Lenny
06-23-2008, 07:22 AM
https://www.annoy.com/features/doc.html?DocumentID=100722
I like that for "gay agenda".
No?
I like that for "gay agenda".
No?
View Full Version : California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!!
Braggi
06-23-2008, 09:09 AM
...If you can honestly believe that THIS Constitution was not derived from the writings of Erasmus and those that followed for next 200 years of enlightenment, but from stone age slave holders, then you can also believe that Newton stole and used the notion of Zero for calculus from the Aztecs ...
I know it's been a long time since the 8th grade, but you can still learn. Read and become enlightened. The founding families of this country did just that.
The notion of zero was used in mathematic practice by the arabs for hundreds of years before Newton was born. Perhaps you missed that in your 8th grade history. Actually, I learned it in math and I think it was before 8th grade. As an adult I learned that calculus was used in India for thousands of years before Newton. I was shown ancient Indian poems that clearly described trig functions. I was too rusty on my calculus to understand the more complex poems. I think they knew what zero was too.
... Yeah, OK, I suppose the "reasonable people" disagreeing is out the window.
I'll wait for you to read up and then we won't have to disagree. :):
-Jeff
I know it's been a long time since the 8th grade, but you can still learn. Read and become enlightened. The founding families of this country did just that.
The notion of zero was used in mathematic practice by the arabs for hundreds of years before Newton was born. Perhaps you missed that in your 8th grade history. Actually, I learned it in math and I think it was before 8th grade. As an adult I learned that calculus was used in India for thousands of years before Newton. I was shown ancient Indian poems that clearly described trig functions. I was too rusty on my calculus to understand the more complex poems. I think they knew what zero was too.
... Yeah, OK, I suppose the "reasonable people" disagreeing is out the window.
I'll wait for you to read up and then we won't have to disagree. :):
-Jeff
theindependenteye
06-23-2008, 09:14 AM
>You did miss something fundamental. You're missing one vital element, Conrad. You haven't explained why we SHOULD change the definition of the word "marriage" to include those who partake in homosexual relationships.
In asking my question, I wasn't trying to explain anything or to argue anything. Certainly, asking a question in this forum is inevitably interpreted as an indirect debate tactic, and so I tried to be forthright in stating where I stood, but I was truly asking a question about what people fear to be the concrete results of legalization. As I said, if you feel the question is beside the point, then don't answer it.
Lenny's answer, as I interpret it, is that it doesn't have immediate, identifiable consequences but that it's one symptom of change in our culture toward a negation & degradation, a "death worship." Interesting. Myself being one of those doom & gloom liberals, I share that same sense of steep-slope slippage, and we'd probably agree on a lot of the same symptoms, though not this one.
-Conrad
In asking my question, I wasn't trying to explain anything or to argue anything. Certainly, asking a question in this forum is inevitably interpreted as an indirect debate tactic, and so I tried to be forthright in stating where I stood, but I was truly asking a question about what people fear to be the concrete results of legalization. As I said, if you feel the question is beside the point, then don't answer it.
Lenny's answer, as I interpret it, is that it doesn't have immediate, identifiable consequences but that it's one symptom of change in our culture toward a negation & degradation, a "death worship." Interesting. Myself being one of those doom & gloom liberals, I share that same sense of steep-slope slippage, and we'd probably agree on a lot of the same symptoms, though not this one.
-Conrad
Braggi
06-23-2008, 09:31 AM
Defended against the definition being bastardized, Jeff. That's all. That's pretty huge, that roughly 1% of the population wants to bastardize the definition of the word "marriage" to include them, particularly when the term "civil union" will accomplish the same thing. ...
Actually, "civil union" hasn't accomplished the same thing and that's part of the problem. Many hospitals don't allow gay spouses into intensive care units. The federal government doesn't allow transfer of benefits they way it does to married people. These are significant differences.
The main difference is simply that it doesn't afford equal protection under the law which everyone in the US is entitled to.
... Frankly, sir, I seriously doubt that the homosexuals and their codependent sympathizers will be successful at changing the definition of the word.
You mention 1% and yet the latest California poll suggests a majority of California citizens approve gay marriage. Perhaps your numbers are off a bit.
And don't forget that your definition of the word isn't the same as my definition of the word. Also remember that word definitions are in transition all the time. The word "gay," for instance. That's changed in recent decades. Also the word "nauseus." It used to mean you make other people sick. Now people use it to mean they feel sick and sadly, some dictionaries now show the second meaning. That's happened in the last 20 years.
Language is a living thing, constantly in flux and growth, especially the English language which is the defacto language of science (along with Latin, of course) which is also in constant flux and growth.
Observe and enjoy. It's so much more pleasant than fighting an irresistible force. If you should be so lucky to have grandchildren, they will look back on these times and think how silly it was that there was ever an issue over gay marriage, just as you think how silly it was that women weren't allowed to vote or that black people weren't consider full human beings.
-Jeff
Actually, "civil union" hasn't accomplished the same thing and that's part of the problem. Many hospitals don't allow gay spouses into intensive care units. The federal government doesn't allow transfer of benefits they way it does to married people. These are significant differences.
The main difference is simply that it doesn't afford equal protection under the law which everyone in the US is entitled to.
... Frankly, sir, I seriously doubt that the homosexuals and their codependent sympathizers will be successful at changing the definition of the word.
You mention 1% and yet the latest California poll suggests a majority of California citizens approve gay marriage. Perhaps your numbers are off a bit.
And don't forget that your definition of the word isn't the same as my definition of the word. Also remember that word definitions are in transition all the time. The word "gay," for instance. That's changed in recent decades. Also the word "nauseus." It used to mean you make other people sick. Now people use it to mean they feel sick and sadly, some dictionaries now show the second meaning. That's happened in the last 20 years.
Language is a living thing, constantly in flux and growth, especially the English language which is the defacto language of science (along with Latin, of course) which is also in constant flux and growth.
Observe and enjoy. It's so much more pleasant than fighting an irresistible force. If you should be so lucky to have grandchildren, they will look back on these times and think how silly it was that there was ever an issue over gay marriage, just as you think how silly it was that women weren't allowed to vote or that black people weren't consider full human beings.
-Jeff
Lenny
06-23-2008, 01:53 PM
Not everyone's a Christian, Don. Words have meaning. The same word can have different meanings in different traditions, as you are describing here.
Marriage might mean something different to a Moslem, a Hindu or a Pagan than it does to you.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
No, it doesn't say Don's definition is the only definition.-Jeff
I fear that the site Ms Terry referred to seems to have merit with your positions. Marriage,until the other day, meant man & woman. Now you introduce pedophilia via Moslems (and it IS coming), bestiality (other day reported that one in India married his cow, with the village's consent) and..well I suppose one may marry an oak tree...I just don't know what Pagan's aren't allowed to marry.
But as you point out, in context with the culture....and the mudding up of the waters regarding religion, marriage and Amendment I is beyond me.
It's all in context, and your going down some other alley off the beaten path of what WE have always had it mean. OK, we all know you wish to compare it to slavery, and in fact and truth, it doesn't hold, but it's not stopped you yet. Go ahead and make the improper comparison.
Marriage might mean something different to a Moslem, a Hindu or a Pagan than it does to you.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
No, it doesn't say Don's definition is the only definition.-Jeff
I fear that the site Ms Terry referred to seems to have merit with your positions. Marriage,until the other day, meant man & woman. Now you introduce pedophilia via Moslems (and it IS coming), bestiality (other day reported that one in India married his cow, with the village's consent) and..well I suppose one may marry an oak tree...I just don't know what Pagan's aren't allowed to marry.
But as you point out, in context with the culture....and the mudding up of the waters regarding religion, marriage and Amendment I is beyond me.
It's all in context, and your going down some other alley off the beaten path of what WE have always had it mean. OK, we all know you wish to compare it to slavery, and in fact and truth, it doesn't hold, but it's not stopped you yet. Go ahead and make the improper comparison.
Lenny
06-23-2008, 02:05 PM
Thanks. I too love google, but why you chose an antiques dealer as a source and authority, I'll never know. Of course, after scanning his notion of marriage, based on the same Karl Marx pablum that's been promulgated by other idiots, that being of group grope, pre-history (not easily checked with no records) and based on animal husbandry, it is hard not to dispute this impossible and simplistically naive opinion. Thanks.
Oh, and your opinion of who the state is to protect is as arbitrary as the next guy's, who happens to think men marrying men is wrong as well, no?
Opinions are like belly buttons.
Gotta love google
"The Meaning And Origin Of Marriage"
... In the ordinary sense of the term, marriage is a social institution which may be defined as a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law, and involves certain rights and duties both in the case of the parties entering the union and in the case of the children born of it. These rights and duties vary among different peoples and cannot, therefore, all be included in a general definition; but there must, of course, be something that they have in common. Marriage always implies the right of sexual intercourse: society holds such intercourse allowable in the case of husband and wife, and, generally speaking, regards it as their duty to gratify in some measure the other partner's desire. But the right to sexual inter-course is not necessarily exclusive: there are polyandrous, polygynous, and group-marriages, and even where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage, adultery committed by the husband is not always recognised as a ground for dissolving the union. ..."
Read more here: https://www.oldandsold.com/articles10/marriage-1.shtml
My point here is that the meaning of the word marriage is much greater than one man's or one institution's definition. The "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment should, in my opinion, allow for legal recognition of every institution's definition if there is any legal recognition at all (which is another reasonable topic of discussion). And no, I don't think children should be forced to marry their grandpas or their great uncles. I think the state has an obligation to protect children from abuse. -Jeff
Oh, and your opinion of who the state is to protect is as arbitrary as the next guy's, who happens to think men marrying men is wrong as well, no?
Opinions are like belly buttons.
Gotta love google
"The Meaning And Origin Of Marriage"
... In the ordinary sense of the term, marriage is a social institution which may be defined as a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law, and involves certain rights and duties both in the case of the parties entering the union and in the case of the children born of it. These rights and duties vary among different peoples and cannot, therefore, all be included in a general definition; but there must, of course, be something that they have in common. Marriage always implies the right of sexual intercourse: society holds such intercourse allowable in the case of husband and wife, and, generally speaking, regards it as their duty to gratify in some measure the other partner's desire. But the right to sexual inter-course is not necessarily exclusive: there are polyandrous, polygynous, and group-marriages, and even where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage, adultery committed by the husband is not always recognised as a ground for dissolving the union. ..."
Read more here: https://www.oldandsold.com/articles10/marriage-1.shtml
My point here is that the meaning of the word marriage is much greater than one man's or one institution's definition. The "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment should, in my opinion, allow for legal recognition of every institution's definition if there is any legal recognition at all (which is another reasonable topic of discussion). And no, I don't think children should be forced to marry their grandpas or their great uncles. I think the state has an obligation to protect children from abuse. -Jeff
Lenny
06-23-2008, 02:14 PM
Along with Conrad I'd like to hear your objections, MsTerry. Thing is, in my religious tradition marriage has always been available to groups of any sex be they couples or moresomes. I think there are huge benefits to society at large and especially to the children in group marriages. So there's no change of the meaning to me. That aside, what's the possible harm? What's it with this "Defense of Marriage" stuff? Defended against what? Are all the married people going to say, "Well, now that gays can marry, our marriage is a sham so let's just get divorced and put the kids up for adoption?"
Is that what it is? It's kind of like legalizing heroin in my mind: nobody's going to change their behavior because of the law. What will change is that the harm will be lessened for myriad reasons.
So please, what's the issue? In your words.-Jeff
Jeff, I really am having my doubts about you, lad. The heroin thing is amazing. Or do you think advertising doesn't work? What about the word "sanction"?
I'm not familiar with the huge benefits to society at large for group marriage. I look around and find none, so would you give me some?
I do find that women without husbands have problem children, earn less money, and have a happiness quotient that is minus below zero. So marriage is a boom for them. I've found that to be true with fatherless children as well. Sitting in Sonoma coffee houses long enough can prove beyond reason that ALL is possible, so I must wonder how often you come visit the real world, down here with us mortals. It appears not often enough to see what's real.
Is that what it is? It's kind of like legalizing heroin in my mind: nobody's going to change their behavior because of the law. What will change is that the harm will be lessened for myriad reasons.
So please, what's the issue? In your words.-Jeff
Jeff, I really am having my doubts about you, lad. The heroin thing is amazing. Or do you think advertising doesn't work? What about the word "sanction"?
I'm not familiar with the huge benefits to society at large for group marriage. I look around and find none, so would you give me some?
I do find that women without husbands have problem children, earn less money, and have a happiness quotient that is minus below zero. So marriage is a boom for them. I've found that to be true with fatherless children as well. Sitting in Sonoma coffee houses long enough can prove beyond reason that ALL is possible, so I must wonder how often you come visit the real world, down here with us mortals. It appears not often enough to see what's real.
Lenny
06-23-2008, 02:26 PM
Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=62352#post62352)
...If you can honestly believe that THIS Constitution was not derived from the writings of Erasmus and those that followed for next 200 years of enlightenment, but from stone age slave holders, then you can also believe that Newton stole and used the notion of Zero for calculus from the Aztecs ...
I know it's been a long time since the 8th grade, but you can still learn. Read and become enlightened. The founding families of this country did just that.
The notion of zero was used in mathematic practice by the arabs for hundreds of years before Newton was born. Perhaps you missed that in your 8th grade history. Actually, I learned it in math and I think it was before 8th grade. As an adult I learned that calculus was used in India for thousands of years before Newton. I was shown ancient Indian poems that clearly described trig functions. I was too rusty on my calculus to understand the more complex poems. I think they knew what zero was too. I'll wait for you to read up and then we won't have to disagree. :):
-Jeff
OK. Sure. Go ahead, believe it...the "proof" is there. Now I know "how" you think men poking men in the rear is "marriage". And Indians and Arabs had the number zero, ...and Newton didn't invent calculus, they did. And our Constitution was started by stone age slave traders, not studied and lettered men of the Enlightenment.
Jeff, you put a new spin on that Santayana expression, "those that won't learn from history, rewrite it".
Bye, Jeff
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=62352#post62352)
...If you can honestly believe that THIS Constitution was not derived from the writings of Erasmus and those that followed for next 200 years of enlightenment, but from stone age slave holders, then you can also believe that Newton stole and used the notion of Zero for calculus from the Aztecs ...
I know it's been a long time since the 8th grade, but you can still learn. Read and become enlightened. The founding families of this country did just that.
The notion of zero was used in mathematic practice by the arabs for hundreds of years before Newton was born. Perhaps you missed that in your 8th grade history. Actually, I learned it in math and I think it was before 8th grade. As an adult I learned that calculus was used in India for thousands of years before Newton. I was shown ancient Indian poems that clearly described trig functions. I was too rusty on my calculus to understand the more complex poems. I think they knew what zero was too. I'll wait for you to read up and then we won't have to disagree. :):
-Jeff
OK. Sure. Go ahead, believe it...the "proof" is there. Now I know "how" you think men poking men in the rear is "marriage". And Indians and Arabs had the number zero, ...and Newton didn't invent calculus, they did. And our Constitution was started by stone age slave traders, not studied and lettered men of the Enlightenment.
Jeff, you put a new spin on that Santayana expression, "those that won't learn from history, rewrite it".
Bye, Jeff
Neshamah
06-23-2008, 02:36 PM
Conrad,
I think there is truth in the specific instances. If we know everything there is to know about a specific moral choice in a specific instant, there will be a right, or at least a best choice. Since everything is so interrelated, we may never know everything there is to know, and to further complicate, the parties involved may not even know what they want.
The study of morality is basically trying to fit a system to "common sense morality." I guess that means trying to generalize from specific instances with mixed results. To pretend to get back to the original question, many people are thoroughly disgusted by the thought of a sexual encounter with a member of the same gender, and generalize from their instance to everyone. What is true in their specific instance is true because of everything related to where they are, but once some of those factors change, what is true will change, without making the truth in the original instance any less true.
I guess it is like the truth that a basket of twenty-four peaches has twenty-four peaches is true until you add another peach. Then it is not true anymore, but that does not mean the original truth was relative. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by relative.
As for the big picture, it is the totality of all the specific instances. The truth of it all is there, but impossible to appreciate in all its complexity. Every possible simplification will leave things out.
~ Neshamah
[quote=theindependenteye;61922Not to quarrel with your statement, but just to worry it around the edges: what do you mean, exactly? What is there in the world except specific people and specific environments?
...
Well that's my blurb. So tell me, where do you find a moral absolute?
Peace & joy--
Conrad[/quote]
I think there is truth in the specific instances. If we know everything there is to know about a specific moral choice in a specific instant, there will be a right, or at least a best choice. Since everything is so interrelated, we may never know everything there is to know, and to further complicate, the parties involved may not even know what they want.
The study of morality is basically trying to fit a system to "common sense morality." I guess that means trying to generalize from specific instances with mixed results. To pretend to get back to the original question, many people are thoroughly disgusted by the thought of a sexual encounter with a member of the same gender, and generalize from their instance to everyone. What is true in their specific instance is true because of everything related to where they are, but once some of those factors change, what is true will change, without making the truth in the original instance any less true.
I guess it is like the truth that a basket of twenty-four peaches has twenty-four peaches is true until you add another peach. Then it is not true anymore, but that does not mean the original truth was relative. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by relative.
As for the big picture, it is the totality of all the specific instances. The truth of it all is there, but impossible to appreciate in all its complexity. Every possible simplification will leave things out.
~ Neshamah
[quote=theindependenteye;61922Not to quarrel with your statement, but just to worry it around the edges: what do you mean, exactly? What is there in the world except specific people and specific environments?
...
Well that's my blurb. So tell me, where do you find a moral absolute?
Peace & joy--
Conrad[/quote]
Braggi
06-23-2008, 03:01 PM
... you can also believe that Newton stole and used the notion of Zero for calculus from the Aztecs ...
Mayans, actually. Just a quick reply here. I meant East Indians from India. That's why I said India.
Here you go:
[begin quote]
1.Who invented the # zero.
2.Where it was invented.
3. What happened.
4.Why they invented it.
5.How they invented it.
=========================================================
The nr. zero was invented independently in India and
by the Maya. In India a decimal system was used, like
ours, but they used an empty space for zero up to 3rd
Century BC. This was confusing for an empty space was
also used to separate numbers, and so they invented
the dot for a zero. The first evidence for the use of
the symbol that we now know as zero stems from the 7th
century AD. The Maya invented the number zero for
their calendars in the 3rd century AD.
The number zero reached European civilisation through
the Arabs after 800 AD. The Greek and Roman did not
need the number zero for they did their calculations
on an abacus. The name 'zero' comes from the arabic
'sifr'.
(Data from the book "the calender" by D. E. Duncan).
Dr. Wassenaar
=========================================================
Up-date: May, 2001
another theory about the origin or first use of the number zero
that is different from the theories presented in your URL,
https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99535.htm
The reference for the theory is on page 140, "The genius of China," authored
by Robert Temple (Introduced by Joseph Needham) and published by Simon &
Schuster Inc (1986).
I believe that information provided by ANL should be as accurate and as
complete as possible.
Thanks.
B.J. Hsieh
Argonne National Laboratory
=========================================================[end quote]
https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99535.htm
So, Indians (from India), Mayans, Chinese, Arabs, and then, finally, Europeans (who learned it from the Arabs).
It helps to know a little history. It's available.
-Jeff
PS. The poetry shown to me by my friend from India was much older, but this was nearly 30 years ago and I don't remember how old it was. I do believe it was thousands of years old. Western "history" gives little mention to the ancient "oriental" civilizations. US grade schools teach nothing of oriental civilizations ancient or modern. I'm not surprised you were unaware. Constitution tomorrow if I have time.
Mayans, actually. Just a quick reply here. I meant East Indians from India. That's why I said India.
Here you go:
[begin quote]
1.Who invented the # zero.
2.Where it was invented.
3. What happened.
4.Why they invented it.
5.How they invented it.
=========================================================
The nr. zero was invented independently in India and
by the Maya. In India a decimal system was used, like
ours, but they used an empty space for zero up to 3rd
Century BC. This was confusing for an empty space was
also used to separate numbers, and so they invented
the dot for a zero. The first evidence for the use of
the symbol that we now know as zero stems from the 7th
century AD. The Maya invented the number zero for
their calendars in the 3rd century AD.
The number zero reached European civilisation through
the Arabs after 800 AD. The Greek and Roman did not
need the number zero for they did their calculations
on an abacus. The name 'zero' comes from the arabic
'sifr'.
(Data from the book "the calender" by D. E. Duncan).
Dr. Wassenaar
=========================================================
Up-date: May, 2001
another theory about the origin or first use of the number zero
that is different from the theories presented in your URL,
https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99535.htm
The reference for the theory is on page 140, "The genius of China," authored
by Robert Temple (Introduced by Joseph Needham) and published by Simon &
Schuster Inc (1986).
I believe that information provided by ANL should be as accurate and as
complete as possible.
Thanks.
B.J. Hsieh
Argonne National Laboratory
=========================================================[end quote]
https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99535.htm
So, Indians (from India), Mayans, Chinese, Arabs, and then, finally, Europeans (who learned it from the Arabs).
It helps to know a little history. It's available.
-Jeff
PS. The poetry shown to me by my friend from India was much older, but this was nearly 30 years ago and I don't remember how old it was. I do believe it was thousands of years old. Western "history" gives little mention to the ancient "oriental" civilizations. US grade schools teach nothing of oriental civilizations ancient or modern. I'm not surprised you were unaware. Constitution tomorrow if I have time.
thewholetruth
06-23-2008, 07:02 PM
https://www.annoy.com/features/doc.html?DocumentID=100722
I like that for "gay agenda".
No?
Wow. What a big, ugly agenda. Good find, Lenny.
Oh, wait. Ms. Terry implied there IS no gay agenda.
Hmmm. Then what was that again?
Oh...yeah. The gay agenda. :thumbsup:
I like that for "gay agenda".
No?
Wow. What a big, ugly agenda. Good find, Lenny.
Oh, wait. Ms. Terry implied there IS no gay agenda.
Hmmm. Then what was that again?
Oh...yeah. The gay agenda. :thumbsup:
thewholetruth
06-23-2008, 07:05 PM
>You did miss something fundamental. You're missing one vital element, Conrad. You haven't explained why we SHOULD change the definition of the word "marriage" to include those who partake in homosexual relationships.
In asking my question, I wasn't trying to explain anything or to argue anything. Certainly, asking a question in this forum is inevitably interpreted as an indirect debate tactic, and so I tried to be forthright in stating where I stood, but I was truly asking a question about what people fear to be the concrete results of legalization. As I said, if you feel the question is beside the point, then don't answer it.
Lenny's answer, as I interpret it, is that it doesn't have immediate, identifiable consequences but that it's one symptom of change in our culture toward a negation & degradation, a "death worship." Interesting. Myself being one of those doom & gloom liberals, I share that same sense of steep-slope slippage, and we'd probably agree on a lot of the same symptoms, though not this one.
-Conrad
You're right. I simply assumed you were offering a debate scenario. My bad.
And good for you for not being an Ostrich regarding the Slippery Slope. It's real, and it's being put to use, none of it good.
In asking my question, I wasn't trying to explain anything or to argue anything. Certainly, asking a question in this forum is inevitably interpreted as an indirect debate tactic, and so I tried to be forthright in stating where I stood, but I was truly asking a question about what people fear to be the concrete results of legalization. As I said, if you feel the question is beside the point, then don't answer it.
Lenny's answer, as I interpret it, is that it doesn't have immediate, identifiable consequences but that it's one symptom of change in our culture toward a negation & degradation, a "death worship." Interesting. Myself being one of those doom & gloom liberals, I share that same sense of steep-slope slippage, and we'd probably agree on a lot of the same symptoms, though not this one.
-Conrad
You're right. I simply assumed you were offering a debate scenario. My bad.
And good for you for not being an Ostrich regarding the Slippery Slope. It's real, and it's being put to use, none of it good.
Lenny
06-23-2008, 07:27 PM
>>So, Indians (from India), Mayans, Chinese, Arabs, and then, finally, Europeans (who learned it from the Arabs). It helps to know a little history. It's available. -Jeff
Jeff, I run into the same problem: people that know a little history.
Thanks. Bye.
Jeff, I run into the same problem: people that know a little history.
Thanks. Bye.
thewholetruth
06-23-2008, 07:34 PM
Actually, "civil union" hasn't accomplished the same thing and that's part of the problem. Many hospitals don't allow gay spouses into intensive care units. The federal government doesn't allow transfer of benefits they way it does to married people. These are significant differences.
The main difference is simply that it doesn't afford equal protection under the law which everyone in the US is entitled to.
Well then, perhaps the definition of "civil union" and it's legal application needs to be changed so that it affords homosexuals the same benefits as married folks. Make sense?
You mention 1% and yet the latest California poll suggests a majority of California citizens approve gay marriage. Perhaps your numbers are off a bit.
Polls are easily manipulated, Jeff. My number is accurate regarding the percentage of Californians who are coupling in homosexual relationships. Californians spoke during the last election when homosexuals wanted to hijack the word "marriage" and they clearly disapproved. November is coming. Until then...
And don't forget that your definition of the word isn't the same as my definition of the word.
Um, but you made up your OWN definition of the word, Jeff, or are using the definition the homosexual community would LIKE it to be. Don't you forget that words mean something, Jeff, and just because you make up your own definition doesn't make that a valid definition of the word. I prefer to go with society's accepted reference called "the dictionary".
Also remember that word definitions are in transition all the time. The word "gay," for instance. That's changed in recent decades.
The definition of the word "gay" changed with our permission, Jeff. Not so much, "marriage". No societal permission there. The word "gay" wasn't hijacked and bastardized. It was simply used and accepted. And "gay marriage"? Not so much. In fact, not at all, except by homosexuals and their codependent sympathizers.
Also the word "nauseus." It used to mean you make other people sick. Now people use it to mean they feel sick and sadly, some dictionaries now show the second meaning. That's happened in the last 20 years.
Hmmm. Yet no one is hijacking the definition and trying to force that definition to change, are they? Did they? No. You're codepending the homosexuals in their attempt to force the bastardization of the definition without societal agreement. That's why it isn't working. It's probably our fault for letting homosexuals borrow the word "gay". Ironic, isn't it, that a group of individuals who are collectively as unhappy and emotionally and mentally distraught as they are would want to call their condition "gay".
Language is a living thing, constantly in flux and growth, especially the English language which is the defacto language of science (along with Latin, of course) which is also in constant flux and growth.
Granted, but this hijacking and bastardizing without society's permission is new, Jeff. This isn't about "flux and growth". This is about forcing a different definition down the majority of America's throat. That's why it's being rejected. This isn't about how words have morphed in the past. This is new, hijacking a word and changing it's meaning against society's will. That's why it's having such a hard time. It's not natural. It's unnatural. Heyyyy! Oh...never mind.
Observe and enjoy. It's so much more pleasant than fighting an irresistible force.
This isn't "an irresistable force", Jeff. This is a small minority trying to dictate to the majority that THEY are going to change the definition of one of the most important institutions our society has. It's quite the resistable force, Jeff, to those with the courage to say "Shut the Hell up" to the unreasonable.
If you should be so lucky to have grandchildren...
And I do.
... they will look back on these times and think how silly it was that there was ever an issue over gay marriage, just as you think how silly it was that women weren't allowed to vote or that black people weren't consider full human beings.
-Jeff
Says you. My grandchildren won't confuse issues of race or gender with sexual preference. That would make them as foolish as those who confuse those issues and clump them together today. My grandkids won't be that foolish, because they have Grandpa to teach the difference between racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and the demands of a group of individuals who choose to engage in homosexual relationships.
Just because no one has proven WHY 1-3% of the population chooses same gender partners doesn't mean it's not due to psychosocial reasons, Jeff. It's the most viable and probable cause we know, seeing how no one can find the legendary "homosexual gene". :wink:
The main difference is simply that it doesn't afford equal protection under the law which everyone in the US is entitled to.
Well then, perhaps the definition of "civil union" and it's legal application needs to be changed so that it affords homosexuals the same benefits as married folks. Make sense?
You mention 1% and yet the latest California poll suggests a majority of California citizens approve gay marriage. Perhaps your numbers are off a bit.
Polls are easily manipulated, Jeff. My number is accurate regarding the percentage of Californians who are coupling in homosexual relationships. Californians spoke during the last election when homosexuals wanted to hijack the word "marriage" and they clearly disapproved. November is coming. Until then...
And don't forget that your definition of the word isn't the same as my definition of the word.
Um, but you made up your OWN definition of the word, Jeff, or are using the definition the homosexual community would LIKE it to be. Don't you forget that words mean something, Jeff, and just because you make up your own definition doesn't make that a valid definition of the word. I prefer to go with society's accepted reference called "the dictionary".
Also remember that word definitions are in transition all the time. The word "gay," for instance. That's changed in recent decades.
The definition of the word "gay" changed with our permission, Jeff. Not so much, "marriage". No societal permission there. The word "gay" wasn't hijacked and bastardized. It was simply used and accepted. And "gay marriage"? Not so much. In fact, not at all, except by homosexuals and their codependent sympathizers.
Also the word "nauseus." It used to mean you make other people sick. Now people use it to mean they feel sick and sadly, some dictionaries now show the second meaning. That's happened in the last 20 years.
Hmmm. Yet no one is hijacking the definition and trying to force that definition to change, are they? Did they? No. You're codepending the homosexuals in their attempt to force the bastardization of the definition without societal agreement. That's why it isn't working. It's probably our fault for letting homosexuals borrow the word "gay". Ironic, isn't it, that a group of individuals who are collectively as unhappy and emotionally and mentally distraught as they are would want to call their condition "gay".
Language is a living thing, constantly in flux and growth, especially the English language which is the defacto language of science (along with Latin, of course) which is also in constant flux and growth.
Granted, but this hijacking and bastardizing without society's permission is new, Jeff. This isn't about "flux and growth". This is about forcing a different definition down the majority of America's throat. That's why it's being rejected. This isn't about how words have morphed in the past. This is new, hijacking a word and changing it's meaning against society's will. That's why it's having such a hard time. It's not natural. It's unnatural. Heyyyy! Oh...never mind.
Observe and enjoy. It's so much more pleasant than fighting an irresistible force.
This isn't "an irresistable force", Jeff. This is a small minority trying to dictate to the majority that THEY are going to change the definition of one of the most important institutions our society has. It's quite the resistable force, Jeff, to those with the courage to say "Shut the Hell up" to the unreasonable.
If you should be so lucky to have grandchildren...
And I do.
... they will look back on these times and think how silly it was that there was ever an issue over gay marriage, just as you think how silly it was that women weren't allowed to vote or that black people weren't consider full human beings.
-Jeff
Says you. My grandchildren won't confuse issues of race or gender with sexual preference. That would make them as foolish as those who confuse those issues and clump them together today. My grandkids won't be that foolish, because they have Grandpa to teach the difference between racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and the demands of a group of individuals who choose to engage in homosexual relationships.
Just because no one has proven WHY 1-3% of the population chooses same gender partners doesn't mean it's not due to psychosocial reasons, Jeff. It's the most viable and probable cause we know, seeing how no one can find the legendary "homosexual gene". :wink:
Braggi
06-23-2008, 08:01 PM
...
Just because no one has proven WHY 1-3% of the population chooses same gender partners doesn't mean it's not due to psychosocial reasons, Jeff. It's the most viable and probable cause we know, seeing how no one can find the legendary "homosexual gene". :wink:
I agree with you, as I've said here, that the search for genetic predisposition is kind of silly and beside the point, but do ponder this: what is it about a boy or a man that would drive him to prefer to be sexually attracted to other boys or men when it is well known that will subject him to truly terrible discrimination? If it's really "a choice" why would anyone choose such a dangerous, and I agree, relatively unhappy existence? Ever wonder about that?
And why, Don, are you so dead set against gays "marrying?" What is it that reviles you about that? How will that affect your life and your marriage? I'm not trying to be dense or unkind here. I really don't understand all the resistance. I've heard that it will "dilute" the meaning of marriage. That seems like nonsense to me. How could someone else coupling weaken my marriage? It couldn't.
As much as you go back to the meaning of words, I don't think you're a religious linguist who clings to tradition. There's something here I truly don't get. If your answer is that it is "God's Word" that forbids homosexuality and that's that, perhaps you could ponder why the scribes would have written that into their Holy Script and share that with us. What would those scribes have to gain by forbidding homosexuality among the Hebrews?
BTW, I do think if there is a general or "normal" sexual predisposition it is toward bisexuality. Perhaps one of the reasons our culture has so many difficulties is because there is little support for bisexual expression; even among gay culture.
-Jeff
Just because no one has proven WHY 1-3% of the population chooses same gender partners doesn't mean it's not due to psychosocial reasons, Jeff. It's the most viable and probable cause we know, seeing how no one can find the legendary "homosexual gene". :wink:
I agree with you, as I've said here, that the search for genetic predisposition is kind of silly and beside the point, but do ponder this: what is it about a boy or a man that would drive him to prefer to be sexually attracted to other boys or men when it is well known that will subject him to truly terrible discrimination? If it's really "a choice" why would anyone choose such a dangerous, and I agree, relatively unhappy existence? Ever wonder about that?
And why, Don, are you so dead set against gays "marrying?" What is it that reviles you about that? How will that affect your life and your marriage? I'm not trying to be dense or unkind here. I really don't understand all the resistance. I've heard that it will "dilute" the meaning of marriage. That seems like nonsense to me. How could someone else coupling weaken my marriage? It couldn't.
As much as you go back to the meaning of words, I don't think you're a religious linguist who clings to tradition. There's something here I truly don't get. If your answer is that it is "God's Word" that forbids homosexuality and that's that, perhaps you could ponder why the scribes would have written that into their Holy Script and share that with us. What would those scribes have to gain by forbidding homosexuality among the Hebrews?
BTW, I do think if there is a general or "normal" sexual predisposition it is toward bisexuality. Perhaps one of the reasons our culture has so many difficulties is because there is little support for bisexual expression; even among gay culture.
-Jeff
thewholetruth
06-23-2008, 08:42 PM
I agree with you, as I've said here, that the search for genetic predisposition is kind of silly and beside the point, but do ponder this: what is it about a boy or a man that would drive him to prefer to be sexually attracted to other boys or men when it is well known that will subject him to truly terrible discrimination? If it's really "a choice" why would anyone choose such a dangerous, and I agree, relatively unhappy existence? Ever wonder about that?
Seems rather obvious to me, Jeff, that there are several possible reasons, some of which are common knowledge. One being that boys molested by men tend to seek homosexual relationships as adults. It's a very common thread, although not always present. Another reason which is apparent is the narcissistic (self-love) tendency that can be in part fulfilled by being with someone just like you. It's the closest thing you'll ever experience short of having sex with yourself. Sexual addiction and fascination or obsession with one's own genetalia also seems like a reason to choose homosexual relationships, as well.
Then there are the other obvious reasons: Being afraid of the opposite sex, being raised by scary parents (one way or the other), being abused causing hatred of all men, being abused causing hatred of all women. I suspect being loved by family members of the same gender and not by opposite gender family members might cause some to seek out same sex relationships, as well.
Of course, it's not politically correct to suggest any of this. We must pretend it's not for obvious reasons that one chooses homosexuality, lest someone's ALL IMPORTANT FEELINGS get hurt. Of course, I'm being sarcastic about feelings being all important. Some people simply value them so much it's a sickness.
And why, Don, are you so dead set against gays "marrying?"
Marriage is one man/one woman, Jeff. Marriage isn't possible with two men or two women. Coupling is possible, but not marriage. Oh, unless we change the definition of the word to accomodate 1% of the population. I simply haven't seen a convincing argument which favors that.
What is it that reviles you about that?
I don't believe I've reviled about that, Jeff. I simply object because no one has offered a legitimate reason to change the definition of the word "marriage".
How will that affect your life and your marriage? I'm not trying to be dense or unkind here. I really don't understand all the resistance.
Marriage has a definition, Jeff. It's "one man and one woman". That's all. If you want to change the definition of the institution of marriage, the onus is on you to convince me that it's a good idea. You haven't. Neither have the other homosexuals on the planet. I see no reason to change the definition of the institution of marriage. Call me old-fashioned, if you like.
I've heard that it will "dilute" the meaning of marriage. That seems like nonsense to me. How could someone else coupling weaken my marriage? It couldn't.
I agree. I'm not worried about any "dilution". I simply refuse to call a rock a "tree".
As much as you go back to the meaning of words, I don't think you're a religious linguist who clings to tradition. There's something here I truly don't get. If your answer is that it is "God's Word" that forbids homosexuality and that's that...
It's not, although I'm aware of what God's word says about homosexuality.
... perhaps you could ponder why the scribes would have written that into their Holy Script and share that with us. What would those scribes have to gain by forbidding homosexuality among the Hebrews?
I believe the Bible is the word of God, Jeff. I think those "scribes" were being faithful to what the Lord told them to write, and so that is why they wrote what they did.
BTW, I do think if there is a general or "normal" sexual predisposition it is toward bisexuality.
I tend to disagree, but you may be right. Many factors figure in when it comes to one's sexuality. Curiousity cannot be confused with bisexuality. I think man's nature is to be curious. I also think man's nature is to be heterosexual.
Perhaps one of the reasons our culture has so many difficulties is because there is little support for bisexual expression; even among gay culture.
-Jeff
In your opinion. I don't agree at all. I've never seen a healthy society which survived the ages that subscribed to or considered bisexuality "normal".
Seems rather obvious to me, Jeff, that there are several possible reasons, some of which are common knowledge. One being that boys molested by men tend to seek homosexual relationships as adults. It's a very common thread, although not always present. Another reason which is apparent is the narcissistic (self-love) tendency that can be in part fulfilled by being with someone just like you. It's the closest thing you'll ever experience short of having sex with yourself. Sexual addiction and fascination or obsession with one's own genetalia also seems like a reason to choose homosexual relationships, as well.
Then there are the other obvious reasons: Being afraid of the opposite sex, being raised by scary parents (one way or the other), being abused causing hatred of all men, being abused causing hatred of all women. I suspect being loved by family members of the same gender and not by opposite gender family members might cause some to seek out same sex relationships, as well.
Of course, it's not politically correct to suggest any of this. We must pretend it's not for obvious reasons that one chooses homosexuality, lest someone's ALL IMPORTANT FEELINGS get hurt. Of course, I'm being sarcastic about feelings being all important. Some people simply value them so much it's a sickness.
And why, Don, are you so dead set against gays "marrying?"
Marriage is one man/one woman, Jeff. Marriage isn't possible with two men or two women. Coupling is possible, but not marriage. Oh, unless we change the definition of the word to accomodate 1% of the population. I simply haven't seen a convincing argument which favors that.
What is it that reviles you about that?
I don't believe I've reviled about that, Jeff. I simply object because no one has offered a legitimate reason to change the definition of the word "marriage".
How will that affect your life and your marriage? I'm not trying to be dense or unkind here. I really don't understand all the resistance.
Marriage has a definition, Jeff. It's "one man and one woman". That's all. If you want to change the definition of the institution of marriage, the onus is on you to convince me that it's a good idea. You haven't. Neither have the other homosexuals on the planet. I see no reason to change the definition of the institution of marriage. Call me old-fashioned, if you like.
I've heard that it will "dilute" the meaning of marriage. That seems like nonsense to me. How could someone else coupling weaken my marriage? It couldn't.
I agree. I'm not worried about any "dilution". I simply refuse to call a rock a "tree".
As much as you go back to the meaning of words, I don't think you're a religious linguist who clings to tradition. There's something here I truly don't get. If your answer is that it is "God's Word" that forbids homosexuality and that's that...
It's not, although I'm aware of what God's word says about homosexuality.
... perhaps you could ponder why the scribes would have written that into their Holy Script and share that with us. What would those scribes have to gain by forbidding homosexuality among the Hebrews?
I believe the Bible is the word of God, Jeff. I think those "scribes" were being faithful to what the Lord told them to write, and so that is why they wrote what they did.
BTW, I do think if there is a general or "normal" sexual predisposition it is toward bisexuality.
I tend to disagree, but you may be right. Many factors figure in when it comes to one's sexuality. Curiousity cannot be confused with bisexuality. I think man's nature is to be curious. I also think man's nature is to be heterosexual.
Perhaps one of the reasons our culture has so many difficulties is because there is little support for bisexual expression; even among gay culture.
-Jeff
In your opinion. I don't agree at all. I've never seen a healthy society which survived the ages that subscribed to or considered bisexuality "normal".
Braggi
06-23-2008, 08:53 PM
>>So, Indians (from India), Mayans, Chinese, Arabs, and then, finally, Europeans (who learned it from the Arabs). It helps to know a little history. It's available. -Jeff
Jeff, I run into the same problem: people that know a little history.
Thanks. Bye.
Here's another link complete with illustrations:
https://www.mediatinker.com/blog/archives/008821.html
It actually credits Babylonia with the original discovery although they had a counting system based on units of 60.
Do check out the link. It's pretty well done.
-Jeff
Jeff, I run into the same problem: people that know a little history.
Thanks. Bye.
Here's another link complete with illustrations:
https://www.mediatinker.com/blog/archives/008821.html
It actually credits Babylonia with the original discovery although they had a counting system based on units of 60.
Do check out the link. It's pretty well done.
-Jeff
Braggi
06-23-2008, 09:10 PM
Seems rather obvious to me, Jeff, that there are several possible reasons, some of which are common knowledge. ...
Thanks for the well thought out and well expressed answer Don. What seems obvious to you is not obvious to a lot of people. Your writing exposes a lot of objective thinking on your part that I agree with. Although I don't agree with all of your opinions, I think you have your facts pretty straight.
I don't think strict homosexuality is "normal" but strict heterosexuality is also an extreme, by definition. I appreciate your comments on bisexuality and they make sense to me.
Don, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some things. One that we can agree on is changing the details of "civil unions" to make things a little more fair. As far as marriage is concerned, we'll probably just cancel out each other's vote on election day.
-Jeff
Thanks for the well thought out and well expressed answer Don. What seems obvious to you is not obvious to a lot of people. Your writing exposes a lot of objective thinking on your part that I agree with. Although I don't agree with all of your opinions, I think you have your facts pretty straight.
I don't think strict homosexuality is "normal" but strict heterosexuality is also an extreme, by definition. I appreciate your comments on bisexuality and they make sense to me.
Don, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some things. One that we can agree on is changing the details of "civil unions" to make things a little more fair. As far as marriage is concerned, we'll probably just cancel out each other's vote on election day.
-Jeff
thewholetruth
06-23-2008, 10:32 PM
Thanks for such a civil reply, Jeff. It can be a very volatile subject, and I'm surprised by your response. I appreciate it. :thumbsup:
Thanks for the well thought out and well expressed answer Don. What seems obvious to you is not obvious to a lot of people. Your writing exposes a lot of objective thinking on your part that I agree with. Although I don't agree with all of your opinions, I think you have your facts pretty straight.
I don't think strict homosexuality is "normal" but strict heterosexuality is also an extreme, by definition. I appreciate your comments on bisexuality and they make sense to me.
Don, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some things. One that we can agree on is changing the details of "civil unions" to make things a little more fair. As far as marriage is concerned, we'll probably just cancel out each other's vote on election day.
-Jeff
Thanks for the well thought out and well expressed answer Don. What seems obvious to you is not obvious to a lot of people. Your writing exposes a lot of objective thinking on your part that I agree with. Although I don't agree with all of your opinions, I think you have your facts pretty straight.
I don't think strict homosexuality is "normal" but strict heterosexuality is also an extreme, by definition. I appreciate your comments on bisexuality and they make sense to me.
Don, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some things. One that we can agree on is changing the details of "civil unions" to make things a little more fair. As far as marriage is concerned, we'll probably just cancel out each other's vote on election day.
-Jeff
Zeno Swijtink
07-13-2008, 05:13 PM
A book titled Nudge, about which I posted here
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38874
also discusses marriage. It argues from a libertarian point of view that the State should get out of the marriage business. Marriage should be privatized.
That is, the State should only offer Civil Unions, which are domestic partnership agreement between any two people.
Marriages should be private matters, performed by religious and other organizations, or any group, on conditions that the church or other group sets for itself. "So, for example, a church could decide that it would only marry members of that church ..." (p. 216). People could choose what marriage and wedding ceremony would best fit their needs.
I haven't followed everything on this thread but I wonder whether this idea would satisfy everybody?
It would give different kind of couples the same rights and obligation vis-a-vis the Law and thre State, but it would allow religious people who think that gays cannot marry at least the belief that their "marriage," if they had one in a church or other group of their choice, is not a "real marriage."
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38874
also discusses marriage. It argues from a libertarian point of view that the State should get out of the marriage business. Marriage should be privatized.
That is, the State should only offer Civil Unions, which are domestic partnership agreement between any two people.
Marriages should be private matters, performed by religious and other organizations, or any group, on conditions that the church or other group sets for itself. "So, for example, a church could decide that it would only marry members of that church ..." (p. 216). People could choose what marriage and wedding ceremony would best fit their needs.
I haven't followed everything on this thread but I wonder whether this idea would satisfy everybody?
It would give different kind of couples the same rights and obligation vis-a-vis the Law and thre State, but it would allow religious people who think that gays cannot marry at least the belief that their "marriage," if they had one in a church or other group of their choice, is not a "real marriage."
Lenny
07-14-2008, 03:52 PM
A book titled Nudge, about which I posted here
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38874
also discusses marriage. It argues from a libertarian point of view that the State should get out of the marriage business. Marriage should be privatized.
That is, the State should only offer Civil Unions, which are domestic partnership agreement between any two people.
Marriages should be private matters, performed by religious and other organizations, or any group, on conditions that the church or other group sets for itself. "So, for example, a church could decide that it would only marry members of that church ..." (p. 216). People could choose what marriage and wedding ceremony would best fit their needs.
I haven't followed everything on this thread but I wonder whether this idea would satisfy everybody?
It would give different kind of couples the same rights and obligation vis-a-vis the Law and thre State, but it would allow religious people who think that gays cannot marry at least the belief that their "marriage," if they had one in a church or other group of their choice, is not a "real marriage."
Wondered about that, never discussed it much beyond this thread. Aren't there tax issues involved? Property issues when divorced? Protection of children, as well as wife (historically speaking). Isn't marriage "privatized" in form anyway? I know there are churches that marry only members, and I know of two church that will not marry cohabiting couples.
The state is already "interfering" with marriage according to most queried, outside of Wacco (and maybe California) that is. The word "marriage" currently connotes "religiosity" in origin. That was part of the flap over "gay marriage" with civil unions being a compromise for the public. But certain elements want to keep rubbing and rubbing the issue in the public eye, for myriad reasons.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38874
also discusses marriage. It argues from a libertarian point of view that the State should get out of the marriage business. Marriage should be privatized.
That is, the State should only offer Civil Unions, which are domestic partnership agreement between any two people.
Marriages should be private matters, performed by religious and other organizations, or any group, on conditions that the church or other group sets for itself. "So, for example, a church could decide that it would only marry members of that church ..." (p. 216). People could choose what marriage and wedding ceremony would best fit their needs.
I haven't followed everything on this thread but I wonder whether this idea would satisfy everybody?
It would give different kind of couples the same rights and obligation vis-a-vis the Law and thre State, but it would allow religious people who think that gays cannot marry at least the belief that their "marriage," if they had one in a church or other group of their choice, is not a "real marriage."
Wondered about that, never discussed it much beyond this thread. Aren't there tax issues involved? Property issues when divorced? Protection of children, as well as wife (historically speaking). Isn't marriage "privatized" in form anyway? I know there are churches that marry only members, and I know of two church that will not marry cohabiting couples.
The state is already "interfering" with marriage according to most queried, outside of Wacco (and maybe California) that is. The word "marriage" currently connotes "religiosity" in origin. That was part of the flap over "gay marriage" with civil unions being a compromise for the public. But certain elements want to keep rubbing and rubbing the issue in the public eye, for myriad reasons.