Segway Inventor Joins Fight Against NH Gay Marriage Repeal - Care2.com (blog)

[JohnG]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />
Segway Inventor Joins Fight Against NH Gay Marriage Repeal
Care2.com (blog)
Entrepreneur Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway, has joined a coalition of groups who are battling to preserve New Hampshire's same-sex marriage law. â??We're grateful to have Dean join the growing ranks of leaders and regular ...




Read the full article...

Source: Google News

[aricisom]

Good for him...

[PeteInLongBeach]

As Hillary Clinton might say: Dean is on the right side of history - in so many ways.

[KSagal]

I respect Dean and his right to his opinions and his right to defend them. I wish him luck.

I don't happen to agree with him, and do not feel that marriage is a government approved civil right, and do not feel the government has much of anything to do with it.

I happen to believe that marriage is a religious term, and therefore will be subject to those rules, and that the government can establish a civil union, between any two adults who commit to whatever those rules are. (Co-habitation, Co-responsibility in financial contracts, etc) I also believe that marriage and civil unions are not the same. Many couples have both, but not all. I do not believe that one's gender can dictate who one can love, or that one can or cannot love another based on simple gender rules, but also believe that marriage is far more than simply two people loving another. There are far more aspects to it than that.

I further believe that the government has no place in dictating moral behavior. I surely would not look to the members of congress for moral advice, as I believe them to be a very flawed group, far more flawed than the society in general.

But there is a problem. The government is what educates our children, by law, and for the vastly huge majority who do not or cannot choose private schools. Because of this, a religious couple with children cannot raise their children to believe what they believe, as the school systems will add the government's social agenda to the curriculum.

We all know that children are taught that Johnny has two mommies in one class, and then taught about biology in another class. This is often confusing, and surely not necessary. Teach the biology, and leave the social engineering to their parents. Teach that everyone should be treated with respect and courtesy, and further classifications of people is not needed by the government, or in the schools.

I believe that the government should get out of the business of social engineering, both right and left, and should just simply fix the roads, and defend the borders. Both marriage and its requirements and the education about marriage and its requirements should be left to the parents, and taken away from the government legislators and educators.

How I feel about marriage is a topic for me and my family, and those who I choose to add to the list. What goes on inside my home, or another's home, is not the business of the government at all, as long as no one is being harmed.

Of course, these are my personal views. I expect that some will have no tolerance for my stating them, but this is how I feel. I invite people to respond civilly, and hope to be treated with respect, as I hope to be able to treat people with respect.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I respect Dean and his right to his opinions and his right to defend them. I wish him luck.

I don't happen to agree with him, and do not feel that marriage is a government approved civil right, and do not feel the government has much of anything to do with it.

I happen to believe that marriage is a religious term, and therefore will be subject to those rules, and that the government can establish a civil union, between any two adults who commit to whatever those rules are. (Co-habitation, Co-responsibility in financial contracts, etc) I also believe that marriage and civil unions are not the same. Many couples have both, but not all. I do not believe that one's gender can dictate who one can love, or that one can or cannot love another based on simple gender rules, but also believe that marriage is far more than simply two people loving another. There are far more aspects to it than that.

I further believe that the government has no place in dictating moral behavior. I surely would not look to the members of congress for moral advice, as I believe them to be a very flawed group, far more flawed than the society in general.

But there is a problem. The government is what educates our children, by law, and for the vastly huge majority who do not or cannot choose private schools. Because of this, a religious couple with children cannot raise their children to believe what they believe, as the school systems will add the government's social agenda to the curriculum.

We all know that children are taught that Johnny has two mommies in one class, and then taught about biology in another class. This is often confusing, and surely not necessary. Teach the biology, and leave the social engineering to their parents. Teach that everyone should be treated with respect and courtesy, and further classifications of people is not needed by the government, or in the schools.

I believe that the government should get out of the business of social engineering, both right and left, and should just simply fix the roads, and defend the borders. Both marriage and its requirements and the education about marriage and its requirements should be left to the parents, and taken away from the government legislators and educators.

How I feel about marriage is a topic for me and my family, and those who I choose to add to the list. What goes on inside my home, or another's home, is not the business of the government at all, as long as no one is being harmed.

Of course, these are my personal views. I expect that some will have no tolerance for my stating them, but this is how I feel. I invite people to respond civilly, and hope to be treated with respect, as I hope to be able to treat people with respect.

It may surprise you to know there is very little here I disagree with. The *ideal* solution here is to get the government out of the business of defining marriage at all.

But presently, "government marriage" is the only game available; the only option. What Dean is arguing for, and I agree with, is that gay couples should have equal rights under our government.

The problem is, Religion wants it both ways. They want the governmental support of marriage, but they want government to do it "their" way. ("Their" in quotes, as Religion is not in full agreement about just which way that is. You can form your on conclusions about why Religion is capitalized).

If Religion wants a say in defining marriage, then Religion needs to forego government connivance in enforcing that definition. Government exists for the benefit of us all, including our friends and neighbors who happen to be gay. It does not exist for forcing a Religious view down our throats.

As for education and social engineering -- I have a lot of sympathy for that point of view, but consider that education itself is social engineering. There are really only two clear landmarks: parents should educate their children, or the state should educate their children. Where would we be as society, if home schooling were the only option, and we relied on parents for *all* education?

Much of what conservatives (I'm not saying you in particular Karl) decry in sex education is there to address failures by parents and the consequent social ills that conservatives are also fond of decrying.

But in particular the reason for "Johnny has two mommies" in the curriculum is simple: Johnny gets bullied. Yes, homophobia affects the lives of our children, even the straight children, even straight children of straight parents. Much of this bullying occurs on school grounds, and during school hours.

Children need to be educated how to behave in school toward each other. That's a bit of social engineering that is inescapable so long as we use the institution of schools to effect our education.

So I welcome "Johnny has two mommies". The message that "Johnny is just another boy, a classmate, a possible school friend" is a moral message I find hard to argue with.

And it properly leaves the message about whether students Gary and Billy growing up and being two dads for Jill being a moral question, to the parents.

[aricisom]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I happen to believe that marriage is a religious term, and therefore will be subject to those rules, and that the government can establish a civil union, between any two adults who commit to whatever those rules are. (Co-habitation, Co-responsibility in financial contracts, etc) I also believe that marriage and civil unions are not the same. Many couples have both, but not all. I do not believe that one's gender can dictate who one can love, or that one can or cannot love another based on simple gender rules, but also believe that marriage is far more than simply two people loving another. There are far more aspects to it than that.

What if a church, such as mine does, agrees with same sex marriage. Without the government to protect us other relgions will and have tried to stop us from performing them, and having them not recognized as real. Most people how spout religious concerns are only concerned with their religion. They have no respect for other religions.

Also, marriage was started as a contract for ownership between families back when the female was no more then property. Back in those days there was very little seperating the church from the government. Even today in England the Queen is concidered the head of the Church of England.

The simple fact is that people are for government involvment when the government is promoting their point of view, and against it when they are not. That goes for marriage, helmet waring, and spaying or dogs.... PS: What I just stated is what I, personally, believe to be the norm, there are exceptions...

[KSagal]

I don't know that this is the correct forum for this, and it surely is in the wrong sub-forum, and the moderators should move it. I am only reacting to what is here.

As far as the school teaching that Johnny has two mommies as a reasonable lesson, I feel it is not. Simply put, it just is not so. Simple biology teaches that Johnny has one mommy, just like everyone else.

It is the same as the many references to single parents. They just do not exist. There are single parent homes, and single parent households, but there are no single parents. Again, simple biology teaches us that it takes a mommy and daddy to make Johnny. (There are medical interventions, but the biology did not change, just the sociology, not the biology)

I am okay with single parents in the case of being widowed. Sometime, one parent dies, and then the child has one parent. Far more often however, one parent leaves. Once a person who parents a child leaves the house or the life of the child, it does not mean they are not parents. They are simply not living up to their appropriate responsibilities.

When I married my wife, we had plans, but our marriage was essentially about us. When people first get together, it is about attraction, chemistry, mutual values, and hopefully love. But when a man and woman are sharing these things, children will eventually be in the mix, either by wanting them or taking steps to avoid having them. Once my children were considered, and then conceived, our relationship within our marriage was significantly, and unalterably changed forever. Our marriage was now about the children, absolutely. They were literally and biologically extensions of ourselves. Any couple without children (regardless of gender) will not understand or have this change to their relationship.

I have said and say again, gender does not change who you love or who can love you. That is not the issue. But there is a value in continuing the species. That requires a man and a woman. It is as simple as that.

There are no credible authorities who can tell anyone that there is a better environment to raise children than in a loving home with that child's mother and father.

There are all kinds of degrees of loving homes, and good environments however. A loving home with two parents of the same gender is clearly better than a loveless home with any number of dysfunctional parents of any gender. I am sure there are single sex couples who provide fine homes for children they raise. I am equally sure there are man/woman couples who provide horrible homes for the children they raise.

I just don't think it benefits my children to have their teacher decide to teach my children things that are not facts for us, and it is not their place.

Bob mentioned that some feel that sex education in schools is there to compensate for education that parents do not provide their children. Yet, it does not, in my opinion. Personally, I do not have a problem with age appropriate biological sex education. Of course, who considers what to be age appropriate is not often allowed to be seen by the parents of those same children.

Again, it is the government choosing to fix one problem it perceives by creating another problem, instead of fixing the original. If parents are deficient in teaching their kids about something that the government has no place in teaching, the solution is to educate the parents to do their duty, not to undermine them and deciding to usurp their duty.

The truth is, many parents do not approve of that which is taught to their children, and that is why it is kept from them.

Bob also mentioned the potential horror of what the world would be like if parents were forced to home school their children. I don't see it that way. Public education is not a bad thing, but that does not mean it is not corruptible, or that it need not be monitored diligently. Generally, home schooled children do very well, and often get notable national academic honors, the national spelling bee comes to mind as one.

The classroom will not do a good job to fill in the voids left by bad parenting. It should not be used to do that. It should be used to educate children to academic disciplines. Children should be held accountable to be civil to each other, and no other social engineering is required. Leave the teaching of morals and values to the parents, and those they choose to help them. It should not be decided upon by the Teachers Union, or any other government agency.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by aricisom

What if a church, such as mine does, agrees with same sex marriage. Without the government to protect us other relgions will and have tried to stop us from performing them, and having them not recognized as real. Most people how spout religious concerns are only concerned with their religion. They have no respect for other religions.

Also, marriage was started as a contract for ownership between families back when the female was no more then property. Back in those days there was very little seperating the church from the government. Even today in England the Queen is concidered the head of the Church of England.

The simple fact is that people are for government involvment when the government is promoting their point of view, and against it when they are not. That goes for marriage, helmet waring, and spaying or dogs.... PS: What I just stated is what I, personally, believe to be the norm, there are exceptions...

Yes. there are exceptions, and I am one, and there may be more than you think. My expressed vision of how the government should not be part of this debate at all supports your Religion's views, as it does not hold one definition above any other.

I am Jewish, and many of the rules about marriage go back very far, more than 5000 years. Back then, the village elders, the mayor, the health department, the teacher and the rabbi were all the same guy. He was also the marriage counselor.

There are historical references enough to support mostly any position on marriage you have or want. I do not believe that the government should be involved at all, either to promote one type or another, or to restrict one type or another.

That contract for property and responsibility is a civil union. You can call it by many names. The rules should be clear and simple, and contractual, not emotional. This is where the government needs to leave the conversation.

[aricisom]

Originally Posted by KSagal

As far as the school teaching that Johnny has two mommies as a reasonable lesson, I feel it is not. Simply put, it just is not so. Simple biology teaches that Johnny has one mommy, just like everyone else.

I live in a society, not a test tub. Same sex marriage is about relationships, not biology. My mate happens to be a female while I am male. Together we have no children, and don't want any. The same can be said for same sex marriages. Most same sex couples end up adopting a child if they have them at all, the very few who can afford it do go the test tube way but that is not as prevalent as you might think.

Some may say and even do that same sex marriages are good for society in that it cuts down on over population, and they adopt children that the rest of society throw away. Myself, I don't go that far.

For me it comes down to one word, equality. All of those other things that you speak of, such as civil unions, do not give the same rights as marriage. Rights such as inharitance, hospital visits, etc. I once saw a long list of rights that were not granted, although I can't recall most of them.

Also, government works for those that work with it and against those that work against it.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by aricisom

I live in a society, not a test tub. Same sex marriage is about relationships, not biology. My mate happens to be a female while I am male. Together we have no children, and don't want any. The same can be said for same sex marriages. Most same sex couples end up adopting a child if they have them at all, the very few who can afford it do go the test tube way but that is not as prevalent as you might think.

Some may say and even do that same sex marriages are good for society in that it cuts down on over population, and they adopt children that the rest of society throw away. Myself, I don't go that far.

For me it comes down to one word, equality. All of those other things that you speak of, such as civil unions, do not give the same rights as marriage. Rights such as inharitance, hospital visits, etc. I once saw a long list of rights that were not granted, although I can't recall most of them.

Also, government works for those that work with it and against those that work against it.

I am afraid I do not agree with you about 'rights'. The term you use saying that marriage has rights that civil unions do not have is simply a matter of the way that the laws that define those institutions are written.

Inheritance is a property and tax issue that is defined by the state you live in. It can easily be corrected there to reflect what it should. There should be provisions for both the partner survivor as well as the family to have representation. This is not a new prospect, and the story of an old wealthy man marrying a young lady and leaving her his wealth is a classic story. The family often feels cheated by the old man or the young wife, and contests the will or the inheritance. This is something that needs be established and codified by the state. It is not automatically part of marriage.

Hospital visits are simple rules established by each hospital, as far as I know. They are not also laws, but again, a simple rule that establishes the status of partners in a civil union can easily be codified by the state as 'family'.

I believe these are all straw men. Resolutions are available if people want them, but too often, people want to be declared winner more than they actually want a solution.

Governments in the United States are made up of people and influenced by many groups of people. To say that laws are not sometimes corrupt or lawmakers are not sometimes corrupted is very naive. Government does not work with those who work with them nearly as much as those who pay for the influence of the lawmakers themselves. IF this is a popular movement of many people with small dollars each, or an unpopular movement of few people with many dollars each is dealt with on a case by case basis.

And we need not agree. I do not believe that all people are equal. Some work much harder to get what they want than others. Some start with advantages that others do not start with. Life is inherently unequal. All we can do is try to write laws that do not treat one group significantly differently than other groups. The rest of inequality will be dealt with outside of government.

We are not the first society to wrestle with many of these issues. We should try to learn from history what other great societies of the past resolved these issues, and what happened to their societies when they did what they did.