One year of legalized LGBTQ marriage!

[SecretSquirrel]

I always figured this forum was full of red blooded Americans that were good ol' boys. I am learning its not, its filled with tree hugger, equality crap folks. Its sad. What ever happened to the good ol' days when a place like this was like a 1950's mens locker room.

We have to walk around naked and shower together?

 

[tmacklin]

CzTeacherMan is retaliating against the "Self Defense" thread started by Ted Macklin. Eventually both will get locked. It is each individual's responsibility not to get him/her/itself banned.

Nah, CZ would never do something like that. He's a champion of Free Expression. I can tell that from his careful choice of words. :wink:

 

[KenECoyote]

:wave:

 

[ColumbiaNX01]

We have to walk around naked and shower together?

No just a place where men go just like a old time barber shop. A place where men can talk negative about their wives, ect... Talk about whats wrong in the world. They can let whoever they want to come in and can tell whoever they want don't come in.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

As someone who grew up adamantly opposed to the LGBTQ lifestyle, I grew up in my understanding of reality and the world when a dear friend of mine said this, "What of your son is gay?" (I'd love him all the same! But I would be sad because he couldn't get married) "Then the law is unjust, no? Doesn't your son have every right to marry the person he loves?" (Yeah, but I'd be sad because he couldn't have children) "Then that is unjust because your son should be allowed to adopt a child, correct?" ...
I stewed on that for awhile. A long while. And, no, my son is not gay, but I thought of the situation that millions of people found themselves in just because of who they are... ... and I realized what equality actually means. And I realized that, to those in the dominant group, equality for minorities can FEEL like a loss of power... and so, years later, when SCOTUS ruled as they did, I understood that a great wrong had been corrected, finally. A huge, moments occasion. Something that future generations will be amazed had to make, much like the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. Definitely a worthy moment to celebrate.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

Woohoo!!! Today is another momentous occasion! Transgender people can now serve openly in the military and can no longer be discharged simply because they are transgender. Woot! Way to go America!!!

 

[LW Bercini]

You know- you two aren't too far apart from each other. I propose a drag race.. vmaxes at dawn!

when you suggested a drag race, I envisioned high heels!

 

[CZ Brat]

Woohoo!!! Today is another momentous occasion! Transgender people can now serve openly in the military and can no longer be discharged simply because they are transgender. Woot! Way to go America!!!

When I first read this, I wondered if it was sarcasm, but I assume it isn't coming from Cz.
They really need to invent a Sarcasm font.

 

[fyrwrxz]

As long as it is not illegal, unethical, or immoral, I don't care what you do but stay the hell off of my porch.

LOL! I'm with you! I don't care what the sexual orientation of an aluminum siding salesman is-can't you see i have stucco??

 

[AlfaBrewer]

I always figured this forum was full of red blooded Americans that were good ol' boys. I am learning its not, its filled with tree hugger, equality crap folks. Its sad. What ever happened to the good ol' days when a place like this was like a 1950's mens locker room.

Funny, I always thought this forum is populated by mostly (little l) libertarian people. You know - personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, the gubmint should get out of people's lives and let us live as best we see fit. Reading (and participating) in the Self Defense thread and this one reinforces that viewpoint.

 

[fyrwrxz]

when you suggested a drag race, I envisioned high heels!

If only I had the guts...if only.......

 

[AlfaBrewer]

Woohoo!!! Today is another momentous occasion! Transgender people can now serve openly in the military and can no longer be discharged simply because they are transgender. Woot! Way to go America!!!

Carter overstepped his authority here. He can't arbitrarily change US Code. He can recommend anything he wants, but Congress has to enact the changes.

 

[markkoelsch]

Isn't this a political discussion, and as such, should not be on TRF?

Though no one has chimed in with an opposing view, I assume it is because they are not wanting to stir things up, and not because there aren't people here with opposing views on TRF. I think this post was not a good idea.

You are very observant. This discussion should never have been started of TRF. It is essentially trying to pick a fight about a very politically charged topic that has nothing to do with rockets.

 

[Igotnothing]

I have opposing views.

But we don't live in a theocracy, and the thread is about a political decision a year ago. So my beliefs ('feelings' - to those who have not yet thought over this topic beyond "what if it were my kid?") are incapable of advancing the discussion to anyone not willing to discuss the rights of the states to project civil rights protections in ways that are not given to the Fed, but are reserved to the states or the people.

So, to advance the conversation...
States have rights - not "permissions". Initially to be "this religious group" or "that economic undertaking", and that IS OK per the Constitution. So, what are a states rights? Can a state say, "You want to marry your rocket? Pay the fee. Here is your license."? I believe they have the right, and the right to establish standards that leads them to deny some marriage licenses.

 

[boatgeek]

Traditional definition of marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. To say we can change the genders in the traditional definition of marriage, but consider it morally repugnant and illegal to change the traditional quantities is hypocritical BS.

Throughout history, there is more legal and religious precedent for Polygamy than same-sex marriage. In fact, same-sex marriage was un-heard of 30-50 years ago.

As you say, "traditional marriage" is probably more polygamy than not. I'm kind of of two minds on polygamy. On the one hand, your exact argument. On the other, the FLDS creeps and I have trouble seeing how one could give enough attention and care to two spouses, given that I have issues with that with one and kids. Fortunately for me, I don't have to make that decision.

I was more making a legal argument. Some of the dozens to hundreds of mentions of marriage in the legal code could be handled pretty easily. Hospital visitation and inheritance aren't really all that bad. Some, like the tax code, would be a mess.

To Andrew Lathrop, I 100% support your right to believe anything you want and your church to make any decisions it wants on membership, ceremonies, etc. When you start imposing those beliefs on other people, you lose my support.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

You are very observant. This discussion should never have been started of TRF. It is essentially trying to pick a fight about a very politically charged topic that has nothing to do with rockets.

What part of the OP is picking a fight?

 

[H_Rocket]

I wonder if they talk about rocketry on the LBGTQ forum

More importantly, do they have their own George posting the TOS each time someone does?

 

[H_Rocket]

If only I had the guts...if only.......

Or the legs...

 

[Igotnothing]

To Andrew Lathrop, I 100% support your right to believe anything you want and your church to make any decisions it wants on membership, ceremonies, etc. When you start imposing those beliefs on other people, you lose my support.

But churches and states DO impose their beliefs on people - just not beliefs that you currently care about. Yes, States do impose their beliefs, and that is OK because you are free to leave and live where you wish.
Before single-sex marriage became an issue (to your or to the POP culture - it doesn't matter), you probably didn't care about that one either. And there in lies the problem - not with you, boatgeek, with the system. The Fed system is not designed to change at the pace pop culture can currently evolve a new crisis. We have demanded they change the laws country-wide as fast as we can change our mind - but they can't. So, good little public servants that they are, the court steps in and invents a right to marriage. And like other recently invented rights, this one is going to be constantly litigated, because all these invented rights are just turtles all the way down - no solid ground on which to stand. This will not end well. It is time for the republic to grow up.

 

[cwbullet]

I could care less. I want folks to be happy. What ever floats their boat within the limits of the law.

 

[tmacklin]

What part of the OP is picking a fight?

No offense, but you kinda remind me of the piano player in a bordello who claims he doesn't know what's going on upstairs. As Judge Judy used to say, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining." :surprised:

 

[SecretSquirrel]

As long as it is not illegal, unethical, or immoral, I don't care what you do but stay the hell off of my porch.

 

[H_Rocket]

Bravo. What two adults do after hours in their bedroom with their pet aardvark is their business.

 

[cwbullet]

Yup. This is how I feel.

I have 3 cousins that are gay. I am happy for them. I will alway love them, but I don't need a play by play.

 

[jd2cylman]

Yup. This is how I feel.

I have 3 cousins that are gay. I am happy for them. I will always love them, but I don't need a play by play.

Yep, I'm with you there Chuck, although I only have 2 cousins. One is a fabulously talented musician and HS administrator/ Principal.
The other one is a nice kid. As long as they're happy, that's great. They are fun to be around. I have some other acquaintances that are gay, too. Great guys to hang with. The one dude is an awesome cook. Always great to see what he's made during potluck dinners.
Anyhow... Let's fly rockets. 'Cause I have WAY too many to build...

Adrian

 

[Zeus-cat]

I believe most, if not all states, still do not allow siblings and first cousins to marry. Is this a double standard? Shouldn't marriage equality include incest?

I remember reading somewhere that first cousins are genetically dissimilar enough that they could marry and their offspring would not have genetic problems. However, just think of the in-law problems you would have!

 

[AlfaBrewer]

I remember reading somewhere that first cousins are genetically dissimilar enough that they could marry and their offspring would not have genetic problems. However, just think of the in-law problems you would have!

My neighbors have an intersting in-law situation. His dad was divorced, her mom was a widow. They spent a lot of time together watching the grandkids. One thing led to another and now Mom and Dad are also MiL and FiL.

 

[SecretSquirrel]

[YOUTUBE]otLzobC4OTU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Cl(VII)]

I remember reading somewhere that first cousins are genetically dissimilar enough that they could marry and their offspring would not have genetic problems. However, just think of the in-law problems you would have!

There would be an increased risk of genetic disorder. As an example think about a disease like Cystic Fibrosis. For a child to be effected by CF they have to be autosomal mutants, meaning two bad copies of the CFTR encoding gene. The prevalence of the most common mutation leading to disease (deltaF508-CFTR) is about 1 in 30 in the white population. You have to have two bad copies of the gene for the disease to manifest, so you need two parents each of whom are carriers (one good, one bad copy, about a 1 in 900 chance such a couple happens by chance). These parents have a 1 in 4 chance of having a child with CF...which is why the CF rate is so low.

Now if you have a set of first cousins who marry, who by definition share one set of grandparents (one of whom is a CF carrier in this example) the chances that the cousins individually are CF carriers is about 1 in 4 for each. That means the odds they both are CF carriers becomes 1 in 16. Factor in the 1 in 4 chance that two CF carriers have a child who has CF disease (two bad gene copies) and you are at 1 in 64 odds that a given child born to 1st cousins who had a single common CF carrier grandparent will have the disease.

Still not high odds for this one example, but there are countless "rare" genetic diseases, and the smaller the gene pool the greater the odds that one of these autosomal recessive diseases occurs. Also, keep in mind that MANY genetic diseases/abnormalities are embryonic lethal, and therefore are never really "diagnosed". When it comes to the odds of having healthy offspring maximum genetic diversity is the best way to hedge the bet.

My nerd is showing, isn't it.

 

[AlfaBrewer]

My nerd is showing, isn't it.

Not so's you'd notice.