I'm amazed at what I've seen in my lifetime. I honestly never thought I'd live to witness some of these changes.

To begin with, gays in the military. In the 1970s, I saw firsthand the fear gay people lived under. The risk of losing not just their careers but their dignity and even their rights as veterans.

Leonard Matlovich would be so proud today. His case didn't change a great deal, but it proved something profound. Gay people could serve honorably and be a credit to the Armed Forces.

It was during the Obama administration that Congress repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," paving the way for the Pentagon to certify open service.

And now, gay marriage. I'm overjoyed that two men can marry and build a relationship that society can no longer tear apart.

Kudos to all who made it possible. I'll admit, I still have some concern that the secular use of the word "marriage" might someday conflict with the church's definition and perhaps lead to lawsuits that test the boundaries of religious freedom.

stare decises => stare decisis

I had to look it up...
"Stare decisis" is a Latin legal term meaning "to stand by things decided." It's the doctrine that courts should generally follow precedent " in other words, respect past rulings instead of overturning them.

Db,

My wife is one of the most well read, educated people I've ever known.

Reads constantly smart stuff. Currents events, spent years doing all sorts of research and she's never seen "stare decisis".

Not much into legal terminology.

Clown,

If you're going to accuse me of saying things, at least get it right. Understand what I mean.

What I said was in reference to the Christian bakers who did not want to participate in a gay marriage for religious reasons. Not the gays but the product and service they wanted.

What I said was, if the intent is to have a gay wedding in a religious context, it would be a mockery for some Christians. Me included.

A gay marriage in a secular setting is different.

My main concern has been insuring the word "marriage" has no religious meaning when performing the wedding for a gay couple.

Leave churches alone and not sue for discrimination or believe gay couples have any rights in churches that do not believe gays can marry with the same religious meaning.

My concern is the eventual law suit brought by a gay couple claiming those churches are discriminating against them when the issue is the type of ceremony, not gay people.

The courts got it wrong with the bakers and I am concerned the courts will get it wrong again.

How's that. Is that clearer now.

Clown,

"Your main concern is making sure homosexuals aren't allowed to consider their marriage sacred based on the teachings of your religion?"

Religious freedom means you can consider your marriage sacred till the cows come home.

There's no shortage of more liberal churches that will participate in the facade.

And, some churches might even regard it blasphemy.

No one is telling you what you must believe. Just don't believe it in my church.

You went on the offensive with me so I'm making it perfectly clear lest there be any doubt what I believe.

Clown,

"Then don't indoctrinate children into Christianity"

Religious freedom means I can teach the faith to anyone willing to listen. Thats how freedom works.

I could even try to "indoctrinate" you, but you seem too smart to risk hearing the Good Word.

So just keep your kids away from places they might encounter it like churches, Christmas, or anyone who still believes in God.

Clown,

You got it.

Just not expect the church they grew up in to marry them if that church doesn't condone it.

Clown,

"What gives that church the right to deny the homosexual couple their religious beliefs?"

If you have to ask that question, everything I just wrote went over your head. I won't bother explaining it.

You're much denser than I thought.

Clown,

"You haven't explained why one person's religious beliefs should trump another's. Go for it."

It would take all night and I don't have that much energy.

Whoever put "funny" flags on post #1 should turn in their membership to this site.

You are a disgrace to anyone who professes to believe in gay rights.

Snoofy,

"The thought of that happening by government force exists only in your head."

You underestimate how far ideology can go once the groundwork's laid. The hostility toward organized religion, Christianity in particular, and the eagerness of a well-funded, highly motivated activist couple could absolutely drive such a lawsuit out of principle.

As liberals run out of new battles to fight, don't be surprised when a church ends up in court defending its right to believe, teach and operate as its always done.

Never underestimate how far vitriol, anger, and resentment can drive people when they believe they're on a crusade or seeking revenge for perceived wrongs. There's no shortage of reasons some in the gay community harbor deep anger toward "the Church," and if they ever sense a real chance to strong-arm it through the courts, someone will eventually try.

You have Sy and Dan already building a framework.

Pump,

Ok...I read it.

I've read similar.

"What were you expecting? I'm a scorpion"

Ok...let's extrapolate.

My opinion about gays in society(s) goes like this.

Throughout history, cultures with no social contact, seperated by geography and time, have had similar attitudes toward same sex sexual activity. Anywhere from you're killed to ostracized. Cultures that appeared more tolerate still shunned older gays who were receptive when meeting the needs of straight men when they're younger.

My point is, it seems to me "homophobia" is the natural result of tribal instinct for survival. Just look at history. Unlike what people believe, we're not taught to dislike, distrust and even hate gay people.

In fact, the truth is a civilized society has to teach tolerance. Its instinct vs tolerance.

Going back to your parable.

Prejudice towards homosexuality is from all appearances "normal". So when discriminating against gay people, one could say, "What do you expect? I'm a straight human being".

What separates scorpions from humans today? Law and social contracts.

Law is what mostly protects gays today.

Pump,

So...would you like to explain how that parable prompted you to give post #1 a funny flag?

I won't challenge your opinion. I'll just read it.

Clown,

"Conservatives will create newer battles to fight?"

You don't see it and I don't expect you ever would but, some of what you're seeing today coming from conservatives is defensive, not offensive.

Liberals have been on the offense about many worthy good causes, they fought and won.

That's a good thing.

But, I think they're running out worthy causes.

Immigration and handling the border was poorly thought out.

Transgender stuff was really botched.

And ACA, they are severely screwing the pooch.

ACA wasn't planned well and in fact was pushed through by Democrats.

Now, they're really in a mess.

They're scraping bottom and their ship is headed for the rocks.

Thankfully there are some level headed Democrats, who might be the future of the Democratic Party, grabbing hold of the wheel.

Maybe they can steer the ship back to sanity.

Clown,

"I'm proud to say I started that snowball."

Good for you.

Everyone should take note.

The moderator should list their posting names.

Clown,

"Prejudice towards Jews..."

That's all I read.

.

Redial,

Hmmm...I'll have to figure it out.

Redial,

I figured it out.

Good night all..
Yea..for real

#49 is fake quotes

Dan,

"Every honest broker has admitted plans like the ACA won't work without a mandate."

A mandate without offsetting cost controls, nothing is solved.

Costs will rise to match and you'll be right back here again asking for more money to feed the greedy system.

Laura,

"I thought you were going to bed. Hmmmmmmm"

What makes you think I'm not in bed?

Some of my best work is in bed.

Snoofy,

"If you don't like the system, then come up with a better system."

I think they're working on it now.

Hopefully money will be opening up at least thru end of Jan.

Trump said he wants to "fix" Healthcare, which would be a LOT more than just ACA if done right.

Dan,

"NO ONE ever left without admitting the need for a mandate."

Maybe...maybe not...additional money would always help fuel the engine.

But...saying it must happen for healthcare to work??

To me, the single most important thing that MUST be done is implementing cost controls. And that smacks in the face of capitalism, free enterprise, etc. That's what makes it so difficult, and probably why most efforts haven't lasted.

The temporary extension will not be addressing anything about healthcare, from what I've heard.
I seriously doubt, if this temporary extension is thru Jan, there won't be a people number crunching hard and fast.

Dan,

If Trump gets the green light to work on this, and if he applies himself with the same energy and drive he has shown this term, I hope and pray people work together and not pull political stunts to sabotage things.

That's a real possibility.

Dan,

"Do you blame Republicans for repealing it, or Democrats?"

Technically, the mandate wasn't repealed.

Just the penalty was changed to zero.

But repealed works.

Speak,

"Because your party wanted to fund tax cuts for billionaires?"

I can't speak for other people, but I'll give you my take on mandates.

Mandates push more money into the system...but...continually escalating costs (cost drivers) pull it right back out into the pockets of insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, hospitals and many more.

We need to know exactly, "where is the money going?". Then talk about, "where is it coming from"

Before long, we're right back where we started and wondering why ACA needs another cash infusion.

Without serious cost controls, the cycle never ends.

Sustainability depends on fixing the cost drivers, not just feeding them more cash.

Dan,

You sound determined to believe all ACA needs is another cash infusion and mandates.

What you wrote works on paper. Why isn't ACA balancing out?

Legal,

Oh...you again.

Which of my posts are "spewing nonsense"?

You didn't indicate.

I'd like to know specifically so I'll know which ones to repost again soon.

You'll probably say everything I write and look like a lazy troll.

Speak,

So you don't think a breakdown of healthcare costs is an important part of managing healthcare?

I bet you think a high risk of error voting system is preferred for elections too.

Nixon,

It wasn't the people.

It was the product being sold.

Ignorance of understanding the issue is half the problem.

Speak,

"As for healthcare it's not a mystery. Look at the countries that do it better and COPY THEM."

But to do that, you have to look beyond healthcare. You have to look at the cultures.

Most people in countries with socialized medicine aren't sitting around expecting government handouts in every part of life. They simply see healthcare as a public utility like roads, police, or fire departments.

Their systems work because the culture values collective responsibility. People expect each other to contribute, not to freeload.

In the US, individualism runs far deeper. We think highly of ourselves rather than seeing us as collective group. We value "me" more than "we".

If we really want to copy those successful healthcare models, the truth is uncomfortable. Our culture would have to change first.

In the US, we think if you throw enough money at a problem, it can be fixed.

Healthcare isn't just an economic system. It's a cultural commitment for the good of all.

Speak,

"It's not workers who broke the social compact"

If you want to know who believed globalization was going to lift the whole world out of poverty, look at the cheerleaders.

Bill Clinton who sold NAFTA, WTO expansion, and China's entry into the global market as a moral and economic partner.

Tony Blair who was Clinton's British twin. Same message, same faith in global markets, same New Labour' mantra.

Economists like Thomas Friedman who, preaching from his pulpit at The New York Times, turning globalization into a warm fuzzy, magnanimous fantasy for the elite. He hammered that message from the early '90s through the 2000s.

Get the full picture before jumping to conclusions.

Speak,

Globalization didn't just accidentally move jobs overseas. It justified moving them.

That was the whole pitch.

Politicians and economists told everyone it was noble, moral, "good for mankind."

They wrapped offshoring in feel-good language about lifting the world out of poverty, and used that as the moral permission slip to hollow out American labor.

If capitalists were looking for cheap labor to build their junk, it was liberals who helped sell the idea to the public.

Donner,

"Fake Plastic Christians obviously learned the exact wrong lessons from Sodom and Gamorrah."

You have it right that the people are fake idol worshippers.

But idol worshipping isn't limited to any particular group. Indeed its the fake Christians. But idol worshippers can be atheists or come from any group for that matters.

One,

Some people stare at a plain piece of
glass and call it a prism.

Hopeless.

Speak,

"Some people stare at better systems all around the world and call them impossible for the USA."

Maybe our systems aren't the problem.

Maybe our people are..

Speak,

Don't want to contribute.

Have nothing but excuses.

Enabled by the Democratic Party leadership.

Speak,

I'm not interested in going down this path with you any further.

I said what I mean...

Donner,

"It wasn't all about idol worshipping."

It was idol worship on top of total moral collapse. Pride, corruption, entitlement, and a culture that mocked anything righteous.

Kind of like what today's liberals have turned into the last few years.

Donner,

Call it like I see it.

Eb,

"you're not saying you're against deportations, are you?"

It's a really bad problem that's been brewing for years.

Years ago people were saying the border needed closed but dems didn't want it.

It's their fault as much as anyone else's.

Shouldn't have been allowed to go so long.

Now...there's a problem.

I favor a fast track to citizenship for people heavily vetted.

That's about all I know to say.

Clown,

You can't make such a blanket statement without sounding like an imbecile.

A,

Why would I care about the mafia?

A,

I don't wish to communicate with you.

Speak,

When ACA activated my insurance for my wife doubled I had to pay?

Was that fair?

Speak,

Not moral superiority.

Just prefer writing my opinions but not looking for debates.

I say my piece and I'm typically done unless someone wants to continue without ugly insults

I have enough self respect I don't feel like I need to subject myself to that.

Speak,

"you must be trolling."

I actually put effort into my posts built on reasonable assumptions.

You (and Clown), on the other hand, are just dishing out insults with little to no substance. Trolling.

If you want to disagree, fine. But at least bring content instead of a virtual drive-by middle finger.

Dan,

Not overnight....next renewal.

ACA went into effect in January.

Apparently our renewal must have been around that time.

Although ACA didn't effect employer group plans directly, a commonly held opinion was people were expecting an increase so insurance companies took advantage of it.

Dan,

I've said several times the last couple of decades group rates were increasing quicker than inflation.

ACA wasn't a bad idea. It just didn't solve real problems.

As has turned out, it created other problems.

Speak,

I've written several things about different aspects I won't repeat.

I agree ACA was well timed, but it's no longer cost effective.

I'll eager to see what they propose.

Until I hear more detail about proposed Healthcare changes, I'm tired of writing.