This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, March 4, 2013

Should Elon Univ DISCRIMINATE against those who have different views?

 I am sure the irony is going right over the heads of those Elon University "study committee" members who are considering discriminating against Chick Fil A because they don't agree with Chick Fil A's founder who, members of the committee claim, may be "violating" the Elon non discrimination policy. How? Because he donated to causes that these liberals don't agree with. So, the group is now considering whether an appropriate response is to discriminate against Chick Fil A!

. Presumably, discrimination is ok if it is directed against those who don't support the liberal agenda.
As far as we know, Chick Fil A does not supply wedding cakes to anyone but might be required to do so as a condition of being allowed to remain on campus. (OK, I made up that last part - but the rest is true! I swear! Read for yourselves.)

 Let's all discriminate against those we disagree with! Especially those who may be discriminating against those whom THEY disagree with!~ Really, you can't make this stuff up!

115 comments:

NewGuy said...

I should point out that Elon is a PRIVATE liberal arts University and I support their right to do business with whoever they want to. Sort of like a baker who doesn't want to sell his cakes to someone.

Were it a PUBLIC school, I would have a different opinion.

guy faulkes said...

should point out that Elon is a PRIVATE liberal arts University and I support their right to do business with whoever they want to. Sort of like a baker who doesn't want to sell his cakes to someone.

Exactly!

Anonymous said...

Your both so wrong!!!!!! The right to do business with an entity is entirely different from the practice of discrimination regarding merchandise. Doing business with an entity is a private decision based on many factors. Providing a product on the open market (selling cakes) means just that - an open market. You cant simply say I don't like "----" so I will sell to all but "-----" because I don't like "---" for whatever reason. When it was revealed that the Tuna Industry had a negative impact on dolphins many people chose not to buy Tuna in order to support practices that protected dolphins - as was their right. Starkist could not turn around and offer their product on the open market and then refuse to sell their product to Jews only because of religious differences. If you don't see the differences I suggest some business classes. Although I don't agree with Elon as I believe Chik-Fila reversed the practice. They have every right to thoroughly vet their vendors prior to offering or renewing contractors. If Elon had announced the were removing a clothing line from the bookstore because it was proven the line violated child labor laws - would you be upset at all - probably not. Same difference. Now if the bookstore sells a great Tshirt but refused to sell that T-shirt to anyone how looked Chinese - that would be discrimination.

Anonymous said...

You cant make it up but you sure can accurately depict it. Choosing to enter into a contract with an entity has many variables that both parties have to consider. The very definition of discrimination is: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex, etc. Selling a product to the public and then choosing to intentional exclude a certain sect of that public for any reason is discrimination. Entering into a contract with proper vetting is standard procedure. In this case, the company could have just as easily been an apparel manufacturer who has been investigated and shown to use child labor. I wonder how many of you would then be upset at the announcement? Contract administration and discrimination are two different business dealings and you should know that.

guy faulkes said...

Anonyimos, HM

What does your example of a company using child labor have to do with religious beliefs of stockholders of the company.

Can you say apples and oranges?

NewGuy said...

Mike Adams on Elon v Chick-Fil-A

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2013/02/12/phoenix-uprising-n1509925

Happily Married said...

Sure I can say apples and oranges. I see you missed the point about the two different processes. Nevertheless, if a school or university has a strict policy of diversity and non - discrimination, contracting with an institution that invests in and supports religious and/or sexual preference discrimination violates that policy - and would not be acceptable. Discrimination would mean Elon would not enter a contract with ChikFila because of a religious belief only. Elon has a history of ChikFila on campus and its belief system has been known and accepted(such as being closed on Sunday for religious purposes). Now pay attention boys and girls because this is the important thing that keeps being ignored: ChikFila's belief system for itself was not an issue, only when it was discovered that ChikFila donated millions to actively pursue discrimination against the LGBT community, were they deemed in violation of Elon's non-discrimination policy. Once again for those that lack understanding: If Elon had voted to remove ChikFila just because of their beliefs - it would be discrimination. Elon removed Chikfila because they went beyond their beliefs to actively fund discrimination. That does not mean Elon dicriminated. They simply are upholding their policy of nondiscrimination (for any reason). Another finer point is that it is typically accepted that only individuals can be discriminate against on a personal basis. As a company is more than one individual and beliefs are never exactly the same - more than one person, by definition, cannot be discriminated against.
Elon University, as an institution of higher education, understands that the "separate but equal" approach to gay marriage is till discrimination as has been widely accepted for the black community.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Happily Married said...

I think it is important to repeat the point before. Having a belief system and living by that belief system for your personal life is great and that right should never be undermined. Imposing that belief system on others such that people are treated differently is discrimination and is intolerable. As it stands now, in NC, if you believe gay marriage is OK, it is illegal to live your life by that belief system and marry your same sex partner. "Separate but equal" as has been proven by the black community does not work. If you do not believe in gay marriage, even if gay marriage were legal, you can have a belief system and live your personal life by that belief system. Baking a cake is not a religious act and does not violate a personal belief system. Now who still does not understand this very basic concept?

NewGuy said...

Now who still does not understand this very basic concept?



uhhh.....you!

Happily Married said...

I have made a clear explanation and am listening as to how it is incorrect.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else amused by the incredibly fine splitting of hairs by HM? HM, you describe your opinion well -- we just do not accept it. You'll just have to let it go on this board. I wish you showed this much passion on some other issue. Let me explain one last time for you! We don't want to force others to live by our beliefs. Anyone can spend their lives with whoever and as many as they want. However, we are intelligent enough to see where this is going. Once gay marriage is legal, religious minded people will be forced to submit to the judgement of people like you. You seemingly have already claimed for yourself the right to determine what actions someone else is allowed to believe is a violation of their own conscious. Hidden in your posts is an underlying admission that, in some ways, religious people will be forced to accept gay marriage in their professions. This is where it is evident that you don't understand religious people -- one does't compatmentalize their beliefs for your convenience. If you are at all able to reread your own posts in a neutral fashion, reread your last post and see the condescending tone. Enough already! You've made the same point over and over and over, all the while demonstrating contempt for the other posters and showing almost no respect for sincerely held religious beliefs. We have not convinced you to budge one inch and you have not convinced us. If anything, you have solidified opposition, and I find it interesting that no one else has come to support you in this debate. There is nothing more to say here -- let the couts decide.

NewGuy said...

Oh...where to begin.

Perhaps with your point that " more than one person, by definition, cannot be discriminated against. "....which would seem to ignore the fact that history tells us that black people were restricted from voting, from riding in the front of the busses, from eating at lunch counters, etc..... Do you think that these policies were directed against individuals based on some sort of determination that the specific individual was somehow lacking? No, it was discrimination against the group. As was the policy of many hotels, golf courses etc that Jews were not allowed on their premises.

You have a fairly unique definition of discrimination....it is one way when you want to direct it against a company lick Chick fil a; quite another thing when it's directed against a group you support.

As a side note....gays are not prohibited from getting "married" in NC, there is no law that prohibits them from holding whatever ceremony they want to; or to call themselves "married"; or whatever else they want. What the constitutional amendment did is prevent the state of NC from 'recognizing' their arrangements as "marriage".

For as long as any of us can remember, "marriage" has been defined as between one man and one woman. Now we are asked to accept a different definition. If we do not do so we are accused of "discrimination" and of being "homovphobes".

Finally, you attempt to impose your own definition of "discrimination"....confusing all "discrimination" with the illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, age, etc....AS PROSCRIBED BY LAW. I asked you in a previous post what FEDERAL law it was that you though prohibited discrimination against gays. You didn't answer.

FYI...when I choose Pepsi over Coke..I am discriminating in favor of Pepsi. When I sell Christian books and not Wiccan books, I am discriminating again! When a men's store doesn't stock XXXL sizes, they are discriminating against big men. Nothing illegal about any of that.

My Ford dealer refuses to sell me a new Chevrolet. Should I sue him?



Happily Married said...

Anon: However, we are intelligent enough to see where this is going. Once gay marriage is legal, religious minded people will be forced to submit to the judgement of people like you.

You slippery slope argument does not hold water. In fact your approach is hypocritical of your own fear. Gay marriage believers can also be religious minded people and they are currently being forced to submit to judgement of people like you! I have asked the hypocrite question over and over and no one seems to want to tackle it. What about you? Wanna take a shot? If you were to say people have a right to believe in what they want and live their personal life by that belief then you are setting up the correct precedent of you being able to live your personal life by your own belief system. People will have to acknowledge that gay marriage exists in their professional lives so as not to be discriminatory - I have not hidden that view at all. I have distinguished between personal lives and professional lives in a very reasonable and pragmatic way. I have, in fact, budged quite a bit (so you are either lying or did not read my other posts) with the scenario of the wedding singer. It is very reasonable to suggest that participation in a gay marriage ceremony is personal and might violate a personal religious or free speech issue - baking a cake is entirely different especially since it is not even used in the religious ceremony! The baker was simply taking an ill advised opportunity to express his personal beliefs by discriminating against the lesbian couple. If its business - keep it business and don't discriminate just because you have deeply held religious beliefs. I notice how no one commented that many Arian Nation participants would hold that their hatred of blacks comprises a religious belief and therefore they should be allowed to discriminate - exact same thing. If your business is religion (as in a priest) - then you get to impose your religious convictions in the realm of business! I have given more than inch - have you? the courts will decide this issue and I am quite sure you will not be happy with the decision. If someone actually answers the question on hypocrisy (Sark nullifying the question doesn't count and simply restating reasons for traditional marriage does not answer the question) I will give it a rest.

Happily Married said...

New Guy,

It is very true that discrimination can occur against groups - but it is always on a personal level. If a group of black people is denied voting because they are black - every individual has been denied. That is the distinction from a company. Though not readily admitted, I am quite sure there are gay employees of ChikFila so the company, as a whole, cannot be discriminated against as anti-gay. That was what I meant. My definition of discrimination does not change from one instance to another - your are simply wrong on that count. The North Carolina Amendment specifically denies gays that are married the same benefits as as a man-woman relationship - the very definition of discrimination. No one is asking you to accept a different definition of marriage for you personally or for you to personally live your life by - period. What is being asked is that others definition of marriage be acknowledged so they are not treated differently - big difference! I did answer that federal law does not include sexual orientation under the definition of discrimination - many state laws do. That is also sure to change with a ruling from the SCOTUS. Your final comment on coke and pepsi is funny. Yes, it is technically a definition of discrimination - but a different context and entirely irrelevant. I have even acknowledged that the baker in question cannot or should not be forced to stock female-female cake toppers. The choice of wares to stock is always a business decision and has nothing to do with discrimination. Discrimination occurs when you have a product in stock and will sell it to one person, but not the other for discriminatory reasons. You see the difference yet?

Happily Married said...

Anon,

I was about to be reactive to the continued slings and arrows of superiority and condescension and blast them as unfair. "showing almost no respect for sincerely held religious beliefs." struck a chord as what I am have been fighting for IS the respect for deeply held religious beliefs - beliefs that all god's creatures deserve love and respect and equal treatment and gay marriage is OK. It occurs to me that I have been condescending and held a superiority view. Unfortunately the same is true of all here, just for different reasons. I strongly believe in your deeply held religious beliefs and your right and freedom to practice them personally. The fact is I can say that about anyone and everyone - including those with the belief that gays should have a right to get married before God AND those that believe marriage is between a man and a woman. So just like me not changing my definition of discrimination to suit my needs, I don't change my approach to personal beliefs systems because they might not agree with mine. I personally firmly believe in my man-woman marriage. My way provides for equal treatment of all belief systems. I think that is a superior approach to deal with the many different belief systems and diversified cultural entities we have in this melting pot of a country. All of the Anti gay marriage posters here are guilty of superiority in their own right. Not of approach - but of religious belief. You are so convinced that your belief system that marriage is between man and woman is superior to those who believe otherwise so much so that you are willing to force that belief system on everyone and disallow by majority vote, the right for others to personally practice their own belief systems. So I guess I need to own a superiority complex when it comes to my approach and everyone here needs to own a superiority complex regarding their beliefs. Your way means people are treated differently in the eyes of the law, they are discriminated against, and subject to hate more hate, bullying and violence. My way everyone gets to practice their own personal belief system and live their personal religious convictions. Your way is void of empathy. I apologize for my superiority complex around my approach. I wonder if you will for your superiority complex around your beliefs. In the grand scheme of things all of our beliefs hold equal importance. It is the approach to the different belief systems that counts.

NewGuy said...

I'm not sure on what basis you think the SCOTUS would overrule present law. Do you think that the "right" to define marriage your way is enshrined in the constitution.

(It may be....probably right there next to the right to abortion clause in the bill of rights).

Maybe if I called my motorcycle an airplane, I could teach it to fly...but I don't think so. Marriage has always had a particular definition. Now there are those that want to change that definition to mean something else. I understand that - I can even sympathize with some of their arguments - but no matter what you end up calling it, it isn't really a "marriage".

BTW...Thanks for picking up an ID...makes it much easier to follow your posts without having to sort yours out from the other "anonymous" posters. And, it makes for a better blog (IMO) when one knows who is behind a particular post. (at least as far as blog identity).

And, FWIW, I rarely agree with you but I am glad to see you posting here. A diversity of opinion is what keeps this blog ranked at the top of the local, non commercial, blogs.

Happily Married said...

New Guy - Thanks for the FWIW. I have hesitated to post in the past except under anon as my experience has been as soon as my name pops up any consideration of my ideas goes out the window. The name calling and personal jabs simply waste time and put people off (did I see something about me having a Hitler mustache?) Anyway, SCOTUS does not care about the definition of marriage. A gay marriage might not be a "real" marriage in your mind. It is a "real" marriage in other minds. What SCOTUS will be interested in is equal treatment under the fourteenth amendment. If a state does not offer any privilege, incentive, tax break, authority of estate, etc. to a married person, this becomes a non issue. If a state offers any of these it excludes a gay person from enjoying those rights and still allow them to marry the person they truly want to.
The SCOTUS has already set a strong precedent by declaring marriage could not be defined as exclusive of mixed race relationships. I don't think they will be as interested in defining what a marriage is as mandating that it must treat all equally.

NewGuy said...

My guess is that, if there is a case that gets to the court, the decision is likely to be that it is a matter for the legislature. The state recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Gays can (and have) marry (married) opposite sex partners just as straights can. And, the state would recognize that marriage - the same deal I have!

I do believe however, that our culture is changing. Over time, as we older generation voters die off and are replaced with a new generation of voters, I don't doubt that they will revisit the NC Amendment.

Marriage today, (unfortunately) is not the institution it once was. With nearly half of all children born in recent years, are born to unmarried women. I don't see this number improving any as these children grow up mostly without the benefit of a stable, 2 parent family they are probably going to perpetuate the trend.

Besides, you don't need real fathers in the home anymore. The government will provide!

Happily Married said...

New Guy - Gays can (and have) marry (married) opposite sex partners just as straights can. And, the state would recognize that marriage - the same deal I have!
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately they are fake marriages and often result in unhappiness. It also continues the cycle of hiding homosexuality, hate, bullying and violence.

I agree with you that marriage is not what it used to be and a family unit is important to the social fabric and needs to be encouraged in whatever way possible. I also believe (through my personal experience and extensive published research)that a gay marriage can provide for an excellent family unit through alternate methods (adoption, fertilization, etc.) Why would we, as a society, want to limit the opportunities for a family unit? Begs the question: Is a gay marriage family unit with two parents better than a single mother situation in terms of social fabric strength?

NewGuy said...

"You are absolutely right. Unfortunately they are fake marriages and often result in unhappiness.

Can't argue with that. Hell, my own marriage often results in unhappiness! Especially when we support different candidates!

Nobody said...

I agree -- marriage can be an unhappy situation -- just ask my wife :) Thing is, you stick with it, especially if kids are involved. Too many people go into marriage selfishly, and when they're not happy all the time, they leave, because their motivations were wrong in the first place. As a society, we've devalued real marriage, which is based on commitment and a real sense of responsibility to spouse and children. I realized on the birth of my first child that from now on, I come second. I've not always lived up to my own expectations, but that's what I've tried to do. And the funny thing is that I find I'm growing happier with my spouse and children as time goes by -- people who leave don't get to experience this. Happiness CAN be found in contentment where we are, if we look for it. Thing is, as we continue to redefine what marriage is, everyone in our society sees less reason to stay loyal to their own marriage for "old fashioned" reasons. Old fashioned morals are just that, and we're paying a real price.

Anonymous said...

I JUST HEARD A NUMBER THAT 71% OF CHILDREN BORN TO UNMARRIED MOTHERS, DO NOT FINISH HIGH SCHOOL.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS TRUE BUT IF IT IS IT ISNT GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY SINCE THE NUMBER OF THESE CHILDREN IS INCREASING.

guy faulkes said...

Marriage requires commitment and self discipline by both partners. As these seem to be virtues that are less relevant all the time, it is no wonder the sanctity of marriage is fading.

Epiphany! Do you suppose the decline of these attributes could have been caused by our gimme, gimme, entitlement society, thus effecting even marriage?

I am not talking about those that breed to increase their entitlements, but the public at large.

Nobody said...

Guy,
I have long believed that, to truly be a fiscal conservative, one should be a social conservative, since so much of the social spending carried out by government results from the disintegration of personal responsibility. In 1960, less than 5% of caucasian and less than 20% of African-American babies were born out of wedlock. The numbers are now 30% and 73%. We spend about $330 billion a year on single parent household assistance. Poverty rate in single parent households is over 30%, while in married households - 4%. Of course, we can't talk about this -- we're being judgmental. Remember the reaction to Romney when he talked about the importance of two-parent households in the debate? People thought he was attacking them! To be a single parent is liberating and independent -- a lifestyle choice! Who are we to criticize?

NewGuy said...

I am in total agreement with Nobody.
One can't be a "social liberal" and a "fiscal conservative". If you are going to be socially liberal, you have to pay for it - and that means taxing the productive and redistributing the wealth!

When you subsidize something, you will get more of it. That's why we give tax breaks for mortgage interest...it stimulates home ownership. Similarly, when you penalize something (tax it), you get less of it. We try to discourage certain behaviors by placing higher taxes on that behaviour - such as cigarette taxes.

Now here we are putting higher costs on employers who might hire someone while at the same time subsidizing those individuals who are capable of working but choose not to.

Happily Married said...

The conversation has quickly gone away from gay marriage to the benefits of family. I notice in the last several posts the emphasis on marriage and family. I happen to agree with most of the last few posts and am a big supporter of family values. My question is if marriage is falling by the wayside why would you want it to be exclusive rather than more inclusive (by allowing gays to marry)? Inst a loving and nurturing gay marriage better for raising a family than a single poor mother? To blatantly copy: When you subsidize something, you will get more of it. That's why we give tax breaks for mortgage interest...it stimulates home ownership. Similarly, when you penalize something (tax it), you get less of it.
If you subsidize marriage by allowing gay marriage - don't you get more of it. Similarly, if you penalize something (forbid gay marriage) dont you get less of it?
BTW I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative - you can have it both ways IMHO.

Nobody said...

Because as you redefine what a traditional marriage is, you undermine it. Marriage has been under assault by liberals since the sexual revolution of the 1960's. As a result, divorce rates have exploded along with single-parent households. If you view marriage as a binding institution where the primary focus is the family unit and children, people work harder at it and stay with it. If you see marriage as nothing more than seeking personal happiness or a crusade for equal rights (primarily self-centered motivations), then you undermine the proper motivations for marriage and their less likely to last. Speaking of divorce, with your logic HM, multiple partner marriages should also be legal -- I can't wait to see the backlogged court system when a single member of a polygamist marriage wants a divorce. How do you divide that property/marriage? Won't this be fun?!?

Happily Married said...

Nobody - "If you view marriage as a binding institution where the primary focus is the family unit and children, people work harder at it and stay with it." I find nothing in this statement to exclude gay marriages. While a small number of people want a gay marriage to make a statement (kind of like the baker) - the majority are fighting for the right to marry because they really want to be married. This will make it easier for adoption, make their union more accepted, make a better family situation and they are much more likely to succeed. As stated, I am a big proponent of family. I also find it difficult to accept blaming the divorce rate on liberals. I can name quite a few bastions of conservatism with multiple marriages (right Newt?)

guy faulkes said...

HM, for the upteenth time, gay marriage id a non issue as the same thing can be accomplished with a different type of contract to serve the legal functions and a religious service can be preformed if the couple so desires. The state does not recognize the religious service as a legal contract, but so what? It does recognize the other contracts.

There are problems with this recognition as to tax codes, etc. but those have nothing to do with a religious marriage ceremony. If you want to change something, change the tax code or whatever is specifically a problem. The definition of marriage is not.

There are many things that contribute to the divorce rate. Liberal polices are only some of them.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

So you are sticking with the "separate but equal" approach. It did not work so well for the black community, what do you think the difference will be here?

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married- "Rights" are individual rights, not group rights. Even with marriage, ALL men and ALL women and ALL races have the same rights. There are no special rights for groups of people. Every time it's bee tried, it didn't work. "Separate but equal" (racial segregation) is not even close. Again you try to prove homosexuality is a race... it is not.

Sarkazein said...

should read: ...been tried.

guy faulkes said...

There is nothing separate about it, HM. Straight people use the same kinds of contracts available to gays. Some straight elope do not desire the religious connotation of marriage.

Does not your statement prove you are a little biased, HM?

Happily Married said...

Sark, This is very similar to your contention about the baker not being forced to serve penis cakes - your statement might be true but out of context and not applicable. You are right - all men and all woman and all races have the same rights currently. They, however do not have equal rights: Men have the right to marry women but they do not have the right to marry men - therefore, not an equal right. To put it in even simpler terms for your level of comprehension: Jane wants to marry Dick but Bill also wants to marry Dick. If everyone had equal rights, either one of them would be treated equally and they could both marry Dick - therefore your analogy is incorrect as usual. I have never indicated or tried to prove homosexuality is a race. I have proven (once again) that homosexuals get discriminated against as they do not have Equal rights. This is not about special rights for a certain group. If Jane can Marry Dick, then Bill should have equal rights to marry dick regardless of whatever it is he considers himself.

Happily Married said...

Guy - If I am biased - it is toward equality for all. I have tried to understand your point over and over again. Please answer the following to help me understand and assume all religious ceremony is out of the picture.
1) If Jane and Dick go down to the justice of the peace and get married the State of NC recognizes them as being married and provides benefits accordingly - If Bill and Dick go to the justice of the peace, they will NOT be considered married in theh eyes of the law and will not receive the same benefits. Is it your contention that they can write up contracts that provide them with the same benefits?
2) Dick and Bill can have a ceremony but will NOT be married in the eyes of the law in NC. Can they call themselves married on the legal contracts?
3) If they are married in one sense when Jane and Dick are married in another sense - i.e. married in the eyes of the law and able to claim marriage benefits - is this not the same principle behind "separate but equal"

I am at a lose because I really want to understand your point.

Sarkazein said...

“Some might not fit well with our student demographic, might not work well with other food choices already on campus, et cetera,” said Vickie Somers, director of auxiliary services.- from the link

Liberals cannot be honest. It is all about Chick-Fil-A not marching to their tune. They don't even care if they lie good about it or not. They live in echo chambers.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "They, however do not have equal rights: Men have the right to marry women but they do not have the right to marry men..."

or close relatives or multiples or minors... equally, same as all men. Your group wants to be special with special rights (group rights).
At least you have made some progress. At first you were dishonest and denied it was about acceptance. You have admitted that now. But court forced acceptance or legislated acceptance is not gong to be what you want it to be. Children will still commit suicide, both gay and straight. There will still be bakers who will not decorate a cake they don't want to decorate, Hollywood leftists sitcom writers will still write insulting lines about homosexuals, and a real marriage will be between one man and one woman.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "If everyone had equal rights, either one of them would be treated equally and they could both marry Dick"

So you believe in plural marriages also. For this to fit in with your theory, Dick would have to be bi-sexual.

Sarkazein said...

HM- I also notice you give Dick no choice in the matter. Are you in favor of court ordered marriages? Do you plan on just surprising Dick on his wedding night with Jane. Is Bill going to slip one in on Dick and hope for the best?
Is Bill covered by Obamacare?

guy faulkes said...

If jane and Dick get married, the state recognizes the contract. If they use another contract that does the same thing, the state recognizes that contract. The only difference is with the definition of a word, not the end result.

This has been explained to you numerous times, but you refuse to "understand", probably due to your prejudice over those that put importance on the religious connotation of marriage. I beleive you are being deliberately obtuse, because nothing keeps a gay couple from a religious ceremony and a contract that the state will recognize just as some heterosexual couples do.

Will you ever get it through your head, that I personally do not care one ay or the other? It is a non issue that can leave both sides the winner.

Nobody said...

HM,
You say you are a social liberal and fiscal conservative? Where on this blog have you ever made an unsolicited post one would consider fiscally conservative? There have been plenty of opportunities. I seem to remember having a rather vigorous back and forth over economics last year. You were defending Obama and the stimulus plan while demanding fact-based, data-driven, chart-illustrated responses. Can you point us to ONE fiscally conservative stand that you have taken here? National debt? Out of control spending? Obama playing chicken little on the sequester?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I will not reduce myself to your level and assume all conservatives are nit wits (as you assume all liberals are liars) - but you certainly have no ability to stay on point and will bring up anything not relevant to try and defend your position. When you bring up equal rights for gays you immediately equate the right to marry someone of the same sex as marrying a relative or a minor. I have already slammed you on the supposition that the baker would have to sell penis cakes - an irrelevant and untrue distraction from the issue. I am not pushing for special rights for special groups as you contend. Consenting Adults should be able to marry whomever they damn well please - period. Then you are so interested inn their particular sexuality as if what happens in the bedroom is relevant. You even bring up forced marriage - preposterous. I believe consenting adults (please note the word consenting) should have the right to marry whomever they please. Their sex or sexual preferences should be irrelevant (and are). I have stated this many times and you simply cannot stick to an argument and defend it on its merits. This is not about special rights for a special group - it is about basic rights for all adults - period. When you want to join the discussion with relevance - please do - otherwise go away with your dimwitted responses.

Happily Married said...

Guy - As you were unable to answer my questions, I have come to the conclusion that you are just wrong!. There is no such thing as a contract that provide the same rights for a same sex couple as a man and wife in this state - period. the tax laws, inheritance laws, survivor ship laws, etc and now - the freaking constitution prevents it from ever happening. So you are just wrong or your being obtuse one or the other. I will ask one last time to answer the questions - if not please provide a link to the contracts you mention. Still curious how they are different from "separate but equal". Until then - you are wrong.

Happily Married said...

Nobody-
I still defend all of my statements regarding the economy. I believe that we need a balanced approach that includes increased revenue and spending reductions. I know for a fact having worked for the DOD that the military is bloated and spending needs to be curbed. I would withdraw our forces from around the world and concentrate our security efforts right here at home - that alone would go a long way to balance the budget. I would readily raise the retirement age and, increase the cap on salary input for social security. I would reduce the size of the federal government by restricting non salary expenditures (vehicles, oil paintings, etc.). I would sell off valuable federal beach front assets and reorganize military bases for efficiency - instead of historical location when mobilizing would take weeks instead of hours now. I would reduce support for other countries until we get our house in order. Our debt is too high right now to be sending help to other countries.

I am still a strong proponent of the rich paying their fair share - because they simply are not now - and the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/03/08/wealth-video/

We need to be more efficient in our federal government - just in a responsible way: i.e. fiscal conservative

Sarkazein said...

HM your words not mine: " Jane wants to marry Dick but Bill also wants to marry Dick. If everyone had equal rights, either one of them would be treated equally and they could both marry Dick ..."

Sarkazein said...

For Homosexual marriage to be allowed, then you agree: " I believe consenting adults (please note the word consenting) should have the right to marry WHOMEVER they please. "- HM.
This would have to include plural and close relatives. Just to clarify, or do you want it for only the special group of homosexuals?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I was very clear in my statement. Some cultures and religions believe in plural marriages. Some cultures and religions allow for marriage of relatives. Laws would have to be created to deal with divorce, property rights, children, etc. Consenting adults should not be restricted based on religious beliefs - period. Their sexuality is irrelevant - what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business. Now I would prefer to deal with these other anomalies in another discussion as they are so rare as to not be a big deal. there are many more same sex couples interested in marriage more than plural or family marriages. If you are interested in a same sex marriage discussion, let's talk.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote-"Now I would prefer to deal with these other anomalies in another discussion as they are so rare as to not be a big deal. there are many more same sex couples interested in marriage more than plural or family marriages. If you are interested in a same sex marriage discussion, let's talk."

Nothin' doin'. I don't think it is fair to just discuss your special group. It's all or none. And "rare" it is not. Even your Dick and Jane story included bi-sexuals. The other special groups just haven't come so far out of the closet and demanded their special rights yet.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

There are no special groups - only consenting adults. The only reason you could possibly justify them as special is if they don't fit you definition of normal. The fact is they are just people - that is all. Any discussion?

Nobody said...

"I am still a strong proponent of the rich paying their fair share"

Define "fair share."

Happily Married said...

Nobody,

If you watched the video I posted you would know that the gap between the rich and poor is staggering and continues to widen. The rich are currently paying historically low taxes:
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/do-lower-taxes-create-more-jobs/
and lowering taxes on corporations or wealthy does not correspond with investment and job creation- it only corresponds with the rich getting richer. The system is set up so the rich get richer on the backs of the poor and it is working well. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than middle income taxes meaning Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate of taxes than he does. Something is incredibly wrong when that is the case. The upper tier tax rate (over $1 mil) should be between 40% and 50% and capital gains should be taxed the same rate as income - because that is what it is. The rich don't work harder than the poor necessarily - they just let their money work for them in investments where they pay a cheaper tax rate. Something needs to change. The Republicans should be ashamed to not bend on increasing taxes on the wealthy just as much as the Democrats should be ashamed to not bend on modifying the social security/medicare system so it will be more affordable.

guy faulkes said...

HM, you have just admitted the problem is not with the definition of marriage, but with other laws that do not treat contracts that do the same things equally. Thank you for your capitulation.

now , if you will only finally realize you need to fix the things that actually are the problem, not a definition.

Nobody said...

HM,
I didn't ask about the gap between rich and poor -- I'm not consumed by feelings of jealousy and envy. I simply asked you to define your own words: YOU said the rich should PAY their FAIR SHARE. Define fair share -- don't just repeat liberal cliche talking points.

Nobody said...

And I see you are back to citing the same bogus website I debunked back in September. Do you understand what possible reactions to taxing capital gains the same as income would be? There is a reason they are not taxed the same. Buffet?!? Again? Really? Well, I'm convinced. You are no "fiscal conservative." Claiming to be something doesn't actually make you that. Kind of like portraying yourself as an open-minded moderate. I hope you don't actually believe your own proclamations. That would have to be a form of self delusion - blogger would know.

Nobody said...

And republicans DID bend on higher taxes. The rates went up in January. You must have missed that one. It also went up on everyone with the expiration of the payroll tax reduction. Funny, I don't remember President Obey-me promising higher taxes on the poor and middle class too.

Happ said...

Guy,

You must be drunk or high. As the definition of marriage in NC is currently and only between one and and one woman ONLY - the definition is the problem AND given that the other laws that you speak of will never be changed, you still making idiotic points and are still wrong. You also have no concept of discrimination and its effects. AND you still haven't answered my questions or provided a copy of your so called contract. You're wrong - period.

Happily Married said...

Nobody-

You dont read so good huh? I was not only decrying the gap between the rich and poor as it has tremendous negative effects on this country (not out of any feelings of jealousy) but I also defined FAIR SHARE as being between %40 and %50 percent. I don't recall the debunking of the website but as the graph and charts are straight from the bureau of labor - I don't buy political partisanship on this one. Republicans are drawing another line in the sand with higher taxes on the rich and since I have stated my opinion of fair share and since we are not there yet, we need to keep raising rates. I might not be as fiscally conservative as some, but I lean fiscally conservative. Therefore, I get to call myself whatever I want.

Please remind of "possible reactions" to raising capital gains tax because capital gains taxes rates did go up significantly at the beginning of the year and exactly where is the stock market? Something isnt jiving with your theory (you must have gotten that one from Fox news)

Sarkazein said...

The dishonest gene in all liberals rears its ugly head again. Fiscal conservative?
Happily Married, you are a hardcore liberal through and through. Your choice of course. So admit it, don't try to deny it either to yourself or others. Come out of the liberal closet and shout it loud. Fiscally conservative... raise taxes on the rich... fair share. Your only claim to conservative is: take their money and conserve mine.

Nobody said...

And you are just ignorant of reality. You say the rate should be 40-50% on over 1 million? It went up to 39.6% for those making over $400,000 on Jan. 1. That's right in line with the rate you named but obviously want more. Capital gains went up to 20% from 15%. Clinton actally lowered the rate to 20% from 28% in 1997. Bush lowered it to 15%. You want to raise that to 40%? That would effectively double the current rate and you don't think that will have an impact? I watched the video but it sounded like every other liberal whining piece. It was interesting that the CNN website also had an article on how the wealthy had not recovered from the recession either. I know it is hard for your liberally addled mind to move beyond simple jealousy and envy, but when the rich are villified do not do as well as before, everyone suffers. My real income is lower now than in 2007, as is almost everone's. Keep attacking the rich so we can all suffer. You're probably in favor of a $9.00 minimum wage, too, right?

guy faulkes said...

HM, I am only wrong in that this is the opinion you have. Your opinion is not based on fact or logic. You think I have to agree with you totally to be correct. You cannot tolerate the fact I think the issue does not matter.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- " Their sexuality is irrelevant - what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business."

So lets drag the bed out on to the street, have parades and bumper stickers and T-shirts make up a rainbow logo and sue non-believers in court.... nobody's business?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

First, I thought about it and you are absolutely right. It seems as if you don't meet all the criteria, you elitist want no part of anyone to call themselves conservative. I believe in smaller government, but I also believe taxes need to be reformed to correct current inequities. If being fiscally conservative means not giving a crap about the poor in this country and no understanding of how the economy really works, I don't want to be called fiscal conservative. I will call myself fiscally progressive and that will be that.

I indicate sexuality is nobody's business and your response is to have a parade? I think your delusional and obviously unable to form a good sentence in defense of your position that is relevant. Maybe you are not quite so sure of your own sexuality that your only response can be sarcastic gaffs. Of course you would be afraid of admitting it because we discriminate against gay folk here in NC and it sucks to be discriminated against.

Happily Married said...

Nobody,

You decry information as being liberal whining when it is simply the presentation of facts and data. No opinion - just facts and data. This "liberally adled" mind knows that rich don't create jobs - consumers and small business creates jobs (that would be the poor and middle class to the uninformed). I do not envy or attack the rich. I believe the rich have disposable income that can help lessen the deficit we are dealing with. Currently, the tax increase has not stopped them from investing to the point that the stock market is at an all time high. Funny thing is they are the only ones getting rich and jobs are not being created. The fact is that the money that goes into stocks is being hoarded (like never before) by the companies because they do not want to hire. I am sure that will be blamed on some policy. Regardless that is the current economic paradigm. The rich get richer and jobs are not being created. Funny how you did not respond about the current stock market situation.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

You are wrong in that your approach is not achievable or realistic. My opinion is based on fact and logic and yours is pie in the sky perfect world. I don't think you have to agree to be totally correct - I have even stated that your idea is achievable by changing the laws around marriage, taxes survivor ship, divorce, etc - completely unrealistic. I cannot tolerate that you pushing an unrealistic idea further bolsters the current discriminatory marriage laws. It might not matter to you - don't spew unrealistic contract ideas that negatively affect those that it does matter to. Still didnt answer my questions - still no example of legal contract.

guy faulkes said...

HM, as I have said before, you can draw up a contract worded anyway you so desire. Go to Staples and get a contract form to modify to suit what you want.

The state does not control the wording of a contract. As has been stated before, you can even use a marriage contact,even though it is the one contract the state will not recognize unless it is between a man and a woman.

As I keep saying, whatever kind of contract you and your partner or any other couple has is fine with me. I just think you should fix the problems instead of changing the definition of marriage to one that so many oppose. It is not their fault that you and your supporters are to lazy to do so.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- " I will call myself fiscally progressive and that will be that."

Yeah duh

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "I indicate sexuality is nobody's business and your response is to have a parade?"

No, the gay community decided to have parades.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "Maybe you are not quite so sure of your own sexuality that your only response can be sarcastic gaffs."

I never said one way or the other. There are gay people who do not support homosexual marriage. Try and find one of my comments where I said whether or not I was gay or straight or both. Or are you just so sure of my sexuality that you assume...

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "Maybe you are not quite so sure of your own sexuality that your only response can be sarcastic gaffs."

Misery loves company?

Happily Married said...

Today a new Pope was named. It was significant because it was celebrated that it was the first Latin American Pope. I look forward to the day when these types of celebrations are over. We have celebrated the first black POTUS, the first gay senator, the first woman combat soldier, etc. etc. blah blah blah. Notice how we never "celebrate" the first Old White Guy (insert position here). We don't because the Old White Guy network has been running the show for hundreds of years. Gays do have parades to show support for each other and to gain support from the general public. To show that they are people JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE who are in committed loving relationships and that they deserve the same treatment and rights as everybody else. When are all of the Old White Guys going to realize that a person's gender, race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or taste in clothing should not and do not matter. We will someday "celebrate" the first female POTUS. And when I say "we" it excludes most of the Old White Guys on this blog that deep down despise the fact that we have a black POTUS and sincerely believe in their hearts that the best person for any job will always be the Old White Guy. The evolution of acceptance is slow in this country. Women have had the right to vote less than 100 years. Mixed race marriage was illegal until 40 years ago. If left up to those 40 or younger gay marriage would already be legal. Are all of the young people just wrong? When enough of the Old White Guys die off we will finally be able to simply let people live their lives without having to have parades or celebrate these firsts. When was the last time there was a "support the Old Straight White Guys" parade?
Guy - your contract idea is idiotic and still discriminatory. the definition of marriage IS the problem.
Sark - You still can only come up with quips without saying anything of substance. Your verbiage clearly indicates either a hatred of gays or, much like the hypocritical Senator Larry Craig, a secret lifestyle with a public facade of hatred to gays - either way your views show a discriminatory attitude toward the gay community which is overall a harmful thing for society.

Sarkazein said...

HM vomited-"And when I say "we" it excludes most of the Old White Guys on this blog that deep down despise the fact that we have a black POTUS and sincerely believe in their hearts that the best person for any job will always be the Old White Guy. "

You are truly an idiot.

Sarkazein said...

There is no lower intellect than:

If you don't like Obama's Leftist policies and lack of executive ability then you are a racist bigot.

If you don't want the definition of marriage changed then you hate gays.

If you don't want hire taxes then you hate the poor and the infirm.

Liberalism is a brain disorder. Happily Married is a prime example.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

Since name calling seems to be OK, tell me that there are not some on this blog that fit that description so I can call you a liar.

guy faulkes said...

HM, what was your Old White Guys slander if not a form of name calling? With every post you make you dig yourself a deeper hole. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Do you deliberately look for opportunities to shoot yourself in the foot?

Happily Married said...

Is calling someone an old white guy name calling? - that does not even make sense. I also did not indicate everyone on this site - I just said they exist and never pointed the comment at any one person.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "Sark,
Since name calling seems to be OK, tell me that there are not some on this blog that fit that description so I can call you a liar."

I have never read any comment by any Conservative, or for that matter anyone but you and a couple of other liberals think or write anything like that.This is the prejudice and warped misconceptions you display so proudly.
Many of the commenters on this blog were rooting for Herman Cain, have supported Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, JC Watts, Thomas Sowell and others.

You are a typical idiot low information liberal.



guy faulkes said...

HM, you are simply demonstrating your prejudice and bigotry as per the context of your post. Is this "name calling"? Maybe not.

I would consider it so.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

"Many of the commenters" does not include all of the commenters. If the situation did not exist we would not be having this conversation, pictures of Obama in a witchdoctors outfit would not exist, facebook and twitter messages regarding the ni**** in office would not exist. Hate is universal and exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Prejudice and warped misconceptions exist on both sides of the political spectrum. If you think they don't you're the low information conservative delusional idiot. I left out typical intentionally as I believe that label does not go to a majority (unlike your assumption of typical liberal). It does, however, seem to fit a larger portion of those who spend time blogging.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

There is no lower intellect than:

If you don't like the fact that the gap between the rich and poor is currently crushing the American economy and you want to raise taxes on the rich only you are an envious and jealous whiner.

If you want equality in marriage you hate and persecute the religious.

Most importantly, if you truly believe that life begins at birth and not conception and have an abortion, you are a baby killer.

Conservatism is a brain disorder. Sark is a prime example.

Sarkazein said...

Again HM, you and a couple of other liberals are the only ones writing such trash. Find a comment on this entire blog showing what you claim other than a liberal projecting his/her mindset on others, as you have done.

Sarkazein said...

HM- If you can find comments made by "Many of the commenters" on this blog, show me where they are. I don't remember reading even one.

Again, it is many of the Obama voters both Black and White who have said they voted for Obama because he is Black. Yet I cannot remember reading any comment on this blog about NOT voting for Obama because he is Black. I remember only comments about his experience and lack thereof and his Leftist actions and policies and his child-like actions... White people are capable of all the same.

Happily Married said...

Sark and Guy,

Hating a hater or being intolerant of intolerance is not hypocritical. I find it humorous that this blog posted how the parties stand on "right to choose" that was simply ludicrous. Most conservatives want to "conserve" society and keep it the way it is. Most liberals are progressive in their approach to society. The historical implications are undeniable. "Progress" has been made in that discrimination has been legally addressed and reduced for most. The gay community will fall under that progress in the tale of history.
The biggest difference is that liberals don't want to force conservatives into anything. If you don't believe in something - you get to live your life by your own beliefs in abortion, gay marriage, religion, etc. Liberals DON'T want to take away free speech and the right to voice your opinion about political policies. They do not want you to force your particular beliefs on everybody. The opposite is just simply not true.

Both sides have issues and name calling and slanderous generalities (which I am guilty of as well and am trying to be aware of it and eliminate it) waste time that could be spent actually finding middle ground on actual issues.

Sarkazein said...

So you lied then?

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "Most importantly, if you truly believe that life begins at birth and not conception and have an abortion, you are a baby killer."


Google "Can a baby die in the womb?"

Happily Married said...

How did I lie?

Jus' Sayin' said...

Uh...I think you used you keyboard and posted on the internet.

Happily Married said...

Jus Sayin,

I asked a serious question which your welcome to answer. you can keep your smart ass comments of no value to the conversation to yourself.

Sark,
As usual you missed my point all together. You contend that liberal call everyone that is against gay marriage is a bigot. From the liberal perspective, it might be correct from a definition standpoint but it is a terrible way to refer to someone who simply believes differently about the true meaning of marriage. No one who has an abortion is a "baby killer" from their perspective. they might be from a definitional belief system from your perspective, but it is, once again, a horrible thing to call someone. If someone truly wanted to be a baby killer, they would wait until a baby was born and then kill them. Of course, that is unthinkable. The SOB who was just convicted of killing his 2 year old in Charlotte via slow torture beating because he would not eat his soup is a baby killer - vastly different from someone who has an abortion. I personally think the bailiff should have stuck his service arm to the guys temple and pulled the trigger when the conviction was handed down and given the fact that he admitted the entire thing. Regardless my point was well made and, of course, flew over your head.

BTW i am sick of being called a liar, If someone can point out where I lied - please do so. I do not lie.

Sarkazein said...

HM vomited-"And when I say "we" it excludes most of the Old White Guys on this blog that deep down despise the fact that we have a black POTUS and sincerely believe in their hearts that the best person for any job will always be the Old White Guy. "

Sarkazein wrote- "HM- If you can find comments made by "Many of the commenters" on this blog, show me where they are. I don't remember reading even one."

You can't . You lied.

Sarkazein said...

HM- When you recently were debating Nobody, and even before, you tried to pass yourself off as other than a hardcore liberal (progressive). You attempted to convince others while arguing for homosexual marriage that you were not a hardcore liberal. You later admitted you are a fiscal progressive after writing you were a fiscal conservative. You don't have an honest bone in your political body. I am going by memory as there are so many comments on this blog, that people are leaving left and right, that it would be too hard to reread what I already know.

Happily Married said...

Sark,
Instead of debating something of merit, you try to say I lie and then try to define me as if that is relevant to the discussion. I have stated that is one reason that I stopped posting for a while and have posted under anonymous. Instead of evaluating a statement the tendency on this blog is to assume and jump to conclusion. Firstly, I am not a hardcore liberal. I have clearly stated my belief in smaller government, death penalty gun ownership, etc. I don’t like unions. Unfortunately, you and others on this blog can't seem to grasp the many faceted world we live in and you see the world as black and white - conservative or liberal. You can’t seem to comprehend the concept of the grey. I have even tried to discuss issues and start the conversation with some concessions to the conservative agenda and identify the starter point as being somewhere in the middle – only to quickly have my position defined as extreme hardcore liberal – when it simply was not true. I am a progressive with some conservative leanings. If you insist on defining me, please explain how I can be a hardcore liberal and still believe in the conservative positions stated above. Once again I do not lie. I made a statement about a select group of people – “most of the Old White Guys who deep down despise”. I also indicated that did not include everybody and is most likely a small percentage of the people on this blog. They tend to hang out in conservative arenas and come up with the pasted face of Obama over the picture of the African witch doctor with the caption “Obamacare” or even better they come up with this: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/15/1729331/cpac-slavery-minority-outreach/?mobile=nc
And before you go off the deep end about the source, I am only drawing attention to the video itself – the video evidence cannot be refuted. You came up with the “many of the commenters” phrase – not I. I hold true to my intention of statement that discrimination exists on this blog –statistically speaking if nothing else. You simply cannot call me a liar about that I do not need to spend hours going back through the blog archives to determine that. I have even admitted that it exists on both sides (a point you conveniently brush over). I know there are discriminators on this site because the absolute denial of gay marriage is a discriminatory stance. I no more lied than when you stated that liberalism was a brain disorder. If and when you get ready to have a rational conversation about a serious issue instead of name calling or labeling, let me know. It seems as if the name calling or labeling happens as a result of your inability to defend your weak position or statements.

Happily Married said...

Ironically enough:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/18/republicans-want-to-end-perception-as-stuffy-old-men/?hpt=hp_t1

I am thinking I have effectively shut down the Elon is discriminating argument as well as "The Baker had every right to discriminate against the lesbian couple. but I did not want anyone to feel as if they have not been heard on the issue. Please read the thread instead of wasting time rehashing.

Anonymous said...

You didn't shut down anything -- we just got tired of hearing you make the exact same statement simply rephrased over and over.

Sarkazein said...

HM- So you are saying your dishonesty is not relevant to the discussion. In fact, it is. Liberals have always tried to disguise not only their motives, but also their responsibility for the unintended results of their liberalism. Conservatives on the other hand are proud to tell you they are conservative or libertarian. Only Leftists, like Communists and Socialists and liberal Democrats run from their label. This is partially because liberalism goes against reality and human nature.
There are liberals who own guns, don't like the unions, and think they can have all this central government and make it smaller. The problem is, they then vote for liberals... so they/you are liberals.
I don't care how ashamed you are of it, you are a liberal. Liberals have to sneak up on you and get things done through the courts. Or they get a good sounding law passed then stretch it to what nobody ever thought it would be (camel's nose in the tent).
Another way liberals sneak (a dishonest trait) up on us is shown in Obama-care. Obama lied and said Obama-care was not a tax. The only way it survived the Supremes was because it is a tax. Did the liberals then decide to take a do-over and present it as a tax? NO!. They took what they could get. Obama-care will prove to be the biggest loss of freedom in our life time. Pelosi has such disdain for her liberal flock of sheep, she got away with saying - We will have to pass it and see what's in it.

Sarkazein said...

HM- You are quoting a few people who lost the election to a child-like Alinskyite. Don't get exited. They are getting so much blowback right now, they will be singing a different tune before the 2014 elections.

Happily Married said...

Sark,
I never said I was being dishonest. You consider me dishonest because of your extremely warped sense of reality. As stated – you have no understanding of the realities of politics or the world. You only see black and white. I am not a liberal – I have liberal and progressive leanings, but I also have some conservative approaches. Your labels are useless. I don’t run, I am proud of the fact that, unlike dolts like you, can understand different perspectives and appreciate the reasons behind them. Liberalism does not go against reality or human nature – that does not even make sense that so many millions of people have liberal approaches but you think it goes against reality. I think you have finally gone off the deep end. You think that anybody that voted for Obama must be automatically labeled as a liberal when I know lifelong conservatives who voted for him because Romney has the same idiotic perspective on issues that you do. That does not make them liberals – it makes them politically intelligent to be able to think for themselves instead of sheepishly and blindly following the conservative agenda.
I describe the participants here as “Old White Guys” and describe how the approach is harmful – and the Republican Party comes out days later with a damaging report that describes itself as a bunch of “Old White Guys” that need to change their perspectives. You can’t even begin to admit that maybe your perspective might need some tweaking. I have busted you on your ridiculous assertions that “liberals would make the baker sell penis cakes” and not a peep. You are simply wrong more often then you think and it takes a real man to admit fault – maybe therein lies the problem.

Happily Married said...

Anon, None of my very valid points had any retort. The only comeback was the obviously delusional and irrational Sark who came back with Blah blah blah - we can't listen to a thing because you are a liberal. It takes courage, intelligence and resolve to respond to the points I have made. I am still looking for the response:

1) I pointed out that no laws can dictate stock a shop owner decides on (penis cakes).
2) I pointed out that if a shop owner decides to stock an item (wedding cake) then he cannot discriminate on whom he sells the cake to.
3) I pointed out that the cake is not even used in a religious ceremony (only a party afterward) - so the claim to religious rights is ludicrous.
4) I even conceded that religious beliefs might warrant a service provider (singer, musician, hell maybe even a photographer) legitimately refusing to to participate in a service. I get no credit for that acknowledgement - I am only deemed to be heartless liberal.
5) I pointed out the distinct difference between contractual choices for Elon College and the very real issue of discrimination - nobody had any argument.

I DID effectively close the books on these issues.

Happily Married said...

I almost feel sorry for Sark. In his reality deprived mind if your are not hard core conservative, you are a liberal (black/white mentality) and all liberals lie incessantly. He must be the most untrusting person given that the majority of people, in accordance with his way of thinking, are rampant liars.
Rob Portman is now endorsing gay marriage and Rand Paul is courting illegal immigrants. The "Old White Guy" and his neanderthal approaches to life (I'm sorry - traditional American values) is no longer very popular. I think you need to be changing your tune, Sark. Funny how you seem to disparage the Alynskyite when the tea party loves to use his great tactics.

Anonymous said...

Happ said: "The "Old White Guy" and his neanderthal approaches to life (I'm sorry - traditional American values) is no longer very popular."

Wow, just wow. So now, traditional values = neanderthal approaches. Christians! Pay attention to this!!! So much for respect for differing opinions. The more you talk, the more you prove that liberalism is tyranny; that you are indeed very intolerant of other beliefs. Responding to you in any way reminds me of the old line that in any argument, the woman must get the last word. Anything the man says after that is just the start of another argument. You can't just walk away and agree to disagree; you must declare victory. You didn't win crap. The baker story remains an example of liberal tyranny. He never tried to make a statement -- the lesbian wanted to make the statement. I've read a lot more about this and she actually went in with her mother, not her partner and didn't tell the baker it was for a lesbian wedding until he asked for the names of the bride and groom. At that point, he apologized and said he couldn't do it. You equate racial discrimination but it doesn't work. In the segregated south, black were completely banned from certain spheres -- hotels, restrooms, lunch counters, etc. This baker said he would serve gays, he just didn't want the product of his hands and efforts to be used in a gay marriage celebration, but you demand he be MADE to do it. You can't just let the man be, you have to vilify him. You have to split hairs and say that the reception isn't even part of the marriage event -- are you sure you're married? Every couple I know looks at the reception as a part of the entire event. If this person, who serves gays in every way, personally opposes and does not want to make a cake for a gay wedding, WHY CAN'T YOU JUST RESPECT THIS AND LET HIM BE??? Liberal tyranny. If people like you weren't so INTOLERANT perhaps even people like me would be okay with gay marriage. But you continue to prove the point that what will happen is that once gay marriage (and bi-sexual marriage, and polygamist marriage) is legal, then insufferable people like you will force others to bend to their will. YOU said last May that legalizing gay marriage would not affect religious minded or heterosexual couples at all. Will you now at least admit that you lied when you said that, based on your positions now?

Sarkazein said...

Ditto, Anonymous. She is lost in her own gray world of imagined victories.

Anonymous said...

From Ben Shapiro:

Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become obsolete.

There is only one way to stop this development: Get the government out of the business of marriage. Right now.

States and localities originally gave tax benefits and crafted specific legal systems in order to incentivize Americans to get married and have children within the context of marriage. But those legal institutions have been undermined over the past several decades by a culture that degrades marriage and child rearing. Incentive structures that used to provide the cherry on top of good moral decision-making no longer matter enough to drive such decision-making.

That gap between culture and the legal system has led to a cycle of defining deviancy down, with government taking the lead. The view of the value of marriage in American life changed in the 1950's and 1960's; the left used that cultural shift in order to legitimize no-fault divorce laws, legal custody and child support arrangements that incentivized divorce and social welfare systems that incentivized unwed motherhood.

The last bastion of the old value system was the state's approval of traditional marriage. But thanks to a decades-long cultural shift away from marriage, the left is now in position to use the levers of government to redefine the institution once and for all -- and in the process, destroy the American religious culture that under-girds American freedom.

Unlike the movement to retract laws restricting sexual behavior, the same-sex marriage movement has never been about freedom in any real sense. The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting freedom to copulate; same-sex copulation has been effectively legal in this country for decades, and formally legal since Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The push for same-sex marriage is not about wanting legal benefits available to heterosexual couples; same-sex couples are largely able to make contractual arrangements to achieve those benefits, and in many states, civil unions equate legally with marriage.

The push for same-sex marriage is about placing the power of government in direct opposition to traditional religious viewpoints.

And conservatives cannot stop that push unless they are willing to restrict government power. Conservatism has always been about preventing the power of government from invading the lives of citizens. Leftism has always been about using the power of government to restrict the behavior of others. It is time for conservatives to recognize the reality of their situation, realize the dangers inherent in their insistence on government interventionism and act quickly.

Getting the government out of marriage would mean voluntary lifestyle arrangements governed by contract -- a practice that has roots stretching back millennia. Religious people would not be forced by the state to approve behavior they find morally problematic. They would not have to worry about their children being taught about such behavior. Conservatives would be forced to rebuild a culture of marriage rather than focusing on a crumbling legal bulwark.

Conservatives lost the culture. Then they lost the law. They can only regain traditional values by removing legal coercion and incentivization from the table -- the left will never hesitate to use those means -- and focusing once again on the raising and production of children within a culture of traditional morality.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- " The "Old White Guy" and his neanderthal approaches to life (I'm sorry - traditional American values) is no longer very popular."


One's values should always reflect what's popular amongst the liberals. Core values, forget it. Bounce from one belief to another so as not to become unpopular.

HM, could you be any weaker or any more liberal?

Happily Married said...

Anon
You just don't get it -List of traditional values + neanderthal approaches:

1) slavery
2) when slavery ended - discrimination against blacks via "separate but equal"
3) hey traditional marriage was between same races only
4) Hate filled approaches like discriminating against gays under the guise of traditional marriage. Traditional marriage was also where the men worked and the little women stayed at home birthing babies and cleaning. Would sometimes involve abuse as the "man of the house" was in charge.
5) Traditional American values like kicking someone out of the Boy Scouts because he is gay.

I have stated unequivocally the importance of family in terms of traditional American Values. That is one reason I support gay marriage - to help bolster the number of families - nurturing, loving, families.

I will state again, I am the strongest supporter of personal individual beliefs. If you are a christian - great - you should be able to live you lives by those values. You have no right to force your beliefs on others any more than they have any right to force their beliefs on you - period. Ordering a cake is ordering a cake. No one is forcing the baker into a gay marriage or making him change his own personal marriage in any way. Just because he believes differently than his customer DOES NOT give him the right to discriminate. Your defense of the baker is laughable - The woman went in with her mother - not hand in hand wither her partner. Sounds as if she was trying to avoid any issues by going in with her mother. It was only when she was asked for the names that it became an issue. She was most likely afraid of the response if they went in together - BECAUSE GAYS ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND THE BAKER PROVED HER RIGHT. You probably think she was trying to be dishonest in some way when she was trying to avoid the typical judgement from those that don't agree with lifestyle.
Your position would indicate that a B&B owner could deny a gay couple a room on their honeymoon - discrimination. I have even consented to not forcing someone to attend a ceremony - still no acknowledgement of that. Answer my questions and I will shut up - How is it OK to force your opinion that gay marriage is wrong on the religious population that believes gay marriage is OK and you say that making gay marriage legal is forcing their religious beliefs on you and that is not OK.

Happily Married said...

Finally gay marriage WILL NOT affect religious minded or heterosexual couples at all - you can still practice your own beliefs and your marriage will not change. You people are so hypocritical. I'll ask another question: You are so hell bent that the baker rights are somehow being violated because of his personal beliefs. If someone is not a Christian and they attend a County Commissioner meeting - are their rights not being violated because of their personal beliefs. Someone who wants to participate in a government event yet you will defend the commissioners right to pray and offend those that might believe differently. Explain how that is not hypocritical if you can. Hypocrites.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

Could you be any more arrogant or elusive. I have asked point blank questions and your response: name calling and false quips. You have no argument. Answer my question about hypocrisy and you might be able to regain at least some of your dignity.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

First of all, quoting Shapiro is the worst argument because of his very biased background. He is right - in one important way - he is wrong on many counts.
1) My personal approach is that I never wanted to force beliefs on anyone. I have always advocated that people should be able to live their own lives by their own beliefs - that means everyone - not just Christians - you just cant seem to get that.
2) The inevitable supreme court ruling is THE FAULT OF THE CONSERVATIVES. The fight was always about equal rights. If conservatives had simply allowed for gay marriage in the first place - or removed marriage from the business of government and recognized civil unions - this would have all gone away. No - NC had to not only say "screw you faggots" regarding marriage they went further and made it unconstitutional to recognize any arrangement that even looked like a gay marriage. I say you will get what you deserve.
3) I even argued that, just like Massachusetts did as they allowed for gay marriage, that individual churches should have the right to refuse holding that ceremony without jeopardizing their tax exempt status. If conservatives had simply tried to meet in the middle somewhere, this would have been much more achievable.
4) This all goes back to my question on hypocrisy. How long did you think you could take the approach of - its OK for us to force our beliefs on you - but it is NOT ok for you to do the same to us?
This "traditional" viewpoint is the very one that I compared to being akin to neanderthal - and for a reason. It has nothing to do with the loving traditions of a loving nurturing family or a thriving personal faith. You cant use your club to force you beliefs on others.
Conservatives will do themselves a favor by quit playing the martyr and claiming some war on religion. Nobody cares what you persoanlly practice and belief - its your forcing your beliefs and practices on others that a war is being waged against. Ironic isnt it, you set up rules and laws that forced your beliefs on others that set up the very precedent that might force others beliefs on you.

Sarkazein said...

HM- I'll get back to you when I figure out what is the most popular belief to have.
I may do some reading about old white guys who freed the slaves, ended segregation and beat the Nazis and fought to slow the spread of Communism.

Anonymous said...

PLEASE READ

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/george-gay-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I would suggest that you simply read the posts and answer the questions as directly as possible - your glib remarks are starting to show your true colors. "I may do some reading about old white guys who freed the slaves, ended segregation and beat the Nazis and fought to slow the spread of Communism." Whereas old White Guys were instrumental in national political campaigns against the Nazis and Communism - they were actually the enemy on social equity issues such as slavery, segregation, women's suffrage (I added that one intentionally), etc. These battles were fought long and hard by those being oppressed by the Old White Guys - minorities and women who were tired of being "less than" Old White Guys. I truly cant believe you said that. You do realize that your statement is not far off from the clown at the recent conservative convention (see video reference above)that stated that the former slaves should be thanking their former owners for giving them free food and shelter. Just WOW. I also hope that other conservative posters on this blog will acknowledge the arrogance and superiority in this statement that is truly problematic.
I suppose in 100 years your progeny will be saying that it was the Christian Churches that granted the right for gays to be married.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Thank you for the link to the opinion column. I read it carefully and it really makes sense.
"But marriage is far more than your emotional bond with "your Number One person," to quote same-sex marriage proponent John Corvino. Just as the act that makes marital love also makes new life, so marriage itself is a multilevel -- bodily as well as emotional -- union that would be fulfilled by procreation and family life. That is what justifies its distinctive norms -- monogamy, exclusivity, permanence -- and the concept of marital consummation by conjugal intercourse."
Please note that this statement applies to gay marriage as well as male female marriage. The one and only distinction is the word procreation. That means that if a male-female marriage, if they could not have kids, the rest of the statement would be true as well. What is the difference for gay marriage? Marriage and family should not be exclusive - it should be inclusive. I have clearly stated that group marriage, as a belief, should not be prohibited any more than gay marriage. The opinion letter hinges on the above statement and how those attributes are somehow exclusive - and they simply are not. I know many families with gay parents that meet every one of the above statements (even procreation as adoption is available). Allowing gay marriage does not diminish the traditional family unit in any way. I have also stated many times that I do not believe there will be some massive shift toward gay coupling in this country. The right to gay marriage will only be exercised by those that are in the single digit percentage of gay partnerships. Redefining marriage would weaken the institution but only its worst part - the "exclusivity" that marital happiness and family are somehow limited to male female marriage and that gays are simply somehow not worthy.

This "exclusivity" approach has been problematic in our collective past. Country Clubs used to be "exclusive" because they did not allow Jews or blacks. I want to open up possibilities for everyone and anyone to participate in a married family environment and increase the positive societal and cultural effects of family. You can keep you exclusivity.

Happily Married said...

I have now asked two questions about Hypocrisy and still no takers. I believe there is a reason.

Nobody said...

Actually, in 100 years, people will be asking, "What is marriage?"

Anonymous said...

Happy said: "Thank you for the link to the opinion column. I read it carefully and it really makes sense."

Really? Well, now we have reason to doubt your ability to read. The article linked was in support of the traditional definition of marriage -- glad to see you agree! This is from the intro of the linked article:

"Editor's note: Robert P. George is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University. Sherif Girgis, a recent Rhodes Scholar, is a philosophy Ph.D. candidate at Princeton and a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School. Ryan T. Anderson is William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. They are authors of a new book, "What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense."

Sarkazein said...

Slavery predates written records. Old white men put an end to it in the USA. Slavery now/still exists in Asian and African countries.

In a hundred years from now, people will ask- "How did society let a judge change the true meaning of marriage?" and- "Why did homosexuals get special rights?"

Happily Married said...

Anon,
It is your ability to read posts that is severely lacking. The conversation has evolved into the support for heterosexual marriage being all about family. If I understand correctly - 1) No one hates gays. 2) Gays should have all rights as everyone EXCEPT marriage 3) The primary reason to not change the definition of marriage and protect marriage is to protect the concept of family.
According to the opinion, the government has a vested interest in protecting and encouraging family - "But it has powerful reasons to ensure that whenever possible, children have the benefit of being reared by the mom and dad whose union gave them life."
I completely agree. Whenever possible, children should be reared by their Mom and Dad. The problem with the argument against gay marriage is the "exclusivity" concept and the fact that one premise has nothing to do with another.
1) If a heterosexual couple want to get married and have children allowing same sex marriage will not prevent or even discourage that.
2) If a same sex couple want to get married and have a family (through whatever means) they are actually increasing the number of families and benefiting society.
3) Currently, the lack of same sex marriage is actually REDUCING the number of families.
It is completely accurate for the government to want to encourage families with natural born children. But not enough exist to adopt all of the deserving kids right now. You can argue that gay couples will not be able to raise kids as well as heterosexual kids (I have seen study after study that says different). The argument is like saying that men drive better than women (once again - not arguing that point - just setting up an example)and therefore, let's not allow women to drive. Sounds like the Taliban to me.
We need all the families we can get regardless if they are gay or straight. The article was right about that - just wrong to say that it was somehow deceptive. redefining marriage would only weaken marriage in that it is exclusive right now and the lack of families is detrimental to society.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

You are amazing and appalling. Old White Men stopped slavery in this country only after activist that were old white men, women and minorities worked tirelessly to convince them it was the right thing to do. And even then it was against many Old white Men who were kicking and screaming to keep it legal.

Old White Men also finally allowed women to vote and were completely responsible for that too right? Because women could not vote on the issue - right. Funny how you want to give credit for ending oppression to the same group that created it. Like I said - you sound just like the guy from the convention.

As stated before - no one is asking for special rights for homosexuals. Consenting adults regardless of gender or sexual orientation should be allowed to be married - their sexuality is irrelevant.