What Happens When We Abdicate Personal Responsibility To The Government

Imagine, for a moment, that you are sitting at home one day when the police department calls you and explains that they feel that you might capable of robbing the local convenience store based on the testimony of a doctor you’ve never met, so they’re going to get an arrest warrant in a secret court proceeding and take you to jail for the good of yourself and everyone else. After that, neither you nor anyone else (up to and including the media) will be allowed to talk about your case. You, like most people, would be scared and angry. Now imagine that you record a conversation you have with the police about your impending arrest and post it on the internet in order to inform your fellow citizens about what’s happening to you, and the police respond with a lawsuit to get it taken down.
Sound far-fetched? It’s not, really once you consider that the scenario above is happening to a woman in Great Britain, except that in reality the police are really social services and she is being considered capable of harming her own child instead of likely to rob the local liquor store.
Behold the grim realities of the nanny state:

A pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of “emotional abuse”, even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way.
Social services’ recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.
Hexham children’s services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.
Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services’ request for an emergency protection order – these are usually granted – will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.
From then on, anyone discussing the case, including Miss Lyon, will be deemed to be in contempt of the court.

Amazing, isn’t it? This woman has broken no laws. She has not harmed herself, her child or anyone else. She is not being afforded proper due process, and when she attempts to engage her accusers in an open public forum (the internet, in this instance) the power of the government is used to shut her up.
How does this happen? How does a free western democracy devolve to the point where bureaucrats can get a secret court order to take your child away from you and shut you up if you attempt to speak out about it? It happens when citizens abdicate responsibility to the government. Responsibilities such as providing for their own health care and raising their own children.
Here in America the idea of making the government responsible for providing us all with health care is one of the biggest issues of this election cycle. Yet when we abdicate the responsibility for caring for ourselves in that manner to the government we invite politicians and bureaucrats in to start telling us when to go to the doctor and how to live our lives.
Recently here in North Dakota there was an article in the Bismarck Tribune about parents calling the police to help control their unruly (but not law-breaking) children. Again, this is an abdication of personal responsibility in that the parents are essentially asking the police officers to raise their children for them.
This is why I’m a conservative. I am adamant about personal responsibility, because if I invite someone else to be responsible for me I invite them in to control aspects of my life that I may not want controlled.

Tags: , , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array robert108

    In order for conspiracy theorys to work, there must be some aspect of reality that the conspiracy theorist takes issue with. (Emphasis
    mine.)

    Not true. While there is only one truth in any situation, there can be any number of untruths. Conspiracy theories are only true if there is any demonstrable truth in them. Otherwise, they are completely false. You can’t honestly make a general case that all conspiracy theories contain some truth. That’s a false premise.

  • Mike

    r108,

    For corn sakes, stop ducking the issue! Fine. marriage has always been heterosexual. I like that you placed your response before my real question, which dealt with different types of heterosexual marriage. I accept your endorsement of polygamy and arranged marriages, because they are heterosexual, and where they are prevalent, “they’ve always been that way”.
    Until the mid 1800s, America had “always” had slavery. Until the 20th century, only men could vote. Child labor was acceptable. That’s just the way it was.
    Again. I’m begging, begging, begging you. How do gay unions damage marriage? How? How does the encouragement of monogamous relationships weaken your marriage? Please focus. Please answer the question.

  • robert108

    We’ve established marriage for 1000s of years? Sure. Which kind? Marriage has always been heterosexual, as if you didn’t know. That is the point, so don’t lie and pretend you don’t understand that. Polygamy? Arranged marriage? one man/one woman? They’ve all existed for a long time,
    they’ve all proven successful in keeping family units alive and well.

    Nice try at loading the argument, but supporting real marriage isn’t “bigotry”.

  • Mike

    So. Where to start. Whistler – did you not see the previous comments about after death benefits, legal entitlements, etc?

    r108, you crack me up. There are equal numbers of swingers clubs, sex palaces, hook-up parties, etc in the hetero community. Good lord, man look at MySpace. Promiscuity is rampant. Divorce rates in America are some of the highest in the world, and those rates tend to be higher in states with “defense of marriage” initiatives in place.
    quotes like this:

    In fact, the gay bathhouses in SF dispute your point rather well. Rampant promiscuity and anonymous sex.

    prove your bias and bigotry. ESPECIALLY that you had to shoot straight for SF. One of the reasons these clubs have to exist is to create safe places for people to find relationships. It’s not all leather n chains, no matter what your deepest fantas–i mean fears, entail.

    docdave, look back at history. Your argument has been used to prop up segregation, gender discrimination, etc. Most Americans are white. Soon, this will not be the case. Will you be as comfortable when you’re in the minority? When Hispanics are the largest voting bloc in America, if they vote for change based on their own needs, will you sit back and say, “I’m a minority now, I have to accept that? “And are you comfortable that states are having to revise their constitutions to limit the life liberty, and pursuit of happiness
    to a select group of people?

    I’m realistic here, I know I’mnot going to change anyone’s mind. But I ask you how gay marriage hurts marriage, how it could possibly change the minds or feelings of heterosexual couples, and the best you can come up with is, this is how we’ve always done things.

  • robert108

    R108 has shown his bigotry by suggesting gay people aren’t capable of monogamy.

    I said no such thing, so once again, you lie and make things up. I questioned your characterization of gay relationships being monogamous by definition. In fact, the gay bathhouses in SF dispute your point rather well. Rampant promiscuity and anonymous sex. They are very popular with the gay community.

    R108 has yet to show one example of how gay unions hurt marriage.

    That’s not my job; the burden of proof of the benefits of so-called “gay marriage” is on those who would change the fundamental nature of marriage in order to satisfy a very small minorty special interest group.

    I ask again: How does so-called “gay marriage” benefit society, as opposed to the cost of fundamentally changing the definition of real marriage? I see more people at the govt trough, and in the Scandi countries, so-called “gay marriage” is already lowering the frequency of real marriage.

    Again, list the benefits for the rest of us, if you can. You have dodged this question long enough. Attempting to change the subject is not an answer.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    American Heritage had this:

    Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal

  • robert108

    Parents calling the police on their children is, sad to say, very very common.

    It’s also common for children to call CPS on their parents when they don’t get what they want. They claim abuse, and the parents are charged with no real evidence. This is just part of destroying the American Family, along with sex education in schools and the push for so-called “gay marriage”.

  • Mike

    I completely agree with you Rob. Keep the government out of American lives. Women should be allowed to choose if they want to carry a baby to term. And states are moronic for advocating the banning of gay marriage. Who are they to tell adults what they can or can’t do, espacially if no laws are being violated?

  • robert108

    I accept your endorsement of polygamy and arranged marriages,I did no such thing; you lie again. because they are heterosexual, and where they are prevalent, “they’ve always been that way”.
    Until the mid 1800s, America had “always” had slavery. Until the 20th century, It’s now the 21st Century. Get current. only men could vote. Child labor was acceptable. That’s just the way it was. Again. I’m begging, begging, begging you. How do gay unions damage marriage? The real question, if you were honest, is: How does changing the fundamental nature of marriage, which is heterosexual, benefit society? I have asked this before, and you seem to have no response other than to try to change the subject. How? How does the encouragement of monogamous relationships weaken your marriage? You are characterizing gay relationships as monogamous? I knew it! You are really a comedian. Please focus. Please answer the question.

    In general, Mike, you seem to be under the impression that it is my job to pander to your emotional needs. When I don’t do it, you get all pissy. Grow up. It’s not my job to take care of you. I’m not your dad.

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    Rob. Your post is an excellent warning. We must wake up and vote out these socialists. Our very freedom and way of life is at stake in 2008.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    since you know it would be rejected soundly at the ballot box.

    Make that “Has been”

    I have never seen any figures on what percentage of gays want so-called “gay marriage”.

    There was a report in Reuters earlier this year that only one homesexual couple from Toronto got married in Toronto the first half of the year.

  • robert108

    if you have a problem with the term ‘marraige’ then your stance holds water.

    I have no problem with real marriage at all. Like many things, it has requirements, which are: one man, one woman, above the age of consent, and not too closely related. It’s not a “special right” any more than either a Masters Degree or a college professorship is a “special right”. You have to meet the requirements to qualify. No one has a “right” to any of the entitlements you list; once again, there are requirements, and so-called “gay marriage” doesn’t meet those requirements, like heterosexual dating and shacking up don’t meet the legal requirements, either.
    Learn to do logic and analogy, please.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Schools have to have police on site to control the un-controlled.

    The problem is that the criminals shouldn’t be allowed in school. Take care of that you won’t need the cops in the school. If “kids” aren’t there to learn they should be expelled until they figure it out.

    A byproduct is that the kids that are there to learn will actually have a chance to do so.

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    Parents should be completely in charge of their “charges.” Schools should be able to keep the criminals, drug pushers, and unbalanced out of regular schools; then those who want to learn will be able to as was the norm until about 1964.

  • robert108

    making their communities better, What if it can be proved that they made the community worse? etc and one of them falls ill, the partner is not legally entitled to the same rights Still not “rights”. You continue to confuse individual rights with group entitlements. as a wife of six weeks would be if her husband was in the hospital. Four words: Durable Power of Attorney.

  • robert108

    If the word “marriage”, that little six inch high stumbling block is what you can’t get over, fine. Call it same sex unions. Give loving couples
    equal rights. Why should they be denied aftercare, healthcare, and inheritance rights?

    Real marriage is much more than simply the pleasure of two people. It involves genetic inheritance and the blending/continuation of families; like I said, the fundamental structure of all societies on Earth is built upon real marriage. I have no objection to gay people getting together to do what they want to do, but just don’t call it marriage, because it isn’t.

    There is no “right” to either healthcare or inheritance. You, like most lefties, confuse rights, which involve responsibilities and are individual in this country, and entitlements, which are group based, and appear nowhere in the Constitution.
    We honor real marriage with some special privileges because it is the glue that holds our societies together. We do little enough for married couples. In the case of gay unions, they only serve the desires of those involved, and offer no benefit to society in general. Thus, different treatment is merited. We don’t give special privileges to heterosexual couples who aren’t married. Why should gay couples have special rights?
    Until homosexual couples show that their relationships benefit society at large, why should they get special treatment?

  • imagine

    Parents calling the police on their children is, sad to say, very very common. Schools have to have police on site to control the un-controlled.

  • robert108

    And states are moronic for advocating the banning of gay marriage.

    Another lie from you; no one is “banning” so-called “gay marriage”, because you can’t “ban” something that doesn’t exist. All that is being done is to codify real marriage. So-called “gay marriage” is not real marriage, and never will be, so calling what gays do “marriage” is violating the rights of all the real married couples. How does so-called “gay marriage” benefit society? Why should we change something so major that is a building block of all human society?

  • Mike

    r108,
    It was late, I’ll forgive you the misuse of quote tags, although it makes it hard to respond to your points.
    We’ve established marriage for 1000s of years? Sure. Which kind? Polygamy? Arranged marriage? one man/one woman? They’ve all existed for a long time, they’ve all proven successful in keeping family units alive and well.
    Again, my central question to you, which you keep ignoring, is HOW do gay unions damage marriage? I’m Catholic, I’m married, and it doesn’t hurt my marriage one bit. What’s so weak about your marriage that something other people do could destroy it? I don’t seek to deconstruct “real” marriage, as I’m proud of my marriage and my faith. I only seek to understand where your bigotry comes from.

  • robert108

    ESPECIALLY that you had to shoot straight for SF.

    It’s a well-known “gay paradise”, isn’t it? If you want evidence of what gay behavior would be in a totally permissive environment, it’s the logical example. Duh. It’s not bigoted to identify SF as a well-known “gay paradise”; it’s a fact.

    There are equal numbers of swingers clubs, sex palaces, hook-up parties, etc in the hetero community. Good lord, man look at MySpace. Promiscuity is rampant. Divorce rates in America are some of the highest in the world, and those rates tend to be higher in states with “defense of marriage” initiatives in place.

    If real marriage is so bad(according to you), why do you want to afflict gays with it? Are you bigoted?

    But I ask you how gay marriage hurts marriage, how it could possibly change the minds or feelings of heterosexual couples, and the best you can come up with is, this is how we’ve always done things.

    You use that silly question to avoid the answer to the real question, which is: How would so-called “gay marriage” benefit society?
    You see, we don’t know the effects of so-called “gay marriage”, because it doesn’t exist. Why experiment on the vast majority for the selfish whims of a very small special interest minority group? You need a good reason for such an experiment, IMO.

    The giveaway to your bigotry is that this sort of thing is usually decided by the voters, but you “gay advocates” are trying your best to disenfranchise the voters, since you know it would be rejected soundly at the ballot box. Instead, you would impose it through the courts(a favorite leftie tactic) with no input from the citizens affected.
    BTW, I have never seen any figures on what percentage of gays want so-called “gay marriage”. Got any? I want to know how small a tail is trying to wag the dog.

  • robert108

    I hear that hospitals deny access to the homosexual partner at times when
    the one partner is critically ill. I believe that you should be able to designate anyone you want as your personal representative for those cases. If I want my best friend from High School to make those next of kin decisions that’s my decisions. Of course there’s going to be a presumption of next of kin unless you fill out the paperwork.

    Asked and answered; it’s called Durable Power of Attorney, and even real married people should do it.

  • Bat One

    R108,

    I certainly won’t quibble with you. Please edit out “far more” from my quote. Incidentally, I believe we are both old enough to recall that it was not those of us on/in the Right who pushed for all those “no-fault” divorce laws that had such a deleterious ong-term effect on the sanctity of marriage back then.

    Neiman,

    I thought I made it clear that I knew what you meant, but was only disagreeing with the implication of how you said it.

    Sparkie,

    I think your ancestry and origin of ‘bigot’ is piss poor.

    I believe that should be “are” piss poor… so that the verb and subject are in agreement.

  • robert108

    Besides, Mikey’s point about divorce doing far more harm to marriage is a good one…

    Gotta disagree with you on this one, Bat. While divorce(which is an individual choice) is certainly a bad thing for those involved, I don’t think it “harms marriage” at all. How could it? In fact, you could argue that it prevents bad relationships from continuing, and so might even be considered beneficial. In any case there is no connection at all with the “gay marriage” issue, which is one of definition, not process. That’s the real confusion of the lefties.

    On the other hand, imposing so-called “gay marriage” on our society changes a fundamental societal institution, and for what reason?

  • Mike

    Whistler, your right wing memes don’t surprise me. It’s the easiest way to fake your way out of a debate. I have no anti-American bias. I happen to be an American. My examples show how my country is capable of change and progress. it’s why I love my country and why it’s the greatest one on earth. I’m advocating freedom for all people.

    R108 has shown his bigotry by suggesting gay people aren’t capable of monogamy. I know several gay couples approaching a decade or more together. Heterosexual couples aren’t any more capable of monogamy than homosexual couples. I’ve alreaqdy said that unions benefit society by demonstrating the power of monogamous relationships and committed love. R108 has yet to show one example of how gay unions hurt marriage.

  • robert108

    You have to let your self-hatred go.

    Actually, TW, he’s simply recycling ancient leftie talking points. It’s like going back to the Nineties.

  • docdave

    I’m advocating freedom for all people.

    No you’re not. What you are doing to trying to do is shove a change that might benefit a small minority down the throats of the much larger majority that are opposed to the change. That is the reason that so many states are passing laws and revising their constitutions to define marriage as only a union between one man and one woman.

  • Neiman

    Bat One:

    It’s not a matter of doing injury to the institution of marriage.

    The goal of the homosexual activists is the destruction of marriage. I don’t have time now to provide the quotations; but in California the people passed a law a few years ago making marriage only between one man to one woman, through the initiative process. However, the state legislature has granted homosexuals civil unions and every right and privilege associated with marriage. Then, recently the Governor and the state attorney general filed briefs with the State Supreme Court in effect saying that the Court should simply do away with the term marriage and make every such relationship in California a civil union.

    So, homosexual marriages are a smokescreen, the homosexual community wants marriage itself abolished.

  • Neiman

    Bigot, from the German ‘bei gott,’ or ‘by God!’

    While there are differing versions of the origin of the phrase, it is understood to mean ‘by God’s name’ I will not do this or that, or ‘In God’s name’ I will not accept this or that.” It might also mean ‘this person has a mustache and is a derogatory, racial term.

    I have a mustache and therefore I am a bigot! “By God’s Name I have no intention of shaving off my mustache.”

  • robert108

    Proof: I doubt that any dictionary would contain such a redundancy. He made that one up, along with all the rest.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

    I guess anybody can write a dictionary these days! So then what would you call an un-prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own? Sloppy!

    I think the more common usage is:

    American Heritage Dictionary – bigot (bÄ­g’É™t)
    n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    And since it is a rather inflammatory word, you should be careful that you wield it correctly!

  • Neiman

    Bat One: I was speaking of the homosexual activist community and I made that clrearm so your charge of over generalizing is built on a false foundation. Just think about this:

    “Marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage . . . is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal:

    Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints

    . Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.

    With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.

    Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, “Abolish Marriage: Let’s Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms.” In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, “[

    The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage

    . And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let ‘em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.” Otherwise, the author warns, “it’s going to get ugly.”

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Proof: I doubt that any dictionary would contain such a redundancy.

    That was MY initial thought. Then I went to Dictionary.com and there it was in all its redundant glory!
    Hence the comment about anybody writing a dictionary these days…

  • Bat One

    Neiman,

    I don’t necessarily disagree that certain leftist activists would love to see the total destruction of any sort of moral code, ethical stands, or principles of behavior and decorum. These are late middle-aged remnants of the “if it feels good do it” generation after all.

    But to lay that cause at the feet of the entire homosexual community as you have done, deliberately or inadvertently, is a mistake, and illustrates exactly the sort of myopic paranoia those on the left are always screeching about in the first place. The danger of generalization is exactly as you have demonstrated it. I know a number of gay individuals who couldn’t “give a shit less” about marriage one way or the other… including my brother.

    Besides, Mikey’s point about divorce doing far more harm to marriage is a good one… even if his question about doing harm to “real marriage” is bogus.

  • Bat One

    Mike,

    I don’t suppose it has occurred to you that you are asking the wrong question? You keep insisting “How does gay marriage hurt real marriage?” But that’s not the objection of the straight majority to gay marriage at all. Yur question, in other words, is bogus. It’s not a matter of doing injury to the institution of marriage so much as the firm belief that marriage simply ought to be between a man and a woman. Period.

    Incidentally, just what does that Princeton dictionary have to say about an individual who uses unattributed quotations to make a point he is unwilling or incapable of defending about a subject he apparently knows nothing about? Would that be found under “hypocrite”, or would “coward” be a more appropriate definition?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Until the mid 1800s, America had “always” had slavery. Until the 20th century, only men could vote. Child labor was acceptable. That’s just the way it was.

    It’s funny how your anti-American bias shows.

    From the dawn of time Slavery existed and it was installed upon us by our colonial leadership. All we did was end it in an amazingly short time.

    Also child labor always existed and we merely ended it.

    And we actually led the way for Democracy and it only took a few generations to extend that Democracy to the entire adult population.

    You have to let your self-hatred go.

  • Neiman

    Sparkless:
    Neiman

    I think your ancestry and origin of ‘bigot’ is piss poor. Where did you find that?

    Ah, attack the person providing facts, but don’t bother refuting what I said with opposing facts. Very scholarly of you!

    Look up the Saxons and Normans and the origin of bei gott or bigot there.

  • robert108

    So, homosexual marriages are a smokescreen, the homosexual community wants marriage itself abolished.

    Agreed. The breakdown of our society, along with dividing us into groups who are told they have to fight the others to get their “rights” is part of the commie agenda for destroying America.

    The fiction here is that being either heterosexual or homosexual is more primary than being Americans. Anyone who tries to create that division between citizens is guilty of trying to destroy America.

  • Mike

    r108, from the Princeton dictionary

    Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

    The only reason I’ve been on this forum is to understand the viewpoints that I just can’t grasp. And what you’ve shown me is your narrow view of what homosexuality is (bathhouses and infidelity). And you hold these views with no research to back them up, only your fear of gay people.

    (see Whistler’s comment above – he addressed the issues at hand! I can accept that and accept – and disagree with – parts of his view!)

  • robert108

    I certainly won’t quibble with you.

    No quibble intended, Bat. I just like to counter leftie propaganda wherever I encounter it, and I disagree with the oft-stated leftie talking point that divorce(a matter of individual choice) is in any way harmful to the institution of marriage. As I pointed out to Mike, that is a strange and contradictory argument at best, as any sort of justification for imposing so-called “gay marriage” on us all.

  • robert108

    And what you’ve shown me is your narrow view of
    what homosexuality is (bathhouses and infidelity). Giving examples is different from having no other views; I mention the truth that refutes your lies. You lie again by stating that those are my only views. You have the profile of a typical bigot. And you hold these views with no research to back them up, only your fear of gay people. I have absolutely no fear of gay people, so you lie again. Facts not in evidence. Your lying and making things up about me is typical bigoted behavior, btw.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    did you not see the previous comments about after death benefits, legal entitlements, etc?

    It’s my belief that most of those problems are caused by an overreaching government anyway.

    Take the death tax. Eliminate that and let people will their money to where they wish. They’ve already paid income taxes on it.

    Do that and homosexuals and everyone else would be in the same boat.

    There’s nothing to stop private enterprise from granting benefits to homosexual couples. Frankly I oppose it and any law trying to force a business to treat married couples and homosexual couples the same. Why should someone be forced to support something in opposition to their own morality.

    I hear that hospitals deny access to the homosexual partner at times when the one partner is critically ill. I believe that you should be able to designate anyone you want as your personal representative for those cases. If I want my best friend from High School to make those next of kin decisions that’s my decisions. Of course there’s going to be a presumption of next of kin unless you fill out the paperwork.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I know several gay couples approaching a decade or more together.

    So obviously there’s no need for gay marriage.

  • robert108

    Mike: BTW, it’s not “bigotry” if you just don’t like something. If you don’t like to eat palm grubs, which are a delicacy in some parts of the world(by dark-skinned people, which gets you lots of leftie points), does that make you a bigot? Get real.

  • ade

    Exactly how can one ‘abdicate responsibility’?
    Look up abdicate in a dictionary,then try abrogate.

  • robert108

    Not to mention the extensive use of personal attack and false characterization.

  • Mike

    I actually agree with the use of the word marriage, as it has religious connotations. Forcing us to call it marriage is the gov’t invading on church’s rights to their own beliefs.

    However,

    If a gay couple is together for 20 years, contributing to their society, giving money to charity (and they have more to give generally), making their communities better, etc and one of them falls ill, the partner is not legally entitled to the same rights as a wife of six weeks would be if her husband was in the hospital.

    Why would you deny simple rights like this to anybody? (Aside from latent homophobia, that is)

    gay people getting together to do what they want to do, but just don’t call it marriage, because it isn’t.

    Putting it this way, you have no understanding that a gay relationship is exactly like a straight one: they fight, they relax, they make love, they earn livings, they contribute to their cities and neighborhoods, they adopt children when possible and give them better futures. Don’t bring up childbirth, because then couples like my friends in San Diego who couldn’t conceive would be worthless by your criteria.

    And who determines what “value” married couples give to society? Do you mean married couples like Charles Manson’s parents? Lindsey Lohan’s parents?
    John Walker Lindh’s Parents? Erik Harris and Dylan Klebold? Tom Metzger? Where does that line end?

    It involves genetic inheritance and the blending/continuation of families; like I said, the fundamental structure of all societies on Earth is built upon real marriage.

    Genetic inheritance? Allowing straight people to get married does not guarantee any sort of benefit here. Many people use this rationale to codemn interracial marriages. Blending/continuation of families can happen with gay unions as well. The fundamental structure of societies is built on the rule of law more than anything else.
    It’s just to easy to deconstruct you.

  • Lestat

    When we’re talking about, say, a troubled teenager…I’m not as sure. Seems like friends and family should be able to get involved with civil actions like hospital committals. But that’s not government acting, that’s friends and family.

    Unless their family can’t afford the civil commitment and has no insurance. Than screw them, they deserve to die.

  • robert108

    Putting it this way, you have no understanding that a gay relationship is exactly like a straight one…

    False, and I have already explained why. Try to keep up. You are just arguing reflexively now.

    Genetic inheritance? Allowing straight people to get married We have established marriage for thousands of years; no “allowance” is involved.does not guarantee any sort of benefit here.It is the fundamental building block of all human society. What part of that don’t you understand? Many people use this rationale to codemn interracial marriages. They are wrong, and you know it; no valid argument there, either. Blending/continuation of families can happen with gay unions as well. How? It’s not about the union, it’s a personal decision on the part of the families involved, and they can opt out of it for any reason. The fundamental structure of societies is built on the rule of law more than anything else. That is just nonsense. There were marriages and societies long before there were any written documents, much less “the rule of law”. In fact, there are marriages in societies who don’t have the “rule of law” in the world right now.
    It’s just to easy to deconstruct you. You have only deconstructed yourself; certainly you haven’t deconstructed either me or real marriage.

  • Mike

    Rob,

    Please to ‘splain:

    How does two consenting adults agreeing to contractually split their belongings and stay faithful to each other, how does that weaken marriage? I’ve been married for a few years now, and my parents have been married over 30 years. When they legalized same-sex unions in Mass, my wife divorced me. Oh wait, no she didn’t. It had no effect on me. Several friends I know witnessed the horrors of gay marriage firsthand – and yet chose to enter heterosexual unions only scant months later!

    If the word “marriage”, that little six inch high stumbling block is what you can’t get over, fine. Call it same sex unions. Give loving couples equal rights. Why should they be denied aftercare, healthcare, and inheritance rights?

    Please tell me in exact detail how gay unions hurt marriage. Please! I’m married and I need to know how my life is being destroyed! I think heterosexual couples who maintain “open” marriages do more to hurt the anctity of marriage. Hell, in less than a year, Britney Spears made an absolute mockery of marriage. Paris F’ing Hilton almost got married – what would that have done to your psyche?

    (Also, change your tune. “Lies! Cowards!” You’re beginning to sound a bit like a comic book villain.)

  • Mike

    Chief, I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m a teacher in Los Angeles, so I’m in the middle of bad kid central. And I hate it when my lessons are destructed by six or seven bad kids, and I have to stop teaching to rip the little tykes a new one. I hate watching the good kids have to stop what they’re doing, etc.

    However, there has to be a program in place to do SOMETHING with the bad apples. There’s too many of them. Putting them on the street will not help, they’ll be out committing MORE crimes, dealing MORE drugs, having MORE sex, etc. So where does that leave us? Do we hope private citizens start schools for troubled kids, or does the state have a moral obligation to protect its citizens? Do we start teaching kids about safe sex/pregnancy prevention AND abstiance to stem the flood of impoverished youth? It’s a lot to deal with.

    PS – thanks for serving your country!

  • Lestat

    Your fear of secret courts and abuse of governmental power is hilarious, considering how you support it as long as the words “National Security” are uttered.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108, chief s.a. hermeneuticist, semioticist, and critical theoretician

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Rob
    I agree with you about end of life rights. I read one case where an older guy botched it and really fucked himself up and his family (not with the knife). Moreso, arguably, than someone who opted to go with the aid of a pro and meeting the approved criteria. Holland, from what I hear, is a bit quick and loose. Everyone can’t just be offed if they want.

    I extend that to weed. If a terminal cancer patient wants to smoke weed, let them. Don’t moralize some reason why you’re doing it, just let them.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108
    if you have a problem with the term ‘marraige’ then your stance holds water. that would mean you are pro ‘civil union’ or some other term. if not, and you wish to deny tax advantages, adoptive rights, and whatnot to a portion of the population, then you believe in special rights and might as well vote for hillary because she is all for ‘special rights’.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    rob
    then you think it should be legal to commit suicide?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Neiman
    In order for conspiracy theorys to work, there must be some aspect of reality that the conspiracy theorist takes issue with. (Emphasis mine.)

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Neiman
    I think your ancestry and origin of ‘bigot’ is piss poor. Where did you find that?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Women should be allowed to choose if they want to carry a baby to term. And states are moronic for advocating the banning of gay marriage. Who are they to tell adults what they can or can’t do, espacially if no laws are being violated?

    I agree! Except for the abortion part, which violates the rights of the unborn child.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Well I’ve always found it a bit absurd that committing suicide is illegal. I mean, what are you going to do with someone who wants to kill themselves, put them in jail?

    If we’re talking about end-of-life issues, like terminal patients who just want to give up, I’m all for letting it happen. Let these people go with dignity.

    When we’re talking about, say, a troubled teenager…I’m not as sure. Seems like friends and family should be able to get involved with civil actions like hospital committals. But that’s not government acting, that’s friends and family.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I don’t think the government has a moral obligation to protect citizens from themselves.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    I agree with Lestat – 100%.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Lestat – if you want to fund the life of all things great and small, have at it. otherwise, fuck em. they deserve to die. i will go BUY some hankies and cry into them on my WAY TO WORK. how many jobs you got mon?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development