Gay Marriage
Many in the Right are calling marriage a "union between a man and a woman". I think it should be a "union between two adults". I support gay marriages and think they should be legal.
What do you think?
Legal.
I see nothing wrong with the concept. Marriage is just a legal document saying that you have very deep feelings for somebody. If those feelings already exist, forbiding such a document won't make them go away, it'll just irritate the 'victims' of the law.
Well, unfortunately, marriage has many legal benefits (as well as a few drawbacks) for those involved, and simply being "living partners" or whatever one chooses to call it do not afford a couple the same benefits. So marriage is technically more than just a document saying you have very deep feelings for somebody, because so many things are affected by having that document.
So, if the Right want to play word games, why can't the Left?
Let them have the word "Marriage". Okay, only a man and a woman can marry. Let's have "Civil Unions", wherein two adults of either gender commit to one another in a legal sense, thereby gaining all the rights afforded to "married people". But we don't call it "marriage".
Then, when the Right starts screaming about it, the Left can say: "Look, we gave you 'Marriage', and we came up with a great compromise which should make everyone happy. You've protected the 'sanctity' of marriage and now you're pitching a fit over this. Admit it, you're doing this because you don't like gay people."
And then they look like complete assholes, because they weren't defending anything but their own bigoted ideas.
I basically agree with you. However, I think part of the sticking point is that gay couples don't want to be seen as different or have their union looked upon as any different than a straight union, a.k.a. "marriage". I partially agree with them, but then I think, "Dude, just take what you can get."
I think "marriage" should be outlawed and everyone can have "civil unions". What we've got there is equality, and I think that's basically what the gay side wants.
Why play word games to begin with?
Sorry if I'm confused, but whats wrong with using marriage for both cases?
Bible references? Who cares. Religion shouldn't be the basis of laws.
If a man loves a woman, then he should be able to marry her.
If a man loves a man, then he should be able to marry him.
etc..
It's that simple. Sorry for my obvious ignorance of the finer parts of the issue but I am somewhat confused.
I agree, word games shouldn't be played. It's the Right doing it.
It should be legal. We've talked about this before but it seems really odd that so many right wingers apparently see a state recognized contract as sacred. Refresh my memory, wasn't Clinton the guy who signed the defense of marriage act?
Originally posted by FileNotFound
Bible references? Who cares. Religion shouldn't be the basis of laws.
And so you have defined the reasons for the contraversy. Not right wing - but extreme right wing religious are opposed to anything contrary to their interpretation of the bible. It is their right. However once they would imposed those beliefs on others, then we have a fundamental violation of the Constitution.
Underlying the demands from the religious right: they are obligated to save us from ourselves. Heavens forbid we should let gays and lesbians 'marry'. That would mean we all commit mortal sin. Something fundamentally new in the American public. There has been a massive change in the American political landscape. Something just under 50% of Americans say there is nothing wrong with religious beliefs being used to create laws. And so we have the religious extremists justifying hate.
Major factions of the Catholic Church would simply murder those who opposed their interpretation of church doctrine. I believe a whole Jesuit town in France was massacred in maybe the 1500s simply because the emotion called 'religion' was more important than even the purpose of religion.
Religion is simply a relationship between you and your god. Period. Once religion is imposed on others, then we have evil. A fundamental violation of American principles. However in their zeal to save us from ourselves, the religious right extremists would deny all this. And so they promote hate upon people they fear - gays and lesbians.
Once religion violates its fundamental roots - a relationship between a person and his god - the religion becomes the reasons for murder, death, massacres, and other social diseases.
Griff, Clinton did sign it, but given that he was staring down a Republican Congress and all...
Gay marriages should be as legal as straight ones. Why not? I challenge anyone who opposes gay marriages to present non-religious amoral reasons as to why they should not be allowed.
If gays aren't allowed to marry, then all their natural children will be "bastards".:rolleyes:
I say let 'em get married. The reason: when a 'gay' relationship ends, unless one is older and wealthy and the the other young and greedy, there isn't a nasty court battle over who gets the silver or custody of the poodle. They've had it too damn easy for years. Let the have to put up with what us straights have been putting up with since forever, lawyers, judges, and property settlements. Let 'em get married, then let them get divorced, and see how well they like it!!
Damn, the lawyers would have a field day.
Personally, I don't care who does what with whom as long as I don't have to watch it.
I couldn't care less what consenting adults do because they are able to take resonsibility for their actions. I don't really see why gay adults can't enjoy some of the legal protections provided by the legal institution of marriage.
The adult question is easy. It gets really tough for me when children get involved.
As soon as the gay marriage question gets resolved, the children question will be next.
Can/should gay male couples be allowed to adopt? Call me a neanderthal but I am not ready for that.
OK Beestie you're a neanderthal. Me too.
The adults making there own decisions I can take a rational tact. The adoption on the other hand doesn't feel right in my gut and no amount of rationalization will make it go away.
What's wrong with them having children? Any specific points?
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
The adoption on the other hand doesn't feel right in my gut and no amount of rationalization will make it go away.
Ok so lets think about this. Lets say gay couples can legally marry, but cannot have kids. This is impossible. Single people can have kids, kids can have kids but gays cant? It's ireconcilable.
What if a married lesbian couple get impregnated assuming it's legal to marry but not spawn. What is the punishment for getting pregnant and/or giving birth? How can it be a crime to
get pregnant? If the lesbians are biologically capable of bearing children, how does this affect the gay couples who are not? Should we sue God for not making men capable of bearing children? Should we sue the Tobacco companies for somehow having a hand in this? The scenarios give me a headache. The lawyers would be billing the gov't for the next 100 years contemplating the legal consequences.
While I am not against same sex marriage per se, same sex couples having or adopting kids makes me nervous. From a psychological perspective kids need the influence of a mother and a father.* Since children are such a large part of the original intent of creating the arrangement of marriage, I cant understand how all the details would work if there were gay marriage.
It isn't as simple as one would think to just say one way or the other. Or maybe I'm missing it completely.
* - says me a single guy with no kids or plans to have them.
I ran across
this article the other day while doing research for a paper on primates. It's pretty interesting.
Excerpt:<blockquote>Wild male Sumatran orangutans at two study sites engaged in homosexual behavior. These observations demonstrate that homosexual behavior is not an artifact of captivity or contact with humans. In separate instances, homosexual behavior was associated with affiliative and agonistic behaviors. These observations add orangutans to the list of primates in which homosexual behavior forms part of the natural repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior.</blockquote>
This seems to suggest that the idea of homosexuality being "unnatural" is completely off base.
It seems to me that a whole slew of people have been raised by single mothers, and they seem to be getting on okay. In the absence of a father, the child will simply find some other male role model (and vice-versa for women).
Originally posted by juju
In the absence of a father, the child will simply find some other male role model
I understand your point here. I dont think the 2 are the same though.
Seeing 2 women or 2 men as a couple raise a child still leaves the child without one or the other in the team.
I still dont agree with it.
If children being raised by single parents turn out just fine, then how can adding another parent of the same sex possibly change the results for the worse?
It shows a parental relationship of 2 same sexes, without a opposite sex influence. Having 2 daddys or 2 mommies. I object and think it's confusing for kids.
Sure there are single moms and dads, but they're single or with the opposite sex partners. This tends to show a relationship of opposite sex partners and allows them to define their own sex role from a parental example. A man or a woman.
I'm not saying I know it all. This is my opinion though. I dont think its good for kids.
What do you mean by "opposite sex influence"?
an opposite sex influence in the parent(s)
Would a girl have the parental influence of a woman from a gay couple? How about a boy from a lesbian couple? It's true there would be other role models, but the primary parental roles may not have their particular biological match.
It could also be said that one partner in same sex couples do have opposite sex traits, the butch lesbian, for example. While this is true it doesnt give the opposite sex parent the same biology and development experience as the real deal.
Can a woman relate to having an errection*? Most likely not. Is it important to have that type of sexual development experience to be somehow subliminally relatable to your kids? That's your call.
You, as a male, can relate to dad in some way when you're growing up, you can talk to him about girls, sex, (having sex with girls instead of alone in the shower) and other gender related topics. This may be more difficult with a woman, or an opposite sex parent.
In the end, if you ask me, I say its confusing for the child and I dont agree with it.
* - does not apply to Maggie
My dad died when I was 3, so I'm one of those people raised by a single-parent woman. I never ever had any sort of father figure growing up, real or replacement.
Originally posted by juju
What's wrong with them having children? Any specific points?
My problem isn't gay couples having children. Its with gay couples adopting children. And its not so much a problem as an unsettling question.
Lesbian couples can have children. Male couples (duh) cannot so they have to adopt.
It goes to the question of what is the marriage for? If two gays want to institutionalize their commitment to each other be it civil, religious or whatever then honestly, I can find no fault in that and think it is actuallly a sign of character.
My question (and I don't know the answer) is what do we (legislatively) say about gay adoption. To be clear about my position (since you asked in another post), the idea of making it against the law for gays to have their own children is preposterous and and unacceptably discriminatory.
I don't know nor do I really care where homosexuality comes from - it is a reality and a lot of good people are homosexual. We must find a way to not shun these people by treating them like outcasts. But I don't know how that translates into the children question. And that's not to say that homosexuals can't be loving parents its to say I don't know what a kid raised in a homosexual house "looks like." Maybe its fine - I don't know. I'm not predisposed to an answer - I would just like some more information before deciding (the adoption question).
Adoptions into gay families is a tough issue even for me. I know that in a logical sense there is nothing wrong with a gay couple raising a child, yet at times I feel like I should say no.
In the end I think what it comes down to is the dedication of the family to the child and their ability to raise a child.
Yes it will be a bit odd for the child to grow up in a gay family, yes they'll get teased, yes they'll have some tough concepts to understand very early on. But in the end it's still better for the child to grow up in a gay family than a foster home.
fnf wrote:
But in the end it's still better for the child to grow up in a gay family than a foster home.
Nice way to put it.
I bet a lot of kids in a foster home would choose a gay household over no household. And their opinion matters considerably more than mine does.
My take?
Have at it, boys!
Which would be more detrimental to the child: an unhappy marriage between a woman and a man who would have been gay, or being raised by that man married to another man?
(Admittedly, it felt wierd to write 'man married to another man'. If I feel wrong or awkward with a word or sentence, it's an indicator to me that it's incorrect. They might be correct to say that marriage is associated with 'union between a man and a woman'.)
Originally posted by Undertoad
........ so I'm one of those people raised by a single-parent woman.
single parent Vs mommy-mommy, they're not the same IMO.
Lemme see if I can find something written on this.
Many people have told me straight to my face how damaging a fatherless family is to a child.
Nothing could possibly be more damaging than their stupid prejudices.
Are you referring to the prejudices of those who say a fatherless family is damaging, Toad? Just want to clarify.
I've listened to hours of talk radio against gay marriage, and read extensive anti-gay diatribes on the web, and read political grandstanding on the issue. At no time has any legal argument even been made, let alone substantiated, against gay marriage.
Here is a list of the arguments I've seen:
1) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and marriage to 'poltergeists' (O'Reilly today).
2) It is a case of judicial activism, against the wishes of 62% of the population.
3) Marriage is defined in the dictionary as being between a man and a woman.
4) It would be a "special privilege" only for gays. Currently, gays have equal rights as heterosexuals to enter heterosexual marriage.
5) It's against the Bible.
6) It's unnatural.
7) I don't want to tell my children about it.
8) It's yucky.
Are there any arguments against gay marriage that weren't also used and discredited against interracial marriage, or any number of other civil rights?
First of all, not attacking you just listing counter argumnets...
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Here is a list of the arguments I've seen:
1) It will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and marriage to 'poltergeists' (O'Reilly today).
I do not see any link to polygamy, gays don't want to marry 20 people. No link to bestiality, sheep can't say I do. Neither can "poltergeists"
2) It is a case of judicial activism, against the wishes of 62% of the population.
I'd like a source of that statistic.
3) Marriage is defined in the dictionary as being between a man and a woman.
A dictionary isn't the book of laws.
4) It would be a "special privilege" only for gays. Currently, gays have equal rights as heterosexuals to enter heterosexual marriage.
Marriage doesn't need a "heterosexual" vs "homosexual" defintion. It's a union between two consenting adults. No more. No less.
5) It's against the Bible.
As are many things that we firmly believe to be our "god given rights". Bible isn't law.
6) It's unnatural.
There are plenty of recorded cases of homosexual behaviour in animals, even necrophilia. I can look up the sources if anyone insists. ( I would now but being at work and all..searching google for "animals necrophila homosexuality" would look odd..)
7) I don't want to tell my children about it.
Boo hoo hoo. So? How do you tell them about sex and other "tough" issues?
8) It's yucky.
Gay men often think that women are yucky and that breasts are yucky. Should breasts be made illegal?
Are there any arguments against gay marriage that weren't also used and discredited against interracial marriage, or any number of other civil rights?
Gay marriage -- no prob, I'll come to the wedding and sniff into my hankie. Throw rice.
A child being raised by the State -- uh oh.
A child being raised by a caring, decent parent -- wonderful!
A child being raised by *two* caring, decent parents -- wow, we just hit the motherlode!
2 parents + grandparents, uncles, aunts, siblings, friends, community -- As Good As It Gets.
I don't see where gender comes into it.
- Pie
FileNotFound - Indeed. Counterarguments are so obvious to me that I wish they weren't even necessary. But all of these arguments were being advanced with all seriousness. As for the source of the statistic, it was from O'Reilly, who has been known to make up statistics on the spot.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Many people have told me straight to my face how damaging a fatherless family is to a child.
Well, it COULD explain your pussy music tendencies...
Of course gay marriage should be legal.
Of course gay partners should be allowed to birth or adopt children and raise them in loving homes. Of course all children deserve loving homes.
And of course gay people should be teachers, writers, insurance claims adjusters, cashiers, artists, doctors, business people,...wait they are.
It is a question of basic human rights.
What pisses me off about the whole issue is that we have given the White House a new issue to use to sidestep the economy and the war in Iraq.
Bush gets to oppose gay marriage, alienating a special interest group who he never expected to support him. It will cost him nothing and further ingratiate him with evangelicals, who are willing to ignore his worldly foibles in favor of social conservatism.
:angry:
Originally posted by juju
What's wrong with them having children? Any specific points?
Sorry I'm late on this. No Juju, just gut feeling. I am not for making it illegal because I don't have a rational case for that. I'm just uncomfortable with it.:confused:
I can believe O'Reilly's 63%. I think there is probably 63% that would make the Bible law, if they could.:eek:
Jesus! Where do I start?
Maybe with some research and reading on my new online library.
I'll be back. I wont forget this but there are lotsa things to be done before this.
Legal rights, yes. Marriage...sorry but marriage is between a man and woman, get your own word.
Originally posted by juju
It seems to me that a whole slew of people have been raised by single mothers, and they seem to be getting on okay. In the absence of a father, the child will simply find some other male role model (and vice-versa for women).
Reminds me of a Chris Rock routine about single mothers, sure, you can do it...but that doesn't make it a fucking good idea!
Originally posted by blue58
Reminds me of a Chris Rock routine about single mothers, sure, you can do it...but that doesn't make it a fucking good idea!
Is being raised by the state better? There are plenty of kids in need of addoption.
Also marriage 'was' a union between man and woman. Now it's a union between two conscenting adults. Welcome to the new world. (If you don't like it, I can suggest a way to leave)
Oh, opinions not allowed here? Am I too un-PC?
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Opinions are allowed AND are appreciated here.
However, put on your suit of armor and get ready for the firey barbs if your opinions aren't in line with some folks. For the most part, as long as you're open minded and willing to hear other sides of things, you'll do well here.
(Kevlar and Asbestos, perfect for a flame war!)
Dagney
Opinions are more than welcome; however, we tend to like folks that back up their opinions with facts and/or qualifiers.
So, why do you think that marriage is only for a man and woman?
The lack of gay marriage weakens the entire concept of marriage and will lead to fewer heterosexual couples marrying.
When loving couples are prohibited from marrying, the importance of marriage is diminished in the culture. As homosexuality continues to gain acceptance, as it surely will, the practice of not marrying will spill over into the hetero space.
Gays already lead the culture in many ways, and there is no reason to believe this will not be one of them. Fighting the culture war harder will only hasten its progress. Marriage will become unfashionable for large numbers of ordinary people.
Actually I believe that gay marriage would weaken the concept of marriage.
I have nothing against gays, but I am so tired of every minority group wanting to reshape the world to their needs. I also think that most groups that go on about demanding equal treatment really want special treatment.
The whole PC thing I guess is what really pisses me off, you're not allowed to have an opinion anymore, or set standards for your organization (think Boy Scouts) for fear of offending someone somewhere.
How is being allowed to marry the person you love special treatment?
Right, special treatment should be limited to majorities!
In the bible homosexuality is a sin. So no it should not be allowed.
Yes I know adultary is to. So shut up!
It's special treatment because they want to redefine (and in my OPINION make a mockery of) what many consider SACRED, simply to satisfy their OWN agenda.
Originally posted by april
In the bible homosexuality is a sin. So no it should not be allowed.
Yes I know adultary is to. So shut up!
I hate you more every day. Why don't you shut up? No really. Please do.
Who cares about the bible? The bible is NOT law. Never should be.
Originally posted by blue58
It's special treatment because they want to redefine (and in my OPINION make a mockery of) what many consider SACRED, simply to satisfy their OWN agenda.
You're not answering the question:
How is being able to marry the person you love special treatment.
Special treatment is asking that the laws & traditions which clearly define marriage as being of a man and a woman be rewritten for their benefit.
That said, I believe they SHOULD be able to have some kind of service/union and gain the legal benefits that come with it for the one they love.
Originally posted by FileNotFound
I hate you more every day. Why don't you shut up? No really. Please do.
Who cares about the bible? The bible is NOT law. Never should be.
Merely a question, but why on earth are you expending the energy to hate? It does no one any good, and if your ego needs boosted THAT badly, perhaps you should direct your wrath at another target.
And by the way, for millions of Christians, the Bible IS law. You may not like it, but that's how they run their lives.
Originally posted by blue58
Special treatment is asking that the laws & traditions which clearly define marriage as being of a man and a woman be rewritten for their benefit.
That said, I believe they SHOULD be able to have some kind of service/union and gain the legal benefits that come with it for the one they love.
Do you say that women asking for the right to vote was also special treatment because voting was established and clearly defined as a right of "a white male land owner".
They're not asking for special treatment but equal treatment. Your inability to grasp this is distressing.
Originally posted by Dagney
Merely a question, but why on earth are you expending the energy to hate? It does no one any good, and if your ego needs boosted THAT badly, perhaps you should direct your wrath at another target.
And by the way, for millions of Christians, the Bible IS law. You may not like it, but that's how they run their lives.
It's my energy, I can put it where I want. Be it counting the dots on the wall or hating retards. My ego is fine thank you very much for your concern.
Welcome to the wonderful United States of America where US Law is NOT the Bible. There is this thing here that's known as "seperation of church and state", it used to be followed much more closly, but it's still very much in effect.
If you'd like a country without sepration of church and state, try Afghanistan, Iran or some other islamic nation where women get stoned in the streets, are considered mans property and can't show their faces.
No on the voting thing, some things need to be changed, and some things DO NOT need to be changed. Sorry I know that's kind of lame, not sure how to compare the two. It's like right vs. wrong, hard to define but you know it when you see it.
They should have equal treatment as far as I'm concerned...but don't change what I have & believe in in order to accomodate your desires.
For example, what if beastililty eventually becomes more mainstream & acceptable in our culture, with people "coming out", having their own parades and television series, and forming poltical groups.
Should I then say, sure it's OK, you can marry your cow, just because marriage to millions is a sacred union of man and woman, I have no right to deny you your equal treatment.
Thanks for twisting my words, leaves a lot less work for others who want to.
What I understand most people to want, is not necessarily 'marriage' under the traditional definition of things (although I personally see no problem with it) but a civil union that will allow same sex couples to have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple (adoption, insurance, spousal benefits, etc). Some people see that this is a perversion of the word marriage - but are content to allow a civil union. Some people don't care either way, some folks won't accept the concept at all.
I'm _well_ aware that this is the United States, having been born here, raised here, and educated here. I also understand the separation of church and state, and believe that this is _not_ the issue at hand.
Small tidbit of advice, but I know you won't be taking it, seeing that you're an all knowing idiotic asshat -
Pull your head out of your rectum, the universe and how it operates does not revolve around you. Our opinions are JUST as valid as yours, again, if you feel the need to vehemently argue with anyone who won't kowtow to your "I rule the world" attutude - perhaps you need to check yourself. For me, it is definitely amusing - I love watching people make fools of themselves. (and I needed a laugh today)
Until you can prove to me you're the god you seem to think you are, my opinion of you will not change for the better.
(Definitely siding with Dave on this one....yer a fucknut)
Originally posted by blue58
No on the voting thing, some things need to be changed, and some things DO NOT need to be changed. Sorry I know that's kind of lame, not sure how to compare the two. It's like right vs. wrong, hard to define but you know it when you see it.
They should have equal treatment as far as I'm concerned...but don't change what I have & believe in in order to accomodate your desires.
For example, what if beastililty eventually becomes more mainstream & acceptable in our culture, with people "coming out", having their own parades and television series, and forming poltical groups.
Should I then say, sure it's OK, you can marry your cow, just because marriage to millions is a sacred union of man and woman, I have no right to deny you your equal treatment.
Give me a break. Don't strawman or sippery slope the argument into absurdidty.
Marriage - Union between two concenting adults. Period.
The keyword is "CONSENT". Cow's cant consent. Thats already been mentioned in this post by ME. (Thats also why screwing animals is considered rape by PETA and other animal rights activists, cause see they can't say "NO!")
There are several reasons that gays want legal marriages:
Ability to take time off from work for carring of loved one.
Ability to file taxes as married.
Equal treatment/acceptance of gays into society.
I see NOTHING wrong here. If you can't explain it, then it's not there. (Kind of like god's not there)
How is this affecting you. How is the definition change hurting you? Is your marriage something other than a union between two consenting adults? Do you want to say "sacred union between two consenting adults"? Why?
Your whole argument is such a personal soap box that it's not even funny. Why don't I start a personal soap box of my own based on the fact that to get a marriage license I have to put my hand on the bible and swear "I do". Being an athiest I find this offensive and see it as a way to discourage me from getting married. It's such an insignificant inconvinience that it's abusrd to argue about it - as is your resistance to the change of the definiton of the word "marriage"
If the culture goes that way there will be little you can do about it. But that's not likely.
If you want a serious answer to your question, for the purposes of the state, marriage is a legal contract, and a cow cannot enter into such a contract, partly because they have hooves and can't hold the pen to sign it.
Originally posted by blue58
Legal rights, yes. Marriage...sorry but marriage is between a man and woman, get your own word.
Marriage is also between two halves of a woodworking joint. Words have multiple definitions, and definitions change. There are already two definitions of marriage being used: civil and religious marriage.
Originally posted by blue58
It's special treatment because they want to redefine (and in my OPINION make a mockery of) what many consider SACRED, simply to satisfy their OWN agenda.
Only RELIGIOUS marriage is 'sacred' to anybody. Civil marriage already exists, independent of any religion. Civil authorities recognise marriages performed by recognised religious authorities, but religious participation is not required for the civil marriage to be performed.
The only issue up for debate here is CIVIL marriages for gays. Nobody is trying to get the government to force any religion to perform the marriages. A church can, if it wants, refuse to marry anybody for any reason, and always will be able to. However, if a church DOES perform a gay marriage, the government should recognise it.
Originally posted by blue58
The whole PC thing I guess is what really pisses me off, you're not allowed to have an opinion anymore, or set standards for your organization (think Boy Scouts) for fear of offending someone somewhere..
I'm no fan of PC, either. As a nonreligious pro-gay former Boy Scout myself, I think their policies are idiotic, but the government should not be involved. Just as churches should not be forced to perform marriages they find sinful. But remember: the US Government is not a private organization. An inequity performed by the government is not protected freedom. Correcting it is not 'PC'. It is just C.
Originally posted by blue58
Special treatment is asking that the laws & traditions which clearly define marriage as being of a man and a woman be rewritten for their benefit.
That said, I believe they SHOULD be able to have some kind of service/union and gain the legal benefits that come with it for the one they love.
If the laws are rewritten for their benefit, what is the problem? They are not being rewritten to ANYBODY's detriment. No matter how yucky they may find it, a gay marriage does not hurt a heterosexual. There is no special treatment here - the new rule will be just as available to heterosexuals as heterosexual marrage has been available to gays. We should always take every opportunity to write laws that benefit some and harm none.
Originally posted by april
In the bible homosexuality is a sin. So no it should not be allowed.
Yes I know adultary is to. So shut up!
So is being non-Christian. Neither fact is relevant to lawmaking.
Slippery slope is a good way to describe this, so where WILL the line be drawn then?
Your reply to my first post on this board was an immediate "If you don't like it, I can suggest a way to leave" and you're giving me shit about being on a personal soapbox?
You're a funny one to be preaching tolerance and open mindedness.
Originally posted by Dagney
Thanks for twisting my words, leaves a lot less work for others who want to.
What I understand most people to want, is not necessarily 'marriage' under the traditional definition of things (although I personally see no problem with it) but a civil union that will allow same sex couples to have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple (adoption, insurance, spousal benefits, etc). Some people see that this is a perversion of the word marriage - but are content to allow a civil union. Some people don't care either way, some folks won't accept the concept at all.
I'm _well_ aware that this is the United States, having been born here, raised here, and educated here. I also understand the separation of church and state, and believe that this is _not_ the issue at hand.
Small tidbit of advice, but I know you won't be taking it, seeing that you're an all knowing idiotic asshat -
Pull your head out of your rectum, the universe and how it operates does not revolve around you. Our opinions are JUST as valid as yours, again, if you feel the need to vehemently argue with anyone who won't kowtow to your "I rule the world" attutude - perhaps you need to check yourself. For me, it is definitely amusing - I love watching people make fools of themselves. (and I needed a laugh today)
Until you can prove to me you're the god you seem to think you are, my opinion of you will not change for the better.
(Definitely siding with Dave on this one....yer a fucknut)
Yeah sure whatever, somebody thinks I'm a fucknut. The terror. I'm heartbroken I'll go cry now...ok I'm all better.
If you know that the bible SHOULD have NO effect on laws why bring it up?
I don't care where you were raised, half the people raised in the US wouldn't know the difference between Thanksgiving and Day of Independance and probably think that Mayflower is a type of bush or something.
Gays want the right to marry. Instead of giving them this, people are out playing word games and trying to give them something else. This is seperating them from the rest of society and making them outcasts. It'll turn into "Straight people marry - Gay people have Unions". Thats not fair and equal treatment. How will a gay man answer to "Are you married?" "No I'm in a civil union...". Thats idiotic.
I didn't ask you what some people want to do. The levels of resistance are obvious to even April - well maybe not April...
Still I'm curious how I twisted your words? You drag the bible into a legal discussion and I tell you to shove it because it has no place here and that is twisiting your words?
Originally posted by Dagney
And by the way, for millions of Christians, the Bible IS law. You may not like it, but that's how they run their lives.
Please note: Nobody is trying to make gay marriage mandatory. People who think it is a sin will retain the ability and fundamental right to not marry people of their own sex.
What's the slippery slope? I don't see how it's a slippery slope.
Is your first name Rick, and your last name Santorum?
Originally posted by blue58
Slippery slope is a good way to describe this, so where WILL the line be drawn then?
Your reply to my first post on this board was an immediate "If you don't like it, I can suggest a way to leave" and you're giving me shit about being on a personal soapbox?
You're a funny one to be preaching tolerance and open mindedness.
I'm not preaching tolerance or open mindedness. I never said I was.
I am preaching equal treatment. I don't care if you can't tolerate gays or can't accept them as long as you manage to treat them equaly.
I TOLD you where the line is drawn. Read my post and you'll see. Tip: "Consenting adults"
Only RELIGIOUS marriage is 'sacred' to anybody. Civil marriage already exists, independent of any religion.
Good point there, sometimes forget to look at it in that light.
As a nonreligious pro-gay former Boy Scout myself, I think their policies are idiotic, but the government should not be involved.
Of course, they are a private organization and should be allowed to set their own standards, right or wrong.
a gay marriage does not hurt a heterosexual
In my opinion it does, it cheapens something that I strongly believe in and weakens an institution that's already on thin ice.
Originally posted by blue58
In my opinion it does, it cheapens something that I strongly believe in and weakens an institution that's already on thin ice.
How does allowing gay people to marry the man/woman they he/she loves cheapen marriage?
And which institution are your refering to?
How does marriage become weakened by allowing gay people to marry? Does it weaken the "institution" or just your perception of what marriage is?
Originally posted by Undertoad
When loving couples are prohibited from marrying, the importance of marriage is diminished in the culture.
:applause:
Very well stated, UT.
- pie
don't care if you can't tolerate gays or can't accept them as long as you manage to treat them equaly.
I knew you'd go there eventually, thing is I do tolerate and accept them. In fact I have no problem whatsoever with them or any group. This is about gay marriage, not discrimination.
And for what it's worth, no I don't really understand the gay lifestyle and will admit it. The sex part I can understand, the lifestyle and desire to spend your life with a same sex partner somewhat baffles me.
But, it is their choice and their business. Every individual on this planet deserves the right to be treated decently and not be discriminated against. They do not however have the right to demand that society accomodate there every demand.
Originally posted by blue58
Slippery slope is a good way to describe this, so where WILL the line be drawn then?
As far as I can see, the absolute furthest that this slippery slope could go is polygamy. All of the other bugaboos being brought up in the general debate, such as bestiality, marriage to "poltergeists" or inanimate objects, or incest, are sufficiently different to be separate slopes. And there is no major push down those slopes. There's not even much for polygamy.
Ironically, all of these conservatives making the spurious slippery slope arguments actually may be weakening their future cases against them. If many of these arguments end up on the record, like Scalia's dissent in the Texas case, they may end up being used by people with much less legitimate issues than gay marriage.
Essentially, if arguments were made against gay marriage itself, rather than theoretical future issues, it would be much more likely to stop there. Instead, slippery slope arguments are pouring oil on the slope.
It's that whole change factor...many people hate change, be it the way the icing is put on their donut, or allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
Originally posted by Dagney
And by the way, for millions of Christians, the Bible IS law. You may not like it, but that's how they run their lives.
That may be how they run
their lives, but I resent like hell their efforts to run
MY life.
The Bible isn't my book. Why do I have to follow it?
- Pie
But, it is their choice and their business. Every individual on this planet deserves the right to be treated decently and not be discriminated against. They do not however have the right to demand that society accomodate there every demand.
Sure, nobody should expect the world to revolve around them. But as you stated in the first sentence gay people deserve a right to be treated decently and not be discriminated against, so if they want to marry, they should be allowed to marry.
Gotta get the hell off this computer for awhile, but thanks for the interesting conversation....even you FNF ;-)
Been lurking here for awhile now, don't have alot of time to post, but this is a fascinating place and I love the topics & images & personalities.
Later
Originally posted by Pie
That may be how they run their lives, but I resent like hell their efforts to run [B]MY life.
The Bible isn't my book. Why do I have to follow it?
- Pie [/B]
Pie,
I wasn't saying that you did. I was commenting on the fact that someone said the Bible isn't law, when to many it is.
I don't live by the thing either, and resent when it's shoved down my throat. Unfortunately, the majority of people do live by those tenets, and take those beliefs with them into office when they're elected. (But that's a whole other issue)
Dagney
Originally posted by blue58
I knew you'd go there eventually, thing is I do tolerate and accept them. In fact I have no problem whatsoever with them or any group. This is about gay marriage, not discrimination.
But it IS discrimination when you do not allow people to legaly spend their lives with the one they love just because they are not of a diffrent sex.
And for what it's worth, no I don't really understand the gay lifestyle and will admit it. The sex part I can understand, the lifestyle and desire to spend your life with a same sex partner somewhat baffles me.
Well quite frankly, the idea of a gay life style repulses me. As does the idea of a christian life style, but thats my personal opinion and I don't care if the person is a gay christian, I'll treat them just like I would treat a straight atheist unless they give me a valid reason not to. Nobody is asking you to love or understand gays, just treat them equaly.
But, it is their choice and their business. Every individual on this planet deserves the right to be treated decently and not be discriminated against. They do not however have the right to demand that society accomodate there every demand.
Would you have said " They do not however have the right to demand that society accomodate there every demand." when people spoke against slavery and mistreatment of the blacks?
How is this different. All they want is equal treatment. Is that too much to ask for? You're trying to offer them "Something else" that's "The same thing". How is that different from "Seperate but equal" that was tried to segreate the colored population. We KNOW that doesn't work. We KNOW that it's not right. Why do you insist on it?
Here's a
comparison between the arguments against gay marriage and the arguments against interracial marriage.
Are there any arguments against gay marriage that weren't used against interracial marriage?
What a lot of the debates on gay "marriage" miss is this ...
Marriage is a religious contract that has also been given civil status. (for a modern example ... consider the necessity for observant catholics to pursue an anullment in addition to the civil divorce, or jews to obtain a get.)
As a religious contract is is defined and established as a union between a man and a woman.
I happen to agree on this one with Blue58 (hi blue) ... find some other word(s) to describe it, but it's not "marriage."
Civil Union fine ... and I'm also cool with the notion of civil union being open to heterosexual couples as well. I'm not objecting to a formalizing of the relationship, just to the use of the term.
Originally posted by wolf
What a lot of the debates on gay "marriage" miss is this ...
Marriage is a religious contract that has also been given civil status. (for a modern example ... consider the necessity for observant catholics to pursue an anullment in addition to the civil divorce, or jews to obtain a get.)
As a religious contract is is defined and established as a union between a man and a woman.
I happen to agree on this one with Blue58 (hi blue) ... find some other word(s) to describe it, but it's not "marriage."
Civil Union fine ... and I'm also cool with the notion of civil union being open to heterosexual couples as well. I'm not objecting to a formalizing of the relationship, just to the use of the term.
Marriage WAS a religious contract. Yet overtime the meaning has shifted. My parents are married yet no religious ceremony ever took place.
Civil Union sounds like something friends have. Marriage seems to be something reserved for couples in love.
I think saying that heterosexuals can get married, and also civil unions while gays can ONLY have civil unions is once again, unfair treatment.
Now all of a sudden it's become piss easy to invalidate all the benifits of gay marriages. Just make it so that only "married" couples can file jointly for taxes, addopt kids etc while civil union is just that...bs.
It's like the segregation all over again "Oh yes, you're black so you CAN ride the public bus but you must sit in the back. You're white, you too can ride the bus, you can sit in the front, well also the back if you like...but thats where 'they' sit..."
Originally posted by wolf
What a lot of the debates on gay "marriage" miss is this ...
Marriage is a religious contract that has also been given civil status. (for a modern example ... consider the necessity for observant catholics to pursue an anullment in addition to the civil divorce, or jews to obtain a get.)
As a religious contract is is defined and established as a union between a man and a woman.
There are many religions, some of which perform gay marriages. Why shouldn't those couples get a civil marriage license? Just because YOUR religion doesn't like it doesn't make it a nonreligious marriage.
Also note that it is NOT necessary for catholics to get an anullment or for jews to get a get in order to get a civil divorce. There are TWO independent types of marriage. Religious marriage can exist or be dissolved according to the rules of a particular religion, but it won't affect the civil marriage unless you file the paperwork. Likewise, you can file the paperwork for a civil marriage or divorce, but if you don't follow your religion's procedures and requirements, they won't recognise it - and you may be kicked out.
One more time:
This debate is only on the subject of civil marriage. None of this affects religious marriage in any way. "Civil union" is not any more acceptable than any other "separate but equal" law, unless all other civil marriages are also renamed to the less "offensive" term.
Originally posted by juju
If children being raised by single parents turn out just fine, then how can adding another parent of the same sex possibly change the results for the worse?
Originally posted by slang
It shows a parental relationship of 2 same sexes, without a opposite sex influence. Having 2 daddys or 2 mommies. I object and think it's confusing for kids.
Sure there are single moms and dads, but they're single or with the opposite sex partners. This tends to show a relationship of opposite sex partners and allows them to define their own sex role from a parental example. A man or a woman.
Undertoad was raised by his mother, with no "official" father figure. If he had been raised by a lesbian couple, the only difference in his upbringing would be that the mothers were lesbians. In both cases there is no official father. I see no difference in male influence at all.
What you seem to be saying here is that you think it will promote homosexuality in children. Is that what you object to?
Originally posted by Beestie
Lesbian couples can have children. Male couples (duh) cannot so they have to adopt.
I hate to create another post for such a small point, but I thought I'd mention that gay men can have children. All that is needed is for said man to have sex with a woman.
Its interesting that so many people find loving gay relationships "repulsive". Maybe theyve never seen one. Strong and caring relationships give me hope. As the injustice and inequality becomes more visible, it will change. Society will demand it.
The separation of terms, marriage vs civil union...It is classic segregation tactic.
But I'll take the civil union if it affords a crack at equal rights. As fears subside, the hangup on terms will errode. Marriage is marriage. Families are families. Parents are parents. Home is home.
in realtion to children being brought up by 2 fathers, i dont see how this would be a huge problem. Its not like the gay couple who gain custody of the child will be performing explicit sexual acts in front of the child just because they are gay (straight parents dont)
I was raised by my father and became a daughter figure to a lot of his mates but i have had no female figure, being a female i wont say that some things were a little difficult to talk about, but nothing we couldnt overcome and eventually bring us closer. i have had little to no contact with my mother, and my dad has never remarried.
I feel like ive had the best upbringing i could ever have had, i'm the biggest daddies girl and i think im really well adjusted. I have great relationships with both males and females, and i have turned out just as girly as the ballerina next door did. i wouldnt change a thing. some of my friends, and friends mothers would express how worried they were about me when i was younger because i didnt have a mother around, but honestly, if you have NEVER had one around, you really dont notice at all. you adapt. it becomes NORMAL to you.
I'm proud to have been raised by my dad and his mates with no female intervention, and if i had of had even more dads, just as wonderful as mine is, then wouldn't that have been fantastic!! IMO anyway.
:D
Originally posted by juju
All that is needed is for said man to have sex with a woman.
Problem: a gay man having sex with a woman would be like you having sex with a guy.
¿Entiende?
Of course, there's always in vitro...
the environment a couple creates for their children is a complicated mixture, and it's not as simple as 'x will mess up a child, and y will create a happy healthy child'. the strength of the union between the parents has a HUGE effect on the children's sense of safety and security at home. honestly, a straight couple who have issues between them like drinking/drug abuse, domestic violence, crime, don't-give-a-s#it-ness, etc. will probably 'mess up' their children way more than anything about the concept of having two fathers or two mothers. and frankly, the discrimination and legal hurdles that a gay couple have to navigate to raise their children seem more likely than pure 'gayness' to give the children problems as they grow up. particularly the custody battles, in which the law does not recognize one parent as a parent, because the couple was never 'married' in the eyes of the state... that sort of emotional roller coaster scars children, not the fact that their parents are gay. in some ways it IS a different life for a child. but growing up biracial is also a different life for a child. growing up in a city is a different life for a child than growing up on a cattle ranch. ALL lives are different from one another, and the religious right doesn't claim that raising a child in a city will cause emotional scars, whereas raising him/her on a farm will not. this fear of 'psychological effects' from a same-sex couple raising children IS a social construction. period. i know it feels weird to think about it; i'll admit it feels a little weird to me too. but we can change that if we make the effort. we're just used to a family being a mother, a father, and kids, because that's wha tmost of us grew up with. it's the first thing we ever knew as children, it feels normal, so the alternative feels questionable and strange. but remember the days (still not entirely past, depending on who you ask) when a biracial marriage was considered a sure way to mess up any children involved. most peopel today can see that the race of the parents is not directly related to the happiness of the children, because there are other factors that are way more important.
wow. a novel. thank you to anyone who actually read that through...
bottom line: let them have kids. in fifty years it'll be old news,a nd we'll wonder why we felt weird about it.
i hope!
~always amazed
I fully support gay marriage. I have never understood what is holding it up. Who does the marriage between two consenting adults hurt? Will our children all go off and become homosexuals if gay marriage is allowed? What is it with the US? Canada and most of Europe have legal same-sex marriage and I don't recall hearing that they're being smitten by God.
As most of you know I'm a pot smoker, and so I'm sort of a big fan of personal responsibility. Do what you will, but harm none.
*at this point in the message I'm getting pissed*
who the hell does the right think it is? They cite religious precedents in their arguements against something that has NOTHING to do with religion! Is this not a free country? One of my best friends is a devout catholic, he is also gay. Does he not have the same rights as others? I don't find the words gay, homosexual, or same-sex anywhere in the fucking constitution! What I do see though is a clause saying that because a right is not outlined in the constitution does not mean we don't have it. I would say the right to marry whoever you damn well please is an inalienable right.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Fucking narrow-minded zealots! They're like the idiotic bullies in grade school.
If two gays want to go off and have sex with each other fine, don't include me. I do agree what two people do behind closed doors is their own right. blah, blah, blah, blah......
What I want to do is play professional basketball.
Problem is I'm white, 5'10, and a little tubby.
Sure that doesn't preclude me from trying my hardest, drinking my milk and practicing lay-ups. I might make it on a team if I try hard enough, I know several other people have done it but it would be a lot harder for me to get the billion dollar shoe contract that LeBron James signed.
Even if I did get signed to a contract, I'd never be able to dunk the ball no matter how hard I tried. I simply don't have the vertical leap, and therefore would never make the 'star' status in the NBA.
So should I gather up all the other short people in the world and post a petition that the NBA is violating my civil rights to become a multi-million dollar basketball superstar with the ability to make shoes fly off the shelfs????? I mean it's just a tradition that the NBA has always had rims that were more than 5 feet off the ground isn't it?
If you are saying that 'marriage' is just a word why does it matter if they can do it or not? OH for the fringe benifits that come with it. I see.
Well too bad.
I didn't choose to be non-athletic, why should I suffer?
Because sometimes the world is just unfair.
If the government was in the business of handing out basketball licenses, then it should give you one. You aren't guaranteed to find someone to play with you, but if you do, you have the right to play. Likewise, if a gay person finds someone they want to marry, the government should give them the license.
adult seatbelt laws
helmet laws
many of the drug laws
what do you mean i can't kill myself, i'm mine aren't i?
I just think that the right wing types are afraid of seeing validated gay people running around being all public and stuff - might offend the bible thumping constituency or something.
I am all for people having the right to marry other consenting people (of reasonable consenting age) regardless of ANYTHING. What gives a governing body the fucking right to impose their morality standards on such things that hurt no one?
as far as adoption goes - adopting a kid is fucking hard, and if 2 people can qualify for that, then fuck the rest I say! The housing systems unadopted kids live in have to be worse. And it beats the welfare state ghetto living baby factories and 17 year old "i wanted a kid because it was cute" types. If the government is going to impose restrictions on child owners, there should be a licensing body for pregnancy as well!
Originally posted by sycamore
Problem: a gay man having sex with a woman would be like you having sex with a guy.
Yeah, but it still happens quite a lot! :) They're under a lot of pressure, you see.
JeepNGeorge -
The government is not a company or a private entity. It does not have the right to discriminate.
I'm curious.
For those who are queezy about gay parents, how would you feel about your child having an openly homosexual kindergarten teacher? Would it matter if the teacher was male or female? How 'bout another notch...what about a transgender person?
I have no children, so my opinion is less valid (i guess), but I would have to say that sexuality is OFF FUCKING LIMITS in a kindergarten venue, so gay/straight/trans seems rather irrelevant.
Originally posted by warch
I'm curious.
For those who are queezy about gay parents, how would you feel about your child having an openly homosexual kindergarten teacher? Would it matter if the teacher was male or female? How 'bout another notch...what about a transgender person?
The spawn will be subjected/exposed to all kinds of alternate things in their forays from the nest. It's OK as long as the security of the nest remains intact to seek shelter in when things are confusing.
By "openly homosexual kindergarten teacher" I'm assuming you mean not hiding his lifestyle rather than "Hi kids, I'm your new teacher Raul and I suck penises". :eek:
See I knew something was wrong with my kindergarten teacher!!!!
When we will stop trying to legislate equality. Although we all are created equal, not everybody is treated fairly. Single people don't get the same tax breaks as married people. Rich people get more tax shelters than poorer people. Girls can be in the Boy Scouts, Boys can be in the Girl scouts, Women are picketing to be let on Augusta golf course, too my knowlege no men are fighting for the right to be in the LPGA though. Where will it all stop?
To me being gay is unnatural, I know how can I be so backwards in my thinking. Having sex is enjoyable and if you enjoy having sex with a person of the same gender fine go right ahead. But in the end sex is a means to reproduce, we like it so we can survive as a species. Again this is just my humble opinion and I'm sure there are others out there that disagree. But don't come whining to me cause you don't have the same rights as heterosexual people.
Women and minority business owners are judged higher when bidding on a government contract. People with military experience are given extra points on their civil service exam. Guess what people the world and especially the government is filled with all sorts of inequalities.
I myself don't want anymore government control in my life, so I hate it when people who feel the are rightly or wrongly being mistreated go off running to the gubment to get their rights reinstated. What usually happens is that they get more rights or more special rights than we do.
Sure you can trust the gubment, don't believe me just ask the Indians. I know how can I go way back in history for such a reference. We have moved on haven't we. Sure we have. Gays have the same rights as straight people don't they. Yeah they do on paper, but is it really so. Do YOU treat everybody equally ALWAYS? Have you ever stoppped to help a beautiful person of the opposite sex, but tend to look the other way at somebody less desireable but in need of more help? Just because the gubment says that people are equal doesn't mean they will be treated equal. Will all the benifets of straight people be instantly transferred to them, no. I know it has taken several years for african americans, or blacks if you will, I'm so outdated I don't know what they prefer to be called now, to be equal and we have to start somewhere with the gay world, but really what difference does it make if they are allowed to legally marry or not. Oh for the taxes and other benifits...well instead of fighting for that lets do away with those laws...LETS GIVE THEM TO EVERYBODY NOT JUST ANOTHER SELECTED GROUP!!!!!!! Let parents transfer property to kids without paying the estate tax, etc.
Lets make less rules, gubment. Not more of them
/endrant
*misspellings left intact to irritate Dave
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
To me being gay is unnatural,
George, this is simply untrue. Scientists have discovered that a great deal of mammals engage in homosexual behavior.
A simple google search reveals
this site which has about a thousand scientific references:
<blockquote> In the non-human primate groups, incidences of homosexuality have been recognised in the activities of rhesus monkeys, female stumptail macaques (Mitchell, 1979, pp. 134 &142), Japanese macaques (Mehlman & Chapais, 1988; Mitchell, 1979, p. 416) male chimpanzees, female bonobos, male mountain gorillas, male siamangs, male white-handed gibbons (Wrangham, 1986, p. 367; Yamagiwa, 1987; Yamagiwa, 1992; Edwards & Todd, 1991) and male pygmy chimpanzees (Savage & Bakeman, 1978).
Fedigan ( 1992; p142 ) writes that female-female sexual behaviour has been noted in ‘the squirrel-monkey ( Talmage-Riggs & Anschel 1973 ), the vervet ( Struhsaker 1967a ) and the talapoin ( Wolfheim & Rowell 1972 ), and Meredith Small also references incidences of female-female sexual activity amongst bonobos ( 1993: p144-5 ), Japanese macaques ( 1993; p145-6 ) and Indian langurs ( 1993; p146-7 ).
Other mammals noted for homosexual activities include: female cattle (Short, 1984)’, burros (Flinders, 1993), Male mountain sheep (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980), giraffes, rats (Kirsch & Rodman, 1982), dolphins, dogs (West, 1977, p. 116), female red deer (Short, 1984), donkeys, cats, rams, goats, pigs, antelope, elephants, hyenas, rabbits, lions, porcupines, hamsters, mice, and porpoises (Weinrich, 1982).
There have also been reports of homosexual pairings in several species of birds: female pairings of Western gulls, ring-billed gulls, California gulls (Weinrich, 1982; Davies, 1991; Denniston, 1980), budgerigars (also called undulated or shell parakeets) (Kavanau, 1987, pp. 41 &119); also mallard ducks whom consorted only with other males during the ‘imprinting period’, itself equivalent to human puberty (West, 1977, p. 43).</blockquote>
If you must compare humans to animals via some odd notion of "natural/unnatural", then this evidence surely points in the other direction.
I merely said it was unnatural to the propigation of the species. I don't doubt that all kinds of studies have been made to show that it in fact happens. They also found that if I drink too much coffee it will give me heart problems, and then they said if I dont' drink enough coffee that will give me problems.
Being born an albino also happens. That is not natural either, but it does happen. Too bad the albino animals can't lobby for congressional protection when the predators come their way and they stick out.
So, what do you mean by natural and unnatural, then?
Being born an albino also happens. That is not natural either, but it does happen.
how is a recessive trait surfacing every once in a while unnatural? silicone tits are unnatural - fake blondes - stuff like that, and I bet you have no problem with either, so who are you to define "natural"?
Silly me. I should have just listened to SteveDallas 3 months ago when he said:
Originally posted by SteveDallas
Well, permit me to suggest that when you hear someone say "that's not natural," you simply subsitute "I don't like it and I don't have a good reason."
As you point out, in a certain sense an apartment building may not be natural--but if it's not, neither is a beaver's dam or a bee's hive. The word "natural" in this context is completely void of meaning, and is a blank slate upon which the speaker can lay his or her prejudices. Feel free to ignore its use; you have my permission. :angel:
how is a recessive trait surfacing every once in a while unnatural?
it's not normal, but natural
But do they get treated different?
You bet they do. The sun will burn their skin easier, they can't use their normal skin/fur/plumage to hide from predators.
my original statement goes like this
"To me being gay is unnatural, I know how can I be so backwards in my thinking. Having sex is enjoyable and if you enjoy having sex with a person of the same gender fine go right ahead. But in the end sex, is a means to reproduce, we like it so we can survive as a species. Again this is just my humble opinion and I'm sure there are others out there that disagree. But don't come whining to me cause you don't have the same rights as heterosexual people. "
My use of unnatural is more along the lines of a basic need for a species to survive. We have the technology now to make unfertile people produce. They can have kids, but have to pay more for fertility drugs, suffer emotional stress or other things that are otherwise not common for producing offspring. If we are talking equality lets give them some extra rights too.
While some animals might engage in homosexual activity it's not for the furtherence of the species. Natural insemination instead of artificial insemination if you will. Gay monkeys can't go to the ape doctor and get artificially impregnated. Natural selection. That was my meaning behind natural.
Government is not 'natural' as well, but we are trying to force it to give everybody the equal rights they were naturally/artificially born with.
I'm not asking you to read my words and instantly change your mind. I'm just asking you to consider all things.
Whats keeping two people from living together, as man and wife, or man and man, or woman and woman nothing. I don't need the gubments permission to do that. In some states they still have common law marriages when man and woman who do that will be considered 'married' by default, but do they care for the paper??? No or they would have been 'married'.
I think what the gays/lesbians are really after is the fringe benifites as I mentioned before. The tax credits, the death benifites.
Why don't they lobby so all people will be able to use them? I mean if my parents die and they want to leave the house and land to me, they can but I have to pay an estate tax on it. The government will pass laws to give two gays more rights than a mother/father and thier natural born offspring. Something just seems wrong with that to me.
So many times we fight for the rights or our group to be considered equal or more equal than others, but we get caught up in the semantics of it we loose sight of the big picture. What usually ends up happening is that we only make the government bigger and more powerful in our lives.
Don't believe me.
Consider one of the Nazi's first offenses against the jews was to simply put a sign on the window shops of non-jew businesses in 1933. Nothing wrong with that right. I mean come on it's just a little sign that says 'German Firm'. What a display of patriotism right? We know now how evil that was because we know the outcome of 1943.
Come on it's just a piece of paper. Just one more thing we have to go the government for. Just one more record they will have about us.
I mean it was just a little sign for the german owned stores right?
No I'm not saying that millions of people will die again if gay's are allowed to marry. Hell they are already living a married life aren't they. But do we really need the gubment to say it's right?
All I want is for people to check out the things they are asking the government to do.
No I'm not some militahead, yes I do think people need some kind of government for society to live. Yes I'm proud to be american and display my flag proudly, but doesn't the fact that I'm an american allow me to question the governments motive.
Is this the best possible outcome of the situation? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Could they remove certain other laws and get the same results? Maybe, maybe not. But question, always question.
Society will never be equal. There will always be a winner and a loser. We cannot ever legislate a truly equal society. After this debate is long over there will be yet another group of people who will want something and yet more laws enacted.
it's not normal, but natural
Ok, fair enough.
While some animals might engage in homosexual activity it's not for the furtherence of the species. Natural insemination instead of artificial insemination if you will. Gay monkeys can't go to the ape doctor and get artificially impregnated. Natural selection. That was my meaning behind natural.
Think about this, though. Many birds and mammals are known to display homosexual behavior. Birds and mammals aren't even closely related at all. The common ancestor that they must have inherited that trait from lived well over 65 million years ago. Natural selection has selected <i>for</i> homosexuality.
think what the gays/lesbians are really after is the fringe benifites as I mentioned before. The tax credits, the death benifites.
Why don't they lobby so all people will be able to use them? I mean if my parents die and they want to leave the house and land to me, they can but I have to pay an estate tax on it. The government will pass laws to give two gays more rights than a mother/father and thier natural born offspring. Something just seems wrong with that to me.
Yes, of course they're after the benefits. They want things like power of attorney, so that if their spouse drops dead or goes into a brain-dead coma, they'll actually have a say over what happens.
They don't want more rights than others, they want the <i>same</i> rights. How does giving them equal marriage rights harm you?
I've heard that population presssure is one factor that increases the incidence of homosexual behavior in many species. (I'm too lazy to look up the link right now.)
So from that perspective, it's all the heterosexual "breeders" that are creating the biological/sociological drive towards more homosexuality in the first place!
Maybe this next question could be answered by someone who claims that marriage is only a means to provide for children -- I'm married, I don't plan on ever breeding.
Should I be forced to get a divorce since I don't fit in with your world-view?
- Pie
Originally posted by Dagney
And by the way, for millions of Christians, the Bible IS law. You may not like it, but that's how they run their lives.
The bible is
selectively law. Keep the parts you like, ignore the rest. Right? I mean seriously, no one goes by all of the Old Testament laws as transcribed. Hell, no one even lives by all of the New Testament.
I'll stop here before I go off on a tirade.
Oh and to be on topic, sure, why not. It doesn't affect me. If you've found your person of choice and you want to be with them forever, knock yourself out. If you want some piece of paper saying you're now united as one. By all means, go ahead. I could care less either way.
Quzah.
Originally posted by blue58
They should have equal treatment as far as I'm concerned...but don't change what I have & believe in in order to accomodate your desires.
So I should change my belief to fit your view, but you shouldn't change at all to fit mine? Whatever the view is. In other words, your view of everything on earth is right, and no one else has a valid point of view, and you don't have to acknowledge said point of view.
Wow. Look up 'narrow minded' in the dictionary. I think there's a picture of your face next to it.
Quzah.
This has turned into a complicated but fascinating issue. There's so much info available on gay marriage and all the tangent issues, I've been reading for hours on end.
The original outline I made to detail and support my position has been rewritten several times and I'm just now starting to finalize it. But I keep finding additional relevant info!
I'm pushing the target release date back. This is a short week coming up. I'll get something posted next weekend.
Ut says I can posts the entire paper when it's ready. Those of you that have been here a while know what that means, a lot of info coming.
The format should allow the reader to navigate the pages and links without a real hassle.
stay tuned.
Originally posted by blue58
And for what it's worth, no I don't really understand the gay lifestyle and will admit it. The sex part I can understand, the lifestyle and desire to spend your life with a same sex partner somewhat baffles me.
What's hard to figure out? Picture those frat boys hanging out in their house. They go hang out together. They go get hammered together. They go play football together. Whatever.
Now picture that you find yourself never wanting to end that. (Oh yeah sure, I'm sure the "gay lifestyle" isn't a big frat party, but it's a quick hack of an analogy.)
Or how about those "wierd people" that live with their brother? Is that wierd? God damn crazy fuckers. Why would they want to live with their brother?
So far in life I've known two sets of brothers that live in the same house. One I worked with, who was in his late thirties, early fourties, never met his brother.
The other was younger. The younger pair of brothers had purchased a house together.
God damn freaks I tell you! They shouldn't be allowed to buy a house together! What is this world coming to! Buying a house is a sacred right that only single people and married straight couples should be able to do!
I mean really, what part of this is hard to figure out? You and Person-X can't get enough of eachother. You decide you want to live together for whatever reason; less rent, you like the way they decorate, they're a great ride. Whatever.
What is the unfathomable concept here?
You know what, there's even these freaks that live with their parents!
Quzah.
Think about this, though. Many birds and mammals are known to display homosexual behavior. Birds and mammals aren't even closely related at all. The common ancestor that they must have inherited that trait from lived well over 65 million years ago. Natural selection has selected for homosexuality.
Can't buy that Juju. The only thing that was inherited was the physical make up that makes sex feel good, in a world that's mostly about two states, feeling threatened or not. Do you think the birds and mammals are reasoning that they must continue the species. I don't think so. Come to think of it they may have inherited the predisposition to find the opposite sex to use to feel good. But I feel critter homosexuals are a case of "love the one you're with" rather than a conscious choice.
The other thing is to what advantage would it have for nature to do that.
Good observation Bruce. I didnt think of that.
Originally posted by quzah
Or how about those "wierd people" that live with their brother? Is that wierd? God damn crazy fuckers. Why would they want to live with their brother?
So far in life I've known two sets of brothers that live in the same house. One I worked with, who was in his late thirties, early fourties, never met his brother.
The other was younger. The younger pair of brothers had purchased a house together.
God damn freaks I tell you! They shouldn't be allowed to buy a house together! What is this world coming to! Buying a house is a sacred right that only single people and married straight couples should be able to do!
I mean really, what part of this is hard to figure out? You and Person-X can't get enough of eachother. You decide you want to live together for whatever reason; less rent, you like the way they decorate, they're a great ride. Whatever.
Quzah.
So why can't the brothers have the same rights as the gay people? They can live together the same as gay people, but if one brother leaves the world before the other, I'm sure there will be a hefty tax penalty for leaving the house to the remaining brother.
I can't and won't stop two people from doing what they want, but what the gays are fighting for would be benificial to a whole group of people no just another selected minority.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
So why can't the brothers have the same rights as the gay people? They can live together the same as gay people
No, that's called incest. ;)
Anyway, you missed the analogy. The comment was inregards to... well just read the quote. They couldn't understand how people of the same sex would want to live together; the sex they could understand.
So what part can't you understand?
Quzah
I really don't understand what you're trying to say, Bruce.
You concede that heterosexual attractions may be biological, but homosexual behaviors aren't? In other words, all these animals are "choosing" to have gay sex?
If not, could you maybe reword your argument for me?
The other thing is to what advantage would it have for nature to do that.
Nature rarely does things randomly, so this question is more difficult than it appears.
putting on evolutionary biology cap In nature the gay monkeyman would probably play the role of helper to the breeders. In wolf packs the non-breeding members help feed and protect the little ones, which has obvious advantages to the group. The stereotypical nurturing nature of gay men would seem to indicate this role.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Nature rarely does things randomly, so this question is more difficult than it appears.
Sure it does. It's called
genetic drift.
OK, but it seems genetic drift would be less likely to explain something that appears to be common through many cultures and through many histories?
I think that's Jung Collective Unconscious at work there ...
Not necessarily. It just depends on whether the natural selection is strong enough to overcome the random genetic drift. There are all kinds of mutations that are common throughout many cultures and histories that arose as a result of genetic drift.
I'm not saying homosexuality <i>isn't</i> a result of natural selection. I don't know. I'm just presenting alternative options.
Here's one idea of how this might coincide. If it seems far-fetched, then hey, it's just an idea. :)
There's some evidence in
this this Nature article that suggests that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be homosexual. If this is true, then homosexuality genes, originally created through genetic drift, could still be passed on by heterosexual siblings.
It does sound pretty far-fetched, but is a neat idea!
That same article also says that you can tell whether or not someone is a lesbian by the relative lengths of their index and ring fingers. I know, it sounds like total BS, but apparently there's some evidence for it.
Hmmm, with hands like that you'd also be able to throw a softball pretty well.
So lesbians have a couple of longer fingers than straight women? There's a joke in this somewhere...
Oh yeah, untill someone can give me a solid reason to say gays shouldn't marry that isn't a religious or emotional thing, I say let 'em marry.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Wow. Tough room.
I thought it was funny.
I went to a debate between Ben Stein and Al Franken last night (get it? Franken-Stein! Get it? HAHAHAHAHA!)
Er, anyway, Al Franken was mocking the "Because marriage is between a man and a woman" argument. He said it wasn't a reason at all, just a restatement of what you believe.
Originally posted by Whit
Oh yeah, untill someone can give me a solid reason to say gays shouldn't marry that isn't a religious or emotional thing, I say let 'em marry.
Slang assures me that the mega post is on its way... we shall see.
Yeah, and as much as I like slang, I think he may have trouble with this. This board is really tough on statistics for example. If they are leaning, it's going to be pointed out. And pretty much all stats are. Same goes for any studies he links. Still, if he's putting this much effort into it, it should be an interesting read. Assuming, of course, it's not all based off stuff Rush said... ;)
Don't think it will be ... I've seen some of the preliminary work.
Hmmm, with hands like that you'd also be able to throw a softball pretty well.
Not so much power, but wicked sliders and splitters.
Originally posted by Whit
Oh yeah, untill someone can give me a solid reason to say gays shouldn't marry that isn't a religious or emotional thing, I say let 'em marry.
But to say that they should be married just so they can enjoy the benifits that marriage brings is bunk to me.
There are a lot of people that don't get those breaks. Whats to keep two brothers from becoming married then? Why stop at just gays? To me the fight is for the power of attorney and for the generous tax breaks. The government is not stopping them from having sex or being in love with somebody from the same sex are they? All I want to know is that if they are fighting for equality, fight for equality for all, don't just limit it to yet another group of people.
Lets do away with the some of the absurd tax credits married life brings and bring them to all people. Let parents give the home to their children if they desire instead of it going to pay for their nursing home stay. Let two brothers live together in a house and pass it to the other without getting it tangled up in probate/estate court.
There are many inequalities that the government imposes on people. Big suprise, not everybody is being treated fairly by the good ole USA. I see a ton of 'Indian' tags on vehicles here in Oklahoma. I understand why they do it. They levy a cheaper excise tax on the price of the vehicles. The problem is these people are more 'white' than I am and know nothing about their heritage, but they can prove they are 1/656th indian and hey cheaper tags, alrighty!!!!!!!
But yet I am banned from getting a farm tag on my vehicle because it is not a pickup, but a jeep. I haul wood, feed and hay in the back and use it repeatedly in the upkeep of my farm. But they were getting too many people that were putting farm tags on escalades that never saw dirt roads so they changed it to say that it must have a pickup box on it. So now there are brand new dual cab, dual transmission, dual mirrors, dual everything but gas mileage trucks out there with farm tags that still don't see a dirt road, but still get the tax break. Their tag is $35 dollars, and for my 12 year old jeep its $48. Not so fair in my books, but what can I do.
Want to make sure all people are treated fairly? Lets lobby the government to become smaller, not bigger.
If I were gay I don't think I'd even want to be legally married. They have enough information about me already without knowing I'm married to a member of the same sex.
I know I tend to ramble, but to me it's a much bigger problem than getting the government to issue a piece of paper that says what your doing is legal.
Originally posted by blue58
I have nothing against gays, but I am so tired of every minority group wanting to reshape the world to their needs. I also think that most groups that go on about demanding equal treatment really want special treatment.
Hmm...I would think that what you said would be true if the overall treatment was on equal footing in the first place.
Originally posted by blue58
But, it is their choice and their business. Every individual on this planet deserves the right to be treated decently and not be discriminated against. They do not however have the right to demand that society accomodate there every demand.
Why not? After all, they are being commanded to accomodate the heterosexual society's demands.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Lets do away with the some of the absurd tax credits married life brings and bring them to all people.
You're kidding right? Have you seen the tax difference between filling married and single? Grab a 10-40 booklet some time and look at it. Tax break? I think you're reading your numbers wrong.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
If I were gay I don't think I'd even want to be legally married. They have enough information about me already without knowing I'm married to a member of the same sex.
But if you were straight it'd be ok for them to "have enough information on you" including "knowing I'm married to a member of the (opposite) sex"?
So you'd be more paranoid if you were gay, or what are you saying?
Quzah.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
To me being gay is unnatural, I know how can I be so backwards in my thinking. Having sex is enjoyable and if you enjoy having sex with a person of the same gender fine go right ahead. But in the end sex is a means to reproduce, we like it so we can survive as a species. Again this is just my humble opinion and I'm sure there are others out there that disagree.
*cringing violently!* Dang those Puritans! :D
But don't come whining to me cause you don't have the same rights as heterosexual people.
Interesting. Just curious: have you ever had your rights compromised in any way?
I myself don't want anymore government control in my life, so I hate it when people who feel the are rightly or wrongly being mistreated go off running to the gubment to get their rights reinstated. What usually happens is that they get more rights or more special rights than we do.
Interesting again. And who exactly is "we"? :confused:
I know it has taken several years for african americans, or blacks if you will, I'm so outdated I don't know what they prefer to be called now, to be equal
I'll take a gamble and say that for *most* of "us", "we" don't mind either one...;)
Originally posted by juju
I really don't understand what you're trying to say, Bruce.
You concede that heterosexual attractions may be biological, but homosexual behaviors aren't? In other words, all these animals are "choosing" to have gay sex?
If not, could you maybe reword your argument for me?
I'm saying the the biological urge is to find a female and mate. If there is something that prevents this such as a shortage of females or an dominant Alpha Male, then being males they'll fuck anything they can. Warm, cold, living, dead, anything they think the guys at the bar won't find out about. :D
You know, part of this comes down to a First Amendment vs public policy issue. In theory, if a couple, gay or heterosexual, are married in a church by a member of the clergy, then by both the equal protection clause and the first amendment guarantee to freedom of religion, they should be married.
Of course it does not work this way, as the Mormons found out. The goverment has always reserved the right to restrict certain freedoms, which is why polygamy is outlawed in every US state. In theory, marriage is up to individual states with reciprocity in other states. After all, its not like carry laws in which you can just move your gun to the trunk at the state line to stay legal. It wouldn't make sense to dissolve a marriage and arrest a 20-year-old who married a 17-year-old in another state.
But Article four allows Congress some control over how this can happen. The 10th Amendment gives power to the states and the people if not claimed by Congress. The 9th amendment allows for the future by stating that just because they didn't think to put it into the Constitution does not mean that a right doesn't exist. This is why the 'right to privacy' can be inferred without being explicitly stated.
So, the ninth amendment means that a gay couple could marry since it is not prohibited in the constitution. But marriage is subject to the policies of individual states which by the 10th amendment have the power to decide for themselves. The fourth article seems to indicate that other states must recognize such marriages, but gives Congress the right to interfere and set conditions on the degree of reciprocity.
Bottom line, a 'Defense of Marriage' amendment is a political ploy and is not necessary. Article four already gives some leeway over how much 'faith and credit' needs to be given to gay unions in states that do not wish to do so. It might in practice create a hodgepodge of differing rules on inheritance, adoption, etc, but that is nothing new.
The United States already recognizes the laws of Louisiana, which are based on Napoleanic law and are slightly different from all of the other states. This is why on a lot of legal software you will see 'except Louisiana'.
Personally, I think trying to force this issue on the whole country at this time is a mistake, even though I believe that all adults should be able to commit to each other if they are mature enough to do so.
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Originally posted by juju
Here's one idea of how this might coincide. If it seems far-fetched, then hey, it's just an idea. :)
There's some evidence in this this Nature article that suggests that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be homosexual. If this is true, then homosexuality genes, originally created through genetic drift, could still be passed on by heterosexual siblings.
snip
Maybe the more older brothers you have the more likely you'll get the balls beaten off you.;)
Could be the feeling of inability to compete with the larger dominant males or the desire to please those same males that causes them to become queer rather than genetics.
Same could happen with adopted children of gay male couples.
BTW- I don't buy the theory that *all* homosexuals were predetermined and they had no choice.
Ok here's another angle at this.
I want to open a discount cigarette store/casino here in OK.
Problem is they only allow Indians to do that here.
Why should they be given a special right by the government.
Aren't you trying to say that we all have the same rights to do whatever we want?
Lets fight for equality for ALL.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
BTW- I don't buy the theory that *all* homosexuals were predetermined and they had no choice.
Do you think a man's attraction to women is a choice?
Originally posted by juju
Do you think a man's attraction to women is a choice?
Personally, I don't care
why; I just know what I like.
Quzah.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Ok here's another angle at this.
I want to open a discount cigarette store/casino here in OK.
Problem is they only allow Indians to do that here.
Why should they be given a special right by the government.
Aren't you trying to say that we all have the same rights to do whatever we want?
Lets fight for equality for ALL.
Go for it, dude. That's pretty lame that you can't open one. If you wanted to open one, or were driven to do so, you'd probably feel the same.
That's essentially what's being said about gay marriage: "Let's fight for equality for ALL." I agree.
Glad you've come around.
I don't buy the theory that *all* homosexuals were predetermined and they had no choice.
Yes - you often see homosexual relationships cropping up in situations where there are no women or where the women are not available or even not visible. I posted one like that about homosexuality in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Put on those burqas ladies...
And this is why I personally feel that growing up with a mother and not a father, promoted my heterosexual instincts if anything, because there was a female figure present. It's not an oedipus thing, it's just going with what you know.
On the other hand, every single gay person I have known - and I have known a TON of 'em - has said that they recognized instincts in themselves as early as the age of five. And I personally feel so hetero that I doubt I would turn to gayness in a population of just men. It's just the instinct...
But are they fighting for all Dave?
[quote]
Why We're Demanding Access to Civil Marriage
If the marriage penalty is eased, we will likely, through discrimination in marriage, pay an even greater portion of taxes. If couples are getting tax breaks, those who file as singles (us) will have to pay an even greater disproportionate share. Even by paying more taxes, married couples still benefit from access to civil marriage in a myriad of ways such as social security, family protection, etc., etc. These benefits and privileges significantly outweigh the tax burdens that accompany legalized marriage. Same-sex couples deserve the opportunity to have equal access to perks as well as penalties.
http://www.marriageequalityca.org/taxation.php
[\quote}
Sounds to me they are saying 'Include me into your little group so I can get some perks too damnit'
To me a fight for all would be 'Why is there so many biased tax laws for married couples.'
As it stands now gay couples have all the same 'human' rights as hetero people. The right to love whom they wish, the right to live with whom they wish, the right to grieve when that person leaves. The gubment is only denying them rights or 'rules' that they have made themselves. Instead of removing those rules and getting everybody, single or married, more equal they just want to be included.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. - Confucious
Got to start somewhere, might as well be here.
One of the proposed WTC memorials has a garden that can only be visited by family members of those lost for the first 20 years it's open.
Tell me how this is right for one of the many homosexual couples who won't be able to visit the site because they were not married.
As far as why they're not fighting for everything right now... would you fight a thousand front war? Or would you concentrate on one area?
There are civil rights arguements between life partners of any ilk that are pretty straight forward and hard to deny. Its the issue of gay families, parental rights- the state's interest in procreation- that's freaking everyone under the surface.
And yet, people like JeepNGeorge and blue58 will try to deny them.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Ok here's another angle at this.
I want to open a discount cigarette store/casino here in OK.
Problem is they only allow Indians to do that here.
Why should they be given a special right by the government.
Any perks the Native Americans get seem pretty fair given that most of them were killed off and their lands were taken away.
Originally posted by sycamore
Any perks the Native Americans get seem pretty fair given that most of them were killed off and their lands were taken away.
Those perks really only exist as a fig leaf of the sovereignty which they were promised. We should all have these rights but resenting nat-am's for barely clinging to theirs seems counter-productive.
Agreed. Besides, you all know you're gonna get perks when I open mine on the Delaware in a few years anyway.
Originally posted by sycamore
....... were killed off and their lands were taken away.
(lights fuse of the bomb....runs away quickly)
They didnt own the land. What court gave them title to it? Did god give them the right to it? They didnt believe in the white man's god. If they had converted, they may have been able to own the land they had previously roamed on.
They were killed for
tresspassing on the land that the settlers had claimed and had title to. God gave the white man the right to the land.
If you're upset, be so at God.
Ummm OK so what's to stop me from claiming the continent you American turkeys refer to as "North America" in its entirety. After all, I am the high priest of the Rite of Steve, and I claim the land in the name of the great god Steve. Now I realize that you heathen Christians don't worship or even acknowledge the existence of Steve, so you can just get the hell out. If any of you wish to convert, I'll be happy to consider granting you some property rights.
Slang.
I URGE you to go rent Eddie Izzard. He has a great piece regarding colonisation and flags...
Originally posted by SteveDallas
Ummm OK so what's to stop me from claiming the continent you American turkeys refer to as "North America" in its entirety.
*cough* Might = Right
Originally posted by slang
If you're upset, be so at God.
Look, my peeps may be fat lazy alcoholic dopesmokers, but they weren't stupid enough to believe in some crackpot religious BS cooked up by Whitey.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Ok here's another angle at this.
I want to open a discount cigarette store/casino here in OK.
Problem is they only allow Indians to do that here.
Ok, so why is it that only Indians are allowed to open stores?
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Ok, so why is it that only Indians are allowed to open stores?
If it was just stores! Why can only Indians be cab drivers?! Thats what I want to know!
Because the Haitians and Senegalese would give them what for and what have you.
As far as why they're not fighting for everything right now... would you fight a thousand front war? Or would you concentrate on one area?
Yes how naive of me. Nobody in American would ever fight a multiple front war. turns off CNN.
To me fighting for the inclusion to a set of rules instead of the abolishment of the set of rules seems kinda silly.
Originally posted by Griff
Those perks really only exist as a fig leaf of the sovereignty which they were promised. We should all have these rights but resenting nat-am's for barely clinging to theirs seems counter-productive.
Just as the so called perks of marriage.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Ok, so why is it that only Indians are allowed to open stores?
Because Oklahoma has given indians the only right to legalized gambling. It started out as bingo halls, and has grown to include class III gaming, although some of the games are starting to be questioned. We can't even get a lottery here in Oklahoma, but feel free to visit the lovely Cherokee Casino as you leave to go to Arkansas or Kansasto get your tickets.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
To me fighting for the inclusion to a set of rules instead of the abolishment of the set of rules seems kinda silly.
This is called "picking your battles". What do you think is more likely to happen - legalized gay marriage <b>or</b> the abolition of the marriage system?
Get real, dude. You're a homophobe, and that's okay. Just admit it and move on.
I knew it was getting close to the name calling time.
I prefer the term gubmentphobe, but call it as you wish.
We will never create a perfect society and no matter how many laws we pass, nor how many special 'groups' we publicly acknowlege, not all people will be treated equally.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
We will never create a perfect society and no matter how many laws we pass, nor how many special 'groups' we publicly acknowlege, not all people will be treated equally.
This is not an excuse for not righting a wrong when you see it.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Because Oklahoma has given indians the only right to legalized gambling. It started out as bingo halls, and has grown to include class III gaming, although some of the games are starting to be questioned. We can't even get a lottery here in Oklahoma, but feel free to visit the lovely Cherokee Casino as you leave to go to Arkansas or Kansasto get your tickets.
Hrm..couldn't this be considered "reparations"? (God I hope I didn't open a powder keg!). *IF* that
is the case, then I'd say it's only fair.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
I knew it was getting close to the name calling time.
I prefer the term gubmentphobe, but call it as you wish.
We will never create a perfect society and no matter how many laws we pass, nor how many special 'groups' we publicly acknowlege, not all people will be treated equally.
And it's certainly not the "special groups" that we have to blame for that way of thinking.
After all, "majority rules", right?
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Hrm..couldn't this be considered "reparations"? (God I hope I didn't open a powder keg!). *IF* that is the case, then I'd say it's only fair.
It could be considered that, but if you take that stance, then couldn't marriage benefits be considered "reparations" for being married to a member of the opposite sex. Nobody is stopping them from loving each other, only taking advantage of the benefits.
It seems to me that Native Americans being allowed to run casinos and gays being allowed to marry are both remedies of injustice, just in different veins.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
It could be considered that, but if you take that stance, then couldn't marriage benefits be considered "reparations" for being married to a member of the opposite sex.
Only if one considers marriage benefits as "Something done or paid to compensate or make amends." *from
dictionary.com*
And I'm thinking that this wouldn't be the case if same sex partners were equal in the eyes of society as hetero couples.
Nobody is stopping them from loving each other, only taking advantage of the benefits.
"Taking advantage"? So, if it were Syc and I fighting for the same rights, then it's ok, but if it's same sex couples then it's "taking advantage"? :confused:
Originally posted by slang
(lights fuse of the bomb....runs away quickly)
They didnt own the land. What court gave them title to it? Did god give them the right to it? They didnt believe in the white man's god. If they had converted, they may have been able to own the land they had previously roamed on.
They were killed for tresspassing on the land that the settlers had claimed and had title to. God gave the white man the right to the land.
If you're upset, be so at God.
This is another thing that pisses me off. It should probably be another thread, but since this has been high-jacked anyway...
The NA get money for the fact that whitey drove them off their lands. They say how horrible whitey was for coming over, "taking their lands" and then kicking their ass.
Well let's look at what happened before whitey came over:
NA wandered around dragging their tents behind them, kicking eachothers asses. End of story.
They didn't have wheels, they didn't have horses. They didn't even build anything permenant. (Yes, there is a
small exception to this; a few of the eastern tribes actually built lodges.)
But all in all, the Apache, Comanche, etc etc all wandered around killing eachother.
It's fine for them to kill eachother. That's "heritage". But when whitey does it more effectively, it's evil.
So now whitey pays them money to live on their lands that whitey gave them.
Sure, don't get me wrong, lots of people died. But don't even act like the NA were some peaceful happy-go-lucky group of people that were all innocent and fun. They weren't. They slaughtered eachother. They raided eachothers tribes. They raped eachothers womens. They kidnapped eachothers young. They were
not a friendly people en masse.
Yes, there were some friendly tribes. But as a whole, they were not. They were a war-like people. That's what they did. They killed eachother and stole "eachother's land".
Quzah.
Originally posted by Griff
*cough* Might = Right
Naturally. That's the way the world works. That's why it's called "natural selection". The strong survive.
It doesn't mean it's all sunsine and roses, far from it. It means whoever is the strongest makes the rules. If you don't like it, get a better weapon.
Quzah.
Originally posted by juju
Do you think a man's attraction to women is a choice?
Normally, no.
Originally posted by SteveDallas
Ummm OK so what's to stop me from claiming the continent you American turkeys refer to as "North America" in its entirety. After all, I am the high priest of the Rite of Steve, and I claim the land in the name of the great god Steve. Now I realize that you heathen Christians don't worship or even acknowledge the existence of Steve, so you can just get the hell out. If any of you wish to convert, I'll be happy to consider granting you some property rights.
Absolutely nothing Steve. You might however have a "little" trouble taking possession of the 5 acres I squat on.:D
Originally posted by ladysycamore
And it's certainly not the "special groups" that we have to blame for that way of thinking.
After all, "majority rules", right?
No, Rho. Lobbyists rule.:(
Originally posted by ladysycamore
"Taking advantage"? So, if it were Syc and I fighting for the same rights, then it's ok, but if it's same sex couples then it's "taking advantage"? :confused:
being used as in I took advantage of the discount sale at albertsons this weekend.
The government says Indians can take advantage of certain benefits allowed only to them. No problem right?
The same government says people married to the opposite sex can take advantage of certain benefits allowed only to them.
Now we have discrimination.
I don't care what the reasons are for either...seems to be a lil silly
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
being used as in I took advantage of the discount sale at albertsons this weekend.
The government says Indians can take advantage of certain benefits allowed only to them. No problem right?
The same government says people married to the opposite sex can take advantage of certain benefits allowed only to them.
Now we have discrimination.
I don't care what the reasons are for either...seems to be a lil silly
I still fail to see how it's harming you if there are same sex marriages. What do you care if it happens? You lose nothing. You lost nothing personally when opposite sex marriages occur, so why does it matter if there are same sex marriages? Why oppose them? What's to gain by opposing them?
Or just ignore all of my points like you've done so far. What do I care?
Quzah.
Originally posted by juju
Do you think a man's attraction to women is a choice?
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Normally, no.
Well, how do you know that you're not just "choosing" to be attracted to women? Maybe that's a choice, too. Why do you think that it isn't?
Originally posted by Griff
Those perks really only exist as a fig leaf of the sovereignty which they were promised. We should all have these rights but resenting nat-am's for barely clinging to theirs seems counter-productive.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Just as the so called perks of marriage.
Except that heterosexuals aren't a massively wronged minority.
Originally posted by quzah
They didn't have wheels, they didn't have horses. They didn't even build anything permenant. (Yes, there is a [b]small exception to this; a few of the eastern tribes actually built lodges.)[/B]
Western tribes built massive adobe towns, excavated cave towns, and built stone buildings, all of which still exist to some extent.
Originally posted by quzah
This is another thing that pisses me off. It should probably be another thread, but since this has been high-jacked anyway...
The NA get money for the fact that whitey drove them off their lands. They say how horrible whitey was for coming over, "taking their lands" and then kicking their ass.
Precisely.
Well let's look at what happened before whitey came over:
NA wandered around dragging their tents behind them, kicking eachothers asses. End of story.
Exactly. "Whitey" had no goddamned right to come and take over like they did. Natives were minding their own damned business, until...
{snip}
Sure, don't get me wrong, lots of people died. But don't even act like the NA were some peaceful happy-go-lucky group of people that were all innocent and fun. They weren't. They slaughtered eachother. They raided eachothers tribes. They raped eachothers womens. They kidnapped eachothers young. They were [b]not a friendly people en masse.
[/b]
M'kay: this sounds like, "Well, if THEY can kill each other, then it's ok if WE (whitey) kill them too!!!" Say what?!?
*shaking my head....*
I know this is beside the point, but it's still interesting.
Jared Diamond argues in the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that Native Americans failed to develop technology as fast as the Europeans mostly because of a lack of large domesticatable animals (and plants).
Europeans had horses, pigs, cows, sheep, and goats. Native Americans had nothing!
Cultures that lived in regions containing domesticatable animals and plants were able to switch over from a hunter-gather lifestyle to an agricultural lifestyle, and as a result, developed technology more quickly.
But yes, of course they still killed each other.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Exactly. "Whitey" had no goddamned right to come and take over like they did. Natives were minding their own damned business, until...
Why? Who says they can't? Because you don't like it? PersonsA invades PersonsB all throughout history. What makes one OK and another wrong? Because it steps on your toes here and not there?
Originally posted by ladysycamore
M'kay: this sounds like, "Well, if THEY can kill each other, then it's ok if WE (whitey) kill them too!!!" Say what?!?
*shaking my head....*
So it's fine to lump "all the indians" together, as a mass, and let them have their infighting, and that's OK, but it's not OK if someone else wants to go fight with them too?
You missed my point, which is: Why is it fine for them to have their infighting, but horrific when whitey wants to play too?
So it's ok for TribeA to fight TribeB, but when OutsiderGroupA comes along, they can't kill anyone? See the absurdity in your logic here? If Whitey had used bows and arrows, then would it have been OK for them to fight too? Was it the guns that made it wrong? Superior firepower? Your logic makes no sense.
Quzah.
Who was making the Native Americans out to be a bunch of peacemongers here?
Quzah, I'm afraid that I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that Native Americans as a group should not get special considerations?
Originally posted by FileNotFound
Slang.
I [b]URGE you to go rent Eddie Izzard. He has a great piece regarding colonisation and flags... [/B]
I like his bit on Pagans and Stonehenge.
Originally posted by sycamore
Look, my peeps may be fat lazy alcoholic dopesmokers, but they weren't stupid enough to believe in some crackpot religious BS cooked up by Whitey.
If NAs
were collectively fat lazy alcoholic dopesmokers......
[size=3]they would fit into this modern day American society
like a glove![/size]
My limited experience with
them doesnt support them being FLADs though. My experience is
very limited though because <a href="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/families/qesther.htm"<a>General Sullivan (read last paragraph) </a> killed all but a handful in this area, leaving no decendants for me to argue with and harass.
Now, lets look at this white religious BS and it's importance to one's survival, at that time.
soldier: Do you believe in Jesus?
injun: ......Katanka...
soldier: BANG!...Do
you believe in Jesus?
smart injun: (starts weeping) Why, yes and I feel blessed that he has come into my life and saved me from eternal damnation.
soldier: Outstanding! Here are some clothes and some real food. Shit-can that feathery headset and I'll introduce you to
my sister.
I'm not quite sure why it is assumed that all christians are homophobic. At least, that is what I'm inferring from many posts here.
Granted, there are most certainly some who are...maybe even many...but all?
There have been so many intelligent arguments displayed here, and it is very easy to understand that homosexual couples would desire the same rights/advantages of marriage; however, one would be hard-pressed to find a very large number of evangelical christians to support that request.
Why? Well, it certainly must be because we are all vehwy, vehwy afwaid of them. Or maybe it's just that we hate them. (I'm being sarcastic here, just in-case that is not translating...)
For christians, the Bible is law. Some of man's laws coincide with scripture, some do not. It should not be too surprising that christians would not like to see something that is against God's law, become legal as man's law. That's not too hard to understand, right?
So, what do we do about that? We attempt to put people in office that will support out beliefs when it comes to these issues. How is that so different from those who would do the opposite. Why does it always have to be misconstrued as *fear* or *phobia*?
Same sex relationships are an abomination in God's eyes. (Yes, that's in the Bible. I'll post scripture ref. if anyone really cares to know, but I don't think anyone would doubt that this is in the Bible. And this matters to me because the Bible is my authority...yes, even above man's laws). As a christian, I could do nothing less than to fight against legalization of homosexual marriage.
Do I think that I can actually stop the world from doing whatever it wants to? No. Do I think that it is a possibility that christians can keep everyone from sinning, thus making the world a warm, fuzzy place for us to live in? No, and believe it or not, we realize that would be scripturally impossible. The Bible speaks of the depravity of man... It's just a matter of time. The world will become more and more sinister. It all plays out in revelation. (I post these comments based on my belief in God as represented in the Bible...just in case that did not translate as well.)
However, not even the above-mentioned scenario will deter me (us) from trying to be a light in a dark world.
I am not afraid of homosexuals. They do not *creep me out*. They are just people, in need of a Savior, IMHO. Of course, I know that these types of comments won't go over well with many here. I just thought it was worthy of saying. We (christians) are just trying to live our lives the way we feel God wants us to. Just trying to find our way...searching for God's will every day. Desiring to show the love of Christ to all that we come in contact with. Most of us mean no harm...really.
So, with that said...back to your regularly scheduled debate. ;)
(I have really enjoyed reading through these forums for the past few days...haven't gotten much cleaning done for Thanksgiving though. So many intelligent people here. So many funny people here...some are both. Bracing myself now for what ever replies will come. Bring it on...I can handle it. It can't be scarier than natural child birth...)
Blessings,
Jennifer <><
A very large percentage of people here have had less than positive experiences with the bible and God so therefore discount any of the wisdom of each.
MY internet connection is unbefuckinglievably slow for some unknown reason so I am unable to keep up with posts as normal.
By slow I mean it takes 2 fucking minutes just to access the reply dialog.
I am sorry to hear that. Sorry, but not surprised, considering that christians are only human...and, well...God is just hard to understand sometimes. I'm assuming you mean that people here have had unpleasant experiences with christians.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that people have had unpleasant experiences with God and the Bible. I'm thinking maybe you mean that they disagree with the Bible...and choose not to believe in God? Please correct me if I'm way off base.
At any rate, I understand the gist of what you are saying. Life is hard. Period. I'm sure we all would like to make some sense of it. For some of us, belief in God brings not only sanity in the midst of chaos, as well as peace in the midst of impossible circumstances.
...sorry 'bout your slow whatever it is... (I know just enough about computers to make me dangerous...)
Originally posted by sycamore
Who was making the Native Americans out to be a bunch of peacemongers here?
Quzah, I'm afraid that I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that Native Americans as a group should not get special considerations?
Correct.
Should I trace my lineage so I can find someone who wronged my ancestors and demand something in payment from then? Absurd.
Quzah.
(slang blinks at the monitor......squinting, reads Quzah's last post....then falls out of his chair, bumps his head.....lies babbling, and twitching on the floor)
I actually agree with Quzah
Originally posted by FileNotFound
Slang.
I [b]URGE you to go rent Eddie Izzard. He has a great piece regarding colonisation and flags... [/B]
I dont have a vcr or dvd player and I just googled it and I dont understand how this relates to the current conversation.
On top of that, my cable connection is almost as slow as smoke signals and I just heaved my couch out of the window in frustration.
Can you give me a summary?
Originally posted by juju
Well, how do you know that you're not just "choosing" to be attracted to women? Maybe that's a choice, too. Why do you think that it isn't?
The little head tells me.;)
Originally posted by preacherswife2u
.snip
I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that people have had unpleasant experiences with God and the Bible. I'm thinking maybe you mean that they disagree with the Bible...and choose not to believe in God? Please correct me if I'm way off base.
snip
I think the reference was probably to agressive missionaries and zealots who imposed their will in the name of God and the Bible. Torquemata (sp) for example.:)
Originally posted by preacherswife2u
Same sex relationships are an abomination in God's eyes. (Yes, that's in the Bible. I'll post scripture ref. if anyone really cares to know, but I don't think anyone would doubt that this is in the Bible. And this matters to me because the Bible is my authority...yes, even above man's laws). As a christian, I could do nothing less than to fight against legalization of homosexual marriage.
Why? Nobody is trying to
force Christians to marry gay. It is against strict Catholic doctrine to eat meat on Fridays. Would it be OK, if the Catholics gained control of the government, for them to forbid the sale or consumption of meat on Fridays? Or for Jews or Muslims to forbid the sale of pork altogether? Or for scientologists to ban the psychiatric profession? You have to realize that not everyone has the same beliefs. It is OK for Catholic clergy to admonish Catholics not to eat meat on Fridays. It is Ok for rabbis and clerics to forbid their followers to eat pork. It is OK for scientologists to discourage their followers fom seeing a shrink. But it is
not OK, should any of them get into a position of political power, for them to attempt to foist religious requirements on the general public.
That's the difference. If someone was trying to prevent you from practicing your religion, you would have an issue. But instead someone is trying to give people more rights - people who do not share your beliefs. Why should your religious beliefs trump theirs?
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
It is against strict Catholic doctrine to eat meat on Fridays.
No, it's not. But your point stands. Government cannot determine the will of God.
there is a certain irony in a fundie called Happy Monkey.
Originally posted by preacherswife2u
As a christian, I could do nothing less than to fight against legalization of homosexual marriage.
I respect your opinion, but I just want to point out to everybody else here that this does not represent the opinion of all Christians.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
The little head tells me.;)
Why should I believe this reason when you don't believe it when it's offered up by gays?
Sorry, I still think heterosexuality is a choice.
Originally posted by jaguar
there is a certain irony in a fundie called Happy Monkey.
I'm not sure what makes you think I'm a fundie. I'm not religious at all.
jaguar can't read, Happy Monkey, so he just makes stuff up. Don't let it bother you.
Originally posted by quzah
So it's fine to lump "all the indians" together, as a mass, and let them have their infighting, and that's OK, but it's not OK if someone else wants to go fight with them too?
Correct. It's nobody's business what they do to each other.
See the absurdity in your logic here? If Whitey had used bows and arrows, then would it have been OK for them to fight too? Was it the guns that made it wrong? Superior firepower? Your logic makes no sense.
Say what? Who cares about
HOW they killed off the Natives. The fact that they
did and
WHY they fought them and tried to kill them off was wrong.
The Trail Of Tears ring a bell?
Hollywood has left the impression that the great Indian wars came in the Old West during the late 1800's, a period that many think of simplistically as the "cowboy and Indian" days. But in fact that was a "mopping up" effort. By that time the Indians were nearly finished, their subjugation complete, their numbers decimated. The killing, enslavement, and land theft had begun with the arrival of the Europeans. But it may have reached its nadir when it became federal policy under President (Andrew) Jackson.
Kenneth C. Davis, from his book
Don't Know Much About History
See also:
A Brief History of the Cherokee Nation
It wasn't all about just "fighting". History tells us that Europeans had a habit of "fighting" the Native cultures of many lands that they invaded. Try "attempting to eliminate" by intimidation, slavery, internment camps, and the outright murder of native people all over the world.
You may feel that my logic is "absurd", but history doesn't lie.
Originally posted by quzah
Correct.
Should I trace my lineage so I can find someone who wronged my ancestors and demand something in payment from then? Absurd.
Quzah.
No NOT absurd to some. That's up to you if you don't want to persue that option. If you do, then you do. If not, then oh well. *shrugs*
Originally posted by ladysycamore
No NOT absurd to some. That's up to you if you don't want to persue that option. If you do, then you do. If not, then oh well. *shrugs*
So it's okay for the government to bestow certain perks to a group of people. Just don't let that group of people be a majority.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Correct. It's nobody's business what they do to each other.
What? Ok, let's get this straight: "NA" like to be recognized as each their own "nation". The Charokee Nation, the Apache Nation, etc. So it's OK for all of these "somewhat related nations" to kill eachother, but when an outside "nation" comes in, it's wrong? Am I the only one who things this is absolutely absurd?
So in your words, only white people can fight with white people. Only black people can fight with black people. Only green people can fight with green people? Wow. You're one racist bastard.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Say what? Who cares about [b]HOW they killed off the Natives. The fact that they did and WHY they fought them and tried to kill them off was wrong.
The Trail Of Tears ring a bell?[/B]
Claims not disputed. I never said whitey was friendly. I said before whitey, the NA were slaughtering eachother. But that was OK, because it was just infighting. Shit.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
It wasn't all about just "fighting". History tells us that Europeans had a habit of "fighting" the Native cultures of many lands that they invaded. Try "attempting to eliminate" by intimidation, slavery, internment camps, and the outright murder of native people all over the world.
And? I've never disputed this. I am making an issue with the fact that you seem to think it's fine for one land masses native inhabitants to kill eachother, but it's wrong for someone from another land mass to come fight too. This is what is so hard to swallow.
So in your words, it's fine for WWI and WWII Germany to invade all of Europe, because they share the same land mass and skin tone? That's ok? It's ok for WWI Italy to invade also, because they're also of "similar" skin tones, and share the same continent?
Originally posted by ladysycamore
You may feel that my logic is "absurd", but history doesn't lie.
Bwhahahahah. Surely you jest? History doesn't lie? "History" is "truth" as told by the winner. You seldom hear the loser's side of the story. On a related vein, there are
always two sides to a story, at least.
The fact of the matter is, if WWI or WWII were won by the "bad guys", then that would be the "right way" as viewed by current history. History would have been told differently if they'd won.
For that matter, there is still dispute on the WWII German U-Boat sinking. The Germans claim that they fired upon a vessel containing ammunitions. The US claims it was a passenger ship, and thus entered the war.
In fact they're both right. But the "right view" as your "truthful history" would tell you, is that it was an innocent passenger ship. It wasn't. It was a ship full of passengers
and muntions. That's what America did. They packed civillian ships full of munitions and sent them over to Britian full of civillians.
But hey, what do I know, history doesn't lie, right?
Quzah.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
So it's okay for the government to bestow certain perks to a group of people. Just don't let that group of people be a majority.
Rich people and tax-breaks say "Hi".
Quzah.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
So it's okay for the government to bestow certain perks to a group of people. Just don't let that group of people be a majority.
Well, why would the "majority" get certain perks, when they are the ones who already HAVE the perks?
If those who are part of the "minority" weren't considered less than the "majority" (in value) in the first place, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion (meaning no one would be complaining about certain people getting special treatment, etc.).
Originally posted by ladysycamore
No NOT absurd to some. That's up to you if you don't want to persue that option. If you do, then you do. If not, then oh well. *shrugs*
Ok, so how long is "good enough" for whitey to pay NA? 100 more years? Five more years? 500 more years? 1000 more years? You do realize that "whitey" isn't going to be the majority for long. Oh, wait, they're actually not anyway. They're just considered that because of business percentage or something.
Anyway, back to the topic: Soon, (I've seen it quoted, but 50% of statistics are just made up anyway,) "whitey" will not be a majority. The prediction is that soon there won't be any "white" people. Give it a few more decades. Say 100 years. What then? There are no more "whities", and then should the government still pay the NA? Why?
As long as there is traceable DNA to detect some "whitey" ancestory, should someone be paying the NA? When is the deadline?
But naturally you won't see the point. That's fine.
Quzah.
What? Ok, let's get this straight: "NA" like to be recognized as each their own "nation". The Cherokee Nation, the Apache Nation, etc. So it's OK for all of these "somewhat related nations" to kill eachother, but when an outside "nation" comes in, it's wrong? Am I the only one who things this is absolutely absurd?
So in your words, only white people can fight with white people. Only black people can fight with black people. Only green people can fight with green people?
That's not what I was saying. That's only how you are reading it.
I am making an issue...
Yes...you are.
...with the fact that you seem to think it's fine for one land masses native inhabitants to kill eachother, but it's wrong for someone from another land mass to come fight too. This is what is so hard to swallow.
I supposed I'm trying to understand why it's ok for a culture of people to come in and destroy another's way of living
JUST BECAUSE of infighting. You haven't given any other reason as to why "whitey" had the right to come into NA territory and destroy lives besides, "Well, they fought among each other...why not?!?"
Originally posted by quzah
Ok, so how long is "good enough" for whitey to pay NA? 100 more years? Five more years? 500 more years? 1000 more years?
How should *I* know? That will be up to the payers, won't it?
You do realize that "whitey" isn't going to be the majority for long.
Ah, finally the US will catch up with the rest of the world.
As long as there is traceable DNA to detect some "whitey" ancestory, should someone be paying the NA? When is the deadline?
Again, this needs to be asked of those paying out reparations.
But naturally you won't see the point. That's fine.
Quzah.
Care to explain that one? This should be good...
Originally posted by juju
Why should I believe this reason when you don't believe it when it's offered up by gays?
Sorry, I still think heterosexuality is a choice.
Your putting words in my mouth, Juju, shame on you. I never said I didn't believe them. All I said is I don't believe *all*(go back and read it) queers are predisposed to it.
I work with a woman that's now 63. At 18 she married a great guy that was a few years older, in a semi-arranged Italian marriage. After they were married for a few weeks and hadn't consumated the marriage, he told her he was gay and they divorced. Twisted her head pretty good. She reasoned that if her husband didn't want her she must be a lesbian. So she became a lesbian, worked at it and now she regrets it and feels it was a mistake because it didn't bring her happiness. Now this woman is obviously an exception (I guess?) and pretty screwed up but it is a true case up being coersed or pushed into her sexual choice by events surrounding her life.
I'm convinced that a child can be "formed" to make a choice that isn't what they would do if they'd been left alone.
For me personally (and it seems a preponderance of people) being hetrosexual was not a choice. If you say it was for you, fine. I believe you.:)
Originally posted by ladysycamore
I supposed I'm trying to understand why it's ok for a culture of people to come in and destroy another's way of living JUST BECAUSE of infighting. You haven't given any other reason as to why "whitey" had the right to come into NA territory and destroy lives besides, "Well, they fought among each other...why not?!?"
It's quite obvious why, because they were conqueroring land. What's not to understand there? It's the same reason the NA fought with eachother. War and the spoils there of.
Generally when groups of people decide to conquer eachtother, they don't sit down and have weighty philosophical discussions on why they are doing it. I imagine it went something like:
"Hey, they have land. I have guns."
"Hey they have hot chicks. I have a better bow and arrow."
"Hey, that's good hunting there."
"Hey, you stole my pig." (Yeah, this is a real example.)
On that note, I have never made that point that: "Whitey attacked the NA because they figured, 'Hey, they're doing it, why not?'."
My point was: How is it wrong for Whitey to fight with the NA when it is not wrong for the NA to fight amongst themselves? Why is it OK for NA to fight eachother's nations but it is not OK for an outsider to do the same?
That is the issue that you so frequently attempt to sidestep. I've made that point quite clear multiple times.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Care to explain that one? This should be good...
I just did. See above. It's quite clear. You're missing the point, it's plainly obvious. I just haven't figured out if you're
intentionally missing it yet.
Quzah.
:Originally posted by ladysycamore
I supposed I'm trying to understand why it's ok for a culture of people to come in and destroy another's way of living JUST BECAUSE of infighting. You haven't given any other reason as to why "whitey" had the right to come into NA territory and destroy lives besides, "Well, they fought among each other...why not?!?"
It's quite obvious why, because they were conqueroring land. What's not to understand there? It's the same reason the NA fought with eachother. War and the spoils there of.
So I guess you're saying that regardless of reason, people fighting each other is just plain wrong. Ok then.
My point was: How is it wrong for Whitey to fight with the NA when it is not wrong for the NA to fight amongst themselves? Why is it OK for NA to fight eachother's nations but it is not OK for an outsider to do the same?
*shrugs* Because I just didn't see how the two were the same, that's all. Not a
huge deal..at least it wasn't supposed to be one.
That is the issue that you so frequently attempt to sidestep. I've made that point quite clear multiple times.
Wow...I don't see the issue the same way as you and now that's called "sidestepping"...interesting. I gave you my reasons why *I* thought the two issues were different. Perhaps now
YOU are missing
MY point...and you know what? It's.ok. Really...it is.
My 2 cents- I don't see the Indian tribes and the foreign groups as being so different in that time frame. The tribes were different from each other in as many ways as they were the same. The foreign groups were different from each other also. They spoke different languages, different religions, customs, foods, etc.
There was no "Politically Correct" thinking on either side. That's for people who don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from. Back then, all the people involved, red, white, black and brown, believed you could have what you could take and hold. Survival was then name of the game. The losers didn't cry the blues about injustice, they looked for someone weaker to beat up.
Were the losers treated badly? yes.
Were the slaves treated badly? yes.
Is it my fault? NO. I had nothing to do with anything that went on before I was born. Anyone that profited from the mistreatment of either group didn't leave me a cent, so I didn't profit indirectly either. I ain't paying reparations to anyone.
Originally posted by slang
MY internet connection is unbefuckinglievably slow for some unknown reason so I am unable to keep up with posts as normal.
By slow I mean it takes 2 fucking minutes just to access the reply dialog.
The college kids are at home for Thanksgiving. This happens every year. (check the activity light on the router. Someone isn't using your bandwith to download up-yer-skirt-super-webcam again, are they?)
Originally posted by slang
(slang blinks at the monitor......squinting, reads Quzah's last post....then falls out of his chair, bumps his head.....lies babbling, and twitching on the floor)
I actually agree with Quzah
My own experience involved cold sweats and stomach cramps.
but yeah, it's scary.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Were the losers treated badly? yes.
Were the slaves treated badly? yes.
Is it my fault? NO. I had nothing to do with anything that went on before I was born. Anyone that profited from the mistreatment of either group didn't leave me a cent, so I didn't profit indirectly either. I ain't paying reparations to anyone.
yes you did.
You're white. If you were Native, you'd be on a reservation, and wouldn't be doing well enough to have filled your home with all those "doodads" . White males like you and I "start on third base", as jinx frequently reminds me.
BUT:
Dar·win·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (därw-nzm)
n.
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
______________________________________
This is where it all comes from. Man in general, just like Gorillas, Lions, Wolves, etc. are subject to natural selection. Look at the empires gone by. Rome. England. Germany. A subset or race or nation of people takes over the land of weaker subsets in order to increase the size of THEIR population, resources and wealth. Some assimilate the loser, some enslave, some attemot to exterminate. The Moors immediately mated with all of the indigenous females of breeding age. The Romans enslaved and subjected the loser to their laws. Hitler was busy eliminating them all together.
The Native Americans refused to assimilate, so they were quarantined on reservations. More humane than exterminating them, but it has the same effect. Instead of two cultures mingling and being the stronger for it, they were put into museums for us to marvel at.
The unfortunate thing for the NA's was that they were technologically unadvanced, and eventually outnumbered. Their lifestyle required more land per capita than the pre industrial Europeans, and meant that there were less of them to fight the white man.
All this said, I'm sorry, but the Native Americans lost. Sad for them, but again, THEY LOST. you don't pay the loser. He lost. This is the real world. Sucks to say it, and I sound like FileNotFound, but that's my opinion on the matter.
I should add that I'm not saying the "white man" is stronger or smarter than the Native American, or any other race. Just that at the end of the day, that's how it is. I would hope that my opinion would be the same if I was of another race, but then who can say?
.....er, that's all I have to say about that.......
Originally posted by quzah
What? Ok, let's get this straight: "NA" like to be recognized as each their own "nation". The Charokee Nation, the Apache Nation, etc. So it's OK for all of these "somewhat related nations" to kill eachother, but when an outside "nation" comes in, it's wrong? Am I the only one who things this is absolutely absurd?
Depends on how you look at it. I think the Whites killing off Native Americans is rather different than, say, the Germans killing off the French. Both situations suck...no doubt about that. But in the case of the Native Americans, not only were cultures being eliminated, but an entire race as well.
As a real life example, the various African tribes were killing each other before Europeans colonized the continent. Now I don't know about you, but I'd say that the Europeans going in there, killing people, taking people away and stealing resources was incredibly wrong, much worse than African tribes killing each other...or the various European nationalities killing each other.
And in the end, the Native Americans were killed in part b/c of who they were...and nearly annihilated. And even if they did go peacefully, many of them were still fucked by the government.
So like I said earlier in this thread...given what happened to them, what they get now seems fair.
As an aside, while institutions like the Bureau of Indian Affairs "work" with all Native Americans, a lot of the nitty gritty between Native Americans and the various levels of government is handled on a tribal level.
Ok, so how long is "good enough" for whitey to pay NA? 100 more years? Five more years? 500 more years? 1000 more years?
Who knows? Possibly forever. The situation with the Native Americans is unique compared to the other minorities in this country.
You do realize that "whitey" isn't going to be the majority for long.
So what do you think will happen then? Do you think that whites will become the persecuted minority?
I doubt it. One can be a minority and still discriminate against the majority. One needs only to look at apartheid-era South Africa.
Jimbo, you make some good points; however, let me ask you this...who was the real loser in the end? The Native Americans, who certainly got their asses whupped (minus Custer and a few other battles)...or Whites, who missed a golden opportunity to learn about new and different cultures?
Originally posted by sycamore
The Native Americans, who certainly got their asses whupped (minus Custer and a few other battles)...or Whites, who missed a golden opportunity to learn about new and different cultures?
But we both understand they werent the least bit interested in learning about new cultures
then. That
may be different now.
The evolution of the two cultures has not ended. Before it's over, NAs may very well beat the (white) man at his own game.....with the applause of white men.
How many people would like to see the SC uphold the treaty with the NAs regarding taxes and the sale of cigarettes? I would. Did the US gov't make the treaty stating that they wouldnt be liable to collect and pay taxes of the US gov't (Fed, state, local)? If I'm not mistaken, they did. Will they honor it? People of all colors will be watching as they screw the NAs
again by not doing so.
Please understand I have empathy for the NAs. I think it's really funny though, that the US gov't stacks the deck against them even while it
supposedly is a friendlier more thoughtful gov't now.
[rant] If they made the treaty, they should just fuck off and stop hassling them over the cigarette taxes lost, that were not crucial to the (white) man's society at the time of the signing of the
legal agreement[/rant]
signed
EvilWhiteMaleWell until we all are viewed as equal, consider me a gay indian. I'm going to marry my father so that when he leaves this world he can bestow to me the smoke shoppe, free indian house, and land without me having to pay those pesky estate taxes.
Wait my fathers already passed.
I'm still gay, but I'm now female and I'm going to marry my mom.
Originally posted by sycamore
...who was the real loser in the end? The Native Americans, who certainly got their asses whupped (minus Custer and a few other battles)...or Whites, who missed a golden opportunity to learn about new and different cultures?
The Native americans clearly lost. clearly.
We did learn about their new and different culture, decided that they were savages, and as with most good christian societies, we had the responsibility under GOD to convert them, get them drunk, and pigeon hole them.
Yeah, the white US Gov. made the deals and signed the treaty giving NA's limited sovereignty over themselves, which in turn gives them the right to open casino's. We're still bound by those treaties. That's life. Whether it was a mistake or not is redundant. The deal is done. Gay marriage and homosexuality in general is an increasingly open issue.
On the subject of reparations, my ancestry goes back to an interesting case. It seems my last name (White) originated with a half-NA half-white guy that was the illegitimate son of a white man and his Indian slave woman. I tried to offer to pay myself for the injustices my ancestor committed but I felt that since I personally had nothing to do with them it wouldn't be right to take payment for them. Especially since I haven't had that type of injustice committed against me personally. In the end I just shook my hand and both sides agreed to never be part of anything like my ancestor had.
I know this is a few pages back, but I wanted to comment and respond. That's the joy of message boards, you can do that.
From Preacherswife2u:
The Bible speaks of the depravity of man... It's just a matter of time. The world will become more and more sinister. It all plays out in revelation.
Can you elaborate? A couple of millennia ago Alexander the Great was considered kind when he wiped out (Thebes I think?), killed the men and enslaved the women and children. We had slavery in this country just a couple of centuries back. Death by hanging was choice because it could take awhile, then somebody figured out the 13 knot method of tying it. Electrocution was picked up because it was thought to be excruciating. My point is that the world seems to be better overall. So why is it more sinister?
Originally posted by Whit
I know this is a few pages back, but I wanted to comment and respond. That's the joy of message boards, you can do that.
Can you elaborate? A couple of millennia ago Alexander the Great was considered kind when he wiped out (Thebes I think?), killed the men and enslaved the women and children. We had slavery in this country just a couple of centuries back. Death by hanging was choice because it could take awhile, then somebody figured out the 13 knot method of tying it. Electrocution was picked up because it was thought to be excruciating. My point is that the world seems to be better overall. So why is it more sinister?
I am speaking of the depravity of the heart of individuals. So many people desire to live their lives without any regard to God or His purpose for them. They make their own rules...their own morality...
There is no right or wrong. No absolutes. Right has become "what is right for me...wrong is what is wrong for me". Many say that "truth" is merely what you believe to be true.
However, it is my belief that there is a moral right and wrong, and it is unchanging because it has it's origin in God and He is unchanging.
I know that society likes to modify and change and rename whatever does not suit them, and for the most part...there is nothing that can be done to change that. As long as evil exists in this world through the presence of satan, man will continue to spiral downward...not collectively, but individually. Not all, but definitely those who choose to look to their own hearts and desires to form their specially tailored belief system.
This is a dark world that we live in, IMO. Years ago, people did not lock their doors. Children walked to school without fear of abduction, etc. Role models were not scantily clad teenagers.
Our methods may have changed, but not necessarily our motive. Selfishness, greed, fame, fortune, etc. This is what drives most people. As long as we are a people who primarily want only to serve ourselves and advance our own agenda, we will continue to fall short of the mark. (IMO, based on my christian beliefs)
Originally posted by Whit
Yeah, the white US Gov. made the deals and signed the treaty giving NA's limited sovereignty over themselves, which in turn gives them the right to open casino's. We're still bound by those treaties. That's life. Whether it was a mistake or not is redundant. The deal is done. Gay marriage and homosexuality in general is an increasingly open issue.
Yes we did.
We also assumed that marriage would be between a man and a woman.
Should we have signed a treaty or made a law saying only man and woman could marry? Then would we have been right?
How is saying indians (oh I'm sorry native americans, I'm from oklahoma home of indian gaming not NA gaming) are going to be treated special different than saying man and woman married are going to be treated special? You call one reparations and the other discrimination, yet they both are clear examples of discrimination (limited membership if you will) to me.
I say if we want equal rights for everybody lets give EVERYBODY equal rights.
But instead we pick and choose who to be included into what rights. If we keep doing that this battle will never end.
Only if the government stops discrimination against *ALL* people by limiting benefits to people that meet a certain criteria will I support gay marriage.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Only if the government stops discrimination against *ALL* people by limiting benefits to people that meet a certain criteria will I support gay marriage.
And what criteria would that be?
Originally posted by Whit
..... It seems my last name (White).......
So....your name is Whit White? Maybe even....Whit U. White?
Next you'll be telling us you arent really from the hills.
I live on a hill, if that helps.
I'm sorry this reply comes so late...Thanksgiving and all, ya know.
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Why? Nobody is trying to force Christians to marry gay. It is against strict Catholic doctrine to eat meat on Fridays. Would it be OK, if the Catholics gained control of the government, for them to forbid the sale or consumption of meat on Fridays? Or for Jews or Muslims to forbid the sale of pork altogether? Or for scientologists to ban the psychiatric profession? You have to realize that not everyone has the same beliefs.
True...we do not all have the same beliefs. Everyone has a right to their own belief/opinion, etc. God has given us all free will, the right to choose whatever path we would like to take. Does He have a plan for what that path should be? I believe so.
If it were against the law to eat meat on Fridays, then as a christian, I would abide by that law because it does not contradict any law that God has for me. Might I want to eat meat on Friday...maybe, but I would not. The same goes for the pork law and the psychiatry law. The Bible teaches that we are under the authority of the government, and unless the government makes a law that contradicts Biblical teaching, I am to uphold that law. That is what I believe. That is what I teach my children.
That's the difference. If someone was trying to prevent you from practicing your religion, you would have an issue. But instead someone is trying to give people more rights - people who do not share your beliefs. Why should your religious beliefs trump theirs?
I think you are missing my point. It is probably my fault...it is always late when I am on the computer. If it were against the law to worship God, I would worship Him anyway. That would be a law that would contradict scripture.
If there was a law that said I must bow down every day and worship a fish stick, I would not...no matter what the consequences. That would definitely be a law that would contradict scripture...and would also be just plain silly.
I do not understand why it is so hard to see why christians would not support or be in favor of anything that is considered a sin against God. I am all for people having rights.
God is all for people having choices and rights. One of my rights is to vote and try to put people in office that will uphold my beliefs. Do you think otherwise? Is that not a right that you feel that you have also?
From Preacherswife2u:
I am speaking of the depravity of the heart of individuals. So many people desire to live their lives without any regard to God or His purpose for them. They make their own rules...their own morality...
Um, you know, you basicaly just said that if we're not christian than we are sinister... Was this intentional? I'm just curious.
From Preacherswife2u:
This is a dark world that we live in, IMO. Years ago, people did not lock their doors. Children walked to school without fear of abduction, etc. Role models were not scantily clad teenagers.
People were also robbed. So they started locking their doors. Kids were abducted, so people became more careful. Scantily clad teenagers were always ogled. So, we are worse as a people because we are more honest about the world around us? What???
From Preacherswife2u:
it's origin in God and He is unchanging.
Not to be a jackass here, but have you read both testments? How 'bout the story of Jonah? He seems to change whenever he feels like it.
I think I really screwed up by allowing some key human inventions. Like the telephone, the internet and the Segway.
As humanity is able to communicate more easily, they compare notes on me.
This is where a substantial part of the problem is, I wasnt consistent with everyone. Now everyone is confused.
Originally posted by sycamore
And what criteria would that be?
Any and all criteria based benefites should be abolished. Until then one group or another will come along and say I want to be included as well.
I guess I'm still bitter about not being able to attend the all catholic girls school.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
I guess I'm still bitter about not being able to attend the all catholic girls school.
I might be able to work you a small miracle.
Have you said your prayers lately?
Originally posted by God
I might be able to work you a small miracle.
Have you said your prayers lately?
Yes I have but if your small miracle involves removing certain parts of my anatomy, please dont!!! :)
Jeep, did you not get that part about sovergity? It was about recognizing a conquered nation. Not US citizens, but members of a nation predating the US. Sure they're US citizens now, but they weren't untill after those treaties were signed. You're comparing apples and motor vehicles here.
Also, pureblood NA's (for the record I'm in Arkansas and the indians I know hate being called "NA's", but it was the term in use on the thread so I'm running with it) are almost non-existant. Fewer people are meeting the req's every year. They'll soon be simply 'American'. So I wouldn't worry about it to much, they just haven't been completely assimilated yet. Happens when we box 'em up on reservations. Draw 'em out and it'll go faster...
By the by, we all wanted to attend catholic girls school.
Slang, yup, Whit White. That's me. I even got sent to the office in jr. high for telling a sub that was my name. Of course I walked into the office and they said, "Why are you in here, Whit." So it didn't go to far.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
......removing certain parts of my anatomy, please dont!!!
Dont think of it as losing
one thing....think of it as
gaining three. And...this distraction could very well reduce your entertainment budget.
Just something to think about.
Originally posted by Whit
I even got sent to the office in jr. high for telling a sub that was my name.
I'd sue the farking bastard for name descrimination
It was a public school, what would they pay me in, 20 year old text books? Desks with half the bolts missing? 'Sides, I'd have wound up in the office within the hour anyway.
Condoms, silly!
They're a currency in some places.
So........is being gay a choice? How about being hetero?
Originally posted by preacherswife2u
I do not understand why it is so hard to see why christians would not support or be in favor of anything that is considered a sin against God. I am all for people having rights. [b]God is all for people having choices and rights. One of my rights is to vote and try to put people in office that will uphold my beliefs. Do you think otherwise? Is that not a right that you feel that you have also? [/B]
A right? Yes. A good idea? No. I am an atheist, but I would not vote for someone who promised to ban religion. I am heterosexual, but I would not vote for someone who considers homosexuals inferior. I don't want to vote for someone who will uphold my personal beliefs. I want to vote for someone who uphold the right to have personal beliefs. I am not asking for you to "
support or be in favor of anything that is considered a sin against God", I am asking you not to oppose it. The right place to oppose it is if someone tries to change your religion's rules. There are many rights that I am not in favor of the exercise of, but they should still exist.
Religious rules should be enforced within the church. If religious people of a certain faith people happen to hold a majority in a legislature, they should still keep religious rules and civil laws completely separate. Combining politics and religion corrupts and demeans both. There is no nonreligious reason to prevent gays from marriying, so it should be allowed secularily. Of course, doing so may risk expulsion from the church, but that isn't a government issue, and the government should keep its nose out of that.
Originally posted by ThreadHijackMan
So........is being gay a choice? How about being hetero?
Sure show up now that I have a choice to attend an all girls catholic school. MEANIE.
Did you have to CHOOSE this time to use your powers? Or did it just feel right?
I still don't see how my thoughts on a persons choice/genetics effects gay marriage. The government is just saying that if you choose to be gay or if its genetics you can't have certain benefits. Much like if I choose to be poor or if its in my genetics to spend every dime I ever make I won't be allowed certain credits. Or no matter how hard I pray, I won't be allowed to the catholic girls school.
When I was applying for student grants and loans, I was denyed several of the grants because my parents had 300 acres of land. Nevermind the fact I was 20 had a fulltime job and tried to support myself for 3 years. I brought a letter from the bank stating how much was owed, how much it was worth, and how much 'revenue' it brought in every year. Not that much when you factor in the payments. The nice lady who was there to help me took the end of her pencil and pushed the letter back across the table and said 'We don't need that information. If you parents want to help you to go to school, they'll sell the land if it doesn't make enough.' I didn't want my parents help, but the government wanted their information even though I lived on my own. I had to supply their records on my student grant forms until I was 24 or married. The land wasn't mine, and if my parents wanted to give it to me I'd have to have paid a hefty gift tax on it. If I bought it, they would have to pay capital gains tax. It wasn't until I was in my mid/late 20's that I even had a desire to work on the farm when it wasn't forced.
It was genetics that brought me into the world of rural living. To carry on that tradition, I'll be faced with several decisions in the future. I'll know I'll end up paying for this land again.
It will be nice to know that when gay marriages are recognized my genetics will not be as equal as a gay couples genetics/choice.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
It was genetics that brought me into the world of rural living. To carry on that tradition, I'll be faced with several decisions in the future. I'll know I'll end up paying for this land again.
It will be nice to know that when gay marriages are recognized my genetics will not be as equal as a gay couples genetics/choice.
Um, are you on dope?
Genetics made you your parents' child. It was their choice to live and remain in a rural area that put you in the world of rural living.
I strongly suspect that neither you nor your parents have a Green Acres gene hardwiring you to be predisposed to rural living. At any time, they could have sold the farm and moved to Detroit, if they'd really wanted to do so. Equating that kind of decision with sexual preference is silly, at best.
Originally posted by vsp
Um, are you on dope?
Genetics made you your parents' child. It was their choice to live and remain in a rural area that put you in the world of rural living.
I strongly suspect that neither you nor your parents have a Green Acres gene hardwiring you to be predisposed to rural living. At any time, they could have sold the farm and moved to Detroit, if they'd really wanted to do so. Equating that kind of decision with sexual preference is silly, at best.
So my green thumb doesn't count? How long till that gene is found and people say that some are predestined to live on the farm, but that's not my point.
My genetics of my parents will grant me no rights to my parents estate. But a married gay couple will have tax imunity on estates.
Good call Monkey!
At the time the partial-birth abortion ban was completed, Bush was asked in a press conference whether he still believed - as he announced some time ago - that the society is not in favor of a complete abortion ban, thus that it isn't appropriate to push for it. And he answered, plainly, yes, nothing has changed.
I found that very heartening. Yes, he personally believes that abortion isn't right, but that doesn't mean a ban is the right thing for the country or the society. (Or politically.)
Yes, the beliefs of the people who don't believe what you believe, STILL COUNT.
Originally posted by ThreadHijackMan
So........is being gay a choice? How about being hetero?
:blink:
Did he just hijack the thread back ON topic? Well, closer, anyway?
Originally posted by Undertoad
Bush was asked in a press conference whether he still believed - as he announced some time ago - that the society is not in favor of a complete abortion ban, thus that it isn't appropriate to push for it. And he answered, plainly, yes, nothing has changed.
I found that very heartening. Yes, he personally believes that abortion isn't right, but that doesn't mean a ban is the right thing for the country or the society. (Or politically.)
Yes, the beliefs of the people who don't believe what you believe, STILL COUNT.
Either that or he knew better than to start the shit-storm that would follow if he answered "no."
Depends on how cynical you are.
From Whit:
Um, you know, you basically just said that if we're not christian than we are sinister... Was this intentional? I'm just curious.
No, that's not what I said. When I speak of the depravity of man, I am talking about
all mankind. We are all born with a sinful nature, and unless we willfully submit to God, then we will continue on a downward path. Satan is sinister. His influence over those who are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit is quite powerful, whether you believe/acknowledge that or not.
People were also robbed. So they started locking their doors. Kids were abducted, so people became more careful. Scantily clad teenagers were always ogled. So, we are worse as a people because we are more honest about the world around us? What???
Surely you realize that my point was that people did not do these things as often in previous years because there was not the need that there is now for the precautions. You had previously stated that you felt the world was better overall; I was merely making the point that it is indeed getting worse.
Not to be a jackass here, but have you read both testments? How 'bout the story of Jonah? He seems to change whenever he feels like it.
I'm assuming you are speaking of the time that God stayed His own hand against Nineveh after the people there repented of their sins... I'm sorry. I do not see the problem here. God was angry with their sin. He sent Jonah to preach repentance. They did. God was merciful.
Afterward, Jonah went and threw himself a little pity party. He did not like the people of Nineveh. That is why he disobeyed God the first time around and had to be escorted in the belly of a fish. He did not want the people of Nineveh to repent and be spared. That was
his problem. He was wrong.
Jonah was so disappointed that he decided he just wanted to die. He went out into the desert to fry. God caused a plant to grow to give him shade which he decided he was glad about. The next day, God caused the plant to die. Jonah was so distraught over the death of the plant, that once again, he wanted to die.
Jonah 4:9-11:
But God said to Jonah, "Do you do well to be angry for the plant? And he said, "I do well to be angry, angry enough to die."
And the Lord said, "You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night, and perished in a night.
And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?"
If you will go back and read my original post, when I spoke of God being unchanging, I was talking about His being just. Moral rights and wrongs to not change with God. When He spoke against homosexuality in the Bible, He was making a moral judgment over that sin that will last for all eternity.
The fact that God is unchanging means that He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He will not tolerate sin. He will not look upon it. Nineveh was in danger of annihilation because of their sin, but they repented. God did not
change His mind, but rather He
responded to repentance.
In the same way, if a person will repent (agree with God that it is sin, ask forgiveness and
turn away from) of the sin of homosexuality - God will respond with forgiveness and mercy. If they will not repent, then God will have no choice but to respond with judgment over that sin, which, btw, will cause Him great sorrow, as it would me also.
From Happy Monkey:
I am heterosexual, but I would not vote for someone who considers homosexuals inferior.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I consider people, living a homosexual lifestyle, to be inferior. That could not be further from the truth. I believe that all people are fearfully and wonderfully made by God. I would also not want to support such a person.
I don't want to vote for someone who will uphold my personal beliefs. I want to vote for someone who uphold the right to have personal beliefs. I am not asking for you to "support or be in favor of anything that is considered a sin against God", I am asking you not to oppose it.
I'm sorry, Happy Monkey (it feels strange to address you that way. I'm Jennifer, btw.), but that is just the nature of christianity. I do not oppose homosexuality just to be a contrary party-pooper. But rather, I stand against it because of what that sin will mean in the lives of the people who embrace it. I care far too much for all of mankind, just to let sin permeate and wreak havoc.
Also, I find it hard to "not support" something without "opposing" it at the same time.
So, you homeschool, Jennifer? How have your experiences with that been?
My wife is against it because she feels that it denies children of the opportunity to learn social interaction. I personally don't see how she came to this conclusion, as both of our encounters with school stunted our social interaction skills for many years.
That's what the NEA has been trying to promote as a good reason for not homeschooling (since the homeschoolers have such higher grades than the public schooled kids).
It's nonsense. My best friend homeschools, his kids are better than good in all measurable catagories.
Yeah, I agree. Like I said, I really don't understand that argument. I mean, nothing stunted my social growth more than Jr. High and High School. I only learned to interact with people long after I graduated and joined the work force.
I may not be most people, of course. But certainly, a small percentage of people share those experiences.
I have a friend who homeschools. His son is articulate and personable, to a greater degree than many of his conventionally schooled agemates.
I had the same reservations about homeschooling, largely perpetrated by seeing the freakazoids who make it to the finals of the National Spelling Bee. The more I look into it, the better it all becomes. It does require extremely dedicated parents, and a motivated kid. without that, the whole system breaks down.
I have a lot of issues with the way things are now taught in the schools ... the dumbing down of America distresses me greatly, as does the school system taking on the role of moral educator and parent — one step away from "The state is mother, the state is father."
In the event that I ever reproduce, I'll be homeschooling.
Juju,
It is a daily adventure! This is our 9th year to homeschool, and some days I am thinking, "...what was I thinking...". But most days, I just enjoy my children so very much.
I do think it is important for children to socialize. Church, of course, offers plenty of opportunity...we just about live there. We also try to help our kids develop interests outside of church...sports, clubs, music, etc.
Our oldest daughter participates in a marching band. She absolutely loves it. She is also in my dh's youth group and meets herself coming and going.
DD #2 plays violin and takes ballet. She got a part in The Nutcracker this year and is beside herself over that. I run myself crazy getting her to practices.
Ds is adopted. We are convinced his birth father is an NBA star. He shore didn't get it from us! He may attend high school in the future to play ball, but in the meantime, he needs to learn how to treat his sisters ;)
Youngest dd is going to be the death of me. I always say..."When one comes out that acts like that...it's time to stop." And we did!
I don't think we could handle much more socialization! :eek:
One of the reasons I/we chose not to homeschool was becuase of socializtion, although in general I think it's a fairly weak argument. Lumberjim works long hours and I am a fairly antisocial person (probably scarred for life from public school) so that was a concern of mine.... taking the kids to the park a couple times a week didn't seem to be enough, especially since they were often the only kids there for some reason.
I stressed about school for my older kid for a couple of years, and then found a very small, very laid-back private school, and my son attends 3 days a week. We all love it.
Here's a link if you want to check it out.
Jennifer, as someone who became an Atheist thanks to extensive religions education in Catholic school I am curious how you manage to hold on to your beliefs having actualy read the bibile?
You talk of morals, of rights and wrongs - yet I felt that it would be immoral to follow the bible. Where do my morals come from? From clear thought and pure logic. I believe that all people should have equal rights regardless of race and geneder. The bible does not. Therefore I cannot believe in it.
To show what I mean here are quotes from the bible that have caused me many problems:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
-- Exodus 20:17 (AV), The Tenth Commandment
The wife is listed amongst things that 'belong' to the neighbour. As a woman do you not feel offended being listed right next to an ox and ass?
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)
Yet another case of the bible treating the women as a lesser being. Women must only speak in submission? Can only ask their husband at home? Why can the man speak in church yet not the woman? Is THAT moraly right?
If as a woman you'd like to know more about how the bible feels about your place in this world
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart12.html#ref1223 should help.
How about human sacrifices of children? Moral? No? Oh...crud it's in the bible though. The ever just is at it again..
God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...
-- Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)
Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
-- Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39 (NIV)
Do you believe slavery as moraly right? NO?! Why not?! It's alright God says..
... all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...
-- I Timothy 6:1-5 (RSV)
Did Jesus come to bring peace and love to the world? Yes? Oh...wait no he didn't!
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)
I could go ON and ON and ON about Jesus, about the old testament, the new testament etc. Fact is that God DOES change and he has shown himself to not be just. He has shown himself to make mistakes, get angry, take his anger out on people, be jealous etc.
So ok the bible is bad...fine no bible. But faith in God (christian) has only brought about the good in people right?
Wrong.
Fact is that Christianity has always been and continues to be an cruel, closeminded and bloody religion. Bush himself admited that his attack on Iraq was 'ordered' by god. Ashcroft is out busy taking away our rights. I often feel that the whole point behind christianity is to make everyone a slave of the bibile with no permission to think about the meaning of life or trying to understand the world. Instead catholics would have us believe that we most have faith in god and that is all we need for all our success shall come from god and our worship of him is the purpose of our life.
Also, the founding fathers of the United States were atheists or pagans.
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
-- Isaac Asimov
Originally posted by jinx
One of the reasons I/we chose not to homeschool was becuase of socializtion, although in general I think it's a fairly weak argument. Lumberjim works long hours and I am a fairly antisocial person (probably scarred for life from public school) so that was a concern of mine.... taking the kids to the park a couple times a week didn't seem to be enough, especially since they were often the only kids there for some reason.
I stressed about school for my older kid for a couple of years, and then found a very small, very laid-back private school, and my son attends 3 days a week. We all love it.
Here's a link if you want to check it out.
Jinx does it not scare you that only "over 50%" of graduates go to college from that school?
In perspective the public school that I went to had a rate of over 98%.
Originally posted by FileNotFound
Jinx does it not scare you that only "over 50%" of graduates go to college from that school?
In perspective the public school that I went to had a rate of over 98%.
98%?......please. was this in the US? where people have to pay for school? if you can prove that, I'll eat my hat.
that's got to be higher than the percentage that graduated.
Originally posted by jinx
No, not at all, why?
Am I to assume then that you do not desire a college level education for your kids?
Or are you confident that 3 days a week is sufficient to gain entry into a competitive college?
Originally posted by FileNotFound
Am I to assume then that you do not desire a college level education for your kids?
Or are you confident that 3 days a week is sufficient to gain entry into a competitive college?
dude, he's 5yrs old
Originally posted by lumberjim
98%?......please. was this in the US? where people have to pay for school? if you can prove that, I'll eat my hat.
that's got to be higher than the percentage that graduated.
Yes US where people pay for schools.
Radnor High School. Look it up.
I'm also looking it up right now...I may find it first if I do I'll post it.
Well I found 91% at
http://www.radnorhighschool.com/college/
When I was attending that school I constnatly had 98% thrown out at us during the counceling sessions etc..
Originally posted by lumberjim
dude, he's 5yrs old
Well then, do you intend to continue the program. I'm not being judgmental just curious.
Originally posted by FileNotFound
Am I to assume then that you do not desire a college level education for your kids?
Or are you confident that 3 days a week is sufficient to gain entry into a competitive college?
Well, he's 5, this is his first year and the 3 day week is working out really well ( it's a long day and his first group experience). When/if he's ready to go 5 days we'll give that a try.
I'm not really worried about college at this point, my main concern is the here and now. I agree with the philosophies put forth by this school, I love the non-coersive environment for learning. If my kids go on to college I hope it's becuase they want to, and they have specific goals that they'll meet there. I would not be disappointed if they did not go to college though - it's just a small part of a bigger picture in my opnion.
Originally posted by jinx
....it's just a small part of a bigger picture in my opnion.
Skilled trades will be in high demand for the foreseeable future. Especially right after the boomers retire/die. College tuition might be a million bucks a year by the time he goes too.
I agree (for what it's worth regarding the education of your child).
College isn't for everybody anyway.
Yeah, just ask the darbs I work with.
Me: Would you enjoy and find fulfilling working here until the day after you die? Or might you want to expand your skillset?
Them: Fuck off and speak English asshole....for I kick yer ass.
Originally posted by sycamore
College isn't for everybody anyway.
Of course not. But it seems to be mandatory for anybody who wants a job over 80k/y.
First of all, I do not think that college is worth shit. So far I've wasted 3 years of my life in college with 2 more to go (5 year program) and honestly the only thing I've gotten out so far is people saying that they're impressed with my education when they're really impressed with my knowledge.
Fact 1: Every skill I use or have ever used at my job was self taughtt.
Fact 2: My formal education was highly responsible for most of the jobs I got.
My parents forced me into college because they both have PhDs and I had to have college education also, plus my father insisted that I'd be a different person after college. (If he meant more bitter and more broke...he was right)
The thing is, in the end you may want to provide your kids with an education that gives them a sense of self value and forces them to think for themselves while giving them all the knowledge they may need in the world. Yet the world won't accept or respect their education until they have a BS in whatever...
Originally posted by FileNotFound
Of course not. But it seems to be mandatory for anybody who wants a job over 80k/y.
eh...hem
Originally posted by lumberjim
eh...hem
Yes exceptions exist, but open the newspaper and look at job listings.
Pretty much everything wants college.
College has become almost as mandatory as a drivers license. Which is also responsible for the whole grade inflation thing...even the dimwits need a degree...
Originally posted by FileNotFound
The thing is, in the end you may want to provide your kids with an education that gives them a sense of self value and forces them to think for themselves while giving them all the knowledge they may need in the world. Yet the world won't accept or respect their education until they have a BS in whatever...
Well, I think jim has already pointed out that the money thing is incorrect. I can also think of quite a few of my own friends who have very impressive degrees and don't make anywhere near $80K.
What I want to provide my kids with is confidence a desire to learn more. If they choose to go to college, believe me, I'm all for it. I think your point though, is sometimes true. But I don't see aquiring a token degree as all that difficult either - and definitely not something to plan a chidhood around.
Now that I look back, earning my college degree was easier than high school for me. And IIRC, college was actually cheaper than my high school.
Originally posted by lumberjim
eh...hem
If I'm not mistaken, LJ is using the age old principal of consistent, focused work.
Thats something many degreed pros assume they are bypassing by earning a degree.
Ok, not many, just me.
Originally posted by slang
If I'm not mistaken, LJ is using the age old principal of consistent, focused work.
After traveling around the country in a vw microbus and generally fucking off for a few years anyway....
Good to know. There's hope for me.
Originally posted by FileNotFound
The wife is listed amongst things that 'belong' to the neighbour. As a woman do you not feel offended being listed right next to an ox and ass?
[color=indigo]
[size=1]Disclaimer: this post is personal opinion, and is not presented as factual.[/size]
I'm offended when people bring this argument up about women and the bible, and only tell one side of the story. Yes. Women are subservient, even possessions in the bible.
BUT!
In the time that the bible was written, just as the woman was to "stay home and take care of her man", he ALSO had an obligation to get out there and work to take care of his wife and family. The children, too, were to get out there and take care of their father, mother and family. It was a relationship that worked because everyone pitched in and supported the other.
Think 1950's Leave it to Beaver. Ward went out there and worked to have a nice house and two cars and feed everyone, and it was June's job to purchase groceries, cook, clean, and primarily care for the children. The boys were expected to get paper routes and join the boy scouts and all that crud, to learn how to be industrious in very much a "man's world."
Then the system broke down. The morals and "uptightness" of the 50's (which I would venture to say were more religious in nature in the U.S.) gave way to the "make love not war" of the 60's and "free thinking" and the feeling that "I can do what I want." Men were beating their women, not taking care of them, some were alcoholics, taking drugs, whatever. In essence, men (generally) stopped taking care of THEIR responsibilities and women had to support themselves and their children. Divorce rates started rising, and once that happened, you saw a rise in the feminist movement.
In the bible, there was
one reason why divorce was ok: Adultery.
Matthew 19:3-9: (RSV)
3: And Pharisees came up to him (Jesus) and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
4: He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5: and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6: So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
7: They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
8: He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."
So marriage (and by biblical standards, the wife being subserviant to her husband) was a solemn, sacred thing. If a man was a drunk and didn't work, what father is going to give his daughter to him? Men were supposed to care for, and cherish all his possessions, yes, even his wife. That means not mistreat her. That means provide for her. That means respect her, and teach her the Lord's word. The man was also responsible for his wife's actions.
There are a whole bunch of other things that came with being a husband that equaled out the PARTNERSHIP of husband and wife. Read that section of Matthew again. GOD said,
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? And Jesus said,
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." Not even the husband. The husband was to care for his wife, in all ways, just as she was to care for him in all ways.
Yes, women are subservient in the bible. But men were held to a MUCH higher standard of behavior and responsibility than they are now. Saying "women are subservient in the bible" without any additional commentary is, as is the case with most things, half the story. If you're going to present a set of examples to prove a point, put them in complete context.
[/color]
[color=indigo]Oh, and by the way:[/color]
How about human sacrifices of children? Moral? No? Oh...crud it's in the bible though. The ever just is at it again..
God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...
-- Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)
[color=indigo]You only quote this part, but fail to quote the rest of the story. I could post it, but to save time and space, I'll sum up:
In the Old Testament, the "wages of sin" were death. (Romans 6:23) That means, if you sinned, you had to sacrifice something. There are alot of cases of animal sacrifices, which animal to pick, and all that.
Now. In the above quote, the part you left out is this: Abraham takes Isaac to the mountain to sacrifice his child, because God told him to. When he gets up there, he raises his hand to kill his son, and the angel of the Lord stops him, and tells him, you have not withheld your only son. (So, it was a test of Abraham's faith.) Abraham doesn't kill his son.
I can't think of any instance where a follower of God's word offered up a human sacrifice to God. God offered Jesus up for sacrifice, and that supreme sacrifice is what stopped all other sacrifices, because Jesus became the "Lamb of God." The "wages of sin is death" rule is STILL in effect, but now the difference is that Jesus suffered that death for us. Hence, why he is called the redeemer.[/color]
I could go ON and ON and ON about Jesus, about the old testament, the new testament etc.
[COLOR=indigo]If you do, post the whole story, and not just the bits that make Him look bad. Post the context of the verses. Anything else makes it very easy for me to punch big holes in your arguments.
I'm not saying I don't have a problem with some things in the bible (one of which I still can't get over), but I welcome a thoughtful, (non personally insultive) debate. I'll take the pro-bible side. And we should probably move this to the philosophy (God of the Bible) thread.[/COLOR]
i think we should start a new thread...this belongs in religion
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[color=indigo]I can't think of any instance where a follower of God's word offered up a human sacrifice to God. God offered Jesus up for sacrifice, and that supreme sacrifice is what stopped all other sacrifices, because Jesus became the "Lamb of God." The "wages of sin is death" rule is STILL in effect, but now the difference is that Jesus suffered that death for us. Hence, why he is called the redeemer.[/color]
Did you purposefully ignore this quoted text then?
Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
-- Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39 (NIV)
I didn't look it up, just reading the thread. But it sure looks that way to me. Unless "I will sacrifice it as a
burnt offering" doesn't mean what it sounds like it means...
Quzah.
Update: I'm better than halfway done with this monster. The HTML tags are in, half of the links are in and I checked to see how the test page looks on the cellar (in this format).
This isn't nearly as good of a job as I'd like to crank out, however, I have put a lot of time and effort into it. It will be posted tomorrw regardless of it's completeness (so I can go on to do other things, like sleep).
Someone please kick me squarely in the testicles should I come up with this idea again. Didn't I say that last time I made a mega post?
Originally posted by wolf
:blink:
Did he just hijack the thread back ON topic? Well, closer, anyway?
Of which thread in this tapestry do you speak?:haha:
Originally posted by preacherswife2u
I'm sorry, Happy Monkey (it feels strange to address you that way. I'm Jennifer, btw.), but that is just the nature of christianity. I do not oppose homosexuality just to be a contrary party-pooper. But rather, I stand against it because of what that sin will mean in the lives of the people who embrace it. I care far too much for all of mankind, just to let sin permeate and wreak havoc.
Also, I find it hard to "not support" something without "opposing" it at the same time. [/B]
Ah, the heart of the problem that most of us have with "fundies". Rather than live and let live you want to "save" everyone that doesn't follow your teachings. Historically it's been a short step from wanting to "save" people (poor misguided heathens) and "the end justifies the means" type of proactive missionary.
I'm not saying that you personally would do that, but the religion you support has manifested itself in that form repeatedly and I've never met a Christian Clergy or devout Christian that didn't think they knew what was best for ME.:(
Originally posted by jinx
Well, I think jim has already pointed out that the money thing is incorrect. I can also think of quite a few of my own friends who have very impressive degrees and don't make anywhere near $80K.
What I want to provide my kids with is confidence a desire to learn more. If they choose to go to college, believe me, I'm all for it. I think your point though, is sometimes true. But I don't see aquiring a token degree as all that difficult either - and definitely not something to plan a chidhood around.
No, what he has shown is there are exceptions. There always was and will be, but that's a tough thing to bet on. With the disappearance of good paying manufacturing jobs the squeeze is getting worse. I most office scenerios you need a degree to get an interview even if they are going to train you to do things their way. Of course you could groom the tyke to marry for money...Oh, he doesn't look like Jim does he? :D
Originally posted by preacherswife2u
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I consider people, living a homosexual lifestyle, to be inferior. That could not be further from the truth. I believe that all people are fearfully and wonderfully made by God. I would also not want to support such a person.
I didn't mean to point that at you. I was trying to make an on-topic example, and made it too simplistic.
I'm sorry, Happy Monkey (it feels strange to address you that way. I'm Jennifer, btw.), but that is just the nature of christianity. I do not oppose homosexuality just to be a contrary party-pooper. But rather, I stand against it because of what that sin will mean in the lives of the people who embrace it. I care far too much for all of mankind, just to let sin permeate and wreak havoc.
Feel free to call me Matthew.
xoxoxoBruce said it already, but I'll take a stab at it, too. That is not a good reason to oppose gay marriage on a governmental level. If you feel the need to save people's souls, the correct route is to prosteletize and attempt to convert people, and then provide religious arguments to members of your church. Religious arguments should not be used to determine public policy. Religious convictions can be a reason for a particular person to look for and make legal arguments, but there are no nonreligious reasons to oppose gay marriage. If your only argument is religious, then you shouldn't be making laws based on it. This is not a theocracy.
Also, I find it hard to "not support" something without "opposing" it at the same time.
Really? I find it very easy. For example, I do not support massive handgun ownership, but I realize it is a right that people have, so I do not oppose it.
Originally posted by sycamore
Boy punished for talking about gay mom
To which the boy should have replied: "Fuck you!"
Quzah.
Originally posted by sycamore
Boy punished for talking about gay mom
Good grief! Simply outrageous! :rolleyes:
"A 7-year-old boy was scolded and forced to write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again" after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged Monday."
"A teacher who heard the remark scolded Marcus, telling him "gay" was a "bad word" and sending him to the principal's office. The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write: "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again."
Glad I'm not a parent..they'd have to put me
UNDER the jail for what I would do to those bigoted freaks. :mad:
I'm going to have to disagree with doing anything really nasty, Rho. I think that like, well, all bigotry, this is based on ignorance. Shredding the idiots doesn't solve the problem. Frankly, the school needs to be educated. Educating without the use of physical harm is preferable as it tends to stick in the mind better.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Good grief! Simply outrageous! :rolleyes:
The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write: "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again."
Glad I'm not a parent..they'd have to put me [b]UNDER the jail for what I would do to those bigoted freaks. :mad: [/B]
This is rather amusing if you think about it. The teachers had him come to school early and lie repeatedly. Consider writing:
"I will not use the word 'gay' in school again."
"I will not use the word 'gay' in school again."
Ok, the first one is clearly a lie, since you just wrote it after you said you wouldn't. This would repeat until the end of the process. Thus you end up lying N-1 times, where N is the number of times you were instructed to write it.
On a related note, these teachers were definately ignorant, since there's clearly another use for the word 'gay'. Additionally, they'd better hope they don't have to do a report on
Marvin Gay or... yeah you get the point. Absurd.
Quzah.
Frankly, the school needs to be educated.
Who will educate the educators?
Good question, I believe that it is officially the school boards job. It's also the school boards job to make sure they themselve are educated enough to respond properly. So, I doubt any more will come of this. Save, of course, the effect on one boy that has been forced to act in a way that suggests his understanding of the world is bad, bad as in leaning towards evil way. (By writing that crap on the board) Besides, who cares about how badly one boy is hurt when protecting proper moral structure? Can't worry about being good to people when making sure people are good after all. (If you didn't catch the sarcasm in that please put me on your ignore list)
Originally posted by Whit
I'm going to have to disagree with doing anything really nasty, Rho.
Never fear. I would only give them a serious verbal tonguelashing. ;)
I think that like, well, all bigotry, this is based on ignorance. Shredding the idiots doesn't solve the problem. Frankly, the school needs to be educated. Educating without the use of physical harm is preferable as it tends to stick in the mind better.
Depend on who you are "educating", IMO. It'll only stick if the person has somewhat of an open mind. If their mind is fixed on one concept and is not open to other ideas, then the education, I think, would be wasted.
I love the ACLU!
Good question, I believe that it is officially the school boards job. It's also the school boards job to make sure they themselve are educated enough to respond properly.
Elected officials reflecting the family value of hate.
I'm going to hope and guess, that even in this Louisiana parish there are teachers that could/would counter the board/community but dont want to lose their jobs. Lots of schools battling this out.
Here's some stuff for teachersOriginally posted by dave
Many in the Right are calling marriage a "union between a man and a woman". I think it should be a "union between two adults". I support gay marriages and think they should be legal.
What do you think?
first men and men...then women and women...then farmers and sheep.....poor people and dogs...white people and cows...black people and cows... (notice non racial cow reference)............
puh-Leeze.
freaky. sorry if it wasn't written the way you like it. get over it.
I never had a dog. I always wanted one, but I either lived in the city or didn't have time for one.
I had a friend who had a dog. His dog always loved him, never complained, it was always happy when he came home. He admited to screwing the dog and said that it felt quite good.
At times I wonder if being married to a dog would be such a bad thing...
Originally posted by FileNotFound
I never had a dog. I always wanted one, but I either lived in the city or didn't have time for one.
I had a friend who had a dog. His dog always loved him, never complained, it was always happy when he came home. He admited to screwing the dog and said that it felt quite good.
At times I wonder if being married to a dog would be such a bad thing...
the worst part would probably be the fleas.
Originally posted by darclauz
the worst part would probably be the fleas.
Nah I got cats and fleas are not a problem. Those little things you drop on their neck once every few months work great. No fleas or ticks...funny smell for a day but nothing bad.
From LadySyc:
If their mind is fixed on one concept and is not open to other ideas, then the education, I think, would be wasted.
I concede the point openly. Still, you don't know untill you try. Which I mean to say, I hope someone there will stand up and try.
From FNF:
I never had a dog. I always wanted one,
I guess this means you don't drink? Oh wait... You meant the actual animal... My bad.
Fleas... Hmm... I wonder who would win a war between fleas and crabs... Ack... I need to go find another thread now...
Originally posted by darclauz
first men and men...then women and women...then farmers and sheep.....poor people and dogs...white people and cows...black people and cows... (notice non racial cow reference)............
puh-Leeze.
freaky. sorry if it wasn't written the way you like it. get over it.
Well, the difference is that non-human animals can't consent to sex or marriage. A man <i>can</i> consent to sex with another man.
I suppose the question really is: Do you believe there are enough bad consequences to gay marriage that their consent should be overruled?
Originally posted by juju
Well, the difference is that non-human animals can't consent to sex or marriage. A man <i>can</i> consent to sex with another man.
I suppose the question really is: Do you believe there are enough bad consequences to gay marriage that their consent should be overruled?
yeah. i do.
okay...before anyone BLASTS me for stereotyping, i'm only writing from what i know. of my MANY gay friends, i have only met one couple who was interested in being a couple -- that is, only the two of them. they have been together 30 years, and are as married as any hetero couple i know.
that being said, every other gay man-man couple i've known were interested in short term. inevitably, one or both were sleeping with other people. that's NOT the case in most hetero couples i've met, although, again, some....
okay. so marriage is all about benefits. and it seems to me, that in any infidelity issue, you run all kinds of risks....lawyers for divorces. suits tying up courtrooms. medical benefit expenses...from stds or related issues.
so in the cases *I've* seen......... i would think that these particular gay men would treat marriage lightly..and cause legal hassles.
darclauz. Your argument is selfdefeating:
every other gay man-man couple i've known were interested in short term
So why would they ever marry?
Benifits? BS.
There are plenty of heterosexual people out there who screw a new girl/guy every week if not day with no intention for a long term relationship. They don't get married for a month then break it off.
Neither would the homosexuals. Getting married is as much a hassle as getting divorced, if not more so.
Dar, um... not to be a jerk, but how is that different than hetero marriges. Those are failing in droves for years... Point is, don't they have the same rights to make idiotic mistakes as the rest of us?
Ok then with that iron logic, lesbian unions should be the most sought after and righteous. The MANY dykes I know are real homebodies and supportive nurturers. They also dont have all those pesky and self-inflicted medical expenses, you know "...stds or related issues".
Originally posted by warch
Ok then with that iron logic, lesbian unions should be the most sought after and righteous. The MANY dykes I know are real homebodies and supportive nurturers. They also dont have all those pesky and self-inflicted medical expenses, you know "...stds or related issues".
i don't know ANY lesbian couples, but i'm SURE they're different from the gay men i have known.
this wasn't an iron logic issue.... just my opinion. as such, i don't have any well-researched or documented facts to back me up.
read it, discard it. it's only an opinion.............
And what your opinion demonstrates is that you consider the homosexual men you know, like cattle, not worthy of basic human rights.
Originally posted by darclauz
okay...before anyone BLASTS me for stereotyping
Can I blast you for being an idiot then?
Originally posted by darclauz
i'm only writing from what i know. of my MANY gay friends, i have only met one couple who was interested in being a couple -- that is, only the two of them. they have been together 30 years, and are as married as any hetero couple i know.
Which makes "them" different from hetros how? Because some hetros like to settle down?
Originally posted by darclauz
that being said, every other gay man-man couple i've known were interested in short term. inevitably, one or both were sleeping with other people. that's NOT the case in most hetero couples i've met, although, again, some....
Uh huh. You've never heard the term 'one night stand' in relation to hetrosexuals I suppose right? No? All hetrosexuals are purely interested in getting married and raising lots of screaming brats, right?
Because somehow hetrosexuals have moral superiority and have their priorities straight. Pun not intended.
Originally posted by darclauz
okay. so marriage is all about benefits. and it seems to me, that in any infidelity issue, you run all kinds of risks....lawyers for divorces. suits tying up courtrooms. medical benefit expenses...from stds or related issues.
so in the cases *I've* seen......... i would think that these particular gay men would treat marriage lightly..and cause legal hassles.
I'd venture a guess that numerous people get married because it's the ... what's the word ... "moral" way to fuck. Because otherwise it's wrong to as stated to them by their tome of religious enlightenment.
Oh come on, you know it happens. Where else would the concept of no sex before marriage originate?
And as it's been stated already in this thread, marriages fail all the time. People cheat on eachother married or not. It's hardly a gay problem.
I suppose you think HIV is a "gay disease" also? I suppose I shouldn't have mentioned that, it'll only dilute the thread further.
Quzah.
To look at it another way, you can't complain about gay behavior going against social norms as a reason to deny them the very constructs that define and reinforce those norms.
(where's my goobledygook xlator)
Ain't nothin' like stopping ya from fucking around when ya got both names on a 30-year mortgage.
Originally posted by Whit
I'm going to have to disagree with doing anything really nasty, Rho. I think that like, well, all bigotry, this is based on ignorance. Shredding the idiots doesn't solve the problem. Frankly, the school needs to be educated. Educating without the use of physical harm is preferable as it tends to stick in the mind better.
C'mon Whit. One, just one little handgrenade. Pleeeezee!?!??;)
Well, okay Bruce, one. But make sure all targets are of the same race and gender as you so that no one assumes that you're a bad person.
Originally posted by Undertoad
To look at it another way, you can't complain about gay behavior going against social norms as a reason to deny them the very constructs that define and reinforce those norms.
Oh I get it. They won't be so offensive to normal people if you let them mimic normal people.:haha:
But being gay is normal... there are a whole lot of people that are gay.
How does one know what's "normal" behavior. It's because the culture tells us, educates us how to talk and dress and stuff. If does that partly by having big ol' rites of passage and schools and official events and laws and stuff.
The culture frowns on heteros who sleep around. To inform them of what the culture defines as "normal", it developed a whole set of rituals, language, laws, etc. that tell people what to do.
The culture has not dealt with homosexuality because it is more rare. There are few cultural thingies to tell gays how to behave. There is no marriage to encourage them to create long-term relationships. No rings to symbolize such a relationship, no historical connection, not even soap operas on TV to show how relationships might operate and what the positive and negative repercussions might be.
Some parts of gay culture have created their own set of cultural thingies, and some parts have adopted the hetero cultural thingies. A gay couple I know has been together for 15 years. At one of their anniversaries, they had an official ceremony at a swanky downtown place and had a celebration in front of all their friends to acknowledge their relationship. This is the equivalent of a wedding and they wear rings on the ring finger of their right hands Their relationship is stronger than almost every hetero relationship I have ever seen.
The only way it is NOT stronger is that it is not officially accepted. So, would gay marriage weaken hetero marriage? I say no, I say it would strengthen it and give it MORE meaning if people who can't possibly procreate can get married. If marriage is only for creating kids it will eventually weaken and die. That is my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.
Originally posted by Undertoad
The culture has not dealt with homosexuality because it is more rare. There are few cultural thingies to tell gays how to behave. There is no marriage to encourage them to create long-term relationships. No rings to symbolize such a relationship, no historical connection, not even soap operas on TV to show how relationships might operate and what the positive and negative repercussions might be.
And that neatly paraphrases my response to the "gay men just want to sleep around" opinion someone presented earlier in this thread.
Of course gay men will flock towards short-term relationships... if they're not given the same sanctioned-long-term-relationship options as straights. For gays, marriage isn't currently an option, so why should they spend major time and effort pursuing something that they're not legally allowed to have?
Naturally, they can choose to pursue either short-term or long-term relationships outside of marriage... just like straights can. Regardless of orientation or gender, that's a conscious choice. But straights have that one additional option, which happens to be the one that's the current societal norm. (Ironically, if the 15-year gay couple Tony mentioned were hetero, they wouldn't HAVE to have been formally married to be considered married in most places, thanks to the wonders of common-law statutes.)
Originally posted by Undertoad
The culture frowns on heteros who sleep around.
I'm not sure this is true anymore, or at least, not sure if it's true for unmarried people.
It's less true than it used to be, but there are still some people who take exception to that. (And when I say "take exception to that," I mean write great honking essays about how "AMERICA'S LOSING THE CULTURE WAR" and how Murphy Brown caused 9/11 and crap like that.)
Unmarried heteros sleeping around is pretty much matter-of-fact these days to the average person... unless it's their daughter doing it, of course, and then someone has to die. ;) Unmarried heteros _breeding_ and remaining unmarried also has less of a stigma than it used to, though the approval rate isn't as high on that one.
... I say it would strengthen it and give it MORE meaning if people who can't possibly procreate can get married. If marriage is only for creating kids it will eventually weaken and die.
Thats just it, many gay people and can and do procreate. They desire that right as well. For the majority of people, marriage means family, which usually involves kids. The image of a stable and permanent a gay family lifestyle is very threatening. The real fear here is that homosexual couples will be formally welcomed to live among us, to reproduce and/or parent, where they will brainwash and abuse kids into their deviant sex...then the ranks will swell and there will be gay world domination?
[COLOR=indigo]Marriage should be between two consenting adults of legal age.
Anything else is discriminatory.
Whether that discrimination is culturally justifiable or not, doesn't change the fact that telling a group of people that because they are in love with a different gender, is undeniably discriminatory.
[/COLOR]
Seems to me marriage was a religious thing before it became a civil thing. There was a time when everyone was straight and got married if there was any mate available.
Oh, oh, I hear panties bunching and hackles snapping to attention. OK, what if Raul had flounced off the Mayflower on to Plymouth Rock and said "Marvy, what a scrumptous place for a tea room". Raul would have been a casualty, that's what. So everyone played straight, whether they liked it on not.
So anyway, the laws were created around the existing norm. As Radar will attest, the laws grew like topsy and all centered around marriage and family which reinforced said same. Queers were outlawed and outlaws.
Now we have to let them marry in order to integrate them into the community because of the way the legal sysytem was created.
My gut still tells me the children are another matter. Hey, I'm an old man, give me time, give me time.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Seems to me marriage was a religious thing before it became a civil thing.
I'm not so sure. I expect concerns about property (including the bride), inheritance, and clan alliances were around before any theologians started mumbling about holy matrimony.
You may be right Steve. I wasn't thinking organized churchs but the ceremonial type of formal marriage. You know, village feast, dancing and maybe a sacrifice or two. The next thing after the bonk with a club and drag to the cave period.:)
I dunno... Some of the chics I've met will still pull out the club and bonk you with it. So that's not gone either.
Now we have to let them marry in order to integrate them into the community because of the
way the legal sysytem was created.
translation?: because it is just
[COLOR=indigo]We should be "letting them marry" because whether it's "natural" or not, whether it's "bad" to us as individuals or not, if America wants to maintain it's "high horse" as a bastion of freedom and equality, gender and sexual preference cannot and SHOULD not be considered when making laws.
Let me throw this out there:
In the workplace, laws have been passed to prohibit employers from discriminating against individuals for shit that does NOT affect their job.
The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 states, in part:
PART 2--WHAT IS PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION?
6. AttributesThe following are the attributes on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited in the areas of activity set out in Part 3--
(a) age;
(b) impairment;
(c) industrial activity;
(d) lawful sexual activity;**
(e) marital status; ****
(f) physical features;
(g) political belief or activity;
(h) pregnancy;
(i) race;
(j) religious belief or activity;
(k) sex;
8. Direct discrimination
(1) Direct discrimination occurs if a person treats, or proposes to treat, someone with an attribute less favourably than the person treats or would treat someone without that attribute, or with a different attribute, in the same or similar circumstances.
(2) In determining whether a person directly discriminates it is irrelevant--
(a) whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination or considers the treatment less favourable;
(b) whether or not the attribute is the only or dominant reason for the treatment, as long as it is a substantial reason.
9. Indirect discrimination
(1) Indirect discrimination occurs if a person imposes, or proposes to impose, a requirement, condition or practice--
(a) that someone with an attribute does not or cannot comply with; and
(b) that a higher proportion of people without that attribute, or with a different attribute, do or can comply with; and
(c) that is not reasonable.
(2) Whether a requirement, condition or practice is reasonable depends on all the relevant circumstances of the case, including--
(a) the consequences of failing to comply with the requirement, condition or practice;
(b) the cost of alternative requirements, conditions or practices;
(c) the financial circumstances of the person imposing, or proposing to impose, the requirement, condition or practice.
(3) In determining whether a person indirectly discriminates it is irrelevant whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination.
10. Motive is irrelevant to discriminationIn determining whether or not a person discriminates, the person's motive is irrelevant.
So any law that states a marriage MUST be between a man and a woman, is discrimatory, based upon this Act.
[size=1]** States determine what "lawful sexual activity" is, but even if we take this part out, it's still dicrimination based on sex.
****You can't discriminate on marital status, but it's ok to discriminate when it comes to what sexes can get married?? WTF?[/size]
Again, this pertains to employment, and I'm trying to get groceries put away right now or else I'd look up others, but I'm sure any gay website will have relevant links.
If it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace, why is it legal to discriminate when making laws?
[/color]
The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 states, in part:
quote:
(1) Direct discrimination occurs if a person treats, or proposes to treat, someone with an attribute less favourably.....
(a) whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination or considers the treatment less favourable;
[COLOR=orangered]favourable/favourably[/COLOR] since when do they use this spelling in American law?
Originally posted by warch
translation?: because it is just
No, because it is less trouble than changing the legal system which is more pragmatic than just.
This is all very interesting, How many times has the bible been mentioned here, when it comes to being
a basis for law. Well guess what… the bible is the reference for law. Without religion… you have no definitions for morality or human worth. You are left with the pleasure principle, which defines the daily
activities of the lower animal kingdom. Personally I could care less what gay people do, until they start throwing their life style in my face every ten minutes. No one thinks beyond their nose, has anyone thought
about legal precedent, people wanting to marry their pet mouse and such! Sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law, as is bestiality etc. When you sanctify gay marriage under law, you by necessity sanctify the acts performed, and those acts like others are considered unnatural under established law, you will open the floodgates…get it. The ideas behind the words “Civil Union” address the problems that would arise from some of the things I’ve mentioned.
Originally posted by jimf747
Well guess what… the bible is the reference for law. Without religion… you have no definitions for morality or human worth.
The Bible is not always the reference for laws. And morality and human worth can be determined by individuals who don't necessarily subscribe to or consider religion.
Personally I could care less what gay people do, until they start throwing their life style in my face every ten minutes.
And I'm sure gays and lesbians appreciate you rubbing your lifestyle in their face every ten minutes as well.
No one thinks beyond their nose, has anyone thought about legal precedent, people wanting to marry their pet mouse and such! Sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law, as is bestiality etc. When you sanctify gay marriage under law, you by necessity sanctify the acts performed, and those acts like others are considered unnatural under established law, you will open the floodgates…get it.
Looks like we've got Santorum lite here. Why the hell do people start bringing shit like beastiality and incest into the whole argument against gay marriage? That seems pretty fucking ridiculous to me.
As far as natural or unnatural, I'm sure plenty of people throughout the ages have been participating in oral and anal sex...who is to say that it's unnatural? Not the law anymore, it seems, as sodomy laws were pretty much struck down in the Supreme Court recently.
Originally posted by sycamore
Looks like we've got Santorum lite here. Why the hell do people start bringing shit like beastiality and incest into the whole argument against gay marriage? That seems pretty fucking ridiculous to me.
They are both points lower down on the slippery slope, syc.
(and is part of how the argument is usually presented in conservative media/talk radio.)
[size=2]What about bi-sexuals and try-sexuals*[/size]
What if a bi-sexual man is married to a man, but ocassionally wants a little pussy? Is it not out of his control he lusts sexual activities with men and women? Can the man's husband file for divorce if he has sex with a woman? Can a hetero man file for divorce if his wife has sex with another woman? There are some legal cases now being handed down that deal with these issues but they lead to even more questions. Much of the legal thought has to be tested and made consistent. This will take time. Rushing into a whirlwind of court battles is counter productive for the gays, in my opinion.
Are a man's rights being violated because he cannot legally marry a man and a woman at the same time ( a man to work on the car and a woman to keep the house up* )? Can anyone else see this argument being made in the future?
* - Please dont be offended at my attempt to be humorous and leave the forum.
It would go something like this; in this day and age of increasingly longer work schedules and demands for quality time for children, couples and individuals, it is only logical ( and fair ) that more than two people should be allowed to marry. That would decrease the chances of divorce, which we know is a bad influence on the children, by allowing another person to contibute to the "family unit", thus lessening each person's stress. Think about it. If we are going to fiddle with the definition of marriage, doesnt this make sense, to allow more than 2 people to join in this non religious, "civil contract"? Just think of the long term benefits. To decrease divorce and it's ill effects, legally allow the couples to enter the legal contract and have sex with the other "consenting family members" by increasing the potential number from two, to say, three or four. A communal family structure, what could be better? Since the population is having such fertility and financial difficulites nowdays, doesnt this make sense?
You may not imagine people adopting and promoting this idea, but I sure can. If you can alter one major aspect of the definition of marriage, the door is wide open for more. I can see it now, the psychiatric community citing a study of foursomes over a thirty year period and the rosy development of the children in this new "progressive" family structure.
It doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what the judge and jury thinks. And by the way, I don’t care what gay people think about my life style, they are a small minority in nature and the country. Minorities don’t get to rule over majorities’… simple fact of nature. In addition, Sodomy and such are the topics when it comes to the law, whether you like it or not. As for the comment concerning human worth and such…you are missing the essential point, you logic has no primary foundation to examine the idea of the word worth used in this context. You can’t even define the word without religion. The very fundamental idea of good and bad come from religion. When you say “good people”, then you must define what you mean by good, and then your definition is open to further definitions.
I think that there is no God, and I'm one of the most moral people you'll meet.
I think there are many gods, and am one of the most immor...
(just kidding. seemed funny at the time.)
Originally posted by wolf
They are both points lower down on the slippery slope, syc.
(and is part of how the argument is usually presented in conservative media/talk radio.)
It wouldn’t be ridiculous if you were standing in front of judge, would it. It is convenient to overlook all the problems associated with this topic isn’t it. However, a lawyer looking to become lawyer of the month wouldn’t… would he? Let me ask you a very simple question…. Do you promote the ideas of socialism or are you an FDR Democrat?
Are you some sort of troll?
Originally posted by juju
Are you some sort of troll?
Can you explain your sudden move toward name-calling?
I'm reserving judgment at this time. He has thus far only indicated that he is clearly too self-involved to bother reading more than the last response on a couple of threads, and has nary a clue about the people he's attempting to interact with.
He called me a socialist. I don't think I've heard anything so funny in years.
Jim, welcome, but you don't have to be adversarial in every thread, you know, unless that really does reflect your actual beliefs/opinions.
Originally posted by jimf747
Can you explain your sudden move toward name-calling?
1. It's what we do here.
2. You started it.
Originally posted by wolf
I'm reserving judgment at this time. He has thus far only indicated that he is clearly too self-involved to bother reading more than the last response on a couple of threads, and has nary a clue about the people he's attempting to interact with.
He called me a socialist. I don't think I've heard anything so funny in [b]years.
Jim, welcome, but you don't have to be adversarial in every thread, you know, unless that really does reflect your actual beliefs/opinions. [/B]
I didn’t call you anything… I asked a simple question
Originally posted by wolf
1. It's what we do here.
2. You started it.
I started nothing, you made the choice.
Originally posted by jimf747
Can you explain your sudden move toward name-calling?
It's only name calling if it's not true, and besides that, I'm asking, not telling.
By troll, I mean
this.
Originally posted by jimf747
Well guess what… the bible is the reference for law. Without religion… you have no definitions for morality or human worth.
Oh, dear. This thread has already addressed the use of the most bloody, violent and sexist book in human history (the Bible) as basis for law. Read the thread.
...people wanting to marry their pet mouse and such!
This ridiculous argument has been addressed over and over in this thread. Read the thread. If you don't want to do that, I have two words for you: "CONSENTING ADULTS."
Sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law, as is bestiality etc.
Try reading about what the law actually says about
sodomy in the US (and throughout the world). We are discussing here gay marriage in the US, in which sodomy is legal in a huge majority of states.
Originally posted by bmgb
Try reading about what the law actually says about sodomy in the US (and throughout the world). We are discussing here gay marriage in the US, in which sodomy is legal in a huge majority of states.
It is quite unfortunate that the human being is basically an aggressive being isn’t it… sad but true… and “Oh Dear” it isn’t going to change. As I said… I could care less what gay people do… but you need a dose of reality my friend. I’m telling you that you have no choice but to address the Bible and the precedents under the law. On the ceiling above the Supreme Court is the Ten Commandments… who do you think put them there. If you’re a gay person then you are in the population minority… you don’t get to tell the majority what they should do or what they should think… you only get to ask.
Yep, you're full of shit.
Can you ask God when these dummy/troll accounts are going to stop?
Originally posted by juju
Yep, you're full of shit.
Can you ask God when these dummy/troll accounts are going to stop?
Like others of ilk juju, you can’t except an argument.. can you. Its real safe to say someone is full of shit on a forum isn’t it, you can get away with it. Can’t argue the point can you… so right away you get mad and start acting like some fool who lacks emotional control. What divine presence of mind do you posses that makes you so sure you’re not the one who is “Full of shit” as you put it.
Originally posted by juju
Yep, you're full of shit.
Can you ask God when these dummy/troll accounts are going to stop?
Interesting isn’t it… that your comments are exclusionary in nature but yet you preach inclusion.
You want us to accept your arguments, Jimmy? Back 'em up. Put some support into your statements.
Show us that the Bible is the reference for all law in the United States.
Show us how morality and human worth have no definitions without religion.
Show us how sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law in the US. (You simply cannot do this b/c of the recent Supreme Court ruling, but I'd sure like to see you try.)
Make a legitimate supported connection between sodomy and beastiality, and how the floodgates will open if gay marriage is allowed by law.
Show us that minorities don't get to rule over the majority. (You simply cannot do this b/c of the existence of apartheid-era South Africa, but I'd love to see you try this one too.)
Looks like you have some research to do...get on it!
Originally posted by sycamore
You want us to accept your arguments, Jimmy? Back 'em up. Put some support into your statements.
Show us that the Bible is the reference for all law in the United States.
Show us how morality and human worth have no definitions without religion.
Show us how sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law in the US. (You simply cannot do this b/c of the recent Supreme Court ruling, but I'd sure like to see you try.)
Make a legitimate supported connection between sodomy and beastiality, and how the floodgates will open if gay marriage is allowed by law.
Show us that minorities don't get to rule over the majority. (You simply cannot do this b/c of the existence of apartheid-era South Africa, but I'd love to see you try this one too.)
Looks like you have some research to do...get on it!
The U.S. was founded by a religious people looking to practice religion without discrimination. The simple
fact that the Ten Commandments are written on the ceiling of the Supreme Court should tell you something. When you go to court you swear to God to tell the truth! The oaths of judicial office are made with the right hand on the Bible. The Ten Commandments are considered the first laws handed to civilized men by God. There is more then enough material floating around the net to support any kind research along these lines.
Without religion the actual word morality has no meaning with relation to cause and effect. Without religion the human being has worth expressed in dollars and sense… 68 cents in materials. The ideas of right and wrong need to have certain preconditions to have meaning. For instance there were many tribal cultures that sacrificed people for many supernatural ideas… those tribes considered their actions moral and right, do you, if you don’t, then you have to ask why. If you say a human being has value then you must define the substance or units with which this value is expressed… shall we use dollars and cents or the promise immortality and the immortal soul. Communism and Socialism preached atheism and killed over 100 million people, those people who did the killing went home and hugged their kids and slept well. They slept well because they believed that they were not going to pay any price for their actions. In their eyes the people who they killed had no supernatural value.
There are people in New York that have been charged with Sodomy recently. Be very careful what you put forth. Without Sodomy laws it would not be possible to charge a child molester with Sodomy… if that was the extent of the transgression. How would you like to come home and find you 9-year-old child has been sodomized and you couldn’t do anything about it except maybe charge the person with a minor assault.
I never made the connection between Sodomy and Bestiality, I only said that they are considered to be un natural acts under the law. It’s the phrase “un-natural act” that would generate the problems in the courtrooms and legal circles, lawyers would have a field day with it, and they have hundreds of years of legal precedent to call on.
Originally posted by jimf747
Like others of ilk juju, you can’t except an argument.. can you. Its real safe to say someone is full of shit on a forum isn’t it, you can get away with it. Can’t argue the point can you… so right away you get mad and start acting like some fool who lacks emotional control. What divine presence of mind do you posses that makes you so sure you’re not the one who is “Full of shit” as you put it.
I've already argued against the points you brought up earlier in the thread.
I'm not mad or out of control emotionally. That's the whole point. I'm accusing you of attempting to incite that in others purely for your own pleasure.
Now, I may be wrong (in which case I'd apologize), but I think I'm right.
Originally posted by juju
I've already argued against the points you brought up earlier in the thread.
I'm not mad or out of control emotionally. That's the whole point. I'm accusing you of attempting to incite that in others purely for your own pleasure.
Now, I may be wrong (in which case I'd apologize), but I think I'm right.
I have no intention to incite anything. I see what I consider topographical arguments that are very complex, some without solution. I have lawyer friends who are waiting to buy a yacht based on the court cases that could arise from what’s being discussed here. My point is simply to put forth the idea that what may seem logical in today’s society is not without dangerous unknowns that lie under the surface of what might appear to be logical path to follow. People may get upset over the Sodomy word etc. Nevertheless, there will not be any legal discussion in the halls of justice without it. The devil is in the details… always… and they are not going away. The Bible belt in the southern part of the country will make news every night when it comes to gay marriage… no one is going to change their minds… or many others for that matter. It’s my contention that if one is going to discuss this topic then nothing should be off the board
Originally posted by jimf747
It doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what the judge and jury thinks. And by the way, I don’t care what gay people think about my life style, they are a small minority in nature and the country. Minorities don’t get to rule over majorities’… simple fact of nature. In addition, Sodomy and such are the topics when it comes to the law, whether you like it or not. As for the comment concerning human worth and such…you are missing the essential point, you logic has no primary foundation to examine the idea of the word worth used in this context. You can’t even define the word without religion. The very fundamental idea of good and bad come from religion. When you say “good people”, then you must define what you mean by good, and then your definition is open to further definitions.
Minorities don't get to rule over majorities? Where were you when apartheid was around? Or when slaves outnumbered free men in the South?
It is true that what is 'good' is subject to interpretation. For example, to a racist 'good' is limited by race, ethnicity, etc. irregardless of behavior. In many religions, heaven is reserved for those practicing that religion, and no others will be 'good' enough, no matter what their behavior.
We have commandments from our god which state, 'thou shalt not kill', but in the same texts impose the death penalty and fight wars with the blessings of G-d. Does this mean that some killing is actually 'good'?
We do have laws against incest, and this is seen as both a moral decision and a decision for the social order to prevent inbreeding. We agree that children should be of a suitable age to have sex and marry, but what that age should be changes with society and the average age expectancy.
However, most people agree that homosexuality (as well as prostitution) have been around for thousands of years. In my opinion, that makes it a natural occurence. Passing laws against something which occurs naturally does not make any sense to me. It would be like outlawing albinos. The best example I can relate to was the practice of forcing left-handed people to become right-handed.
In past societies, there was no sympathy for left-handed persons. Lefthanders International shares stories of children forced to change their dominant hand in fear for their life, their safety and their acceptance. As left-handedness was seen as a curse, children caught using their left hand for reaching and grabbing were often scolded and forced to use their right hand in order to make it dominant. This was an enormous effort for both parent and child. It is stated that to accomplish the change in handedness, the left hand would be tied behind the child's back, down at their side or across their chest to make it unusable for normal activities, forcing the right hand to take its place.
Toddlers Today Resources - Left Hand
Some people are homosexuals. They desire to enter into monogamous social bonding in the same manner as heterosexuals. This implies that they will pay taxes, open joint checking accounts, purchase real estate and engage in other activities which benefit society at large. We keep on hearing studies that marriage is better for society and the individuals. If this is so, including more people into the ranks of marriage would be a 'good' thing.
As far as 'civil unions' are concerned. Maybe we can call all marriages performed by civil officials 'civil unions'. We can reserve the word 'marriage' for civil unions performed by clergy. This would satisfy the equal protection clause since no class of people would be discriminated against. Since 'clergy' is a large class and an accomodating minister could always be found, gay couples could be married. Since the state is reinforcing the rights of religious groups to perform marriages, and even reserving the term for them, they have no cause for objection. Since heterosexuals joined by judges or Justices of the Peace would also be subject to 'civil unions' if not married by clergy, they would have an incentive to be sure that the classification is not discriminatory in any legal treatment.
BTW, there was an interesting article recently about states rescinding the recognition of common law marriages. This shows that states still have a great deal of discretion when it comes to marriage.
Originally posted by jimf747
The U.S. was founded by a religious people looking to practice religion without discrimination. The simple
fact that the Ten Commandments are written on the ceiling of the Supreme Court should tell you something. When you go to court you swear to God to tell the truth! The oaths of judicial office are made with the right hand on the Bible. The Ten Commandments are considered the first laws handed to civilized men by God. There is more then enough material floating around the net to support any kind research along these lines.
I don't deny that there is some religion involved in our laws. Religion is not the reference for ALL law though.
As far as morality, there are various theories as to how morality came to be, including divine laws, convention and rational laws. The problem, as I see it, is that there is too much religious morality in our current laws...morals can vary widely from person to person, and we practically have a state religion as it is.
I don't think morals are necessarily right or wrong...they just are.
If you say a human being has value then you must define the substance or units with which this value is expressed… shall we use dollars and cents or the promise immortality and the immortal soul.
One does not necessarily need to use either to determine value. Maybe I use a point system; maybe you use a rating system.
Communism and Socialism preached atheism and killed over 100 million people, those people who did the killing went home and hugged their kids and slept well. They slept well because they believed that they were not going to pay any price for their actions. In their eyes the people who they killed had no supernatural value.
You can't blame communism and socialism for those deaths...you can only blame the people that did it. That's like cities that are trying to sue gun manufacturers because their guns kill people.
There are people in New York that have been charged with Sodomy recently.
New York doesn't have a sodomy law a la Texas or some of the other states. What's the background on the cases?
Without Sodomy laws it would not be possible to charge a child molester with Sodomy… if that was the extent of the transgression.
Consider sodomy a sex act. Depending on the circumstances, if an adult performs a sex act with a child, it could fall under a child abuse statute.
I never made the connection between Sodomy and Bestiality, I only said that they are considered to be un natural acts under the law.
As a few of us have mentioned already, that's not really the case anymore in regards to sodomy, given the recent Supreme Court ruling. And based on your floodgates comment, I inferred (incorrectly, perhaps, but I doubt it) that you were connecting the two beyond them being "unnatural acts under the law".
When a male and female get married, the state sanctifies it, and therefore sanctifies the acts performed, right? Well, there seem to be quite a few straight people out there that engage in sodomy...and prior to the Supreme Court ruling, 41 states allowed that.
So, how exactly would allowing gay marriage open the floodgates?
Originally posted by jimf747
The U.S. was founded by a religious people looking to practice religion without discrimination. The simple fact that the Ten Commandments are written on the ceiling of the Supreme Court should tell you something.
On the ceiling of the Supreme Court - as part of
the same frieze - are Confucius, Solon, and the Tortoise and the Hare. It is merely a depiction of various lawgivers in history, from various cultures.
When you go to court you swear to God to tell the truth! The oaths of judicial office are made with the right hand on the Bible.
I have been on two juries, and have been a defendant in a civil suit once. I never saw a Bible. This was in the Federal Court, and the Superior Court, in the District of Columbia. Don't trust TV too much -it ain't always like that anymore.
As for oaths of office, that is completely up to the person taking the oath. It is not required to use a Bible, and the oath does not end with "so help me God". That is either a sincere request or a PR move, depending on the person.
The Ten Commandments are considered the first laws handed to civilized men by God. There is more then enough material floating around the net to support any kind research along these lines.
That is true, for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. There were earlier civilizations with divine laws, but Abrahamic religions don't recognize them.
Without religion the actual word morality has no meaning with relation to cause and effect. Without religion the human being has worth expressed in dollars and sense… 68 cents in materials. The ideas of right and wrong need to have certain preconditions to have meaning.
Personally, I find people frightening when they say they wouldn't be moral if God wasn't threatening them with Hell. I'm not religious, and I still wouldn't kill someone - even if I knew I could get away with it.
For instance there were many tribal cultures that sacrificed people for many supernatural ideas… those tribes considered their actions moral and right, do you, if you don’t, then you have to ask why. If you say a human being has value then you must define the substance or units with which this value is expressed… shall we use dollars and cents or the promise immortality and the immortal soul.
I suspect that most of them acted somewhat morally - truly believing that they had to do it. I blame whoever set up the rules more than the people who believed them. They were products of their times. However, I am not a product of those times, and cnanot speak with authority on them.
Human life cannot be given a value. There is no way to measure it. Any attempt to do so is inherently religious in nature, or inherently selfish. In either case, it is an attempt to justify murder by giving a life a lower value than another goal.
Communism and Socialism preached atheism and killed over 100 million people, those people who did the killing went home and hugged their kids and slept well. They slept well because they believed that they were not going to pay any price for their actions. In their eyes the people who they killed had no supernatural value.
Indeed. Evil is not monopolized by religious fanatics. People in subservient positions find it horrifyingly easy to completely shut out empathy for fellow humans, in an Us Vs. Them situation, where "they" are subhuman. People in power find it easy to consider others to be less than human, and expendable. Whether the goals are religious or not is not really relevant. If they were religious people, they would have decided that their enemies were the wrong religion.
There are people in New York that have been charged with Sodomy recently. Be very careful what you put forth. Without Sodomy laws it would not be possible to charge a child molester with Sodomy… if that was the extent of the transgression. How would you like to come home and find you 9-year-old child has been sodomized and you couldn’t do anything about it except maybe charge the person with a minor assault.
This is completely wrong. You are either being deliberately obtuse, being trollish, or are just not that clever. First, anti-sodomy laws have been ruled
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It may not have been challenged yet in NY (do you have a cite on the case?), but if challenged, the law will go down. Second, if someone sodomizes a 9-year-old, the crimes are child abuse, sexual assault, and rape, not sodomy. The rapist is off to prison, even without your precious sodomy laws. Come on, this isn't too hard to figure out.
I never made the connection between Sodomy and Bestiality, I only said that they are considered to be un natural acts under the law. It’s the phrase “un-natural act” that would generate the problems in the courtrooms and legal circles, lawyers would have a field day with it, and they have hundreds of years of legal precedent to call on.
Connecting sodomy and bestiality is legally worthless. Laws against sodomy are already dead. Laws against bestiality are in no danger. What's the difference? Animals can't consent. Neither can children, in reference to your last paragraph. So those issues aren't even on the same mountain, let alone the same slippery slope.
I'm just curious, Jim... how do you feel about anal sex between a man and a woman? And how do you feel about oral sex between a man and a woman?
You know, I'd get into this debate, but this line:
Originally posted by jimf747
Without religion the actual word morality has no meaning with relation to cause and effect.
makes it pointless. We can throw facts, conjectures, case studies, principles and such at him for weeks, but he seems to believe that "Because The Bible Said So" trumps all other arguments, and that the burden of proof is on the non-religious side.
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
For instance there were many tribal cultures that sacrificed people for many supernatural ideas… those tribes considered their actions moral and right, do you, if you don’t, then you have to ask why.
I suspect that most of them acted somewhat morally - truly believing that they had to do it. I blame whoever set up the rules more than the people who believed them. They were products of their times. However, I am not a product of those times, and cannot speak with authority on them.
You hit it right on the nose. The tribal cultures _did_ act morally... according to their own standards of morality. By contemporary American standards, they did not. That's what "morality" is -- a set of rules and standards for behavior, presumably for the benefit of all. Those rules vary from time to time, place to place, culture to culture.
Who's to say that "our" morality is "better" than theirs was?
There's a certain humor value in the notion of "good Christians" dying and going to their eternal judgement, only to find that instead of God or Jesus, there's a thirty-foot tribal god waiting for them who's
pissed because they never sacrificed to him. ;)
[COLOR=indigo]I bow to the Happy Monkey. This 747 person appears to be a troll. Like we need another.[/COLOR]
There's a quota. Didn't you know? It's in the bylaws.
I thought I'd take things a step further on the troll thing, and explain to 747 (not Jim as I'd prefer no confusion with our own Lumberjim) where the assertions are coming from.
First of all, you came into a discussion without reading what came before. That or you didn't pay much attention to it. Most of you arguments had already been made and dealt with. Yet you showed no sign of knowing that. That's rude. It suggests that no one on here could possibly be as smart as you, at least in your opinion. This is a method a lot of trolls use to be offensive.
Second Juju asked if you were a troll. Not long after that you asked if Wolf was a socialist. Which most of us would consider far worse than being a troll. Yet you claimed that you didn't call her one, just asked. Well, that's what Juju did with you. This kind of double standard is typical of trolls.
Third, Syc has refuted your arguments continuously and politely. You've pretty well ignored his arguments. Also, you tell us to research for you. Why should we? A troll might well try to send people on a wild internet goose chase.
Fourth, your trump card, so to speak, is that religion is the basis of all morality. That is just frightening. Very few of my friends attend church or have faith in any religion. Yet these are the most honest moral people I know. Thus you strike me as making a crazy statement to stir up trouble. That's pretty much the definition of what a troll is. By the by, are you saying that without church you would instantly become a callous hedonist? Just curious.
Anyway, you've been getting pissy about the troll assertions. I thought you might want to know why they were made.
Originally posted by jimf747
Personally I could care less what gay people do, until they start throwing their life style in my face every ten minutes.
And how do gays throw their lifestyle in your face every ten minutes? :confused:
He must leave the TV on Bravo and Showtime a lot. (Or live/work near Christopher Street, or The Villlage, or SoHo).
I suspect it's one of those "Do what you want in your own bedroom -- just don't venture _outside of it_ where I might see or hear you, much less see you engaging in public displays of affection, ewwwwwwwwww" mental blocks.
Could be worse. I'm perversely amused by the "repulsed by gays' very existence" religious wingnut crowd, especially since they're many of the people screaming about how gay marriages will "devalue marriage for everyone." Since their own churches would never perform newly-legalized gay marriages (nor would they ever be compelled by law to do so), and since their own hetero marriages would continue to be performed as before, what exactly about their church communities and their lifestyle would change?
I disagree on the "would never be compelled by law to do so."
The way things are going, if gay marriage does become the law of the land, any church refusing to do so would be charged with a civil rights violation, or worse, a hate crime.
A church is a private organization, no? Sort of like the Boy Scouts, and they've had a pretty good success rate at retaining their bigotry^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrestrictive membership criteria. I don't believe that a minister is compelled to marry anyone who asks him to perform the service, much like a business can be choosy about who they sell to. They could come up with more reasons than H&R Block why they "couldn't" do it without touching "because you're gay," if they wanted to be subtle.
And if they don't want to be subtle, a countersuit claiming that forcing the church to marry gays violates the church's freedom of religion and is itself discriminatory could muddle up the courts for a while. They'd have better success denying gays in that manner than, for example, denying interracial or non-white marriages, because they can point to (varyingly-interpretatable) Scripture concerning homosexuality.
The point is not to drag all churches kicking-and-screaming into the 21st Century. Many would gladly remain in the 17th, and may do so. But those who wish to modernize and adapt should be allowed to have their marriages recognized, and those who are non-religious should not be denied rights specifically because certain religious groups have a problem with it.
Originally posted by wolf
I disagree on the "would never be compelled by law to do so."
The way things are going, if gay marriage does become the law of the land, any church refusing to do so would be charged with a civil rights violation, or worse, a hate crime.
This is not true. Things are not going this way. Nobody is trying to get the government to force churches to perform gay marriages. Churches always have been able to use their own criteria to prohibit marriages. In fact, the only way the government EVER interferes in marriages is to add more restrictions - ( against polygamy, incest, and interracial marriage ) - not remove them.
A church is perfectly within its rights to deny an interracial couple a church marriage. Likewise - and less controvercially - an interfaith couple. On the other hand, a church is capable of performing marriages prohibited by the government. There are gay couple now who have been married in their churches. They are just as married in the eyes of their God as any other couple. The only issue at stake is whether the government will also recognise their union.
Originally posted by jimf747
Can you explain your sudden move toward name-calling?
It's not sudden. I called you an idiot three or four pages ago...
Quzah.
Originally posted by jimf747
but you need a dose of reality my friend. I’m telling you that you have no choice but to address the Bible and the precedents under the law. On the ceiling above the Supreme Court is the Ten Commandments… who do you think put them there.
Sorry to burst your little bubble, well no I'm really not, but that's an aside, but not everyone here is Jewish. Show me in the New Testamant where
Jesus spoke against homosexuality. Oh that's right, you can't. Or do you only pick out the parts you like and ignore the rest? Shouldn't you be off stoning people who cheat on their husbands? Or making a burnt offering or something?
Quzah.
Originally posted by jimf747
The Bible belt in the southern part of the country will make news every night when it comes to gay marriage… no one is going to change their minds… or many others for that matter.
I bet they said the same thing about slavery also. Or women voting. Or... Shit. You make this far to easy. Paint a fucking target on yourself while you're at it.
Quzah.
Originally posted by Whit
I thought I'd take things a step further on the troll thing, and explain to 747 (not Jim as I'd prefer no confusion with our own Lumberjim)
thanks Whit, you sure know how to make a guy feel all warm and fuzzy
No problem Jim. It's all about clarity. Don't want anyone thinking your an asshat for something you didn't post. Only for what you did post. :cool: