This is topic I Am Not Okay With This in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=028843

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
I know the issue of gay marriage has been talked into the ground. But I have to talk about the same-sex marriage referendums. I have to. Because as a Christian and as an American, I am hurt and confused and terribly upset by this.

You all probably already know that I've been a Christian all my life. I don't want to talk about whether or not God would approve of homosexual marriages. That's not what this is about, and I don't have a clear opinion on that exact question anyway. However, as a Christian, I think that we always, always need to err on the side of humility and love and mercy. Every, every time.

And as an American, I believe it is extremely important that we never, ever turn a religious belief into legislation. And I also believe it is extremely important that we never, ever write discrimination into our laws.

And yet yesterday, 11 states turned a religious belief about sex into discriminatory legislation.

Haven't we learned anything at all? Ethnic minorities in this country are still fighting for actual equal treatment, though at least it is illegal to officially discriminate against them. How is this different? And 11 states voted for discrimination. I am floored. I am shocked. I am completely crushed.

Thankfully, these referendums can and will be challenged in court. And I believe those challenges will go through. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, not please the people. I am amazed that so many people want to move backwards, but I don't think it will stand.

As a Christian and as an American, I will cheer every time one of these decisions is overturned.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
I am completely with you on that, Vana. Thanks for articulating my opinion in a way I never could. ((((Vana))))
 

---

Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
 


This is what I've been trying to say, but never been able to. Thanks, man.
 

---

Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
 

 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Thanks Vána.

I was just thinking today how much I missed you. Now I remember why.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Haven't we learned anything at all?

---

quote:

---

This would go away, or at least fade away from majority status, if Christian leaders told their congregation that God doesn't want them to devalue their neighbor's love.

---

quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that there are pastors and laypeople out here who have been doing their best to do exactly that?

---

Sure, and it's good work, but that's where the work has to be done. This is one of those internal issues with external effects, kind of like American policy.

Non-Christians hands are tied until you all get your house in order. I'm not going to support the Supreme Court overiding a popular vote. Not on this issue. I could fake it, just like I could join the Republican Party and the NRA just to mess with their voting records, but I don't think that that's appropriate. There is something deeply wrong here, and only Christians can fix it. Dana, Vana, I know you two are working, but really, this is one of those issues where all anyone else can do is watch, hope, and give you money.

[ November 03, 2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Never Legislate Religious beliefs into law? Are you completely bent?

Thou Shat not kill?

Adultery Laws?

False Witness?

Theft?

Getting the idea? Religious convictions are at the core of our entire legal framework.

BC
 

---

Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
 
Irami are you sure that only Christians voted in favor of these actions?

I'm not so sure. I'm not even willing to bet that those voting in favor of the measures were all religious-minded people. I'm certain that there were folks who voted in favor of them for purely secular reasons.

I can, however, tell you of many Christians who voted against them or openly opposed the intent in states that didn't place it on the ballots.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
I totally agree with you Vana. I feel the same way you do.

(And I can't ever figure out how to do that little tilde over the a )

Bean Counter - Those same laws tend to also be found in non-religious/secular law codes because they are simply good rules for society.

[ November 03, 2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Bean Counter, those are social issues. Are you seriously trying to say that the law against murder is strictly a religious idea?

And you know, even if it is, it's not strictly a Christian idea. And the whole seperation of Church and State thing is about the State not endorsing or discriminating agaist any particular religion - or lack there of. I think the only one of those things you listed that might be a mostly religious legislation is the adultry laws. And does anyone even still use those? I mean, I know they're on the books, but, well, I haven't studied them much so I don't know whether they're appropriate or not. But murder, false witness, and theft, at very least, are problems for society as a whole, and must therefore be delt with by society in the form of legislation.

(edit to clarify that this was directed at Bean Counter)

[ November 03, 2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Vána ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Look, just as free exercise of religion doesn't exempt practicioners from secular laws with a rational basis that affect their religious practice (taking peyote, for example), the establishment clause does not ban the passage of laws with secular effects because some of those who support the law do so because of their religious beliefs.

Dagonee
*Again, for the record, I oppose the amendments.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Dagonee, I know that's true. I know. But this isn't just about legislating a religous belief. It's about active discrimination - and that is so outside my understanding of Christ-like behaviour that I just am not sure why so many Christians are getting behind it. I truly and honestly don't understand it.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/politics/campaign/28GAYS.html?hp

[ November 03, 2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Actually theft is less socially damaging then homosexuality. Societies can and have existed where ownership was limited to what you could guard and theft was considered honorable.

No society of homosexuals can survive more then a generation. I suggest Kants "Critique of Pure Reason" see "Universal Moral Imperitive"

So if you want to take the religious justification out of it, then the pure logic dictates that society protect itself from this possibility.

BC
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No society of only homosexuals can survive more than a generation, just as no society of only sterile people can survive more than one generation.

At minimum to support your thesis you need to connect civil homosexual marriage rights causally to decreased homosexual marriage.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
BC, you're just being inflammatory now. No one is trying to mandate homosexual partnerships as the only option. Honestly.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 

quote:

---

I suggest Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" see "Universal Moral Imperitive."

---

quote:

---

Non-Christians hands are tied until you all get your house in order. I'm not going to support the Supreme Court overiding a popular vote. Not on this issue. I could fake it, just like I could join the Republican Party and the NRA just to mess with their voting records, but I don't think that that's appropriate. There is something deeply wrong here, and only Christians can fix it. Dana, Vana, I know you two are working, but really, this is one of those issues where all anyone else can do is watch, hope, and give you money.

---

Irami, you are off base on this one. And I think the article you linked to proves it. This is not a "from the pulpit" message throughout Christianity. And the term "evangelical" Christian is being used in ways that distort its meaning. Plenty of denominations are evangelical in nature. That doesn't mean that they are ipso-facto supporting Bush, think he's God's choice of leaders, etc.

You are over-generalizing and, as a consequence, missing the real issue. It isn't that Christianity somehow has to find unity on this issue and "fix it" from within. It is that people need to get out and vote.

I have little doubt that a majority of people in America fall into two categories:
- those who support some sort of recognized legal union for gays and lesbians, and
- those who could care less.

Insufficient numbers of these folks turned up at the polls on Tuesday in 11 states.

While, at the same time, the GOP very effectively used it as a vote getter and, in a sense, built a coalition among a certain class of voters. And those people went to the polls in greater numbers.

So, who is really to blame? The GOP for doing a better job of getting people to go to the polls or the people on the other side who just don't care and probably stayed home.

Pastors do not tell people how to vote, as a general rule. Electioneering from the pulpit is generally considered a bad idea. Does it happen? Sure. Does it happen with the frequency you seem to imply? I don't think so.

I have been going to church for a long time in various denominations. I've heard in all that time one veiled mention of a political issue from the pulpit.

I just think you've picked the wrong scapegoat for what is really a failure to mobilize the "don't cares".
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
The Critique is about looking for a non religious basis for morality or if you like "Code of Conduct" since morality seems to be a religiously tainted word.

Kant postulates that if you take a behavior, extrapolate it to universal (if everybody did it) and it results in the logical destruction of itself (self negation) then it is immoral.

You were the ones groping for a non religious basis for morals, I just offered one that has been considered.

BC
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Except you're mischaracterizing the statement of the behavior. One of the things budding philosophers do is silly stuff like come up with statements that when applied to a small part of the population make sense but when applied to the entire population don't -- yet such statements are usually very easily shown to be improperly formulated either under Kant's consideration or as the statement is actually being considered.

The proper statement isn't that "people in the same sex marry", which would lead to your obviously silly attempt at a point, but "people have the option to marry in the same sex" -- which is really what allowing gay marriage would be, not making people marry in the same sex as your version of the statement is.

I suggest taking a good introductory philosophy course.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Thank you, fugu.

Also, just for the record, I don't think we were groping, BC.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
The thing that you are overlooking is this. Marrige is a legal contract that exists as do all contracts as a legal fiction. One that society recognizes as beneficial and therefore encourages with subsidies.

This makes it a matter intimately legal and subject to legal definition and modification. Divorce, Bigomy, degree of blood relationship, tax, inheritience and many other areas are regulated.

What Gays want is not the right to have sex together. Sodomy laws are almost never enforced, it is understood that such things are now accepted.

What they want is to have their conduct subsidised in the same manner that society subsidises a normal union. This is asking the government to encourage homosexuality with money. A thing that people have the right to not do, just as they have the right to not have their money used to kill babies.

Be Gay, be S-Corperate partners, mingle affairs, but do not ask other people to pay you for it.

BC
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"It isn't that Christianity somehow has to find unity on this issue and 'fix it' from within. It is that people need to get out and vote."

I think you're wrong, Bob. I think we saw the people get out and vote, and the conclusion I draw from the results is that Christianity is broken. I can't fix Christians; I don't have the right, and I don't know the words to reach them. So I -- and apparently Irami -- have to count on like-minded Christians who sense the same flaws to realize that it's NOT a matter of just not getting out the vote, but fixing their own religions.

---

"Kant postulates that if you take a behavior, extrapolate it to universal (if everybody did it) and it results in the logical destruction of itself (self negation) then it is immoral."

Kant is also wrong.
Why?
Because while a society made of homosexuals is dead in a generation, so is a society made entirely of women, a society made entirely of plumbers, and a society made entirely of people who eat only gourmet cheese.

This does not mean that eating only gourmet cheese or choosing to be a plumber is an immoral act.

The conclusion to be drawn from Kant by a modern philosopher is that most things, when extrapolated into the universal, are bad -- and therefore not that most things are bad, but most universals are bad.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
I have an undergraduate philosophy minor.

BC
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I spoke at four churches over this last election cycle, all about political propositions. And at two of them, somebody else spoke about the sin and sadness of homosexuality.


These 11 states passed the proposition with a soft and consistent bigotry. There was no malice, but a quite convinction that the Lord would want them to vote Yes. Thankfully, I was talking about Healthcare, and the Lord would also want them to vote Yes.

We shouldn't be looking to cancel out the Christian vote. There is something wrong with that.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Excellent Vana.

Three cheers for that!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

This makes it a matter intimately legal and subject to legal definition and modification. Divorce, Bigomy, degree of blood relationship, tax, inheritience and many other areas are regulated.

---

Exactly. So why oppose the availability of this legal principle to any two adults so desiring to avail themselves of it?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
But, first of all, wouldn't some gays have children?
And also, don't a lot of gay people simply want some of the same benefits straights do? Just things like being able to put their partner on their insurance and stuff like that?
That's not unreasonable.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
What fugu said.

Your interpretation, Bean Counter, would make studying to be a doctor immoral, because not everyone could be a doctor at the same time. (There would be nobody to get the important stuff done.

That isn't what Kant meant. For one thing, he was much too smart.

quote:

---

Thanks so much Irami. I really needed to be kicked in the stomach again today.

Did it ever occur to you that there are pastors and laypeople out here who have been doing their best to do exactly that?

---

Dana, I am getting serious distress-vibes from you. I think you've been catching flak despite having worked yourself to the bone and beyond for the same things the flak-shellers (me included) are wound up about.

Good show.

Thank God for you.

You've been such a bright light. Don't depair of us.

(((Dana))) and showers of virtual flowers, too.

(I recognize the arrrrrgggghhh feeling. )
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
BC, I have a PhD in philosophy.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
And thus you make my point. Efforts to make non religious (practical, traditional) moral constructs tend to be of questionable utility. Hence the use of religion as a basis for our code. Better to extract common moral principles by looking at comparative religion.

Then look for commonallity (universally utiliatarian) in the fundemental codes.

BC
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
In that case, I strongly suggest asking for a refund BC. That's pretty darn basic philosophy you're fumbling.
 

---

Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
 

quote:

---

I have an undergraduate philosophy minor.

---

I have an undergraduate Japanese minor and I can't speak more than three coherent sentences in it.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
I shudder.

Lets see what is wrong with it? As I said, it opens the keys to the coffers, sealed save only for the that which we want to encourage. It costs my money...

clear enough?

Cost benifit is another good cold blooded basis for a code of conduct if you want to use it.

BC
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'd just like to point out that I have no credentials in philosophy at all, but still pointed out the error in BC's application of Kant before Sara did.

And yeah, Dana, I was noticing your unease in the other thread, too. I doubt it's much consolation, but let me reiterate that, based on previous conversations we've had about the foundation of your principles and attitude towards morality, I'm not directing any of my complaints towards you -- or Vana, or anyone who meets those certain philosophical criteria. I'm not blaming all churches everywhere for what happened yesterday; I'm not even blaming most.

---------

"And thus you make my point. Efforts to make non religious (practical, traditional) moral constructs tend to be of questionable utility."

No. The point made is that YOUR half-hearted effort to come up with a non-religious moral construct was of questionable utility. Other people can and have done better.

[ November 03, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I really have no idea who you're responding to, there, you're being pretty incoherent, BC.

[ November 03, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
It is interesting to hear what voices that were previously silent have to say.

Vana - I am sorry to see what happened, too, and also wonder why there is not more understanding and acceptance practiced of people that choose things differently from me.

But I have to confess I am really fascinated by the voices, the choices, and what is behind them . . .

(((Vana)))

[edited for unacceptable rather than just poor grammar]

[ November 03, 2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Truth can often be recognized when solutions become elegant and simple, if it were not of survival benefit, our mind would not seek simple truths.

BC
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*cough* Tom, I was way ahead of you .
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
Bean counter-you're using a cost-benefit analysis to show how its wrong?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"if it were not of survival benefit, our mind would not seek simple truths"

Hm. If it were not a survival benefit, my taste receptors would not drive me to seek out sugary, fatty foods that would then be stored for further use!

Seriously, your claim is true in the sense that, in specific situations, a simple truth is a helpful thing. But the problem is that not all truths are simple, and treating simplicity as something of "survival benefit" ultimately creates a selection of simple lies. If we stuck with simple truths, we'd still be beating each other over the head with femurs.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Shan - I am sorry that I was silent here for so long. I'm back now, though.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 

quote:

---

If we stuck with simple truths, we'd still be beating each other over the head with femurs.

---

This is my favorite simple truth ever.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
I posted this somewhere else but it's good to get the word out... how Karl Rove came out today and basically told us the anti-gay amendments were used to get the evangelicals out to vote Republican. It was all a tool, not to increase "morality", but to get the Republican agenda through.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
The thought occured to me, Telp, but I never thought they'd actually come out and gloat about it. It's sad, and frightening.

(I can spell, yes I can.)

[ November 03, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Vána ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I am delighted to defer to both Tom and fugu, such fine fellows.

If one is to be upstaged, may it always be with such finesse and charm. And spitfire accuracy.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Yes we see the utility of applied "scientific" codes in the great performance of our public schools. If they had not returned to old fashioned practical methods half our kids would be illiterate.

If you cannot say it with math it is not a science. Since efforts to weigh a decision have been shaky at best, I am comfortable with this caution, do not be quick to abandon the wisdom of our fore-fathers before you have a top to bottom code that works as well.

Our social experiments paying girls to raise children out of wedlock, lockstep education, and any number of other failures show one thing for certain. We have no suitable replacement for traditional morals.

Kant is often sited as obviously mistaken, or flawed. A negative example... but as was stated he was brighter then most. His effort is flawed not his reasoning. Without reality as a basis to build a system, (starting from the premise of pure reason) you are doomed to failure in developing a viable system. The point being that the best system is built like our religious code, by trial and error and passed on, by tradition.

Which brings us back to the practical value of our traditional morals. Don't be quick to toss what you cannot replace with something better.

BC
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It just goes to show that you Kant put one past on Hatrack, Sara.

------

"Our social experiments paying girls to raise children out of wedlock, lockstep education, and any number of other failures show one thing for certain."

Out of interest, what criteria -- and I'm assuming that you're going to use math, here, because otherwise it's not a science -- are you using to determine the failure of these initiatives? Are you suggesting that children are less likely to survive to adulthood, or less likely to prosper? Are more people languishing in poverty and dying of starvation? Are our people less well educated? Are literacy rates falling? Math skills declining? Pregnancy rates and crime rates ascending through the stratosphere?

You may want to choose your indices carefully, by the way.

[ November 03, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Go Tom and Fugu-man!
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
I loved that as a manuver, (Rowe) it is always amusing to be condecended to by people that have been outwitted by your party.

BC
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Ah. The memories of grading undergrad papers ...

Yeah, Hatrack can certainly deal with having a whole lot on its plato.

[ November 03, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Did you just ((hug)) Karl Rove? *blink* Eeeew.
At least you guys can't share partner benefits in one of the states full of people he manipulated into voting for his candidate. That would lead to the decline of American civilization, and we can't have that.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Ah, how smart you are to have outwitted a doctorate in philosophy. I'm sure its not that your argument is flawed and you don't see it, what with your minor in philosophy and inability to properly formulate behaviors for kantian analysis.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
What do people mean by traditional values?
As if homosexuality didn't exist in the past?
gah, Why can't I stay out of these threads and get drunk off of Sviridov?
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Poor girls with children out of wedlock, bad

Give them money

Increase in number of poor girls raising children out of wedlock. (Number) More bad

More money

More bad

bad social experiment.

BC
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
((fugu))
((Tom))
((Vana))
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Increase in number of poor girls raising children out of wedlock. (Number) More bad"

Okay, so you're arguing that we have more girls raising children out of wedlock than ever before, as a direct consequence of giving money to them to keep their children alive. It is your contention that not giving them this money would make it more difficult for them to raise these children successfully, and that the assumed reduction in out-of-wedlock births would be worth the poorly raised, dead, or aborted children "spawned" during the transfer.

Now produce numbers, or it's not a science. I'll wait.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Poor PHD asserting authority to stop the noise.

If only it were something you could use anywhere but in acedemia you would not have had to grade those papers.

Why is it all the experts on Maneuver, Strategy and Tactics lean Republican?

I do use a value system based on cost benefit, but the coin I use is a bit more refined then the dollar. Not to be criptic but it is not a thing I would get into without a spell/grammer checker in the pressence of critics.

The point is that I am often amazed by how well it jibes with traditional conservative values.

BC
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dear sweet chocolate Buddha, what the crap are you talking about Bean Counter?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Well, you know, I do have a day job.


 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm not the PhD, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Never been near a university,
never took a paper or a learned degree,
and some of your friends think that's stupid of me,
but it's nothing that I care about.

Well I don't know how to tell the weight of the sun,
and of mathematics well I want none,
and I may be the Mayor of Simpleton,
but I know one thing and that's I love you.

When their logic grows cold and all thinking gets done,
you'll be warm in the arms of the Mayor of Simpleton.

I can't have been there when brains were handed round,
(please be upstanding for the Mayor of Simpleton)
or get past the cover of your books profound,
(please be upstanding for the Mayor of Simpleton)
and some of your friends thinks it's really unsound that
you're ever seen talking to me.

Well I don't know how to write a big hit song,
and all crossword puzzles well I just shun,
and I may be the Mayor of Simpleton,
but I know one thing and that's I love you.

I'm not proud of the fact that I never learned much,
just feel I should say,
what you get is all real I can't put on an act,
it takes brains to do that anyway. (And anyway...)

And I can't unravel riddles, problems and puns,
how the home computer has me on the run,
and I may be the Mayor of Simpleton,
but I know one thing and that's I love you (I love you).

If depth of feeling is a currency,
(please be upstanding for the Mayor of Simpleton)
then I'm the man who grew the money tree.
(no chain of office and no hope of getting one)

Some of your friends are too brainy to see that they're paupers
and that's how they'll stay.

Well I don't know how many pounds make up a ton
of all the Nobel prizes that I've never won,
and I may be the Mayor of Simpleton,
but I know one things and that's I love you.

When all logic grows cold and all thinking gets done,
you'll be warm in the arms of the Mayor of Simpleton.
You'll be warm in the arms of the Mayor of Simpleton.
You'll be warm in the arms of the Mayor.
(Please be upstanding for the Mayor of Simpleton.)

---

quote:

---

If only it were something you could use anywhere but in acedemia you would not have had to grade those papers.

---

Actually, I graded those papers out of looooove. There was no "had to" about it.

I healed the sick and saved lives to make a living. That's where I learns me some manuevers, strategisms, and tactics.

[ November 03, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 

quote:

---

Okay, so you're arguing that we have more girls raising children out of wedlock than ever before, as a direct consequence of giving money to them to keep their children alive.

---

quote:

---

It is your contention that not giving them this money would make it more difficult for them to raise these children successfully, and that the assumed reduction in out-of-wedlock births would be worth the poorly raised, dead, or aborted children "spawned" during the transfer.

---

quote:

---

Actually the money was not to keep the children alive. Charity was ample for that.

---

quote:

---

Marriage allows a variety of tax credits. State and Federal. Money not going in is the same as money going out.

---

Pshaw. Until very recently there was no tax benefit to two-income couples being married. There are no tax credits dependent on being married, although being married can tend to hurt eligibility for them.

There are lots of tax credits for parents, mind you.

Apprantly you want to use denial of equal civil rights to subsidize your lifestyle.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I understood, Squick. Your comment also made me giggle.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Dammit, he deleted his comment.

*stabs squick*
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Sorry mack, I thought I deleted that almost as soon as I posted it. Apparently not soon enough. Almost as soon as I posted it, I didn't think that my comment was a good idea.

So to be clear, Mack isn't crazy. I'm just working it hard to make it seem that way.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
You're doing a pretty good job.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Who are you talking to, mack? There's no one there. Oh Lord, spare this poor child from the ravages of the cursed brain fever.
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
isn't stabbing him a little extreme?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
*stab*
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
This whole thing makes me physically ill. The number one problem in these states is that to those passing this legislation, gay people are alien and strange. This isn't a human issue for them, it's an abstract one (and yes, I know there are exceptions.) I myself live in an uber-conservative district in East Texas, and I honestly feel like moving to Canada right now. I need to be someplace liberal and godless for a while, where people aren't excluded from basic rights (or at least considerations) based on their genetics.

In fact, I used to be one of those annoying kids who tried to convert all of his friends. Frankly, the only gay person I know is a complete ass (who also happens to be my boss,) although in High school there was this incredibly cool lesbian girl in one of my classes. For me, homosexuality was wrong. Then it started to become a human issue. You see, all of the conventional morality that had been layered on top of me through my years of attending churches and listening to sermons could not stand up to the story of David Sedaris, or the music of Rufus Wainwright, or the keen intellect of Telperion the Silver (I may not post much but I've been watching, people) or, most of all, the compassionate, reasoned, and incredible stories on This American Life, which deals with homosexuality quite often. I freely admit I don't know many gay people personally, (In Tyler TX, how could I) but I know now that this isn't an attempt to hijack our society. It's just about people who love each other.

If you aren't gay, the rights of gays are not an attack on you. This has nothing to do with you. Get out of the way.

I am horrified by this.

Horrified.

Things like this are the main reason I no longer consider myself a christian. If this is what God's people are doing, I want no part of it. I have great respect for those of you who are on the inside working for change, but I just can't. Not here. Not in Tyler.

This election gives me a tight, sickly feeling in the pit of my stomach. My supervisor (not the ass) is thinking of moving to Amsterdam. I am tempted to just wash my hands of the whole thing.

And Bean Counter. Karl Rove thinks like a computer. In order to acheive result A, we must accomplish B by whatever means necessary. I see now that human beings do not enter into his equations, but only cause and effect, desired result, and path to get there. Please don't be like him. These are real people, not hypotheticals in a philosophy book.
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
demosthenes
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

Recorse to authourity is one of the fundamental logical fallacies as she can tell you.

I just reminded her.

---

quote:

---

Tell me are there practical reasons for restricting sodomy? From the standpoint of medical science?

---

Depends. What do you mean by sodomy? And, I take it that this is all in context. Namely, that there are many things which people do and which medical science supports which may have some effects on the body that one would consider detrimental. Childbirth, for one example. Gymnastics, for another.

So, I guess I'm saying that I'm not sure that your question is relevant, at least not if you want to establish that same-sex sex is something medicine should come down against.

You would also be wanting to consider female-female sex, were that where you were going with this. Because, of course, STD transmission is the lowest in female-female sex (compared to male-male and male-female). One could misguidedly take that as medical support to encourage female-female sex and utilizing artificial insemination. Of course, that would be absurd.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
"big words" are more precise

I have offered not a single personal insult

If you need further examples of bad socialism, then let us ignore cases where bad execution could be held responsible, like the relief efforts in Africa.

Let us instead look at only things that were done, "to ease suffering" and have caused more, prolonged or increased suffering.

all farm subsidies fall in this catagory, creating false values for produce, dependence and overproduction.

all attempts at socialized medicine "to manage cost" increase cost.

all attempts to lockstep education lead to movement at the pace of the slowest students, eliminating the social benefit of pushing the gifted to their potential so they can pull society upward/forward. A truth that all progress depends on (it is actually a handful who are responsible for this movement)

any condition, be it unwed pregnancy, poverty, joblessness, or ignorance that has been subsidized has seen its percentage grow.

any group of do gooders given an annual budget to solve a problem will ask for an increased budget and find more of the problem to gain greater prestige, a more pressing matter then whatever problem they are working on.

There are more...

BC
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
...
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I must seriously wonder if you're on some sort of drug. You keep making basic logical mistakes, keep wandering from topic to topic, can't seem to form coherent paragraphs, and misread things constantly.

Those seem to point to some sort of temporary mental impairment.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 

Either the wall breaks or my head will and my head's softer than the wall.
IdemosthenesI, that's exactly it. Gayness isn't a social problem but a human issue affecting human beings who need to be treated with respect and compassion.
The only way to do that is the break down whatever ideas and concepts that stand in the way of that.
If several thousand years of so-called time honoured ideas have to break down to keep a few million people safe and protected I don't really care.
I value those people over scripture anyday..
*wishes I'd just give it up*
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
I am all for female/female sex, I could watch it all night, but not female female marriage.

The point is the increased risk might be the root of the taboo, like eating pork and circumcision.

As to the minimal dollar amount, I say so what... it is a principle, any expenditure is subject to scrutiny, and fair game. It is the burden of thems that is asking to prove the need.

I think it was brilliant to use this issue to stop Kerry. I think it is proper to keep the traditional order of things because there is no compelling social gain to made by making the change.

I can make a better case for group marriage in even pairs then I ever could for gay marriage, and that is a thing even gays shout down!

BC
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Dude. I cannot understand what you are talking about.
You are not giving me one compelling, real reason why gay marriage or civil unions shouldn't be allowed..
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 

quote:

---

I think it is proper to keep the traditional order of things because there is no compelling social gain to made by making the change.

---

quote:

---

all attempts at socialized medicine "to manage cost" increase cost

---

Well, no. Do you have cites to demonstrate this with regards to, say, the Canadian system?

Because they spend less per capita to subsidize health care for their entire group of citizens than the US does per capita to subsidize just about 1/4 its population (via the VA system, Medicare, Medicaid, local public health districts, SCHIP, etc.). This is per direct comparison of the 1999 US and Canadian budgets -- available online -- and weighted for the population figures current at that time.

Of course, by WHO data, Canada also has lower morbidity and mortality rates for just about all major diseases than the US does. And lower infant mortality. And longer life expectancy. Again, all per WHO.

And of course, Canadians as a whole express greater satisfaction with their healthcare system than US citizens do (individual anecdotes to either side be what they may). So do Australians, New Zealanders, the Brits. This per that large international survey through the Harvard School of Public Health and the Commonwealth Fund, a few years back.

(Wait, I've said this sometime before here, right? )

(((demosthenes)))

[ November 04, 2004, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 

quote:

---

Gayness isn't a social problem but a human issue affecting human beings who need to be treated with respect and compassion.

---

quote:

---

Wait,I've said this sometime before here, right?

---

Yes. And just as well, too.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

The point is the increased risk might be the root of the taboo, like eating pork and circumcision.

---

But of course, now that we can control for trichinosis, we no longer have sufficient medical reasons to refrain from eating pork. (Religious and cultural reasons are another matter.)

And of course, we now understand that the (very slight) increased risks for medical problems from an uncircumcized foreskin are matters of hygiene and exposure to sexually transmitted infection, both of which can be controlled for. This is of course why the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer holds that there is sufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. As in Great Britain and Canada, where non-circumcision is the default for babies, this is rapidly falling out of standard-of-care practice for newborns in the US.

To summarize: avoiding the eating of pork and circumcising babies may well be rooted in medical issues in the past, but current practice of this is grounded pretty much purely in cultural and religious tradition.

BC, I'm not sure this is a fruitful line of inquiry for your case.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I'm trying and trying to respond to the I'll-watch-it-but-don't-let-them-marry line and I just cannot formulate my words in a way that would be considered acceptable.

I'll just leave the general refutation up to Sara who is doing a wonderful job. (Among others).

P.S - Our "socialised" health system in Australia, as Sara said, both works well and costs the government less (comparatively) then before it was introduced.

[ November 04, 2004, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
In an industrial society there is no significant difference in the productivity, education, or function of a female and male, therefore no reason to deny franchise to females.

Canada has one thing that we would not have, US. More to the point what are the systems you pointed to but our own socialist systems?

Even if we assume that the care is identical, the extra layers of management and control will have a net increase in all costs. These controls would only grow through the inevitable process of beuracratic budget fudging.

Back to the gays and our compassion, well they can have to cool clothes, great bodies, and wonderful decorating sense. We will keep the sacrement of marraige, and the social contract.

As I said let them form legal partnerships or some other liability sharing structure already allowed. I reserve my compassion for those in need, not those in want, or those who feel entitled.

BC
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
And that doesn't include the uninsured?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
All humans deserve to be treated with compassion, especially holding their situation in their mind.
I fail to see how gay marriage is that different from straight marriage though... I really do not see it other than it being 2 men or 2 women, what's the difference?
No one is talking about dismantling straight marriages or something like that...
Perhaps it is only fear of change, or viewing change like being hurled out of a plane with no parachute.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Your argument was that there needed to be a significant reason to not no particular reason not to.

Abide by the rules you say matter, don't change them when its convenient.

Though I still think you may be on drugs.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
I love Aussies, never met people more energized, or more able to drink all night then get up and bike all day, however the whole world would suffer if the practice of medicine in America is socialized.

Let us try to work the cost of insurance angle first by limiting legal fees and lawsuit incentives shall we before we quadruple the the size of our government and give it access to our most intimate details.

I once heard a pundant say "If we pass this health care system into law they will be hunting democrates in the streets with dogs in four years." I loved the quote, not that it is rational, just that it is nice to contemplate.

Think of the Republicans as protecting you from the bad things you might get up to without us watching over you.

BC
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
BC, I'd give it up. You've pretty convincingly lost this one.

Not only have you attempted to pass off a flawed Kantian derivation, you fell back on a flawed accusation of logical fallacy. You've said that you only respect the social sciences where numbers are involved, but have attempted to change the subject every time you're pressed for actual numbers on a claim you've made involving the inefficiency of federal intervention -- probably for good reason, as the numbers in the three specific instances you've cited do not in fact support your claims, as I'm sure you'd discover if you Googled a bit.

You actually came out and said that you found girl-on-girl action "hot," but girl-to-girl marriage deplorable. You said that a compelling reason to change society had to be demonstrated before you'd recognize any good from that change, and yet -- when confronted with the reality of women's suffrage -- attempted to say that, instead, it was only necessary to demonstrate that no harm result from the change.

In other words, you have been soundly and completely dismantled on every point, and have started to crumble into incoherence. If you do not want to concede the argument, I recommend that you take some time on your next post to recover from and reply to the frankly devastating challenges to your previous ones.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 

No
I really do not want or need the protection of the Republican party. I see them as smothering in a way and killing progress.
Who needs that?
Especially those that are caught on the wrong side of certain issues.
Dang, I hate that smiley
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
You know, this isn't working, Bean Counter. You may have been joking, but you caught me on the wrong day. I refer of course, to this comment.

"I am all for female/female sex, I could watch it all night, but not female female marriage."

That was a flippant, chauvanistic, and disgusting response. What you are saying here is that you support lesbian sex, as long as the two people are performing for you, debasing themselves, and serving as tittilation for the straight guy, but once they begin including things like emotional attatchment and lifetime commitment, well that just can't be stood.

You want a reason to change the system? Let me present a system to you. This is the time honored system that you and Edmund burke would just love. Here's how it works. You can now get married only to a person of the opposite gender.... of your parents' choosing. Furthermore, the wife must submit entirely to every whim of the husband. THAT's the millenia old tradition of marriage. However, in this country, for better or for worse, we believe in individual rights. The Declaration of independence speaks of three inalienable rights. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. And you know what? That means you get to pick your own spouse. I don't know when exactly that became the norm historically (certainly before the Declaration), but it resulted in the decline of the traditional family. If I marry for love, I have completely eliminated the economic portion of the equation that so often motivated the arranged marriage (with exceptions, naturally). I have taken away the guarantee of a secure future. There wasn't really any reason for a change. Furthermore, it's quite possible the change had a whole lot of unexpected negative side effects. But you know what? I don't care. I'm glad we are the way we are. I want to choose my spouse, even though some studies show arranged marriages are, as a whole, happier.

Then, later on, came the women's liberation movement. This fundamentally changed marriage. Suddenly, rather than a union of a subordinate, and a master, marriage became a matter of equals soming together. Suddenly they started doing all sorts of nasty things like demanding the vote and taking husbands to court for abuse (though that isn't nearly where it should be even today). This was a major change. Suffrage, and a lot of other movements together brought a new independence to the female half of a marriage. You know what. There really wasn't any hard and fast reason that they should be seen as equals. The status quo was working fine. Generally, society didn't need the upset that this caused. Furthermore, it probably had unforseen negative consequences. It probably was at least one factor in the rising divorce rate, which is arguably the most dangerous societal trend in existence. You know what, though. I don't want to go back to when women were openly subjugated and denied equal rights. I doubt you do, though I can't speak for you.

I believe gays should have civil unions. However, I believe straight people should have them to. So many people are against gay marriage because of the simple semantic connotations that it's best to split the two distinct traditions that currently shar the word. You want a marriage, go to a church. The church won't marry you if you are gay, too bad. You want to file your taxes jointly. You want to be able to act as a legally joined entity. Get a civil union. If you are gay, you can have one, too. What is my pressing societal reason for this? Here's the secret. It has nothing to do with numbers, or philosophy, or medical science. It's the same reason we changed the fundamental definition of marriage to mean a partnership agreed upon by the partners. The same reason we changed it to mean that it was a mutually agreed upon union of equals. You ready for it?

Because of te untold multitudes of people who want to take their lives in that direction, but are facing opposition at every turn. Because of the couples who love each other, but are shunned because of it. Because of the children that gay couple will adopt and save from the foster care system.

In short, gay people should be able to be legally joined because they love each other, and they want to. You don't think they should get married? Fine. They don't want to marry YOU anyway.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
There is more, Tom.

quote:

---

Canada has one thing that we would not have, US. More to the point what are the systems you pointed to but our own socialist systems?

---

quote:

---

Even if we assume that the care is identical, the extra layers of management and control will have a net increase in all costs. These controls would only grow through the inevitable process of beuracratic budget fudging.

---

quote:

---

Think of the Republicans as protecting you from the bad things you might get up to without us watching over you.

---

Like lower infant mortality, greater life expectancy, and less morbidity from disease. Uh, no, that's okay -- stay seated. Please.

I don't think I can help you, BC. But welcome to Hatrack regardless. I'm off to bed.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Here you tread on an area you might call arcane, but oh well, I will explain it as I can.

Ideas that hold our attention have value. That value is from the attention that is put into the idea/concept/construct.

A vast amount of attention has been and is lavishied on the concept of marriage, as an institution and sacrement and tradition.

Now I tell you that my value system is based on cost benefit of attention, my secret out... and the fact is that the altering of a concept so invested in attention is no minor thing as you would have it.

Money itself is nothing more then a construct/abstract/idea with a lavish amount of attention associated with it, yet peope live and die for it.

I once wrote in a paper "A difference that makes no difference is no difference" I then read it years later never knowing if it came from me or if I inadvertantly stole it, however your claim that the difference makes no difference is deeply flawed. What matters to people is what holds their attention. Tread lightly on the persian rug.

BC
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Your argument is that permitting gay couples to marry would take attention away from "traditional" marriage? In what way?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Wow. Folks with ADHD must not have things matter to them very much
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 

quote:

---

attempted to say that, instead, it was only necessary to demonstrate that no harm result from the change.

---

quote:

---

What you are saying here is that you support lesbian sex, as long as the two people are performing for you, debasing themselves, and serving as tittilation for the straight guy, but once they begin including things like emotional attatchment and lifetime commitment, well that just can't be stood.

---

quote:

---

Why is it all the experts on Maneuver, Strategy and Tactics lean Republican?

---

quote:

---

It is a case of fending thick and fast. You people are entirely to soft, to sentimental and too agreeable with one another to be an effective forum for ideas, I pushed you. You need it

---

We had ... facts? Numbers? Links? Data?

You had ... ?

BC, you pushed us to go over ideas and points that have already been hashed over for years here. That wasn't for our benefit. Really, it wasn't.

But no worries. I am charmed by your politeness and I look forward to hearing what you have to say. G'night, and sleep well. We all need it.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 

quote:

---

You people are entirely to soft, to sentimental and too agreeable with one another to be an effective forum for ideas

---

...and googling a phrase doesn't take up much time.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Your argument is that permitting gay couples to marry would take attention away from "traditional" marriage? In what way?

By changing the definition, think of the old definition as a thing outside of space and time connected by, and made of threads of current and past attention, then imagine cutting it loose and replacing it.

BC
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hm. You know, I can't help wondering whether Bean Counter is Ken Bean, who was banned from Ornery recently for threatening another user's life. You aren't Ken, are you?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I got distracted.

What?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Irami, I will take that, clutch it to my wizened cheek, and cherish it. Men like you are few and far between.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Your argument is that permitting gay couples to marry would take attention away from "traditional" marriage? In what way?

By changing the definition, think of the old definition as a thing outside of space and time connected by, and made of threads of current and past attention, then imagine cutting it loose and replacing it.

Wow. Folks with ADHD must not have things matter to them very much

Actually just the opposite, they are unable to make constant value judgements that keep everything from being equal, therefor they end up scattered. In other words everything matters too much.

BC
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 

 

---

Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
 
This thread got kind of ugly so I won't get into it. I just wanted to say that I whole-heartedly agree with Vána's original post and couldn't have said it better myself.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
No I am not Ken Bean, nor am I particularly new to Hatrack though I just post on the books side usually. The election has me giddy.

Sorry about the double post there.

BC
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Wow. Okay, just for a moment, I will accept your image. However, if that is the case, then the "cutting loose" of marriage is, in fact, not a cutting loose at all. Because each of those little threads of attention that you describe are generated by one couple's attention to their own individual marriage. Instead of cutting loose the definition, adding gay marriage to the equation would only expand....

You know what. This isn't worth it.

Bean Counter. I really hope that someday, you meet some gay people. This societal nexus you describe is a lot more personal than you are willing to concede.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
This is ugly? Gee Beeve Mom will be sore.

BC
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Just an aside, and something I've learned personally over the years... "Big words" are only more accurate if you and the person/people you're talking to accurately know what the word means.

Therefore, you shouldn't use words unless you know what they mean. And/or how to spell them.

(end unseasonable snarkiness)
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 

quote:

---

Bean Counter. I really hope that someday, you meet some gay people. This societal nexus you describe is a lot more personal than you are willing to concede.

---

They are all personal and they are all the means by which we hold society together. Shared constructs, values, it is both vast and intimate. I know several gays, they all seem more interested in play then marriage. I am not saying this is universal only that knowing gays gives no certain insight into some marriageless plight they suffer in.

If your definition of marriage varies from societies then you are not conected to the same construct, you are less shared, or you have less association with the thing you have tried to claim.

Gays will never partake in the construct of marriage any more then women will experience the fellowship associated with a mens only club, by intruding, they shift the construct shared to another, the one they were seeking to experience is gone by their very pressence. "CS Lewis para-phrase there"

BC
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
I know the meaning and I recognize when they are spelled correctly, but my spell checker has been fixing them for decades so what is to be gained by obsession, my attention is the coin of the universe, let it be spent where it is needed.

I never use vocabulary to be other then precise.

BC
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
I almost posted a thread engaging you on your terms. Then I got deja vu and decided to go to bed. Good night Bean Counter.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Do us all a favor.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Wow! Cool Software! Now you can understand me because we are attached to the same construct. Brotherhood achieved.

BC
 

---

Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
 
A spell checker won't make his ideas any more coherent.

BC, you sound like Derrida's ghost.

[ November 04, 2004, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Chaeron ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I am not saying this is universal only that knowing gays gives no certain insight into some marriageless plight they suffer in."

Well, true. You also have to engage them in conversation on meaningful issues.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 

quote:

---

I am all for female/female sex, I could watch it all night, but not female female marriage.

---

quote:

---

Now I tell you that my value system is based on cost benefit of attention, my secret out... and the fact is that the altering of a concept so invested in attention is no minor thing as you would have it.

---

If you were going solely by cost-benefit analysis, you would not oppose civil gay marriage. Allowing a very small percentage of people access to a very well-defined, fairly efficient system of marital laws is almost certainly more efficient than requiring separate execution and litigation of the possibly dozens of instruments needed to acquire a fraction of the capability of a $50 marriage certificate.

The costs of litigation are borne by society in many ways, as are the costs of inefficient allocation of resources necessitated by inefficient legal systems.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
The problem is when certain ideas are taken out of context.
There are things that were acceptable in biblical days that are no longer acceptable now like concubinage and the like.
Ideas are always shifting and changing.
Even our constitution is designed to shift instead of being a solid force all the time.
The problem is that in order for some peace to exist in the world something will have to break.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Mabus - I am not asking you to change any aspect of your religion. I'm going to assume that said religion is Christianity, here, because that's where I started and you didn't specify otherwise.

Of course, I also said I didn't want to get into the specifically religious argments against homosexual sex, because it's a complex issue (you may think it isn't, but it actually is, if you read closely and are also aware of the cultural and historical contexts of our scriptures) and that's why I say that as Christians we should always always err on the side of mercy - but rather about the roll of the government in this case.

I say that the government should never implament discrimination of any kind. I'm not saying it never has - quite to the contrary, I'm sad that we seem to be repeating a cycle. I thought that as a society (not all of whom are Christian or even hold to any religion, you must remember) we were working towards eliminating discrimination of all kinds. Looks like I was wrong, though, and that's what makes me so sad. That states are asking the government to add discrimination to their constitutions. It's horrifying.
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
I apologize, Vana...I read your post hastily and did not notice that particular spot, only that you seemed to be bemoaning that aspect of Christianity. I will withdraw.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
I'm actually kind of relieved that you just misread my post. I mean no ill-will, I honestly don't, I'm just confused and disappointed.

And for what it's worth, you certainly haven't lost any of my favor.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
NOTE: I only read the first page.

What BC is attributing to the Critique of Pure Reason was actually in Kant's followup, Critique of Practical Reason.

Generally speaking, this sequel has been considered much like Ghostbusters 2, or, say, Rocky 5, has been, regarding their predecessors.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
 
Wow. This has been a sadly amusing read, for the most part. Tom, Sara, fugu and others - you guys are awesome, and I admire all of you. I wish I could have said something last night, but I came down with the Death Cold and probably wouldn't have made much sense. Anyway, it's morning, I've slept and am drinking lots of liquids. So here it goes:

As you have probably guessed, I'm of the same school of thought as Vána on this one. I have been a little sad that she's been absent from Hatrack over the course of the pre-election campaigning. The forum here is a different medium than a face-to-face conversation and having both helps me understand her better.

That this referendum went through is an excellent example why we need the state and federal governments balanced. It disturbs me that Christianity has grown so broken and paranoid that it would endorse active descrimination against another group of people. Where that paranoia comes from is beyond me, though it might have something to do with the belief that we are living in the end times.

Whether we are or not...

What I do know is that Christ was merciful when the Law called for stoning and other harsh punishments. He was also merciful in many other instances where standard practice of the day would have done an evil to the person in question. Right now we're unclear, exactly, as to what the actual nature of homosexuality is - whether it be genetic (which we have seen some evidence for) or a combination of factors when growing up, or a decision, we don't know. And not knowing, I say that it is better - for my own personal accountability to God, and the image of Christ that I'm supposed to bring to the world - that I err on the side of mercy and love.

I'm Lime, and I Am Not Okay With This, Either.

[ November 04, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Lime ]
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
I love my husband.

*big hugs* It's good to see that you're up and awake now.
 

---

Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 

quote:

---

It disturbs me that Christianity has grown so broken and paranoid that it would endorse active descrimination against another group of people.

---

Vana, is it okay if I love your husband a little bit, too? In that brother/sister way, of course. He is very succinct, even in the afterthroes of the Death Cold.

I have enjoyed this thread, because it helped to crystalize my frustration. I was amorphously upset, and now I have words to express myself. I thank all of you, but especially Vana.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
jexx, I give you permission. He's a very lovable guy.

And thank you so much for those kind words.
 

---

Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
 
Vana, excellent post, you said that so well...
I am so saddened and horrified by these amendments. Such widespread fear and discrimination......
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Awww, I'm always late for the dogpiles.
Anyway, BC:

quote:

---

I once wrote in a paper "A difference that makes no difference is no difference" I then read it years later never knowing if it came from me or if I inadvertantly stole it

---

Yeah, you stole it, inadvertantly or otherwise: It's known as Leibniz's law of the indiscernablity of identicals
Even someone like myself with no formal training in philosophy beyond one college class knew that.
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
I am stunned at the lack of compassion and anything resembling tolerance BC has displayed, in this thread and others. It is not often I am stunned by people's lack of tolerance. (Obviously Hatrack has spoiled me for the real world.)

I think it is possible to debate things without resorting to comments like the one about lesbian sex, which was absolutely unnecessary and incredibly offensive.

(Okay, this came a little late, but I am all sadly about this and I had to say something.)

And I love you, Vana and dkw!

Jen

[ November 04, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Fyfe ]
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Hopefully BC finally gave up... I read most of his posts and none of them made any sense.

On the gay marrige issue and those amendments: AHHHHHHHHHHH!!! What is wrong with people that they voted for this? WHAT THE HECK?!

Maybe its hitting me worse becuase a great deal of my absolute best friends are gay, or lesbian or bisexual. They are all amazingly intelligent, kind, caring, wonderful people. Some of them were once christian... I think they got sick of religion after having their fellows bash them too much, I don't blame them. I can't see how we can deny people such a basic right as being aloud to marry and raise a family. YES RAISE A FAMILY. One of my little brothers best friends was raised by his two LESBIAN MOTHERS. They are all christians and attend church regularly. They are wonderful people! The two mothers both work and are incredibly sweet and kind, and are very much in love with each other. Their son is amazingly smart, very caring and a generally awesome guy. While they live together, and for all appearances sakes are married and a family, they can't marry. Or get marrige legal benefits that all other families take for granted.

Its sort of ironic, but that family is one of the most stable and sane I know. My straight parents divorced in the spring, after apparently years of loveless marrige. Many people I know have divorced or fighting parents. These two have a wonderful family. Better, more stable and healthier than most straight families. Kind of ironic. AND YET PEOPLE ARE DENYING THEM THE LEGAL BENEFITS OF MARRIGE?! ARGHH!
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I've been looking at some of the post-election data and there are some interesting facts about the "get out the vote" efforts of both parties. This is all from USA Today (free newspaper in the hotel, so sorry I don't have links...). What it seems to be saying is that the GOP indeed did get out the vote better than the Democrats -- sort of an obvious conclusion.

It does point out, however, that the conservative religious constituency (especially in the South, but generally everywhere) was solidly pro-Bush and came out in far greater numbers than in the past. Exit polls also seem to indicate that people said "morality" was their number 1 issue more frequently than any other "big issue."

Putting those together, the group that delivered this "victory" was:
- right leaning
- Christian conservative/evangelical
- voting what they thought their religion says or has taught them.

Here's the question I have. I'm a liberal Christian. Most of the people who voted this way are completely unlikely to listen to what I have to say. Many of them would come right out and say I'm not even a Christian by their definition. Or, if they grudgingly admit I'm Christian, they would say that I'm following a flawed path that is not nearly "Bible-centered" enough.

When they find out that I tried and rejected the Southern Baptist tradition, they'd be even more likely to view me as "lapsed" or otherwise misled.

Talking to them about what I think about flaws in THEIR theology isn't going to get us very far. The likelihood of me "fixing" the parts of their views that I think are "mistakes" is not very high.

And, in fact, I'm probably ill-equipped at present to do it. I mean, someone like me isn't going to win a Biblical argument with the average Baptist, and that's the only source they will generally accept.

I believe that's true of most fundamentalists.

I'm not saying I won't try. Or that I won't be there if there's an opportunity to get the word (and the WORD) out to folks who might listen. But I'm pretty depressed when I think that my duty as a Christian is to argue with other Christians about what they see as their core beliefs.

I know many people think that "CHRISTIANITY" is broken and it's up to Christians to fix it. But I think a more likely solution to this problem is to find ways to get more of the uncommitted folks to care about these issues and then get them to the polls to show what the REAL majority of Americans think.

I despair over the lack of interest displayed by the folks who failed to go to the polls and vote against these restrictive laws. But it's probably a lot easier to foster some greater interest in those folks than it is going to be to try to tweak the theology of fundamentalist Christians.

dkw tells me I'm missing something in the positions posted by Tom and Irami, and some others. I probably am. She's a far better judge of these things than I am.

So...I'll also add here that I have no desire to be to the right of any of you on this issue. I am in no way in support of laws that ban gay marriage (as no doubt most people know from past posts).

I just don't see the solutions that seem to be energizing you all. And I'm sorry for it. I just get depressed by the prospect of trying to argue theology with people who I know believe I'm going to hell for holding the beliefs I do.

I've tried it before. It takes more emotional energy than I have to give.

And it doesn't work, in my experience.

Maybe if we just schismed again and had one Christianity for people who look beyond the Bible and another for people who ONLY look at the Bible?

Sad prospect for me given that I know some truly wonderful people who are Southern Baptist, and, more to the point, who I believe are living the life of a Christian.

Anyway, I'm sorry this is such a rambling post. I probably come across as some sort of fence sitter here when everyone is really ready for ACTION of some sort. Captain Bringdown...I know.

I hope I haven't lost the opportunity to be a friend to folks like TomD and Irami, (or others like Vana, Lime, Sara, etc.) because frankly, I admire you all a lot.

I just don't know what to do that would be at all constructive.

I'll teach those who ask me, and with Dana teach my kids what we know is right. But do battle (verbal or otherwise) with fundamentalists??? Unlikely.

Maybe the point is to be vocal about what I think is true about Christianity and maybe it'll spark something in someone who might otherwise not have understood that one thing in that particular light. Is that what we're after? Just being vocal in general and not necessarily fighting those who believe I'm wrong????

Oh well...work to do.

Thanks for letting me puzzle over this in public.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
I once had an excellent post. It was short, it was pretty, and it explained why I support gay marriage. Unfortunatly, I have lost that post into the mires of the forum. Finding it would take 2 minutes *insert gasping*!

So...I'll try to remake it. Here goes:

---------------------------------------

Marriage is a religious institution. The state is not concerned with religious institutions; it is concerned with law. And the law has it that two people living together can file for a certain status called "marriage" which has certain legal benefits.

However, the word "marriage" carries much religious connotation. It should be changed to "civil union."

Both gays and hetros should be able to gain public status in civil unions. The state should not be marrying off anyone.

---------------------------

I'm sad. I liked my original version better. The main arguement is that there should be no marriage done by the State; rather, that there should only be civil unions for both gays and straights.

There.
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
Vana, thank you for your initial post. I totally agree.

IDemosthenesI, I empathize with your feelings.

As I was listening to NPR Morning Edition this morning, I got the distinct impression that to many Ohio voters, "moral values" equals a ban on gay marriage. That was the reason given by those interviewed for voting for Bush. That is just depressing.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Phanto, I remember your original post. I remember liking it.

[ November 04, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Ela, that pretty much echoes what USA Today had in it. Like the folks responding that "moral values" were the most important factor for their decisions were almost entirely "pro-Bush" "pro-war" "anti-gay-marriage."

That's what really bugged me. Others have said it better about how the "left" seems to become synonymous with immoral or amoral.

I mean, I feel pretty much like I voted a moral stance. But I guess my morality isn't mainstream.

Guess I knew that already.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Bob, TomD AIMed me and told me he didn't want to be your friend.

Sorry to be the one to tell you.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Oh, and Irami, Vána, Lime, and Sara all told me the same thing. I'm not sure why they all decided I needed to know this. But Vána in particular was annoyed by your condescending lack of an 'á' in typing her name.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
well cr@p.

Are you still my friend?


 

---

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
 
I will not support homosexuality until someone shows me direct genetic evidence that it is a normal genetic occurance and not a genetic defect or a societal creation. Until you can find me a homosexual couple who can reproduce naturally, I will not support their union.

Johivin Ryson
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm sure they're all broken up about not having the support of someone as thoughtful, well-spoken, and considerate as you.
 

---

Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
I know we have gone over this before (over and over and over), but some people do NOT have biological children, and have state-sanctioned marriages. Incredible, but true!

I still love Bob. So there.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Are you still my friend?

---

quote:

---

I will not support homosexuality until someone shows me direct genetic evidence that it is a normal genetic occurance and not a genetic defect or a societal creation

---

quote:

---

I will not support homosexuality until someone shows me direct genetic evidence that it is a normal genetic occurance and not a genetic defect or a societal creation. Until you can find me a homosexual couple who can reproduce naturally, I will not support their union.

---

My initial reaction to your post is to just reply along the lines of Dag's appropriately sarcastic and witty retort. But I realize that maybe you are being serious even if you aren't really thinking this through clearly. As has been pointed out by jexx, your criterion should also exclude couples who are parents via adoption rather than "natural" childbirth.

I just want to add that all of evolution is a story of the spread of genetic defects. Humans are, in a sense, defective proto-humans. We are the result of a beneficial mutation.

So, you're really back to arguing whether or not there is a genetic "component" to homosexuality or whether it is all "societal" or "learned." And your stance on it, if I understand you correctly, is that if it is "learned" then you can't support it, but if it is "genetic" then you can support it.

But further, you demand proof that it ISN'T learned before you'll give an inch on this.

Here's what you are dooming yourself to:

1) Being wrong about a fairly large portion of our population (as defined minority subpopulations go) until such time as there is undeniable proof that you've been wrong all along.

2) Using a rather sterile distinction as an excuse to deny equal rights and basic justice to members of that group.

Is that how you want to be known? As a person who willingly denies rights to others? And, more importantly, does so on the basis of a discredited dichotomy?

I mean really, what if it's a little bit biology and a little bit sociology? What if it's 10% one and 90% the other? Who gives a rat's @ss. More importantly, we'll never have a study that will be definitive.

You're just using this as an excuse. And it's a lame one.

As for your stance on gay marriage, if marriage were only FOR procreation, you'd have to deal with the childless couples out there, those who adopt or use "artificial" means of conceiving...and so on.

[ November 04, 2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I knew I could be sarcastic because someone would pick up my slack. Nicely put, Bob.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
You've convinced me. I'm giving back all of the undeserved benefits I've leeched off of this country through my sham unprocreative marriage.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Icarus!
Yeah, you should give all those benefits to the mother of your adopted children because she had REAL sex!!!

Sex that actually went somewhere!

Sex with consequences!

You haven't had sex until you've had procreative sex!

.
.
.
.

Dag...you da man!
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

I will not support homosexuality until someone shows me direct genetic evidence that it is a normal genetic occurance and not a genetic defect or a societal creation. Until you can find me a homosexual couple who can reproduce naturally, I will not support their union.

Johivin Ryson

---

First off: Yes they can procreate like normal.

The difference lies in that the man will have to be essentially fantizing about other men in order to get it up enough to do it.

There is also such a thing as those who are Bisexual who often get forgotten about. They are attracted both to members of their own gender and of the opposite gender. I get the feeling that in actuality people who are bi are a lot more common than those who are gay, however, there is a much greater tendancy for them to be in denial and just blend with society. I can't back this with hard evidense, but I would sure like there to be some unbaised anonymous and accurate scientific studies done on the subject.

Still on this issue, I'm fairly certain that the child of the couple I spoke of earlier is actually the child of one of the two mothers. I can't say for certain but I think he's from her and her previous husband. I'm not really sure though, he might be adopted...

Aside from that point, most gay couples would probably end up adopting. And its awesome if they did, becuase there are a large number of orphans in need of a good home, and not enough people looking to adopt, becuase most people will simply have their own. Gay marrige could help fill this gap in society of children needing foster parents.

[ November 04, 2004, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Alcon.



[ November 04, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Hey Johivin... I'm sterile. (I'm female, for the record.) Does this mean you'll never recognize my union, should I decide to get married?

What if I was to adopt, and provide a stable, loving home for a child or children currently languishing in the foster care system?

Guess since I can't reproduce naturally, I should just stay single. Can't see any other benefit in marriage, after all.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Sorry about that Bob, I can get really blunt and harsh when people start attacking gays like that, I'll watch myself.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Alcon =
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Darn. I wonder what I missed?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
ElJay, might as well join a convent. I hear they don't like motorcycles, but they'd allow Vespas.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
*sigh* Bob, to my great and everlasting disappointment, I'm the wrong religion.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
Ummm... Bob...

if you remember my post, might you go fetch it for me? *is lazzzzzzzzzzzzzyyyyyy!*
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
ElJay, Oh well...maybe you can FAKE procreation and stay under the radar.

[ November 04, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
What about people who choose not to have children? Is that incredibly selfish? I know for a fact that my brother has terrific genes (*grin*), but he and his wife are not having kids. Ridiculous people. Clearly they are unfit for marriage. I'll call him and tell him in the morning, I'm sure he'll have his unGodly union dissolved.

Oh yeah, and he's a pagan to boot. How does that factor in?

Boy, this marriage thing is complicated. Will there be a test?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Bob, rest assured that you have never said anything to disillusion me, much less alienate me.

That I believe that this election demonstrated that there is not in fact a silent majority of decent, slightly liberal and moral people just needing to be dragged to the polls to vote in huge numbers does not mean that I think less of you because you do. Your attempts to get out the vote, even if that vote doesn't necessarily exist in large enough numbers, isn't counterproductive or harmful or foolish or anything -- and, frankly, since I can be friends with people who do do things that I find counterproductive, harmful, or foolish, you've got a long way to go before you have to worry.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Thanks Tom!

Phanto:
Try here:

http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021747;p=14#000660

There's a few posts in this thread that might suffice, but this statement was pretty concise and covers waht you were repeating here.

[ November 04, 2004, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Hmmmmmmm. And the moment, that would cramp my lifestyle somewhat. I am still single, remember, and I somehow doubt going straight into non-biological single motherhood would be much of an improvement, by this guy's standards.

And, truthfully, although I know there are many, many families out there getting by just fine on less than what I make, I cannot imagine trying to pay for full-time childcare. I would need a wife if I was going to try to take on the responsibilities of raising a family.

Oh, wait... I guess that wouldn't work, either.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Well, to be accurate, they did get out and vote in huge numbers. Just not huge enough.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Yeah, Kerry got more votes than Reagan, the previous record holder. Bush got more votes than Kerry. Weird!

ElJay -- You don't have to have an actual kid. Just make sure that the government knows you are purchasing disposable diapers and formula. That way the brown shirts won't suspect you to be unreproductive, you know. That's the real danger.

If you have nosy neighbors, buy a crib and put a robot in there with a blanket over it. Program it to cry a lot. (you can get one from K.A.M.A. Inc.)
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
It's so cute when people try and bring up genetics as being the only thing that would them accept homosexual marriages. A lack of understanding of genetics aside, can I disrespect religious people and disregard religion as a meaningless and harmful social construct until someone points out the religion gene? No?

Interesting...
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Let me just state for the record that if I order anything from K.A.M.A. Inc., it will not be a squalling infant.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
BtL

the religion gene


 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
What tom said.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Thanks Irami.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Bob, I hope you don't take this offensive, but I find the thought that I might be upset with you really bizarre.

Good grief, I want people out in the world, trying with sincere and thoughtful conscientiousness to do the right things and fight the good fight, however it is presented to them.

What Tom said, like, totally.

quote:

---

I've tried it before. It takes more emotional energy than I have to give.

---

You've got to figure out for yourself where your energies are best spent. It is always a choice, and it always means that there is something else one could have chosen to focus on.

I'm actually really impressed that you've thought so hard about what and where you want to do to go about solving this problem in the most effective way possible, for you.



I'm all about that, these days.
 

---

Posted by K.A.M.A. (Member # 6045) on :
 

quote:

---

If you have nosy neighbors, buy a crib and put a robot in there with a blanket over it. Program it to cry a lot. (you can get one from K.A.M.A. Inc.)

---

*sigh*

I need raw materials to start producing them.

[ November 05, 2004, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: K.A.M.A. ]
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 
You can start with one of these, K.A.M.A. Isn't that an amazing doll?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5528493380

[ November 05, 2004, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Theca ]
 

---

Posted by K.A.M.A. (Member # 6045) on :
 


Then again, I'd like them to be organic. The best of two worlds sort of thing.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
Yai, yai, yai!!!

Thanks, Bob. You are UBER!

quote:

---

Gods, you're all arguing in a vacum.

We're speaking about state policy. As state policy, the truth is that there shouldn't be any mention of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let all denominations have their own little marriages.

And yes, if a gay club wants to have their own marriage club, it should be as valid as a Church's marriage. (Read: both should be meaningless in terms of law.)

The point is that both hetrosexual couples and gay couples should be given Civil Unions.

---

quote:

---

Maybe the point is to be vocal about what I think is true about Christianity and maybe it'll spark something in someone who might otherwise not have understood that one thing in that particular light.

---

Yes, I think that is part of the point. My own reason for posting here was to be vocal about the fact that I am a Christian, and that I think these things are wrong. How non-Christians view Christianity is important to me, and I wanted to be clear that we're not of one mind on this - and that I don't believe that this behavior is in accord with the virtues and outlook on life that the Bible teaches.

Besides, I've heard rumor of a chocolate fountain at the wedding. Oboe solo nonwithstanding, I don't think Julie would miss that for the world.

[ November 05, 2004, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Lime ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Sara, I talked to Bob on AIM, and he said he will not be responding to anything else you post. He is really quite offended.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
So, obviously, promised chocolate is the way to get and keep freinds around here. Won't they all be surprised when dessert is molded jello?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
If it has cabbage or any other distinctly non-desert add-ins, I'm staying home.
 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Bob! Why would I be upset with you when we agree? I'm not trying to change people's religous views - at least, not in this thread. I have not studied enough yet to have made a decision on the morality or not of homosexual relationships on a purely religious basis.

What I'm concerned about right now is that a lot of people can't seperate their relgious issues from their civil issues. A lot of "sinful" things are legal - and it really confounds me that so many people think that this is an instance in which it's okay to use their religious beliefs to legally discriminate against an entire group of people.

The thing is that, to me, this looks so much like the inter-racial marriage issues this country already dealt with. Why are we moving backwards? That's what I want to know.

So on, I'm not trying - at least, not right now, and if I do in the future it will not be on a public level - to get people to change their religious views. I'm only trying show people that the religious argument against homosexuals should not be the same as the legal arguments.

And, it would take a whole lot more than disagreeing with me on this subject to lose my friendship, I promise. My best friend is a very conservative girl (she's joining the LCMS, alas ) and I'm pretty certain that she voted very differently than I did, and very possibly would have supported these measures had one been up in Illinois. I don't love her less. I'd have tried to change her mind, but I never would have - and never will - cut off my friendship with her. Or anyone else. Not over one issue. Honestly.

(Dan too. Promise. We love you!)
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Icarus, I've met you before. You were that little squinty-eyed girl who made all of second grade a big ol Telephone Game, weren't you?

Well, I spit in your koolaid. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

I had a cold, too.


 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Silly Sara. Everyone spit in my KoolAid. Which is why I only pretended to drink it. And why I hated you all.



But I'll be your friend, if you tell me your deepest, most shameful secret . . .
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
(Sara) (Vana)(Lime)
)))Icarus(((



Actually, I was in a very weird "place" after the election. I felt as if I was out of touch with everyone and everything. Even people who I thought I agreed with I found I was sort of not seeing things the same way they were.

And, really, it's okay. I just care more about friendships I've formed here (virtual and real) than I do about winning a point in an online debate. If debate this is...

I've said all I can on the election and voting. On Christianity, my hope is the same as non-Christianity would be -- that I live a good life and prove useful to others in their attempts to live a good life. Some believe that this cannot be done without Jesus. I'm not one of those. I believe that there are people who can inspire us to be better than we would allow ourselves to be. Some of these people are Christians and some are not.

Oddly, I find myself believing in a universal morality, but one that doesn't necessarily come from God or scripture. Although it can. And for me, it mostly does. I've just met too many strong and moral people who aren't religious to ever believe that religion is NECESSARY for moral behavior. I have other reasons for being Christian that are probably beyond my ability to express right now in any coherent fashion.

Ugh. I've probably said too much again.

Anyway, come to the wedding. Chocolate for everyone!

Chocolate jello.



[ November 05, 2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
What I'd really love to see is for Christians everywhere to believe that it is against their religion to act against people because of fear, anger, or hatred. The tragedy for me is not that Christians are against homosexuality, but that they think that this justifies them acting without love for homosexuals. I don't know if I've been doing a great job of this, but the idea that I've been trying to push is that while it may be important for Christians who aren't dead set against homosexual unions or what have you to explain to other Christians their reasoning, I think it is much more important for them to propogate the idea that the Christian way to approach any situation, even those involving those you think are directly against Christianity, is with open love and understanding.

You're unlikely to convince other Christians with arguments about homosexuality. They either have good reasons for their beliefs or they don't. In either case, they're not going to be particularly amenable to change. But a noncontentious renewal of what Christianity is supposed to be about would alleviate so many problems, the homosexual one likely among them.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Yeah, I see. But the sad thing is that Christianity is interpretive. There are those, like me, who believe the important thing is to understand Christ's message and take the GENERAL PRINCIPLES as the take home lesson. That means that it's our duty to understand Christ's teachings and emulate His behavior, even if there are parts of the Bible that contradict that (or rather seem to).

but there are others who believe that following Christ as if He gives us merely a set of guidelines and examples, rather than literal commands, is a mistake.

To me, the whole point of the new covenant was an invitation to puzzle it out for ourselves based on a few important rules. We CAN do this!!!

It seems to me that when I try to explain why I think Christians should not just avoid socially unjust actions (like support for laws that restrict people unnecessarily) but should actively fight attempts to do so, I must explain the theological framework or viewpoint that supports that conclusion -- not just the Biblical verses, but the method of thinking about and understanding those verses is important.

Other Christians have different theological approaches. Biblical literalism, fundamentalism, anything goes-ism, personal-relationship-with-Godism...and so forth. We just don't see it the same way.

And we're all Christians. At least I think we meet the basic criteria of taking Jesus to be our Lord and Savior.

So, I talk about what I think Jesus was trying to tell us. I hope people will agree not just to my interpretation, but to the path I stumbled through to get there.

But if they don't, we're likely to just glare at each other and distrust each other's methods and not, I think, have an open dialog.

However...
I do think that it's possible and desireable to serve as an example of a Christian who DOES NOT think Christians should fight against gay marriage. I'm happy to serve as an example of a believer in basic principles, not literal words. I'm not happy trying to convince others that I'm right, though. I don't want the responsibility for their souls. They have to decide for themselves. And that's the message too.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Bob,
I can understand, but my interpretation comes straight out of literal verses in the Bible. The commands to love your neighbor as yourself, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., to turn the other cheek and give he who takes your coat your cloak as well are all literal parts of the Bible. They are just ignored by the many of Christians.

The essence of Christ's message is not complicated. It's there in black and white. It's just that it's very hard to follow. The problem is that many people have eschewed the parts that call for a life of constant hard choices or seeing even those who hurt you as your brother in favor for those thigns that allow them to take the much easier path that they are inclined to anyway.

A true reading of the Bible presents what I've said as pretty clear standards on whcih to measure your behavior. The tragedy of a large part of contemporary (and historical) Christianity is that it has often abandoned these standards in favor on ones much more base. No matter how well it conforms to other standards of their religion, behavior motivated by hated or fear or anger should never be regarded as righteous by any Christian. But this standard is often not even applied, let alone given the paramount importance it should have.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Yep... it's not that you don't have Biblically supported reasons for your stance, of course. The problem is that you have selected the pieces that support your view -- at least from their perspective. They'll go get verses from Leviticus, Paul, whereever, to support the opposing opinion. All of it is "Biblical."

quote:

---

The essence of Christ's message is not complicated. It's there in black and white. It's just that it's very hard to follow. The problem is that many people have eschewed the parts that call for a life of constant hard choices or seeing even those who hurt you as your brother in favor for those thigns that allow them to take the much easier path that they are inclined to anyway.

---

The essence is clear. It's a problem if you take it and ignore the rest of the Bible. It's also a problem if you are forced to reconciling it with the rest of the Bible.

What you are saying is that you are "Christ-centered" I think. Maybe that's not the right word. You give greater emphasis to the "red letter" parts of the Bible (things Jesus actually said) and the stories about Jesus' life. I think that's a reasonable thing to do.

But many people do not. And they arrive at Biblically-supported conclusions that are very different from those that what I'm calling a Christ-centered approach would seem to lead to.

NOTE: I'm concerned about using "Christ-centered" as a term. I can't think of a better one, but the point is that there are varying degrees of
emphasis on Christ's message and life. From "that 's the only part I pay attention to" to "It's equally important as every other word in the Bible."

[ November 05, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Oh yeah Bob, I do totally get where you're coming from. Remember the Paul thread we had a while back? I think Paul was, taken in context, a pretty good guy, but I find him taken out of context a pretty darn bad thing.

My stance is an interpretation, not a literal reading. The thing I was sort of take issue with was the idea that it relied on interpretation outside of what was said in the Bible.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Ah. See, mine does. I take Jesus at his word and apply it to situations He never addressed.

It's a general principle that I try to use to guide me in everything -- when I'm doing it "right" anyway.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Wonders what "The Squicky Book of Bob" would read like.

Or would it be: The Book of Bob- the New Squicky Version translated from the original tounges?

AJ

(Oh and I'm wondering what Squick thinks about red letter bits about how anyone who looks at a woman with lust in their eyes has committed adultery and fleeing to the hils during the end times)

(in good fun... you don't actually have to answer)

[ November 05, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
It would probably be banned and if you opened it too quickly it would burst into flame!
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Banna,
I have a very strange and constantly shifting understanding of Christianity or really any religion. I'm not a Christian by any standard that nearly anyone would recognize, but I do have a lot of respect for many of the underlying principles there. Also, as a former serious Christian and someone who is fascinated by the history and undertands how fundamental the theology is to the development of the western psyche, I've put a lot of study into it.

In this specific case, if I wanted to, I could use the liberal Christian interpretation of Jesus saying that looking at someone through the lens of your own desires and turning them into an object is both unfair to them and breaking your marriage vows to your spouse. But I don't need to. I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, but then I think Jesus (or what the report of what he said has been translated to say) is wrong here.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Grin, that's fine. I know fundamentalists who are "red-letter" people, and when I was young it always struck me that the "red-letter" Jesus they claimed was quite judgemental bloodthirsty at times despite his overriding message.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
couldn't have said it better myself. I salute you Vana, as both a Christian and as an American.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
(I had to pick one of the many first-page gay marriage threads, so I picked this one.) I don't know how familiar people are with the rights accorded to a couple when the government recognizes their union. Here's a sampling:

quote:

---

Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
Appointment as guardian of a minor;
Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
Burial of service member's dependents;
Certificates of occupation;
Consent to post-mortem examination;
Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property;
Criminal injuries compensation;
Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee;
Disclosure of vital statistics records;
Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
Exemption from conveyance tax;
Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
Funeral leave for government employees;
Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes;
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
Inheritance of land patents;
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
Legal status with partner’s children;
Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
Making partner medical decisions;
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
Notice of probate proceedings;
Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
Proof of business partnership;
Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
Right to change names;
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
Right to file action for nonsupport;
Right to inherit property;
Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
Right to support after divorce;
Right to support from spouse;
Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
Sole interest in property;
Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
Spousal immigration benefits;
Status of children;
Support payments in divorce action;
Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
In vitro fertilization coverage;
Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics. 

---

Do you think a gay couple doesn't need these benefits and protections? Doesn't deserve them?

My sister is getting married next year. She loves her fiance, and has been with him for nine years. She doesn't plan on having children (she's 33). One of the reasons she decided to get married is that the federal benefits gained are the kind you can't create on your own.

I want to get married one day. It's that childhood dream you keep in your heart. There's a good chance I'll be able to marry. If I find the right man, we could choose to walk down to that courthouse and get the papers signed.

But I might not. See, I'm bisexual. It's something I've begun to accept as who I really am. I'm in a relationship with another woman, and really happy. We are everything I've ever had in a straight relationship. Comfort, caring, stability, joy, love, and more. But the government doesn't want to recognize this relationship. Doesn't want to give me support. And worse yet, over 13 million Americans voted against giving me that kind of support.

---------
Look at it this way. We protect the rights of millions Americans in the workplace. If someone gets injured at work, they have a recourse. The law protects them. Should we ever vote to deny those protections from someone because we don't like the company they work for? After all, it's as simple as getting another job, right? You could feel smug in your actions, proud of making The Right Choice. Perhaps you find the company distasteful, their actions immoral. But don't forget that each and every person affected by that vote has been let down. You had the opportunity to protect and secure them in ways that so many other Americans enjoy. Instead, you shut the door.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
dabbler, this list is great. It helps emphasize the legal nature of the rights in question. It's imperative to get people thinking of the dual nature of marriage (civil/spiritual) in order to gain acceptance of equal civil marriage rights.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
That certainly puts the lid on the notion that it is not a civil matter. It is clear that this is a subject that we have every right to address as a matter of law.

That is a heap of goodies for us to throw about glibly.

BC
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
It could be thrown about glibly, or it could be discussed and analyzed with thoughtfulness.

Anyone care to break them down into groups? Any patterns to get a handle on?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yes, it's a "is a heap of goodies" of to be denying someone for no good reason, isn't it?

First categorization, Sara, is who bears the cost of each benefit and who bears it. I'm sure we can quibble about assignments to different categories, but here's a first cut:

Benefits that cost the government money (but are already offered to 90% of the population
Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
Burial of service member's dependents;
Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee;
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
Exemption from conveyance tax;
Funeral leave for government employees;
Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes;
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
Spousal immigration benefits;
Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.

Benefits that don't increase costs to anyone
Certificates of occupation;
Consent to post-mortem examination;
Disclosure of vital statistics records;
Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
Inheritance of land patents;
Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;

Benefits that save the government money by making more efficient proceedings
Appointment as guardian of a minor;
Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property;
Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
Legal status with partner’s children;
Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
Making partner medical decisions;
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
Notice of probate proceedings;
Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
Proof of business partnership;
Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
Right to change names;
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
Right to inherit property;
Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
Sole interest in property;
Status of children;
Support payments in divorce action;

Benefits paid by criminals or tortfeasors
Criminal injuries compensation;
Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;

Benefits that cost someone in the private sector money (but are already offered voluntarily to 90% of the population
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
Right to file action for nonsupport;
Right to support after divorce;
Right to support from spouse;
In vitro fertilization coverage;

Much of the cheaper benefits arise because a party can be identified without litigation or searching. I know this saves money in legal proceedings. I assume it saves money in medical situations where someone needs to give consent or sign for a patient.

Dagonee

[ November 05, 2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Thanks, Dag. That helps a lot.

I love the lawyerly mind -- very precise and methodical. My friend Christine (an MD/JD) said once that she always relaxed when she spoke to another lawyer, even if they were on opposing sides. You knew you could get something done.

[ November 05, 2004, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Despite snide comments in the past, I have to say that all of the lawyers I know personally are both very intelligent and very funny people.

Still, arguing with them is a pain in the rear.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 


I consider all 3 attributes to be complimentary of lawyers.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
They are, it's just that the last one is given grudginly and leaves an ashy taste in the mouth of the giver.

"Bested By Lawyers" would make a great name for a band, or at least a song.


 

---

Posted by Auntie Fluff (Member # 5782) on :
 
Oh, goody, BC popped back in for a moment:

quote:

---

BC: Let us instead look at only things that were done, "to ease suffering" and have caused more, prolonged or increased suffering.

---

quote:

---

GWB, 2003: And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country. Your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

---

quote:

---

BC: ... all human beings need to be treated with compassion

---

quote:

---

GWB 2003: The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also determine our conduct abroad. ... This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted and defend the peace...

---

quote:

---

Analysis of recent report: The results of the research by this team have surprised many. The researchers estimated that there were 98,000 more deaths in the 18 months after the invasion than there would have been if Iraqis had died at the same rate as during the 15 months prior to invasion.

---

quote:

---

BC (regarding socialized medicine): ...before we quadruple the the size of our government and give it access to our most intimate details....

---

quote:

---

GWB 2003:To protect our country, we reorganized our government and created the Department of Homeland Security which is mobilizing against the threats of a new era.

---

quote:

---

link: ...the 9-11 attacks led to the creation of the Homeland Security Department... some conservatives question whether a massive new federal bureaucracy is the best way to fight terrorism. ... Federal spending is not just increasing in the areas of defense and the war on terror; unfortunately, all federal spending has been increasing rapidly. ... United States government spending has now topped $20,000 per household, a post World War II record.

---

quote:

---

By the following August, the plague had spread as far north as England, where people called it "The Black Death" because of the black spots it produced on the skin. A terrible killer was loose across Europe, and Medieval medicine had nothing to combat it.

In winter the disease seemed to disappear, but only because fleas--which were now helping to carry it from person to person--are dormant then. Each spring, the plague attacked again, killing new victims. After five years 25 million people were dead--one-third of Europe's people.

Even when the worst was over, smaller outbreaks continued, not just for years, but for centuries. The survivors lived in constant fear of the plague's return, and the disease did not disappear until the 1600s.

---

quote:

---

but as time passed, the living conditions for the majority improved (Given-Wilson 5). Eighty percent of the English population consisted of laborers, tenant farmers, and their families. With the decrease of population, the existing farms had very little help to employ. The landlords were forced to pay higher wages to their employees and accepted lower prices for their goods because of the reduced demand for their products (Ziegler 233). Also due to the decrease in population, farmers were forced to farm in enclosed areas instead of arable farms (Given-Wilson 39). This was significant due to the fact that it restricted the area that could be used for farming and profitable crop growth. However, it had little effect for the basic reason that there were very few people to provide for or to trade with. This switch to enclosed farms is just one of the many noticeable changes not only on society, but also on how the land was proportioned and divided among people. The long-term significance of the Black Plague was the improvement of material wealth for those that survived the pestilence

---

Interesting thing about POV

BC

[ November 06, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
 

---

Posted by Auntie Fluff (Member # 5782) on :
 
BC

Ah. So are you saying that the US invasion of Iraq was not an example of an effort to alleviate suffering that unfortunately created a great deal more suffering? Or are you saying that with the correct POV, one can deplore such instances when they are perpetrated by the liberal domestic social agenda, but applaud them in the case of Iraq?

Maybe Iraq is just a simple case of, to make an omelet you've got to break a few eggs? And it's okay, because...... because why? Because the man pulling the levers is guided by traditional religious values? Yes, that must be it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think he's saying that it's okay to kill most of the population of Europe if it would make the survivors wealthier.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
The thing being called into question is that similarity is not identity.

The best that can be said about the total good and evil scores are that they are not in. We will see.

One could also say that the safety of liberty depends on the blood of patriots.

Think of us as the scrubbing bubbles "We work hard so you don't have too..."

BC

Killing half the peope in Europe might be an extreme solution to Depression, but it has worked a few times.

[ November 06, 2004, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
BC, can you suggest a cure for the depression you're causing me?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bob, take two valium and spike his drink with it.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 


Seems like a temporary cure at best.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
I would try exercise, kick-boxing, wrestling or vigorous sex. Good luck.

BC
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
As the drowning man said to the Titanic, "that's quite a list you got there."

Um, I hate to ask, but is it okay to read a little sumpin' sumpin' into the fact that you mention "vigorous sex" and "wrestling" as equally effective cures?



[ November 06, 2004, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Until you wrestle (at some level above fooling around) you will never understand that sex is but a trifle. Perhaps there are other experiences that have the same high plane intensity. But wrestling is the only one I know that surpasses sex. Some of my friends cheer rock climbing, one likes fishing better, but if sex is your best experience then you share a failing with many and it is a shame.

BC
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Hmm...that is perhaps the most personally revealing post I have ever read on Hatrack.

Since sex for me is all about loving another human being, whereas wrestling is presumably about competing with another human being, I have to claim that sex is by far the superior activity.

Have you tried it with another person? You might find out that it's a LOT better than wrestling.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 

 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I was a passably decent wrestler in high school and college, and have had a fair bit of sex since then as well. As much as I enjoyed wrestling, I'm afraid that it doesn't actually compare favorably to even mediocre sex.
 

---

Posted by Auntie Fluff (Member # 5782) on :
 
Auntie Fluff protests the fluffy turn this thread has taken.

And she loudly applauds what's-his-name, for twice in one argument pulling the "I've got a secret and I ain't telling" trump card.

Come on out of the closet. You'll feel better.
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
perhaps sex has just always seemed so easy, so trivial for me while wrestling was a challenge.

BC
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 


OMG. Someone needs to get some buttresses for this guy's head before he falls over, buttress over basket.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Oh, good lord, another person who signs their posts. Just what the forum needs.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
What are you talking about Stormy?

Ryuko
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Somehow I think any women involved might disagree.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
(wants attention. feels slighted.)
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
(((Suneun)))



-Telp-
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
The use of the phrase " so easy, so trivial for me" leads me to suspect that you just aren't doing it right. It's not about YOU. Or HER. But the two of you together. Maybe if you stopped using sports analogies for interpersonal relationships ...

Think of it as a way to achieve a "personal best" performance.


 

---

Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
 
I used to work with a guy whose sister was gay. She was in a long term relationship and they wanted a child, so her partner gets herself knocked up. (my friend said they used the turkey baster method, but I wasn't there so I don't know anyway the biological father was aware he was "helping" he ladies out). When the child was born the partner listed "unknown" for biological father. The sister was the provider in the relationship and her partner stayed home with the baby. To get the baby insurance they went down to the welfare office and signed the baby up for medicaid. Since the sister was "just" the roommate to the "mother" of the baby her income did not figure in to the calculations for state aid qualification, therefore not only did they qualify for medicaid but also food stamps, WIC, AFDC and whatever else they could get.

I don't agree with all that these ladies did and I did not know them personally so I can't tell you what wonderful mothers they were but I do know the baby was loved by the entire family. My friend always had new pictures of his niece and was ALWAYS doting on her.
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
May I please request that if you all decide to kill half of Europe, you will first place me somewhere safe in America?
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Those decisions have traditionally been made at the local level.

BC
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
thank you telpy.
*hugs* telp back.

(to clarify, I felt that I had made an emotional post about personal things, and it barely made a blip on the hatrack radar. I know this happens, but it still feels sad when it does.)
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Tom, are you proud of me yet?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
babager, why do you disagree with what those people did? I mean, if society is going to deny them the right to marry, why shouldn't they take advantage of whatever society WILL offer them?

Seems like they're just seeking compensation for the stupidity of society, IMHO.
 

---

Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
Late comment: I am now going to go marry a guy in protest. Anyone else wanna?
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 

quote:

---

babager, why do you disagree with what those people did? I mean, if society is going to deny them the right to marry, why shouldn't they take advantage of whatever society WILL offer them?

---

quote:

---

Irami are you sure that only Christians voted in favor of these actions?

---

Unless someone here can prove otherwise, I would bet that the percentage of Christians who voted for it was substantially greater than the percentage of atheists, Buddhists and Jews. Heck! Combine the percentages (point-wise) of those three groups, and I would bet that we're still less than a third of the Christian percentage.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
(((Dabbler)))

I finally read the last 3 pages of this thread. And I noticed. And I thought it was very courageous of you.
 

---

Posted by jtruant (Member # 7016) on :
 
I am confused. I didn't even want to continue reading the self-touting rhetoric. It seems to me that you all are confused on a relatively simple issue. If you are gay, so be it; I can't deny that basic human right of lust or love or whatever. The fact is, being homosexual creates no net gain. In a society driven entirely by money and politics (please, decide on your own time whether that is good or bad), we reward those that benefit the society. As members of a populus, we also must pay for protection. Since we no longer pay only for protection of ourselves, but for other people as well (protection can be in the form of any number of social programs); we are forced into a pact with the state that gives us the ability to accept or refuse more protection. A majority of the USA has chose to refuse the benefits of marriage to those who are homosexual.

All this comes with a perfectly good biological standpoint. If you have not the means to procreate the human race, you effectively negate that life cycle. Therefore, the benefits of marriage should not be bestowed upon those who are homosexual. Now you say what about people who are sterile?!?! Elderly?! Etc. Etc. Etc. Well, the fact is that we cannot deny what is a viable option. Do we know that a man is sterile or a woman barren? No. Therefore, we cannot deny. Perhaps the best way to go with the homosexual marriage issue is nowhere. They should go after civil union options, which I am all for, and also, for adopting children or artificial insemination options - well, they could perhaps form joint custody laws so a civil union couple could have the benefit of tax write-off for their children.

To me, the question is not religious, but of biological viability. -Oh yes, and to those that believe the Supreme Court will entervene and take these decisions away from the state... congratulations; another step toward eliminating another ammendment from the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Ammendment hangs in a delicate balance. That scares me more than whether or not homosexuals can marry.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The fact is, being homosexual creates no net gain. In a society driven entirely by money and politics (please, decide on your own time whether that is good or bad), we reward those that benefit the society."

And your argument is that monogamous homosexual relationships produce no societal benefit -- and that, in fact, childless heterosexual marriages produce no "net gain?"

Whee.
 

---

Posted by jtruant (Member # 7016) on :
 
Hetero marriages have the possibility though. You cannot deny them that.

The tools are theirs to do what they will.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Of course, you're also missing the point that allowing marriage for homosexuals is likely more efficient within the legal system than the patchwork created now, creating cost savings on society.

Further, it's rather reprehensible that you think civil rights are due based on contribution to society.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I'm more bothered by the insinuation that the only benefit to society a couple can have is procreative.

Doesn't society have an interest in reducing promiscuity and adultery, encouraging social interaction and responsibility, and providing more stable homes for foster/adoptive children?

That's why I'm confused about the resistance to civil unions. The benefits seem obvious to me.

Most people demanding civil unions are not trying to destroy marriage or weaken society. We're pushing for more commitment, not less.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Hetero marriages have the possibility though. You cannot deny them that."

So are you really saying that the right to marriage is extended to couples because they can have children?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, Tom, if it weren't for the pro-creative aspect of marriage, I doubt many, if not most, of the legal institutions of marriage would have arisen. I can't prove this, of course, but there's a lot of support.

However, since then, the law has taken definite steps to separate the law of parenthood from the law of marriage, until now there is little if any marriage-specific law that relies on the reproductive capacity of marriages.

Even if this hadn't occurred, however, there's no reason to deny the rights associated with marriage to those who cannot reproduce, especially since it can be done for no or little cost.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

Now you say what about people who are sterile?!?! Elderly?! Etc. Etc. Etc. Well, the fact is that we cannot deny what is a viable option. Do we know that a man is sterile or a woman barren? No. Therefore, we cannot deny.

---

Hmmm. No woman in her seventies is going to gestate and deliver a baby. My dad fathered me at 65, but women's fertility does have a cutoff.

Nix on the marrying old women, then. All the virile old geezer guys get hot young chicks.

Women staus-post hysterectomy? Not going to gestate and deliver, either. So, would one appropriately be precluded from marriage if one has had that particular opersation? It would be pretty easy to write it into the law.
 

---

Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
 
And what about people like me, who are heterosexual and physically able to reproduce, but vehemently don't want to? My husband and I got married with the understanding that we were not interested in having children, ever, and as soon as we could get the money together one or both of us would get sterilized. Does that render my marriage null and void?
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
I think everyone here is agreed that it's not an argument that holds any ground with us.

1) Many marriages do not result in children, either involuntarily or voluntarily.

2) Most of the benefits accorded to a married couple do not directly affect children or having children.
 

---

Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
 
I guess I just don't see why it matters if gays get married. In what possible way can ANYONE claim that gay people getting married is harming the institution of marriage? Today people get married and divorced at the drop of a dime-- so maybe people who have gotten divorced should not be allowed to remarry because obviously they don't respect the marriage vows. After all doesn't the Bible say that a man shouldn't marry a divorced woman or he will cause her to commit adultery? (I don't actually believe all of this but it sounds as absurd as refusing to allow two people in love to marry because they happen to be the same sex!!)
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
imogen, thanks
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
If we ever do have Gay Unions is there any reason why brothers should not be able to get married. And sisters too! Twins... Tiger Wood's wife and her sister.... yeah!

BC
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
A well-crafted "civil union" law might include cases like what you describe. In some circumstances, the entire reason for the union is to obtain benefits.

It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a sexual union.

But I suppose to your puerile sensibilities, this is all just fodder for a cheap porno. And that's probably one reason why you seem to be missing the point by so vast a margin.

At any rate, if we're talking JUST gay marriage, the idea is to allow two consenting adults to marry in the legal sense and thus obtain the rights and privileges associated with marriage.

Oddly enough, the proscription against incest is really only important if you are marrying members of the opposite sex and intend to produce children from that union (i.e., have babies resulting from the mating of brother and sister).

So homosexual unions of brother and brother, or sister and sister wouldn't really be that big a deal. I mean, it's not like they're going to accidently have offspring that express familial recessive genetic traits.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*rolls eyes*

Yes, because clearly incestuous relationships are exactly equivalent to homosexual ones in every relevant way.

edit to add: as should be obvious, this is in response to BC.

[ November 08, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
 
BC

quote:

---

perhaps sex has just always seemed so easy, so trivial for me while wrestling was a challenge.

---

So, are ya wrestling just for sport, or is there something deeper going on?
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
Yes it is my path to spiritual enlightenment.

My my, I never thought of having to explain why gay unions between siblings would not fall reasonably under the incest taboo, it is apparent that I need to take less insight for granted on the part of the audience.

For God the universe is a Reality Show, so don't be so dismissive about watching porn! I will miss it so.

BC
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Its not a question of incest taboo, its a question of incest laws and the reasoning behind them.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Since you've taken almost nothing of what any of us say to you into account, except when you can think of a glib one liner to illustrate the depths of your shallowness, I'm not sure why you'd start worrying about your audience now.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"If we ever do have Gay Unions is there any reason why brothers should not be able to get married."

I can't really think of one. I see no reason why civil unions need to be extra-familiar. Of course, that's why I prefer the term "personal incorporation." There are good reasons why we wouldn't want to encourage sexual relatonships within families -- most notably the issue of true consent -- but I don't see why civil unions would need to include the presumption of a sexual relationship.

"Yes it is my path to spiritual enlightenment."

Hm. How's that working out for you?

[ November 08, 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
 
"The ordinary man looks for approval in the eyes of his fellow men and calls that power. The Warrior looks only to his own impeccability for approval and calls that humility.

Don Juan

BC

PS Sorry all, I cannot play with you anymore, I have a war to fight. Gotta pack.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually, Tom, if it weren't for the pro-creative aspect of marriage, I doubt many, if not most, of the legal institutions of marriage would have arisen. I can't prove this, of course, but there's a lot of support.

---

quote:

---

Now you say what about people who are sterile?!?! Elderly?! Etc. Etc. Etc. Well, the fact is that we cannot deny what is a viable option. Do we know that a man is sterile or a woman barren? No. Therefore, we cannot deny.

---

quote:

---

If we ever do have Gay Unions is there any reason why brothers should not be able to get married. And sisters too! Twins... Tiger Wood's wife and her sister.... yeah!

---

I married my brother.
 

---

Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
 
But only after he traded his trouser worm for a sand worm!


 

---

Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
 
Whoa. I just completely lost track of what was happening here.


 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Yeah, me too. And I am NOT okay with it!

Sheesh?

I suspect "Jar Head" is just BC in a new set of underoos.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Not unless he's way more clever than I give him credit for. The style is quite different, even if the content is much the same.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
Um.

I thought I was being funny.



(I'm not the Jar person though)
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
So, are you saying you ARE the BC person?
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 


*small voice* no
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
I just wanted to drop in and give Vana my support. The Gay Marriage Ban ammendment in Georgia was the most the painful part of election day for me.

Because it was so pointless, and people were so jazzed about it.

Protect Traditional Marriage! Keep gays from 'marrying'.

ME: But it's already illegal for same sex couples to marry in Georgia

THem: But now, it'll be Extra-Crispy Illegal! Yay!

*sigh*

The only result I could see coming out of it was that it would make people I know feel really bad.

The Baptist church coalition spent a bunch of money on TV spots and everything. THAT REALLY wasn't necessary.

It was like, "Whee! Look at me! I'm spending lots of cash to make people different than me feel bad! YAY!"

Is there something WRONG with me that I can't see how that makes my marriage any safer?

I mean, if you want to keep marriage holy, pass a law requiring that all people must pass a breath-a-lizer before saying "I do."

'Cause, you know... if you can do it drunk of your @$$ in front of an Elvis impersonater, it ain't all that holy.

I'm just sayin'...
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Passing a constitutional amendment to ban something that's already illegal accomplishes two things.

It sends a powerful message.

And laws can be overturned by activist judges if they rule the law is unconstitutional. Hard to do when the law is in the constitution...
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
I know that, but the most immediate and personally relevant result was to make my workshop buddy Steve and his partner of almost 11 years feel like crap.

It's hard to feel the same about my neighbors and their noble and lofty ideals when my friends are hurting.

I'm apolitical on a large scale, since I have learned it just doesn't make a big difference what I think, but when I see people I care for hurt, it pisses me off. That's about as political as I get.
 

---