Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ?? by JaynezTown

Hey, Sigma. Read this yesterday, but had already spent too much time arguing about copyright issues with someone on the Prospero board.

But you did give me lots to think about, so thank you.

Quote:
He included children < 13. First off the basic assumption here is that the population is sexually active. Otherwise how would they have the chance at having male-male sex right? So, basically Finn is saying that approximatly 4% of children < 13 are having gay male sex. Sounds rather wrong doesn't it?

Yeah, just slightly. He's not considering the other vectors, either. He just wants us to believe that gay sex is what spreads AIDS, no matter age, gender, orientation, or practice.

Quote:
To a certain extent we all have one. I for instance will never wish to go around killing people for no good reason. This is something that I won't change for anyone or anything (save effects from nerve gas, etc ). But aside from these things that I would think they are quite common "beliefs". I gather that I'm pretty open to new not killing indiscriminantly ideas, and I assume that you're the same way.

Well, I like to think of my "black box" as an intricately carved ebony chest, lined in purple velvet, because that's just the kind of girl I am. The stuff I keep in there: I won't kill or fight, unless my life or the lives of other people (most importantly my family) are at stake; every single person is precious, no matter how stupid I think one is, or how idiotic one behaves - that's just entertainment value; evolutionary theory will always beat out creationism, no matter how many permutations the theory undergoes; rumour-mongering is an art-form; nobody has the right to dictate the actions of other people - if it's not hurting anyone, it's no one's business; Napoleon Dynamite and Shaun of the Dead are brilliant movies.

There's more, but I want to stop before boredom ensues.

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Right now it's Sunday morning, and I'm entering the Long, Dark, Teatime of the Soul. Just about to go see how many baths I can usefully take....

/Hitchhiker's Guide reference.

Quote:
Which book is that from? Is it actually the first one? If so I don't remember that. I've just started the second.

It may be the second one, but I am not entirely sure (it's been a while since I've read them. Salmon of Doubt really put me off Douglas Adams for a while). All I know is that the Long Dark Teatime of the Soul encapsulates all I feel about Sundays. Have always felt about Sundays, really. And Tuesdays, incidentally.

"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2005 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Quote:
He included children < 13. First off the basic assumption here is that the population is sexually active. Otherwise how would they have the chance at having male-male sex right? So, basically Finn is saying that approximatly 4% of children < 13 are having gay male sex. Sounds rather wrong doesn't it?

Yeah, just slightly. He's not considering the other vectors, either. He just wants us to believe that gay sex is what spreads AIDS, no matter age, gender, orientation, or practice.

1. Actually I’m assuming that a certain number of individuals out of the population of gay people will contract AIDS in a given year. The number of children is irrelevant unless you are interested in a specific probability for gay adults. Because I’m only interested in comparing this to the probably of the heterosexual community to contract AIDS, I’m not interested in the specific probably of gay adults (which would be LARGER because of the smaller population.) Since the number of children can be assumed to be equally represented in both populations, they fall out of the ratio. And have no effect on the final number. Sigma should know this if he knew as much about mathematics as he claims. I challenge you to do the math.

2. Gay sex is the principal means by which AIDS is spread. That is a fact. I’m sorry if that impinges on your preconceptions, but if you don’t like that, you need to complain to the CDC. It’s their numbers, not mine, that bare this out. I'm just the messenger.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2005 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by glowyrm:
mr j goes out and stabs his neighbor mr k to death. there is no provocation, and mr j makes a statement to his laywer that he is "fulfilling a religious obligation" can he therefore be charged with murder?

in my opinion if he could prove the religious context and demonstrate that the religion he follows is soundly based he should not , because of the constitution.

I’d like to know how you arrive at this conclusion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:18 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by glowyrm:

by the constitution of the united states of america people are guaranteed religios freedom, to worship or not worship as they each see fit. when you bring in a law that contravenes this constitutional right you are in effect marrying politics and religion.

This is not true. The Supreme Court has interpreted many restrictions on religious freedom. A good example is ritual animal sacrifice. Its fundamental to an otherwise legitimate and recognized religion, yet illegal. There is also poligamy, that Atlanta child spanking church, and so on. The issue is whether a compelling govt interest is served by the law, whether the restriction is narrowly tailored to be the least intrusive possible, and where there is no viable alternative.

Quote:

here is a purely fictional example...

mr j goes out and stabs his neighbor mr k to death. there is no provocation, and mr j makes a statement to his laywer that he is "fulfilling a religious obligation" can he therefore be charged with murder?

in my opinion if he could prove the religious context and demonstrate that the religion he follows is soundly based he should not , because of the constitution.

The state's interest in maintaining order and protecting the lives of its citizens in the interest. Banning religious killings is the only alternative. The law is narrowly tailored to apply to all homicides, yet let other forms of religious expression remain.

Quote:

"TERRORIST" and the phrase "TERRORIST ACTIONS" most all the dictionaries i have looked in have said the same thing. that a terrorist(s) is defined as 'a person or group of people who seek to hold down others using threats of terror or terrifying actions.' does this sound like the same person that declared a "war on terror"???

Try looking up "WAR":

• noun 1) a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2) a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

That sounds like what Bush is doing. However to use your example. A terrorist is a person or group that seeks to hold down others using threats of terror. The President in his role as warmaker is seeking to kill or deter terrorists by using military action. There is a difference, unless you hate Bush. A lot of people hate Bush. They prefer terrorists, oil kickbacks, and French cooking. I'm not going to say they are wrong to think that way, I do however think they should be killed by the terrorists, political corruption, and old European indifferance and self-interest they seem to prefer. But don't worry. Bush wont let that happen. When a terrorist blows up your building or a giant wave comes calling, America will be there, faster and with a whole lot more then the rest of the world...combined.

Quote:

in some states of AUSTRALIA it is still illegal to :walk on the right side of a sidewalk ;spit in public;attempt to commit suicide (a successfull suicide however can not be charged with the offence)

In Pennsylvania you can't fish from horseback. They're called "blue laws" and every now and then a whole bunch of them get tossed out.

Quote:

and now for the truth about WHY the law and religion should not interact.

Blah, blah, blah gang raped, blah, blah pregnant, blah, blah abortion, blah, blah she was FORCED BY THE LAW to not only undergo the cruelty of an unplanned and very unwanted pregnancy, but also deliver the baby (which i believe was stillborn).

Is this really a religious issue? Yes. Can this issue be divorced from religion? No. The question boils down to the fundamental question of when life begins. We don't need to argue that. Some say conception, some say birth, most seem to say its somewhere in between.

In the US, Roe v. Wade adopted the third option and argued that the rights of the state to intercede and protect the child mature at viability, which they base on the best science of the time. While I do not agree, I also do not take issue with the ruling on this basis. My principal disagreement with Roe is that the science upon which it is based is more then twenty years old. A baby (or whatever you call it) is not viable at conception, but modern science has pushed the line of viability back from where it was when Roe came down. Therefore, if Roe is good law, that law needs periodic revision to account for new science.

I prefer to look to my adopted little sister for my answer on the question of abortion. She is healthy, happy, smart, and alive. Her five brothers and/or sisters cannot make that claim, they were aborted. So I ask myself, 'does my sister have a fundamental right to exist?' I cannot conclude that she does not have that right. It is a moral decision. It is also religous. I also believe my decision is supported by the US Constitution which guarrantee's everyone life, liberty, and property.

In your example a crime was committed. The unborn child was a victim along with her mother. But I cannot look at my sister, in those same circumstances, and say she has no right to exist because her father raped her mother. If you can, then by all means do so. But I'll be there to fight you in court when you try to make it law.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:05 PM

GLOWYRM

Quote:

Try looking up "WAR":

• noun 1) a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2) a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

That sounds like what Bush is doing. However to use your example. A terrorist is a person or group that seeks to hold down others using threats of terror. The President in his role as warmaker is seeking to kill or deter terrorists by using military action. There is a difference...

here is the clincher on the word 'war' "armed conflict". since when are unarmed children, newborn babies, bed ridden seniors etc considdered to be combattants in "armed conflict"? or indeed "in armed groups". since when is a child, a mother or grandparent who does not own or have access to firearms a threat to anyone? the war is against those who are armed, but exactly WHO instigated this war? i dont hate GWB, i couldnt give a stuff about oil kickbacks and i dislike french cooking yet fundamentaly, i still assert that by definition GWB is a terrorist.

show me the evidence that iraq, as a nation, was the instigator of this so called war and i may have to change my view. after all NOBODY has all the evidence, NOBODY has all the factsand sadly there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to war.

"glowyrm is getting old"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:53 PM

Fundamentally, I assert that you are by definition ignorant. At least your post would seem to suggest that.

The US is not waging war against "unarmed children, newborn babies, [ and ] bed ridden(sic) seniors." This is a figment of your imagination and a chronic example of extreme ignorance and anti-American ideology. It is complete lunacy to claim that the US is waging war against "newborn babies" and "bed ridden(sic) seniors," regardless of one's opinion of the current conflict in Iraq. When was the last time we launched one of those baby seeking missiles designed to target those "newborn babies?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:54 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
When was the last time we launched one of those baby seeking missiles designed to target those "newborn babies?"

That started with "Roe v. Wade". The liberals oppose the death of babies in war. I agree. They condone the death of babies in the womb. I disagree.

Still its funny to think of a HummVee mounted NOW missles sitting outside Planned Parenthood centers out to kill unwanted babies. Funny in that tragic vaccum cleaner approach to contraception sort of way.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 9:04 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by glowyrm:
show me the evidence that iraq, as a nation, was the instigator of this so called war and i may have to change my view.

August, 1990- Iraq invades Kuwait
January, 1991- US Coalition attacks Iraq to liberate Kuwait
Febuary, 1991- Iraq agrees to cease fire. Terms, we stop kicking Iraqi ass. Iraq returns Kuwaiti civilian prisoners (not done), returns Kuwaiti property (not done), agrees to a UN monitored no-fly zone (not done), agrees to destroy and account for all WMDs (not done, destroy...maybe, account for...no), etc, etc.

So argument 1, the original Gulf War cease fire is null and void due to failure of Iraq to abide by agreement. In other words...game on.

June, 1993- Iraqi plot to kill former President Bush.

December, 1998-2003- Iraq fires on US and British planes in no-fly-zone on almost daily basis.

So argument 2, acts of war committed against the United States justify the military conflict. In other words...they took a couple swings at us.

April 14, 1995- Oil for food program begins.

So argument 3, Iraq uses largest financial scandal in history to funnel money into its efforts to spilt the western alliance with bribes to Russian, German, and French diplomats including high ranking members of the governments of those nations. They also succeeded in introducing an unprecedented amount of political corruption into the world's premire international organization, the UN. So in other words, they messed with our friends, corrupted our allies, and spoiled our alliances.

That leaves terror:
1. Muhammad Atta, a Sept 11 leader, met with Iraqi intelligence officers prior to the 2001 attack. While Saddam likely had no knowledge of the details or planning of the attack, Iraqi intelligence likely played a supporting role to Al Queda efforts to infiltrate the US and Europe. This was most likely limited to financial support, intelligence, and assistence in securing documentation and transportation into the US.

2. Abu Musab Zarqawi, a high ranking member of Al Queda was known to be in Iraq prior to the war. He is well known as a central figure in the terrorist's efforts there in the last two years. Prior to 2002 he killed American diplomats in Jordan, coordinated with Iraqi intellegence officials, and set up a chemical weapons training camp in Iraq for terrorists.

3. Ansar al-Islam, an Al Queda subsidiary, was based in northern Iraq and partially supported by Saddam's government.

4. Iraq provided cash payments to the families of terrorist suicide bombers in Isreal.

5. Iraq funded a Kurdish terrorist group (the Kurdish Workers Party) in Turkey.

6. Iraq funded the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, an Iranian dissident group in Iran (although I'm not sure they qualify as terrorists, since anyone opposing the Iranian govt can't be all bad).

7. Iraq supported and provided a haven for Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Abu Nidal Organization (whose leader died in Baghdad in 2002).

So, argument 4, Iraq was actively supporting terrorism and harboring terrorist groups. Iraq was put on notice in 2002 that US policy had changed. We would fight not only the terrorists, but also those who shelter and support them.

All of these things together (and others which I'm sure I'm forgetting) make the case for war. But war did not come. Instead the US resorted to months of intense diplomatic activity. Our goal was first to neutralizw the threat posed by Saddam and second to build a coalition to eliminate his threat if diplomacy failed. Saddam's goals were to use his own diplomatic efforts to forstall military action against him and prevent a new coalition. He was partially successful. He subverted the UN and turned France, Germany, and Russia against us. However, Bush countered by courting the new Europe (Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania) and the ignored Europe (Spain and Italy). This gave him the foundation of multilatural support to join staunch US allies Britain and Australia with Asian partners like Japan, the Phillipines, and South Korea along with nominal allies throughout Central and South America and the former Soviet Union (but not Russia).

In the end Saddam's and Bush's diplomacy cancelled each other out, Saddam was still a threat and "other means" were required.

Ultimately France and a million peace marchers are to blame. Germany would never have opposed us alone and Russian support is not relevant. Had France stood with the US and Britain along with a united NATO and global coalition, Saddam would likely have backed down. Instead his perceived diplomatic successes made him overconfident and allowed him to overextend himself to the point of being reduced from internation player to hiding in a hole in the ground in the space of a few weeks.

France allowed itself to be corrupted. Just as the international peace movement was corrupted (they were financially supported by Iraqi intellegence). This artificial groundswell of opposition to military conflict actually helped cause the very war they opposed.

Imagine millions of demonstrators, worldwide, supporting the US and calling for Hussein to step down. Couple that with unanimous support from NATO and the UN security council, French troops joining Eastern and Western European forces in Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. I sincerely doubt there would have been war.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:04 PM

I love this discussion, I want it to continue. I just can't bear trying to load the thread anymore. It is a pain in my ass.

Seriously.

So, I started a new thread, to which I'm hoping some of the bad feelings and antagonism can be transferred from this thread. My fingers are crossed, and my dander is up.

Just wanted folks to know.

"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2005 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I love this discussion, I want it to continue. I just can't bear trying to load the thread anymore. It is a pain in my ass.

Seriously.

So, I started a new thread, to which I'm hoping some of the bad feelings and antagonism can be transferred from this thread. My fingers are crossed, and my dander is up.

Just wanted folks to know.

"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114

The thread is really too long for this site. Maybe someone should think about breaking these threads up into pages for faster loading. (?) The gay marriage discussion has really run its course. I made my point a long time ago, so I was just responding to criticism which was becoming more and more frantic. There really isn’t anything left to discuss. So perhaps it is time to shoot this horse and move on to another thread and another topic.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
That started with "Roe v. Wade". The liberals oppose the death of babies in war. I agree. They condone the death of babies in the womb. I disagree.

Good point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2005 10:36 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I love this discussion, I want it to continue. I just can't bear trying to load the thread anymore. It is a pain in my ass.

Seriously.

So, I started a new thread, to which I'm hoping some of the bad feelings and antagonism can be transferred from this thread. My fingers are crossed, and my dander is up.

Just wanted folks to know.

Well, Finn keeps ignoring the initial conditions arguement that I put forth and he agree to, which makes most of his arguments fall apart. If he knew as much about math as he thinks, he would've rememebered that.

He also doesn't seem to realize that the numbers from the CDC are for only adolesents and adults. NO children, NO seniors. Also, the gay community is more than just gay people as shown by the stats that he himself cites. This has really gotten pathetic on his part.

He also somehow thinks that it's my responsibility to go throught more that 100 posts of this to somehow pick out poorly argued points that he apparently made some time ago. This is rather unacceptable.

Also, since he flatly refused to even give a summary of his points, that tells me just how weak his position really is.

I've even have gone so far as accepting his conjectures as assumptions and asking, even then, what does this have anything to do with gay marriage. All I get is an unresponsive answer.

< sarcasm >
But of course, it can't be his fault, right? Because he's him, right? It must be all of us that are somehow sooo far below him that our puny little minds just can't comprehend the greatness of his thoughts.
< /sarcasm >

All I have to say to Finn at this point is

I'm leaving this discussion for reasons of unresponsive answers and lack of time. I have nothing more to say to this fool on regarding this topic.

All parting remarks will be ignored.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2005 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
All I have to say to Finn at this point is

I'm leaving this discussion for reasons of unresponsive answers and lack of time. I have nothing more to say to this fool on regarding this topic.

All parting remarks will be ignored.

So long, Vizzini. It’s been real. Come back by when you figure things out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2005 2:31 PM

Quote:
All parting remarks will be ignored.

But...but....but....Sigma! I need you in the new thread!

"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2005 3:43 PM

SIGMANUNKI

@ReeQueen:
I've been falling behind in my work for the past little while. Even though I've spend all but a few hours of my waking time on my work

Complex Analysis, Number Theory and Networks and It's Applications have to take precedence over this thread especially given the nature of Finn (ie I didn't say that! Oh, you quoted me saying that. I think I'll just ignore that then. And the mentality of, I won't answer questions that will inevitably lead me to conclusions that I don't want to admit.).

Sorry, but you'll have to fight the good fight with others until I can free up some time.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2005 6:00 PM

'Kay. I don't have to like it (and it's not like I don't see where you're coming from, either), but 'kay.

"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
Quote:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:

Big, long epistle

Ok, I want you to bear in mind that I am a very intelligent, sensible individual. I also, unlike most "so-called" christians, have actually read the Bible cover-to-cover (lot of time in the army), as well as the Quran, and yes for those thaty don't get it, the Torah, since it's part of the Bible (LOL :P).

I have studied (extensively) Eastern and Western Philosophy and religions. Also, governmental policies, precedents, etc etc.

So, on to my personal opinion that is firmylo ground in that background, as well as stone-cold-in-your-face-don't-give-a-shit-what-your-stupid-inbred-ass-has-to-say LOGIC.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think stem cell research can possibly help mankind more than harm. Genetic engineering on the other hand......(Such as recombinant DNA for those that want to find loopholes in my logic, or human cloning.

As for Janet Jackson, I could care less. Granted, children saw that, but then again, it didn't show anything. It's nothing mroe than can be found in typical primetime television, or hell....even the cheerleaders in the background.
But then again, that's what happens when your country is founded by a bunch of religous fanatics.

And gay marriage. This is the funniest crap I have ever heard "Faggots can't marry" Let me ask you inbreds out there a question. Would you want to marry a gay man (ladies) or a lesbian (men). The answer would of course be no, so why worry about it? Or is the fact that someone out there gets a little happiness a little hard for you schmucks to swallow? And as a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing about gay marriage, simply about sadomizitation, which is having sex with young boys. The BIBLE makes a bigger crime to not love than to love a member of the same sex.

Thus, my epistle is done.

"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"

good points there

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:28 PM

LEELU777

so some of you think killing unborn children is ok, that the woman has the higher vote, well what about the childs vote or choice. did anyone ever think of adoption ????? there are many people out there that want that unborn child. to me there
are many different women out there
that have different circomstances
but that doesn't mean that gives them the right to kill the child.

as for gay rights well I think to hate the sin but love the sinner. They deserve rights just as everyone else does, but to me marriage was made for man and woman I don't want to bemean but thats what I think it doesn't make me right in any way.

cell stem .
no more taking pices of unborn children or cells or what ever if we are to die then we are to die as well as age.
janet jackson
I say publicity stunt.

men are in lust women are in passion

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 4:42 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"so some of you think killing unborn children is ok"

You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.

You might care deeply for the future child you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'childhood' is only a potential future. It hasn't happened yet.

Not being able to distinguish your feelings from reality, and thinking that if you want something badly enough you will make it real, are both unhealthy ways of thinking. I'm sure you are old enough to realize you can't fly with pixie dust and happy thoughts, so perhaps you could bring some of that same reality-based learning to this topic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:48 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

I'm sure you are old enough to realize you can't fly with pixie dust and happy thoughts, so perhaps you could bring some of that same reality-based learning to this topic.

LOL, I'm writting this one down!!!

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I love this discussion, I want it to continue. I just can't bear trying to load the thread anymore. It is a pain in my ass.

Seriously.

the thread is way too big now

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:09 AM

How low can you go, Rush?
http://www.microenterprisejournal.com/JournalBlog/2006/10/25/how-low-c
an-you-go-rush/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:25 PM

Stem cells are about Merck and money. I keep saying it, eventually someone will look it up. Nancy Reagan became a whore when she accepted the cash/political pressure to speak out against stem cell research. This has nothing to do with christianity. It was a republican bill Bush vetoed. If Nancy wanted to back the GOP she could have backed the GOP senators forwarding the bill, not the GOP poser president.

Gays are democrats. If gays are allowed to marry, they will adopt children. 90% of all political positions in this country are inherited, ie. people vote for the party their parents voted for 90% of the time. If gays adopt children, they make more democrats.

Janet Jackson is a democrat, she was on an MTV presentation, MTV is a democrat, and it was running on a CBS halftime show, CBS is a democrat. Govt. loves censorship powers. A republican govt. would love to censor democrats, or at least make them pay it money.

Abortion is wrong. It's killing. Don't kill people, places, things, plants, etc. It's a simple rule.

None of these things have anything to do with christianity. I'm not a christian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:34 PM

Quote:
You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.

Rue,

that's not a reality, it's an opinion. One with which I respectfully disagree.

It's also a terrible argument. If I were on the other side of this issue, which I'm most empahtically not, I would make an argument based on something like "if abortion were illegal it would happen anyway and more people would die" or something like that.

"Abortion is okay" is just a terrible argument, and its dangerously close to dread scott. If you say "it's not a person so I can do what I want" - that is not a fact, and it's not a sound argument - it's a rationalization.

The goons who torture Iraqis for fun, be they Americans, Brits, or Israelis, or be they Saddam Husseins goons torturing Kurds, are essentially basing their argument on the same position "it's not a person, so it's okay" - that's just extremely shakey moral ground.

You're free to believe that, sure, but it's not an argument which is going to wing the hearts and minds of the people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:35 PM

Finn,

I know he pays your bills, but have the guts to just stand up and say the president is wrong about something. When you make excuses for him you look like his bitch.

I'm not not at all convinced this is an issue with any moralistic component to it at all, but more than that, if you support it, support it, say the president is wrong. A large portion of the GOP supports it, it's not exactly a fringe issue. Look in Jan '07 for a veto override on this by a good number of republican senators.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 11:19 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The goons who torture Iraqis for fun, be they Americans, Brits, or Israelis, or be they Saddam Husseins goons torturing Kurds, are essentially basing their argument on the same position "it's not a person, so it's okay" - that's just extremely shakey moral ground.

You're free to believe that, sure, but it's not an argument which is going to wing the hearts and minds of the people.

Except they're objectifying a person, you're 'personfying' a cell, then saying the opponents argument is similar.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 11:50 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
If gays adopt children, they make more democrats.

Gays have/adopt children anyway. Why illegalize the protection that they would get if they were being raised by "real, good" parents? Same-sex couples will raise children no matter what, and, by giving the couple almost no rights gives that child no rights.

"Does that seem right to you?"

Besides, that whole "Gays are Democrats" argument is total crap. There are gay Republicans; just because the extremist Republicans (or the pedophiles) get all the media attention, doesn't mean there aren't ::gasps:: tolerant Republicans in the world. And, trying to fit people into these idiotic bi-partisan stereotypes is much like what people did (still do, in fact, although to some lesser extent) with women and men.

Not everyone cares about/pays attention to politics - or conversely, follows the herd and votes because "they live in a red state" - and, there are a hell of a lot more people that live outside the United States (China, India, the United Kingdom, Australia, etc.).

I'm not quite sure if you were actually serious or not (no offense intended), but, if you were, then that's what I have to say about it.

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:45 AM

CRUITHNE3753

The irony with that Janet Jackson episode was that there were no complaints about the other tit that was in full view during the entire performance.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

I know he pays your bills, but have the guts to just stand up and say the president is wrong about something. When you make excuses for him you look like his bitch.

First of all, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Secondly, when I think the president is wrong I’ll say that I think he’s wrong, and I have, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to slander him. He’s still the president and he deserves a respect that you and some others evidently don’t really understand.

I’m no one’s bitch. Well except for that one time, but she was really hot. She sort of looked like Vanessa Carlton.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 3:47 PM

Citizen,

it's all subjective of course, such as what a person is. But the argument i was making was about the strength of the argument, which was weak,

Yinyang,

I'm not going to debate gay marriage, I think it's a pointless wedge issue. I was just explaining why it was a partisan issue.

Most partisan issues aren't about 'deep felt beliefs' they are totally mercenary, and about numbers. Legalizing gay marriage would ultimately be more likely to increase the number of democrats, which is maybe why the republican leadership wants it done. They then tell the christians that they want it done, and presto wedge issue o

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 3:54 PM

Late term abortion...The unborn screams and kicks in pain as he/she is cut into easily removed pieces.... can be heard through the fluttering vulva(music to kaneman's ears...I wish they would amplify the screams) .....enough said....

maybe not,

"If I were on the other side of this issue"

As opposed to what?..The other side of the tissue?

Send me your butchered babies, I will feed them to my children..Shit , it will cut down on my grocery bills....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:06 PM

Quote:
First of all, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

My apologies. I didn't realize what a monster this thread had become. I should have quoted, sorry. Actually, I agree with a great deal of what you've posted here. It was one particular point which annoyed me.

The issue was stem cell research. The president has taken a really indefensible position. Why bother to make up rationalizations for why it's okay? it's not okay. It's appallingly bad. It's endlessly corrupt. If we take this sort of position, it makes us look like Bush's lapdogs.

When it comes to RTL I think I'm probably one of the most avid RTLers of the board. it's one of ten reasons the democrats can't get my vote.
But stem cells don't cross rtl,. i don't think that's an honest position. embryonic stem cells can be grown without destroyingthe embryo, and even if they couldn't these are discarded emryos. Also, this debate isn't about that, it's about merck wanting to control stem cells.

I think you basically agree, but your post was sort of "i support stem cell research, but i support the president more"
Bush isn't just a weak republican, he's a disaster. He's like no republican I've ever seen. He's like... Clinton. When you support him, especially when he's wrong, it's like supporting viche france.
it's like people on the pay roll (Your depts. funding is dependent on budgetary concerns, you said as much, which was the reference of bitch but i was being crude,) always seem to sound like that, never seem to say "the president is wrong" like Bill O'Reilly., who is losing all of his mod creds by not calling it when it's clear.

Quote:
Secondly, when I think the president is wrong I’ll say that I think he’s wrong, and I have, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to slander him. He’s still the president and he deserves a respect that you and some others evidently don’t really understand.

No one deserves any respect. Respect is earned. There are too many apologists for the president's meaningless and endlessly corrupt positions.

sorry for ragging on you about this, just I see so much of this weakness on the right, kind of gives me a sick feeling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:25 PM

Ruse,
"You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.

You might care deeply for the future child you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'childhood' is only a potential future. It hasn't happened yet."

Kaneman's response,
You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A dying shaking, convulsing blob of "has been" is not a dad.

You may care deeply for the past dad you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'old age' is only an alluded to past. In your life. To bad.. It was wasted on the likes of you.

I would love to hear your opinion on when life starts or ends. Also, about late term abortion. or why you can get a legal abortion, but if you kill a pregnant women you can be charged with 2 murders? Oh, the more I listen to your hate filled bullshit(in the name of liberalism) makes me glad your dad died shaking...Fucking coward.....shake shake shake...shake shake shake...shake your booty.....(in the name of the children you belittle) may Ruse's dad burn in hell for putting that baby killer on this earth...DAMN RUSE's DAD.....Burn dildo....

Read what I just wrote...Again.....Again...slowly....once more...Well, it's true........
:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:35 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Gay Rights:
The problem with gay marriage is that the American people were basically given an ultimatum. Give up traditional marriage or else.

Ok, in a seriousness, I've never understood this. And when I ask no-one has given me an answer. It's like when I ask, a tumble-weed goes by. So, here it goes...

How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I would like to know too! Personally, I think remarriage goes against traditional marriage. Til death do us part and all that. So lets just go ahead and ban subsequent marriages except in the case of death of a spouse.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:37 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Ruse,
"You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.

You might care deeply for the future child you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'childhood' is only a potential future. It hasn't happened yet."

Kaneman's response,

Read what I just wrote...Again.....Again...slowly....once more...Well, it's true........
:

Really Kaneman. That is a bit much even for you. Shame.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:37 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Ruse,
"You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.

You might care deeply for the future child you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'childhood' is only a potential future. It hasn't happened yet."

Kaneman's response,

Read what I just wrote...Again.....Again...slowly....once more...Well, it's true........
:

Really Kaneman. That is a bit much even for you. Shame.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:47 PM

JOSSISAGOD

My views on the topics of discussion:

Stem Cells: The embryos used for stem cell research would have been tossed out anyway, and to my limited knowledge, the embyos used for research are not allowed to grow past the stage of a simple multi-celled organism, nowhere near human(I'm deffining "human" as an organism with the ability for abstract thought). So, why not use them if we just throw them away anyway?

The "Gay" community: I've possibly got more homosexual friends than I do hetero friends. Does that make me "Gay?" Nope! About half of the "gay" people I know are Republicans, who voted Bush Jr. in for his first term, then decided they didn't want him for a second. My point is this, the gay community deserves the same rights and oppertunities as the straight community.

Abortion: I'm neither for or against it. What I am against is having some politician in Washington decide what a woman should do with her own body.

Janet Jackson: Big Whoop! I can find better stuff on the "Coretex!"

Religion: I like to keep mine seperated from my political affairs.

Well, there you have it!

Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 5:13 PM

"Abortion: I'm neither for or against it. What I am against is having some politician in Washington decide what a woman should do with her own body."

Define it first you freak. Call it what it is. The murder of an unborn baby. What does that have to do with Washington? I love that it is usually the same people that want us to save the twin horned frog and the rain forest, that are the first to chop up a fetus and feed it to a barn owl...all in the name of Women's rights...What a joke......Well, it's true.......

FMF,
"Really Kaneman. That is a bit much even for you. Shame."

I do it for the unborn and their soon to be ripped off appendages... Shame on me

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 6:55 PM

JOSSISAGOD

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Define it first you freak. Call it what it is. The murder of an unborn baby. What does that have to do with Washington? I love that it is usually the same people that want us to save the twin horned frog and the rain forest, that are the first to chop up a fetus and feed it to a barn owl...all in the name of Women's rights...What a joke......Well, it's true.......

Learn how to push the button that says "reply with quote" nimrod! It will make snide remarks MUCH easier to label!

Okay, you want me to define abortion, if the pregnancy is terminated early in the first trimester, the fetus hasn't had time to develop into little more than a tadpole, within the second and third trimesters the fetus developes a more infant like appearance. However, until the umbilical cord is cut, the baby is more like a parasite (albeit, a cute one.) I'll give you that a late term abortion is more like murder, I still think that it should be the woman, on an individual basis that decides what she does with her body and baby. My comment about abortion having to do with politicians in washington, means that I don't want to have someone else, namely, President Bush, trying to meddle in affairs that have no bearing on a national scale. Bush tried to get an abortion bill passed(banning abortion), thusly, forcing HIS will on the people he is supposed to be serving!

The American people are supposed to tell the President what THEY want him to do, not have him tell THEM what to do! (that's usually how democracy works, the government is "By the people, For the people.")

Fe'nos Tol, Bitch!
Edit: I'm a bad, bad man.
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
No one deserves any respect. Respect is earned. There are too many apologists for the president's meaningless and endlessly corrupt positions.

For god sakes, the president didn’t just blossom out of a bud into the Oval Office. He was elected there by a majority of US states, but long before that he had to become qualified to become a candidate for the presidency. Whether you like it or not, the president has earned an enormous amount of respect before he ever got to the Office, as have most presidents. Now you seem to define respect based on whether someone agrees with you, but that’s not what it means. Just because the president doesn’t say or do what you think he should doesn’t mean he isn’t worthy of respect. And frankly, I’m sick of people dragging politics down into the mud because they can’t get what they want, which is precisely what you do. It’s possible to respect the president or a congressman or even an individual on this board, even if you don’t agree with them, but if you can’t respect the presidency then I’m not interested in your criticism of him. Criticism without due respect is just mudslinging.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 7:10 PM

"if the pregnancy is terminated early in the first trimester, the fetus hasn't had time to develop into little more than a tadpole"

Shit, do we not shut down logging operations in the north west for less than this? You can't have it both ways. When we start deciding that a frog's tadpoles or a barn owls eggs are important, but human "tadpoles" are not, we are in big trouble as a species....Read what I just wrote...again....again...once more.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 7:18 PM

JOSSISAGOD

Kaneman, you are obviously missing my point. It's not about the human fetus, or frogs or owls, it's about CHOICE, once that choice is taken out of the American public's hands where does all of our freedom go?

Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 7:21 PM

"American people are supposed to tell the President what THEY want him to do, not have him tell THEM what to do! (that's usually how democracy works, the government is "By the people, For the people."

Fine. Put it on a national referendum. Lets debate abortion(not just the feminist[I hate that word, they are a minority amongst women] propaganda), what is life, and the procedure. Then lets watch the same people that say we can kill unborn children... turn around and tell us a highway can't be built because it may disturb the mating habits of Liberian fire ants. What a joke...Really

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 10:46 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Fine. Put it on a national referendum. Lets debate abortion(not just the feminist[I hate that word, they are a minority amongst women] propaganda), what is life, and the procedure. Then lets watch the same people that say we can kill unborn children... turn around and tell us a highway can't be built because it may disturb the mating habits of Liberian fire ants. What a joke...Really

Or maybe we can watch all those fine moral people who protect the babies that aren't really babies turn around and murder hundreds of thousands in wars for personal gain...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:37 PM

Nonsense.

Respect is what you get for showing competence. Winning a popularity contest didn't earn respect from me as a teen and it doesn't do it in govt.

Whether you like it or not, the president has earned no respect

Quote:
Now you seem to define respect based on whether someone agrees with you, but that’s not what it means.

I'm really sick of this "i post to be insulting" troll garbage.

Quote:
Just because the president doesn’t say or do what you think he should doesn’t mean he isn’t worthy of respect.

Don't disagree with his ideological position nearly as much as the fact that he's an incompetent shmuck who doesn't know his ass from a whole in the ground.
An ass which you seem to bend over backwards to kiss, yet pretend that that is not what you are doing.

Quote:
And frankly, I’m sick of people dragging politics down into the mud because they can’t get what they want, which is precisely what you do.

Whatever. You know, this is getting just a little bit creepy. Since when did I say this was about what I wanted?
I was basically just saying "have a backbone" because you posted a rationalization to defend the president's position. that makes you his apologist. It's worse than when a trekkie makes up scientific explanation for why the errors on the show aren't errors.
It makes you look bad, and it makes us look bad, was my point. If we're the mindless zombie army of Bush, then why would anyone listen to our arguments.

Quote:
but if you can’t respect the presidency then I’m not interested in your criticism of him

I think this is a fallacious argument. No one deserves automatic respect. That turns politics into a religion. Your base assertion here gives the president a divine authority, reverence by the sheer fact that he holds the office, regardless of his total lack of demonstrated ability.

The truth is, you don't seem to be interested in any criticism of your religious leader. I followed along for far too long, believing in the faux moderates like Bill O'Reilly. But they never really take an independent position, they just cleverly position themselves on the fence, to try to draw unsuspecting folks like me in.

You pretended to take a pro-stem cell position while defending the president's anti-stem cell position, essentially calling it pro-stem cell, which is almost orwelling doubletalk, it's hypocritical at best, and mamby pamby pandering at worst.

I thought you were an independently minded conservative at one point, but when i read this i was disgusted because i thought, "maybe he's just a clever propagandist"

I'm not saying you or anyone else has to agree with me, nor am i whining for not getting my way. such accusations are petty, lame, and a little bit childish
I've already posted a few times that i'm absolutely certain that I am getting my way on stem cells, i think it's a done deal.

But either the president's position is right, or it's wrong. I think that the president is wrong on stem cells, and I think he's wrong because he's backing the position Merck wants him to, because I think the president has no moral character whatsoever, as in zero, nada, zip, and i know people who know him personally. He's not a strong moral person.

If someone was a strong moral person and bought the rtl argument against embryonic stem cells, then fine, just say so. but what i saw in your post which irritated me was you, making up excuses for the president. that's not a strong position, it's a weak yes-man position. so i called you on it, as a paid yes-man, and you flipped.

nothing personal, just calling it as i see it.

not mudslinging. I was calling you out on your pandering defense of the president even while at least pretending to disagree with him, not attacking the president for his corrupt position.

btw - I'm sorry if this comes across as trollish, i just don't know any better.

I'm not just being bitter about the 2000 primary here., bush is a perpetual disappointment, but i think at least a dozen times i've sided with the prez on this forum. I still don't have any respect for the man. I have respect for condi, powell, rummy, even to some extent cheney. they're hard working individuals with whom i sometimes have disagreements.

i have no respect for the presidency, as you might recall, i posted a thread at one point advocating a constitutional amendment to abolish the position. There have been about half a dozen truly great presidents, and sure, all were republicans, but on the whole, the office is a wash. America, imho, would be better served without them.

edit:

nevermind, i was in a bad mood and so I ranted against your excuses for bush. it's not that important, i was just an irritated troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 27, 2007 1:48 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

Part of this thread was about the Defense of Marriage Act and how you claimed it was supposed to restore the 'traditional' marriage. But as I stated, like privacy of pregnancy before quickening, gay couples were in fact legal, and when not legally notarized (commoners often didn't have legal contracts) were also acceptable under 'common law':

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience
/20070827/sc_livescience
/gayunionssanctionedinmedievaleurope;_ylt=AvAs8uDYGwYoz7KUw2NBqcCs0NUE

Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff Writer

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”

For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.

But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."

The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out.

"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 1, 2024 6:44 AM