moosetracker

Welcome.. We enjoy new blood.. But warning we do have a few mosquitoes. So lather on some bug spray.

Thanks ghermanno.. Today I am sharing my husband and son with scouting.. I had them this morning & early noon. but soon they take off for meeting scouts for swimming merit badge work, and then from there to the EBOR, they wont return until 10 or 11 tonight. .. Well at least they got the man who schedules our EBORs not to hold them on Easter Sunday anymore. That's an improvement.

I can't do the legal Eagle info.. But personally I always thought it was an extention of "self" incrimination rule.. Your spouse and you are considered "joined" or "as one", or "your other half".. So by forcing a spouse to testify against you, it is similar to self-incrimination.. But, I do believe you are right. They can't force them to testify against their spouse, but if they are willing, they have ther right to do so, in most cases.. I think there is something about something they are told by their spouse in confidence that would cause something similar to a client-atterney priviledge. Don't know how it works though, because I also think if they are silent, they can then be arrested as accomplices.. so the whole thing is very murky.. Because I can see if the spouse knows something (told in confidence) and stays quiet, then they are now an accessory.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Merlyn - I think BS-87 was trying to make a different point, but he flubbed up typing in a word or two.. I didn't see the chair lift as what others couldn't use, but that with the chair added the normal populace now couldn't use the pool, maybe due to the disabled now using it (and taking up the whole thing) for therapy.. Or normal populace now can't use the pool because the disabled has cooties... But then when you read the rest and see he is trying to make an arguement FOR Same-SEX marriage with this analogy it just makes me think he really flubbed up a word or two.. His conclusion states something like "They did good with the rule for pools, why can't they do the same with something more important, marriage.".. Whice then does not make sense, if he feels the addition of the chair, not makes it impossible for the normal populace to use the pool (or the chair.)

Calico -- tut-tut.. Don't be anti-Catholic (pssst... you forgot the Obama comparison to Hitler and Stalin.) Beavah -- tsk-tsk.. Did you just admit that the Catholic Church can get a little radical in their attempts to flush out the devil? I had heard a month or two back that some GSUSA were told they were no longer welcome to meet at Catholic Churches due to their views.. I thought this decision had already passed. I guess it was some churches that were just jumping the gun..

Interesting Beavah, so you argue government should not be involved in marriage, yet it was religion that worked hard and lobbied for their involvement, and because of that it gives religion the right to deny those same legal rights to homosexuals.. Although no one should get those legal rights under marriage, because the legal system should not be involved in marriage.. I think I hit a whirlpool. Separate but equal was for more than schooling. It was a US Supreme court ruling that separate but equal FACILITIES were not unconstitutional. The ruling came when fighting over a battle at how railways separated blacks & whites, not schools. But it also effected separation on the bus, in restaurants, at water fountains.. and few were equal.. Blacks always got the worst sections, the hand-me-downs that were no longer good enough for the whites. schooling, was anything but equal.. The blacks schools themselves were practically slums, they never got funding for fixing things or getting textbooks or other school supplies. Well anyway.. Forward to today.. With Same-sex marriages.. Civil unions may be separate, but they are not equal. But that is what is so great about changing the way marriage is organized in this country. Because EVERYONE would be EQUALLY baffled by what they get from the religious marriage, what they get from the government civil union contracts.. And EVERYONE may EQUALLY loose some of the legal benefits they now have with todays marriage/legal entanglement.. And EVERYONE may EQUALLY have their marriages not considered valid by different religious types. And NOONE can claim some long history and tradition as making it their right to deny the same rights to a group they don't like.. (Well at least for 100 years or so.)

Well, they may know that getting the state to adopt marraige rather then civil unions will not get them automatic Federal legal rights, but they know it gets them a step closer to asking for them.. They know that, and so do those opposed to same-sex marriages.. That is why they are pushing for a law against it.. Why?.. If they are against the religious implications, but are fine with people getting equal rights, then why oppose what is just legality.. Perhaps because they are also against equality for this group of people.. Maybe if a civil union did give them truely ALL the priviledges of marriage state, federal and all the little unforseen small legal hoops, and employeers were given the option to accept or not a civil marraige.. Maybe they would be content with it.. Maybe.. But that is alot of maybe's.. At this point in time they have been insulted with the fact it wasn't equal it already now conotates too negative an image, you are right Beavah.. At this point it will not be good enough even if you change the name to blingering or whatever.. Seprate but equal was the idea with black segragation.. We know how well that worked out.. Seprate, but hardly equal.. Well that is the civil union.

Beavah - you didn't finish reading my post.. You state That was the point, and yeh apparently missed it completely. Which doesn't make sense if you had read my full post, which stated that while we had civil marriage, it did not give the same rights to those who were in a civil marriage.. At least it did not at the DMV. I am sure there were other places that were not the same, like I don't think your employer had to offer benefits for you civil union partner that it would for your spouse.

Well with all that is wrong with this country today, if this is the biggest issue everyone concerns themself with.. I don't know if it doesn't say much for the canidates in that no-one trusts a word they say with their campaign retoric, or if it doesn't say much for the population in that we can't vote on anything more complex then if we are for or against equal rights for homosexuals (or gay marriage depending on which side you are on.)

Maybe, but the time to bargin is before you take the merchandise home with you. For what it ended up costing him, I bet the $800 now seems like it would have been a bargin if he had paid it.

I know two, who also know me.. I wouldn't be surprised if others in my neighborhood know who I am, by what I write, but have yet to say so.. Nope it is all through spending time on here, debating, argueing and in rare cases even agreeing.

Beavah you forget New Hampsire now allows same-sex marriages. We did have civil union. It wasn't 100% equal though. Wish I could remember exactly what it was, but when I took my son to pass his drivers test, there was some hub-bub.. Something they would not acknowledge for a lady with a civil union that was acknowledge for a marriage. I can't think of what it could be now, but it was of interest while there, and was an interesting conversation on the ride home after the intial, "Yeah.. I passed! This is what I did right, this is what he warned me about being more careful with." Merlyn - I would suspect you know, but just to clarify.. Federal stuff still doesn't apply..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

See you misread my messages as I misread yours.. I said I NEVER LUMPED THEM into that catagory.. I mean to be a bigot, don't you have to lump a full group into a "Borg" mentality, then you can pre-judge them.. But I will state I do predict if I discussed my views with and Arch-Bishop I would be surprised if he said he agreed with my viewpoint.. So with the upper-clergy, there I will say I could be prejudice.. Although if we do not broach the subject matter, I have no idea if we could get along or not.. I see little opportunity to sit down and shoot the breeze with them guys though. So if I think they may be pleasent enough with casual conversation, but think we may class on ideology about Gay rights or birth control.. Does that make me a bigot? Hmmm.. never saw my husbands faith as contrary.. Early on I knew he was an ale carte Catholic.. Everything he disagreed with made him perfectly at home in the Protestant Church.. We really have never argued about our ideas on faith. If asked he will still say he is Catholic though, makes him happy so I don't mind. I will still say I am protestant, makes me happy.. he dosen't mind.

Thanks packsaddle.. I will admit to to not agreeing with the conservative views in the Catholic Faith (which became more conservative the newest Pope), and will admit I kindof do lump the Catholic clergy into believing those viewpoints.. And I had to just recently redifine my viewpoint that not all the clergy do follow that thinking.. But, I always knew most Catholics accept their religion by choosing ale cart, so never lumped ALL Catholics as the being similar to "THE BORG" (some star trek analog).. What is the poll? Something like 80% don't agree with the birth control thing. I don't know what the poll is of where they fall with the same-sex marriage thing. Tend to think there is more agreement there.. Maybe only 40-50 percent disagree.. Never met many Nuns, but I have met some Catholic priests, and personally like some of them (others were kindof pompous).. Like the guy who was at the Marriage retreat.. That was a really cool laid back preist.. So I really should not have assumed that they all were so conservative and stuffy.. And I must admit, although I have changed my impression of the nuns and preists as all of the same attitude (But still think their are many I may disagree with).. I do think I will still consider the Pope, Arch-Bishops & Bishops as people that I may like only as long as they don't get preaching on certain subject. In which case, we may have some words. But hey my mother-in-law heard that political speech service that every priest was to give at every service they held on a given week about how nasty Obama is over birth-control issues. She and her son got into a debate about it.. Her believing the retoric her son not agreeing (I wasn't there).. I still love her though. After all she is from and older generation, and disagreement does not mean instant dislike.. I even like Beavah, more so when we are not knocking heads together in disagreement.. Besides my son & his fiance think Beavah is the greatest..

Oh sure.. Now you want to cut the Orthodox Jews out of their take on the patent.. Hey actually I did have a Catholic Priest preform part of my marriage, and my father (who is a Protestant minister) performed the other part.. Even went to one of those weekend retreat marriage classes, so the Catholic Priest could take part in the marriage. That was where the discussion came up about how I could promise to raise my children to the best of my ability in the Catholic faith, when I knew I was not going to raise them in the Catholic faith.. I was told by the preist best of my ability is just that.. Best of my ability.. So you can't rip my marriage away from me!.. But, it would be an interesting court battle, and I think you would have many protesting the RC claims to it.. Sort of like if I tried to now patent all the making of fire, because it was my great-great (1000 times great) grandfather caveman Moose, who first discovered fire..

Christians reserve the right to impose their will on the rest of society Really? Who made us King/Queen? Has anyone told Isreal that yet?.. How about all the countries where the majority follow the Islamic faith? I am told that if you are Christian in those societies, you are treated as second class citizens or worse. I was of the belief that our government was to be religious neutral.. And why is it that some Athiests have won some of their court battles here in the US that when what they wanted got Christians very angry?.. Packsaddle - Each individual Religion would get the right to define Marriage per their beliefs.. But, Marriage will just be a religious ritual, same as a Baptism or Confirmation is.. So if you get too pricy, many will just opt for the Government contract that gives them the entitles them to the legal benifits Marriage use to have but does no more, and skip the Religious blessing for the union. I really thing you seeing getting $$$ over something, that will really be no more attractive then it is now, and to some (like atheists, agnostics), will have absolutely no attraction. (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Must have been your next post down from the one I posted that confused me. What yeh seem to want is for the state to act like a church, eh? And one that competes with other churches (except that our donations to da Justice of the Peace Ministry aren't voluntary). Nah. If we're goin' to disentangle the state from da JudeoChristian form of marriage, let's build da real wall between church and state. The state is not permitted to interfere or subsidize one over another at all. And I reckon anybody who wants to use da term "marriage" will have to pay the Orthodox Jews or the Catholics a licensing fee, eh? And meet their criteria . So if yeh don't like da traditional view of marriage, come up with some new thing. Call it "blingering" and develop a "blingering" ceremony. Have blingering festivals. Introduce your blingermate. Don't try to steal da meaning, intent, and reputation of an institution someone else built and holds sacred. Sounded like you were securing Marriage to be the property of Catholics and Orthodox Jews.. But to get a patent on the term Marriage, would mean to get Government involved. Sounds like Merlyn and others would be able to prove your religions did not invent the idea though, so it would be tough to prove you rights to the patent. Well anyway, doesn't matter.. Seems like over time you have "evolved".. And that's a good thing. We may all be in harmony on this issue one day after all.

Beavah - I had to look back to see if it was you or if I had you confused with someone else. Nope it was you who was looking for a gay union (or union between someone and a zebra if they wished) but they got no priviledges alloted that of a married couple .. Back in february first or second you posted the following: And why would the weddings be so abhorrent to service Because marriage as it is viewed here in da U.S. and the rest of the western world is historically and fundamentally a religious act. A full-out sacrament for some, a deep biblical religious commitment for others. So "gay marriage" is viewed quite simply as a deliberate sacrilege by folks who come from that tradition. Or at least a bit like someone who has never served in da military puttin' on a uniform and pretending to be a veteran. If we feel we need to provide for other forms of life partnership, it would be more respecting of diversity and each others' values if we simply separated the state from the marriage business, eh? Marriage is somethin' certain religious sects do, the state has no business in it. Just let adults who are able to contract set up any partnership arrangements they'd like through their attorneys. Arranged partnerships, 4-way partnerships, Hollywood-style partnerships that expire in 2 months with no obligation. Whatever. Dismantle all the rest. No tax privilege, no immigration benefit, completely rework most of probate. If yeh want, yeh can work it like a treaty, eh? Have a signing ceremony with your lawyers and a notary public there. Then it would be easy, eh? Nobody should be compelled to attend someone else's religious ceremony. But if yeh just want a party catered for a contract signing, sure, why not? B But your weird proposal was what got me to thinking with a slight slant, it was workable.. This was the first time, I proposed the following: So if Marriage is somethin' certain religious sects do, and we removed the state from it, there isn't any problem with religions that are fine with homosexual unions still performing the ceremony. Right? I mean it is now up to the religion and their beliefs to if they will perform the union or not. Right? Remember ALL religions are not in agreement on this issue. Also I think you have it backwards. If we remove the state from marriage, and give them some other union to perform, then anyone who is in a union preformed by the state should get employee benefits for that union, tax privilege, immigration benefits etc.. Those in a religious marriage should get not state or government benefits for that union. But it seems now that we are both in agreement that this is a good idea.. So WOW.. Beavah you & I are in agreement on something dealing with religion ideology..

I don't think legalized marriage between a man and multi-women is the same as marriage between a man and a women. This is just surfing the net, but it seems that Same-sex Marriages have been in other cultures in the past Greece and Rome.. and in the current Culture, it should be no surprise that the US, is not the leader of the pack with it's acceptance.. Since 2001, ten countries and other nation-states have begun to legally formalize same-sex marriages, including Argentina, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Mexico City, Spain, South Africa (and use parts of the US)..

Well, Beavah that would be fine by me.. As stated about in 3 other posts.. You can have your polygamy also, But I will have to argue that spouse abuse, (either male or female) (either monogamy or polygamy) would still have legal issues.. Nor can someone kidnap and force marriage upon an unwilling partner that has no ties with your religious beliefs.. But, if you are all part of some religious belief that your religion says forced marriages are OK.. Well, OK, as long as the person is of age to agree to belonging to that religion.. After all they were a willing participant and accepted the fact that they would get forced.. I mean I just can't see religion now taking a turn that Freedom to marry means freedom from all social laws.. So they can kidnap and force people into their religions so that they can force them into their harem.. There comes a time traditional laws have to put a limit on lusty church goers .. Murder so that you can marry someone else still ends up being murder.. Kidnapping is still Kidnapping.. Peregrinator - who said anything about discrimination? Beavah just said they would not be considered Married.. So if a Gay married couple walks into your restraunt and you don't believe in Gay marriage, to you they are a Gay unmarried couple because you don't recognize their marriage. Also Beavah, I am pretty sure it was you who was stating a civil union they could call anything but marriage, come up with there own word for it.. But, then there was a list that stated what they would not be entitled to with their "new word" arrangement.. And the list basically made the contract not worth the paper it was written on..

I have always said that allowing religion to control the issue of marriage was fine, as long as government was totally out of the picture.. So the conservative religions could not use the government to set a marriage policy for the liberal religions.. Gays can get married in a liberal church, in any state they so choose.. That would be fine with me. I don't think Beavah sees it that way. He has stated before that Gays can have civil unions as long as they get 0 rights that are afforded a married couple with that union. So I would be very surprised if he is looking for a way to liberate Gays to marry. I really don't know what he thinks freeing every religion to choose their own course, without being hampered by the government legal system is going to gain him. But anyway, I can support taking marriage out of government and letting each individual religion decide for themselves. So Beavah & I are in agreement.

Sorry I really thought a group called "Catholics Called to Witness" would have been tied to the Catholic Religion.. WOW you tied it to a BLACK president.. I just tied it to a president who was against their policies.. No tie in my mind to the KKK, until you put it there.. I really am surprised I did not really see the President as a black man! Wow! Of course I knew he was black, but I had forgotten that over time. To me, he was just "the President".. So if I offended anyone black.. Sorry.. the image of the KKK was not even in my mind.. Just the original comercial with all the fires that are to cause an image of hell, and the fact that all this issues are being thrown into the fires of hell..

Sorry Peregrinator - I think we were crossing posts a little.. My comments about where I had pulled "burn in hell" comments were in response to EagleDad, I had not seen your post. But for your comment If one believes that homosexuality is a sin, then is it not reasonable to hold that those who seek to give it legal sanction are accomplices in that sin? Maybe, but maybe not.. Lieing for the most part is not against the law, adultery is a sin, but not illegal.. Legality and sin don't go hand in hand.. But, on top of it Obama is only saying this is HIS personal opinion.. But it is left to the state.. He never said he is going to Federally push a law for it.. It is smart for it to change as public opinion changes, rather then force Federal law to interfer.. So I really think any fear of this is unfounded.. Now Mitt Romeny I am told wants to push a Federal law banning Gay marriage.. So he is pushing his personal and religious view onto a country whose views on this is changing quickly to not be appreciative of forcing HIS opinion upon the country.. As far as both of them are concerned, you have nothing good to root for (I don't know if I have been excited about anyone since Ronald Reagan).. But, I definately on this one issue would be more willing to back someone who will allow popular opinion to rule over someone who is going to force his viewpoint into forcing the country to abide by his beliefs.. Unfortunately this is only a small positive point in his favor.. so now it it 1/2 to 0.. Where as before it was 0 to 0... Is there anyone we can do a write-in ballot for??

Beavah likes to label me a bigot, because for all his logic and reasoning I just will not change sides and agree with him. Maybe, although I like alot of catholics, I was not so thrilled with the current Pope.. (The one before him was OK though, I liked him.).. Not so thrilled with his minions either.. Beavah! Did you miss my post where I conceded that there was alot of Nuns and some preist that get my admiration??.. The ones that are considered by the Pope to be rebels.. SWEET !!! The commercial by Catholics is what it is.. You can decide for yourself as to it's merits.. The comments by the individuals, may be from whackos.. I don't know.. Definately did not leave any comment of what faith they were, or if they are of any faith.. Now I have stated that I don't think the church should be getting into the political arena, but that is my opinion.. Yours is different.. By my not agreeing with you, does that make me a bigot? The Catholic church is definately a place I could not feel at home in (today, with this current Pope) as my viewpoints do not line up with his.. But, I have lots of friends who are Catholic, my husband and his whole side of his family is Catholic.. We just can get into some debates on viewpoints, and alot of time we don't as they being Catholic, still agree with my viewpoints.. (I think the Pope John Paul II may have influenced their veiwpoints).. Does that make me a bigot? Oh well.. I guess I am content to be a bigot.. Sure am not going to change my viewpoint on the subject in order to not be a bigot..

I am talking about comments that are made by the hundreds by the general public after a story is posted.. Are you sure you read every single one of them?.. On the MSN site they had a "make comments through facebook" section.. I only read a small section, maybe 20 of them.. Half were "Yeah..! A president with guts", "Or proud of the president" type of comments.. But the ones in opposition either were "He will fry in Hell".. or .. "Just one more reason not to vote for the guy.".. So the "one more reason not to vote" comments, are reasonable.. but the "Fry in Hell" are not in my opinion.. As this just shows the type of "judging" those conservative religious types feel they are entitled to do.. That is all I am saying.. No breaking story on "Frying in Hell" yet.. Give it a week or two for the Catholics to come up with a new commercial on it.. Sort of a sequal to their original commercial "Test of Fire" http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/04/11/test-of-fire-catholic-2012-political-ad-goes-viral/ It will be titled "Burn baby Burn".. And will show a bunch of religious officials throwing Obama into the fire pit.. (And yes.. Now I am making this up.."