Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 8 of 20
That is the CURRENT state of the law, not a historical one. As you may remember, the DOMA was adopted by many states in 1996 or later, which altered their common-law marriage rules.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I doubt the Common law definition has changed in at least a hundred years. In fact, I doubt it’s changed significantly in a thousand years. In regards to gender, anyway.
Originally posted by rue:
That is the CURRENT state of the law, not a historical one. As you may remember, the DOMA was adopted by many states in 1996 or later, which altered their common-law marriage rules.
Quote:Well, if by marriage you mean a state sanctioning of a sexual relationship between two individuals of the same sex, the answer to your question is that, in general, it probably didn’t happen. If you mean two members of the opposite sex living together and having sex, that was, at certain times and places, quite common. And in fact, usually quite accepted by the people, so there would have been no need to “look the other way,” as you contend. The state however, rarely sanctioned such relationship even in places, such as the ancient Greco-Roman world, where homosexual acts were, under certain conditions, quite common and accepted. The closes thing I know of, to a state sanctioning of a homosexual relationships, was in Ancient Greece, and I’m not completely sure that I remember the details. But while homosexual acts were, under certain conditions, not only accepted but often praised, that doesn’t mean that homosexuals were necessarily so tolerated. In fact, being gay in the ancient world was often a death sentence.
Originally posted by rue:
And I think you 'misunderestimate' history. Do you not think homosexuals actually existed in the past? For hundreds of years common laws covered all sorts of things - including when abortion is the perogative of a woman. Why is there no specific, ancient common law against homosexual relationships? Was it because they didn't happen? (Unlikely) More likely, the neighbors simply - looked the other way. Did not check too deeply into the nature of the relationship between same sex people living together BECAUSE it would not produce children, or paternity and inheritance questions. I find the silence of common law to a common situation simply astounding, and extremely revealing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Okay, one last post:
Promises, promises...
Quote:
Examine REEQUEEN’s post who introduced his/herself to this discussion by calling me a bigot, whose support for my presumed bigotry apparently lies in her contention that Christians are “Rightwing Wingnuts” and “moon-faced morons.”
Yes? So? If you align yourself with the propaganda espoused by those I label nutbars and religious wackaloons, then it isn't my fault that you're offended.
I stated right up front that I wasn't going to be polite.
By the way, I am female, hetero, the mother of three sons - all straight - and live in Utah. Is that enough biographical detail for you? Or do you also need to know that I'm agnostic, far left liberal, and pretty damn quick off the posting box?
To correct your mistaken impression, I did not leap into the fray with both size 9 1/2 feet by calling you a bigot. I posted a rather nicely written piece about Mormon polygamy, as I recall. Perhaps you didn't read it, because you're too focused on your own crusade? Don't matter.....
Quote:
Now granted SIGMANUNKI and REEQUEEN may represent a fanatical wing of this discussion, but aside from their use of adhomenem and insults, their arguments are not dissimilar from the typical pro-gay marriage argument.
Nah, my insults were fully deserved, and didn't come out of nowhere. If you hadn't expected heated debate, you would never have brought up your rather twisted logic. As for being "fanatical," well, fantatical is as fanatical does. I don't see me with a sign, hanging about churches, spreading the gospel of agnosticism or "gay" rights (as opposed to rights that everybody are owed, which is a point I think some have already mentioned). Nor do I pretend to be unbiased or unopinionated.
My opinions matter to me, as they should to everybody. I have the ability to say what I mean, and I intend to continue doing so. If that bothers you, it's really too bad.
Quote:
The pro-gay marriage strategy is to zealously and prejudicially attack traditionalism
Right. Because retaining everything traditional is so much better than introducing social skills and practices that would be more beneficial for everybody. If everyone obeyed tradition, we wouldn't even have this country, because people would've been too discreet to rock the British boat.
Please. There's nothing wrong with tradition, in it's place. However, worshipping tradition as the basis of everything (perceived) good, is blind and advertises ignorance. If we still practiced many traditions, I would not be able to sit here and metaphorically rave at you, Finn. I would be knitting or something. Perhaps bringing in the coal so my husband could relax after a hard day's work at the papermill. Or whatever.
I would certainly be dead, because "traditional" medicine would've killed me when I had appendicitis at 15. Progress is what forced doctors to actually get education, and progress - while not always to the good - ensures that our society is not stagnant and insular.
Quote:
Indeed, one can be in favor of gay marriage (as I am), but to criticize the gay rights movement is enough to get one labeled a bigot.
Hmm...you say you support gay marriage, but then you say:
Quote:
the gay rights activists put on parades in which they ALLOW weirdoes in pink thongs to represent the gay community. These promiscuous individuals did not happen to be in the parade by mistake. They were allowed to be in the parade by parade organizers.
So the fu
ck what? Why do you care that some guy in a pink thong is in a parade? Did you go to the parade? Did you see the parade on tv? Or did you just hear about it? And even if you were accidentally exposed to the allegedly pink thong, why do you care so much that you were? I see things all the time that offend me, but I've learned that I don't have to look. It's easy - don't effing look. I mean, jayzus. The sad thing is, this seems to be the only thing that bothers y
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Explain what? You have one state, at most two. The Traditional Marriage Camp has 38. And ultimately, the only solution that you can see is the anti-democratic option of a Supreme Court ruling to impose a minority will on the country, supposing that it comes and supposing that the ruling is in your favor? There are a lot of ifs there, a part form the questionable ethics of relying on judges to impose law in democratic system where law is supposed to be written by elected officials of legislative body. But I admire your spunk. Most people would call that loosing.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Hmmm....then explain the state that does allow gay marriage. And then explain, in a few months or years time, why the Supreme Court did what it had to do, by voiding those laws for being unConstitutional. It could be a long time coming, but it will come. It's something called "change," you may have heard of it.
As for the immature attitude, hey baby, it's what keeps me young.
Let me offer you an alternative:
Let’s assume that this Supreme Court ruling actually comes (I could be wrong, but I don’t think the Supreme Court would take it), and let’s assume that the ruling is in your favor. Now assuming that the pro-gay marriage camp has not made any more friends in the traditional marriage camp, and by your demeanor that would seem to be reasonable assumption, all that the traditional marriage camp has to do is hold a Convention and amend the US Constitution to negate your Supreme Court ruling (otherwise known as your one and last chance at gay marriage) thereby solving the gay marriage argument in favor of the traditionalists, presumably, forever. (Including taking away your only two states.)
They really wouldn’t even have to go to that much trouble though, because Congress could just pass a law striping the courts of any authority to act on the definition of marriage. My personal favorite, because it assures that the states can continue to legislate their own definitions of marriage, thereby preserving at least your two states (You can thank me anytime.)
Ideally the best solution for all involved, would be for both the Left and the Right in this case to come together and BOTH learn a lesson on tolerance and acceptance, but if that’s not good enough, then the Right in this case, has the power to end this for you, and there’s your change.
Like I said, the pro-gay marriage people are just not thinking this stuff through.
This really has to be my last serious post on this matter, because I've got too much work to do. And I can't spend my time thinking about this.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn--
I understand your distress. Example: Half of my background is Jewish, both German and Russian Jewish, and I have always identified with my Jewish and heathen roots rather than anything approaching other organized religions. (Unitarian Universalism is the exception because if you know anything about them, they are a decidedly DISorganized religion.) In college I doubled majored in English and religion with an emphasis on Judaism, my interest strongly based in the text of the Hebrew Bible and in figuring out what was in there and what we only thought was in that (I believe) largely misunderstood book of books. (Not that I believe for a moment that I even get it.)
When I visited Germany for a weekend while I was overseas a few years back, my companion for the two-day trip was a Jewish girl who said, as our train blustered through the picturesque German countryside on the way to Dresden, "Don't you feel the cold, the darkness descending over you like a plague? Can't you feel the hate? Don't you feel the horrible weight of the shadow of death, now that we're in Germany? It's like when we crossed the border, all the color drained away. Don't you feel it?" (I know, I know, we were in a writers' workshop together.)
Now outside, the weather was maybe 65 degrees F. and sunny, with a bright blue, clear sky that had a few bleach-white, fluffy clouds drifting languidly through it. We were passing beautiful rock formations, pristine rivers against a backdrop of rugged grey mountains and emerald-deep forests. We were passing glorious fields of bright orange, poppy-looking flowers, or pastures in which small herds of horses or cattle or goats ran free and uninhibited. You could tell there was a gentle breeze by looking at the trees we passed. In short, Germany, one of the lands of my ancestry, was wonderful, shiny even.
So I said, "No, I really don't feel that. I can't blame this place today for its history. The holocaust was a terrible thing, but it is an event in the past, and my Jewish roots are from here."
My companion stopped listening at 'no I don't feel that' and started shrieking at me that I was a terrible anti-semite for not feeling the jaws of Germany closing around my neck in a mystical death-grip. (Later that evening, this companion would tell some young German men we made friends with that I had told her all Germans were evil and responsible for the holocaust, which fortunately they mostly seemed to ignore, though I wanted to strangle her when she said it!) She wouldn't ever let me get a word in after that conversation on the train, though, and it was deeply frustrating and upsetting to me.
At my heart's core, I try very hard to refrain from judging people. Oh, I'll adamantly rip into an argument I feel can't hold water, and I can be quite ferocious, but I really try to understand people, where they are coming from, so this girl just totally flabbergasted me. She couldn't listen to a thing I said, and she didn't understand me at all, or try to. In her defense, her grandmother had survived one of the camps, so I can understand that it was difficult for her to feel the sun on her back in Germany. I just wish she could have accepted where I was coming from, too.
To answer your answer to my question (sheesh!), you did indeed assert that everyone has problems. But you still insist on linking disparate issues together, when they have nothing to do with each other.
And I disagree with you about someone doing harm to your family. You can raise outcry whenever that happens, no matter who does the harm. Sure there may be a few people claiming you're only accusing someone because he's gay, but there are always a few people claiming to be a minority-under-siege in some way; the truth will out.
But may I ask you a question? What harm does the guy in the thong do exactly, if you aren't in Boystown to see it? (If a guy in Boystown wears a thong and no offended people are there to see it, is it still offensive?) And why does it matter so much to some people whether the guy in
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry for the double. Here, simply put, it's like this:
Regarding the will of the minority and so on,
Most times, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
But there are times when the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
It happened when thousands of white people didn't want hundreds of black people to desegregate and vote. It should happen again now, because nobody is hurt of gays can marry, but quite a few people are hurt if gays can't marry.
I'll repeat the most important part of that: Nobody is hurt if gays can marry.
Thank you, Spock.
There is no such thing as a weed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn:
Actually, the only thing I "loosed" was my irritation. Nice try, though, sweetie....
Clearly you are afraid of anything other than complete mob rule. If you're in the majority, that must make you right. I think you forget that your majority is only a majority by a very slim margin. Still doesn't make it right.
Of course, it must be a relief to finally be in the majority after all those years of frustration. I mean, between the years of Reagan/Bush/Reagan/Bush/Bush/Dork and Bush/Cheney/Bush/Cheney.
Turn about is fair play, and we liberals did get spanked. I think your main concern here is that we enjoy it. True enough, masochism has it's good points, but the wheel keeps turning. That's your fear. For all the retrogressive, pseudo-Christian, and anti-humane laws passed now, there will be an accounting. That must really frighten you.
Good.
"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, if your example is any indication, I don’t think you do. Basically, you’re just calling me a bigot; you’re just using more words. Isn’t that really what you’re saying? Did I miss your point?
Originally posted by Unicorn:
Finn--
I understand your distress. .
A better analogy would be to say that I’m telling you that I think there is something wrong with the way the Nazis are doing things and that they will hurt Germany, which most intelligent people would say is accurate. And in response you’re telling me that I’m saying all Germans are Nazis, when it is quite clearly obvious that I am only criticizing the Nazis.
Likewise, (for what has to be the tenth time now) I’m telling you that I think the gay rights movement is making a mistake in the way they are handling things and it will (and has) hurt the gay community. In response you’ve completely ignored direct comments by me, because they didn’t support the typical accusations of bigotry, and then went ahead and accused me of blaming all the gay community for the actions of a few. It’s quite obvious that is not what I’m doing.
Quote:It has nothing to do with what I want or fear. It has to do with reality. The gay rights movement cannot challenge Traditional America directly on the issue of marriage. If it comes down to a political battle of wills, you will lose.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Clearly you are afraid of anything other than complete mob rule. If you're in the majority, that must make you right. I think you forget that your majority is only a majority by a very slim margin. Still doesn't make it right.
My position remains the same. I personally support gay marriage, but I do no think that society has the maturity to deal with the issue of gay marriage, right now. And just about all your comments serve to support my position. There needs to be a movement away from this offensive, ad hominem-style politics. And the gay rights activists need to make the first move.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To further illustrate my point:
Examine SIGMANUNKI’s posts who has consistently called me a bigot with no support for such a claim other then his contention of his own self-proclaimed reasonableness.
Actually, if you go back and read my posts you will find that I logically discard your opinion and call you a bigot for very logical reasons.
Yourself on the otherhand have not contested any of the points that I have brought up. You just keep stating the same very wrong opinions about the gay community.
YOU ARE BASING YOUR "KNOWLEDGE" AND OPINIONS ABOUT GAYS ON THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AND NOT THE RULE ITSELF.
The rule being that gays are people and have the same problems in the same proportions that the rest of us have.
I've even used your own reasoning against you proving that by your reasoning, heteros shouldn't be getting married as well. Funny you didn't comment on that.
I challenge you, again, to prove me otherwise.
You can keep saying that I've not provided support for my arguments, but as anyone can see, it is there. You just choose to ignore them.
Also, I have not called those "traditionalists" bigots. I call those that are anti-gay-marriage because all they see in the gay community is the pink thong, etc (that you keep going back to) bigots. So, if the shoe fits...
I call them bigots just like I'd call someone who says that all blacks are stupid and worthless because some inner city school's black population gets more than poor grades and a lot also go to jail a bigot as well.
Just like I'd call anyone that calls German nothing but a bunch of Nazis a bigot.
etc
As you can see, I'm not calling you a bigot because you are against gay marriage. If you were only against gay marriage that'd be a different discussion. It is the reasons why you are against it that I call you a bigot and that is what you fail to see.
Currently, you are, at least, behaving like a bigot. Now if you would just get a clue of what the gay community is really about, then we could have a conversation. The majority of the gay community isn't the pink thong, etc that you state it is. They are normal, law abidding people that just want the same rights as everyone else. The only difference is there sexual orientation.
Basically, what we know, is that bigotry comes from fear and misunderstanding. It is this misunderstanding that you must fix before you can have any meaningful discussion on this topic.
Also, you keep coming back a non-point that we aren't addressing the point that the gay community has problems with it. This is fay-fay duh pee-yen. We have addressed it by basically saying, yes but the "straight" community has the same problems in the same proportions. Thus the non-point. Re-read the above posts if you don't believe me.
And how you get from being flamboyant to promiscuous I do not know. Just because someone is flamboyant doesn't mean that they are promiscuous. It just means that they are probably a tease, but doesn't mean anything more.
And perhaps you should supply some defense for your opinions. Just because you don't like how other people argue doesn't mean that they don't have a point. It just means you don't like the delivery method or are interpreting things wrong. Don't confuse those things.
Now, you say that gays (who are currently primarily "older" though this is changing as more and more "youths" are "coming out") are promiscuous. Well let's assume that this is true for a significant portion of the gay community.
Well, what about the fact that for straight singles in there 30s+, they are quite promiscuous in general as well. You are aware of the 3rd date rule right (if it even takes to the 3rd date)?
What about for a lot of teens now, oral sex is like shaking hands, or you don't even need to know the persons name to do it?
Correct me if I'm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because it's not my argument. It's something you invented.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This makes your arguments moot (and I've stated this before) as it implies that "straights" shouldn't marry as well. Why do you refuse to address this flaw in your argument?
You can't logically accuse me of bigotry if you use my argument, so you invent something and then pretend that I said it. But I never made any of the claims you accuse me of having made. You invented them all. You're entire posts is essentially a fabrication.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME