Obama makes it official: "I'm for same sex marriage." by pizmobeach

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Nah, that just invites the same tired excuses they already use. "Reproduction, man/woman, leviticus" all works just fine. That argument plays into their delusions.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Deuteronomy has some choice words, too:

So every man here married a virgin, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I didn't say it would make SENSE - just that there's no point playing into their fairytales.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:16 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I know it will happen either way, marriage or not and that's people's right to do that if they choose. But calling it the same thing as marriage just doesn't make sense, 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 22, even if people want it to be so. That's why I'm opposed to it.

Thing is, you're not making sense. What about it ISN'T "the same thing as marriage"? What makes a marriage special? What, specifically, is there inherent in hetero marriage that can't be there in gay marriage?

You keep coming back to this "2 plus 2 doesn't equal 22", but you seem unable to make your point clearly. Answer me this: Is one plus one two? How do you know? And how do you know that one of them is male and the other female?

And why do you care?

Try to explain that to me, if you can, WITHOUT using that crutch of "because my book of mythology says so", because there's not one person here - or on the entire planet, I'd wager - who follows every single little rule in that book to the letter, so please just set that aside and tell us all WHY it's different, other than "it's grotty and weirds me out", because that's not a valid reason.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Nah, that just invites the same tired excuses they already use. "Reproduction, man/woman, leviticus" all works just fine. That argument plays into their delusions.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Deuteronomy has some choice words, too:

So every man here married a virgin, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I didn't say it would make SENSE - just that there's no point playing into their fairytales.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Oh, I know - I just like pointing out how ludicrous their fairytales and mythological beliefs are. Hell, they don't even believe their own bullshit, and they're the ones who made it up!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:35 PM

Ive known a lot of good, decent, deeply religious people, who knew surprisingly little about their own religions. They knew all the stuff their pastors/priests/what-have-you want them to know, but that's it.

So, I can totally believe that they would only know some of those passages - the approved ones - and be ignorant of so many others.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

The word "marriage" or equivelents thereof in other languages, have always had at least one male component and at least one female component. There's some variation on numbers sure, but both elements are needed to call it marriage. Sure there are cultures out there that allowed partnerships of a same sex nature and valued those pairings and respected that, but was it ever called the same word as marriage? Not that I'm aware of. I know that in ancient Greece, Rome, Native American cultures, Samoa, such partnerships happened and were recognized as valid but were they called the same thing historically?

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:47 PM

Marriage was a business transaction more than anything for a very long time. Things change.

Quote:
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

It evolves. Granted - another idea the deeply religios are not fond of, and so it goes.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:55 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

My wife is attending a Christian University, and one of the required classes is Christian Studies or some such. She recently had to write a brief essay for a class assignment on what the Christian view on sexuality and marriage is, and how they treat sexual themes and sins within their worldview.

This is an excerpt of what she wrote:

"I believe that a Christian would be largely free from concern about the sexual practices of others. Christians live under a stricture that forbids them from judging other human beings. Their concern is only for their own sexuality, and how God may or may not be pleased by it. A Christian is unlikely to make laws that punish or restrict the consensual sexual behavior of others. This is because of prohibitions against judgment and also because of a spiritual disinterest in Ceasar's world as articulated by Jesus Christ himself.

A Christian is also unlikely to cast out people from their religion because of their perceived sins. A Christian does not judge fellow Christians, so he or she would be no more likely to shun a homosexual than they would an adulterer, fornicator, or liar. All are welcome in Christ's church, just as all were welcome to follow Christ himself. A Christian would similarly be unconcerned with Ceasar's marital laws, since governments do not hold spiritual dominion over marriage. Marriage is a matter between God and his children, not between God's children and Ceasar."

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Story, from what I have heard those were like becoming blood brothers rather than for relationships of a sexual nature. Blood bondings: Now that is something I've been interested in for a long time, I can think of a couple of people I'd like to be bonded to in that way. Pagan cultures have options for this so the Christian church probably wanted some options for people who wanted to have an official bond of this nature. I think its rather a shame that such things went out of practice.

Anthony, honestly your Caesar and marriage argument is the best argument I've seen for why we shouldn't care, if the people vote on it and its made legal its not like I'm going to go do something drastic or anything. I don't approve of it but I would never condone someone hurting someone because it becomes allowed.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:05 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you Riona. I disagree, but I understand your FEELINGS. I don't understand or accept that you would forbid someone from being married to whomever they choose LEGALLY. I'd like to know how you view laws which said African-Americans couldn't wed Caucasians as different from this issue. I know you'll say because it's a man-woman thing, but it was the law back then BECAUSE African-Americans weren't considered "humans" in every way, so did not deserve the right to marry outside their "caste". There IS no difference as far as I'm concerned; it's the state saying "you're not equal under the law" and nothing else. So, since African-Americans were CONSIDERED less than human, so the argument was a human couldn't marry a "less-than human", how does it differ? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, I recognize your feelings and realize you can't see beyond them, so I guess you could say it's a rhetorical question. I'm just confused as to how anyone can see it differently. Whatever one's religious beliefs may be, it's purely and simply a denial of equality. Not "rights", given Cave's clarification of the legality, but "equality". It's saying gays aren't equal to heteros, as I see it, and nothing more. ALL the arguments against same-sex marriage are PRECISELY the same arguments against interracial marriage, as well as against the children of both.

I'm confused in that you say you read "multiple places" that same-sex activities are wrong. Doesn't reading it in one place in the Bible have as much weight a reading it in several places? And how do you equate the statement in Deuteronomy, that a man can only marry a virgin? The Bible is either right or it's not; I don't see how one can dismiss any part of it--maybe by saying "that was in olden times" or something--without admitting that there are flaws in the Bible, and THIS issue might just as easily be a leftover from olden times as well. How do you equate dichotomies in the Bible, or statements about the punishments for this or that? That always confuses me; that people can say they believe in the Bible completely, yet ignore the more contradictory parts or more vicious punishments for things people do every day. I'd like to understand that, if I can.

As to being denied in life, I simply cannot equate being denied this or that with being denied equal treatment under the law when it comes to something as terribly important as two people who love one another and want to be together forever! We're all denied things we want, but there's no comparison. How about if you were denied the right to ever see your mother or father or sister or brother again...by the law? Would you dismiss that as easily?

As to it grossing you out; love, you would be FAR more grossed out if you thought about many of the things some heterosexual couples do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, believe me! Jo and I never did ANY of those things, so how is our sex nearly as "gross" as what some heteros do?

As to

Quote:
The word "marriage" or equivelents thereof in other languages, have always had at least one male component and at least one female component. There's some variation on numbers sure, but both elements are needed to call it marriage. Sure there are cultures out there that allowed partnerships of a same sex nature and valued those pairings and respected that, but was it ever called the same word as marriage?

You're wrong:

Quote:
Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[51] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[52]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[53] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[54]

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[55]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[56] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.Wiki

So yes, the "word" marriage has been used to describe same-sex marriages in history.

Pizmo, thank you

Quote:
I hope the day never comes when you are told you can't marry the person you love. I think that would be a little bit of hell on earth. If it were me I'd say "stuff your conventions, if you don't want us we don't want you." But I'm not gay, or much of any kind of minority, so I have no clue what it's like to live almost every day thinking that others may not respect me for who I am, may even hate me for it and want to withhold from me the profound pleasure of declaring my devotion for another person. They hate me for being different and yet they try to keep me from being like them...?

I CAN speak as one of that minority, being bisexual. Jo and I considered getting married during that brief time it was legal in California--in our case, thank GAWD we didn't; we couldn't anyway since I'm already married. But if we could have, and did, jezus I'd be in a hell of a pickle now. In our case it's only because she was literally insane, so it has no relevance in the larger scheme of things.

But everything you wrote is true for me; given I'm pretty much of a hermit, I'm not around people who would treat me badly, and I live in the Bay Area, so pretty much nobody would anyway, AND the few friends I still have from the old days accepted me instantly. But I know if I lived in many other places, and people knew I was bi, everything you said would apply to me, and it horrifies me to think about it.

I have loved men. I have loved a woman. At this stage in my life, were I to have another relationship (which I sincerely doubt!), it would only be with a woman. How does that make me anything less than anyone else? I didn't even KNOW I was bisexual until I was in my 40s...does that mean I was always "different", even tho' I never knew or acted on it? My view of the world is that I have loved PEOPLE, I have found PEOPLE sexually attractive...it's wonderfully freeing in many ways, in that I can consider the person as who they are, not what race, creed, religion, nationality, politics OR sex they are. It's actually a vision I wish everyone shared, in both its lack of restriction and--think about it--that it gives me the ability to find any person attractive, not just half of the people I meet.

I also wholeheartedly agree with Nick:

Quote:
...or more people are starting to beleve in equal rights.

Believe me, people didn't change their minds because they were tired of hearing about it (!), that's absolutely impossible. Those who feel it's "wrong" do so for reasons--whatever they may be--and when confronted with answering the question, if it wasn't important to them, they realized it wasn't important to them. That probably wouldn't have been any different for them anyway, whereas those who are against it are so for reasons that would never have changed, no matter how often they heard about it. More people actually KNOW gay people, which is what changes minds. More people know people who believe it's not a problem, so have come to realize it's not. More people have learned more about gay people, so have come to realize they should have equal rights. I would bet NOBODY ever changed their mind about the issue just because they were tired of hearing about it.

Anthony, your wife's essay is absolutely gorgeous; unfortunately, it does not reflect the majority of so-called "Christians" in America today, sadly. I wish more "Christians" were actually Christian. Did she have to include in her essay how most of those who call themselves Christians ACTUALLY think and behave?

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Marriage was a business transaction more than anything for a very long time. Things change.

Quote:
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

It evolves. Granted - another idea the deeply religios are not fond of, and so it goes.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Exactly. When Obama said he was for same-sex marriage rights because he had "evolved", which part of that do you think pissed off the right-wingers the most - that he's for gay marriage, or that he believes in evolution?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:57 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. When Obama said he was for same-sex marriage rights because he had "evolved", which part of that do you think pissed off the right-wingers the most - that he's for gay marriage, or that he believes in evolution?

I believe in Evolution as much as any scientist who believes in the theory of it. I also believe that there could be a god. Even the scientists will tell you it's just an educated guess. To some, one way may mean more than another, but to me it's all a crap shoot....

What I can't wrap my mind around though is this.....

I see no reason why these two things are mutually exclusive.

Why is there even a fight going on? In the end, we're all chasing fairy tales here.......

LOL... now they're saying that Dinosaurs might have farted their way to death......

As for gays marrying, I'm 100% for it from a legal standpoint, and for getting equal tax breaks. I'm especially against any legal action and/or physical retribution taken against homosexual behavior in 2012.

At the same time, I don't want churches to be forced to recognize gay marriage, and I am VERY against the government forcing gay councilors into the Boy Scouts if they don't want it.

I have no problem with a new boy-scout type troupe created by the good people from NAMBLA though.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:09 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I know it will happen either way, marriage or not and that's people's right to do that if they choose. But calling it the same thing as marriage just doesn't make sense, 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 22, even if people want it to be so. That's why I'm opposed to it.

Well the meanings of words change. If you give gay couple all the rights that go with secular marriage, which is what we are talking about, but call it something different you are not simple arguing semantics.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:19 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I definitely agree, Jack; no church should ever be forced to perform gay marriages. That definitely IS crossing the boundaries between church and state, and just plain wrong. Amusingly, as much as the supposed "religious" "Christians" in this country and trying desperately to get religion into politics, this one nasty little liberal has NO desire to have the state invade religion.

I'm also against the government forcing the Boy Scouts to include gay counselors. That's a dichotomy, I recognize, since again that's denying them "equal rights", but for ME there are some things which just aren't common sense. I KNOW that 99.99999999% of gays aren't pedophiles, and that pedophiles can be interested in girls OR boys, probably fairly equally (?), it just doesn't make me comfortable. It's a dichotomy I cannot fit into my beliefs, but there it is.

That last line WAS a joke, wasn't it? Not that it would ever happen (gawd forbid), but just saying it...

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

As for gays marrying, I'm 100% for it from a legal standpoint, and for getting equal tax breaks. I'm especially against any legal action and/or physical retribution taken against homosexual behavior in 2012.

I'm with ya on all that.

Quote:

At the same time, I don't want churches to be forced to recognize gay marriage,

Yup. Don't want churches forced to recognize or perform gay marriages.

Quote:

...and I am VERY against the government forcing gay councilors into the Boy Scouts if they don't want it.

As long as the scouts are a 100% private organization and get zero tax dollars or subsidies, fine.

Quote:

I have no problem with a new boy-scout type troupe created by the good people from NAMBLA though.

Aaaaannnnd... ya lost me. Not down with NAMBLA, but I hear the Catholic Church is a big supporter!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:36 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I've got no dog in the fight for gay marriage. However, from a freedom point of view I MUST support it.

Hmm, where do you stand on the right to public nudity, if you don't mind my asking? Do you support that, for the same reason?

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Marriage is defined as 1 man & 1 woman. Been that way for 1000's of years.

And rappy shoves his head firmly up his butt. He must like the way it feels.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
I've got no dog in the fight for gay marriage. However, from a freedom point of view I MUST support it.

Hmm, where do you stand on the right to public nudity, if you don't mind my asking? Do you support that, for the same reason?

It's not personal. It's just war.

Speaking for myself, I don't have a big issue with it. There are "clothing optional" places in Austin that seem to do just fine. I've run into girls sunbathing nude along the Barton Creek Greenbelt when I was mountain biking, and I wasn't scandalized or emotionally scarred by the experience. I've watched beautiful young coeds walk topless down Sixth Street during Mardi Gras, and I've somehow managed to survive with my soul intact.

So no, I don't have any huge problems with public nudity.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:01 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wasn't asked, but I'll answer anyway. I'm all for public nudity. It's always frustrated the hell out of me that women have to wear something from the waist up, it's a pain in the ass. My friend of fifty years, the state park ranger, hiked with nothing on top; she said if it offended anyone, fuck 'em, they could hike on their way and not look. If it weren't for males being so damned obsessed with our mammalian features...

Been on nude beaches. It's blissful, and sand doesn't get in your clothes! Swimming nude is magnificent, too. I wish everyone could.

Giggled when I watched the scene from "Dragonfly". It was so obvious the female natives were wearing thick "necklaces" the production crew had given them, and why.

I do think if everyone went around nude, it would be--what's that word Riona uses? "Grotty"? Most of us were never intended to be seen nude. But topless, oh, damn, how I WISH!!!

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Marriage is defined as 1 man & 1 woman. Been that way for 1000's of years.
And rappy shoves his head firmly up his butt. He must like the way it feels.

No kidding. It's not even that way in the bible. If it's been defined as 1 man/1 woman, that's a very recent thing in human history, not a longtime tradition.

What WAS a longtime tradition, for thousands of years, was having people ruled over by KINGS, chosen by "divine right". And then, suddenly, that changed about 235 years ago on these shores.

Things change. The weakest argument for "opposite-only" marriage is "that's the way it's been."

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The word "marriage" or equivelents thereof in other languages, have always had at least one male component and at least one female component. There's some variation on numbers sure, but both elements are needed to call it marriage. Sure there are cultures out there that allowed partnerships of a same sex nature and valued those pairings and respected that, but was it ever called the same word as marriage? Not that I'm aware of. I know that in ancient Greece, Rome, Native American cultures, Samoa, such partnerships happened and were recognized as valid but were they called the same thing historically?

Riona, the same words do not exist in all cultures, simply because the cultural contents are different. For example, in some Inuit languages there are over a dozen words for "snow" which describe very quickly how far one can travel on dogsled. Ancient Greek unions between men and women were not what we would call "marriage" today; the culture (in Athens) was very much like Pakistan today: men married to produce heirs, girls were married off as soon as they menstruated, and money changed hands. Also, "marriage" was only for men (nobles, citizens) who had assets to pass on to their (male) heirs, MOST people in the city never participated in the ceremony.

In matrilineal cultures, there is no "marriage", because marriage usually exists only to define the rules of inheritance THROUGH MEN. In matrilineal cultures, the mother is always known, so there is no need to track who she is having sex with, since fatherhood is an irrelevant consideration. So marriage is an outcome of patrilineal societies which allow ownership only by men, and grant inheritance through men.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Seriously....

What's the big f-ing deal....

2 dudes "marry" in court = cheaper taxes....

The unwritten PDA rule that straight couples usually recognize should still apply....

Don't make me watch two fat ugly dudes kissing in public.....

I'd say the same for two fat ugly hetro blobs.....

Beyond that, just don't force the churches to recognize it and don't penalize Boy Scouts for not allowing gay camp leaders and I'm all on board.

Boy, I'd sure like to get those gay tax benefits being a single man who owns his house free and clear and has no kids. In the mean time, you can all thank me for subsidizing your kids school through property taxes and their healthcare through the excessive excize taxes on my cigarettes!!!!!

Don't blame me when I get them hooked on nicotene!!!!

NEXT...........

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:34 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So marriage is an outcome of patrilineal societies which allow ownership only by men, and grant inheritance through men.

Basically, it's all about who can kick who's ass.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:36 PM

FoxNews says Obama is on the right side of history on this issue, and Republicans are on the wrong side of it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/47365025#47365025

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:38 PM

Lawrence O'Donnell puts the myth of "one man & one woman" to rest with a history lesson and a schooling of fundamentalist fuckface Tony Perkins.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/47365025#47381597

And Mitt's granddad says Rappy has it all wrong. He was the Romney with five wives.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 6:01 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Lawrence O'Donnell puts the myth of "one man & one woman" to rest with a history lesson and a schooling of fundamentalist fuckface Tony Perkins.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/47365025#47381597

And Mitt's granddad says Rappy has it all wrong. He was the Romney with five wives.

I get all of what you're saying K, but Obama is a one termer... sorry....

He can make all the government subsidized stand up, but in the end maybe only 10 percent of them will be emboldened enough to actually make it to the polls, assuming they've even registered in the first place....

Get all of the "minority" support groups to "Vote or Die" and it won't matter this time...

The kids are going to stay at home and play Halo 4 or smoke pot or fuck like bunnies and use the "oops" pill the next day....

Meanwhile, people who aren't in the protected "liberal college bubble" and have already graduated with 100k plus debt and nothing but a job folding shirts awaiting them are going to vote for another change.

I don't know if it will be better.... and chances are (based on history) that it will be worse.

But the truth is, as much as I HATED W, Obama was the WORST president we've ever had, and Bush Jr. was only 1/3rd as bad as he was for the wellbeing of the country.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 6:22 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, we disagree here. I see Bush as by FAR a worse influence on America, insofar as his extending presidential power, getting us and keeping us in Iran and all that cost (for what reason, exactly?), Gitmo, the creation of "Homeland Security" and how that HUGELY enlarged the government, torture, the schemes and games he played to get his way, what he did to the environment, not to mention the power he gave Wall Street and the banks, and more.

Obama has certainly CONTINUED some of this shit (but not all of it), and hasn't been a whole lot better, but he's also done some good stuff, is at least TRYING to wean us off oil, Lilly Ledbetter (SP?), not enforcing DOMA, getting rid of DADT, and more. For me it's a close tie, but Bush is the "winner" by more than a nose.

Aaaand you are sounding the way I thought of you in this thread: "He can make all the government subsidized stand up" and "protected 'liberal college bubble'"--that's pure RappySpeak. The way you talk about the youth vote...maybe it's just that you're pissed off at everyone, but your vernacular is definitely right-wingish.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 6:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Pretty sure murder, theft and lying (in some cases) came from multiple sources, not all mythological.

Well, we SAY it's not OK to murder, but then we murder hundreds of thousands of civilians in other countries with impunity and no remorse. So our morals- even the one we think are derived and applied universally- are pretty situational.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 7:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
As to it grossing you out; love, you would be FAR more grossed out if you thought about many of the things some heterosexual couples do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, believe me! Jo and I never did ANY of those things, so how is our sex nearly as "gross" as what some heteros do?

Haha. yes, indeedy. Apart from staged filmed sex for the titillation of the viewer (god I love that word) - really sex is pretty messy and undignified for the most part.

I had a friend once say that the thought of two women together disgusted her, and I resisted the urge to tell her that the thought of her and her hubby doing the wild thing didn't thrill me much either.

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

Thursday, May 10, 2012 8:27 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Public nudity: I'm okay with it, as long as lude behavior isn't happening at the time. At Faerieworlds every summer some of the women are topless, it doesn't bother me. They encourage you to wear bottoms but it isn't required. I know what you mean about how convenient it would be to be without a top Niki, because I wish that too, ever since I was little I thought it was unfair that men can do it, so why can't I? I'm not brave enough to take mine off at Faerieworlds though, for me faires are all about the costuming anyway.

Jack I too hope you were kidding about NAMBLA.

About ethnic differences in marriage, it never bothered me, because like Niki predicted both components are there so the idea of it being not okay never occured to me.

I'll answer the other questions in the morning, its late and I'm hoping the fly in my room will go away before I go to bed, I don't want to hear him buzzing all night.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 2:29 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Lawrence O'Donnell puts the myth of "one man & one woman" to rest with a history lesson and a schooling of fundamentalist fuckface Tony Perkins.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/47365025#47381597

And Mitt's granddad says Rappy has it all wrong. He was the Romney with five wives.

Wrong, Kwickie. While there was polygamy in the community, Mitt's granddad didn't himself engage in it.

As for those who had multiple wives, that'd be Barry's dad, Barry Sr.

Quote:
Obama grew up in Nyang’oma Kogelo. At 18, he married a young woman named Kezia in a tribal ceremony. They had four children, two of them after he returned to Kenya from the United States. He never divorced Kezia, who now lives in Bracknell, England… http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-lost-brother-found-in-kenya

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 3:18 AM

So you were wrong about marriage being defined as "1 man & 1 woman for thousands of years", then.

Thanks for proving my point, again.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 3:58 AM

CAVETROLL

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
I've got no dog in the fight for gay marriage. However, from a freedom point of view I MUST support it.

Hmm, where do you stand on the right to public nudity, if you don't mind my asking? Do you support that, for the same reason?

It's not personal. It's just war.

With the same caveat, on your own property, do as you please. But as far as public nudity on public property, I don't have a problem with nude humans. I'm not interested in the guys and I've certainly seen naked men in public changing rooms at pools. I'm a certified admirer of the nude female form.

I realize it is not everyone's cup of tea and there is definitely a potential for abuse. So for public safety and peace there would need to be designated nude only beaches. There was at least one I know of in Rhode Island, Moonstone Beach. But I think that was closed in the early 80's due to insurance problems IIRC. Moonstone used to require you to be nude to use the beach, which was a neat way to stop people going there to gawk.

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 8:16 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you were wrong about marriage being defined as "1 man & 1 woman for thousands of years", then.

Thanks for proving my point, again.

Ha ha! He shoots; he scores.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 8:54 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're saying you've never cut the hair on your head, shaved your beard, worn clothes of different fibers, eaten shellfish or pork, tattooed your skin, worked on the Sabbath, etc.?

Actually I'm not saying any of that. The misguided fella said "no law should have mythological basis". I pointed out that laws like murder, theft, etc have a religeous and/or mythological basis. I did not endorse all such laws, I merely pointed out you can't ignore that basis of law and morality is religeon.

For example, I think we all agree that murder (simple person kills person for no particular reason without any self-defense...just person, knide, kill) is wrong and illegal. Why? Why did human civilization make the value judgement that one person cannot simply kill another person?

If you look at murder...or any American law (except in Louisiana) and really and trace it back through history you go past the Constitution, past Lord Coke and the English Common Law, past the laws of Rome your eventually going to end up with a law from God that reads something along the lines of 'Thou Shall Not Kill' or possibly 'Ape Must Not Harm Ape' depending on the translation.

For murder this is probably a good law regardless of the source. What we must do as an evolving civilization is to examine our laws and values, understand where they come from, and adapt them to the modern world. In this way negative laws such as slavery will pass away. Outdated laws like fishing from horseback (in Pennsylvania) can be discarded. Harmless laws like not selling alcohol before noon on Sunday (in Ohio) can be respected or done away with. Beneficial laws like marriage, adoption, and who gets what if Granny dies without a will can be preserved or expanded upon.

So lets throw out the hair cutting and we can all sit around enjoying our BLTs and not murdering each other. God willing.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 9:25 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Here is the thing, where do you think religion and religious laws come from?

Religion has always been about man seeking order and understanding. It is very likely that the laws of religions were created by people as a way of maintaining order. It is convenient to attach those to spiritual beliefs because those beliefs have power.

So you can say that laws have a religious origin, you just have to understand were religion comes from.

Hero you also fail because the history of Roman Law does not lead back to religous law, but back to the Twelve Tables which are based on the Solonian Constitution. Even before that you have the Draco Laws which were the first to distinguish the difference between murder and involuntary homicide. They were not based on religion.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 9:25 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
that basis of law and morality is religeon.

Oh really? Interesting.

Chrisisall thinks *wavy screen transition effect*

One Million Years B.C. give or take:

UG- Dude, that Pond Clan has dead bison, let's go take it!
KREEG- Naw, we can't do that.
UG- Whaddya mean? We're bigger than they are!
KREEG- You idiot, if we get a rep for Bogarting clans, who will trade with us this winter? It's not in our enlightened self interest to simply take what we want. Besides, how would you feel if a bigger clan did that to US?
UG- I guess you're right. Damn. I wish one of the nature gods would write a set of rules down for us so we didn't have to consider stuff before doing it- we'd just know what was always best.
KREEG- You are so predictably metaphysical.
UG- Yeah.... well... you extrapolate too much! So there!

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you look at murder...or any American law (except in Louisiana) and really and trace it back through history you go past the Constitution, past Lord Coke and the English Common Law, past the laws of Rome your eventually going to end up with a law from God that reads something along the lines of 'Thou Shall Not Kill' ....

And then go before THAT to the code of Hammurabi - which was not mythology based.

Funny, you'd think you'd learn something that basic in law school. So, either your education was lacking - making you the "poor misguided one", or you are once again just being a lying sack of go se.

Either way, I don't see why anyone should give a shit what you have to say "hero".

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 9:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're saying you've never cut the hair on your head, shaved your beard, worn clothes of different fibers, eaten shellfish or pork, tattooed your skin, worked on the Sabbath, etc.?

Actually I'm not saying any of that. The misguided fella said "no law should have mythological basis". I pointed out that laws like murder, theft, etc have a religeous and/or mythological basis. I did not endorse all such laws, I merely pointed out you can't ignore that basis of law and morality is religeon.

Or course I can ignore that, because it is a faulty and fallacious claim that has no basis in reality.

You might believe that YOU can't behave in a moral or humane matter without some sky-monster hovering above you threatening eternal damnation, but many of us have the ability to simply apply logic and derive morality from that: If I treat people like shit, I may be treated in a similar fashion. If I treat people decently, I may be treated decently. Ergo, I will treat people decently.

People who rely on religion for morality and ethics worry me, because all too often we find that even with their religion, they still have neither morality nor ethics.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you look at murder...or any American law (except in Louisiana) and really and trace it back through history you go past the Constitution, past Lord Coke and the English Common Law, past the laws of Rome your eventually going to end up with a law from God that reads something along the lines of 'Thou Shall Not Kill' ....

And then go before THAT to the code of Hammurabi - which was not mythology based.

Funny, you'd think you'd learn something that basic in law school. So, either your education was lacking - making you the "poor misguided one", or you are once again just being a lying sack of go se.

Either way, I don't see why anyone should give a shit what you have to say "hero".

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

As I pointed out before, "Hero" here is simply the worst lawyer ever.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you look at murder...or any American law (except in Louisiana) and really and trace it back through history you go past the Constitution, past Lord Coke and the English Common Law, past the laws of Rome your eventually going to end up with a law from God that reads something along the lines of 'Thou Shall Not Kill' ....

And then go before THAT to the code of Hammurabi - which was not mythology based.

Funny, you'd think you'd learn something that basic in law school. So, either your education was lacking - making you the "poor misguided one", or you are once again just being a lying sack of go se.

Either way, I don't see why anyone should give a shit what you have to say "hero".

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

As I pointed out before, "Hero" here is simply the worst lawyer ever.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

He is to the legal profession what Will Farrell characters are to sports - the worst they can possibly be - while inexplicably believeing they are the greatest.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 9:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, Mike got it wrong...it was Romney's GREAT-granddad, Miles Park Romney, who had five wives.

Quote:
A polygamist, Romney, on April 7, 1885, joined a party leaving Arizona to find land outside the U.S., in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, on which his family could settle, free from fear of his arrest. Wiki

Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after the Mormon LDS church leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice. In other words, he created the sect, moved it to Mexico to avoid being arrested for violating American law AND after the church had banned polygamy.

There's also great-great-grandpa, who was one HELL of a polygamist:

Quote:
Romney’s great-great-grandfather Parley P. Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley P. Pratt’s brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romneys-family-came-from-
a-polygamy-commune-says-montana-gov/

Quote:
Parley P. Pratt practiced polygamy, and was murdered in 1857 by the former husband of his twelfth wife. Pratt practiced plural marriage and had twelve wives, thirty children, and 266 grandchildren. In 2011, Pratt's living descendants were estimated at between thirty and fifty thousand. Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism, Terryl L. Givens & Matthew J. Grow and Wiki

Whew!

Now, if we want to get into tit for tat:

Quote:
The line of polygamists in Obama’s family can be traced back generations in western Kenya, where it was an accepted practice within the Luo (pronounced LOO-oh) tribe. His great-grandfather, Obama Opiyo, had five wives, including two who were sisters. His grandfather, Hussein Onyango, had at least four wives, one of whom, Akumu, gave birth to the president’s father, Barack Obama. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romneys-family-came-from-
a-polygamy-commune-says-montana-gov/

You could say Obama's polygamist past happened in a place where it was normal practice, while Romney's family fled to avoid arret for breaking the law, if you really wanted to get petty.

Fact is, there's polygamy in both families; some in Romney's family still practice it in Mexico, probably some in Obama's Kenyan family may still practice it. So what's the compariso

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 10:05 AM

Here's "thousands of years" of "traditional marriage" according to the bible:

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yeah, Mike got it wrong...it was Romney's GREAT-granddad, Miles Park Romney, who had five wives.
Quote:
A polygamist, Romney, on April 7, 1885, joined a party leaving Arizona to find land outside the U.S., in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, on which his family could settle, free from fear of his arrest. Wiki
Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after the Mormon LDS church leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice. In other words, he created the sect, moved it to Mexico to avoid being arrested for violating American law AND after the church had banned polygamy.

Thanks for that clarification, Niki!

I have to wonder, if Rappy is as atheist as he claims, where DOES he get his disinformation about marriage? He has a habit of making the exact same arguments that evangelical guys like Tony Perkins (Family Research Council) make, at exactly the same time, almost like he's on their talking points mailing list or something.

Repeating the talking points of a dead-wrong right-wing evangelical isn't the smartest way to convince anyone of your alleged atheism. Jus' sayin'.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 11:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, your quote from the Bible didn't come out. Let's see if I have any better luck:

I didn't. Wonder why it doesn't come out? This should work:

ETA: Oops, it was my computer..damned computers. I keep getting an "out of memory" warning, but can't seem to fix it...grrrr...

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 11:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

For the record, Rush himself has destroyed more "traditional marriages" than any married gay couple has.

If you're worried about gay marriage destroying marriage, you'd better outlaw straight divorce, too.

And if you're against gay marriage, I've got an easy solution for you: Don't get gay married.

And for the record, Rush hates gays SOOOOOOOOOO much, that he actually had one, Elton John, perform at his wedding.

What a hate monger!

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 12:01 PM

MINCINGBEAST

Obama's statement is historic, and a step in the right direction: mandatory gay marriage and intercourse for heterosexual Americans . Said marriages will be Catholic, with a full-on mass.

Anyway, let us focus on what Obama actually said, as opposed to that gnawing nausea in our collective gut when we imagine two grooms passionately kissing.

Obama merely said he supports two same-sex individuals' right to enter into a legally binding relationship called marriage. He did not say that he supports "marriage equality" on a federal level.

My sense, addled by huffing gasoline, is that he doesn't view gay marriage as a federal Constitutional issue, unless a federal law impinges on a state's rights to self-govern (DOMA). Thus, Obama can both personally be for gay marriage and against it at the same time.

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 12:03 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

Anthony, your wife's essay is absolutely gorgeous; unfortunately, it does not reflect the majority of so-called "Christians" in America today, sadly. I wish more "Christians" were actually Christian. Did she have to include in her essay how most of those who call themselves Christians ACTUALLY think and behave?

Hello Niki,

There is no need for her to discuss the majority of Christians in her essay. Her class is full of people wondering if the apocalypse will come sooner due to Obama's statements, or claiming that all morality stems from Christianity, or that the ability to discern the truth of the Bible is encoded in our DNA, and other such unusual positions. Her purpose in writing the essay was to present what she perceived as an authentic Christian worldview to contrast with the incompatible opinions being presented in the classroom.

You might say her essay was a critique of the very same "Christians" you speak of, and a polite suggestion about a better way to follow Jesus.

My wife has been rather shocked at the vehement poison and irrationality being shared by her classmates. I'm afraid that our lives together has given her a rather narrow view of how Christians behave. I do not regularly attend church, so she has not had much exposure to the different flavors of humanity present in the religion. She was not prepared for what I call 'extremists' who are anxious to bring judgment on their fellow man and force compliance with religious doctrine by using the club of law. It is unfortunate that these extremists are the majority in certain regions.

Knowing me has not prepared her for interacting with the broad world of Christiandom. I am possibly not the best representative sample. Particularly, my philosophies seem to be incompatible with the majority Christian view in this great state of Arizona. Living with me and speaking to me over the course of our marriage probably fooled her into believing that most Christians feel as I do about a majority of topics. Now she is getting the broader exposure that is one of the benefits of higher education.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 12:14 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mincing, you are absolutely right--something almost everyone seems to have overlooked. He tried to say it was how HE had come to feel, but the whole country is debating it like he'd said he's going to DO something about it, or that it is anything more than his recognition of the fact that equality should be for everyone.

Anthony, I send her both my sympathies and my congratulations. My sympathies for the shocks she has (and will) endure by discovering the differences between what many "Christians" profess and what they actually do/think which they supposedly BASE on their religion.

My congratulations for having a spouse who hasn't prepared her for these. It indicates she expected someone who thinks and behaves in a more truly Christian-like manner. She is extremely lucky in that regard, in my opinion!

I am, too, in some respects. Jim is more honest than I, in some ways, and imposes his judgments on nobody (he may curse them and about them privately, but he does not confront them or care much about what they think/do). Jim is more "honorable" than I have been in the past--can I use Jo's influence as an excuse? I used "checks" that came in the mail from our credit-card company to run up some rather (in our opinion) "nasty" debts and never told him about it, and I didn't apprise him of our financial situation--my excuse being "he never asked". I also exposed him to some very difficult times, bringing Jo here, and didn't tell him about our attraction to one another initially.

All that is far behind us now and he's forgiven me for all of it, which I consider a truly Christian thing for him to have done. I haven't forgiven MYSELF yet, and my behavior these days is extremely honest and conscientious; such things will never happen again.

So I consider him in his way a better Christian than I, tho' he's not religious and wouldn't consider himself a Christian, or anything else.

So I have a "taste" of what she has, but from what I know of you, she's got it better than me nonetheless. I am pretty sure she appreciates how lucky she is to have you, so I won't say "remind her". She is VERY lucky!

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

Friday, May 11, 2012 1:49 PM