Update for all Forumites following developments here in the latest bastion of liberalism on the Left Coast, Portland, Oregon. x;-)
A hue and cry is going up among residents of Multnomah County and elsewhere in the state demanding the recall of four of the five County commissioners who agreed to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses and unilaterally imposed this action. The fifth commissioner, the only male on the Council, had been on record as opposing same-sex marriages early on and was excluded from the other commissioners' deliberations.
The Oregonian Newspaper, the Governor of Oregon and others are just fit to be tied over here - not over gay marriage, but the fact that these supposed representatives of the people didn't ASK the people before they acted! x;-)
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-04-04 AT 04:51PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I just can't believe Don got this fire burning and then erased his post.
Don, are you out there? I came in late and missed your original post, but fully support your right to your opinion (which is usually based on sound judgement and years of HR experience).
If you were edited out, all forumites should protest. Didn't we just go through this?
As for gay marriages... I don't care what anyone does outside of the workplace. I expect professional behavior on the job in all cases, so just don't flaunt it on my dime.
I'm thinking Don must have self-edited, because if it were the Forum Police they could have just removed the entire post and not left the box up there. Don's post basically announced that Oregon had just joined the ranks of some other states in allowing same-sex marriages (which is true - at least for now. Stick around for five minutes and the situation will probably change).
I have been in meetings all day and missed the controversy. As an Oregonian and a citizen of what I thougth was a democracy, I am very concerned about what these commissioners have done.
Not only have they opened the door to gay marriage, but their end run on our state's definition of marriage opens the door to polygamy as well. If two men can marry, why not a man and two women, or three, or four?
Marriage is a socio-religious institution that has existed for thousands of years. It has been the bedrock of all functioning societies. Before we "re-define" marriage, lets take a long hard look at the implications.
The disdain for the public's opinion and the political process that the commissioners of Multnomah county have shown this week should alarm everyone on both sides of this issue.
Careful, Paul. You've very close to expressing an opinion that may not be politically correct and might offend some members of a seeking-to-be-protected class. x;-)
Well, Don's not around so I probably should clarify things a bit. Don deleted the text from his messages and asked us to delete the blank boxes that remained. I'm pretty sure we didn't kidnap or coerce him because everyone in that department was in a meeting all afternoon.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-04-04 AT 06:39PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Yes, as soon as I got a message from the Gestapo that my message had been deleted due to my stated opinion, I decided that rather than sit around and watch to see which of my subsequent messages they would delete and which they would endure, that I would just delete them all and ask them to delete the entire thread, since I created it.
I had no business weighing in in the first place. This next comment may not make it under the censorship radar, but my reasoning is that we have watched God removed from our classrooms and public buildings, our heritage blasphemed and boycotted across the nation, our children defiled and assaulted by churches/scout leaders/trusted souls, our family traditions and values trashed by the Whoredome of Hollywood and now, the very fabric of family definition defiled and trashed across the nation; that, I have concluded we are soon to be a lost nation and our children and grandchildren will wonder why in the name of hell we gave them this legacy.
Too many of us (you) sit back with a smile and say, "It doesn't matter to me." x:-)
If the "Brentwood Gestapo" deletes my message, I have it saved. Email me and I will send it to you, not that you would see this.
I thought I had seen all of your posts on this thread, but none of them appeared to have content that qualified for deletion, so I must conclude that I missed the one that was pulled. If it was along the lines of this last one, I don't see the problem.
Having strong opinions is one of the characteristics of good leadership. Don has strong opinions, and in the HR arena, they are backed by a thorough knowledge of the field and years of practical experience. And while I don't always agree with his viewpoints, I do appreciate his willingness to express those views and to passionately and logically defend them. I would also add that Don can 'turn a phrase' in a manner that usually clearly illustrates his thinking.
Now that Janet has bared a breast, Howard Stern has been taken off the air in several cities and various other radio and television programs are being censored into bland oblivion, I wonder if the forum is proceeding along this same path. I am not a big fan of any of the above, but I will say our way of life is under attack from many directions and this is something we should all examine with a critical eye.
hat will we allow to happen next? Pretty soon they will be burning books in the street and the idea of free thought and expression will bow to some beaurocrats idea of political correctness.
Marc, Don referred to the gay marriage issue as a cesspool. And apparently, there were some complaints. I saw nothing wrong with his cesspool comment. IMHO only a social liberal would take exception. But then, liberals are supposed to be in favor of free speech and fewer social controls allowing people to do their thing. Liberals are ostensibly opposed to censorship. Oops, I forgot, it is OK to censor conservatives - our voices need to be stifled.
Life can be interesting and lively without the likes of Jackson and Stern. Look at this forum, we have had some very lively discussions and some threads have been extremely interesting, yet no one has as of yet posted a topless picture nor used the type of language of Stern.
What bothered me about the discussion above is some who opposed gay marriage did so only out of logistical concern for the HR profession and legal ramifications. We should be the arbiters of corporate ethics, yet when it comes to matters as this, we ignore any ethical connection. Do we really want to go the route of Denmark, legalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage and euthanasia? Do they really have more freedom, or are they in reality enslaved by a hedonistic lifestyle unable to break the bonds of human greed and avarice? Is Danish society truly more free and open? That is where we are headed.
I do not believe in burning books or stifling free thought. But, I believe it is imperative we base our society on ethical and moral standards. Otherwise we have no solid foundation and anything goes.
All that said, I'm disturbed that Don's comments were censored. Not everyone will agree with his philosophy, but censoring stifles the debate and takes away the voice of many people whose beliefs were the bedrock of America.
Ray, of course you are right that we need to speak out and uphold the highest moral standards for our society. I think our silence/tolerance is due to years of balancing the needs of the company with the rights of the employee. We know that a comment made with the best of intentions can be turned around to open the company to litigation.
So as long as I am head of HR and, as such, voice of the company, my comments will reflect a tolerant attitude for anyone with 'rights'.
I express my true opinion behind the curtain of the voting booth. --Something the people of Oregon must not have had the opportunity to do in this instance.
I've been swamped all week, so this is the first time I've logged onto the Forum for a while. I'm going to throw a personal experience into this mix, because it involves a subject near and dear to my heart - my father.
He's 85 years old, a disabled World War II veteran, a widower after 36 years of marriage to my mother - and he's gay. He's lived for the past 15 years with a much younger man (younger than I am), and they had their union certified in California last fall as a "domestic partnership". He admits that he found it a little bit silly at the time, especially at his age, but then he fell and broke his arm on Christmas day. After a couple of hospital admissions and brief stays in a nursing home, his partner was able to take paid time off from work under the California family leave act to take care of Dad until his arm healed and he could be left alone at night while his parnter works (his partner is a private duty nurse).
My spouse and I made a trip to San Diego to visit them in January, and Dad and I had a long talk about his relationships with both my mother and his parter. His sexual orientation wasn't a choice - it was something he knew from the time he was about 14 years old. However, the convention of the time prohibited any open recognition of it, even though he truly feels that if he'd told his parents that he was "different", they would have accepted it completely. He loved my mother and gave her what she truly wanted in life - children and a stable marriage - all the while keeping the secret about who he really was.
It's clear that my Dad and his partner truly love and care for each other - and that's what this is really all about. I think that children benefit from being raised in a home where love between two parents abounds - regardless of the genders of the parents. The government provides lots of benefits for heterosexual married couples - tax breaks, inheritance rights, FMLA, etc. Is it really fair to deny these same benefits to a couple just because they share the same gender?
For those of you who hold the opinion that the Bible dictates that these unions are an abomination, think again - how would you respond if your son or daughter came to you with a life partner of the same sex? Does your child, whom you have loved with all your heart since the day they were born, suddenly become abominable?
ritaanz made a comment in an earlier post about broadening the horizon - I couldn't agree more!
Psrcello, I am one who has stong biblical convictions, and I do believe the Bible speaks against homosexuality. That stated, this is the wrong forum to get into a detailed theological discussion. But, I do want to make it clear, if my unmmarried younger adult son suddenly announced he was gay, I would be devastated. But, my son would not be abominable. He would still be my son and I would love him as such. The act is abominable, not the person.
I agree with you 100%. This by by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945 says it for me.
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Time for the bleeding heart liberal to speak. I was enjoying the debate. It is obvious that outside of work issues, Don and I are polar opposites in our opinions. No matter where someone is politically, we all believe in family values. What the disagreement is about is what are families and what are family values. I would hope that we can continue to strongly disagree...after all, that is one of the reasons I love being an American.
Please leave me out of the discussion. I don't want to sound objectionable here, but, I would prefer that you simply state your opinion without comparing it to mine and without referring to mine. If mine is to be discussed or given, I will be the one to do that. Thank you for considering this request.
Most of you may not have noticed, but I haven't been posting much of late. And the reason was the last round of censorship. So, sexual content needs to be monitored among adults? Huh, kind of got by me on that one, so just started limiting my visits. Now, it appears, someone with an opposing political opinion can censor another.
I'm a Democrat. I think my beliefs are mostly just a little left of right. Most everyone I know is Republican (save for a couple of siblings and two out of three sons who both live in California!). I believe many are a tad more conservative than I am liberal, but there's another opinion. It makes for some spirited debates and some downright arguments.
Ray, I resent your comment that liberals believe in free speech until it comes to conservative talk. Just what talk radio show are you listening to? I've yet to find one...even one...that says anything resembling the way I feel.
Now, everyone, get this - I resent Ray lumping me in with a liberal or some liberals who have, to his way of thinking, stifled conservative perspective. I’d like to converse with him on the subject. BUT I AM NOT OFFENDED. Next time he comes to Arizona to see his granddaughter, I’ll have him over for tea and crumpets. Ah, he**, who am I kidding...it’ll be beer and pretzels.
Now to weigh in on this issue, I agree with Whatever...er...wait, I guess we can’t agree or disagree with what a particular person says anymore. So I will reiterate that we all believe in family values. As previously stated, where we disagree is in the definition of family and the values for that entity.
I generally agree with you, Leslie... oh, can I do that without being inadvertently offensive? x;-)
This is one of those topics that generates a lot of knee jerk reactions from both sides of the spectrum, both liberal and conservative. That's one of the things that makes this country so great - diversity of opinion and beliefs. Although all the breast-beating and saber-rattling can get tiresome, at times.
I have personal feelings with regard to this issue that would probably not endear me to the gay rights activists. However, in HR we all know that we don't always have the luxury of being able to voice an opinion that might generate a cry of "I'm offended by that!" (Sometimes the desire to say "GET OVER IT!" is overwhelming) x;-)
My biggest complaint was with the manner in which the decision to issue licenses was made. In secret, in violation of Open Meetings laws, and with no prior deliberation including the public's input. This kind of thing is what happens in totalitarian societies, not free societies. I can't help but feel an agenda was pursued and accomplished by elected officials who were caving to a special interest group's threats.
Not saying that the way it was handled was appropriate on Mayor Newsome's part BUT we are a free society and as our forefathers stated in the Constitution:
Amendment XIV
Section 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.
Declaration of Independence We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Why should we judge how a person defines their life or their pursuit of happiness. Each person has different beliefs and ideals.
Who are we to judge? We are a people. Not a sex, race, religion and by that equal and should be afforded equal opportunities to pursue our lives with liberty and happiness.
I am in CA and I have many friends who are straight and who are gay. All of them have values, care, love, cry, hope, etc...
>Why should we judge how a person defines their >life or their pursuit of happiness. Each person >has different beliefs and ideals.
Lisa, I agree with you up to a point. But how do you feel about polygamy and incestual relationships?
If you believe that each person should be free to define their own pursuit of happiness, what if 2 siblings want to marry, if they are consenting adults? Would you be okay with that?
What about, as Paul said, a man wanting to marry 2 women? They're consenting adults and they want to be happy together in marriage. These are issues that come up when the defintion of marriage is altered.
Personally, I don't care about 2 men or 2 women, but I'm not prepared to live in a society where incest and polygamy may be allowed. Once you allow others to change marriage you have to allow everyone to change it to their definition.
Please note I'm not equating gays to any other groups, I'm simply making a statement about what may happen in the future if this is allowed.
Take it a step further, if there were no line and if we could do absolutely anything we wanted because it met our criteria for pursuit of happiness, then how can we justify disciplining ee's in the workplace. Maybe, they are just pursuing happiness and who are we to judge them? I agree with HRSage's last question.
Actually Leslie, I edited my remarks prior to posting to try to be as clear as possible to avoiding offending people like you who I consider friends. I was making a general statement. There is a broad spectrum when it comes to beliefs, political or otherwise. I don't lump everyone together who may fall under a certain label. And I certainly was not thinking of you in my post. Labels can be good as they can help define the philosophical basis for our beliefs - it provides a point of understanding. But, labels can be dangerous and misleading too.
I don't listen to much talk radio, mostly just NPR which tends more toward the liberal side. But, I avoid extremists on any side. My views are based on my observations, what I do hear, what I read, what I see on TV, what I pick up from interacting with others on forums and blogs.
The word cesspool was used in a political sense and was not personalized. It was used to describe an individual's point of view on the subject of gay marriage. It was censored even though it was not used as a personal attack. I do believe that with the exception of a few high profile personalities, often the conservative viewpoint is stifled because it is not perceived as politically correct. Unfortunately, both sides can sink to ad hominem attacks and that just incites emotionalism.
I would gladly sit down and converse with you, Leslie. Still friends?
Of course, didn't I say I'd buy the beer and pretzels? Y'know, I don't go to that kind of expense for just anybody! x;-)
And oh, by the way, my opinion of gay marriage notwithstanding, anyone who breaks the law should have to take responsibility for their actions - I don't care what kind of point you may be trying to make. Do it without breaking the law!
And with that said, Leslie has hit the nail on the head. The problem with all this is the beaking of the law. Personnally, I believe "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is for procreation and therefore by it's very nature is reserved for a man and a women. It a gay couple want to live togehter I can't stop them. The current laws do not premit gay marriage. I suppose I could say I have nothing against gay marriage as long as one the people is a gay man and the other a gay woman.
But all this is naturally leading down a dangerous road of anarchy. People are picking and choosing which laws they will or will not obey. If people want to have gay marrriages legally recognized, then elect those people to office you think will represent your views and have the laws enacted. As a conservative, I am deeply apauled at the lack of respect for the law taking place in this issue.
I believe the extreme left wing radical liberalism is taking us down the wrong road. They expect law to be respected as long as they agree with it. And Leslie, I don't put you in this group.
For those of you who missed Don's message that was deleted, here it is in its entirety:
"Ray wanted me to mention that the only states crawling down into this cesspool are heavily democrat."
That's all there is to it. It was deleted because it was an unprovoked, cheap shot at gays and lesbians (and I'm sure some are Forum members). It wasn't deleted because of political correctness, liberalism, global warming, a desire to stifle debate, a hatred of the First Amendment, or the Book Burning of the Month Club. If someone wrote the cesspool comment to insult conservative Christians, we'd delete it, too.
Some people seem to think we deleted Don's message because the HRhero.com staff disagreed with his opinion, ideology, politics, religion, or whatever. If that were true, why didn't we delete his other messages on this thread? Why didn't we delete anyone else's messages? Why didn't we delete the entire thread when Don asked us to?
Some people might be surprised to know how many conservatives are on the HRhero.com staff. M. Lee Smith, the man whose name is on every page of this website, is known throughout Tennessee as a Republican. If HRhero.com or the Employers Forum had a political agenda, which they don't, it would be on the conservative side.
It's been a very long week, and I'm out of here. Have a good weekend.
James Sokolowski HRhero.com [email]webeditor@HRhero.com[/email]
Whether or not I agree or disagree with the deletion, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to explain what you did and were open and forthcoming about it.
Comments
A hue and cry is going up among residents of Multnomah County and elsewhere in the state demanding the recall of four of the five County commissioners who agreed to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses and unilaterally imposed this action. The fifth commissioner, the only male on the Council, had been on record as opposing same-sex marriages early on and was excluded from the other commissioners' deliberations.
The Oregonian Newspaper, the Governor of Oregon and others are just fit to be tied over here - not over gay marriage, but the fact that these supposed representatives of the people didn't ASK the people before they acted! x;-)
Don, are you out there? I came in late and missed your original post, but fully support your right to your opinion (which is usually based on sound judgement and years of HR experience).
If you were edited out, all forumites should protest. Didn't we just go through this?
As for gay marriages... I don't care what anyone does outside of the workplace. I expect professional behavior on the job in all cases, so just don't flaunt it on my dime.
Not only have they opened the door to gay marriage, but their end run on our state's definition of marriage opens the door to polygamy as well. If two men can marry, why not a man and two women, or three, or four?
Marriage is a socio-religious institution that has existed for thousands of years. It has been the bedrock of all functioning societies. Before we "re-define" marriage, lets take a long hard look at the implications.
The disdain for the public's opinion and the political process that the commissioners of Multnomah county have shown this week should alarm everyone on both sides of this issue.
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
We do have a Covert Operations Unit. They all wear shirts that say COVERT OPERATIONS UNIT. x;-)
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
I had no business weighing in in the first place. This next comment may not make it under the censorship radar, but my reasoning is that we have watched God removed from our classrooms and public buildings, our heritage blasphemed and boycotted across the nation, our children defiled and assaulted by churches/scout leaders/trusted souls, our family traditions and values trashed by the Whoredome of Hollywood and now, the very fabric of family definition defiled and trashed across the nation; that, I have concluded we are soon to be a lost nation and our children and grandchildren will wonder why in the name of hell we gave them this legacy.
Too many of us (you) sit back with a smile and say, "It doesn't matter to me." x:-)
If the "Brentwood Gestapo" deletes my message, I have it saved. Email me and I will send it to you, not that you would see this.
Having strong opinions is one of the characteristics of good leadership. Don has strong opinions, and in the HR arena, they are backed by a thorough knowledge of the field and years of practical experience. And while I don't always agree with his viewpoints, I do appreciate his willingness to express those views and to passionately and logically defend them. I would also add that Don can 'turn a phrase' in a manner that usually clearly illustrates his thinking.
Now that Janet has bared a breast, Howard Stern has been taken off the air in several cities and various other radio and television programs are being censored into bland oblivion, I wonder if the forum is proceeding along this same path. I am not a big fan of any of the above, but I will say our way of life is under attack from many directions and this is something we should all examine with a critical eye.
hat will we allow to happen next? Pretty soon they will be burning books in the street and the idea of free thought and expression will bow to some beaurocrats idea of political correctness.
I am off the soapbox for now.
Life can be interesting and lively without the likes of Jackson and Stern. Look at this forum, we have had some very lively discussions and some threads have been extremely interesting, yet no one has as of yet posted a topless picture nor used the type of language of Stern.
What bothered me about the discussion above is some who opposed gay marriage did so only out of logistical concern for the HR profession and legal ramifications. We should be the arbiters of corporate ethics, yet when it comes to matters as this, we ignore any ethical connection. Do we really want to go the route of Denmark, legalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage and euthanasia? Do they really have more freedom, or are they in reality enslaved by a hedonistic lifestyle unable to break the bonds of human greed and avarice? Is Danish society truly more free and open? That is where we are headed.
I do not believe in burning books or stifling free thought. But, I believe it is imperative we base our society on ethical and moral standards. Otherwise we have no solid foundation and anything goes.
All that said, I'm disturbed that Don's comments were censored. Not everyone will agree with his philosophy, but censoring stifles the debate and takes away the voice of many people whose beliefs were the bedrock of America.
I say be an adult and discuss your opinion if it's different or if you feel you are offended.
We're all entitled to our opinions there's no sense in stifling anyone's just because you don't agree with it.
So as long as I am head of HR and, as such, voice of the company, my comments will reflect a tolerant attitude for anyone with 'rights'.
I express my true opinion behind the curtain of the voting booth. --Something the people of Oregon must not have had the opportunity to do in this instance.
He's 85 years old, a disabled World War II veteran, a widower after 36 years of marriage to my mother - and he's gay. He's lived for the past 15 years with a much younger man (younger than I am), and they had their union certified in California last fall as a "domestic partnership". He admits that he found it a little bit silly at the time, especially at his age, but then he fell and broke his arm on Christmas day. After a couple of hospital admissions and brief stays in a nursing home, his partner was able to take paid time off from work under the California family leave act to take care of Dad until his arm healed and he could be left alone at night while his parnter works (his partner is a private duty nurse).
My spouse and I made a trip to San Diego to visit them in January, and Dad and I had a long talk about his relationships with both my mother and his parter. His sexual orientation wasn't a choice - it was something he knew from the time he was about 14 years old. However, the convention of the time prohibited any open recognition of it, even though he truly feels that if he'd told his parents that he was "different", they would have accepted it completely. He loved my mother and gave her what she truly wanted in life - children and a stable marriage - all the while keeping the secret about who he really was.
It's clear that my Dad and his partner truly love and care for each other - and that's what this is really all about. I think that children benefit from being raised in a home where love between two parents abounds - regardless of the genders of the parents. The government provides lots of benefits for heterosexual married couples - tax breaks, inheritance rights, FMLA, etc. Is it really fair to deny these same benefits to a couple just because they share the same gender?
For those of you who hold the opinion that the Bible dictates that these unions are an abomination, think again - how would you respond if your son or daughter came to you with a life partner of the same sex? Does your child, whom you have loved with all your heart since the day they were born, suddenly become abominable?
ritaanz made a comment in an earlier post about broadening the horizon - I couldn't agree more!
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
If we just stand by and do nothing, shame on us.
I'm a Democrat. I think my beliefs are mostly just a little left of right. Most everyone I know is Republican (save for a couple of siblings and two out of three sons who both live in California!). I believe many are a tad more conservative than I am liberal, but there's another opinion. It makes for some spirited debates and some downright arguments.
Ray, I resent your comment that liberals believe in free speech until it comes to conservative talk. Just what talk radio show are you listening to? I've yet to find one...even one...that says anything resembling the way I feel.
Now, everyone, get this - I resent Ray lumping me in with a liberal or some liberals who have, to his way of thinking, stifled conservative perspective. I’d like to converse with him on the subject. BUT I AM NOT OFFENDED. Next time he comes to Arizona to see his granddaughter, I’ll have him over for tea and crumpets. Ah, he**, who am I kidding...it’ll be beer and pretzels.
Now to weigh in on this issue, I agree with Whatever...er...wait, I guess we can’t agree or disagree with what a particular person says anymore. So I will reiterate that we all believe in family values. As previously stated, where we disagree is in the definition of family and the values for that entity.
This is one of those topics that generates a lot of knee jerk reactions from both sides of the spectrum, both liberal and conservative. That's one of the things that makes this country so great - diversity of opinion and beliefs. Although all the breast-beating and saber-rattling can get tiresome, at times.
I have personal feelings with regard to this issue that would probably not endear me to the gay rights activists. However, in HR we all know that we don't always have the luxury of being able to voice an opinion that might generate a cry of "I'm offended by that!" (Sometimes the desire to say "GET OVER IT!" is overwhelming) x;-)
My biggest complaint was with the manner in which the decision to issue licenses was made. In secret, in violation of Open Meetings laws, and with no prior deliberation including the public's input. This kind of thing is what happens in totalitarian societies, not free societies. I can't help but feel an agenda was pursued and accomplished by elected officials who were caving to a special interest group's threats.
Amendment XIV
Section 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.
Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Why should we judge how a person defines their life or their pursuit of happiness. Each person has different beliefs and ideals.
Who are we to judge? We are a people. Not a sex, race, religion and by that equal and should be afforded equal opportunities to pursue our lives with liberty and happiness.
I am in CA and I have many friends who are straight and who are gay. All of them have values, care, love, cry, hope, etc...
Ok I am off the soap box now.
Just my thoughts.
Lisa
>life or their pursuit of happiness. Each person
>has different beliefs and ideals.
Lisa, I agree with you up to a point. But how do you feel about polygamy and incestual relationships?
If you believe that each person should be free to define their own pursuit of happiness, what if 2 siblings want to marry, if they are consenting adults? Would you be okay with that?
What about, as Paul said, a man wanting to marry 2 women? They're consenting adults and they want to be happy together in marriage. These are issues that come up when the defintion of marriage is altered.
Personally, I don't care about 2 men or 2 women, but I'm not prepared to live in a society where incest and polygamy may be allowed. Once you allow others to change marriage you have to allow everyone to change it to their definition.
Please note I'm not equating gays to any other groups, I'm simply making a statement about what may happen in the future if this is allowed.
Once the line is moved when does it stop moving?
Just my thoughts.
I don't listen to much talk radio, mostly just NPR which tends more toward the liberal side. But, I avoid extremists on any side. My views are based on my observations, what I do hear, what I read, what I see on TV, what I pick up from interacting with others on forums and blogs.
The word cesspool was used in a political sense and was not personalized. It was used to describe an individual's point of view on the subject of gay marriage. It was censored even though it was not used as a personal attack. I do believe that with the exception of a few high profile personalities, often the conservative viewpoint is stifled because it is not perceived as politically correct. Unfortunately, both sides can sink to ad hominem attacks and that just incites emotionalism.
I would gladly sit down and converse with you, Leslie. Still friends?
And oh, by the way, my opinion of gay marriage notwithstanding, anyone who breaks the law should have to take responsibility for their actions - I don't care what kind of point you may be trying to make. Do it without breaking the law!
But all this is naturally leading down a dangerous road of anarchy. People are picking and choosing which laws they will or will not obey. If people want to have gay marrriages legally recognized, then elect those people to office you think will represent your views and have the laws enacted. As a conservative, I am deeply apauled at the lack of respect for the law taking place in this issue.
I believe the extreme left wing radical liberalism is taking us down the wrong road. They expect law to be respected as long as they agree with it. And Leslie, I don't put you in this group.
"Ray wanted me to mention that the only states crawling down into this cesspool are heavily democrat."
That's all there is to it. It was deleted because it was an unprovoked, cheap shot at gays and lesbians (and I'm sure some are Forum members). It wasn't deleted because of political correctness, liberalism, global warming, a desire to stifle debate, a hatred of the First Amendment, or the Book Burning of the Month Club. If someone wrote the cesspool comment to insult conservative Christians, we'd delete it, too.
Some people seem to think we deleted Don's message because the HRhero.com staff disagreed with his opinion, ideology, politics, religion, or whatever. If that were true, why didn't we delete his other messages on this thread? Why didn't we delete anyone else's messages? Why didn't we delete the entire thread when Don asked us to?
Some people might be surprised to know how many conservatives are on the HRhero.com staff. M. Lee Smith, the man whose name is on every page of this website, is known throughout Tennessee as a Republican. If HRhero.com or the Employers Forum had a political agenda, which they don't, it would be on the conservative side.
It's been a very long week, and I'm out of here. Have a good weekend.
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
[email]webeditor@HRhero.com[/email]
Thanks.