a student be able to get kicked off the yearbook club or the volleyball team if they post things that could be construed as hateful?

    Depends. If a student is harassing another student, then yes, they should be subject to disciplinary measures including getting kicked off the volleyball team. If they use their extracurricular activity as a platform to post hateful messages (such as a student on the yearbook team that sneaks "God hates f@gs" into the yearbook) then yes, they should be subject to disciplinary measures including getting kicked out of the extracurricular. If they just post a general thing on FB (like what this teacher did) then no. He is the teacher - it is his job to create a safe respectful space for all of his students to learn in. The students don't quite have the same level of responsibility (although I definitely think that they should be respectful to each other.)

    wlillie's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
    Joined: 09/17/07
    Posts: 1796

    Yeah, I meant the same kind of situation.

    But I disagree; I think they are just as responsible (if they are old enough to have an account) because they represent the school to other students just as much as a teacher does. If the class president wrote the exact same thing, then the school would investigate, but they probably wouldn't take away his/her position while they were doing it, right? It would be assumed that the kid would have left those views at home when performing his school duty and treating people fairly or that the other students would have complained, right? If the head cheerleader said that fatties make her puke on her facebook, she wouldn't be put on probation, but I *guarantee* that it would be more harmful to her fellow students (whether fat or skinny or anything in between) than this remark about a teacher's feelings about gay marriage.

    Alissa_Sal's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
    Joined: 06/29/06
    Posts: 6427

    "wlillie" wrote:

    Yeah, I meant the same kind of situation.

    But I disagree; I think they are just as responsible (if they are old enough to have an account) because they represent the school to other students just as much as a teacher does. If the class president wrote the exact same thing, then the school would investigate, but they probably wouldn't take away his/her position while they were doing it, right? It would be assumed that the kid would have left those views at home when performing his school duty and treating people fairly or that the other students would have complained, right? If the head cheerleader said that fatties make her puke on her facebook, she wouldn't be put on probation, but I *guarantee* that it would be more harmful to her fellow students (whether fat or skinny or anything in between) than this remark about a teacher's feelings about gay marriage.

    I disagree. The teacher is the adult and the leader of the class. He (should) have more influence on the environment of the classroom than any individual student. He is the one that needs to be there to step in and find a solution if students in the class are being disrespected or threatened - that's why it's essential for the school to make sure that he is not going to be persuaded by his own biases to turn a blind eye or even aid in the bullying.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not excusing students that post damaging things - I just don't think that they have the same level of influence or accountability.

    GloriaInTX's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
    Joined: 07/29/08
    Posts: 4230

    "freddieflounder101" wrote:

    Gloria -- what if they changed so gay and straight couples had equal access to legal marriage, and religious marriage was the "separated" one. . .a religious marriage had nothing to do with any legal entitlements. Would that be fair and make sense? Then the religious people can have all their rules and keep them, and the government isn't getting involved in things that aren't their business.

    Thats fine. As long as they don't call it marriage I don't care what kind of legal partnership they create between 2 people. Though they might as well just make it any 2 adults at that point and take out the bigamy stuff because polygamists are next on the list and then father-daughter, siblings and any other combination will be on the bandwagon that their rights are being violated too. Once Pandora's box is opened it will be anything goes.

    wlillie's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 3 weeks 5 days ago
    Joined: 09/17/07
    Posts: 1796

    But bullying doesn't really happen in the classroom (or not where I went to school). It happens in the hallways, in the lunch area, and in the parking lot when teachers aren't around. To me, the head cheerleader (or nerdy b*tch :D) would have more affect on a bully than a teacher would. Most reported bullies were dealt with by the principal, it wasn't the teacher's job to step in and fix things, it was their job to stop it and immediately send the student's to someone else to deal with. Is that not normal?

    Alissa_Sal's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
    Joined: 06/29/06
    Posts: 6427

    "wlillie" wrote:

    But bullying doesn't really happen in the classroom (or not where I went to school). It happens in the hallways, in the lunch area, and in the parking lot when teachers aren't around. To me, the head cheerleader (or nerdy b*tch :D) would have more affect on a bully than a teacher would. Most reported bullies were dealt with by the principal, it wasn't the teacher's job to step in and fix things, it was their job to stop it and immediately send the student's to someone else to deal with. Is that not normal?

    I don't know what normal is either. LOL I know that in situations where DH has had people mistreating each other in his actual class, he steps in at the time to put an end to it, sends a referal to the dean's office if it warrants it, and also has worked with the parents/students and even the guidance counselors when it has been warranted. All of that is part of his job as a teacher. Again, he's the adult and the leader in his environment. That's why it's important that he's really doing these things when they are needed and not turning a blind eye or even engaging in the bullying.

    If a student was actually bullying someone in the hallway, I would hope that student would be disciplined. I also know that the teachers DO step in and put a stop to bullying in the hallways too. DH has had to do that as well, including breaking up a couple of fist fights. But a student bullying in someone in the hallway is different than a student posting a general message on FB.

    Offline
    Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
    Joined: 03/08/03
    Posts: 3348

    "GloriaInTX" wrote:

    Thats fine. As long as they don't call it marriage I don't care what kind of legal partnership they create between 2 people. Though they might as well just make it any 2 adults at that point and take out the bigamy stuff because polygamists are next on the list and then father-daughter, siblings and any other combination will be on the bandwagon that their rights are being violated too. Once Pandora's box is opened it will be anything goes.

    No, the legal one would definitely be called MARRIAGE. The same way mine is.

    I love the slippery slope album. That hasn't happened in places where gay marriage is legal.

    Alissa_Sal's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
    Joined: 06/29/06
    Posts: 6427

    "freddieflounder101" wrote:

    No, the legal one would definitely be called MARRIAGE. The same way mine is.

    I love the slippery slope album. That hasn't happened in places where gay marriage is legal.

    And the thing is, it doesn't even matter what word the government called it in the laws. The government could say "Okay, from now on, everyone (gay and straight) has a legal 'union'" to try to pacify people that have a real hang up on the word "marriage." It wouldn't matter. People would probably still say they were "married." The government can't control language. That's why your battle to preserve the definition of the word marriage will lose - people will use whichever word they want with or without the government's permission. There are gay people out there right now that were joined in a church or a ceremony but not legally (because they can't be) that call themselves married. What is anyone going to do about it? You can't do anything. So to fight giving people legal rights because you want to save a word is just silly to me, because people will choose their own language and there is just not a gosh darned thing you can do about it anyway.

    fuchsiasky's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
    Joined: 11/16/07
    Posts: 959

    "Alissa_Sal" wrote:

    And the thing is, it doesn't even matter what word the government called it in the laws. The government could say "Okay, from now on, everyone (gay and straight) has a legal 'union'" to try to pacify people that have a real hang up on the word "marriage." It wouldn't matter. People would probably still say they were "married." The government can't control language. That's why your battle to preserve the definition of the word marriage will lose - people will use whichever word they want with or without the government's permission. There are gay people out there right now that were joined in a church or a ceremony but not legally (because they can't be) that call themselves married. What is anyone going to do about it? You can't do anything. So to fight giving people legal rights because you want to save a word is just silly to me, because people will choose their own language and there is just not a gosh darned thing you can do about it anyway.

    Yes! I can say that I am in a common-law marriage, which I am according to the law, and call myself married. Even though I have never had a religious or civil ceremony. People can and will use the word marriage however they please whether it is law or not. This is why the fight over the word marriage is already lost. The word belongs to us all, not just to the religious. You can't claim a word for one group only.

    fuchsiasky's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
    Joined: 11/16/07
    Posts: 959

    "freddieflounder101" wrote:

    No, the legal one would definitely be called MARRIAGE. The same way mine is.

    I love the slippery slope album. That hasn't happened in places where gay marriage is legal.

    Nope it hasn't. Canada hasn't descended into debauchery because we legalized gay marriage. In fact almost nothing has changed. Yes, the polygamy debate is going through the courts but there is a very good chance it will be tossed out. And nowhere in those arguments has it been stated that polygamy should be legal because gay marriage is. We haven't lost our ability to choose what is right or wrong for our country. It has always been the same process and that hasn't changed.

    Alissa_Sal's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
    Joined: 06/29/06
    Posts: 6427

    "fuchsiasky" wrote:

    Yes! I can say that I am in a common-law marriage, which I am according to the law, and call myself married. Even though I have never had a religious or civil ceremony. People can and will use the word marriage however they please whether it is law or not.

    Yep. It's a losing battle. At the end of the day, people will define marriage in their own terms and consider themselves married on their own terms. The law has nothing to do with that, which is what makes the whole "preserving the word marriage" argument so surreal to me. Preserve it how? Preserve it where? Language is a living thing; you can't contain it to suit your political agenda.

    LiveFreeOrDie's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
    Joined: 09/15/05
    Posts: 115

    "GloriaInTX" wrote:

    Thats fine. As long as they don't call it marriage I don't care what kind of legal partnership they create between 2 people. Though they might as well just make it any 2 adults at that point and take out the bigamy stuff because polygamists are next on the list and then father-daughter, siblings and any other combination will be on the bandwagon that their rights are being violated too. Once Pandora's box is opened it will be anything goes.

    You mean like, in the Bible? We could throw in concubines, too. Wink

    AlyssaEimers's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
    Joined: 08/22/06
    Posts: 6803

    "wlillie" wrote:

    Yeah, I meant the same kind of situation.

    But I disagree; I think they are just as responsible (if they are old enough to have an account) because they represent the school to other students just as much as a teacher does. If the class president wrote the exact same thing, then the school would investigate, but they probably wouldn't take away his/her position while they were doing it, right? It would be assumed that the kid would have left those views at home when performing his school duty and treating people fairly or that the other students would have complained, right? If the head cheerleader said that fatties make her puke on her facebook, she wouldn't be put on probation, but I *guarantee* that it would be more harmful to her fellow students (whether fat or skinny or anything in between) than this remark about a teacher's feelings about gay marriage.

    Now this, I feel is 100% against the students rights. I guess I can understand saying a teacher is held to some other standard and can not say that he is upset by same sex marriage. But to say that a private student on his own time can not? Who is going to be the FB police? To say that no one can say or do anything offensive on FB. FB would surely change. So no one could use foul language? People do on FB all the time. So no one could post provocative pictures? People do all the time even though children have access to FB. There have been some very compelling arguments about same sex marriage on here and really at the end of the day it is not something I care so deeply about that I could not be swayed on way or the other, but I still believe that teacher has the right to express his opinion whether that opinion is right or not. And I surly believe that any given student has that right. Just because you (general you) disagree with them, they can get fired. Who does decide what is morally unexceptionable?

    Offline
    Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
    Joined: 02/22/10
    Posts: 22

    "AlyssaEimers" wrote:

    Who does decide what is morally unexceptionable?

    Can you honestly say though that this teacher's words were NOT hateful? Reading the actual comments he made on FB (IMO) he did not simply voice his objections to gay marriage. He voiced his hate toward the situation.

    What do you really think of his exact words?

    GloriaInTX's picture
    Offline
    Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
    Joined: 07/29/08
    Posts: 4230

    "fuchsiasky" wrote:

    Nope it hasn't. Canada hasn't descended into debauchery because we legalized gay marriage. In fact almost nothing has changed. Yes, the polygamy debate is going through the courts but there is a very good chance it will be tossed out. And nowhere in those arguments has it been stated that polygamy should be legal because gay marriage is. We haven't lost our ability to choose what is right or wrong for our country. It has always been the same process and that hasn't changed.

    Again your view of right or wrong is just different than mine. So you are still making judgements, I happen to think gay marriage is wrong... you draw the line at polygamy. I make my decisions based on what I feel is right for my country, and I hope Texas will hold the line for as long as possible.

    The process has already started to make polygamy more acceptable and legal, and whether they bring up gay marriage or not, the arguments will be the same.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/sister-wives-polygamist-plans-suit-challenge-polygamy-law/story?id=14051846

    Pages