California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!! [Archive]

Lenny

05-17-2008, 06:43 AM

Hey, Lenny, why don't you just come out of the closet with your anti-gay marriage position?
I, Lenny, am against same-sex marriage.'
The sincerity and straightforwardness will be appreciated, not the pussy-footing around in shady areas. OK? Thanks again for your contribution,
Edward

OK, Ed. You found me out. And old guy with a chip on his shoulder, very unlike you?. Having been raised in S.F. in the 50's & 60's, having had friends, family, and loved ones being "gay", having scoutmasters, teachers, and other influential folks as role models that were homosexuals, and having folks know about it and not caring as long as they were doing their job because no one cared or made a fuss about it, you found me out. And since I am telling the truth, I, along with a few of my friends, did get tired of being hit upon by some "fags" while we were growing up. The intimidation issue was not a factor until some time after Stonewall. Then out came "mafia" and all the truly silly nonsense that has culminated in this current "victory". Hell, being homosexual, when I was growing up, meant NOT being "married" and it was a point of pride; folks were I was from really didn't care, however now we are "forced" to care. To "acknowledge" when we still don't care. The "look at me, look at me" aspect of the life seems to be a more dominant feature everywhere.
I too know folks that cry, "Abomination, and the end of civilization, and procreation", but such lofty notions are beyond me to fix, while I can only comment on them. It is what one does today, and what or who is in front of them for moment. People look for love inside, beside, outside, and upside marriage, and yet the only question is, did it do any good? If this does good, and ALL the current platitudes aside, down the road, then great. It will probably turn out that it does the same "good" as when divorce was the issue in 1958 and Rockerfella was granted his, outside the bounds of adultery, in NY state. That was a first and did that help the situation?
So, Ed, in the end, if you want to go pick a fight, find some one that is consenting.

MsTerry

05-17-2008, 07:10 AM

As a matter of fact, not having sex used to be grounds for divorce, and so was not producing offspring.
Love as a component? That could only mean more money for lawyers!

But love must be a component? I read it! Zounds!

Valley Oak

05-17-2008, 08:14 AM

I apologize, Lenny. I made the assumption that you were against same-sex marriage. That may happen when a person is careless and very defensive about something.

Edward

OK, Ed. You found me out. And old guy with a chip on his shoulder, very unlike you?. Having been raised in S.F. in the 50's & 60's, having had friends, family, and loved ones being "gay", having scoutmasters, teachers, and other influential folks as role models that were homosexuals, and having folks know about it and not caring as long as they were doing their job because no one cared or made a fuss about it, you found me out. And since I am telling the truth, I, along with a few of my friends, did get tired of being hit upon by some "fags" while we were growing up. The intimidation issue was not a factor until some time after Stonewall. Then out came "mafia" and all the truly silly nonsense that has culminated in this current "victory". Hell, being homosexual, when I was growing up, meant NOT being "married" and it was a point of pride; folks were I was from really didn't care, however now we are "forced" to care. To "acknowledge" when we still don't care. The "look at me, look at me" aspect of the life seems to be a more dominant feature everywhere.
I too know folks that cry, "Abomination, and the end of civilization, and procreation", but such lofty notions are beyond me to fix, while I can only comment on them. It is what one does today, and what or who is in front of them for moment. People look for love inside, beside, outside, and upside marriage, and yet the only question is, did it do any good? If this does good, and ALL the current platitudes aside, down the road, then great. It will probably turn out that it does the same "good" as when divorce was the issue in 1958 and Rockerfella was granted his, outside the bounds of adultery, in NY state. That was a first and did that help the situation?
So, Ed, in the end, if you want to go pick a fight, find some one that is consenting.

Dynamique

05-17-2008, 09:36 PM

So what about marriages of convenience or marriages that had the "spark" burn out a long time ago. Are they now nullified?

... grounds for divorce, and so was not producing offspring.
Love as a component? That could only mean more money for lawyers!

Lenny

05-18-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> ... grounds for divorce, and so was not producing offspring.
Love as a component? That could only mean more money for lawyers! </td> </tr> </tbody></table>


So what about marriages of convenience or marriages that had the "spark" burn out a long time ago. Are they now nullified?

One would have to "prove it" to the state!
I pray to Good we are not turning into the French!

Lenny

05-18-2008, 01:15 PM

I apologize, Lenny. I made the assumption that you were against same-sex marriage. That may happen when a person is careless and very defensive about something. Edward

Ed, I have misrepresented my self. There is no apology necessary. Maybe we should take this to a new thread called, Why I Am Against Same Sex Marriage.
Allow me to give a summation of my reasoning; after which you may help me understand your position or burn me to the ground. It is based on core sexuality & self identity, plus some other junk I may think of along the way. I also categorically deny the notion of "genetic" homosexuality due to what I perceive as "bad science". Besides, Good help us if it ever truly is proven, as I will have to go down to the death to defend your right to love whom you do, though I don't agree with this new marriage consequence.

Often people align homosexuality with the race issue, and all to often social, legal and other parallels are drawn. They may serve a purpose in clarifying a position or in making a point, however the condition of one cannot be altered, denied, or modified. Michael Jackson or Christine Jorgansen aside. Of course, we cannot "know" if my previous declaration is true, that one cannot alter one's own behavior relative to this matter, as I've read & heard some material on both sides of the issue and I am drowned in the noise:signal ratio.
In the beginning was SEX. We are sexual creatures such that we are beyond the word "sex". That word is is simply an after thought, so imbued with the phenomena we are! I cannot emphasize this notion strongly enough. As a neural bundled creature we seek pleasure,or at least satiation, in the areas of food, sex, and elimination. I am loath to say, Freud had it somewhat right: we are, above all, sexual creatures. The pleasure seeking wight that we find our selves to be, permeates our core, however the expression of these primary urges undergo great social expressions. We are merely sexual, not homo nor hetro. In the outgrowth of this primary self we develop such a core identity which overlays us in many different modalities. Those in conflict with the majority must suffer greatly when their core self-identity is bound up as racial, handicap, or other non-majority persons. The difference is that the identity of SELF is so involved in primary "sexuality" which is basic beyond conscious thought, unlike racial or handicap personal identity. The last two notions of self come later in life, and are involved in language, whereas the sexual being is not.
When the Supreme Court, in 1948, altered the law regarding racial marriage they were once again, closing the barn door after the horse had escaped. Many people were marrying and bearing children outside "their race", as that is what people normally do over time, given the opportunity.
The notion of marriage does not come in the same fashion. As the majority, both individually and collectively, find identity in sexuality, the "forcing" this last week of the issue will have unintended consequences, on the whole.
Please, you may put the matter as a black & white, "Well, do you or don't you?" as it is not an easy answer, nor is the question that clear.
At best, I can give you a partial answer in that it is possible to consider the state not being interested at all in who people marry, but then there is the notion of self preservation of the state, for economic reasons on one hand, and the interest in protecting those that have no protection, such as children who are incapable of "feeling" as the majority. Children are not ready, nor capable for the expressions or actions of marriage, and need protection. But then comes the "natural" complications we come into when viewing humans: marrying multiples, marrying the dead, marrying animals, and inanimate objects. So I come full circle, what is the "marriage" and the relationship to the state? The "state" has a "urge" to continue, so recording marriages and making sure there is procreation becomes a concern for its maintenance via taxes and in future viability.
I pray I've not done damage to those that are to fragile to help me out in seeing this matter clearly, without name calling, and maintaining some decorum. There is more to be said on my part, but the day is beautiful and I need to partake in some of it. As I tire easily of late, please make your points succinctly as possible. You do not need to retort, but exchange is welcomed.

Neshamah

05-18-2008, 08:29 PM

Barry

05-18-2008, 10:40 PM

That marriage is between a man and a woman is a historic cultural/religious belief, not a claim that can be made by a government. The religious always get into trouble when they ask the government to validate their beliefs. I guess the establishment clause only applies to the Federal government, so California can do what it wants.

~ Neshamah

There are essentially two different marriages: A joining together of two souls, and a state/church/synagogue/Mosque/etc. recognized union, when you ask for your relationship to be recognized within a certain form of relationship from legal/traditional standpoint. They are two different things that happily coincide from time to time. But many soul connections and official unions lack the other. The trick is to use the society's forms only when and how they serve what's really going on.

Valley Oak

05-18-2008, 10:53 PM

Then what is to get in the way of gay marriage?

In your opinion, this entire process that our society is going through now regarding gay marriage, should there be a different procedure taking place instead? If so, what do think it should be?

There has to be a legal/civil component for marriage; it cannot be strictly religious. What about divorce and property guidelines? Inheritance? Etc? When we get divorced in this country, like many others, we concern ourselves primarily we the legal separation and later with the religious, not the other way around. And people can get married without setting foot inside a church, without the knowledge or consent of any church or religion; a civil marriage, but a marriage has to have a legal basis. That is the way it is.

On another point you mentioned, the establishment clause and how it applies to the federal government, does this mean that the federal government should have the legal authority to ban gay marriage? I know that it does, apparently through a Constitutional amendment, which would be the only way since marriage is strictly a state competence and not a federal one. Am I far off?

Thanks,

Edward

That marriage is between a man and a woman is a historic cultural/religious belief, not a claim that can be made by a government. The religious always get into trouble when they ask the government to validate their beliefs. I guess the establishment clause only applies to the Federal government, so California can do what it wants.

~ Neshamah

Neshamah

05-19-2008, 07:48 AM

Edward,

Personally, I think the term "legalize" is an example of language being used to distort our thinking. We would not have to legalize anything if the government had not made it illegal in the first place. The government does not have the authority to impose the beliefs of one culture on those of minority cultures, unless the minority cultures are causing physical harm. The government should not have the right to define marriage one way or the other, and people should not look to the government to validate their values or relationships.

As far as the government is concerned, marriage should be treated like any other contract. Two (or more) people should be able to enter into almost any contract they wish and name any beneficiaries they wish. It should be up to them if, and how such a contract can be terminated, and if there should be some kind of waiting period.

Unless the Constitution is amended to allow the government to weigh in on religious/cultural institutions (effectively nullifying the establishment clause,) the Federal government does not have the authority to define marriage. It is already overstepping its grounds by prosecuting polygamists. Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has been the cultural norm for most of Homo sapiens for most of history and prehistory. I personally would never willingly share a husband, but I know better than to ask the government to force my lifestyle on everyone else.

~ Neshamah

P.S. Replying to a post I can't see after I sign in is tedious! I guess I should take you off my ignore list if I'm not ignoring you.

Lenny

05-19-2008, 09:09 AM

There are essentially two different marriages: A joining together of two souls, and a state/church/synagogue/Mosque/etc. recognized union, when you ask for your relationship to be recognized within a certain form of relationship from legal/traditional standpoint. They are two different things that happily coincide from time to time. But many soul connections and official unions lack the other. The trick is to use the society's forms only when and how they serve what's really going on.

Historically & socially, I believe, marriage was an economic situation, and later on became a safety valve for women utilizing the same model. It grew to protect women and offspring as it evolved. Early religion, Christianity, was said to differentiate itself from the majority due to attention to widows and orphans, and as that was inculcated into culture, law, etc, women became "protected" economically. It may be old hat now that women are liberated, though practically they still earn less.
As a romantic, I agree with your view, but we know it's not worth :2cents:

Lenny

05-19-2008, 10:12 AM

That marriage is between a man and a woman is a historic cultural/religious belief, not a claim that can be made by a government. The religious always get into trouble when they ask the government to validate their beliefs. I guess the establishment clause only applies to the Federal government, so California can do what it wants. Neshamah

As you point out, theres an existent historical reason, which includes the mixing of religions & gov't when they were the same few guys doing their "magic" over and over again for us folks.
I think the establishment clause is a base floor for state and federal gov't. If, say Utah, wanted to establish Mormonism to be the official religion and supported by their state, then there would be "issues".

Neshamah

05-19-2008, 10:53 AM

I agree many would have issues with Utah if its legislature were to declare Mormonism to be their official religion, just as gays in California had issues with California's previous definition of marriage. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the States from adding an official state religion next to their official state bird, state flower, etc. Fortunately, the states have generally been wise enough to avoid the issue.

Tangent - How is collecting money for medicare and social security different from collecting tithes to feed the disadvantaged? The government already has the power to conduct diplomacy, wage war, imprison lawbreakers, and regulate commerce. Even if state-run charity (er, I mean, "entitlement") programs did not violate the establishment clause, at what point is too much power being concentrated in one place? - End Tangent

The main reason marriage is suffering today is because it has been completed separated from love and romance. Marriages based solely on economic needs will end as soon as the couple becomes more prosperous. Religions have generally taken a more comprehensive approach that includes love, spiritual union, and the raising of children. Government defined marriage focuses only on taxable income and the beneficiaries in the event of death. Even childcare is treated separately. People should be able to enter into relationships of their own choosing, and if it matters what the government thinks, then the government is overstepping its boundaries.

~ Neshamah

Valley Oak

05-19-2008, 11:38 AM

Nesh, you talked about a lot of interesting points that I would like to talk about but your phrase, quoted below, is of special interest to me, being that I strongly support gay marriage.

What I'm gleaning from what you are saying (but I'm not 100% sure) is that gay marriage is ok? Now, is that a purely legal/political/theoretical stance on your part or does there exist some part of you that still cringes at the idea, perhaps more at a spiritual or emotional level? Any response you give is fine with me; I just want to know what you and others in this society are thinking.

Another question I have is that other Ron Paul supporters, such as yourself, are vehemently against gay marriage. Lenny is a case in point. Do you have any observations to make there?

Thanks again,

Edward

People should be able to enter into relationships of their own choosing, and if it matters what the government thinks, then the government is overstepping its boundaries.

~ Neshamah

ChristineL

05-20-2008, 12:22 AM

Being legally "married" enables a person to visit their spouse in the hospital should that spouse be unable to state who has the right to visit or not. It enables one to make medical decisions for one's incapacitated spouse. It stops one's "in-laws" from invading your house after the death of your partner and taking everything away from you or challenging your rights to your partner's property or joint property. Without legal marriage, you need lots of documents to protect your rights. I've known people who were barred from a dying partner's hospital room by that partner's family. I've known people who loved, cared for, and nursed a partner with no assistance from that partner's family only to be sued for everything material they owned by the dead partner's family. In one case the family even took the dog. Yes, all these things can be for the most part taken care of through wills, documents, joint deeds, powers of attorney, etc. However, us heterosexuals only need one document, a marriage license. If a married couple own a house together, the surviving spouse can continue to live in it, pay the mortgage and not go through a reassessment. The surviving partner in a relationship cannot, he/she can inherit the house or the other partner's half of the house, but will suffer a re-assessment and pay higher taxes.

Any two people willing to commit themselves to "love, honor and stay together in sickness and in health....etc." should have the right to the legal protetions marriage offers. It's about a lot more than taxes. Let's face it, all the heterosexuals marrying and failing to live up to their committements are much more of a threat to the so called instutition of marriage than allowing gay people to marry could ever be.

thewholetruth

05-20-2008, 05:56 AM

Edward,

It is already overstepping its grounds by prosecuting polygamists. Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has been the cultural norm for most of Homo sapiens for most of history and prehistory. ~ Neshamah

Not here in the US. It was virtually nonexistent among early American settlers until the Mormons started doing it. Polygamy has been illegal in the United States since 1862. Hardly what could be called "cultural norm" for this culture.

Braggi

05-20-2008, 06:30 AM

... Polygamy has been illegal in the United States since 1862. ...

Actually, except for hospital visitation, group marriage is norm[al] in the United States and is even encouraged by the Government. It's called "incorporation." I know several group marriages that are LLCs.

-Jeff

MsTerry

05-20-2008, 09:14 AM

Christine, this goes both ways
My X got married in secret, after my X's death the newly found spouse was able to keep all my children's belongings and the ashes.
I was barred from the cremation, wake and memorial and had to decide if it was important for the kids to be there without their remaining parent.

Being legally "married" enables a person to visit their spouse in the hospital should that spouse be unable to state who has the right to visit or not. It enables one to make medical decisions for one's incapacitated spouse. It stops one's "in-laws" from invading your house after the death of your partner and taking everything away from you or challenging your rights to your partner's property or joint property. Without legal marriage, you need lots of documents to protect your rights. I've known people who were barred from a dying partner's hospital room by that partner's family. I've known people who loved, cared for, and nursed a partner with no assistance from that partner's family only to be sued for everything material they owned by the dead partner's family. In one case the family even took the dog. Yes, all these things can be for the most part taken care of through wills, documents, joint deeds, powers of attorney, etc. However, us heterosexuals only need one document, a marriage license. If a married couple own a house together, the surviving spouse can continue to live in it, pay the mortgage and not go through a reassessment. The surviving partner in a relationship cannot, he/she can inherit the house or the other partner's half of the house, but will suffer a re-assessment and pay higher taxes.

Any two people willing to commit themselves to "love, honor and stay together in sickness and in health....etc." should have the right to the legal protetions marriage offers. It's about a lot more than taxes. Let's face it, all the heterosexuals marrying and failing to live up to their committements are much more of a threat to the so called instutition of marriage than allowing gay people to marry could ever be.

Lenny

05-20-2008, 05:14 PM

I read only a few pages of our courts findings, not all 172, but enough to try to determine WHY? And it kind of made sense. They compared the model of Domestic Partnership, which covered much if not all of what you post below, with Marriage, and found that it was a "separate but equal" notion which the Brown V Board of Education decision of 1954 knocked out of the box. Prior to the other day, the DP did address what you mentioned.
All moot now. Just wait for the Feds to try and address the "other state" recognition. Should take about 10 years to get to the Supremes.

Being legally "married" enables a person to visit their spouse in the hospital should that spouse be unable to state who has the right to visit or not. It enables one to make medical decisions for one's incapacitated spouse. It stops one's "in-laws" from invading your house after the death of your partner and taking everything away from you or challenging your rights to your partner's property or joint property. Without legal marriage, you need lots of documents to protect your rights. I've known people who were barred from a dying partner's hospital room by that partner's family. I've known people who loved, cared for, and nursed a partner with no assistance from that partner's family only to be sued for everything material they owned by the dead partner's family. In one case the family even took the dog. Yes, all these things can be for the most part taken care of through wills, documents, joint deeds, powers of attorney, etc. However, us heterosexuals only need one document, a marriage license. If a married couple own a house together, the surviving spouse can continue to live in it, pay the mortgage and not go through a reassessment. The surviving partner in a relationship cannot, he/she can inherit the house or the other partner's half of the house, but will suffer a re-assessment and pay higher taxes.
Any two people willing to commit themselves to "love, honor and stay together in sickness and in health....etc." should have the right to the legal protetions marriage offers. It's about a lot more than taxes. Let's face it, all the heterosexuals marrying and failing to live up to their committements are much more of a threat to the so called institution of marriage than allowing gay people to marry could ever be.

Lenny

05-20-2008, 05:18 PM

Nesh, you talked about a lot of interesting points that I would like to talk about but your phrase, quoted below, is of special interest to me, being that I strongly support gay marriage.
Another question I have is that other Ron Paul supporters, such as yourself, are vehemently against gay marriage. Lenny is a case in point. Do you have any observations to make there? Thanks again, Edward

Thanks for the infor, Ed. I didn't know Dr. Paul was against it!
Of course being from Texas I can't be too surprised, but for the Libertarian Party I am shocked. As I understand their stance, their is nothing in The Constitution about marriage, and a strong argument may be made for government to stay out of the private lives of consenting adults. Marry whom you will, it is not really the gov't's business, as far as libertarians should go, but then achieving consensus with near anarchists may be easier.

Neshamah

05-21-2008, 02:47 PM

I am reverting to my earlier view on marriage. Sex creates a family bond whether or not there is a marriage certificate. You can't keep someone alive just by witholding their death certificate. Neither can the government deny a sexual reality.

Still, my general point was/is that relationships should be defined by the people within those relationships, rather than by the State. Christine highlights the importance of having a living will. The government should give individuals the broadest possible discretion in deciding who can visit them and/or make decisions on their behalf.

My general rule concerning the law is, "if in doubt, err on the side of being too permissive." My personal view on sex is that it should only be in the context of lifelong commitment, and that the commitment should come first. If someone is born homosexual, they should not force themselves into a heterosexual relationship, and vice-versa. I also believe children should be raised by two committed parents except in extreme circumstances. I wholeheartedly support allowing gay couples to adopt, but am not enthusiastic about allowing single people to adopt (though being somewhat libertarian, I also do not think it should be restricted.)

As for Ron Paul supporters and homosexual marriage, Ron Paul attracted people with a wide range of views. Some people supported him solely for his anti-war position on the grounds that the war is doing more harm than any other changes his presidency would bring about. Others support him because he is for the most part very conservative. I understand libertarians are fairly divided on social issues. A pure libertarian would permit pretty much anything on which there is widespread disagreement, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, and so forth. Conservative libertarians value fetuses at the same level as adults.

I have to catch a bus.

~ Neshamah

Lenny

05-22-2008, 12:26 PM

Hope you caught your bus on time.
We agree: the state and sex (what ever that is) have little in connection.
I don't understand that "sex creates a family bond", or if I do, then I don't agree. A family bond may be created naturally, and kept with hard and focused energy. The commitment must be there, but I have noticed that over the years the crap men tell women (for the most part, but not exclusively) that there is no difference between an LTA and marriage, is wrong. HUGE difference, and not to be taken lightly. It's all "groovy" to BELIEVE that the state has nothing to do with it, but it does. Of course if you are to redefine marriage, you might wish to redefine "state" as well. Then all is up for grabs. Got to go and do other stuff too.

I am reverting to my earlier view on marriage. Sex creates a family bond whether or not there is a marriage certificate. You can't keep someone alive just by witholding their death certificate. Neither can the government deny a sexual reality.

Still, my general point was/is that relationships should be defined by the people within those relationships, rather than by the State. Christine highlights the importance of having a living will. The government should give individuals the broadest possible discretion in deciding who can visit them and/or make decisions on their behalf.

My general rule concerning the law is, "if in doubt, err on the side of being too permissive." My personal view on sex is that it should only be in the context of lifelong commitment, and that the commitment should come first. If someone is born homosexual, they should not force themselves into a heterosexual relationship, and vice-versa. I also believe children should be raised by two committed parents except in extreme circumstances. I wholeheartedly support allowing gay couples to adopt, but am not enthusiastic about allowing single people to adopt (though being somewhat libertarian, I also do not think it should be restricted.)

As for Ron Paul supporters and homosexual marriage, Ron Paul attracted people with a wide range of views. Some people supported him solely for his anti-war position on the grounds that the war is doing more harm than any other changes his presidency would bring about. Others support him because he is for the most part very conservative. I understand libertarians are fairly divided on social issues. A pure libertarian would permit pretty much anything on which there is widespread disagreement, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, and so forth. Conservative libertarians value fetuses at the same level as adults.

I have to catch a bus.

~ Neshamah

Braggi

05-22-2008, 05:09 PM

...
We agree: the state and sex (what ever that is) have little in connection.
...

You are in the US? There are thousands of laws having to do with sex and the consequences of sex. The "State" is all over sex and perhaps we agree that it should be less involved.

And I though it was only Bill Clinton that wasn't sure about the definitions of sex. Maybe that's why you're confused. :wink:

...
I don't understand that "sex creates a family bond", or if I do, then I don't agree. ...

and then:

...
A family bond may be created naturally, and kept with hard and focused energy. ...

Very punny, Lenny.

Actually, sex has a great deal to do with bonding between and among people. If you don't agree ... perhaps you could use a little help. There's always Oona Mournier. She's great. Look her up.

I do hope you don't think there's anything more natural than sex, whether it be "hard and focused" or soft and mooshy. Hopefully juicy in either case.

Wishing you the best,

-Jeff

Lenny

05-23-2008, 10:12 AM

You are in the US? There are thousands of laws having to do with sex and the consequences of sex. The "State" is all over sex and perhaps we agree that it should be less involved.And I though it was only Bill Clinton that wasn't sure about the definitions of sex. Maybe that's why you're confused

Sometimes the word "is" can be very much so!
And yes, we agree that the state covers sex ad nausea!
Another reason to vote the rascals out, AND limit their year to 90 days pr annum.

Actually, sex has a great deal to do with bonding between and among people. If you don't agree ... perhaps you could use a little help. There's always Oona Mournier. She's great. Look her up.
I do hope you don't think there's anything more natural than sex, whether it be "hard and focused" or soft and mooshy. Hopefully juicy in either case.
Wishing you the best, -Jeff

Thank you. Recovery is slow, but folks like you make it pleasant and helpful in forgetting the discomfort. And thanks for the referral to Oona! What a babe! Might even be sexier than Martha Stewart! What? Is that laughter I hear? Martha IS a babe (as much a babe as I am a male chauvinist pig)
BUT!!!!
My language is so sloppy as to confound even the confused.
The bonding is flimsy in sex, a little slower and more fickle than the orgasm, but just as....anyway, so the economics come into play and this "sustainability" of "family" becomes an issue: marriage is the easiest answer for the greatest number to understand and work with, no?.
Oh, how simple when we are mixed up, eh? Have fun :tiphat:

Zeno Swijtink

05-29-2008, 07:57 AM

It's like Max Planck, was one of the founders of quantum mechanics, said about scientific theories: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

Zeno

*****
Field Poll finds majority of state's voters approve of same-sex unions

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 3:34 a.m.

The influx of young, hip voters who accept social diversity accounts for a shift in California voter sentiment favoring gay marriage for the first time in three decades, a local political analyst said Wednesday.

"It's a generational change," said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University associate professor of political science.

And it sets California apart from most of the country, where firm lines have been drawn against same-sex marriages, unions and partnerships in all but 10 states.

California is "dramatically different" on the issue, McCuan said.

A Field Poll finding that Californians approve of same-sex marriage by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin confirms a shift that McCuan said has been growing since 2000, when state voters approved Proposition 22, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, by a 61 percent majority.

The state Supreme Court struck down the proposition two weeks ago, but the issue remains in flux with a proposed state constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage expected to qualify for the November ballot.

The Field Poll results showed the amendment, which needs only majority approval, will fail in California, McCuan said, but the provocative issue could help Republicans stave off a Democratic landslide in November.

Not so, said Jack Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and former Republican Party policy analyst.

"These (poll) numbers might be soft," Pitney said, contending respondents to such a sensitive issue as gay marriage "may give the response they feel is socially acceptable."

The Field Poll has been tracking the same-sex marriage issue for 30 years, but its latest finding conflict with a Los Angeles Times/KTLA survey released Friday that found 54 percent of registered voters would support the November ballot measure.

Santa Rosa City Councilman John Sawyer, who is gay, said the Field Poll results gave him hope but not assurance that the ballot measure would fail.

"I wouldn't bet the farm on a margin like that," he said.

Beyond California, Pitney said, same-sex marriage will have little traction in November because the issue has been settled. Gay marriage is banned by law in 41 states and by constitutional amendment in 27 states, where it cannot be overturned by legislative action.

Only California and Massachusetts allow gay marriage, and eight others -- Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii -- allow same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Conservatives are "victims of their own success," Pitney said, by taking gay marriage out of play in most of the nation. "It's done."

Gay marriage remains a divisive issue, a "battle between the heartland and the coastland," McCuan said, noting gay weddings or unions are allowed only on the West Coast and in a cluster of Northeast states.

Because none of the three potential presidential nominees -- Republican John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- supports gay marriage, Pitney said it is unlikely to be raised by them as a campaign issue.

But Republicans may use gay marriage as a "get-out-the-vote tool" to woo conservatives and independents to the polls, especially in such battleground states as Michigan and Ohio, McCuan said.

That tactic could trim Democratic gains in the House and Senate, preventing a mega-majority in both houses, he said.

But Pitney contends the impact will be minimal because there are so few competitive races both in Congress and state legislatures.

Field Poll results confirm McCuan's theory that youthful voters made a difference, finding 68 percent of voters under 30 favored same-sex marriage, while fewer than half of those 50 and over did so.

Younger voters are "more accepting," McCuan said, and more likely to have a friend or relative who is gay or lesbian.

California youth "grow up without fear and anxiety" about gays, Sawyer said.

Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo called the latest results a "historic turning point or milestone."

The poll, conducted from May 17 to Monday, just after the state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, used a random sample of 1,052 registered voters.

It found nearly twice as many voters approving of same-sex marriage as in 1977, when 28 percent approved and 59 percent disapproved.

In five subsequent polls, the percent favoring gay marriage steadily grew to 30 percent in 1985, 38 percent in 1997, 42 percent in 2003 and 44 percent in both 2004 and 2006. Disapproval fell below 50 percent for the first time this year.

Field Poll results are online at https://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/

You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or [email protected].

Valley Oak

05-29-2008, 10:04 AM

Dr. McCuan is one of my political science instructors at SSU. He is one of my favorite professors in the entire school. David is among the best and the brightest. I will have him again for one of my courses this Fall semester.

Edward

It's like Max Planck, was one of the founders of quantum mechanics, said about scientific theories: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

Zeno

*****
Field Poll finds majority of state's voters approve of same-sex unions

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 3:34 a.m.

The influx of young, hip voters who accept social diversity accounts for a shift in California voter sentiment favoring gay marriage for the first time in three decades, a local political analyst said Wednesday.

"It's a generational change," said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University associate professor of political science.

And it sets California apart from most of the country, where firm lines have been drawn against same-sex marriages, unions and partnerships in all but 10 states.

California is "dramatically different" on the issue, McCuan said.

A Field Poll finding that Californians approve of same-sex marriage by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin confirms a shift that McCuan said has been growing since 2000, when state voters approved Proposition 22, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, by a 61 percent majority.

The state Supreme Court struck down the proposition two weeks ago, but the issue remains in flux with a proposed state constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage expected to qualify for the November ballot.

The Field Poll results showed the amendment, which needs only majority approval, will fail in California, McCuan said, but the provocative issue could help Republicans stave off a Democratic landslide in November.

Not so, said Jack Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and former Republican Party policy analyst.

"These (poll) numbers might be soft," Pitney said, contending respondents to such a sensitive issue as gay marriage "may give the response they feel is socially acceptable."

The Field Poll has been tracking the same-sex marriage issue for 30 years, but its latest finding conflict with a Los Angeles Times/KTLA survey released Friday that found 54 percent of registered voters would support the November ballot measure.

Santa Rosa City Councilman John Sawyer, who is gay, said the Field Poll results gave him hope but not assurance that the ballot measure would fail.

"I wouldn't bet the farm on a margin like that," he said.

Beyond California, Pitney said, same-sex marriage will have little traction in November because the issue has been settled. Gay marriage is banned by law in 41 states and by constitutional amendment in 27 states, where it cannot be overturned by legislative action.

Only California and Massachusetts allow gay marriage, and eight others -- Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii -- allow same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Conservatives are "victims of their own success," Pitney said, by taking gay marriage out of play in most of the nation. "It's done."

Gay marriage remains a divisive issue, a "battle between the heartland and the coastland," McCuan said, noting gay weddings or unions are allowed only on the West Coast and in a cluster of Northeast states.

Because none of the three potential presidential nominees -- Republican John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- supports gay marriage, Pitney said it is unlikely to be raised by them as a campaign issue.

But Republicans may use gay marriage as a "get-out-the-vote tool" to woo conservatives and independents to the polls, especially in such battleground states as Michigan and Ohio, McCuan said.

That tactic could trim Democratic gains in the House and Senate, preventing a mega-majority in both houses, he said.

But Pitney contends the impact will be minimal because there are so few competitive races both in Congress and state legislatures.

Field Poll results confirm McCuan's theory that youthful voters made a difference, finding 68 percent of voters under 30 favored same-sex marriage, while fewer than half of those 50 and over did so.

Younger voters are "more accepting," McCuan said, and more likely to have a friend or relative who is gay or lesbian.

California youth "grow up without fear and anxiety" about gays, Sawyer said.

Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo called the latest results a "historic turning point or milestone."

The poll, conducted from May 17 to Monday, just after the state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, used a random sample of 1,052 registered voters.

It found nearly twice as many voters approving of same-sex marriage as in 1977, when 28 percent approved and 59 percent disapproved.

In five subsequent polls, the percent favoring gay marriage steadily grew to 30 percent in 1985, 38 percent in 1997, 42 percent in 2003 and 44 percent in both 2004 and 2006. Disapproval fell below 50 percent for the first time this year.

Field Poll results are online at https://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/

You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or [email protected].

thewholetruth

05-31-2008, 06:31 AM

While I understand the notion of gradually indoctrinating a generation into accepting particular thinking, I doubt that California - the people of California, I mean - will approve of homosexual "marriage" come November. The entire approach is odd, IMO. Change the definition of a word to include me? Why, then let's change the definition of the word "Mayor" to include me, too. Or "police officer", perhaps. That would be cool, to pack a set of lights on top of my car and pull people over for any "infractions" (my definition of the word would include "being a jackass", of course ;-).

If Civil Unions afford homosexuals the same insurance (which it does, as I just went over a Kaiser application which included "Married/Domestic Partner") and benefits as married couples. And if that's not the case somewhere, and homosexual couples do NOT get all of the same benefits as heterosexual couples, then THAT needs to be changed, not the definition of the word "marriage". IMHO, of course. :2cents:

[quote=Zeno Swijtink;60009]It's like Max Planck, was one of the founders of quantum mechanics, said about scientific theories: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

Zeno

*****
Field Poll finds majority of state's voters approve of same-sex unions

thewholetruth

05-31-2008, 06:50 AM

I am reverting to my earlier view on marriage. Sex creates a family bond whether or not there is a marriage certificate. You can't keep someone alive just by witholding their death certificate. Neither can the government deny a sexual reality.

I think that is a WAY over-the-top generalization, Nesh. I've had sex with plenty of people with which there was never any "family bond" created. Way back when, of course. Perhaps sex is different today? :-P

If someone is born homosexual...

Have they discovered a "homosexual gene" now? Last I heard, there was no evidence of anyone being "born homosexual". In fact, sexuality is a choice, or not. Everyone has the choice to be asexual if they want to, or to participate in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, or either. Were people "born asexual"? No. Were they born heterosexual? No. Babies and infants have no sexual nature. Granted, nature dictates attraction to the opposite sex in most cases, virtually all cases, even. (Not literally, but virtually, as 99% is considered "virtually" all). But to say that someone is "born" with a particular sexual preference is simply society's excuse for not really being able to pinpoint specifically what makes us choose opposite sex or same sex partners. There isn't any evidence of genetic predisposition for homosexual behavior. In fact, I think it's comical that as intelligent as we are collectively, that we even entertain such an unfounded notion in this day and age. Isn't "We don't really know yet" an acceptable conclusion among intelligent adults anymore?

Conservative libertarians value fetuses at the same level as adults.

A human being's life is finite, Nesh. It has a beginning and an end. Is there a time, IYO, that a human being's life is less valuable than at other times? If so, what specifically makes that human life less valuable at that time, IYO, and then, specifically, what makes them more valuable at another time?

Thanks in advance for your further thoughts on this.

Zeno Swijtink

05-31-2008, 07:01 AM

Why do you see this as a change of the meaning of a word? If we move the driving age to 18 (such as in most European countries) it does not mean we change the meaning of the word 18 or the word driving.

(...) I doubt that California - the people of California, I mean - will approve of homosexual "marriage" come November. The entire approach is odd, IMO. Change the definition of a word to include me? Why, then let's change the definition of the word "Mayor" to include me, too. Or "police officer", perhaps. That would be cool, to pack a set of lights on top of my car and pull people over for any "infractions" (my definition of the word would include "being a jackass", of course ;-).

If Civil Unions afford homosexuals the same insurance (which it does, as I just went over a Kaiser application which included "Married/Domestic Partner") and benefits as married couples. And if that's not the case somewhere, and homosexual couples do NOT get all of the same benefits as heterosexual couples, then THAT needs to be changed, not the definition of the word "marriage". IMHO, of course. :2cents:

thewholetruth

05-31-2008, 07:39 AM

Why do you see this as a change of the meaning of a word?

Because it is. The definition of marriage states "one man, one woman".

If we move the driving age to 18 (such as in most European countries) it does not mean we change the meaning of the word 18 or the word driving.

Foolish analogy. If you had taken more time perhaps...ah, but you didn't. :wink: I think a better analogy is if you changed the definition of the word "couple" to mean 3.

MsTerry

05-31-2008, 08:21 AM

Why do you see this as a change of the meaning of a word? If we move the driving age to 18 (such as in most European countries) it does not mean we change the meaning of the word 18 or the word driving.
If words didn't have a specific meaning, how would you have been able to come up with any suggestions for a Ramsey-reduct of infinite theories?
Maybe we should call everybody Homo-Sexual as soon as they are having Sex with another Homo Sapiens?

thewholetruth

05-31-2008, 09:02 AM

If words didn't have a specific meaning, how would you have been able to come up with any suggestions for a Ramsey-reduct of infinite theories?
Maybe we should call everybody Homo-Sexual as soon as they are having Sex with another Homo Sapiens?

If words didn't mean anything, that would be fine. Oh...but words DO mean something.

Lenny

05-31-2008, 01:43 PM

Have they discovered a "homosexual gene" now? Last I heard, there was no evidence of anyone being "born homosexual". In fact, sexuality is a choice, or not. Everyone has the choice to be asexual if they want to, or to participate in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, or either. Were people "born asexual"? No. Were they born heterosexual? No. Babies and infants have no sexual nature. Granted, nature dictates attraction to the opposite sex in most cases, virtually all cases, even. (Not literally, but virtually, as 99% is considered "virtually" all). But to say that someone is "born" with a particular sexual preference is simply society's excuse for not really being able to pinpoint specifically what makes us choose opposite sex or same sex partners. There isn't any evidence of genetic predisposition for homosexual behavior. In fact, I think it's comical that as intelligent as we are collectively, that we even entertain such an unfounded notion in this day and age. Isn't "We don't really know yet" an acceptable conclusion among intelligent adults anymore? Thanks in advance for your further thoughts on this.

Just for grins and giggles, and also I found out it is JUMP ON DON DAY (only because you showed up, as is every day you show up (missed you, bub)) I respectfully disagree.
I think all babies are almost nothing BUT sexual, in the Freudian sense. Yes, you know I am a STRONG fundamentalist and practical advocate of Matthew 18:6, but I find it that we are born truly sexual so much so that the phenomena of being such is beyond any words. We are pleasure seeking creatures being knitted in a sea of euphoria and in communion with existence which began as sexual in nature. As a Christian you already know God's FIRST commandment to us: I made you. You are horny, now go do stuff about THAT. And we've been trying ever since, through the act itself, the sciences, the arts, our play, our very creative, and sadly destructive (perversion) selves, have affirmed that fact, IMHO.
So while you are right that there is no homo-hetro gene, when it does come down to finding it on a petri dish, it will simply be Sexual, both alleles.
For me, the "predisposition towards" occurs in two places: external, and now the local courts have reviewed that, though there is no shared cultural norm outside of the greater Bay Area and other isolated spots, in a few years that will have been acculturated. The other foci, and the more serious one, is internal. And that is far to complicated for me to go into on a day like today. And altogether you know it's not worth more than :2cents:

thewholetruth

06-02-2008, 06:54 AM

Just for grins and giggles, and also I found out it is JUMP ON DON DAY (only because you showed up, as is every day you show up (missed you, bub))...

Gosh, that would explain the 'celebration' virtually every time I post! :wink:

While I understand your position, I don't believe that babies are sexual. I believe we are all driven to intimacy, but our screwed up society translates "intimacy" to "sex" all too often, especially in Liberal social circles. Granted, by design we are driven to procreate, but children cannot and do not procreate unless violated by an adult.

And wasn't Freud a coke addict? ...or something like that. :thumbsup:

Just for grins and giggles, and also I found out it is JUMP ON DON DAY (only because you showed up, as is every day you show up (missed you, bub)) I respectfully disagree.
I think all babies are almost nothing BUT sexual, in the Freudian sense. Yes, you know I am a STRONG fundamentalist and practical advocate of Matthew 18:6, but I find it that we are born truly sexual so much so that the phenomena of being such is beyond any words. We are pleasure seeking creatures being knitted in a sea of euphoria and in communion with existence which began as sexual in nature. As a Christian you already know God's FIRST commandment to us: I made you. You are horny, now go do stuff about THAT. And we've been trying ever since, through the act itself, the sciences, the arts, our play, our very creative, and sadly destructive (perversion) selves, have affirmed that fact, IMHO.
So while you are right that there is no homo-hetro gene, when it does come down to finding it on a petri dish, it will simply be Sexual, both alleles.
For me, the "predisposition towards" occurs in two places: external, and now the local courts have reviewed that, though there is no shared cultural norm outside of the greater Bay Area and other isolated spots, in a few years that will have been acculturated. The other foci, and the more serious one, is internal. And that is far to complicated for me to go into on a day like today. And altogether you know it's not worth more than :2cents:

Braggi

06-02-2008, 08:07 AM

...
While I understand your position, I don't believe that babies are sexual. ...

Babies masturbate in the womb and certainly they masturbate while very young. Any parent has observed that if they paid attention.

...
I believe we are all driven to intimacy, but our screwed up society translates "intimacy" to "sex" all too often, especially in Liberal social circles. ...

Certainly agree that intimacy and sex are not equivalent. They do overlap in a big way for both liberals and conservatives and everyone who is both liberal and conservative which is most folks.

...
Granted, by design we are driven to procreate, but children cannot and do not procreate unless violated by an adult. ...

But sex is rarely about procreation. It is about pleasure seeking and pleasure giving first and procreation second. The vast majority of sexual encounters don't even have procreation as a possibility. That comment doesn't fit into this conversation very well.

...
And wasn't Freud a coke addict? ...or something like that.

Freud was a conflicted individual with questionable values and morals. Proper professional boundaries barely existed for him. His coke habit is seldom mentioned in discussions of his theories because there's already plenty of meat to sink tooth and claw into. He was a pretty screwed up guy. That doesn't mean he didn't have moments of genius or that all of his theories were wrong. His greatest accomplishment, in my opinion, was that he opened up the dialog, in a big way, about the fact that early sexuality effects emotions and behavior later in life. Whether he was right or wrong on any given point is less important than the fact his writings were widely read and discussed and the fields of psychology and psychiatry grew immensely as a result.

The fact of a person being black or queer or a junky doesn't negate a fact discovered by them.

-Jeff

Braggi

06-02-2008, 08:20 AM

...
So while you are right that there is no homo-hetro gene, when it does come down to finding it on a petri dish, it will simply be Sexual, both alleles. ...

I agree that it's a bit foolish to propose there is a homo-hetero gene. However, I think (just my imagining here ...) that all experiences have an affect on DNA and are somehow recorded there. That means anything you look for, if you could look closely enough and read clearly enough, is written somewhere in the genetic code.

I think the search for genetic dispositions toward diseases and the treatment of such is valid and valuable research. The search for genetic dispositions toward sexuality is wasted effort. Sure, someone will be able to "prove" genetic disposition but another researcher will be able to "disprove" it with the same data. it's a no win proposition.

We are all potentially bisexual and an individual's sexuality exists somewhere on the bell curve between the extremes. I think it is unnatural to be exclusively hetero or homo sexual, at least emotionally and in thought. The vast majority of people lean more strongly one way or the other, but it is "normal," in my opinion, to be bisexual.

I propose it only makes sense that marriages should be open to multiples so that full sexual potential could be realized in a union recognized by law as well as institutions of religion.

My church performs marriages for groups. Doesn't yours?

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink

06-03-2008, 10:15 AM

Because it is. The definition of marriage states "one man, one woman".

Foolish analogy. If you had taken more time perhaps...ah, but you didn't. :wink: I think a better analogy is if you changed the definition of the word "couple" to mean 3.

You're right, I was too quick here. Maybe my meaning has already shifted sufficiently that I did not recognize your meaning as restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.

A better analogy is with the word "citizen," that used to be restricted to men. Women could not be citizens (see below).

The recognition of women's civic rights, and their inclusion in the class of citizens, must have been experienced by conservatives of that time similarly as you experience the inclusion of some same sex relations under "marriage." "A women cannot be a citizen, by definition," I hear Sir Don Cobbero say :):

"Whatever the politics surrounding incorporation, it was freemen, burgesses, and citizens who populated the community, or communitas, that resulted. The term ‘freeman’ denoted access to economic resources and privileges and was enjoyed by all enfranchised inhabitants. The labels ‘burgess’ (in boroughs) and ‘citizen’ (in cities) signified additional public powers and responsibilities within the body politic. Enfranchisement was formalised by oath taking and other communal rituals and formally restricted to male heads of household."

The Politics of Commonwealth
Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England
Series: Cambridge Social and Cultural Histories (No. 4)
Phil Withington
University of Aberdeen
https://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521826877&ss=exc

Lenny

06-03-2008, 08:28 PM

While I understand your position, I don't believe that babies are sexual. I believe we are all driven to intimacy, but our screwed up society translates "intimacy" to "sex" all too often, especially in Liberal social circles. Granted, by design we are driven to procreate, but children cannot and do not procreate unless violated by an adult.And wasn't Freud a coke addict? ...or something like that. :thumbsup:

Well, more of a pickle than I wanted. My language is frustratingly inadequate, so I apologize. Let me try to clarify.
If there were levels of words, "intimacy" would be at a "higher" level than "sexual". I feared writing that babies were "sexual" as to avoid such problems of meaning. As Jeff mentioned, sex does not mean procreation in such issues. Babies are not "sexual" in any sense of that meaning. They are simply bundles of sensual undifferentiated pleasure or joy, maybe akin to the afterglow of a moving sexual encounter. Except all the time when well cared for. Does that make sense? My language deficiencies are showing and now I wish I never tried to put it in words. I am not ever suggesting "sex" in the common sense and babies are connected. Their neural systems, somatic systems, and ever other part of them is not to be equated with sex. Oh, never mind! Too frustrating, to late, or to tired to try. Just my point of view.
Oh, and another POV is that Freud was a punk!

Lenny

06-03-2008, 08:48 PM

I agree that it's a bit foolish to propose there is a homo-hetero gene. However, I think (just my imagining here ...) that all experiences have an affect on DNA and are somehow recorded there. That means anything you look for, if you could look closely enough and read clearly enough, is written somewhere in the genetic code.

Interesting notion. Thought about that as well. Can only imagine the scribbing mechanism! When I studied neurophysiology folks elsewhere were making soup out of monkey brains and feeding that to other monkeys that were learning the old tricks faster. The biochemistry to cull out those proteins have probably been isolated within those 35 years, to be sure.

I think the search for genetic dispositions toward diseases and the treatment of such is valid and valuable research. The search for genetic dispositions toward sexuality is wasted effort. Sure, someone will be able to "prove" genetic disposition but another researcher will be able to "disprove" it with the same data. it's a no win proposition.

The danger will be to ascribe behavior to specific enzymes and alleles, and then alter the enzyme output. We will be machines then, and other questions will arise. But for gross behavioral issues such as self identity components to be boiled up from a soup? Ewwww! I am glad Huxley wrote his last book ISLAND as an apology for Brave New Worlds but nobody ever talks about that.

We are all potentially bisexual and an individual's sexuality exists somewhere on the bell curve between the extremes. I think it is unnatural to be exclusively hetero or homo sexual, at least emotionally and in thought. The vast majority of people lean more strongly one way or the other, but it is "normal," in my opinion, to be bisexual.

I've problems here. I agree we are SIMPLY sexual and from that one could ascribe such language as "bi", but there are complications. The external process of the individual, society, has SO many signals (fewer due to this thread topic) to be hetro, that to go "against" it was considered a sign of mental illness, but that changed with a simple vote of majority around the 1970s. For the majority there is a simple revulsion of the notion of sex with the same gender. Some of it is complicated and that is probably to do with internalization problems of that indivdiual, but for many, if not most, the very thought of having sex with the same gender is bad. And that ain't complicated.
That is also to say that emotionally an individual could easily love, admire, be fond of, etc, and find themselves with a whole host of emotions for the same gender, but once again, external forces, at least around here, forbid or alter such expressions, if not pervert it.

I propose it only makes sense that marriages should be open to multiples so that full sexual potential could be realized in a union recognized by law as well as institutions of religion.

Well, that's the next agenda item. Mormons beat you, collectively speaking. Good article in this month's Smithsonian about what happened to them for doing just that.

My church performs marriages for groups. Doesn't yours?
-Jeff

Groups of what?

Lenny

06-03-2008, 08:56 PM

You're right, I was too quick here. Maybe my meaning has already shifted sufficiently that I did not recognize your meaning as restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.

I like a good old fashion guy and what he means. Don't you? Keeps things simple and allows work to get done, no? ,at least for me.

A better analogy is with the word "citizen," that used to be restricted to men. Women could not be citizens.

"Citizen"?
You old romantic you!
And 400 years ago in Scotland one's wife was called "baggage".
Another group of romantics, no?

MsTerry

06-03-2008, 09:13 PM

A better analogy is with the word "citizen," that used to be restricted to men. Women could not be citizens (see below).

C'mon now Zenot, you are looking and cooking real hard now.
Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman, not an usury word play.
Part of the marriage ritual is to pronounce the people husband and wife, are we going to call two women or two men, husband and wife too?
Words are used to make distinctions between what is and what isn't.
If X + Y = Z, and X+Y are not equal, what follows is that X + X or Y + Y can NOT be Z
https://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleImage?image=images%2Fpages%2Fdtc.110.tif.gif&doi=10.2307%2F187123
Published by: The University of Chicago Press (https://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress) on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association (https://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=psa)

santarosie

06-09-2008, 11:30 PM

Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman, not an usury word play.
Part of the marriage ritual is to pronounce the people husband and wife, are we going to call two women or two men, husband and wife too?
Words are used to make distinctions between what is and what isn't.
If X + Y = Z, and X+Y are not equal, what follows is that X + X or Y + Y can NOT be Z

If x equals one female human, and Y equals one male human, then Z equals two humans. In this case X + Y = Z, X + X = Z, and Y + Y also equals Z. You can choose to define your X and Y any way that suits you in order to get the result that you need to support your case. Words, facts, and opinions can always be twisted, tweaked, and stated in such a way as to deliver a distinct message, or engineer a desired outcome. I think our big human brains have gotten very adept at making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm a lumper, not a splitter, I tend to look at things in very simple terms.

A marriage ceremony can include any thoughts, ideas, or promises that the persons being united want to express to each other and their witnesses. It's a compact between two consenting adults. We seek out partnerships to make our lives (and survival) less difficult and more meaningful. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone should care who a person picks to make that committed partnership with, as long as they are both on board. :hifive:

Lenny

06-10-2008, 05:15 AM

If x equals one female human, and Y equals one male human, then Z equals two humans. In this case X + Y = Z, X + X = Z, and Y + Y also equals Z. You can choose to define your X and Y any way that suits you in order to get the result that you need to support your case. Words, facts, and opinions can always be twisted, tweaked, and stated in such a way as to deliver a distinct message, or engineer a desired outcome. I think our big human brains have gotten very adept at making a mountain out of a molehill.

While being able to recreate new "meaning" out of whatever we wish to alter from the basic definition, the outcome will not be the same, thereby losing the identity of the very thing we wish obtain. IOW, one can take a lump of clay, call it tofu, and serve it as food.

A marriage ceremony can include any thoughts, ideas, or promises that the persons being united want to express to each other and their witnesses. It's a compact between two consenting adults. We seek out partnerships to make our lives (and survival) less difficult and more meaningful. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone should care who a person picks to make that committed partnership with, as long as they are both on board. :hifive:

As one grows older and looks out into the world to ensure its benign continuance, one reflects, worries, and becomes concerned about things younger folks may not even consider. As you can't figure out what others give a communal concern is not really the issue. If you wish to posit that the state has no interest in who marries, then your position is almost tenable, but the argument turns toward marrying the dead, children, polyandry, polygamy, animals, relatives, and probably a few missed constructs. Then one asks if the state serves its basic function of protecting its inhabitants, or just what function, if any, at all.

MsTerry

06-10-2008, 09:32 AM

You can travel the world all over and find people that are married, and the meaning is consistent for the same word, marriage.
People are called either a man or a woman, consistently all over the world, because we recognize they are different .
We don't call gay people straight nor straight people homosexual, because we recognize the differences in lifestyles.
If a woman tells me;" I am married", it tells me more than just the fact that she is living with someone. This will change, if the new laws hold up.
Why gay people haven't tried to get the same rights under a new word to celebrate their uniqueness, is beyond me

If x equals one female human, and Y equals one male human, then Z equals two humans. In this case X + Y = Z, X + X = Z, and Y + Y also equals Z. You can choose to define your X and Y any way that suits you in order to get the result that you need to support your case. Words, facts, and opinions can always be twisted, tweaked, and stated in such a way as to deliver a distinct message, or engineer a desired outcome. I think our big human brains have gotten very adept at making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm a lumper, not a splitter, I tend to look at things in very simple terms.

A marriage ceremony can include any thoughts, ideas, or promises that the persons being united want to express to each other and their witnesses. It's a compact between two consenting adults. We seek out partnerships to make our lives (and survival) less difficult and more meaningful. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone should care who a person picks to make that committed partnership with, as long as they are both on board. :hifive:

PeriodThree

06-10-2008, 11:57 AM

It is important to note that there are no 'new laws' involved in providing gay couples the equal right to marry, just as there were no 'new laws' involved when the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriages in Lovings vs. Virginia (1967).

I personally find the premise behind your question wondering why 'gay people don't just get a new word to celebrate their uniqueness' to be deeply troubling.

The key is that gay people are first of all people. Requiring people to create a new word, and a new body of law just in order to exist is just plain wrong.

By any reasonable reading of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment, in the US it is also illegal. We will have a US Supreme Court case which will at a stroke invalidate the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as well as all of the various state laws and state constitutional amendments which discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. It won't happen this year, but the court ruled 6-3 in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to invalidate the Texas sodomy law.

The principles of Equal Protection have been resisted for years, but even hardened sexists, racists, and homophobes relent when faced with the simple equation that their vilified group consists of people, and those people have the absolute inalienable right to equal protection under the law.

There is no reasonable person in America who still believes that interracial marriage should be banned by law, and, I am being intentionally provocative here, but I assert that there is no reasonable person in America who still believes that consensual gay sex should be illegal.

Within a decade the same will be true of Gay Marriage. And those who today fight against it will feel the sense of shame that comes from being fundamentally wrong which one time opponents of interracial marriage now feel.

This will change, if the new laws hold up.
Why gay people haven't tried to get the same rights under a new word to celebrate their uniqueness, is beyond me

Lenny

06-10-2008, 02:06 PM

It is important to note that there are no 'new laws' involved in providing gay couples the equal right to marry, just as there were no 'new laws' involved when the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriages in Lovings vs. Virginia (1967).

Well, you probably best me here, as you are "correct" in that there were no "new" laws, since judges don't MAKE law, or at least they are not charged to do so; only the legislative branch can "make" laws. But judges do "interpret" the law such that.....well, we all know the outcome....and in outcome and fact that is how circumvention of our Constitution is made. Another way to skin a cat: activist judges.

I personally find the premise behind your question wondering why 'gay people don't just get a new word to celebrate their uniqueness' to be deeply troubling. The key is that gay people are first of all people. Requiring people to create a new word, and a new body of law just in order to exist is just plain wrong.

None here deny the humanity of gay folks; Lord knows they have suffered more than most here, which, if anything makes them MORE humanly capable of understanding 'our human condition'. However it is "not just plain wrong" to have a whole new word or sets of ideas spun from all that!
Being "gay" is new meaning to an old word, so why not "Civil Union", or....well I'm not a neologist, but I trust a more creative person can come up with a new word if one wishes. The notion of "marriage" between gay folks IS new to us, as a culture and society, so why not a new way to look at this union? As you may find it "troubling", one can find it "liberating" in that a whole new world view may be gained by doing so, especially since it's not been done in the general consensus of history. Be troubled not!

By any reasonable reading of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment, in the US it is also illegal. We will have a US Supreme Court case which will at a stroke invalidate the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as well as all of the various state laws and state constitutional amendments which discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. It won't happen this year, but the court ruled 6-3 in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to invalidate the Texas sodomy law.
The principles of Equal Protection have been resisted for years, but even hardened sexists, racists, and homophobes relent when faced with the simple equation that their vilified group consists of people, and those people have the absolute inalienable right to equal protection under the law.

Well, you make a good point, however tenuous. It may seem arbitrary, and may quite be so, that the state draws boundaries for marriage. But then the state is created and ordered to protect its citizens, and in our ideal system, even the weakest of them. While no one, again, denies this minority's "humanness" one of the "arbitrary" lines is gender. There are other arbitrary lines, such as relatives (brother/sister/father/mother/cousins, etc) and mentation (insane, Down's syndrome, imbeciles, etc), polyandry, polygamy, animals (although that is on the mid-horizon for some), children and others not enumerated. Thus your notion of "absolute inalienable right" does sound excellent, there really is not such an "absolute" to the any issue. And while you are right that a stroke of the pen by the Supremes could invalidate any law, there are two options for the legislators, impeach the judges per the Constitution (not likely with the scardy cats there now) or make new law such that the Supremes cannot overturn. All this while reflecting what MOST OF AMERICA does not want, just Sonoma County and a few other places: no "gay marriage". Civil Unions, maybe, in time......

There is no reasonable person in America who still believes that interracial marriage should be banned by law, and, I am being intentionally provocative here, but I assert that there is no reasonable person in America who still believes that consensual gay sex should be illegal. Within a decade the same will be true of Gay Marriage. And those who today fight against it will feel the sense of shame that comes from being fundamentally wrong which one time opponents of interracial marriage now feel.

You know, P.T., I really do have respect for you arguments in other places, but now you are making me doubt. To utilize this "equatable" tying in of race and sexual orientation does not become you well. In the past both race and sexual orientation have suffered in the face of the majority, but that is the only and extent commonality and to bring more to that occurrence will not be countenanced in silence.
Also, there is no shame, nor ever will be, in defending Marriage as widely and historically practiced. If anything, the shame may be rightly felt by those that wish to bring shame to this game. The ad hominim does go full circle.

MsTerry

06-10-2008, 02:33 PM

There are other arbitrary lines, such as relatives (brother/sister/father/mother/cousins, etc) and mentation (insane, Down's syndrome, imbeciles, etc), polyandry, polygamy, animals (although that is on the mid-horizon for some), children and others not enumerated. Thus your notion of "absolute inalienable right" does sound excellent, there really is not such an "absolute" to the any issue.

Doggone it, Lenny
somebody already made that argument!
https://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html
Same folks that period 3 quoted so happily before

PeriodThree

06-10-2008, 02:49 PM

Lenny,

It pains me to see the struggle you must be in as you wrestle with your conscience and reason in order to defend something which even you must know in your heart is indefensible.

Restricting gay marriage is wrong in the exact same way that the state of Virginia was wrong in prosecuting the Lovings.

It is wrong in the way George Wallace was wrong when he so eloquontly, and so wrongly, said "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

It is wrong. This is not debatable, it is not negotiable. It can not be parsed where it is just a little wrong, it can not be fixed by throwing out the bone of domestic partnership.

It is wrong.

And you have to know that it is wrong. You write at depth attempting to create some safe harbor in which you can hide this wrong, but you know it is wrong. You know that this is not about people marrying animals or having sex with children, or creating some nuanced language in which separate is equal.

You know. And you know that it is wrong.

And knowing that must eat you up.

But as the preachers say, you don't have to hold that pain alone. You can come into the light. All you need to do is accept the notion that people are people.

That is all.

As for this:

Another way to skin a cat: activist judges.

Well, you have pushed a button, a pet peeve as it were.

In the case of the California case, this is a wrong statement. Perhaps Alexander Hamilton will be convincing to you:

"wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

The right has created this idea of 'activist judges' as part of their active attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Government of these United States. I doubt you are party to this evil, but as people with similar politics to yours were and are fond of using Lenin's phrase in referring to those of us on the left as 'useful idiots' I must suggest it applies to those who do not understand basic 8th grade Civics and so prattle on about 'activist judges.'

Six of the seven judges in the 4-3 decision were Republicans, and they wrote:

"[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."

It seems clear to me that libeling the judiciary with the claim of 'activist judges' is an anti-american act.

I love my country and I am disgusted when people attack my country by labeling any act of the judiciary with which they disagree as coming from 'activist judges.'

We would not have Judicial Review if it were not for Marbury vs. Madison. Talk about your 'Activist Judges.'

[quote=Lenny;61070]
Also, there is no shame, nor ever will be, in defending Marriage as widely and historically practiced. If anything, the shame may be rightly felt by those that wish to bring shame to this game. The ad hominim does go full circle.

I feel your pain, as you attempt to defend the morally indefensible. Yes, there is shame in defending 'Marriage as widely and historically practiced.'

There is shame in that, unless you are one who thinks the Lovings case was wrongly decided.

The arguments against Gay Marriage are the same as the arguments for racism. There is a morally right, and a morally bereft side to this issue.

You have, for your own reasons of tradition, chosen to advance a morally hateful position. But, just as George Wallace reached redemption within his lifetime, you can change.

Just do it. Say to yourself 'Gays are people, and as people they are entitled to equal protection under the law.'

It is the right thing. It is the American thing.

Lenny

06-11-2008, 07:27 AM

Lenny,
It pains me to see the struggle you must be in as you wrestle with your conscience and reason in order to defend something which even you must know in your heart is indefensible.

Well, not that I've read the amicus briefs in this matter as they had not been published, but I would imagine that there are some that did find the issue defensible. Now I did read such briefs in the Sodomy Lawrence v Texas case and found those to be most defensible, especially from the Texas medical association.

Restricting gay marriage is wrong in the exact same way that the state of Virginia was wrong in prosecuting the Lovings.

I really do not enjoy this attempt to equate behavior with genetics, unless you are making the point that we are genetically bound that folks marry. Is that your case? I didn't think so.

It is wrong. This is not debatable, it is not negotiable. It can not be parsed where it is just a little wrong, it can not be fixed by throwing out the bone of domestic partnership.It is wrong.
And you have to know that it is wrong. You write at depth attempting to create some safe harbor in which you can hide this wrong, but you know it is wrong. You know that this is not about people marrying animals or having sex with children, or creating some nuanced language in which separate is equal.

I apologize for this not being debatable AND not negotiable, and as you are not willing to allow it to be parsed as well have we reached an impasse? We all know that matters finalized such as this are ultimately worked out in language, so I must wonder at these shortcomings of this communication.
Thank you for the compliment about writing "in depth" but I've yet to embark as I've been told to keep things succinct and will attempt to abide. And at the risk of appearing contrary, as well as repeatedly flying in the face of Ms Terry, the matter IS about the state defining marriage and other behaviors, yes? Not to put too fine a disgusting point on it, I never mentioned sex with children; the Muslims claim that their founder "married" a nine year old, but had no sex until some years later.
However I love the passion in your refutation which indicates that you support my view and you may not even know it, but that's aside the point.

You know. And you know that it is wrong.
And knowing that must eat you up. But as the preachers say, you don't have to hold that pain alone. You can come into the light. All you need to do is accept the notion that people are people.That is all.

Alone? I don't find my self so. In this country, or world wide.
My goodness, the real question will be answered after 25 years of propaganda, posted in another thread here, will have swayed a majority of Americans to your position. I doubt it, but fear you may be right, not morally speaking, but simply democratically. And the worst of it will be after 50 years such marriages the right to these marriages will have even worse consequences. Fifty years ago divorce was in the same position and near impossible to obtain. Are we better now that it is ubiquitous? I think not, unless one is a divorce lawyer. Funny, that!

Ah, the cleansing light! I bath it in it quite often and, yes, it is refreshing.

As for this:

Another way to skin a cat: activist judges.

Well, you have pushed a button, a pet peeve as it were.
In the case of the California case, this is a wrong statement. Perhaps Alexander Hamilton will be convincing to you:

"wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

The right has created this idea of 'activist judges' as part of their active attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Government of these United States. I doubt you are party to this evil, but as people with similar politics to yours were and are fond of using Lenin's phrase in referring to those of us on the left as 'useful idiots' I must suggest it applies to those who do not understand basic 8th grade Civics and so prattle on about 'activist judges.'

Well, the flag never looks so nice as when draped. Except maybe when she's in the wind waving free!
I may be wrong and am often accused of such, but the term "activist" is not a "right" nor "left" issue, but simply a way that a judicial system may define itself, and while any individual judge may not totally fit such a designation, it is an agreed upon method of communication. Now, please, don't stop all manners of abstractions. I pray you are not slipping a little as your notion of interpreting law and the Constitution contrary to how you see it seems to be to accuse one of being less than patriotic. Easy does it.

Six of the seven judges in the 4-3 decision were Republicans, and they wrote:

"[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."

It seems clear to me that libeling the judiciary with the claim of 'activist judges' is an anti-american act. I love my country and I am disgusted when people attack my country by labeling any act of the judiciary with which they disagree as coming from 'activist judges.'

Whoa, big fella, it is not "libeling" the judges in any manner whatsoever. Being an "activist" judge is a clear and neutral statement. When a judge utilizes the "living or evolving Constitutional" approach it is their way of saying the same thing.There are no lies, slanders, aspersions, nor any other negative affectations of calumny, so take it easy.
And I stand proudly with you knowing that those six of seven judges appointed by "Republicans" can remain untouched by impeachment by our "Democratic" controlled legislators. The system kinda works.

We would not have Judicial Review if it were not for Marbury vs. Madison. Talk about your 'Activist Judges.'

Remind me, as it has been 48 years since my eighth grade civics, but is Marbury v Madison the case were the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to rule over the very document that gave it the power to rule, while the country's age was less by half the time since my last eighth grade class? Yes, those fellows would be considered "activists", but by the definition of the one Supreme Court Justice, "the law is what the judge says it is".

I feel your pain, as you attempt to defend the morally indefensible. Yes, there is shame in defending 'Marriage as widely and historically practiced.'
There is shame in that, unless you are one who thinks the Lovings case was wrongly decided. The arguments against Gay Marriage are the same as the arguments for racism. There is a morally right, and a morally bereft side to this issue. You have, for your own reasons of tradition, chosen to advance a morally hateful position. But, just as George Wallace reached redemption within his lifetime, you can change. Just do it. Say to yourself 'Gays are people, and as people they are entitled to equal protection under the law.' It is the right thing. It is the American thing.

I am hurt that you characterize such a position to be "hateful" as it is not. Are you suggesting that the minority position judges were "hateful"? Also, I've never doubted ANY personhood to any group, and I must wonder if you read my last post on the matter! You are ascribing hate to those that only you find so. Scary stuff to have that hate projected. Be careful.
A couple of minor points: you are right, only in your approach to the courts in attempting to define a class of people and utilizing the method of logic in comparing race and gender preference.
You are in error in every other aspect.
One reason you are in error is based on your use of the word "moral".
Morals by definition are "shared values". Outside of this really small community, such values are not shared. Being gay is "tolerated" at best, but not shared. When approaching the social aspect, such matters are not shared, so ascribing "morality" is not the appropriate aspect.
Finally, unless reincarnation may explain what "colored" folks did as a whole to get hung up in this nation as a collective, you are ascribing a specific behavior to the straight jacket of genetics. That is the abomination. We are free entities. Gay folks, like straight folks, are simply sexual. What and how folks express themselves in sexual behavior is as controlled by the state for us all.
The color of folks is controlled by genetics, but the behavior of the rest of the majority towards that fact is not. Such discrimination was based on genetic bias, not behavioral. Being gay is like being deaf in that no one knows so behavior towards them is normal until recognized and accommodations are made. One accommodation is to legalize Civil Unions.
It is wrong to ascribe behavior with genetics and claim they are equitable. It simply does not stand. The logic is torturous and in the end does not hold to reason. Got to go; my bees are not going to do anything outside their genetic makeup, so I've got to accommodate them for their well being.

MsTerry

06-11-2008, 10:11 AM

.
I am hurt that you characterize such a position to be "hateful" as it is not. Are you suggesting that the minority position judges were "hateful"? Also, I've never doubted ANY personhood to any group, and I must wonder if you read my last post on the matter! You are ascribing hate to those that only you find so. Scary stuff to have that hate projected. Be careful.
A couple of minor points: you are right, only in your approach to the courts in attempting to define a class of people and utilizing the method of logic in comparing race and gender preference.
You are in error in every other aspect.
One reason you are in error is based on your use of the word "moral".
Morals by definition are "shared values". Outside of this really small community, such values are not shared. Being gay is "tolerated" at best, but not shared. When approaching the social aspect, such matters are not shared, so ascribing "morality" is not the appropriate aspect.
Finally, unless reincarnation may explain what "colored" folks did as a whole to get hung up in this nation as a collective, you are ascribing a specific behavior to the straight jacket of genetics. That is the abomination. We are free entities. Gay folks, like straight folks, are simply sexual. What and how folks express themselves in sexual behavior is as controlled by the state for us all.
The color of folks is controlled by genetics, but the behavior of the rest of the majority towards that fact is not. Such discrimination was based on genetic bias, not behavioral. Being gay is like being deaf in that no one knows so behavior towards them is normal until recognized and accommodations are made. One accommodation is to legalize Civil Unions.
It is wrong to ascribe behavior with genetics and claim they are equitable. It simply does not stand. The logic is torturous and in the end does not hold to reason.
Lenny, short of calling you or I homophobic, P3 is now grasping for straws to turn them into a stick
He must feel he has the MORAL majority behind him.
I counted him using the word 'wrong' eleven times!
I think that means he IS the moral majority

PeriodThree

06-11-2008, 02:04 PM

Whoa, big fella, it is not "libeling" the judges in any manner whatsoever. Being an "activist" judge is a clear and neutral statement. When a judge utilizes the "living or evolving Constitutional" approach it is their way of saying the same thing.

I disagree. I assert that the term 'activist judge' is a specifically value laden claim. It is a concept which was created after the 1964 election when the true believer conservatives regrouped and created what became the modern conservative movement.

One of the main goals of that movement was to remove the legitimacy from government. ("A Government Small Enough to Drown in a Bathtub").

The efforts to paint government as the enemy have born fruit. Of course, an unintended consequence (possibly unintended) was the growth of the right wing militia movement-if government is not legitimate, than anyone has the equal right to rule.

Remind me, as it has been 48 years since my eighth grade civics, but is Marbury v Madison the case were the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to rule over the very document that gave it the power to rule, while the country's age was less by half the time since my last eighth grade class? Yes, those fellows would be considered "activists", but by the definition of the one Supreme Court Justice, "the law is what the judge says it is".

Yes, though one of the most evil technocrats in recent government time, John Yoo, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo) wrote that judicial review was somehow implicit, so Marbury didn't really create anything new. Yoo wrote "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."

Which of course, is amusing since Yoo is the quintessential advocate for a 'non-activist' view. Of course, it is only activism when the other side does it.

I am hurt that you characterize such a position to be "hateful" as it is not. Are you suggesting that the minority position judges were "hateful"? Also, I've never doubted ANY personhood to any group, and I must wonder if you read my last post on the matter! You are ascribing hate to those that only you find so. Scary stuff to have that hate projected. Be careful.

I will repeat my three points:
1. Gays are people.
2. People have human rights.
3. Marriage is one of those rights.

A position contrary to those basic points is, to me, hateful. As near as I can tell, your basic argument is that since 'most' people still oppose gay marriage then opposition to gay marriage is reasonable.

I disagree of course.

The judges were not charged with responding to those basic points. Judicial history is filled with judges saying things like 'were I in the legislature I would vote against that law, but I can't invalidate it from the bench.' Being constrained from doing what is morally right because of a fixation on legal process is possibly why we get such hateful wrong decisions as Plessy v. Ferguson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson) and Dred Scott. (Although I think Dred Scott is actually a true example of an 'activist court' who elevated the right to own another human over states rights).

A couple of minor points: you are right, only in your approach to the courts in attempting to define a class of people and utilizing the method of logic in comparing race and gender preference.
You are in error in every other aspect.
One reason you are in error is based on your use of the word "moral".
Morals by definition are "shared values". Outside of this really small community, such values are not shared. Being gay is "tolerated" at best, but not shared. When approaching the social aspect, such matters are not shared, so ascribing "morality" is not the appropriate aspect.

Sorry...you are going into terrain in which you are able to define denying Gay People fundamental rights is 'moral.'

It is not.

We on the left have for too long ceded the question of values and morals to the right. 'Values Voters' are presumed to be conservatives.

Well that is, to put it bluntly, wrong.

'San Francisco Values' is not a curse, but rather, our San Francisco Values are superior in just about every way to the bigotry of the conservative values voter.

Finally, unless reincarnation may explain what "colored" folks did as a whole to get hung up in this nation as a collective, you are ascribing a specific behavior to the straight jacket of genetics. That is the abomination. We are free entities. Gay folks, like straight folks, are simply sexual. What and how folks express themselves in sexual behavior is as controlled by the state for us all.
The color of folks is controlled by genetics, but the behavior of the rest of the majority towards that fact is not. Such discrimination was based on genetic bias, not behavioral. Being gay is like being deaf in that no one knows so behavior towards them is normal until recognized and accommodations are made. One accommodation is to legalize Civil Unions.
It is wrong to ascribe behavior with genetics and claim they are equitable. It simply does not stand. The logic is torturous and in the end does not hold to reason. Got to go; my bees are not going to do anything outside their genetic makeup, so I've got to accommodate them for their well being.

Sorry...I disagree. My logic is not torturous. When you can refute one of these claims:
a) gays are people
b) people have human and civil rights
c) one of those is the right to marry

Then perhaps you will be relevant. Otherwise, I must be steadfast in my defense that yes, Ms. Terry, there is a Moral choice here, and that Moral choice is opposite what Lenny and Ms. Terry seem to want.

PeriodThree

06-11-2008, 02:12 PM

Conservatives were able to deny those of us on the left our morals and values because too many of us are actually capable of seeing more than one side of an issue.

They were then able to take over the language of morals and values, and dismiss the concerns of fairness, justice, equal protection, etc, as the work of 'activist judges' and people fixated on 'identity politics.'

I have made the conscious decision to reclaim the language of morality and values. This means that some actions and some positions are simply 'wrong.'

George Wallace was simply wrong. Virginia was wrong in the Lovings case. And those who oppose gay marriage are simply and utterly wrong.

Lenny, short of calling you or I homophobic, P3 is now grasping for straws to turn them into a stick
He must feel he has the MORAL majority behind him.
I counted him using the word 'wrong' eleven times!
I think that means he IS the moral majority

Lenny

06-12-2008, 09:22 AM

Conservatives were able to deny those of us on the left our morals and values because too many of us are actually capable of seeing more than one side of an issue.
They were then able to take over the language of morals and values, and dismiss the concerns of fairness, justice, equal protection, etc, as the work of 'activist judges' and people fixated on 'identity politics.'
I have made the conscious decision to reclaim the language of morality and values. This means that some actions and some positions are simply 'wrong.'
George Wallace was simply wrong. Virginia was wrong in the Lovings case. And those who oppose gay marriage are simply and utterly wrong.

Got to go to therapy to get this back pain under control, but I thought that "conspiracy theorists" had more substantiation for Yeti and little people from Mars, than this.
To define a word and put it into play utilizing base definitions is not new to the game. Nobody "took over the language" or morals or such for this crazy plot and scheme you have worked out. Easy does it. The word "if" though small has a major meaning.

PeriodThree

06-12-2008, 10:04 AM

Lenny,

You failed to refute my argument so you do the next best thing and sweep it away as being a conspiracy? Let me be blunt: that is a lame and frankly idiotic form of argument.

I am truly pained at the number of otherwise good people who are suffering the same pain as you because of the difficulty in maintaining belief in something which is clearly wrong.

My father was a serious Southern Baptist through high school and his undergraduate work. Then he went to New Orleans for medical school where he made new friends. He was faced with the tension that his religion taught him that all of these friends, catholics and jews, were going to hell.

He finally did the right thing and rejected his fucked up religion rather than his friends.

He also grew up in a household which was simply matter of fact racist. They were good people, except for that whole racism thing.

Most of the family got over the racism, mostly in a very commendable fashion. The ones who didn't finally died off (of old age).

That is how opposition to treating gays as people will end. Most people will realize that gays are people with all the civil rights which people are entitled to. Most of the rest will, hopefully in the fullness of time, just die. And a few will hang on filled with hate and bile.

The history is clear. And using history as a guide we _know_ what is going to happen.

You get to decide what you are going to do: accept that gays are people with all of the civil rights of people, deny those rights and be a rightfully scorned member of society, or just die off.

The history of the right taking over the language of values and morality is also clear, saying that is a conspiracy theory is screwed up of you.

Got to go to therapy to get this back pain under control, but I thought that "conspiracy theorists" had more substantiation for Yeti and little people from Mars, than this.
To define a word and put it into play utilizing base definitions is not new to the game. Nobody "took over the language" or morals or such for this crazy plot and scheme you have worked out. Easy does it. The word "if" though small has a major meaning.

Lenny

06-12-2008, 11:54 AM

I disagree. I assert that the term 'activist judge' is a specifically value laden claim. It is a concept which was created after the 1964 election when the true believer conservatives regrouped and created what became the modern conservative movement.
One of the main goals of that movement was to remove the legitimacy from government. ("A Government Small Enough to Drown in a Bathtub").
The efforts to paint government as the enemy have born fruit. Of course, an unintended consequence (possibly unintended) was the growth of the right wing militia movement-if government is not legitimate, than anyone has the equal right to rule.

Well, thanks. I've never herd of that great quote, the source of which is a guy who was 11 in 1964. And imagine a group of conservatives planning strategy to move this, of all, governments, towards their goals! I am shocked! Was there precedence or was this the first time?
You have found me out though: I find government to be The Enemy. I am clear on this and I will die teaching it. All government, any government is simply a necessary evil. It is my understanding of those old white guys that started this experiment in governance that they too found The Government to be the enemy of people who, by their very nature, are born free. I also find power to be the enemy and to use my poor language skills: the devil. Government is evil, simply because it is run for and by men, and, as with all men, have in their own interest the gathering of power, the ultimate aphrodisiac. That is the purpose of a Constitutional representative form of government. The shortcoming is that we need the citizenry that is informed, has their own best interest at heart, whether collectively or individually, and is willing to participate in a democratic fashion.
I think your above phrase is correct, government should be kept manageable and drowned as soon as it can be, and often. That is the purpose of elections. I know there has been a compromise or two along the way, but I am not about to throw out the baby with the bathwater, just to confuse the metaphor.

I will repeat my three points:
1. Gays are people.
2. People have human rights.
3. Marriage is one of those rights.

A position contrary to those basic points is, to me, hateful. As near as I can tell, your basic argument is that since 'most' people still oppose gay marriage then opposition to gay marriage is reasonable.

I saw an ad in Wacco for computer repair. You should consider getting your monitor looked at. I can loan you my 19" CRT if you wish, as you've obviously missed my response about your #1 point.
To stick a finer point to it, we agree that most adult people have rights, though the derivation of those rights may be considered at another post, but those rights are not necessarily controlled by government. It is government's duty to protect those rights, not grant them.
Your #3 point is not found in any of the documents I've reviewed. Please excuse me if I don't jump on the "Life, liberty, and pursuit of" band wagon as your sole source for identifying same rights.

I disagree of course.
The judges were not charged with responding to those basic points. Judicial history is filled with judges saying things like 'were I in the legislature I would vote against that law, but I can't invalidate it from the bench.' Being constrained from doing what is morally right because of a fixation on legal process is possibly why we get such hateful wrong decisions as Plessy v. Ferguson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson) and Dred Scott. (Although I think Dred Scott is actually a true example of an 'activist court' who elevated the right to own another human over states rights).
A position contrary to those basic points is, to me, hateful. As near as I can tell, your basic argument is that since 'most' people still oppose gay marriage then opposition to gay marriage is reasonable.

Not the time nor place to debate states rights, Dred Scott, etc. But you make fine points there; debatable due to historic antecedents, but fine points none the less.
What I find petulant is this notion displayed by far to many is "you must agree with us or your a hater". No longer does the give and take remain normal but a detracting element is introduced that really distorts the whole exchange. From all I've seen in your other posts, it is not worthy of your abilities, nor helpful in attitude. You may have contempt for the position, but stay away from the all that other stuff that goes with them. Or not.

Sorry...you are going into terrain in which you are able to define denying Gay People fundamental rights is 'moral.'
It is not.
We on the left have for too long ceded the question of values and morals to the right. 'Values Voters' are presumed to be conservatives.
Well that is, to put it bluntly, wrong.

Excuse me, and I am often wrong, but I never mentioned the word "moral" in this thread, at least I think I was not the one to mention it first.
But if I did, that is one consideration, no?
That is where the race issue falls apart. You see, it was The Enemy called government that was in the way. Folks were getting together, and government laws on slavery kept them apart. There was sex and other relations between the races, children from those unions, and a whole bunch of that kind of stuff going on even though THE GOVERNMENT had laws against it. The PEOPLE were "doing it" anyway. Oh, of course the North was all different, and still is when viewed through another set of eyes that are not from The New England propaganda point of view, but folks were carrying on. Between the Industrial Revolution and folks being natural, the slave thing would have withered away in light of true moral outrage, initiated in part by those "hateful" Founding Fathers that saw and wrote of the "real deal" and practiced their walk in freeing their slaves and/or taking care of their old slaves until their death, as practiced by Washington and Jefferson, along with others.
The gay thing is not so, and will never work. Race is NOT an issue down here on earth, but sexual orientation is. And since morals, by DEFINITION, are shared values, the matter need be considered in that light. Thus the compromise, from my POV, stands to be Civil Unions.

'San Francisco Values' is not a curse, but rather, our San Francisco Values are superior in just about every way to the bigotry of the conservative values voter.

Again, excuse the chauvinism but that is my born, bread and 20 years reared home town, and I find myself having such values, not license, as I know I don't live alone. I've also learned that if one is a "bigot" in one area, then their polar opposite must also be labeled such. The worst part of the lesson is that "bigot" word itself became one of those words that was "captured" by one side mandating a knee-jerk response when heard, as in, "Oh my Gawd, he's a BIGOT" and all god's children are to say, "Ewww" while moving back. Sorry, I've met bigots and some were quite all right! As previously stated, also met "liberal" folks who immediately wanted to know my "ethnicity" and/or race, age, height, weight, and sexual orientation. So, I went and figured it out for my self.
P.T., it's not about party line or right & left.

Sorry...I disagree. My logic is not torturous. When you can refute one of these claims:
a) gays are people
b) people have human and civil rights
c) one of those is the right to marry

Then perhaps you will be relevant. Otherwise, I must be steadfast in my defense that yes, Ms. Terry, there is a Moral choice here, and that Moral choice is opposite what Lenny and Ms. Terry seem to want.

Brother, your logic was tortuous to death! And do you mean I went through ALL that about morals and you still miss the point? Either morals are shared by many, or mandated from a place we-won't-go-to. Or is it your intention to legislate morality. No, wait, this is NOT legislation, it is court fiat. My bad. Now, back tot he aches and pains, but thanks for the respite.

PeriodThree

06-12-2008, 12:35 PM

Lenny

06-12-2008, 03:48 PM

---
"What I find petulant is this notion displayed by far to many is "you must agree with us or your a hater". No longer does the give and take remain normal but a detracting element is introduced that really distorts the whole exchange. From all I've seen in your other posts, it is not worthy of your abilities, nor helpful in attitude. You may have contempt for the position, but stay away from the all that other stuff that goes with them. Or not."
---

The right is responsible for this extreme rhetorical fashion. It sucks. Take it up with Stockman, Rove, Norquest, and Viguerre, among others. The right made it clear that some positions are simply true, and need no apology nor negotiation. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

Wasn't that last quote ascribed to Barry Goldwater, among others?
Well, I suppose that Noam Chomsky is not the master of language manipulation that many claim. When some folks do that then it is wrong, but then pigs are more equal than the other animals, eh?
We disagree. Not only "the right is responsible" for all you claim when using rhetoric. So now the notion of "hate" is there to divide US. A rather sad position to attain and hide behind for it accomplishes nothing. That is why so many are turning to Obama as savior.

You are annoyed that I think that denying basic human rights to gay people is hateful. Well, I am annoyed at the people on the right who think that my opposition to torture, among my other sins, makes me a 'traitor to America.'

No, you are not a traitor to our country. You are a patriot that wants US to do and behave in a correct fashion. I respect that very much and once swore to death to defend that, so a little annoyance is simply that: little.
You and John McCain share that antipathy to torture and again, both are commendable as well as justifiable. And we STILL can disagree. Drop the "hate" speech and 'tude. Or not as it does no one no good.

The right has repeatedly changed the structure of debate in America from give and take to take no prisoners. You may not like it, you may find it petulant, but there you go. The people on your side of the aisle have created this situation. The people on my side of the aisle have been trapped by being reasonable.

Are you old enough to remember the Old Spice commercials where one guy slaps another with Old Spice and the recipient says, "Thanks, I need that".
So, knock it off. Your side is wonderfully full of angels and my side has twisted demons? Whack. Your welcome. You needed that.
I don't like being collectivized by lumping me with any side. Please don't. And don't ascribe those characteristics after you have put me in that collection. Thank you.

I have freed myself from being 'reasonable' with people who make unreasonable arguments.
It is true that you may not personally hate gays, but you are advocating (at best) a 'separate but equal' approach to civil liberties, and that is a hateful position.

So, there is lays. You paint yourself free and ascribe me bounded to hate. Does that justify the issue or one's self and opposition?
I am surprised with you!
You wish to ascribe the attributes of male/female bounding to same sex bounding and make them equitable, then you are free to do so. But know that when you come to the Public Square you will have to bring more with you than "you are a hater" by simply saying so as a foundation. If that is it, then the courts are your only relief: a dictatorial, unimpeachable, plutocratic elite. Good-bye Sweet America.

-----
The gay thing is not so, and will never work. Race is NOT an issue down here on earth, but sexual orientation is. And since morals, by DEFINITION, are shared values, the matter need be considered in that light. Thus the compromise, from my POV, stands to be Civil Unions.
-----

No. Sorry. That is, with (scant) apologies, the hateful position. Separate is not equal. My nation believes in equal protection under the law.

And YOUR nation is so different than mine? What kind of crap is that?
The flag draped over any one individual does not work nor look so good. And as a basis for arguing a position, well, you know how that works.

Neshamah

06-12-2008, 04:06 PM

This may not be on topic anymore, but I thought I should defend my very reasonable generalization. Sex more than anything else creates a bond between two people just as a birth creates a bond between a mother and child. Creating lots and lots of bonds may dilute the significance of those bonds, but they are bonds nonetheless.

I made sure to use the wonderful word "if" in the statement, "If a person is born homosexual, they should not be forced into a heterosexual relationship or vice-versa." As far as a I know, you are correct, there is no known genetic difference, but there is usually, or at least often a physiological difference. I understand homosexuality is more prevalent in cities, and it is likely a natural mechanism to limit population growth. In any case, sexuality is part of who we are, and although we surely have some influence over it, some people are sufficiently in one end of the spectrum or the other that it is unnatural to expect that person to move to the other, and unfair to treat that person as a different class of citizen. A girl may dream of marriage from the age of 5, and discover at 15 that she simply is not and never will be attracted to boys. To end up in a sexual minority is hard enough without the added pressure of being told she has to give up marriage too.

Have they discovered a "homosexual gene" now? Last I heard, there was no evidence of anyone being "born homosexual". In fact, sexuality is a choice, or not. Everyone has the choice to be asexual if they want to, or to participate in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, or either. Were people "born asexual"? No. Were they born heterosexual? No. Babies and infants have no sexual nature. Granted, nature dictates attraction to the opposite sex in most cases, virtually all cases, even. (Not literally, but virtually, as 99% is considered "virtually" all). But to say that someone is "born" with a particular sexual preference is simply society's excuse for not really being able to pinpoint specifically what makes us choose opposite sex or same sex partners. There isn't any evidence of genetic predisposition for homosexual behavior. In fact, I think it's comical that as intelligent as we are collectively, that we even entertain such an unfounded notion in this day and age. Isn't "We don't really know yet" an acceptable conclusion among intelligent adults anymore?

"We don't really know yet," is a very reasonable conclusion, and as far as I am concerned applies perfectly here. We don't really know what makes a person fall in love the way they do, and the State is certainly not qualified to place restrictions on the relationships to consenting people choose to enter into.

Being fairly libertarian, I personally think anyone who is old enough to have sex should be able to legally marry any consenting person they choose. If most people under 30 are incapable of making responsible choices, that is as much a failure of society as it is of those individuals.

A human being's life is finite, Nesh. It has a beginning and an end. Is there a time, IYO, that a human being's life is less valuable than at other times? If so, what specifically makes that human life less valuable at that time, IYO, and then, specifically, what makes them more valuable at another time?

Where is the beginning and end of a human being's life? It depends on what you think makes an organism a human being. We do not acquire all our traits all at once, and if you say only a certain trait counts, you may include things you'd rather not. If only genetics matters, then does a cancer patient have a right to terminate cancer cells? Is the fact that something can grow into a human being key? If so, then does any pair of healthy individuals have a right to abstain from sex since doing so will allow healthy sperm and egg (and thus potential human life) to die? I am generally opposed to abortion and infanticide exactly because of the vast gray area between conception and early childhood, but our environment often forces unpleasant choices, and I don't think the state is qualified to make those choices in advance. As for the end of life, if a healthy, but disabled person and a person in a persistant vegetative state are both drowning, who do you rescue first knowing you will probably only be able to rescue one? I think it is reasonable to say the person who has a conscious preference to be saved be saved before the person who has no opinion one way or the other.

PeriodThree,

I commend you for speaking in terms of right and wrong, I also agree with you that marriage/civil union is a modern version of separate but equal, but that is because I view marriage at least as much about intimacy as about procreation. The only challenge to your three points is to the third if marriage is restricted to procreation.

Sex and marriage were originally, primarily for procreation, and in that limited sense, restricting the definition of sex to vaginal intercourse and marriage to relationships involving the same is reasonable. If that is the limit of marriage, then the human right to marry is for a homosexual man to marry a woman, and vice-versa. That definition may be insensitive to people who define marriage differently, but it is not hateful.

If sex and marriage are held to define the highest expression of affection between two people, then the state cannot have an opinion. Only members of a relationship can define the significance of that relationship, and to have the state contradict them is an affront to their human dignity.

If the government did not keep overstepping its boundaries by wading into religion and culture, people would not get so worked up over this.

~ Neshamah

MsTerry

06-12-2008, 08:48 PM

Conservatives were able to deny those of us on the left our morals and values because too many of us are actually capable of seeing more than one side of an issue.

They were then able to take over the language of morals and values, and dismiss the concerns of fairness, justice, equal protection, etc, as the work of 'activist judges' and people fixated on 'identity politics.'

I have made the conscious decision to reclaim the language of morality and values. This means that some actions and some positions are simply 'wrong.'

If you change the word 'left' for right in the above, those words could come straight out of the mouth of The Westboro Baptist Church.
P3, you are no different than a hatemonger who claims moral high ground by declaring what is right or wrong.

Lenny

06-13-2008, 07:05 AM

Sex more than anything else creates a bond between two people just as a birth creates a bond between a mother and child. Creating lots and lots of bonds may dilute the significance of those bonds, but they are bonds nonetheless.

These bonds you write of, that is what makes it the best thing on earth. It makes us more human, which, for my money, is the ultimate goal. It also causes a lot of pain, but that is what makes us human. Not the pain so much, but the love. Great point.

"If a person is born homosexual, they should not be forced into a heterosexual relationship or vice-versa." As far as a I know, you are correct, there is no known genetic difference, but there is usually, or at least often a physiological difference. I understand homosexuality is more prevalent in cities, and it is likely a natural mechanism to limit population growth. In any case, sexuality is part of who we are, and although we surely have some influence over it, some people are sufficiently in one end of the spectrum or the other that it is unnatural to expect that person to move to the other, and unfair to treat that person as a different class of citizen. A girl may dream of marriage from the age of 5, and discover at 15 that she simply is not and never will be attracted to boys. To end up in a sexual minority is hard enough without the added pressure of being told she has to give up marriage too.

You make a heartfelt and excellent case. We agree that no one should be forced to change their orientation, or in anything else as all force is bad, especially when it involves an essential part of our self identity. That young girl, or boy, need not "give up" the idea of marriage, but take on a new notion of Civil Union. After all, they have grown in their notion of sexuality and the next step would be something unique, just as they are.
That "in the city" is to abstract for me, as one can make a case that "alone on the farm" can lead to bestiality,statistically speaking? To crazy or far out for me.

"We don't really know yet," is a very reasonable conclusion, and as far as I am concerned applies perfectly here. We don't really know what makes a person fall in love the way they do, and the State is certainly not qualified to place restrictions on the relationships to consenting people choose to enter into.

What disqualifies the state from placing restrictions on marriage? Or even placing restrictions on relationships? Although the notion of "relationships" and the state is intersting, though sloppy in language, no offense. The state does define "relationships" all the time in contracts, some valid, others rendered wrong, or illegal. But the state does stop marriage in several instances, so that is not new to the state, nor the social structure.
BTW, what happens when science finds the chemicals that create, or "make", that feeling of love? Probably within a younger persons life time will this occur.

Being fairly libertarian, I personally think anyone who is old enough to have sex should be able to legally marry any consenting person they choose. If most people under 30 are incapable of making responsible choices, that is as much a failure of society as it is of those individuals.

I like your age limit of under 30. All ages and numbers are arbitrary but it fits in line with what I like :wink:.
But we don't agree on this too fuzzy notion of "failure of society". That is way to arbitrary. As if someone HAS a solution to "fix" society. We don't, thank goodness, and we never will.

Sex and marriage were originally, primarily for procreation, and in that limited sense, restricting the definition of sex to vaginal intercourse and marriage to relationships involving the same is reasonable. If that is the limit of marriage, then the human right to marry is for a homosexual man to marry a woman, and vice-versa. That definition may be insensitive to people who define marriage differently, but it is not hateful.
If sex and marriage are held to define the highest expression of affection between two people, then the state cannot have an opinion. Only members of a relationship can define the significance of that relationship, and to have the state contradict them is an affront to their human dignity.
If the government did not keep overstepping its boundaries by wading into religion and culture, people would not get so worked up over this.
~ Neshamah

I deleted some of your stuff as I found it to "all over the map" for us to dialogue.
You ascribe some interesting things to marriage, like specific sex and procreation. I would think that came out of "religious" culture, such as vaginal intercourse.
You are right about the state staying out "defining" what is the highest expression of affection between two people, as that is not it's function. But again, the expression/behavior of that affection may of concern for the state. The horrors and complications of such affections in domestic violence is a case in point, not a minor issue in our society. And there are other heinous examples, as previously stated in this thread. Sorry to say we must be careful in such considerations. We cannot all be romantics, such as yourself, even if we aspire to be!
You might consider another point of view (POV) as marriage could be that it was historically for continuity of wealth, and not simply procreation. One Marxist view I read was that prior to knowing vaginal intercourse caused babies, it was Maternal/female dominated social group and "marriage" was totally foreign, and all wealth was "shared" in common, but when folks figured it out a Paternalistic/male dominated, wealth accumulating social structure was set up. I won't know about that as there are no written records for such, and over time I figured it was some mastabatory function of some masters thesis that spawned such ideas. San Francisco State produced a lot of that material.
Though you make your points well, they are SO many of them, it ain't easy keeping up with you. And thanks.

thewholetruth

06-13-2008, 07:11 AM

If you change the word 'left' for right in the above, those words could come straight out of the mouth of The Westboro Baptist Church.
P3, you are no different than a hatemonger who claims moral high ground by declaring what is right or wrong.

The truth is that there ARE such things as "right" and "wrong". Pretending it's all a matter of opinion is simply selfish rationalization and is practiced by those who choose to "wrong" and call it "right", oftentimes referred to in this day and age as "Liberals".

Right and wrong are not matters of opinion, any more than truth and lies are matters of opinion, or good and evil or love and hate. Words mean something. They are what they are, not what you would like them to be.

It's not "hateful" to acknowledge that words mean something.

thewholetruth

06-13-2008, 07:37 AM

It is important to note that there are no 'new laws' involved in providing gay couples the equal right to marry, just as there were no 'new laws' involved when the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriages in Lovings vs. Virginia (1967).

I personally find the premise behind your question wondering why 'gay people don't just get a new word to celebrate their uniqueness' to be deeply troubling.

I don't find the suggestion troubling at all, and in fact see it as logical. Marriage has never included male/male partnerships nor female/female partnerships. Homosexual partnerships of this kind, homosexual unions of this nature are not "marriage" unless we change the definition of the word. Homosexuals who think we must change the dictionary for them are as lost they can be, IMO. We aren't obligated to redefine the institution of marriage for you and it's incredibly arrogant for you to believe that we are.

The key is that gay people are first of all people. Requiring people to create a new word, and a new body of law just in order to exist is just plain wrong.

Requiring the rest of us change the definition of a word as important as "marriage" is just plain wrong. Words mean something. This desire and demand for legalized unions of homosexual relatinships is new. It's not "marriage". If you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then you have already left the table.

By any reasonable reading of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment, in the US it is also illegal. We will have a US Supreme Court case which will at a stroke invalidate the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as well as all of the various state laws and state constitutional amendments which discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. It won't happen this year, but the court ruled 6-3 in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to invalidate the Texas sodomy law.

The principles of Equal Protection have been resisted for years, but even hardened sexists, racists, and homophobes relent when faced with the simple equation that their vilified group consists of people, and those people have the absolute inalienable right to equal protection under the law.

There is no reasonable person in America who still believes that interracial marriage should be banned by law...

Racism is not sexual preference and never the twain shall meet. Nice try. Not a reasonable try, but desperate people attempt desperate measures, like you have here in your attempt to equate racism with homosexuality.

... and, I am being intentionally provocative here, but I assert that there is no reasonable person in America who still believes that consensual gay sex should be illegal.

I disagree. There are almost 300,000,000 people here in America. There are reasonable people who believe that consensual homosexuality should be illegal. In your opinion there are not. That's just your opinion and it's not founded on fact.

Within a decade the same will be true of Gay Marriage.

In your opinion. Not in mine. In my opinion, homosexuals will have to come up with a word they find acceptable to define homosexual partnerships because we will not allow them to hijack the word "marriage". We have no reason to allow you to force the rest of us to redefine any word simply because you've chosen a homosexual relationship rather than a heterosexual relationship. It is as arrogant as can be that you even suggest such a thing, and it's a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. That's how deluded those in your camp are, that you can't see how absurd and arrogant it is that you demand that we redefine the word "marriage". We won't do it. We're not motivated to take such an extreme measure on your behalf.

And those who today fight against it will feel the sense of shame that comes from being fundamentally wrong which one time opponents of interracial marriage now feel.

Comparing homosexuals to black folks is ridiculous. There are reasons people choose homosexual relationships. No one makes a choice to be black.

MsTerry

06-13-2008, 07:49 AM

:Yinyangv:

The truth is that there IS such things as "right" and "wrong". Pretending it's all a matter of opinion is simply selfish rationalization and is practiced by those who choose to "wrong" and call it "right", oftentimes referred to in this day and age as "Liberals".As I pointed out before, is it you or P3 who knows what is right or wrong?

Right and wrong are not matters of opinion, any more than truth and lies are matters of opinion, or good and evil or love and hate. Words mean something. They are what they are, not what you would like them to be. So who decides what is 'good' or 'evil'? P3 says he knows what is right and wrong, are you two on the same page?

It's not "hateful" to acknowledge that words mean somethingI have no idea how you pulled this statement out of your hat????.:hmmm:

thewholetruth

06-13-2008, 08:06 AM

:Yinyangv:

Diluting the words "right" and "wrong" don't change their definitions, Ms. Terry.

Here ya go. I'm surprised you've made it this far in life without knowing this:

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wrong

Words mean something. They aren't just a matter of opinion.

MsTerry

06-13-2008, 08:50 AM

OK, let's go over this definition of what is good, line by line.
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. </td></tr></tbody></table>tell me Don, is this my right conduct, your right conduct or an Iraqi's right conduct?
Is it proper to tell someone they are wrong? is it good? or is it just?

Diluting the words "right" and "wrong" don't change their definitions, Ms. Terry.

Here ya go. I'm surprised you've made it this far in life without knowing this:

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wrong

Words mean something. They aren't just a matter of opinion.

MsTerry

06-13-2008, 09:01 AM

These bonds you write of, that is what makes it the best thing on earth. It makes us more human, which, for my money, is the ultimate goal. It also causes a lot of pain, but that is what makes us human. Not the pain so much, but the love. Great point.

.

https://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Egypt bans 92-year-old's marriage
 <table> <tbody><tr> <td valign="bottom">  By Frances Harrison
BBC News  </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
 The Egyptian authorities have banned a 92-year-old man from marrying a 17-year-old girl, the Egyptian al-Akhbar newspaper has reported.
The ministry of justice invoked a law which says the age gap between spouses should not exceed 25 years.
Egypt brought in the law prohibiting the marriage of elderly men to very young girls during the Gulf oil boom.
It was an effort to prevent wealthy men from the Gulf states seeking young poor brides from the Egyptian countryside.
Not much is known about the 92-year-old man who tried to marry an Egyptian girl of 17 except that he is an Arab from the Gulf.
An Egyptian justice official said by refusing to endorse their marriage it would now be impossible for the girl to travel abroad with her husband.
However, in special cases, the justice ministry does allow foreign men to marry Egyptian women more than 25 years their junior if they deposit a very large sum of money in the name of their wife at the Egyptian National Bank.
Both husband and wife also have to report in person to the ministry which checks their marriage is genuine to prevent any kind of trafficking in women.
According to the al-Akhbar newspaper, 173 such marriages were allowed in the past year after the foreign husband deposited a sum equivalent to about US $80,000 and was screened.

Story from BBC NEWS:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7452456.stm

Published: 2008/06/13 09:11:16 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

PeriodThree

06-13-2008, 09:50 AM

But it doesn't matter if 'claiming the moral high ground' means I am the same as the Westboro Baptist Church. The difference is that I am right, and they are wrong.

It really is pretty simple once you accept that gays are people with the same rights as any other people.

If you change the word 'left' for right in the above, those words could come straight out of the mouth of The Westboro Baptist Church.
P3, you are no different than a hatemonger who claims moral high ground by declaring what is right or wrong.

PeriodThree

06-13-2008, 10:46 AM

Hey Donc,

As the most evil president ever said, 'Bring it on.' The radical notion that gays are people with the same rights as all other people is winning.

You think my arguments are 'arrogant' and others don't like being called 'homophobic' or 'intolerant' or 'haters.'

I am somewhat sorry that some of the people who believe that Gays are People use language which offends the people who oppose civil rights.

Rather than 'arrogant' language, a number of the people who agree with you simply beat and murder their Gay 'enemies.' Or they use the law, and society, and their evil hearts to hound gays into suicide.

Read about Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing and then come write about how those 'arrogant' advocates for equal rights for gays are not playing fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

(Just as a side note, a pretty good case can be made that if Turing had been arrested in 1938, rather than 1952, that the allies would have lost huge numbers of additional people, and possibly WWII).

I disagree. There are almost 300,000,000 people here in America. There are reasonable people who believe that consensual homosexuality should be illegal. In your opinion there are not. That's just your opinion and it's not founded on fact.

It is not reasonable to believe that consensual homosexuality should be illegal, which means you can't be a 'reasonable' person and believe that.

I am happy to accept that this depends on the definition of the word 'reasonable.'

But that is all verbal sparring. The core issue is that believing that consensual homosexuality should be illegal is just plain wrong. It is not
a little bit wrong. It is not something 'reasonable' people can disagree about. It is just plain wrong.

That's how deluded those in your camp are, that you can't see how absurd and arrogant it is that you demand that we redefine the word "marriage". We won't do it. We're not motivated to take such an extreme measure on your behalf.

I recommend you read up on the life and times of George Wallace. It may make it easier for you to get yourself right with whatever God you believe in once you release how deeply wrong your side has been.

I may be absurd and arrogant, but at least I am not advocating positions which cause people to die because of who they love.

Comparing homosexuals to black folks is ridiculous. There are reasons people choose homosexual relationships. No one makes a choice to be black.

It is not ridiculous, homophobes just wish the comparison were ridiculous because then they don't have to face the obvious parallels.

It sucks for the homophobes that they came of age in families which taught intolerance and hate for gays. Oh well, presumably they will get over it.

MsTerry

06-13-2008, 02:02 PM

But it doesn't matter if 'claiming the moral high ground' means I am the same as the Westboro Baptist Church.
The difference is that I am right, and they are wrong.
.

LOL.

The difference is that I am right, and they are wrong.
that is just brilliant
:thumbsup:
I guess, a preacherman would say I know that I am right, and they are wrong.
really brilliant! I am going to remember that

The difference is that I am right, and they are wrong.

Lenny

06-13-2008, 04:42 PM

The truth is that there ARE such things as "right" and "wrong". Pretending it's all a matter of opinion is simply selfish rationalization and is practiced by those who choose to "wrong" and call it "right", oftentimes referred to in this day and age as "Liberals".

Right and wrong are not matters of opinion, any more than truth and lies are matters of opinion, or good and evil or love and hate. Words mean something. They are what they are, not what you would like them to be.

It's not "hateful" to acknowledge that words mean something.

Is it wrong to call people names? To think we "know" them, label them, then judge the labels we put upon them? Thereby judging them as people?
No, is the right answer. It's wrong.
Is it wrong to utter hateful words or words of hate and declare them "righteous" and demonstrate intolerance by bad behavior at a funeral?
How about at the funeral of a fallen warrior who died in battle?
No, is the right answer.
And do you think that it is wrong to do so, when also proclaiming that it is all done for, and by, those that wish to model one who gave his life to show us the nature of God?
No, is the right answer.
We do things out of a sense of false pride and false right-ness, and declare so in the name of one unifying force. And then wonder why "the other side" behaves so "unfairly"?
Pogo was right.

Lenny

06-13-2008, 04:48 PM

OK, I was wrong. You were right. Money makes that old world go round.
You romantic you! I know there was something I liked about you.
But I love the diversity. We've so much to learn from them!

https://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Egypt bans 92-year-old's marriage
 <table> <tbody><tr> <td valign="bottom">  By Frances Harrison
BBC News  </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
 The Egyptian authorities have banned a 92-year-old man from marrying a 17-year-old girl, the Egyptian al-Akhbar newspaper has reported.
The ministry of justice invoked a law which says the age gap between spouses should not exceed 25 years.
Egypt brought in the law prohibiting the marriage of elderly men to very young girls during the Gulf oil boom.
It was an effort to prevent wealthy men from the Gulf states seeking young poor brides from the Egyptian countryside.
Not much is known about the 92-year-old man who tried to marry an Egyptian girl of 17 except that he is an Arab from the Gulf.
An Egyptian justice official said by refusing to endorse their marriage it would now be impossible for the girl to travel abroad with her husband.
However, in special cases, the justice ministry does allow foreign men to marry Egyptian women more than 25 years their junior if they deposit a very large sum of money in the name of their wife at the Egyptian National Bank.
Both husband and wife also have to report in person to the ministry which checks their marriage is genuine to prevent any kind of trafficking in women.
According to the al-Akhbar newspaper, 173 such marriages were allowed in the past year after the foreign husband deposited a sum equivalent to about US $80,000 and was screened.
Story from BBC NEWS:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7452456.stm

Published: 2008/06/13 09:11:16 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Lenny

06-13-2008, 04:59 PM

MsTerry wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=61303#post61303)
If you change the word 'left' for right in the above, those words could come straight out of the mouth of The Westboro Baptist Church.
P3, you are no different than a hatemonger who claims moral high ground by declaring what is right or wrong.

But it doesn't matter if 'claiming the moral high ground' means I am the same as the Westboro Baptist Church. The difference is that I am right, and they are wrong.

It really is pretty simple once you accept that gays are people with the same rights as any other people.

P.T., It appears you missed her point. She already has accepted that gays are people with the same blah, blah. It's called a counter-punch and she beat you to it. She is holding that mirror up to you. You are the same as those in that Church, both "knowing" you are "right and they are wrong". Now, just take that easy and breath out. It's OK

Lenny

06-13-2008, 05:26 PM

It is not reasonable to believe that consensual homosexuality should be illegal, which means you can't be a 'reasonable' person and believe that.
I am happy to accept that this depends on the definition of the word 'reasonable.'
But that is all verbal sparring. The core issue is that believing that consensual homosexuality should be illegal is just plain wrong. It is not
a little bit wrong. It is not something 'reasonable' people can disagree about. It is just plain wrong.

What you call verbal sparring, others may also correctly label it as a tautology. Furthermore your use of the word "plain" seems to bar what the Texas Medical Association argued during the Lawrence case. As did other medical associations from other states and organizations. The facts and statistics do not make it "plain" but rather clear as to the problems with sodomy. And when personalized for yourself practice, or given thoughtful reflection and application to one's own life, and then projected onto a society and laws, it may be reasonable to conclude how and why it was made illegal. Some individuals in one sexual "group", and it really doesn't matter which, can not possibly imagine sharing their most intimate and vulnerable moments, with the concomitant bonding, with another outside that group. Such an occurance may be simply considered repulsive with a heavy "yech" factor. And as sex, fear, and death are very intertwined in the humans psyche, can't you see laws coming out of such an experience? Of course you can. And I stand with you that none should suffer any physical harm for what is done between consenting adults.But to sanction it legally becomes another matter.

I may be absurd and arrogant, but at least I am not advocating positions which cause people to die because of who they love.

Quite the drama queen, no? None here have I seen that would advocate or even wish that for another. You go to the extreme immediately and work backwards from that. Seems not a reasonable tactic and yet you find being reasonable to be a sound method, as do we all in this feeble attempt to communicate.

It is not ridiculous, homophobes just wish the comparison were ridiculous because then they don't have to face the obvious parallels.
It sucks for the homophobes that they came of age in families which taught intolerance and hate for gays. Oh well, presumably they will get over it.

Maybe you two should marry. Both call folks undeserved names, then react to the label they give. Or is the case that one must accept all that any gay person wishes, and if not, then they are "homophobes". Or even gay people as a group want something, if anyone disagrees, then slap them with a knee-jerk response label, and expect that to be a "solution" in identifying "the problem". Does that seem reasonable? I think not as well.
Oh, and equating race with gender orientation is a fallacious argument, but we already knew that from previous posts, no?

PeriodThree

06-13-2008, 05:31 PM

I am a little confused by what I perceive as a sarcastic tone.

I suspect that you are uncomfortable with the arrogance implicit in my willingness to use my own experience and reason as the epistemological basis for truth and my own knowledge.

In the last 40 years or so we have been taught to see all sides of issues, to understand the other person's perspective, to withhold judgment, etc.

I can do that quite well. Very very well. I suspect that I can argue the other side of this, or most any issue, better than my opponents. To my shame I have used that ability to engage in debates with people who I mostly agree with over minor points where (drumroll) they were simply wrong. But the points were minor, they don't affect the truth of the other person's argument.

(An example is the NEAP opponents claims that the NEAP represents a 'second downtown.' Building _across the street_ from the plaza and whole foods is not a 'second downtown.' It seems to me 'simply true' that the NEAP area is the obvious and right place for future commercial and residential development in Sebastopol. Where else could it be? So anyone who argues that it is not the right place is, well, sorry, but just wrong.

But the more interesting and important question is whether there should be more development at all, and if so, what form that development should take.)

So now I am faced with the issue of Gay Marriage. And Gay Sodomy. There is actually a person on this board who asserts it is 'reasonable' for it to be illegal for gay people to have sex.

And then you, our fine Ms. Terry, equate me with the Westboro Baptist Church, and are snarky at my simple declaration that I am right, and the Reverend Phelps is wrong.

Do you think Phelps is right about, well, pretty much anything?

Currently on godhatesfags.com is the headline "Thank God for 4 dead Boy Scouts at the hands of an Angry God (https://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080612_four-dead-boy-scouts.pdf)" They plan to picket the boys' funerals because 'God hates Nebraska and Iowa for persecuting His servants at WBC.'

So, despite your sarcasm, I think I will continue with simple declarations of the simple, and obvious truths. If Phelps and I disagree, than as a general rule I am right and he is wrong.

Or do you have another standard of truth? One in which the views of Phelps are given more weight?

LOL.
that is just brilliant
:thumbsup:
I guess, a preacherman would say I know that I am right, and they are wrong.
really brilliant! I am going to remember that

PeriodThree

06-13-2008, 05:45 PM

I wrote "I may be absurd and arrogant, but at least I am not advocating positions which cause people to die because of who they love."

And you replied:

Quite the drama queen, no? None here have I seen that would advocate or even wish that for another. You go to the extreme immediately and work backwards from that. Seems not a reasonable tactic and yet you find being reasonable to be a sound method, as do we all in this feeble attempt to communicate.

In fact, criminalizing gay 'sodomy' did cause people to die, and to suffer grievous harm, because of who they loved.

Your 'reasonable' views caused one of my intellectual heroes, a man who should be a hero for all of us, to kill himself. So yeah, I jump to the extreme.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Your 'reasonable' views caused the United States to lose more dedicated civil servants during the bleak McCarthy period than did accusations of Communism.

There is no reasonable defense of gay sodomy laws. There is no reasonable defense of denying Gay Marriage, and there is no need to be coy and tactful.

Or is the case that one must accept all that any gay person wishes, and if not, then they are "homophobes".

It is wrong to defend gay sodomy laws and to deny equal rights to homosexuals.

Oh, and equating race with gender orientation is a fallacious argument, but we already knew that from previous posts, no?

No- we don't know that. They are the same. Civil rights are civil rights.
You wish to use careful twists of rhetoric in order to defend a deeply twisted, wrong, and evil social order.

So did Wallace. He lost, and repented. The question is not whether the people with your position will lose. The only question is if you will repent before you die.

I have a bit of an evil streak, and frankly I hope that the dedicated racists and homophobes don't repent. Repentance is a freeing and
liberating event, and my vindicative streak wants the people like Rev. Phelps to suffer in their vicious little hate filled souls.

I am hoping that you are one of the ones who is able to find relief through repentance.

Braggi

06-13-2008, 09:41 PM

The truth is that there ARE such things as "right" and "wrong". ...

Right and wrong are not matters of opinion ...

Don, I think you and I have different opinions about some things that are considered "right" or "wrong," and that the "truth" is that you and I have different opinions, not that one of us is right and the other wrong. Of course, in my opinion you are wrong and in your opinion I am wrong, but that's just because we have different opinions about "the truth." Interesting?

For the record, I am a man. That is "truth" we can both agree on.
Don, is it right or wrong for me to like another man?
... to live with another man?
... to love another man?
... to be "in love" with another man?
... to touch another man?
... to kiss another man?
... to sexually stimulate another man?

Where do you draw the line? When does "right" become "wrong" in "your opinion?"

Is it wrong for me to bring another man to orgasm?
Is it wrong for me be monogamously sexual with another man?
Is it wrong for me to be a legally recognized "domestic partner"...?
Is it wrong for me to marry another man if it's legal in my state or in my country?
Is it wrong for me to marry another man if I'm already married to a woman?

Please inform me as to your opinion on these matters. I have a feeling your opinion is different from mine in several areas and yet I am correct. That is "the truth" because that is the truth for me. YMMV.

-Jeff

PS. Feel free to abbreviate by defining "the line" between "right" and "wrong" if you wish.

MsTerry

06-13-2008, 09:44 PM

I.'
I think I will continue with simple declarations of the simple, and obvious truths. If Phelps and I disagree, than as a general rule I am right and he is wrong.

LMFAO
So P3, do you think anybody else who posts here thinks; "I am right and you are wrong" ?
ROTFLOL
EVERYBODY THINKS I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

I have a bit of an evil streak, and frankly I hope that the dedicated racists and homophobes don't repent. Repentance is a freeing and
liberating event, and my vindicative streak wants the people like Rev. Phelps to suffer in their vicious little hate filled souls.
Your anger combined with the above statement about yourself, makes you a good prospect for a future terrorist.
Despite Mr.Phelps opinions, I think he is a brave man who literally sticks his neck out for his beliefs.
Are you that brave to taunt your nemesis for what you think is right?

MsTerry

06-13-2008, 09:47 PM

LOL
Jeff, did you forgot that Don doesn't answer questions?

Don, I think you and I have different opinions about some things that are considered "right" or "wrong," and that the "truth" is that you and I have different opinions, not that one of us is right and the other wrong. Of course, in my opinion you are wrong and in your opinion I am wrong, but that's just because we have different opinions about "the truth." Interesting?

For the record, I am a man. That is "truth" we can both agree on.
Don, is it right or wrong for me to like another man?
... to live with another man?
... to love another man?
... to be "in love" with another man?
... to touch another man?
... to kiss another man?
... to sexually stimulate another man?

Where do you draw the line? When does "right" become "wrong" in "your opinion?"

Is it wrong for me to bring another man to orgasm?
Is it wrong for me be monogamously sexual with another man?
Is it wrong for me to be a legally recognized "domestic partner"...?
Is it wrong for me to marry another man if it's legal in my state or in my country?
Is it wrong for me to marry another man if I'm already married to a woman?

Please inform me as to your opinion on these matters. I have a feeling your opinion is different from mine in several areas and yet I am correct. That is "the truth" because that is the truth for me. YMMV.

-Jeff

PS. Feel free to abbreviate by defining "the line" between "right" and "wrong" if you wish.

Braggi

06-13-2008, 10:15 PM

LOL
Jeff, did you forgot that Don doesn't answer questions?

I'm just the eternal optimist, I guess.

-Jeff

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 12:01 AM

Jeff, perhaps you missed my post with the definitions of right and wrong included. You're now discussing opinions, while I was discussing right and wrong. Matters of opinion are not matters of right and wrong. Matters of opinion can be argued endlessly, Jeff. Endlessly. Politics and religion are perfect examples of this. When it comes to right and wrong, however, these are not matters of opinion, or they would be called "opinions". :thumbsup:

For example, your sex life is a matter of opinion, not a matter of right and wrong. I have no opinion of your sex life, Jeff.

Don, I think you and I have different opinions about some things that are considered "right" or "wrong," and that the "truth" is that you and I have different opinions, not that one of us is right and the other wrong. Of course, in my opinion you are wrong and in your opinion I am wrong, but that's just because we have different opinions about "the truth." Interesting?

For the record, I am a man. That is "truth" we can both agree on.
Don, is it right or wrong for me to like another man?
... to live with another man?
... to love another man?
... to be "in love" with another man?
... to touch another man?
... to kiss another man?
... to sexually stimulate another man?

Where do you draw the line? When does "right" become "wrong" in "your opinion?"

Is it wrong for me to bring another man to orgasm?
Is it wrong for me be monogamously sexual with another man?
Is it wrong for me to be a legally recognized "domestic partner"...?
Is it wrong for me to marry another man if it's legal in my state or in my country?
Is it wrong for me to marry another man if I'm already married to a woman?

Please inform me as to your opinion on these matters. I have a feeling your opinion is different from mine in several areas and yet I am correct. That is "the truth" because that is the truth for me. YMMV.

-Jeff

PS. Feel free to abbreviate by defining "the line" between "right" and "wrong" if you wish.

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 12:10 AM

The truth is, Period, that all you've managed are to propose matters of opinion and then call them "right" or "wrong", when in reality they are simply matters of opinion.

Call it "verbal sparring" if you like, but matters of opinion are just that. They are neither right nor wrong. They are matters of opinion. Calling someone who has an opposing opinion "wrong" is wrong, as it's simply your opinion that I am wrong. Your opinions don't define right and wrong. Right and wrong already have their own definitions. :thumbsup:

Hey Donc,

As the most evil president ever said, 'Bring it on.' The radical notion that gays are people with the same rights as all other people is winning.

You think my arguments are 'arrogant' and others don't like being called 'homophobic' or 'intolerant' or 'haters.'

I am somewhat sorry that some of the people who believe that Gays are People use language which offends the people who oppose civil rights.

Rather than 'arrogant' language, a number of the people who agree with you simply beat and murder their Gay 'enemies.' Or they use the law, and society, and their evil hearts to hound gays into suicide.

Read about Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing and then come write about how those 'arrogant' advocates for equal rights for gays are not playing fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

(Just as a side note, a pretty good case can be made that if Turing had been arrested in 1938, rather than 1952, that the allies would have lost huge numbers of additional people, and possibly WWII).

It is not reasonable to believe that consensual homosexuality should be illegal, which means you can't be a 'reasonable' person and believe that.

I am happy to accept that this depends on the definition of the word 'reasonable.'

But that is all verbal sparring. The core issue is that believing that consensual homosexuality should be illegal is just plain wrong. It is not
a little bit wrong. It is not something 'reasonable' people can disagree about. It is just plain wrong.

I recommend you read up on the life and times of George Wallace. It may make it easier for you to get yourself right with whatever God you believe in once you release how deeply wrong your side has been.

I may be absurd and arrogant, but at least I am not advocating positions which cause people to die because of who they love.

It is not ridiculous, homophobes just wish the comparison were ridiculous because then they don't have to face the obvious parallels.

It sucks for the homophobes that they came of age in families which taught intolerance and hate for gays. Oh well, presumably they will get over it.

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 12:13 AM

I'll bite: What did Pogo say, Lenny?

Is it wrong to call people names? To think we "know" them, label them, then judge the labels we put upon them? Thereby judging them as people?
No, is the right answer. It's wrong.
Is it wrong to utter hateful words or words of hate and declare them "righteous" and demonstrate intolerance by bad behavior at a funeral?
How about at the funeral of a fallen warrior who died in battle?
No, is the right answer.
And do you think that it is wrong to do so, when also proclaiming that it is all done for, and by, those that wish to model one who gave his life to show us the nature of God?
No, is the right answer.
We do things out of a sense of false pride and false right-ness, and declare so in the name of one unifying force. And then wonder why "the other side" behaves so "unfairly"?
Pogo was right.

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 12:24 AM

OK, let's go over this definition of what is good, line by line.
<TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>1.</TD><TD vAlign=top>in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>tell me Don, is this my right conduct, your right conduct or an Iraqi's right conduct?
Is it proper to tell someone they are wrong? is it good? or is it just?

It isn't about your opinion, Ms. Terry. It's about right conduct. Perhaps look the words up again. I trust it will become clearer to you then. :thumbsup:

MsTerry

06-14-2008, 08:56 AM

Don, I guess you will never get it.
No it isn't about opinion it is about interpretation.
And which interpretation do you think is right, yours or mine?

It isn't about your opinion, Ms. Terry. It's about right conduct. Perhaps look the words up again. I trust it will become clearer to you then. :thumbsup:

Lenny

06-14-2008, 09:21 AM

An example is the NEAP opponents claims that the NEAP represents a 'second downtown.' Building _across the street_ from the plaza and whole foods is not a 'second downtown.' It seems to me 'simply true' that the NEAP area is the obvious and right place for future commercial and residential development in Sebastopol. Where else could it be? So anyone who argues that it is not the right place is, well, sorry, but just wrong. But the more interesting and important question is whether there should be more development at all, and if so, what form that development should take.

I know this is not the thread, but....your above remark makes it clear in my head and the appropriate thread has to much noise:signal ratio. I've no place for "opposition", just questions: wouldn't the downtown area seem double in size and distorted if we simply slap on the current plan? Or would there be a "continuity" to one walking from the two areas?
I've not seen it put that way, but since you mention it....just wondering.

So now I am faced with the issue of Gay Marriage. And Gay Sodomy. There is actually a person on this board who asserts it is 'reasonable' for it to be illegal for gay people to have sex.

As I resemble that remark please allow me to clarify. I am NOT in favor of having the law stopping two consenting adults behaving as they please, generally speaking. I was feebly attempting to view the mindset of those that did pass those laws back in the day, with a poor attempt at how they justified their actions. Not much more.

And then you, our fine Ms. Terry, equate me with the Westboro Baptist Church, and are snarky at my simple declaration that I am right, and the Reverend Phelps is wrong.
Do you think Phelps is right about, well, pretty much anything?
Currently on godhatesfags.com is the headline "Thank God for 4 dead Boy Scouts at the hands of an Angry God (https://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080612_four-dead-boy-scouts.pdf)" They plan to picket the boys' funerals because 'God hates Nebraska and Iowa for persecuting His servants at WBC.'
So, despite your sarcasm, I think I will continue with simple declarations of the simple, and obvious truths. If Phelps and I disagree, than as a general rule I am right and he is wrong.
Or do you have another standard of truth? One in which the views of Phelps are given more weight?

Snark, snark,snark. OK now, I know I feel better.
When it comes to opinions is there a right or wrong? No, is the correct answer. Such things are not "obvious truths".
And please, for decency's sake, don't post a URL to such sick, sad, and disgusting events. It only helps the haters and does nothing to enhance respectability. Now, back to the flame wars!

Braggi

06-14-2008, 10:22 AM

Jeff, perhaps you missed my post with the definitions of right and wrong included. You're now discussing opinions, while I was discussing right and wrong. Matters of opinion are not matters of right and wrong. Matters of opinion can be argued endlessly, Jeff. ...

No, I saw your post. I was asking about your opinion, Don. What do you think is right? I have my opinion, and I am right about my opinion. As MsTerry noted, you dance around the questions without ever answering. Your input is therefore pretty useless.

...
For example, your sex life is a matter of opinion, not a matter of right and wrong. I have no opinion of your sex life, Jeff.

Now I think you're just lying. I think you do have opinions and strong ones at that. It's weird to me that you post on this forum, make sweeping statements and then are too timid to apply your notions of absolute right or wrong to an individual act. You are a poor judge and your posts lack wisdom. You appear as a person who is very fearful of exposing anything of substance about himself. That's not an attack, so don't go all defensive on us as you usually do. It's an observation and an opinion based on observation. Maybe I'm wrong and you're just storing it all up to share with us in some kind of mega post.

See, Don? That's how you do it. It's called communication. Perhaps you could practice it once in a while. You're invited.

-Jeff

thewholetruth

06-14-2008, 10:31 AM

PeriodThree wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=61408#post61408)
So now I am faced with the issue of Gay Marriage. And Gay Sodomy. There is actually a person on this board who asserts it is 'reasonable' for it to be illegal for gay people to have sex.

As I resemble that remark please allow me to clarify. I am NOT in favor of having the law stopping two consenting adults behaving as they please, generally speaking. I was feebly attempting to view the mindset of those that did pass those laws back in the day, with a poor attempt at how they justified their actions. Not much more.

I believe he/she was referring to me, Lenny, but I didn't say that it's "reasonable for it to be illegal for gay people to have sex". I believe I said that there are reasonable people who support homosexuality being illegal, which was his question. Our friend twisted my response.

Lenny

06-14-2008, 10:54 AM

I wrote "I may be absurd and arrogant, but at least I am not advocating positions which cause people to die because of who they love."

And you replied:
Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=61407#post61407)
Quite the drama queen, no? None here have I seen that would advocate or even wish that for another. You go to the extreme immediately and work backwards from that. Seems not a reasonable tactic and yet you find being reasonable to be a sound method, as do we all in this feeble attempt to communicate.

In fact, criminalizing gay 'sodomy' did cause people to die, and to suffer grievous harm, because of who they loved.
Your 'reasonable' views caused one of my intellectual heroes, a man who should be a hero for all of us, to kill himself. So yeah, I jump to the extreme.

PT, I am sorry about your hero. As there are so few put out here.
I cannot argue the fact that folks died, some at the hands of true homophobes, but then that is not what I posited. It was the tactic the I was addressing.
Also, the truth is decriminalizing sodomy causes people to die as well, and possibly at a greater rate. That is one of the main reasons I find Senator Feinstein an abomination. She didn't close the bath houses in the early 80's though she could have done SOMETHING, and her refusal to action allowed thousands of beautiful young men to contact The Newest Disease, thus allowing them to die. I witnessed that and that is a fact.

https://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/Supreme_Court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.tprc.pdf

The above is a link to a Texas medical organization that gave this amicus to the Lawrence court. The statistics and facts can lead to conclusions that are not widely disseminated in this political clime. I found it to be not the usual propaganda disseminated by either "side", nor the anecdotal issues brought up in discussions such as these. I found it informative.

Your 'reasonable' views caused the United States to lose more dedicated civil servants during the bleak McCarthy period than did accusations of Communism.
There is no reasonable defense of gay sodomy laws. There is no reasonable defense of denying Gay Marriage, and there is no need to be coy and tactful.

Sorry about leading you to an inaccurate conclusion. I did not mean to make the case for reasonable sodomy laws. I was attempting to get insight, and pass that along, about those that did make such laws. Again, what consenting adults do in their privacy is not to be reviewed by the authorities, or at least in this matter. But your reference to McCarthy is ironic because HIS lawyer was a homosexual and I believe those that knew, which were large in number, behaved as adults: they didn't care.
But then bookmark the notion of "privacy" which was reviewed during this case, but that is not about Gay "Marriage" as that is NOT a privacy issue. As an aside, the notion of privacy came about via Roe v Wade, in that one of the Supremes noted a "penumbra of privacy" in the Constitution, and that was one of the lynch pins of introducing "privacy" into the judicial review of our laws, as that word is not to be found there. Funny how that works, eh? Not an activist judge?

Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=61407#post61407)
Oh, and equating race with gender orientation is a fallacious argument, but we already knew that from previous posts, no?

[quote=PeriodThree;61410]No- we don't know that. They are the same. Civil rights are civil rights. You wish to use careful twists of rhetoric in order to defend a deeply twisted, wrong, and evil social order.
So did Wallace. He lost, and repented. The question is not whether the people with your position will lose. The only question is if you will repent before you die.
A bit off again, are we? You know you are right in a very narrow sense, but this is not a court of law where such APPROACHES to the legal questions are consistent with court rules. The comparison is not applicable to the public square. Either you are deliberately attempting to twist the matter to your outcome or you may only see your application to your own ends.
As for repentance, I am at a complete loss for words. As the blindfold is placed around me, am I to be asked to repent for sins against the law?
I have a two worded answer, which I will not use until that time.
Oh, and if you wish to discuss race and it's relations to real court issues, we can go back to Rov v Wade. You know that one, about the main lead, Plan Parent Hood, their founder, an admirer of Adolph's eugenic plan, and her own plans for Negroes, Irish, Mexicans, and other "races" plus the poor. How about finding out the statistics were PP "Clinics" are via zip code and reviewing the "help" they give to those folks in those neighborhoods? Or the percentage by race of those who received abortions over the last 30 million aborted? I know PP tells us it is for our own good, much like the blankets given to certain tribes in this country by some who wanted to do "good". Stow the race card when it comes to homosexuals. It doesn't work, and you are working it to death.

I have a bit of an evil streak, and frankly I hope that the dedicated racists and homophobes don't repent. Repentance is a freeing and liberating event, and my vindictive streak wants the people like Rev. Phelps to suffer in their vicious little hate filled souls. I am hoping that you are one of the ones who is able to find relief through repentance.

Oh, and yeah, I suppose we all have that bit of a "dark" streak, but give it no air and it will pass, kind of like the fart all of us humans do.
I can only trust that Rev. Phelps is already suffering the pains of hell in this life, and those that hate find only the misery that this existence can bring to those that follow that path, and upon his demise he will simply be put in the ground. He deserves no more.
As for my repentance? See the previous paragraph for that. But thanks.