USVI-On-Line

DELETED

If I remember accurately, here's what Lex was thinking about in regard to Iowa. He had a certain impression of Iowa and two significant things occurred there that led him to realize that Iowa must be quite different than he had thought. The first was Obama's victory in the caucuses. Many feel that was when the Obama candidacy began to be viewed differently and taken seriously. Some observers were astonished that Obama could win so convincingly in an overwhelmingly white state.

The Obama victory was followed by the decision to permit same sex marriages. Again, many observers would never have expected such a decision in what was perceived as a relatively conservative place in the "Heartland."

Lex realized that Iowa must be a lot different than he thought. He remembered where the field of dreams lay and thought it would be an interesting place to visit to see what other misperceptions he might have about it.

I wasn't going to contribute to this post. Looks a lot like the same crew has gone back out to beat that same poor old dead horse some more. But I did get a new insight that I thought might be worth sharing.

I think I may have finally gotten a bit of a handle on what same sex marriages and homosexuality itself may look to some people and why they find these matters so disturbing and offensive. Some people truly and sincerely do not accept that a person is "born gay" or that homosexuality really is a person's sexual orientation. They see homosexuality as wrong and heterosexuality as right. So they wouldn't see a person as really being homosexual, only as a confused, misguided or perhaps bad heterosexual.

If that's the case, there really are only heterosexuals. Actually everyone is heterosexual. So from that perspective, how deeply disturbing it would seem for two heterosexuals of the same sex to engage in sex acts or form an intimate relationship. Since they are heterosexual, they wouldn't actually be sexually attracted to one another yet would be sexually involved. Their sex life together may actually be repulsive and disgusting to them, and yet they would continue. It's hard to imagine why. But it would be rather perverse. If they were not actually homosexual, how could they tolerate such things. And why?

Personally, I fully accept that a person's sexual orientation is not a choice and fully accept that different people have different orientations. I find being opposed to homosexuality to be a bizarre concept. But I can see that if I somehow held a belief that homosexuality is a bizarre choice made some heterosexuals, it would seem extremely troubling.

SJfromNJ wrote:

sailorgirl wrote:As to why now... why not now. I think you may be making a temporal connection between two events rather than an causal connection. Perhaps because it is an isue which holds more signifcance for you than others.

Excellent non-answer! Is non-answer a word?

Ha Ha Ha. Hello Pot this is the Kettle.

I just don't understand why you are so obviously opposed to gay marriage from a biblical perspective but so ok with the out of control divorce rate in this country. Oh, because lawyers and money are involved. That takes your "RIGHT IS RIGHT" and "GOD INTENDED X" argument down about 1000 notches. GOD did not intend for people to divorce either, yet no one is up in arms over on Fox News about this! Why, oh that's right because over 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

If its all about the money, have you ever met a gay man? The gay marriage industry will be a cash cow. If the marriage industry now is a $40Billion industry now, we are talking about some major economic stimulation.

DELETED

flip-flop wrote:Though he still thinks its a states issue and I still believe it is a basic human rights issue.

Any right not directly conferred upon the Federal Government by the US Constitution shall be left up to the states or to the people.

It is the 10th Ammendment.

It is part of the Bill of Rights.

It is called Federalism.

Cheney, once again, is right.

It is a states' issue, not a federal issue. Let the states decide, as they have been doing.

California is indeed, a surprising place.

DELETED

SJfromNJ wrote:

loria wrote:troll....... no feed please

Right, when all else fails, go with the personal attacks.

It's not even that. Liberals (well, many of them), have absolutely no interest in hearing dissenting arguements/opinions from those that they hold dear.

More than that even, a discussion of the issues in a public forum is what they really fear. It is why when John McCain asked Obama to debate at town halls throught the country on 15-20 occasions, Big O said no each time.

It is also why "AlGore" was so quick to deem the Global Warming debate "over by consensus", when there clearly is no "consensus". In fact in science, there is rarely "consensus" on anything. This is the reason your doctor's office is located in a "Medical Arts Building" and not a "Medical Science Building".

Lex wrote:Some observers were astonished that Obama could win so convincingly in an overwhelmingly white state.

See: Liberals.

Conservatives do not see things in terms of skin color...No, we'd rather judge someone not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character...As a great man once said.

In order for us to take Dr. King's message to heart, I have always thought ALL PREJUDICES and preconceived notions should be shown the door, including yours Lex as it relates to the "whites in Iowa".

Stop looking for the worst in people, and begin expecting the best.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think this covers it nicely.

The 14th ammendment of 1868 only applied if you were a white man and 21.

The 15th Ammendment of 1870 only provided for equal rights, but not enforcement under the law.

You may want to review,

The the 19th Ammendment of 1920, allowing a Womens right to vote.

Brown vs. the Board of Education 1954, which led to the end of segregation.

and Lyndon Johnson Voters Rights Bill in 1965, which ended Jim Crow voting Laws.

Look for equal rights struggles world wide, and believe that no matter what side of the table you dine at, someone else fought for your right to sit there.

Yes, the 14th Amendment...It was established to protect the rights of all people that were GRANTED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

As of today, the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights (understanding they are one in the same) recognizes Gay Marriage as a legal entity. Similarly, it does not recognize polygamy nor incestual marriage as a legal entity. Should it? How about under-age marriage?

IMO, there is very little room for opinion here, as the 10th Amendment clearly states that this is a states rights issue.

And beside, the Great One, Barack Hussein Obama, is more conservative on this issue than Dick Cheney. I mean, he is afterall "like...God" (according to Evan Thomas).

We should just take his word for it like we take his word for everything else...I'm gonna save 600,000 jobs with this stimulus act...Really, how does one quantify THAT?

Can we talk about the red Sox and Yanks.....

SJfromNJ wrote:

sailorgirl wrote:As to why now... why not now. I think you may be making a temporal connection between two events rather than an causal connection. Perhaps because it is an isue which holds more signifcance for you than others.

Excellent non-answer! Is non-answer a word?

Non answer is definitely a word. But I disagree with your conclusion that it was a non answer. You asked if I thought there was a connection between the same sex marriage issue and the activities in the NYS Legislature and I said clearly no. As a matter of fact just as recently as June 4th Rep. Montserrat announced that he had not yet formed a position on the issue of same sex marriage. So call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe that in less than 48 hours he formed a position which was so philosophically important to him that he switched sides. Mind you neither of these individuals have switched parties, they just sided with the motion to bring up a new leadership vote and then voted to place the minority party back in its majority position which it held for 40 years. In the process netting one of them a plum leadership position. A side note, in NY if a legislator holds a leadership position they get paid more for that position and it comes with various other percs as well. I’m just saying.....

So as physicians often say when trying to diagnose something, "when you hear hooves, thinking horses not zebras." Other than some pundit opining on the reason for the shift, I see no credible evidence from which you can draw this conclusion.

I’m actually sorry I started this up this morning, but I chimed in because I know the parties involved and how my legislature work, so Im out now. Back to your regular programming.

Yes Mike!

Wakey on the hill tonight...Feast or famine. But on the other side, the Yanks have no idea what they'll get from Wang (he of the 18+ ERA). Can the Yankees figure out how to get Bay out?

And Papi might start rolling...Lets hope!

How about Daniel Bard? He hit 100 on the gun in the 9th on several pitches last night. Gas.

soxfan22 wrote:Yes Mike!

Wakey on the hill tonight...Feast or famine. But on the other side, the Yanks have no idea what they'll get from Wang (he of the 18+ ERA). Can the Yankees figure out how to get Bay out?

And Papi might start rolling...Lets hope!

How about Daniel Bard? He hit 100 on the gun in the 9th on several pitches last night. Gas.

Need we really remind those Yanks that the Sox are 6 - 0 over them this year.

Papi is going for another one tonight and riding the quiet 7 game hitting streak...