OT: Interesting Article

[Bulldogg31]

I found this interesting.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

 

[57stratdawg]

According to the 2010 Census, 33% of kids are being raised in a home without the father. I think the alternative for th author of the article was either single family or unhappy family. In th grand scheme of things, I bet she, along with countless others, will be raised in much better environments than the current alternative.

 

[Bulldogg31]

I don't disagree. Just found it very interesting that it was written by the child that was the subject of that book. I remember when that book came out and all the controversy it created.

Too many folks act and react out of fear on these issues, myself included. I've got several gay friends, many of whom recently got married and I really can't say it's affected my life one way or another. We're all still friends, still hang out and drink, laugh, and eat good food. They're happy and we're happy for them. No big deal really.

Also, 57, my Strat is slightly newer and Mexican made. I hope we can still be friends.

 

[00Dawg]

The current alternative is the current alternative...

because we as a society decided to remove the stigma from intentional single parenting, blackballing those who denigrate it. Now we as a society have decided to do the same to gay marriage.

 

[tatedog]

because we as a society decided to remove the stigma from intentional single parenting, blackballing those who denigrate it. Now we as a society have decided to do the same to gay marriage.

I'd be more inclined to blame all of society's problems on the gays and the single moms if half of all "traditional" marriages weren't ending in divorce. What does God say about divorce?

 

[QuaoarsKing]

I'd be more inclined to blame all of society's problems on the gays and the single moms if half of all "traditional" marriages weren't ending in divorce. What does God say about divorce?

According to the Bible literalists on the other thread, the Bible never condemns divorce, which isn't a sin...

 

[tatedog]

According to the Bible literalists on the other thread, the Bible never condemns divorce, which isn't a sin...

I'm quite a few years removed from Sunday School but I recall being taught that God does not recognize divorce except in the most extreme circumstance, therefore anyone who divorces and has sex with another is committing adultery, which was punishable by death. I've just always gotten a kick out of the people who claim "gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage" when traditional marriage has been destroying itself quite impressively for decades.

 

[patdog]

You remember pretty well, tatedog.

 

[57stratdawg]

People often overlook the inconvient truth that Biblical laws are much much closer to Sharia Law than US Secular law. But, that doesn't make for good FaceBook memes.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Hey Sport...

anyway you look at it, our laws and society are principally based

on the Ten Commandments.

 

[tatedog]

If the 10 Commandments were actually enforced by our society we would all be in jail or dead.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Ha ha, some things mean more than others.

Thou shalt not kill ... much more important , than
Covet your stuff.


It's still the basis for most of our basic laws.

 

[tatedog]

I think we can all agree that killing is the biggest no-no regarding man's relationship to man. Followed closely by any commandments that the people we don't like break.

 

[57stratdawg]

I learned in Law class (noticed I didn't say Law school) that every major religion basically has those same commandments.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Just wonder which of those religions was hanging around

the North American continent about 1775 or so?

Eastern seaboard, in particular.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Old Testament law is in some ways but we aren't to live by those cultural laws of the Jews. Jesus' teachings and the letters in the New Testament give us the lessons to live by. Some of those are up for debate on interpretation and some are pretty cut and dry.

I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer to many but I think it would be wise to be respectful of others beliefs and Lord knows that hasn't happened much this week by both sides. We will find out one day but in the mean time lets be respectful of one another.

 

[FormerlyHighLifeRebel]

What should we call something that doesn't make sense that's repeated

anyway you look at it, our laws and society are principally based

on the Ten Commandments.

Over and over and over again until it's just believed as true?

 

[00Dawg]

The Hotty Toddy cheer?

Nm

 

[00Dawg]

Since that's another action...

We took the stigma off, you're strengthening my point.

 

[MabenMaroon]

My outrage in the SCOTUS rulings this week have nothing to do with my personal and religous beliefs about homosexuality, same sex marriage or affordable health care. An overwhelming majority ( possibly unanimous ) of the posts on this message board are centered around one's personal beliefs and miss the significance and impact the rulings have on us as Americans and the fundamentals that our government and society were built on. The rulings are more bricks being added to the structure that is being built that erodes our individual power as voters and the right to govern ourselves, something our forefathers and millions upon millions of Americans have fought and died for. This is just another step in the direction towards governance by a group of Harvard educated lawyers rather than by electorate. And I have huge problem with this in that most of those that decided in the direction they did come from a background of wealth, privilege, seclusion and classroom education and don't have a clue as to how life is in America outside of those walls which they reside. Most of the controversial decisions rendered by the SC over the last couple of decades have nothing to do with the interpretation of our nation's laws but are rooted in governance by fiat and legislation in the courts instead of in the hands of the voters where our constitution and forefathers intended it to be.

 

[Bulldogg31]

I will add a +1 here.

 

[57stratdawg]

Here are the Ten Commandments:

1. No gods before me
2. No graven images
3. Don't take the lords name vain
4. Honor the sabbath
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Don't kill
7. Don't not commit adultery
8. Do not steal
9. Do not bare false witness
10. Do not covent

we have laws against, what, two of the ten?

 

[hydrodawg]

Is that you John Roberts?!?

My outrage in the SCOTUS rulings this week have nothing to do with my personal and religous beliefs about homosexuality, same sex marriage or affordable health care.

I knew you were pissed but isn't it beneath the Chief Justice to troll sports message boards? Anyway welcome to SPS! Please read the rules and chat is free.

 

[tatedog]

My outrage in the SCOTUS rulings this week have nothing to do with my personal and religous beliefs about homosexuality, same sex marriage or affordable health care. An overwhelming majority ( possibly unanimous ) of the posts on this message board are centered around one's personal beliefs and miss the significance and impact the rulings have on us as Americans and the fundamentals that our government and society were built on. The rulings are more bricks being added to the structure that is being built that erodes our individual power as voters and the right to govern ourselves, something our forefathers and millions upon millions of Americans have fought and died for. This is just another step in the direction towards governance by a group of Harvard educated lawyers rather than by electorate. And I have huge problem with this in that most of those that decided in the direction they did come from a background of wealth, privilege, seclusion and classroom education and don't have a clue as to how life is in America outside of those walls which they reside. Most of the controversial decisions rendered by the SC over the last couple of decades have nothing to do with the interpretation of our nation's laws but are rooted in governance by fiat and legislation in the courts instead of in the hands of the voters where our constitution and forefathers intended it to be.

I agree with a whole lot of this. I consider myself a libertarian and happen to believe that if the executive and legislative (both elected) would stop making a habit of sticking their noses into places where they don't go, then the Supreme Court would not find itself in the awkward position of interpreting and rewriting laws that are pure garbage... for example giving tax code preference to people based on where they prefer to insert their genitalia for intercourse.

 

[Joe Schmedlap]

My outrage in the SCOTUS rulings this week have nothing to do with my personal and religous beliefs about homosexuality, same sex marriage or affordable health care. An overwhelming majority ( possibly unanimous ) of the posts on this message board are centered around one's personal beliefs and miss the significance and impact the rulings have on us as Americans and the fundamentals that our government and society were built on. The rulings are more bricks being added to the structure that is being built that erodes our individual power as voters and the right to govern ourselves, something our forefathers and millions upon millions of Americans have fought and died for. This is just another step in the direction towards governance by a group of Harvard educated lawyers rather than by electorate. And I have huge problem with this in that most of those that decided in the direction they did come from a background of wealth, privilege, seclusion and classroom education and don't have a clue as to how life is in America outside of those walls which they reside. Most of the controversial decisions rendered by the SC over the last couple of decades have nothing to do with the interpretation of our nation's laws but are rooted in governance by fiat and legislation in the courts instead of in the hands of the voters where our constitution and forefathers intended it to be.

Amen. On many issues, our country is divided, and in some cases by a relatively thin majority. The electorate should have the ability through their chosen legislators to set the standards for their own states. If a citizen doesn't agree with say Alabama, then they can freely move to Oregon. Citizens could vote with their feet by moving if they didn't win by voting at the ballot box. This would allow the disparate states to better live in harmony with one another in the union. When the courts make the law and trample all over the legislative process, it leads to resentment and anger. One day the courts will ignite the spark that could potentially unravel everything.

 

[jakldawg]

I don't remember the conservative gnashing of teeth and rending of garments about usurping the will of the electorate when the supreme court decided a presidential election. Somehow decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, or McDonald v. Chicago don't push the same UNELECTED ACTIVISTS buttons.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

I also remember one certain side of the political spectrum really mad that the Supreme Court didn't go "activist judge" on everyone and "legislate" Obamacare into oblivion entire back in 2012...

 

[dawgoneyall]

The Supreme Court didn't decide and election. The voter decided the election.

 

[thatsbaseball]

I`m a Christian but I think one of the Commandments is dead backwards. Instead of honor your father and mother (whether they deserve it or not) how about "Honor Thy Children" ? Just step back and think of what this world would look like if ALL children were born to people who intended raise them properly and dedicated their lives to doing so. The biggest social problem in this country today is bad parents doing a ******/non existent job of raising their children yet a Commandment says that their children should honor them regardless. Lord forgive me for saying this but I think you missed on this one or left off a sentence qualifying why this "honor" is due regardless of how the parent performs as a parent. LOL

 

[mcdawg22]

Actually Hamurabi's code has as much influence. At the time of the Ten Commandments, marriages were often polygamous, some were between cousins and half relatives, and weren't typically based on love but were arraganged to strengthen labor forces or create alliances. The thing about this article that I find weird is she obviously is a good, contributing member of society. My daughter wants a little brother, 20 years from now she may write an article about how she hated not having a little brother growing up, but her mother and I made a decision that is best for us to be happy for the next 20 years and our happiness will foster a better home environment for our daughter than another child. At least we think. Who the hell can tell. I totally think it is better for kids to have a father and mother in their life but I also think it's better to have two parents that are happy than two parents that are 17'n miserable and are staying together for the kids. There was a study that showed one of the most common agreements on the fall of violent crime in the United States by sociologist is that divorces, birth control, and the big A have produced a lot less unwanted children in this world that grow up without a proper moral structure. Those unwanted kids are the ones that grow up with a lack of respect for other people. And while we all debate the merits of Old Testament and the Ten Commandments. Isn't the most important one left out. Matt 7:12 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

 

[57stratdawg]

I don't think our forefathers really wanted that. After all, they built the country as a Republic (not a democracy), and they instituted the Electorial College in case the "Harvard Lawyers" from the 1770's ever decided the general public was picking the wrong the President.

 

[johnson86-1]

I don't remember the conservative gnashing of teeth and rending of garments about usurping the will of the electorate when the supreme court decided a presidential election. Somehow decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, or McDonald v. Chicago don't push the same UNELECTED ACTIVISTS buttons.

its always nice when somebody self identifies as not knowing anything about what they're talking about.

 

[00Dawg]

Nope. That had the most to do with finding a system that all the states could live with. A pure popular vote system wouldn't have gotten the support of the Southern states. You'll also find comments from the Founding Fathers regarding to keep a tight-knit group from being able to select a president at their whim.

 

[ArcherSPS]

Gore won the popular vote....so I guess the voters didn't decide the election like you said.

 

[johnson86-1]

I also remember one certain side of the political spectrum really mad that the Supreme Court didn't go "activist judge" on everyone and "legislate" Obamacare into oblivion entire back in 2012...

Enforcing the commerce clause wouldn't be legislating. That's pretty much the role of judges. It's not the role of judges to legislate new rights into existence. Not everything good is guaranteed by the constitution and not everything bad is prohibited by it. This idea that a 5 person majority on the supreme court should act as a super-legislative body is dangerous. It's just not a road we should be going down. If politicians on the right tried as hard as politicians on the left, or maybe were just as successful as politicians on the left, at putting ideologues on the supreme court, I'm not sure the institution would survive as we know it.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Gore won the popular vote....so I guess the voters didn't decide the election like you said.

This is why message boards are awesome.*** From two mommies to dangling chads and a necessary explanation of the electoral college and who really votes for presidents all in one thread.

 

[AssEndDawg]

My outrage in the SCOTUS rulings this week have nothing to do with my personal and religous beliefs about homosexuality, same sex marriage or affordable health care. An overwhelming majority ( possibly unanimous ) of the posts on this message board are centered around one's personal beliefs and miss the significance and impact the rulings have on us as Americans and the fundamentals that our government and society were built on. The rulings are more bricks being added to the structure that is being built that erodes our individual power as voters and the right to govern ourselves, something our forefathers and millions upon millions of Americans have fought and died for. This is just another step in the direction towards governance by a group of Harvard educated lawyers rather than by electorate. And I have huge problem with this in that most of those that decided in the direction they did come from a background of wealth, privilege, seclusion and classroom education and don't have a clue as to how life is in America outside of those walls which they reside. Most of the controversial decisions rendered by the SC over the last couple of decades have nothing to do with the interpretation of our nation's laws but are rooted in governance by fiat and legislation in the courts instead of in the hands of the voters where our constitution and forefathers intended it to be.

That's a whole lot of words that say absolutely nothing, much like many of the laws. Bottom line, our elected officials are SO corrupt and dysfunctional that they are incapable of doing anything of value. They write these laws with so much ******** and waffling in them that you can drive a Mack truck through all the loopholes and they create horrible situations like the issue with software patents. They do this because they don't want to take a side. This leaves it up to the courts to determine what to do with the mess handed down to them. This is a failure to GOVERN because if the law were clear the Supreme Court would not have room to interpret.

And I just want to add, that anyone who feels at odds about the ruling on ObamaCare (aka: The Affordable Care Act) I have no problem with you. From my seat as a leader in a large Healthcare system I think it's a decent law. Certainly not perfect, but better than what we had before. But if you hate it I have no problem with that, it certainly is a big change. But ANYONE lumping the same sex marriage ruling in with the ACA as an example of an activist SCOTUS needs to back away from public discourse and learn a little bit about the law. The Equal Protection Clause of the constitution is black letter law and easy to interpret. I'm honestly stunned that anyone dissented. The government simply is not allowed to offer up one thing for a certain subset of the people and not allow others to have access. It's as simple as that. Those gay marriage ban amendments and laws were illegal on their face the day they were passed and they have been an ENORMOUS waste of money, especially in states who weren't all that flush with cash to begin with.

Oh, and one last thing. I will take highly educated Supreme Court Justices any day of the week. They aren't support to "have a clue as to how life is in America outside of those walls which they reside" (which no one really understands a life outside their own) they are supposed to interpret the law. I don't want them thinking like some bigoted, uneducated piece of inbred trailer trash. But maybe that's must me.

 

[esplanade91]

As Whit Waide pointed out, 2 of the judges who tipped the scale in favor of gay marriage were appointed by GWB.

 

[tatedog]

This is why message boards are awesome.*** From two mommies to dangling chads and a necessary explanation of the electoral college and who really votes for presidents all in one thread.

Everyone knows the Illuminati control the Electoral College veez a veez the Hollywood Elites.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Yeah, I don't think the article I linked was read by too many on this thread. I thought it was an interesting take by a qualified source.