Success & Prosperity Blog

Prosperity for All

By Randy Gage in Critical Thinking, Success, Prosperity.

Today is a historic day in the United States of America.  The Supreme Court will hear opening arguments on California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages.   Certain elements of the Republican Party are painting the debate as a “Gay rights” issue or “States’ rights” issue.  But it is neither – and to make either case is a morally bankrupt argument. 

Because this is really an attempt to discriminate against a segment of the population, which is anti-humanity, and thus anti-prosperity.

Let’s leave the demagogue politics aside, and look at the issue from the principles of prosperity.  Doing so dispels both the Gay rights and States’ rights questions.

First, we must begin by understanding there is no such thing as “Gay rights” or “States’ rights” – only human rights.  Gays are not seeking any special rights to be conferred upon them.  They are demanding the same fair and equal treatment anyone else receives under the law.  There are serious consequences regarding taxes, inheritance, child support, and medical consent and visitation that impact unmarried couples dramatically differently than married ones.   A government of the people cannot condone the discrimination of any element of its citizenry.

No rational, compassionate person would condone a ban on marriage for Jews, Eskimos or blond people.  And no rational, compassionate person can condone a ban on someone because of their sexual orientation.   Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender people are humans too.  And all humans deserve the same rights and protection of their government as everyone else in their country.   Prosperity consciousness could accept nothing less.

Now let’s look at the “States’ rights” issue.  Only individuals have rights, States have powers.   Rights are natural, powers are granted and limited.   I’m a Constitutionalist and a Libertarian, so I strongly support keeping State sovereignty sacrosanct.   But you can’t allow any State to select and discriminate against a segment of its citizens, because that would violate the Bill of Rights.

Gary Bauer, president of the ludicrously named “American Values,” said on Fox News Sunday that proponents of same sex marriage are effectively asking “for unelected judges to deny the people of the States the right to decide what marriage is in their state.”  That’s pretty much the same argument the Confederate States made about keeping slavery.   States do not have the power to subjugate or discriminate against segments of society – even if they hold a referendum on it.  That is what the Bill of Rights is there for.

Now if you want to make the argument that marriage is a religious institution, I have no problem with that.  But no rational, compassionate person could suggest that their religious doctrines and dogma should be law for everyone else.  (And yes I am well aware there are many countries where this is the case.  But these are not rational, compassionate people.  They are crazed zealots who persecute and kill their own people in the name of sky God superstitions.)

There are those who argue that same sex marriage is against their moral and religious beliefs.   The key word there is “their.”  The answer is pretty simple really:  If you are morally against same-sex marriage – just don’t marry someone of the same sex!

Most religions are perpetuating lack and limitation doctrines like this, as evidenced by the Muslim and Catholic second class treatment of women, and people of other faiths.  I defend any religion’s right to set their own doctrines.  But any enlightened person with prosperity conscious would not be a party to that, and would not let their government legislate this.

From a prosperity standpoint, it would be best if governments only recognized civil unions for everybody – same sex or opposite sex – and left “marriage” to be defined however individual religions want to define it.  People have a choice to follow a religion or not.  They don’t have a choice what country they are born in.  And any prosperous country would never try to discriminate against any segment of its own society.

I realize this is not a popular opinion.   A Fox News poll released last week showed only 49 percent in favor of same sex marriage, and 46 percent of the population still opposed to it.  But polling is irrelevant in an issue of this magnitude.

At one time in our history, it was illegal to marry someone of another race.   Today, most rational, compassionate people would find such a law abhorrent.   What was accepted as “appropriate” years ago has now changed so much that to even suggest such a law prohibiting who can marry whom because of race, would be dismissed quickly.

In fifty years, people will look back at the historical significance of this week.  And your grandchildren will be shocked to learn that it once was acceptable to discriminate against someone because of who they loved or were attracted to.

Any person who lives by the principles of prosperity must stand for the rights of all humans to live with liberty, in pursuit of their own prosperity and happiness.  This is a principle of prosperity.

-RG

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Affiliate Relationship Disclosure

Leave a Reply

88 thoughts on “Prosperity for All

  1. Stephen_S says:

    I cannot remember who said it first, but in essence: the freedom of speech implies that those I disagree with have as much right to the soap box as I have.
    Although I do not agree with all you say, Randy, what you say often makes such good sense that I would be a fool to ignore it.
    I really like your suggestion that governments should recognise all civil unions, with equal rights and responsibilities for all who commit to the union, and leave it to various religions(?) to define the ‘marriage’. A legal position versus a voluntary position.
    What right has any person to deny another the opportunity to seek and express love, which is all that any person truly wants?
    I believe this applies to all areas of our lives.

  2. I find it interesting that people who want less government regulation of business want more government regulation of our personal lives. 
    This has always been an illogical  disconnect for me. 
    Trying to control a percent of the population is always anti freedom, thus anti prosperity.  This is not just compassion and love speaking, it’s logic.

  3. Richard Avon says:

    I ma ALL for civil partnerships giving the same legal rights as a marriage for gay couples BUT the Holy Estate of Marriage exists for the union of a man and a woman for the procreation of children and so the idea of a Gay Marriage in a Church is offensive to the religion of the Church and should NOT be made permissable by law.  Imaging passing a law that offends the beliefs of the Imams in a Mosque!!!!!!!!!

    Sorry Randy I have held you in total respect for years but you are wrong about this.
    Richard Avon

  4. Randy_Gage says:

    Richard Avon I’m not sure you read the whole blog above.  Personally I have no arguments how any religions want to define marriage, what rituals they practice and dogma they espouse.  But because your belief is that marriage is a “Holy Estate” that exists solely for “the union of a man and woman” doesn’t make it true or right.  That appears to be the religious beliefs you hold, and you and your religion are certainly entitled to hold them.  
    However, if a person attempts to legislate their religious beliefs upon other people who don’t share their faith – this behavior would have to be regarded as intolerant, prejudiced and patronizing at best – and discriminatory, even evil at worst. 

    The issue here is that it is morally unconscionable for a government of the people to discriminate against ANY of its citizens.  Any government that does, is repressing human rights, and is thus anti-prosperity.  And no person with prosperity consciousness (which must always include honoring human rights) could be a party to such actions.

    -RG

  5. Randy_Gage says:

    Stephen_S What a pleasant surprise to have the first comment be thoughtful, respectful and open-minded!  Thank you.
    -RG

  6. Angie Pohlman says:

    truth.

  7. Linda Welch says:

    Thanks Randy Gage! I totally agree!

  8. Joanne Leavitt says:

    Thank you RG!

  9. 'Jim Story' says:

    You are right Randy, althought right doesnt seem like the correct word today LOL

  10. DrHedi says:

    Randy I want to copy and paste a great part of article,  it’s so simple suggestion that really can make a big difference if we listen and apply in many aspects!

    There are those who argue that same sex marriage is against their moral
    and religious beliefs.   The key word there is “their.”  The answer is
    pretty simple really:  If you are morally against same-sex marriage –
    just don’t marry someone of the same sex!

  11. Angie Hernandez/Live Your Potential 360 says:

    Thanks for this, Randy! Right on!

  12. Pirata Limoni says:

    isn’t death sentence an attempt to humanity?

  13. jstewart says:

    Hello, Randy…
    Another
    thoughtful and provocative post which encourages critical thought. As a bottom
    line, I have long supported the idea that the State should have NO place in “marriages.”So as a practical matter, I have long thought
    that the State should support civil unions between consenting adults—and leave “marriage”
    to the churches
    Still
    there are some larger questions which almost no one ever addresses:
    I
    think the reason “marriage” has been defined as between a man/woman for pretty
    much all of known history is because of the simple biological imperative of perpetuating
    a given society. Once that principle is abandoned, it becomes a question of
    whether any two people (consenting adults) who “love” one another and want to “marry”
    should have equal rights with men and women who want to marry.
    But
    if ”love” is the new standard for
    marriage, does that mean adult siblings should have a right to marry if they
    love each other?Or 2,3,or 4 peopleshould have a right to marry each other? Why would a gay couple have a right to marry and
    siblings,first cousins and even parents/adult
    children who “love” each otherand
    wanted to marry would not have a right to marry?It seems to me logically that if the standard becomes “love,”
    then ANY consenting adults who LOVE should have a right to marry or have a
    civil union.
    Where
    does one draw the line?? Or is there NO line? Just presenting food for logical
    thought…

  14. Shaun Sedice says:

    Really liked the idea of civil unions and marriage being separate. Anything that keeps religion and state separate is good for the well being of the nation and makes my life simpler.

  15. Robert Bradford says:

    Right on, Randy!

  16. ThomasMrak says:

    Both parties want to tell people what to do with their own bodies and their own lives.
    They both give privileges to certain groups at the expense of people not in those groups.
    Why I’m a Libertarian.
    Why do so many people in the herd worship authority? Because thinking for yourself and living with the consequences of your actions is too hard?

  17. 1quran says:

    Thanks for bringing this issue up. I did not know that the supreme court will start hearing proposition 8 Today

  18. carmen161595 says:

    I think that people should have the right to do whatever they want, unless it impacts on someone else’s right to do what they want. If gays and lesbians want to get married, why the hell not? It’s really none of my business.

  19. Randy_Gage says:

    @jstewartI don’t know that the premise “‘marriage’ has been defined as between a man/woman for pretty
    much all of known history” is true.  There have been many and numerous permutations in human history, including polygamy, child marriage and the still-present forced or arranged marriages.  
    As far as siblings or cousins marrying each other, or three or four people getting married together, if there’s a religion that believes in that – I have no problem with it, because it’s none of my business. 
    -RG

  20. Katie AndChristopher Neal says:

    Actually invoking the 14th’s Amendment’s equal protection clause and overturning the voice of the people of a state does make it indeed a States’ Rights issue. That being said, there should not be any reason to keep two people from making a statement of their love to each other and be able to legally enter into a marriage as a statement of their love and be afforded the same rights as I have been for the last 20 years. It is a fact of liberty that people should be free and how can I claim to stand for the freedom and liberty of some and not of all. The government needs to stay out of the bedrooms of everyone and focus upon the issues it needs to tackle.

  21. ThomasMrak says:

    Individual people are smart. Large groups of people are idiots.

  22. Danielle Watson says:

    Randy_Gage Stephen_S  A “marriage” comes with legal and binding paperwork. Children, spousal support, alimony, insurance, and finances are a huge part of a “marriage” and legally bound by the laws of their state. With that said, a “civil union or marriage” or any binding documents of any nature, stamped by the state should legally unite “any” two human beings, and are bound by law. This should really be a very simple thing to let happen with two human beings instead of all this government intervention.

  23. The PhD of prosperity …… jaw dropping and articulate. Love that I’m on here on the planet same time as you, Mr. Gage. Brilliance….

  24. Bettybrigade says:

    Well said!  Thanks Randy.  Another brilliant post.

  25. Exactly. If a religious organization wants to refuse to PERFORM or even acknowledge a marriage because of their beliefs than that is their right. Because people can always choose a different religious affiliation. But this isn’t a matter of religious rights. This is about the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities we have as citizens. What is a legal right for one is a legal right for all or it isn’t legal. If a state wants to make it illegal to marry as you wish they they have to make it illegal for ANYONE to marry ANYONE. What the heck is hard to understand about that?

  26. Richard Avon Richard, perhaps I’m confused. Because if anyone tried to FORCE the church to perform any marriage that was counter to their beliefs I could see your point. But there are a LOT of things that are “permissible by law” that many religions find offensive. I’m not sure WHICH church you mean by “the Church” but I grew up in a cult that frowned on everything from alcohol to women wearing makeup or pants or cutting their hair. They didn’t try to make it ILLEGAL for me to wear makeup or pants or cut my hair. They didn’t even try to make it illegal to consume alcohol. They just didn’t acknowledge me as one of them when I chose to do those things. I honor their right to make that decision and the law honors my right to consume what I want and to dress as I please even though there are verses in the bible that can be interpreted to mean that my choices are sending me straight to hell. 
    No religion, be it the majority or a minority of one, has the right to restrict the freedoms of the citizens against their will. (and before you start… I’m decidedly straight so this doesn’t affect my rights, only SENSE of right.)

  27. Randy_Gage says:

    DixieDynamite exactly…

  28. I live in a pos-communist country, where 20 years ago, most did not know anything – what it is “gay” or “lesbian” .
    In my thinking gays are placed in the same location as married men, they’re just not in my area of interest. And about the lesbians  I never thought for more than 5 minutes in whole my  life .
    The only one person whose sex life I am interested in  is my husband, or my potential husband.  I do not care what others do. I don’t understand why it is so important to many.
    But I really don’t like when someone is insulted or oppressed, especially when  large group of people fingering minority. Immediately switches in  my  maternal instinct to defend.
    I do not mind that it is reason of the Prosperity thinking. I think it is human instinct to defend every God’s creature, for women it is more pronounced.

  29. Michael says:

    Randy_Gage
    One nation under God, if you don’t like it see the border.

  30. ThomasMrak says:

    The US is becoming more and more oppressive to a lot of groups. Lots of people want to tell us what to do, and even more people listen to these people because they think they’ll be rewarded if they do.
    Too many special interest groups have influence, and laws are constantly being made which give one group or organization special privileges at the expense of others.
    Instead of allowing the free market to solve the very real problem of affordable health care, the government wants to mandate health insurance and punish people if they don’t have it, and some want us to have Social Medicine like they have in most of Europe and Canada.
    Sure, we’d all have medical coverage, but the only way to do so is to take money from people by force. 
    In fact, even the poorest working people would be less poor if we all were taxed so heavily.
    It’s no small coincidence entrepreneurs don’t want to hire people full-time/outsource to other countries.
    I’m concerned that the US may become a Communist or Fascist country since people at all levels of society are holding onto what they have out of the fear of rapid change.
    People are not embracing a healthy spirit of competition and there is a lack of empathy and respect for individual rights.
    In times of uncertainty, people will accept tyranny in exchange for security.

  31. Sean40 says:

    Randy_Gage I gotta ask…is it OK then for an adult to marry a child, if this is what their religion allows?  Say, a 34 year old to an 11 year old?

  32. growtalent says:

    Richard Avon 
    That depends on your church. I have chosen to belong to a church that supports, honors, and performs same-sex unions. We stand on the side of love.

  33. Annieb says:

    “I realize this is not a popular opinion.  A Fox news poll showed 49 percent in favor and 46 percent of the population still opposed it.”  Stop watching FOX News, maybe you will find it is more popular than you think.  Trust me Randy, in my world it is a Very Popular Opinion, so much so I have a hard time understanding that it is still so unpopular.

  34. PeterGHorrill says:

    Dixie Dynamite Well said Dixie!  It reminds of of “M.L.K.” saying an injustice somewhere, is an injustice everywhere. (referring of course to segregation)

  35. PeterGHorrill says:

    I learned more about myself and past confusion, (and mindset) in this discussion that ever before. Studying prosperity consciousness consciously, and inspired by Randy, has been a “compass for consciousness” for me. I just has a big “aha moment” in the journey of becoming “subconsciously conscious”. I hope that makes sense, it does to me. Thanks RG and thanks everyone!

  36. PeterGHorrill and an injustice to any of us is an injustice to all of us, even those who campaign for the injustice. Because when we allow one group to be left out of legal rights or privileges it leaves the door open to do the same to another group and another… And EVENTUALLY those same people who believe they are in the religious right on this issue may well find themselves in the group being left out.

  37. Maree says:

    I have no qualm with same sex marriages and human rights, but a problem that is overlooked is the rights of the children in these marriages. I have seen children with devastated lives because they don’t know their biological parents. One young couple bought their dream home and had a baby. After the baby was born with a disability  the couple found it was because they were brother and sister and they didn’t know.  Another case same sex marriage, the couple shared visiting rights with the biological father, later the couple split up and shared custody and the biological father lost all contact and all rights which was devastating for the father and the child. I think same sex marriage is a human right but for health and emotional reasons children also have the right to know who their biological parents are, and they should be registered on their birth certificates. If we keep referring to biological parents as anonymous sperm donors, we are going to have enormous health problems in our society and there’s no prosperity in that. The same thing should apply to heterosexual couples that adopt children and sperm donors for fertility clinics.

  38. mikeandliz2003 says:

    Governance of the people by the people for the people …  The rights of the people are paramount but subservient to the rights of the community in a civilised society – otherwise it is anarchy.  The people is what matters – and we are all people (at least most of us are!)

  39. Vaclav Cermak says:

    I can agree on some technical aspects of the “marriage contract” but as some other people mention there are also children involved who get influenced by the two dads or moms. 
    Plus when I see gay parade or two guys kissing I feel my stomach going to waste my lunch. Yes its my feeling.
    Another thing is – where is the limit? In fifty years there can be some new forms of “advanced” marriage”. I don’t want to be specific as some people might take that as an insult but the question remains.
    Setting up some kind of a norm has always two sides and I don’t believe that we all will one day agree on the “one and only best norm”.

  40. Vaclav Cermak says:

    @jstewart Good point! Marriage as a such is an institution for a family – I mean family that can give birth to children. And the legal stuff around should creat framework so the kids be provided for (food, education etc.) Everything outside that can be then formed as a civil union or whatever people want to call it. Its obvious that gay couple cannot give birth to a child so their relationship has a substantionaly different quality in comparison to a man-woman relationship.

  41. GinaCarr says:

    Excellent article, Randy.  Thanks so much for breaking this down into a logical framework for discussion and for providing a place for such.  
    People are amazed to learn that as late as 1967 in THIS country, people were literally JAILED for marrying a person of a different race.  Considering this adds new perspective to the current discussion.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

  42. Sharon says:

    Right on, Randy.  You nailed it.

  43. This is an especially well written post. I hadn’t made the connection between same-sex marriage and prosperity, but you’re absolutely right. I’ll be sharing this on my Facebook page so more people can read it. Thanks!

  44. jstewart says:

    Randy_Gage  Randy, the “marriages”  you reference–polygamy, child  marriage, and arranged marriages have still all been man/woman marriages.  Of course, there was always same-sex activity going on in most countries,  but to my knowledge, there was never same-sex marriage traditionally.   My reference to siblings or multiple people marrying was not in terms of religion, but should they have a LEGAL right to marry?   All very interesting…

  45. jimbarber says:

    Marriage is a sacred institution. Being sacred, it falls under the province of religion. The government has no more business defining which marriages are “legal” and which aren’t, than it does in legislating other religious activities.
    However, the government does have the responsibility to protect the rights of individuals. A marriage between an adult and an 11-year-old might constitute child abuse, and so that could be designated as illegal. But unless there’s a real danger than I could be forced into a gay marriage against my will (and that doesn’t seem to be happening a lot), I don’t need — or want — the government’s “protection”. They should keep their noses out of my business.
    – jim

  46. HWLiving says:

    Thank you, RG, for telling it like it is. We are all human. No one of us is better than the next. No one of us deserves less than equal treatment. And the sooner this “rights” issue is over, the sooner we recognize ourselves in others, the sooner young gay men/women all over our country will begin to feel that their lives are worth living. I’m new to prosperity-consciousness, but I recognize that if I believe there is abundance for all, then that has to include abundance in happiness, abundance in the ability to love who you love without punishment or discrimination.

  47. coachangel says:

    Thanks for making the point so clear. It’s amazing how much of our society is still basing their actions in lack and fear mentality. I work hard with my clients to change that!

  48. 1quran says:

    Bernice great insight in your post. A lot of people say that they believe in Jesus Christ but their actions are not christ like.

  49. ClydeKeep says:

    Randy_Gage Richard Avon ….Randy I could not agree more!

  50. Subira says:

    “Human Rights are an integral part of prosperity”….I love that!

  51. NatalieLamb says:

    YAY!   I so hoped you’d written something about this.  I came to find out.
    I like what you say about every union changing to a civil union, and those that want marriage can go to their churches.  Then those who are LGBT can go to churches who offer marriages, and enjoy the same rights as hetro folk. 
    It’s fundamentally WRONG that LGBT folk are denied the same rights, and treated as second class.  Doing this to ANY segment of society cheapens the WHOLE.  When one part of the community is sidelined, we all become less than our potential. 
    When we all are treated with love, we All Win.
    Love you!

  52. pandkenterprises says:

    Sure, gay couples should be allowed to marry.  Why should heterosexuals be the only ones miserable?

  53. Vaclav Cermak  —— 
    1) Seeing two human beings show love/compassion for each other makes your stomach turn? — You might want to do some work on that. Just sayin
    Either that or you just need to get used to it. Let me know if that’s the case and I’ll just send ya a bunch of harmless pictures of my boyfriend and I kissing. 
    2) The where is the limit argument is ignorant. You are implying that two loving adults with the ability to make rationale decisions have commonality with all sorts of other things which you so kindly won’t post. You don’t have to…we get it.
    3) Kids need love. Simple as that….that can be given by two women or two men just as well as a hetero couple. My father was a complete and total d-bag who was not there for me as a child….guess what…..my mom still taught me how to be a good man and I don’t run around whining about how much he screwed me up. I’m actually pretty awesome. It’s that simple.
    It’s called fearing what you are not Vaclav.

  54. Richard Avon Might want to re-read the post Richard.

  55. Vaclav Cermak says:

    Wesley Anderson Vaclav Cermak  Hello Wesley, thanks for your response! 
    1) Unfortunatelly yes – talking about males. I can’t explain it. I don’t say that my view is perfect or the best, its just mine. I feel that I can express my opinion, even if its contrary to majority here. What kind of work do you have in mind for me? (Pls dont send any pictures.)
    2) Why is this argument ignorant? Personal likes/preferences differ. Its like smoking and non-smoking people. I don’t mind people smoking but I hate when don’t respect me and smoke in my presence (restaurant, bus stop etc.). So there needs to be some line/limit, whatever you want to call it. If not, soon or later conflict is inevitable.
    3) I don’t say that being hetero equals with being great parent. Idiots happen to be in any given group of people. Here we get into the discussion of what’s the “norm/standard” or whatever we base our lives and conduct on.
    I’m all for respecting people’s rights. I just feel that the balance is hard to achieve. Or I opress you because I don’t like to see males expressing affection to each other. Or you opress me because you make me to see it on the streets. How do we get to the point of not getting into each other way so everybody is happy?

  56. Vaclav Cermak Wesley Anderson 
    1) I have no idea but people who say someone showing affection with another (not in a crude way) makes them sick certainly need to look somewhere to figure that out in my opinion.
    2) It’s ignorant because your comparing me wanting to marry someone that I love that is a consenting free thinking adult to an varying craziness…people with that line of thinking typically go with well then where does it stop….will people be able to marry their pets…..marry their children…polygamy………..The comparisons are ALL ignorant and those that state it have no idea how degrading and insulting it is. 
    Certainly there needs to be some protection but that needs to be for people such as children whom are not old enough to make such decision or who are influenced beyond what they want. 
    3) But you stated that kids are influenced by two moms or dads and seem to infer that that is a bad thing which is simply not true. That is the standard argument that fails simply as I stated. 
    The solution is that we allow human being equal rights. I could care less if you call it marriage and that’s the same sentiment that the majority of gays want. Keep that word with religions….I do want the same rights. No one on this board was “divinely” born better than me no matter what silly brainwashing has gone on. 
    A straight couple kissing on the street showing affection makes me smile. Yet a gay couple makes you feel opressed? I don’t know how to change that. If it were vulgar than I can understand your discomfort but that goes for both straight and gay people. 
    You don’t sound like an evil person….but you feel like someone gaining equal rights somehow……..there needs no middle ground on that. We all deserve equal rights.

  57. Joe G says:

    jimbarber The government bestows benefits upon those who are married so it does have the business of defining marriage. Religion has no place in it as people have differnt beliefs.

  58. Joe G says:

    @Maree Not sure where you live but in the US it is extremely rare for a biological parent to be denied rights to have time with their child, unless they signed it away.

  59. Joe G says:

    I find it fascinating that we have conservative justice Clarence Thomas who is black, married to a white lady. This was illegal in many states not long ago. We’ll see how open minded he is on gay marriage.

  60. Vaclav Cermak says:

    Wesley Anderson Vaclav Cermak This space is too small for such a complex topic.
    I was doing some thinking on my side and I admit that I’m influenced by different mems and prejudices of our society. When we approach things unbiased we can hopefully find a solution that will work for everyone.
    On the other hand I can’t overlook that there is not a small number of gay folks who became gay because of (for instance) abusive mother – that leading to a situation when a young man turns his back on womankind and gets involved with males. These cases are disorder and I’d hesitate to declare disorder (of any kind) as something equal to a healthy behaviour (i.e. behaviour not caused by bad treatment/circumstances). 
    Its a kind of opening the Pandora’s box not knowing what’s gonna come out.
    I can imagine that you feel insulted when majority society labels you with whatever label – that would be the same for everybody. The keyword here is “discomfort” – on both sides. There are behaviours that are odd to me and cause me discomfort. I’ve mentioned gays showing affection to each other and its also gypsies and their lifestyle. If its happening in my or close to my living space it brings discomfort. Does that mean I’m a bad person or racist? Does that mean I have to move out to be tolerant?
    As I said the topic is too complex to get into details here and generalizing will do no good to any side.

  61. Vaclav Cermak Wesley Anderson 
    It may be complex to you because of all of the noise in your head as you say……but it’s actually very simple. Two loving adults who are free thinking deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. 
    If you believe that I don’t deserve the same rights as you…then yes it makes you a bigot. That really pisses people off when I say that……cause they have it justified in so many different ways……but the bottom line is that it is true. It’s the exact same mentality that was behind slavery in the United States. People justified it with God…people justified White supremacy with just about everything that many (fortunately far less now) of those that believe gays are an abomination and inferior do now. It’s not natural to allow them the same rights….blah..blah blah.
    Discomfort does not make someone bad…….but intolerance does.

  62. GinaCarr says:

    NatalieLamb Agreed!

  63. GinaCarr says:

    Speaking of racial segregation, did you know that until 2010, Montgomery County High School in Georgia held SEPARATE proms for African-American and white students?  (Times Magazine, June 11, 2012, http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/31/prom/#19).  I was shocked.
    In Massachusetts, the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth hosts has hosted special proms for over 30 years—the nation’s oldest for GLBT youth. (Times Magazine, June 11, 2012, http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/31/prom/#16)
    It is amazing how far – and yet, not so far – we have come as a society.

  64. Vaclav Cermak says:

    Wesley Anderson Vaclav Cermak Black and white opinions/views are incorrect. The issue is complex. Or maybe not the issue but its implications.
    You have the same rights as I do – you can marry a women. But you want to marry a man so we get to a little different thing here. I leave aside religious views (they are based on a lot of manipulation). Marriage is the framwork for a family and family is an institution for reproduction of a humankind. With this definition in mind a gay couple cannot marry. They can have some other type of contract because their “marriage” doesn’t serve the purpose of reproduction. I see this as a fundamental difference.
    So do you really want to marry or have a partner contract? In my country gay and lesbian folks have a “registered partnership”. You don’t have such thing in the States?

  65. sushitune says:

    pandkenterprises Nah, this is not about marriage.  This is about life choice.  Some want to put the heavy-hand on non-heterosexuals.  The key is that we are one nation under God, not one Nation under the Christian-moralist God.  Love is blind, so so shall we be.  Give both physical and fiscal rights to all, no matter what shade of grey you may believe they are.

  66. Vaclav Cermak Wesley Anderson 
    Sadly many gay men do go that route and marry a woman (and vice versa). Sadly women are not getting the love and affection that they deserve because of this. Society “norms” affects straights in such a bad manner as well keeping guys and gals in the closet trying to fit that norm. 
    It’s a double edged sword…..not only is the gay person living a lie….the partner they are married to is not getting what they may deserve as well. So yes….many do marry for the rights…but that is certainly wrong.
    So you think infertile people should not be allowed the same rights as those that have kids? 
    You think those that get married later in life and are passed that age of wanting to have kids do not deserve the same rights?
    Do you think those that simply do not want children do not deserve equal rights?
    Perhaps gays are the answer to overpopulation!!!! Nature sure does have a way of correcting itself! 
    To answer your question. I don’t care what anyone calls it to be honest. But right now in the United States there are more than 1,138 federal rights that gays are denied access to. Not seeking any special treatment. Just want the same.

  67. Vaclav Cermak Wesley Anderson So if a woman has no desire for children or is physically unable to bear children she should not be allowed to marry. Interesting… but an inevitable conclusion from this statement – “Marriage is the framework for a family and family is an institution for reproduction of a humankind. With this definition in mind a gay couple cannot marry.”
    Check your premise – Legal marriage HAS (in archaic societies) been the framework, not for FAMILY, but for legitimacy of inheritance and management of bloodlines. I don’t call that a family. 
    If we’re returning to that premise I fail to see why any woman would WANT to marry. We don’t need it for status, protection, or financial support and those were the only benefits offered to women under that old contract. Marriage, as a legal contract, is no longer needed or viable as a framework for a family.

  68. Vaclav Cermak says:

    Wesley Anderson Vaclav Cermak In the past it was very clear what marriage is (I’ve described that definition). And since there is a topic of gay/lesbian marriage rising there is a need to clarify terms. Maybe we need to redefine what marriage is and what it is not. Then there will be no disputes about who can/should marry and who not.
    I guess that’s the bottom – create clear definitons. Then all sides can understand what is the other side talking about.

  69. Vaclav Cermak says:

    Dixie Dynamite Vaclav Cermak Wesley Anderson “So if a woman has no desire for children or is physically unable to bear children she should not be allowed to marry.” These are not my words, Dixie.
    As I said in my answer to Wesley, there is a confusion in terms/terminology. I understand (and its not only me) marriage as a vehicle to produce babies and to secure its members (very simply said). Gay “marriage” is more about economical security for the involved partners. It lacks the “baby feature” so to say. Is the difference visible here? Not seeing the difference is like saying that share holding company and Ltd. are the same because they both make money.
    You yourself are stating that the term family isn’t exactly clear in its meaning. And when things are not clear, misunderstanding is inevitable.

  70. Steve'Linda Stay says:

    As parents, who just want our 2 gay children to have the same rights & protections of our straight ones, we thank you Randy!

  71. I suppose you can define it or re-define it……..but the bottom line is two loving consenting adults deserve the same rights as everyone else that is afforded them. It’s simply human rights. 
    If I love someone and we are committed together I should be able to make medical decisions on their behalf in the case of an emergency rather than the next of kin whom may be totally estranged from my other half. Straight people are able to do that…..so should I. 
    Again…remember none of us really care if you call it marriage or not.

  72. Vaclav Cermak Dixie Dynamite Wesley Anderson those may not be your words, but that is the precedent you establish as soon as you accept that marriage is only acceptable as a vehicle to produce offspring. This premise suits you in your current position, but you cannot confine it only to your intentions. whether you are alone in this thinking or not, when you presume to determine the purpose of marriage, or what gay marriage is about, you set wheels in motion to limit more than you intended. And, as RG points out, when you limit opportunity you limit prosperity. 
    There is ONE way that “unclear terms” does not lead to misunderstanding – and that is when you allow each individual the right for marriage to mean to them what it means to them, for family to mean to them what it means to them, and for the LEGAL ramifications to be equal for all citizens.

  73. Vaclav Cermak says:

    Wesley Anderson When you strive for gay marriage you challenge one of the biggest status quo – that marriage is man and woman. No wonder you reap such an opposition because, as you said, you don’t care what you call it. Way too many straight people care what marriage is in the traditional sense and they get irritated and upset with the gay/lesbian requirement to marry. Unnecessarily. Maybe if you start to care what you call it, you can have better communication and you can in the end get when you want. Howgh.

  74. Vaclav Cermak says:

    Dixie Dynamite Vaclav Cermak Wesley Anderson I think I made myself quite clear. If not then I’m sorry – English is not my first language.
    I like discussions because they oftentimes provide more information than the original article/post. Wesley gave me some food for thought and I see no purpose in repeating myself and in taking more space in this thread.

  75. Vaclav Cermak Wesley Anderson 
    I think we are miscommunicating a bit here. I just mean I don’t care what you call giving me equal rights. If people want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman I have no issue with that. I am different than the status quo…I can accept that. But because I am different I should not be denied the same rights.

  76. Vaclav Cermak Wesley Anderson 
    Fair enough. 
    You do very well for English not being your first language. 
    Are you sure you don’t want those pictures? just teasing 🙂
    Cheers

  77. spgcommunicate says:

    Sean40 Randy_Gage I will provide the right answer for you: prosperity does not/is unable to exist when someone willfully violates the inalienable rights of another.  Children are unable to mentally or emotionally come to sound decisions on their own, i.e.- marry someone, until a certain amount of life experience, age, etc.  Any religion, and there are a number of them, that allow an adult to marry a child, are in violation of the child’s free will and therefore are wrong on every level.  In this instance, and perhaps it is the only instance, the government should intercede upon a religion in order to protect children.  I did not see a reply so thought you may have inadvertently missed my question.  We are in agreement on the premise of this post, btw.  Thank you. ~ SG

  78. Andrew Williams says:

    Randy I’m sorry to say but you are wrong on this one.  Europe went through this path and look at wha’ts happening now in those countries. Everywhere you go in Europe,you  have this eery feeling of decadence and moral bankruptcy. What’s next multiple cohabitation?

  79. Andrew Williams 
    Damn gays are the decline of Europe too? Who knew we were so powerful! 
    *W puts on his purple easter bonnet and turns on “It’s raining men.” Decline society….decline!!! Muhaahwahahahahaaasssssssss (that’s Dr. Evil with a lisp just so ya know). 
    Yes my post is about as ridiculous as yours is.

  80. pandkenterprises says:

    Wesley, I am not saying that Andrew is homophobic, but when he drops his wallet in San Francisco he kicks it to Oakland to pick it up.

  81. pandkenterprises 
    I just spit my coffee out :-).

  82. pandkenterprises says:

    Wesley Anderson pandkenterprises  
    Now you know why the nuns beat me so often.

  83. Randy_Gage says:

    Andrew Williams   Let’s suppose your premise that Europe is moving into decadence and moral bankruptcy is correct.  I don’t know if that’s true, but you can make that argument.  Even if we accept that premise, your theory that equal rights for homosexuals is the cause of this has no evidence to support it.  
    There are many other people who also think Europe is decadent and immoral – and they attribute it to some churches ordaining women, women getting educated, entitlement programs, kids listening to rap music, sexuality in the media, poor role models in the sporting world, aliens from Pluto, and about a hundred other possible causes.  These are all fascinating theories, but there is certainly no rational evidence to support yours.
    – RG

  84. Randy_Gage Andrew Williams It’s interesting to me that the conversation seems to center around the Gay male. Few people seem as threatened or as concerned about the concept of women mating with or having a sexual relationship with another woman. This is not only true in this thread, but in the mainstream media and in centuries of historical references. 
    References to decadence (think pre-WWII Germany for instance) usually have to do with the open acceptance of the stereotypical Gay MALE behavior. 
    I’ve pondered this at length and have a theory. Women become aware at a pretty young age, at least by the time they leave High School and generally MUCH earlier, that one threat they will never be safe from is rape. Men, we are told, can and will take what they want regardless of our consent – unless we take precautions and even then there is no way to completely protect ourselves. BUT if we don’t take precautions then what happens is, at least to some extent, our own fault. We are safe from no one – the stranger in the park, the first date, the boyfriend we’ve learned to trust, even our own family. That threat is an implicit part of our conditioning.
    Men, on the other hand, usually don’t think about being threatened in that way – until they are confronted with the concept that some men PREFER sex with men. Not just will TAKE it when nothing else is available – such as in prison or some other situation that most men assume has nothing to do with them – but PREFER it. 
    The conscious mind may not even acknowledge this implication – but the fear center says “This is WRONG, this is something I never had to think about, some guy could actually WANT to have sex with me.” And the rational mind tries to find all kinds of REASONS for that reaction – reasons that have nothing to do with acknowledging this so-called threat. 
    To that I say – we can see this world as a playful adventure where the “threats” are simply what we navigate and negotiate to make our way to the “pot of gold,” or we can see it as an evil place where every aberration from the norm that gives us our (false) sense of security must be crushed IMMEDIATELY. 
    We choose.

  85. NatalieLamb says:

    Vaclav Cermak I’m straight. How I came to know this is that I didn’t get turned on at the thought of making love to women.  In my fantasy – I’m with men. Tho I don’t have a revulsion when I see two men kissing or two women.  I feel grateful, happy and pleased for them – that they’ve found love!
    I ponder if where your revulsion comes from.  Two thoughts pop up:
    1. It’s a clear indication that you aren’t gay
    2. It’s conditioning – hearing again and again that gays are disgusting, repulsive, and it’s vile to see two men together.  Tho here’s the thing – one boyfriend I had said his previous girlfriend ONLY liked anal sex. Woman have anal sex too.  It’s purely preference.
    Another comment you made that is false – I have a few gay friends.  None of them have spoken of having awful controlling mothers.  Many had controlling, oppressive, and cruel fathers.  Some didn’t know their father – through divorce or abandonment.  Some have loving, accepting, and LOVELY parents – who have always adored them.  The type of mother or father doesn’t dictate whether someone is homosexual or not.  People are BORN homosexual – some are born to parents who are accepting, and wonderufl about it, others don’t have such a good time.

  86. Vaclav Cermak says:

    NatalieLamb Vaclav Cermak You are making a lot of assumptions. I was growing up in communistic country and I had no idea that such thing as homosexuality exists – it was not visible, nobody spoke about it. When I heard about it the first time I was teenager already and wondered how two males can have sex together if they lack the female part. Discovering that it is replaced by a butt caused very odd feelings. This is just to dispell your point No. 2.
    Well having a cruel father doesn’t sound like a great family condition where kid can develop to its full and undeviated potential. Just because you see people who appear to have a nice family doesn’t imply everything is great & healthy in that family. There are many cases when the “nice, polite” kid from such a “wonderful” family suddenly and “out of blue” commited some terrible thing (i.e. murder). Unless you live with that family you have no clue what’s happening in the private, sorry.
    Its a favorite argument to say that homosexuals are born that way. Maybe some but definitely not all. Some changed their orientation based on the conditions in their family while some just experiment and discover new pleasures.
    The resistance from straight guys can be to some extent caused by what @Dixie Dynamite mentioned – the domination issue. In nature we can see that – animals show their dominance in the pack through homosexual behaviour. Lesbian behaviour doesn’t challenge the domination part in man but gay behaviour does. There is a need to mention that there are two types of gays – the one who is the man and the other who is the woman. The one who is man is dominating. I’ll take example from the prisons – the aggressive guy doesn’t offer his butt to the newbie but rather uses the newbie’s butt for his own pleasure and (heck) dominance.
    So I’d derive from this that my nature as a man – the part that makes me to behave dominant as a leader (not talking about dictatorship in case someone would like to twist my argument) – is challenged by the idea that some male would have sex with me. As a straight guy I feel discomfort.
    Yet, I’m still openminded enough to get to the nitty gritty of things. After all I’m not following Randy’s thoughts because I want to fight for staus quo established by people I don’t know. I’m interested to find out about how things really are (globally speaking – homosexuality is a minor issue for me). That also means I just don’t jump on any bandwagon because everybody is emotional about it and says “yes, lets do this”. Correct me if I’m wrong but Randy promotes critical thinking, right?

  87. 1Marc says:

    The debate about gay marriage is the classic square peg in the round hole.
    Furthermore it is impossible to talk about it without a large emotional component.
    Emotions aside, marriage originates in religious organisations and as such it is defined by them. Religion condems homosexuality if rightly or wrongly is irrelevant, The only reason marriage of homsexuals is not allowed or has such opposition is because homosexuality is opposed, again if right or wrong is another story. This is like asking a classic music radio sation to play Jimmy Barns.
    So the debate is clearly not about marriage or human rights but rather about the acceptance or rejection of homosexuality. The “right” to marriage is used as leverage by both sides to force a debate in favour or against.
    There is a lot of insincerity in this debate and each part is dancing around the main subject and fiddeling with the side dish.   
    As far as discrimination, homosexuals do not have the exclusivity on that. Think about the millions of “unmarried” stright couples who are told they are “living in sin” because they chose not to marry.

 

Like on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Watch Prosperity TV
Connect on LinkedIn
Add to Google+ Circle

Gage on Prosperity

Enter your name and best email to get a free copy of Randy Gage's "50 Secrets of Prosperity" e-book
and receive occasional success tips from him.

Share the Love