U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 07-11-2011, 05:55 PM
 
933 posts, read 979,156 times
Reputation: 522

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
I don't have data by state, if you want to see if you can find it knock yourself out. The trend is the point, in 15 years support for the idea has more than doubled, and is now over 50%. That's likely within the margin of error, but I imagine in 15 more years, it'll be 75%+.

Older folks who will die within that timeframe are overwhelmingly opposed, and they're being replaced by younger folks who are overwhelmingly in favor. FWIW, in 1996, had I been polled I would have said opposed. I changed my opinion after it sunk into my head that it had no effect on me, therefore it was really none of my business.
I wouldn't really worry about it. Calvinist has no basis except his own belief system. He will not rest until the rest of the world is burdened to live under his definition of right and wrong instead of living under the pre-tenses which our constitution was built (government as a necessary evil to secure all rights. Not to define morality, but to solve conflicts. To let man live within their state of nature unless they invade another's path to life liberty and pursuit of happiness). To Calvanist, the only life, liberty and pursuit of happiness worth protecting is his own. You must be real proud, Calvinist.

 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
163 posts, read 171,531 times
Reputation: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
I wouldn't really worry about it. Calvinist has no basis except his own belief system. He will not rest until the rest of the world is burdened to live under his definition of right and wrong instead of living under the pre-tenses which our constitution was built (government as a necessary evil to secure all rights. Not to define morality, but to solve conflicts. To let man live within their state of nature unless they invade another's path to life liberty and pursuit of happiness). To Calvanist, the only life, liberty and pursuit of happiness worth protecting is his own. You must be real proud, Calvinist.
Don't forget-- self-described libertarian. (!)
 
Old 07-12-2011, 09:58 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 3,125,297 times
Reputation: 1242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
I wouldn't really worry about it. Calvinist has no basis except his own belief system.
I'm just like you in that regard.
Quote:

He will not rest until the rest of the world is burdened to live under his definition of right and wrong instead of living under the pre-tenses which our constitution was built (government as a necessary evil to secure all rights.
The constitution allows me a voice in our government. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
Quote:

Not to define morality, but to solve conflicts. To let man live within their state of nature unless they invade another's path to life liberty and pursuit of happiness). To Calvanist, the only life, liberty and pursuit of happiness worth protecting is his own. You must be real proud, Calvinist.
Actually, as I've repeatedly said, I'm really kind of a live and let live guy. Stop trying to force your morals on me and I'll leave you alone.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 10:01 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 3,125,297 times
Reputation: 1242
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
I don't have data by state, if you want to see if you can find it knock yourself out. The trend is the point, in 15 years support for the idea has more than doubled, and is now over 50%. That's likely within the margin of error, but I imagine in 15 more years, it'll be 75%+.

Older folks who will die within that timeframe are overwhelmingly opposed, and they're being replaced by younger folks who are overwhelmingly in favor. FWIW, in 1996, had I been polled I would have said opposed. I changed my opinion after it sunk into my head that it had no effect on me, therefore it was really none of my business.
So really, that's a perfect example that society is fickle...and basing morals on society is not the way to go.

Having said that, our government is intended to give the people what they want--if the people want it, so be it. I still have a right as a citizen of my state, and my country, to voice my concern that it's not the best way for us to go.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
1,048 posts, read 1,357,090 times
Reputation: 208
Haha. . I'm sorry I missed this debate.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 05:22 PM
 
2,534 posts, read 1,037,365 times
Reputation: 1336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Stop trying to force your morals on me and I'll leave you alone.
YOU are the one doing that, by insisting that our entire society be governed by the dictates of your false god. For unless you can show, and you haven't even tried, a non-thelogical argument for why its a compelling interest of the state, prohibiting something for no valid reason has no place in our society.

Quote:
basing morals on society is not the way to go.
Absent incontrovertible evidence that your, or anybody else's, god actually did create morality, its the only reasonable standard. If god as you believe him to be did exist, he could make his presence, and rules, known in such a way as to leave behind no doubt whatsoever that he is who he claimed to be. Yet he remains mute. Therefore, you must conclude that he doesn't care about the things you attribute to him.

I am not an atheist, I believe in a larger consciousness system, but your tyrant vengeful rule spouting homosexual hating god is not a part of it. Sorry. Love is love, and it is the only thing that matters. And consciousness is the only thing that exists, and it's using us (which is really just an individuated chunk of itself) to evolve.

Wake up and throw off your shackles.
 
Old 07-13-2011, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
1,048 posts, read 1,357,090 times
Reputation: 208
I just find it necessary to mention that this post started out with ministers apologizing to gays. I would assume that this would mean that these ministers would agree to marry homosexual couples. So there you go. Homosexuals now have several ministers that will take you into a church and marry you.

So what's the issue?

As a heterosexual married man I personally don't need the state or federal governments blessing to justify my marriage. My minister married us, that is good enough for me. The state and federal recognition is really secondary. If the government said tomorrow they weren't going to recognize any marriages, that would not somehow make me less married. It would just mean I wouldn't receive any government recognition for it.

In fact, the last time I checked, the government isn't required to give out any special benefits at all, but they choose to do so at their discretion. This isn't just for marriage tax breaks, but everything, social security, welfare, food stamps, etc.. All of these things are handed out based on you meeting certain requirements. You can't get welfare if you aren't a US citizen. This is just one of the requirements. Perhaps some would say that it's not fair that only US citizens get welfare, but regardless that is rule.

Marriage recognition and the benefits thereof are simply another benefit. The states have the right and the authority to choose whom they want to give that benefit to. A couple of states have chosen to extend that benefit to homosexual couples and a few more states appear to be on that path. However, some states still choose not to extend the benefits beyond heterosexual couples. Is it fair? Maybe not, but it's certainly not outside of their legality to do so. The law is about equality and equality is not always fair. It's always about what is good for the majority (at least it should be).

That being said. Homosexuals now have ministers that sympathize with them and will marry them in their respective churches. It's not illegal to get married, you just won't get the benefits. Just like it's not illegal to be in the country without citizenship, but don't expect welfare checks.
 
Old 07-13-2011, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
163 posts, read 171,531 times
Reputation: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheaton View Post
I just find it necessary to mention that this post started out with ministers apologizing to gays. I would assume that this would mean that these ministers would agree to marry homosexual couples. So there you go. Homosexuals now have several ministers that will take you into a church and marry you.

So what's the issue?

As a heterosexual married man I personally don't need the state or federal governments blessing to justify my marriage. My minister married us, that is good enough for me. The state and federal recognition is really secondary. If the government said tomorrow they weren't going to recognize any marriages, that would not somehow make me less married. It would just mean I wouldn't receive any government recognition for it.

In fact, the last time I checked, the government isn't required to give out any special benefits at all, but they choose to do so at their discretion. This isn't just for marriage tax breaks, but everything, social security, welfare, food stamps, etc.. All of these things are handed out based on you meeting certain requirements. You can't get welfare if you aren't a US citizen. This is just one of the requirements. Perhaps some would say that it's not fair that only US citizens get welfare, but regardless that is rule.

Marriage recognition and the benefits thereof are simply another benefit. The states have the right and the authority to choose whom they want to give that benefit to. A couple of states have chosen to extend that benefit to homosexual couples and a few more states appear to be on that path. However, some states still choose not to extend the benefits beyond heterosexual couples. Is it fair? Maybe not, but it's certainly not outside of their legality to do so. The law is about equality and equality is not always fair. It's always about what is good for the majority (at least it should be).

That being said. Homosexuals now have ministers that sympathize with them and will marry them in their respective churches. It's not illegal to get married, you just won't get the benefits. Just like it's not illegal to be in the country without citizenship, but don't expect welfare checks.
Well said. However, I would counter that to deny the legal benefits of marriage based on the genders of the married parties would be discrimination, something the government should not be allowed to exercise discretion on.
 
Old 07-13-2011, 10:01 AM
 
58 posts, read 12,246 times
Reputation: 45
There is nothing wrong with being gay, but the bible does not support it....So why anyone gay would want to hi-jack christianity, when it is not even supportive of their lifestyle or beliefs......is beyond me! Start your own religion gay people, instead of trying to change someone elses. It doesnt mean Jesus/God does not love you, but if you stnd behind your lifestyle, why do you want a religion that in clear text judges you wrongly?....

^&*%, if prophet stinkin muhammad can start a religion and get away with it, there is no reason why anyone else shouldn't/couldn't!
 
Old 07-13-2011, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
1,048 posts, read 1,357,090 times
Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManOnTheMoon View Post
Well said. However, I would counter that to deny the legal benefits of marriage based on the genders of the married parties would be discrimination, something the government should not be allowed to exercise discretion on.
The law is cold. All emotion aside. You can't claim gender discrimination based off of the gender of another person. It just doesn't work like that.

Also lets not get benefits and rights confused here. Benefits are granted, rights are not. Rights are general, everyone has them, you can't give them or take them away. We are "endowed by their creator" with certain rights. Benefits on the other hand can be regulated and chopped up and given out as the state sees fit. Everyone has the "right" to marriage, but not everyone is guaranteed the benefits thereof. Benefits have to be added. Benefits to homosexual couples were not taken away, they were just simply never given, at least in Nebraska. Again, other states have given, and they have the right to do so. But they certainly are not obligated to.

Benefits are something granted more out of convenience. Assuming you meet the other requirements, if you lose your job you can conveniently get unemployment benefits. If you can't afford basic necessities you can conveniently get welfare. If you happen to get married and your heterosexual you can conveniently get a tax break.

There is nothing illegal about homosexual marriage, you will not get a ticket or go to jail if you have one of these ministers marry you. It simply won't be recognized by the state for purposes of benefits. Nobody is denying the right to marriage, but the state can say what benefits you get for your specific situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top