PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues "Jesus Had Two Dads..."


jAZ
05-27-2009, 01:16 AM
ROFL

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AX888_PROP8u_G_20090525214537.jpg

Guru
05-27-2009, 02:59 AM
http://maaadddog.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/simpsons-the-doh-49005791.jpg

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 07:09 AM
Yes. Best sign.

Dave Lane
05-27-2009, 08:36 AM
But there is this...

nstygma
05-27-2009, 08:48 AM
Jesus never had sex either. Try that :)

Saggysack
05-27-2009, 09:04 AM
awesomeness FTW!

stevieray
05-27-2009, 09:16 AM
...and somehow they didn't want to have sex or get married...

vailpass
05-27-2009, 10:59 AM
There are some messed up people loose on the streets in this world.

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 11:36 AM
There are some messed up people loose on the streets in this world.Yes, clearly that 15 year old girl is a menace II society.

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 11:38 AM
...and somehow they didn't want to have sex or get married...Ew, SEX! How impure. I hope MY parents never did that!

vailpass
05-27-2009, 11:55 AM
Yes, clearly that 15 year old girl is a menace II society.

What makes you think I was referring to the little girl?

Dave Lane
05-27-2009, 12:48 PM
There are some messed up people loose on the streets in this world.

Are you talking about yourself in 3rd person? I always hated it when athletes did that.

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 03:32 PM
What makes you think I was referring to the little girl?LARENZ TATE

Donger
05-27-2009, 03:39 PM
Boy, talk about the entitlement generation.

Dicky McElephant
05-27-2009, 03:42 PM
So wait.....does that mean that she wants to be hung on a cross? I'm confused.....

vailpass
05-27-2009, 03:44 PM
Are you talking about yourself in 3rd person? I always hated it when athletes did that.

Stick to your bleeding heart liberal schtick. Witty you aren't.

vailpass
05-27-2009, 03:45 PM
LARENZ TATE

Dude what does that mean?

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 03:52 PM
Dude what does that mean?LARENZ TATE:

http://j.photos.cx/actinlikealilbitchmenace-jizzypop-1ae.gif

Boy, talk about the entitlement generation.http://j.photos.cx/actinlikealilbitchmenace-jizzypop-1ae.gif

vailpass
05-27-2009, 03:55 PM
LARENZ TATE:

http://j.photos.cx/actinlikealilbitchmenace-jizzypop-1ae.gif

http://j.photos.cx/actinlikealilbitchmenace-jizzypop-1ae.gif

You respond with some urban jungle dweller's unintelligible blatherings? That is what you choose to represent your thoughts? Boy you have issues, you are one messed up guy.

Thig Lyfe
05-27-2009, 04:00 PM
You respond with some urban jungle dweller's unintelligible blatherings?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YHPQ0vRd-5o/R1_7Czzj-MI/AAAAAAAAAvU/FVIR-DMbi00/s200/thats_racist.gif

vailpass
05-27-2009, 04:04 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YHPQ0vRd-5o/R1_7Czzj-MI/AAAAAAAAAvU/FVIR-DMbi00/s200/thats_racist.gif

SchwartzChaser, so quick to play the false race card. Kids like you make me worry for the world.

urban jungle
The city.
The term refers to its streets, alleys, subway system, inner-city neighborhoods, playgrounds and schools. Usually a metropolis characterized by densely packed residential buildings, businesses and a decaying industrial sector.
In the 1970's, the urban jungle was referred to as "the street". Also known as "the concrete jungle". This is a broader term that encompasses both The Hood and The Ghetto.
The kid moved from Iowa to the Bronx. Now he's in the urban jungle.

www.urbandictionary.com

Garcia Bronco
05-27-2009, 04:05 PM
You respond with some urban jungle dweller's unintelligible blatherings? That is what you choose to represent your thoughts? Boy you have issues, you are one messed up guy.

Well you also talking about a person who thinks he should get free health insurance after he voids the warranty.

vailpass
05-27-2009, 04:07 PM
Well you also talking about a person who thinks he should get free health insurance after he voids the warranty.

LMAO

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 04:09 PM
lol HE HE HE get it that has a double meaning (it is a laugh and an incorrect pronoun)

ps I am a complete caricature as evidenced by this post of mine:

You respond with some urban jungle dweller's unintelligible blatherings? That is what you choose to represent your thoughts? Boy you have issues, you are one messed up guy.

vailpass
05-27-2009, 04:12 PM
lol HE HE HE get it that has a double meaning (it is a laugh and an incorrect pronoun)

If you embrace your manhood the world could be yours.
Grab your junk in one hand and your rifle in the other and repeat after me: "this is my rifle, this is my gun this one's for fighting this one's for fun".

Now act like you have a pair and go get 'em big guy!

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 04:13 PM
I think you have me confused for, you know, a guy.

things are p. awesome now but thanks for the pro-tips

vailpass
05-27-2009, 04:17 PM
I think you have me confused for, you know, a guy.

things are p. awesome now but thanks for the pro-tips

Okay dude. If you ever want to acknowledge your membership in the Dominant Gender Club just let me know. I'll be happy to coach you up.

Please don't mention that 'dominant gender' thing to my wife.

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 04:18 PM
too slow, saw your weak baiting attempt prior to the current weak baiting attempt

vailpass
05-27-2009, 04:22 PM
too slow, saw your weak baiting attempt prior to the current weak baiting attempt

Someone recently mentioned to me that leaning on you too hard was maybe not a good idea as your skin is a little thin. I was trying to respect that advice. Guess I rememberd too late.
Sue me. Or throw your barbies at me.

ClevelandBronco
05-27-2009, 04:24 PM
Let's not be silly.

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 05:14 PM
Okay dude. If you ever want to acknowledge your membership in the Dominant Gender Club just let me know. I'll be happy to coach you up.

Please don't mention that 'dominant gender' thing to my wife.Not that it's worth being all serious-like with you, but that's one of the funny things about people who share your ill-informed perspective on the very concept.

Do you think I wanted to lose my male privilege, go through puberty again, face extra health risks, be looked at as if I'm mentally ill by ignorant fucks whose preconceptions override their capability to understand, and invite open discrimination? In pursuing a life I actually feel comfortable living, that's what I'm doing.

And if I had to go back and make that choice between trying or curling up and dying, I'd pick this road again without a moment's thought. I'm really, truly, purely happy for the first time in life.

In short, I'm awesome.

Someone recently mentioned to me that leaning on you too hard was maybe not a good idea as your skin is a little thin.lol

vailpass
05-27-2009, 06:58 PM
Dude did you have your junk cut off? What do you mean going through puberty again?

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 07:18 PM
Dude did you have your junk cut off? What do you mean going through puberty again?

No shit. Please enlighten us.

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 07:23 PM
ROFL

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AX888_PROP8u_G_20090525214537.jpg

As someone who has no problem with gay marriage, that sign and attitudes like it will just make sure that gay marriage is never widely accepted. It makes the messengers less likable by those who might be swayed.

It honestly makes me more likely to vote against it just out of spite. That's not to say that I would, but I would seriously consider it. It literally might just depend on my mood that day.

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 07:42 PM
No, I'm pretty sure that attitudes like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9d38EoQ9pg) will just make sure that gay marriage is never widely accepted. Pro-tip: If you vote against equal rights because of a goofy sign, you're a piece of shit!

I'll seriously whip up a Trans 101 thing for y'all nubs if you donate $2000 to my PayPal by midnight. THE CLOCK IS TICKING.

RippedmyFlesh
05-27-2009, 07:49 PM
No, I'm pretty sure that attitudes like this (http://that%20sign%20and%20attitudes%20like%20it%20will%20just%20make%20sure%20that%20gay%20marriage%20is%2 0never%20widely%20accepted.) will just make sure that gay marriage is never widely accepted. Pro-tip: If you vote against equal rights because of a goofy sign, you're a piece of shit!

I'll seriously whip up a Trans 101 thing for y'all nubs if you donate $2000 to my PayPal by midnight. THE CLOCK IS TICKING.

Do you take casino cash?
;) j/k

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 07:59 PM
Pffffft, like 3k can even pay for the cheap casino blow.

Seriously, though. If people are interested, I'll splain some things whenever I get the opportunity and motivation to make a thread or something. I'm in a way better place than the original "upping the bar" one, so it could be eye-opening for a few people even if most are going to still think, "Whahuuuuuuh?" when they read it. Problem is that it gets pretty tiring explaining stuff over and over; trans people tend to develop amaaaaazing patience thanks to this, so that's nice.

(Donations still welcome! I've got a mouth to feed (mine) and hormones to afford, guys.)

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 08:01 PM
No, I'm pretty sure that attitudes like this (that sign and attitudes like it will just make sure that gay marriage is never widely accepted. ) will just make sure that gay marriage is never widely accepted. Pro-tip: If you vote against equal rights because of a goofy sign, you're a piece of shit!

I'll seriously whip up a Trans 101 thing for y'all nubs if you donate $2000 to my PayPal by midnight. THE CLOCK IS TICKING.

You're right. Denigrating people's religion is a great way to influence them to adopt your point of view. It's very helpful to the cause. It's just like when PETA throws buckets of red paint on people. That sure wins hearts and minds.

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 08:06 PM
I think Joseph is usually considered a stepfather.

Pants
05-27-2009, 08:07 PM
You're right. Denigrating people's religion is a great way to influence them to adopt your point of view. It's very helpful to the cause. It's just like when PETA throws buckets of red paint on people. That sure wins hearts and minds.

When that religion impedes on certain people's [human] rights, what else is there left to do?

Ultra Peanut
05-27-2009, 08:09 PM
Okay, so there's this group that's already doing their best to try to oppress you. Solution: do your best to avoid needling them! You might make them mad!

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 08:20 PM
When that religion impedes on certain people's [human] rights, what else is there left to do?

I don't know. Try to have a reasonable dialogue, maybe. Do you honestly think that that sign is going to make even one person say, "That's a good point. My opinion has changed."?

Of course not. I will promise you that it does the exact opposite. I support the cause, but only slightly. I don't have a strong opinion either way (mostly because I don't really agree with either side). The biggest reason that I don't support it more strongly is the attitudes of the people like the one in that picture.

Reasonable people don't really have a big problem with gay marriage in a vacuum. It's the "gay agenda" that worries them. If society "normalizes" being gay, it's going to encroach into a lot of areas beyond the right to get married, and people don't want that to be rammed down their throats.

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 08:30 PM
Okay, so there's this group that's already doing their best to try to oppress you. Solution: do your best to avoid needling them! You might make them mad!

Good luck with that.

I am telling you right now that I am exactly the type of person that you want on your side. I am young, well off financially, white, male, married, and very conservative politically.

If you can get even a moderate percentage of people like me on your side, you can advance this cause. Seeing this kind of attitude is exactly what makes someone like me say, "F--- 'em." That point of view doesn't make me a piece of shit. Why should I carry the water for someone who goes out of their way to piss all over my beliefs in a feeble attempt to advance a cause?

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 08:33 PM
When that religion impedes on certain people's [human] rights, what else is there left to do?

Well, it is certainly important to protect human rights. Especially for/by/with Christian people, as rights are consequences of humans having the dignity that God endowed in us, being that we are created in His image.

But would you not agree that there is considerable difference among humans in some ideas of what consitutes as a human right? That some issues are separated for this difference? For instance, in abortion, my concern for the human right of birth, of life for the unborn, is, legally speaking, not as important as the human right, some would say, of a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body.

Now, I think our society is impeding on certain people's human rights, those fundamental rights belonging to the conceived child. And I disagree with any idea that a woman has the human right to an abortion. So I guess this is a disagreement over not just which right trumps another, but if that even is a human right in the first place.

So is same-sex marriage a human right? I'm not going to say for now one way or the other. But I am interested in your opinion here: if the Catholic Church does not allow same-sex marriage, are they considered roadblocks to human rights, in the same vein as being roadblocks to the supposed human right to an abortion? Anyone can answer.

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 08:41 PM
Well, it is certainly important to protect human rights. Especially for/by/with Christian people, as rights are consequences of humans having the dignity that God endowed in us, being that we are created in His image.

But would you not agree that there is considerable difference among humans in some ideas of what consitutes as a human right? That some issues are separated for this difference? For instance, in abortion, my concern for the human right of birth, of life for the unborn, is, legally speaking, not as important as the human right, some would say, of a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body.

Now, I think our society is impeding on certain people's human rights, those fundamental rights belonging to the conceived child. And I disagree with any idea that a woman has the human right to an abortion. So I guess this is a disagreement over not just which right trumps another, but if that even is a human right in the first place.

So is same-sex marriage a human right? I'm not going to say for now one way or the other. But I am interested in your opinion here: if the Catholic Church does not allow same-sex marriage, are they considered roadblocks to human rights, in the same vein as being roadblocks to the supposed human right to an abortion? Anyone can answer.

I believe that there is a hierarchy or rights, and each right is allowed up to the point that it interferes with a right that outranks it.

For example, if human life is above a person's right to decide what is best for his or her own body, then abortion should not be legal.

If a person's right to decide what is best for his or her own body is above society's right to regulate controlled substances, then drug use should be legal.

I'm not saying that Life ranks above Choice which ranks above Regulation. I'm just using it in this scenario.

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 08:47 PM
I believe that there is a hierarchy or rights, and each right is allowed up to the point that it interferes with a right that outranks it.

I think that last half most people would agree with on principle to some degree.

And using that strictly for marriage, one would have to ask what right is being interfered with by allowing same-sex marriage. It doesn't seem to be too many rights are being interfered with in that case. Gays could marry freely and straights would still marry freely.

Pants
05-27-2009, 08:50 PM
Well, it is certainly important to protect human rights. Especially for/by/with Christian people, as rights are consequences of humans having the dignity that God endowed in us, being that we are created in His image.

But would you not agree that there is considerable difference among humans in some ideas of what consitutes as a human right? That some issues are separated for this difference? For instance, in abortion, my concern for the human right of birth, of life for the unborn, is, legally speaking, not as important as the human right, some would say, of a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body.

Now, I think our society is impeding on certain people's human rights, those fundamental rights belonging to the conceived child. And I disagree with any idea that a woman has the human right to an abortion. So I guess this is a disagreement over not just which right trumps another, but if that even is a human right in the first place.

So is same-sex marriage a human right? I'm not going to say for now one way or the other. But I am interested in your opinion here: if the Catholic Church does not allow same-sex marriage, are they considered roadblocks to human rights, in the same vein as being roadblocks to the supposed human right to an abortion? Anyone can answer.

Sure, but abortion shouldn't be a religious argument. The only reason gay marriage isn't a part of the norm yet is because it's against people's religious beliefs and, to me, that is ludicrous and archaic. Humans are humans and their feelings can't be controlled, so unless they impede on others' rights, those feelings should be accepted by others. So if a girl wants to marry a girl because that's the way she's wired, LET HER.

Pants
05-27-2009, 08:53 PM
If a person's right to decide what is best for his or her own body is above society's right to regulate controlled substances, then drug use should be legal.


The only problem is that SOME substances work in such a way that makes the abuser of said drug act in a way that can be potentially very harmful for other human beings. See eye-eating daddy on PCP + w/e hallucinogen, or a heroin addict killing a person to get the next fix because his survival instinct has been overridden by a severe opiate addiction.

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 08:55 PM
I think that last half most people would agree with on principle to some degree.

And using that strictly for marriage, one would have to ask what right is being interfered with by allowing same-sex marriage. It doesn't seem to be too many rights are being interfered with in that case. Gays could marry freely and straights would still marry freely.

And that's why I tend to support gay marriage.

Actually, I am against the government recognizing marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious institution, and it should be left at that. I would like to see the government recognize legal unions between any 2 people who are legally fit to enter into a contract regardless of gender. I think that a majority of Americans would get behind this position if it were ever presented as a viable option.

Pants
05-27-2009, 08:55 PM
And that's why I tend to support gay marriage.

Actually, I am against the government recognizing marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious institution, and it should be left at that. I would like to see the government recognize legal unions between any 2 people who are legally fit to enter into a contract regardless of gender. I think that a majority of Americans would get behind this position if it were ever presented as a viable option.

Fair enough.

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 08:56 PM
Sure, but abortion shouldn't be a religious argument. The only reason gay marriage isn't a part of the norm yet is because it's against people's religious beliefs and, to me, that is ludicrous and archaic. Humans are humans and their feelings can't be controlled, so unless they impede on others' rights, those feelings should be accepted by others. So if a girl wants to marry a girl because that's the way she's wired, LET HER.

Well, there is so much here that I disagree with. I definitely think that between this perspective and the 'interference doctrine', that latter is much more acceptable.

For starters, the religious argument, which is mostly a Christianity argument. Is it true that only Christian civilization does not have same-sex marriage? I don't think so. I don't think Chinese history had same-sex marriage. I don't think African cultures had same-sex marriage. Before the Christians, in the Greek and Roman worlds, where homosexuality was practiced widely in the upper classes, there was still no same-sex marriage.

What is the response to that?

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 08:58 PM
The only problem is that SOME substances work in such a way that makes the abuser of said drug act in a way that can be potentially very harmful for other human beings. See eye-eating daddy on PCP + w/e hallucinogen, or a heroin addict killing a person to get the next fix because his survival instinct has been overridden by a severe opiate addiction.

Then the argument is about where in the hierarchy each right exists, not whether or not the hierarchy itself exists.

If protecting society from chemically-induced rampages trumps individual choice, then hallucinogens would be illegal. Maybe certain drugs would be more heavily regulated than others (similar to what is done now but with a re-assessment of what drugs are a greater potential threat to the safety of society.)

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 08:58 PM
And that's why I tend to support gay marriage.

Actually, I am against the government recognizing marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious institution, and it should be left at that. I would like to see the government recognize legal unions between any 2 people who are legally fit to enter into a contract regardless of gender. I think that a majority of Americans would get behind this position if it were ever presented as a viable option.

That is essentially my position, and I had a thread (with a poll!) a few months ago arguing this, if you want to search it out.

Pants
05-27-2009, 09:09 PM
Well, there is so much here that I disagree with. I definitely think that between this perspective and the 'interference doctrine', that latter is much more acceptable.

For starters, the religious argument, which is mostly a Christianity argument. Is it true that only Christian civilization does not have same-sex marriage? I don't think so. I don't think Chinese history had same-sex marriage. I don't think African cultures had same-sex marriage. Before the Christians, in the Greek and Roman worlds, where homosexuality was practiced widely in the upper classes, there was still no same-sex marriage.

What is the response to that?

Of course it's not just a Christianity issue. As a matter of fact, homosexuality was not looked down upon by Christianity in Europe until the Crusades started to take place. People saw non-Christians engaging in gay sex and came back with the idea that the practice was heresy, because the evil ones were doing it in the Holy Land.

And yeah, there were no gay marriages back in the day, but back then people also married who they were told to marry and not the ones they necessarily loved. We've advanced past that, why can't we advance past the other? There are also a myriad other reason why gay men married women and gay women married men, most of which were due to financial well-being of the family.

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 09:14 PM
The question that those advocating gay marriage should be addressing is this:

How does gay marriage benefit society?

It's pretty self-evident how heterosexual marriage benefits society. The benefits of gay marriage aren't as obvious, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Pants
05-27-2009, 09:19 PM
The question that those advocating gay marriage should be addressing is this:

How does gay marriage benefit society?

It's pretty self-evident how heterosexual marriage benefits society. The benefits of gay marriage aren't as obvious, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

That's a horrible argument. Gay people will exist irregardless of whether gay marriage is legal or not, it's not like gay marriages produce more gay people. The society will be unchanged by legalizing gay marriage.

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 09:25 PM
That's a horrible argument. Gay people will exist irregardless of whether gay marriage is legal or not, it's not like gay marriages produce more gay people. The society will be unchanged by legalizing gay marriage.

Convincing voters that gay marriage provides a benefit to society is a horrible way to get gay marriage legalized? Interesting take.

Society will not be unchanged, though. It will change in many ways. Some will be more subtle than others, but it will change.

Maybe it will promote monogamy in the gay community which will slow the spread of certain STDs. Maybe it will allow some young homosexuals to embrace and understand their feelings and prevent them from penning them up until they are unleashed in harmful ways. Maybe there will be plagues of locusts o'er the land.

I don't know what they will be, but there will be changes.

Pants
05-27-2009, 09:29 PM
Maybe it will promote monogamy in the gay community which will slow the spread of certain STDs.

Is there a gay STD I wasn't aware about?

It's still a silly argument. As human beings, we need to feel compassion. Imagine if you were born gay, wouldn't you want to fall in love and marry the one (hopefully) like everyone else? Why should you be denied that? (By "you" I mean "one").

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 09:30 PM
Of course it's not just a Christianity issue. As a matter of fact, homosexuality was not looked down upon by Christianity in Europe until the Crusades started to take place. People saw non-Christians engaging in gay sex and came back with the idea that the practice was heresy, because the evil ones were doing it in the Holy Land.

And yeah, there were no gay marriages back in the day, but back then people also married who they were told to marry and not the ones they necessarily loved. We've advanced past that, why can't we advance past the other? There are also a myriad other reason why gay men married women and gay women married men, most of which were due to financial well-being of the family.

Regarding the first paragraph, I don't think it's true that homosexuality was not looked down upon until the Crusades. I think the Biblical evidence of both the Old and New Testaments start a long-stand against homosexuality that is documented by many Church Fathers before the Crusades.

But, moving on, yes, my comments about non-Christian non-presence of same-sex marriage does not mean that it must remain that way, because we know certainly that just because it was present (or not) then does not mean it should be that way now simply because of that.

So we should advance, but only if the reason demands we must, and not for any other traditional, nostalgic feeling. For instance, we don't think we should "advance" past the "archaic" notion of "Thou Shall Not Steal" or "Kill". The 'advancement' here is about sexual preference, and being open to it. The popular rebellions against Christianity almost always come against their sexual or pleasurable restrictions. To me, it is definitely that "interference doctrine" speaking -- My sexual partner and I are not interfering you, so why attempt to interfere with my pleasure?

Anyway, I don't have any real conclusions about any of this. Well, I know Christianity is against gay sex. I know it is against gay marriage. But our laws aren't dictated by Christian doctrine alone. There is more freedom (as commonly understood) in a democracy, in the USA, than there is my perfect Catholic utopia.

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 09:38 PM
The question that those advocating gay marriage should be addressing is this:

How does gay marriage benefit society?

It's pretty self-evident how heterosexual marriage benefits society. The benefits of gay marriage aren't as obvious, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

It is a rough argument. How much do we do that doesn't benefit society? Should TV be illegal? Should rock music? Both have almost no benefit to society, and one can absolutely argue with strong evidence that they hurt society.

I've heard people argue that women getting the vote didn't help society (they would usually include abortion rights in the argument). It seems like a very authoritarian principle. Perhaps Plato would agree with you, but I think we've rejected that, for better or worse.

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 09:38 PM
Is there a gay STD I wasn't aware about?

Of course not. Certainly there are no STDs that are found in higher concentrations among the gay population in the US than among married heterosexuals.

Are you done with the dialogue or something? Do you really want the discussion to devolve into this?

Pants
05-27-2009, 09:40 PM
Regarding the first paragraph, I don't think it's true that homosexuality was not looked down upon until the Crusades. I think the Biblical evidence of both the Old and New Testaments start a long-stand against homosexuality that is documented by many Church Fathers before the Crusades.

But, moving on, yes, my comments about non-Christian non-presence of same-sex marriage does not mean that it must remain that way, because we know certainly that just because it was present (or not) then does not mean it should be that way now simply because of that.

So we should advance, but only if the reason demands we must, and not for any other traditional, nostalgic feeling. For instance, we don't think we should "advance" past the "archaic" notion of "Thou Shall Not Steal" or "Kill". The 'advancement' here is about sexual preference, and being open to it. The popular rebellions against Christianity almost always come against their sexual or pleasurable restrictions. To me, it is definitely that "interference doctrine" speaking -- My sexual partner and I are not interfering you, so why attempt to interfere with my pleasure?

Anyway, I don't have any real conclusions about any of this. Well, I know Christianity is against gay sex. I know it is against gay marriage. But our laws aren't dictated by Christian doctrine alone. There is more freedom (as commonly understood) in a democracy, in the USA, than there is my perfect Catholic utopia.

Whoa, whoa, champ, did you not see my QUALIFICATION about these rights not impeding on others' rights? You make it sound like the only reason murdering and stealing are outlawed is because of religion... Do you not think people can arrive at this conclusion without religion?

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 09:43 PM
It is a rough argument. How much do we do that doesn't benefit society? Should TV be illegal? Should rock music? Both have almost no benefit to society, and one can absolutely argue with strong evidence that they hurt society.

I've heard people argue that women getting the vote didn't help society (they would usually include abortion rights in the argument). It seems like a very authoritarian principle. Perhaps Plato would agree with you, but I think we've rejected that, for better or worse.

I completely disagree. People enjoy television. People enjoy music. Thus, these things benefit society. At the very least, the voters perceive them to be of a benefit to society.

Right now, the vast majority of voters believe that gay marriage either adds no value to society or that it's detriments to society outweigh the perceived values. The referendum can't even pass in California. That should tell everyone something about where people stand when they walk into the polling booths.

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 09:44 PM
Whoa, whoa, champ, did you not see my QUALIFICATION about these rights not impeding on others' rights? You make it sound like the only reason murdering and stealing are outlawed is because of religion... Do you not think people can arrive at this conclusion without religion?

No, I don't think that.

Well, the question of absolute values having religious inheritance is up for grabs with me. But, you can certainly have them without alluding to any religious establishments (like Moore's Principia Ethica).

Saul Good
05-27-2009, 09:45 PM
Whoa, whoa, champ, did you not see my QUALIFICATION about these rights not impeding on others' rights? You make it sound like the only reason murdering and stealing are outlawed is because of religion... Do you not think people can arrive at this conclusion without religion?

Do you think that the majority of secularists support gay marriage?

Gay marriage is unpopular across most demographic categories. Religion is not the only driving force here.

Pants
05-27-2009, 09:50 PM
No, I don't think that.

Well, the question of absolute values having religious inheritance is up for grabs with me. But, you can certainly have them without alluding to any religious establishments (like Moore's Principia Ethica).

There are so many different theories on morality and ethics, they dedicate whole classes on this subject in college (still the best classes I have ever taken). Unfortunately, there is no correct one. I, however, firmly believe in the Golden Rule theory.

Jenson71
05-27-2009, 09:54 PM
I completely disagree. People enjoy television. People enjoy music. Thus, these things benefit society. At the very least, the voters perceive them to be of a benefit to society.

Right now, the vast majority of voters believe that gay marriage either adds no value to society or that it's detriments to society outweigh the perceived values. The referendum can't even pass in California. That should tell everyone something about where people stand when they walk into the polling booths.

We're definitely in disagreement with the idea that enjoying = benefiting society.

But we're in agreement that if people saw gay marriage benefiting society, it would be more acceptable. And also, connected to that, that most people probably think it degrades society. Whether it actually does or not, I don't know. Like I said, the Greeks, usually upper class, had gay sex. Including Plato. And he was a great man. And the Greeks were a great society. There wasn't gay marriage though. But it's hard to see the difference, honestly, in regards to its acceptance in society.

BigRock
05-27-2009, 10:21 PM
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2253/mytwodads.jpg

ClevelandBronco
05-27-2009, 10:37 PM
Okay. Let's be silly as hell.

HolyHandgernade
05-28-2009, 02:02 AM
Well, there is so much here that I disagree with. I definitely think that between this perspective and the 'interference doctrine', that latter is much more acceptable.

For starters, the religious argument, which is mostly a Christianity argument. Is it true that only Christian civilization does not have same-sex marriage? I don't think so. I don't think Chinese history had same-sex marriage. I don't think African cultures had same-sex marriage. Before the Christians, in the Greek and Roman worlds, where homosexuality was practiced widely in the upper classes, there was still no same-sex marriage.

What is the response to that?

Well, I think you are conflating a lot of things to defend a point. Most ancient cultures didn't even have a religious or civil ceremony/procedure, all the way through the Roman Empire. Likewise, there were terms and practices for homosexuality in all those continents you named. Even medieval European marriages were more for business than romantic love.

One must also keep in mind, during the period of history where agricultural ways of life dominated, the key to survival was bearing children to help tend the fields. The true romantic desires of the individuals were not nearly as important as survival itself. As we moved into more urban vocations and pursuits and the increasing idea that marriage was a consummation of romantic love, partnership, and legal responsibility, the traditional uses of marriage (bearing children, forming alliances, succession of a family line) are not nearly as prominent. People have children out of wedlock regularly, family alliances are not nearly as influential as they once were in global markets and family lines are more a hobby than a statement of prominence. Ask anyone today why they are getting married, and the most popular response will be: "Because we are in love." and "Because we want to spend the rest of our lives together." I don't think those reasons are limited to heterosexuals.

-HH

Jenson71
05-28-2009, 03:25 AM
No, I'm not conflating anything, simply pointing out a broad trend among all regions for the practice of marriage between man and woman (regardless for what particular reason) and a lack of homosexual marriages. You may wish to change what is present, but it can be done so without changing the past.

First of all, if you don't think ancient Greece and Rome, even before the Empire, had marriage ceremonies, I urge you to recheck the history. So did ancient China. Secondly, I recognized that, at least in Greece, there was homosexuality, even acceptance of it. Romans did so too, I'm not arguing at all that there wasn't. What you can not find are homosexual marriages.

patteeu
05-28-2009, 09:11 AM
Not that it's worth being all serious-like with you, but that's one of the funny things about people who share your ill-informed perspective on the very concept.

Do you think I wanted to lose my male privilege, go through puberty again, face extra health risks, be looked at as if I'm mentally ill by ignorant ****s whose preconceptions override their capability to understand, and invite open discrimination? In pursuing a life I actually feel comfortable living, that's what I'm doing.

And if I had to go back and make that choice between trying or curling up and dying, I'd pick this road again without a moment's thought. I'm really, truly, purely happy for the first time in life.

In short, I'm awesome.

Duh. Of course you did. Nobody forced you into it did they?

patteeu
05-28-2009, 09:14 AM
As someone who has no problem with gay marriage, that sign and attitudes like it will just make sure that gay marriage is never widely accepted. It makes the messengers less likable by those who might be swayed.

It honestly makes me more likely to vote against it just out of spite. That's not to say that I would, but I would seriously consider it. It literally might just depend on my mood that day.

I agree that the in-your-face approach is off-putting, but I'm pretty confident that it's only a matter of time before gay marriage is widely accepted despite these folks who give their cause a black eye. One of the best things about that acceptance though, is that there will be fewer i'm-too-important-to-be-ignored, antagonistic activists like this.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 09:15 AM
Duh. Of course you did. Nobody forced you into it did they?I literally could not stand living in the body I had. Everything about it was wrong, every interaction I had with other people was wrong, and every single day was one moment of immeasurable torment after another.

Nahhhhh. I just did this on a fucking whim.

patteeu
05-28-2009, 09:16 AM
Pffffft, like 3k can even pay for the cheap casino blow.

Seriously, though. If people are interested, I'll splain some things whenever I get the opportunity and motivation to make a thread or something. I'm in a way better place than the original "upping the bar" one, so it could be eye-opening for a few people even if most are going to still think, "Whahuuuuuuh?" when they read it. Problem is that it gets pretty tiring explaining stuff over and over; trans people tend to develop amaaaaazing patience thanks to this, so that's nice.

(Donations still welcome! I've got a mouth to feed (mine) and hormones to afford, guys.)

LOL, I thought explaining yourself to people with sincere questions was beneath you just a week or two ago.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 09:18 AM
When those people say they sincerely don't want the law to equally protect you from discrimination, explanations are pretty low on the list of priorities.

patteeu
05-28-2009, 09:22 AM
Well, it is certainly important to protect human rights. Especially for/by/with Christian people, as rights are consequences of humans having the dignity that God endowed in us, being that we are created in His image.

But would you not agree that there is considerable difference among humans in some ideas of what consitutes as a human right? That some issues are separated for this difference? For instance, in abortion, my concern for the human right of birth, of life for the unborn, is, legally speaking, not as important as the human right, some would say, of a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body.

Now, I think our society is impeding on certain people's human rights, those fundamental rights belonging to the conceived child. And I disagree with any idea that a woman has the human right to an abortion. So I guess this is a disagreement over not just which right trumps another, but if that even is a human right in the first place.

So is same-sex marriage a human right? I'm not going to say for now one way or the other. But I am interested in your opinion here: if the Catholic Church does not allow same-sex marriage, are they considered roadblocks to human rights, in the same vein as being roadblocks to the supposed human right to an abortion? Anyone can answer.

Absolutely not. Feeding at the trough of government (either financially or in terms of legal privileges) is NEVER a human right and that's really all that the gay marriage debate is about. Homosexuals (or other same sex couples for that matter) are already free to live a life of committed partnership if they so choose. The fringe benefits of government-recognized marriage are privileges that society doles out in a justifiably discriminatory manner just like tax breaks, transfer payments, and licenses.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 09:26 AM
I love you, pat. Will you committed partnership me?

patteeu
05-28-2009, 09:26 AM
I literally could not stand living in the body I had. Everything about it was wrong, every interaction I had with other people was wrong, and every single day was one moment of immeasurable torment after another.

Nahhhhh. I just did this on a ****ing whim.

I didn't say it was a whim (far from it, I'm sure), but it was a choice you freely made.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 09:27 AM
I didn't say it was a whim (far from it, I'm sure), but it was a choice you freely made.The choice was that, staying indescribably miserable until I blinked out of existence, or killing myself.

That last thing is what a friend of a friend did last night, for the exact same reasons I came so terrifyingly close to doing the same thing. That last thing is what about half of all teen/adolescent transgendered people end up doing.

hurf durf

patteeu
05-28-2009, 09:29 AM
I love you, pat. Will you committed partnership me?

I'm flattered but I already made the lifelong commitment to my wife. If only I had known how you felt... ;)

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 09:31 AM
I'm flattered but I already made the lifelong commitment to my wife. If only I had known how you felt... ;)Did you ask her to committed partnership you? Or civil union you?

Did your government feel the need to offer its tacit agreement with a group of people who insist that your love for your partner is sinful and inherently inferior on religious grounds?

Baby Lee
05-28-2009, 09:36 AM
Did you ask her to committed partnership you? Or civil union you?

Did your government feel the need to offer its tacit agreement with a group of people who insist that your love for your partner is sinful and inherently inferior on religious grounds?

I am equally outraged that no one recognizes me as a Cardinal.

stevieray
05-28-2009, 09:39 AM
The choice was that, staying indescribably miserable until I blinked out of existence, or killing myself.



kill yourself...haha that's so funny, that's why you've used it against others so much in the past.


you've made choices, and just like everyone else, consequences come from those choices.

your situation isn't worse than anyone else who has felt like committing suicide...in fact I think that isn't even a choice for you, it's just something you use now to maipulate situatiions, IMO....but only you know if that's true..

preconceived notions based on external appearances...happens all the time, to all walks of life.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 09:40 AM
I am equally outraged that no one recognizes me as a Cardinal.Wow, that would be a really great rebuttal if marriage weren't something widely practiced in society on non-religious grounds, or if religion had any sort of claim on marriage as an institution other than having tried to co-opt it in the past.

No one's trying to force the Catholic Church to recognize the St. Louis Cardinals. The same principle applies here.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 09:47 AM
kill yourself...haha that's so funny, that's why you've used it so much in the past.It's a pretty terrible thing to say, yes.

you'v emade choices, and just like everyone else, consequences com from those choices.The great thing is, a lot of those consequences come about thanks to ignorant assholes who try to make people who've endured an incredible amount of trauma feel shame for facing down that trauma, living, and still hoping to alleviate that the burden a bit for people in the same circumstances in the future.

You've stopped lying to yourself and chose life! Sure, people are going to be assholes to you on levels I couldn't even comprehend, but other people hurt, too! Suck it up, because it's not going to change lalalalalala! How dare minorities attempt to focus on THEIR experiences for a bit! My privilege, it buuuurns.

your situation isn't worse than anyone else who has felt like committing suicide...in fact I think that isn't even a choice for you, it's just something you use now to maipulate situatiions, IMO....but only you know. if that's true..Yeah, because I didn't mention that I'd been suicidal in my post on the Planet four years ago, or anything. I'm just making it up, hurrr.

preconcieved notions based on external appearances...happens all the time, to all walks of life.It's not about appearances. It's about society refusing to even attempt to understand what you've been through, and using old tropes and outdated preconceptions of people like you to justify trying to invalidate your very sense of self. It's about people who kill people like myself getting less severe punishments because they claim the very existence of someone like me is deceitful. It's about people seeing forms of ID that you're unable to change thanks to state law, assuming you're a deviant and a pervert, and refusing to even consider you for a job. It's about walking down the street with the fear that some bigoted fuck is just going to jump you and start stabbing you for being yourself.

Happens all the time, to all walks of life. But more often to people who don't fucking look like you.

Donger
05-28-2009, 09:51 AM
Just to clear, you are annoyed that society doesn't get what you are going through, and that is "our" fault? Is that right?

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 09:54 AM
Just to clear, you are annoyed that society doesn't get what you are going through, and that is "our" fault? Is that right?Yeah, the ignorance is pretty annoying.

It's the smug insistence that I know less about myself than everyone else does that's the big one, though. Especially when everyone else is so oblivious.

And that my life is genuinely more difficult, but people who benefit from privileges they don't even have to notice chide me for acknowledging that or bringing it up; that's not a trans thing, though. That's something any minority experiences. If you don't get it, say you don't get it. If you're told you benefit from society molding itself in the image of people like yourself, admit it.

I have so many privileges it's not even funny. I'm white, I had access to all kinds of things that allowed me to become a pretty smart person, I have a roof over my head; I am privileged. How is that hard?

So really, it's the constant cries of, "everybody has the saaame challenges, you big crybaby," that get me. Because it's bullshit, and because the cries only get more shrill when it's called such.

Donger
05-28-2009, 09:55 AM
Yeah, the ignorance is pretty annoying.

It's the smug insistence that I know less about myself than everyone else does that's the big one, though. Especially when everyone else is so oblivious.

Do you think that a non-transgendered person will ever understand?

stevieray
05-28-2009, 09:58 AM
It's a pretty terrible thing to say, yes.

The great thing is, a lot of those consequences come about thanks to ignorant assholes who try to make people who've endured an incredible amount of trauma feel shame for facing down that trauma, living, and still hoping to alleviate that the burden a bit for people in the same circumstances in the future.

You've stopped lying to yourself and chose life! Sure, people are going to be assholes to you on levels I couldn't even comprehend, but other people hurt, too! Suck it up, because it's not going to change lalalalalala! How dare minorities attempt to focus on THEIR experiences for a bit! My privilege, it buuuurns.

Yeah, because I didn't mention that I'd been suicidal in my post on the Planet four years ago, or anything. I'm just making it up, hurrr.

It's not about appearances. It's about society refusing to even attempt to understand what you've been through, and using old tropes and outdated preconceptions of people like you to justify trying to invalidate your very sense of self.

and theres your biggest problem, expecting to be validated from society.

I remember when my dad died, I felt all alone..grew out my hair. became a rocker in the middle of the yuppie era...was discriminated against be cause of my appearance..and like you..blamed them, fueled by their discrimination.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 10:02 AM
Do you think that a non-transgendered person will ever understand?Depends. I'll never fully grasp what it's like to have brain and body mesh up. You'll never fully grasp what it's like to have that throbbing, endless disconnect taint every waking moment of your life.

But people can make the effort. We're really good at learning about concepts. And most importantly, we have the potential to be really good at acknowledging and appreciating people who are different rather than fearing and denigrating them.

and theres your biggest problem, expecting to be validated from society.I expect nothing but resistance from society. Anything else is cake, and I don't need society to feel whole.

I remember when my dad died, I felt all alone..grew out my hair. became a rocker in the middle of the yuppie era...was dicrimated against be cause of my appearance..and like you..used it to validate my choices, fueled by their discrimination.My choices? I'm going to college, and I'm choosing a career path that interests me, I'm choosing to find friends that appreciate me for the flawed mess that I am, I'm going to choose to live somewhere I really like, and I'm going to choose to find someone I love deeply.

I'm going to choose to try my best to find a way to educate people, especially kids, that being trans is not a death sentence. There are so many common experiences I've heard and shared with other people that it's uncanny, and knowing how not alone I am is such a relief, even now; I'm sure certain groups would oppose the idea of letting kids who feel wrong and shameful for feeling the way they do (thanks to the constant signals being hammered home by society; I saw what everyone thought of people like me when I was young) foster a little bit of self-confidence rather than overwhelming despair, but tough.

Making the knowledge that this is something that happens to a lot of people, not just you, you little freak, could save so many lives from both suicide and, later, murder (by diminishing the other kids' own issues).

My friend's friend shot herself in the head last night. She couldn't take her perpetual otherness. I'm so fucking tired of that happening.

Anyways, I'm fine with my choices, thanks. I don't need validation.

stevieray
05-28-2009, 10:07 AM
I don't need validation.

oh. I think you do.

JMO

Baby Lee
05-28-2009, 10:08 AM
So basically, UP has endured tribulations unlike ever experienced before and is nonetheless a satisfied person.
That his ordeals are unmatched is an unimpeachible fact, no matter what you think your own or anyone else's ordeals constitute.
Thus, coupled with his ability to perservere, it's equally unimpeachible that he's a better, stronger, more enlightened person than anyone else you'll run into in your life.

Deal with it, or continue to wallow in your ignorance.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 10:13 AM
"I refuse to even acknowledge the tiny pronouns that make you feel such relief when they're correctly applied to you, or anything else you've ever written, for that matter. Suck on THAT. Oh, I'm so clever."

oh. I think you do.

JMOoh. I think you're pretty wretched.

JMO

dirk digler
05-28-2009, 10:13 AM
It's not about appearances. It's about society refusing to even attempt to understand what you've been through, and using old tropes and outdated preconceptions of people like you to justify trying to invalidate your very sense of self. It's about people who kill people like myself getting less severe punishments because they claim the very existence of someone like me is deceitful. It's about people seeing forms of ID that you're unable to change thanks to state law, assuming you're a deviant and a pervert, and refusing to even consider you for a job. It's about walking down the street with the fear that some bigoted fuck is just going to jump you and start stabbing you for being yourself.

Happens all the time, to all walks of life. But more often to people who don't fucking look like you.

I had no idea that you couldn't change your ID. Have you changed your name and tried to get a new social security number?

You're a good person UP it is too bad there is alot of intolerant people in this world but there is not much you can do about it.

stevieray
05-28-2009, 10:23 AM
oh. I think you're pretty wretched.

JMO

thar's fine...the difference is, my comment wasn't a cutdown...we all seek validation. some us just look to the wrong places..I speak from experience.

if you truly are comfortable and don't need or care about validation, post your pic...but you won't do that and I understand why.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 10:23 AM
I had no idea that you couldn't change your ID. Have you changed your name and tried to get a new social security number?

You're a good person UP it is too bad there is alot of intolerant people in this world but there is not much you can do about it.Names and licenses can be changed, but because I was lucky enough to be born in TN, the only state wonderful enough to pass a law specifically banning trans people from being able to amend their birth certificate at all, I'm pretty much always going to have forms of ID that put me at greater risk for discrimination and make it way the hell harder to travel, especially abroad.

SB0252 and HR0334 were introduced by Memphis Democrats this year, but Tennessee's a pretty red state and even though the majority leader is tired of fighting it, the best he's ever going to be willing offer is an in-between checkbox that does nothing to help the aforementioned issues. Hooray.

thar's fine...the difference is, my comment wasn't a cutdown...we all seek validation. some us just look to the wrong places..I speak from experience.

if you truly are comfortable and don't need or care about validation, post your pic...but you won't do that and I understand why.Jesus Christ, you are so fucking obsessed with my photograph. Sorry, you're not my type.

Jilly
05-28-2009, 10:32 AM
I think Joseph is usually considered a stepfather.

I think God is not gendered at all. So it seems her sign is just wrong all around. Though she makes a point....no matter how fucked up the family, one could still end up saving the world regardless.

Donger
05-28-2009, 10:36 AM
Depends. I'll never fully grasp what it's like to have brain and body mesh up. You'll never fully grasp what it's like to have that throbbing, endless disconnect taint every waking moment of your life.

But people can make the effort. We're really good at learning about concepts. And most importantly, we have the potential to be really good at acknowledging and appreciating people who are different rather than fearing and denigrating them.

So, you don't understand me and I don't understand you. I'm fine with that.

stevieray
05-28-2009, 10:37 AM
Jesus Christ, you are so ****ing obsessed with my photograph. Sorry, you're not my type.

not at all..this isn't about me..I think if you're ok with your choices, you've got nothing to hide...you've said you already expect the worse over your situation.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 10:38 AM
I think God is not gendered at all. I think that's a pretty controversial claim to people who think God is some big dude with a flowing beard.

So, you don't understand me and I don't understand you. I'm fine with that.Hiiiiigh fiiiiiiive!

not at all..this isn't about me..I think if you're ok with your choices, you've got nothing to hide...you've said you already expect the worse over your situation.If I were seeking validation, I'd post photos and ask you to tell me how pretty I am. Think it through.

Donger
05-28-2009, 10:40 AM
Hiiiiigh fiiiiiiive!

Being obsessed with how others view you is a pretty solid path toward misery, IMO.

Baby Lee
05-28-2009, 10:41 AM
So, you don't understand me and I don't understand you. I'm fine with that.

Oh, she understands you. You're a white guy who has the world at his feet.
Your problems are evidence of your personal weakness and inability to take advantage of your primacy in the universe.
Her problems are evidence of the inherent shittiness of her fellow man.

Jilly
05-28-2009, 10:42 AM
oh. I think you do.

JMO

I CANNOT believe that you would compare growing your hair out in rebellion to someone who is transgendered as if it were the same experience.

And I think you seriously need to open your EARS up and listen to the holiness that UP just shared with you by letting you into that personal story. God is talking to you there. So be still and listen.

HolyHandgernade
05-28-2009, 10:42 AM
No, I'm not conflating anything, simply pointing out a broad trend among all regions for the practice of marriage between man and woman (regardless for what particular reason) and a lack of homosexual marriages. You may wish to change what is present, but it can be done so without changing the past.

First of all, if you don't think ancient Greece and Rome, even before the Empire, had marriage ceremonies, I urge you to recheck the history. So did ancient China. Secondly, I recognized that, at least in Greece, there was homosexuality, even acceptance of it. Romans did so too, I'm not arguing at all that there wasn't. What you can not find are homosexual marriages.

Well, here's what I think you are conflating. The importance in the ancient world was placed on procreation, marriage for purposes of pleasure and romance were at best considered luxuries. Since most of recorded history occurs in this agriculturally dominated period, marriage unions are going to be dominated by heterosexual concepts, just not for the same reasons we think they are today.

I didn't say there were no marriage ceremonies in Greece and Rome, I said that such continued up through the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was made up of many different cultures and the Empire itself did not require any ceremony for much of its existence. Most "marriages" were an agreement amongst the common people, political strategies among the rich. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome. We may not know the extent to which such was practiced due to the Christian purge of information, but it is clear it was worth mentioning to prohibit. Suetonius mentioned (in the context of Nero's vices) that Nero married a slave boy, and also a male friend; Martial also mentions same sex marriages taking place.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. Some African tribes had a custom of a young man belonging sexually to the dominant male who helped the dominant male's wife.

So, I think what is happening, is that our customs and ideas about marriage grew out of this culture dominated by agricultural production. This is also the period from which most of our written records take place and rituals become formalized to increase homogeny among various types of people living within a larger political structure. Most ancient cultures didn't have "recognized marriages" as much as they had "recognized pairings". Of course, homosexual pairings are not going to produce offspring, so their influence along family lines will be brief.

I'm not arguing marriage isn't dominated by heterosexual customs, just that the idea that homosexual concepts of marriage were void in the historical record.

-HH

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 10:43 AM
Being obsessed with how others view you is a pretty solid path toward misery, IMO.It was a sincere high fiiive. I was being dismissive of your willful ignorance in order to foster goodwill. :(

Jilly
05-28-2009, 10:43 AM
I think that's a pretty controversial claim to people who think God is some big dude with a flowing beard.



Probably so, but it's pretty apparent in Scripture in the various ways to which God is referred.

stevieray
05-28-2009, 10:44 AM
I

If I were seeking validation, I'd post photos and ask you to tell me how pretty I am. Think it through.

or how pretty you aren't..? think it through.

I didn't say posting a pic would be seeking validation, I think it would show that you are totally comfortable with it and not ashamed of who you are.

Donger
05-28-2009, 10:44 AM
It was a sincere high fiiive. I was being dismissive of your willful ignorance in order to foster goodwill. :(

Ignorance of what?

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 10:45 AM
Oh, she understands you. You're a white guy who has the world at his feet.
Your problems are evidence of your personal weakness and inability to take advantage of your primacy in the universe.
Her problems are evidence of the inherent shittiness of her fellow man.It's almost like you didn't read this, or anything:

And that my life is genuinely more difficult, but people who benefit from privileges they don't even have to notice chide me for acknowledging that or bringing it up; that's not a trans thing, though. That's something any minority experiences. If you don't get it, say you don't get it. If you're told you benefit from society molding itself in the image of people like yourself, admit it.

I have so many privileges it's not even funny. I'm white, I had access to all kinds of things that allowed me to become a pretty smart person, I have a roof over my head; I am privileged. How is that hard?

So really, it's the constant cries of, "everybody has the saaame challenges, you big crybaby," that get me. Because it's bullshit, and because the cries only get more shrill when it's called such.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 10:46 AM
or how pretty you aren't..? think it through.

I didn't say posting a pic would be seeking validation, I think it would show that you are totally comfortable with it and not ashamed of who you are.I'm totally comfortable with me. I'm so completely not comfortable with you or the 10,000 other people on here.

Donger
05-28-2009, 10:49 AM
I'm totally comfortable with me. I'm so completely not comfortable with you or the 10,000 other people on here.

Sounds like you are the problem, then.

Radar Chief
05-28-2009, 10:50 AM
I'm totally comfortable with me.

Good for you. Now maybe if you’d quit bringing it up others would follow suit.

stevieray
05-28-2009, 10:50 AM
I CANNOT believe that you would compare growing your hair out in rebellion to someone who is transgendered as if it were the same experience.

And I think you seriously need to open your EARS up and listen to the holiness that UP just shared with you by letting you into that personal story. God is talking to you there. So be still and listen.

I didn't say it was..i'm tlaking about people reacting to appearances.

holiness? God is talking to me there? don't think so. and please excuse me for no taking your advice..it's hard to do in this converastion when a married pastor of a church talks about being with other women.

stevieray
05-28-2009, 10:52 AM
I'm totally comfortable with me. I'm so completely not comfortable with you or the 10,000 other people on here.

yet you are comfortable with sharing everything else about it...

Jilly
05-28-2009, 10:58 AM
I didn't say it was..i'm tlaking about people reacting to appearances.

holiness? God is talking to me there? don't think so. and please excuse me for no taking your advice..it's hard to do in this converastion when a married pastor of a church talks about being with other women.

I can overlook what you say to me, because well, I realize that I trip over my own humanity constantly.

Do you not believe that God talks through people? Even if you may see them as flawed? Because well, every single one of the people of the Bible whom God used were flawed...down to the Eunich in Acts. Paul? Freaking persecuted the Christians before becoming one. Peter? Denied Christ three times. Moses? Murdered someone. David? Committed adultery and had someone killed in the process. Mary Magdalene? Was a prostitute.

So are you denying that God uses flawed people? Even me? Even UP? Even you, stevieray.

Who are you to think that you're so much better then the people of this world that you choose to say who God does and doesn't talk to? If you live your life this way, then you are truly missing some beautiful things that God is saying to you. Open your eyes and see that any time you come within contact of another human being, you are standing on Holy Ground. Have some humility.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 11:33 AM
Good for you. Now maybe if you’d quit bringing it up others would follow suit.check me out, bringing all of this up again:

LARENZ TATE:

http://j.photos.cx/actinlikealilbitchmenace-jizzypop-1ae.gif
You respond with some urban jungle dweller's unintelligible blatherings? That is what you choose to represent your thoughts? Boy you have issues, you are one messed up guy.Well you also talking about a person who thinks he should get free health insurance after he voids the warranty.LMAOlol HE HE HE get it that has a double meaning (it is a laugh and an incorrect pronoun)

If you embrace your manhood the world could be yours.
Grab your junk in one hand and your rifle in the other and repeat after me: "this is my rifle, this is my gun this one's for fighting this one's for fun".

Now act like you have a pair and go get 'em big guy!I think you have me confused for, you know, a guy.

things are p. awesome now but thanks for the pro-tipsATTENTION WHORE

Dave Lane
05-28-2009, 11:38 AM
dup

Dave Lane
05-28-2009, 11:38 AM
As someone who has no problem with gay marriage, that sign and attitudes like it will just make sure that gay marriage is never widely accepted. It makes the messengers less likable by those who might be swayed.

It honestly makes me more likely to vote against it just out of spite. That's not to say that I would, but I would seriously consider it. It literally might just depend on my mood that day.

Doesn't really matter what you think, or I think, its coming so its best not to get all twitterpated about it

Jilly
05-28-2009, 11:44 AM
Doesn't really matter what you think, or I think, its coming so its best not to get all twitterpated about it

twitterpated? really? :D

Radar Chief
05-28-2009, 11:49 AM
check me out, bringing all of this up again:

ATTENTION WHORE

If you hadn’t brought it up neither VP nor I would know a thing about it. Even so, I don’t give a shit about it and don’t understand why VP does, other than to :Poke: at you.

patteeu
05-28-2009, 02:37 PM
And that's why I tend to support gay marriage.

Actually, I am against the government recognizing marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious institution, and it should be left at that. I would like to see the government recognize legal unions between any 2 people who are legally fit to enter into a contract regardless of gender. I think that a majority of Americans would get behind this position if it were ever presented as a viable option.

I think this is the best answer in a freedom-oriented philosophical sense, but I have to wonder what impact it would have on the modern institution of marriage if we adopted it. Marriage is already becoming something of a temporary institution that get's thrown out when the luster wears off like a disposable razor blade. I wonder how many more kids would end up being raised in broken homes if it weren't for the financial and legal advantages to keeping a marriage together and for what often ends up being quite a bit of financial and legal pain for breaking it apart.

patteeu
05-28-2009, 02:40 PM
Is there a gay STD I wasn't aware about?

It's still a silly argument. As human beings, we need to feel compassion. Imagine if you were born gay, wouldn't you want to fall in love and marry the one (hopefully) like everyone else? Why should you be denied that? (By "you" I mean "one").

Are you familiar with the risk factors for HIV/AIDS?

patteeu
05-28-2009, 02:47 PM
Did you ask her to committed partnership you? Or civil union you?

Yes to both, although maybe not in such romantic terms.

Did your government feel the need to offer its tacit agreement with a group of people who insist that your love for your partner is sinful and inherently inferior on religious grounds?

No, no one mentioned anything like that. Mostly everyone just said "congratulations".

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 03:11 PM
Yes to both, although maybe not in such romantic terms.



No, no one mentioned anything like that. Mostly everyone just said "congratulations".See, it's not big deeeeal or anythiiing. I don't see why you people who don't have such opportunities freely available to you get all up in arms and all of thaaat.

patteeu
05-28-2009, 03:29 PM
See, it's not big deeeeal or anythiiing. I don't see why you people who don't have such opportunities freely available to you get all up in arms and all of thaaat.

I bet more than half of all the people who end up getting married "settle" to one degree or another on someone that falls short of their dream companion. Some, through no fault of their own, have to do more settling than others. It's not fair, but it's life and we're not going to be able to fix it for everyone with law changes.

Sully
05-28-2009, 03:34 PM
The question that those advocating gay marriage should be addressing is this:

How does gay marriage benefit society?

It's pretty self-evident how heterosexual marriage benefits society. The benefits of gay marriage aren't as obvious, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I haven't read through this to see if someone has addressed this, and I don't necessarily believe this argument is needed. However, I've got an argument for how it betters society.

Let's look at a couple of stereotypes used against the homosexual crowd.

A) They are serially non-monogomous.
- Do you think that if we learn to find room for their committed choices in our straight society, and accept that their love for each other is not a lesser of the heterosexual love you or I may hold for our spouses, that may change? If we constantly tell a group of people that we don't recognize their relationships as valid, how can we be surprised if a lot of them learn that those committed values don't apply to them. (This said, realizing there are millions of homosexual couples who practice monogamy with their "spouse" without the recognition)

B) If we allow them to raise children, all the other children will make their children's lives hell.
- Maybe if we didn't treat them as such freaks, other children would learn they are just as important a part of our society as their friends with straight parents.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 03:34 PM
I bet more than half of all the people who end up getting married "settle" to one degree or another on someone that falls short of their dream companion. Some, through no fault of their own, have to do more settling than others. It's not fair, but it's life and we're not going to be able to fix it for everyone with law changes.http://i42.tinypic.com/kdvghw.gif

Being legally barred from marrying people with whom you can form a healthy, loving relationship = having to settle for somebody who's fat or ugly.

Got it.

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 03:36 PM
I haven't read through this to see if someone has addressed this, and I don't necessarily believe this argument is needed. However, I've got an argument for how it betters society.

Let's look at a couple of stereotypes used against the homosexual crowd.

A) They are serially non-monogomous.
- Do you think that if we learn to find room for their committed choices in our straight society, and accept that their love for each other is not a lesser of the heterosexual love you or I may hold for our spouses, that may change? If we constantly tell a group of people that we don't recognize their relationships as valid, how can we be surprised if a lot of them learn that those committed values don't apply to them. (This said, realizing there are millions of homosexual couples who practice monogamy with their "spouse" without the recognition)

B) If we allow them to raise children, all the other children will make their children's lives hell.
- Maybe if we didn't treat them as such freaks, other children would learn they are just as important a part of our society as their friends with straight parents.http://j.photos.cx/gaymarriageconsequences-312.jpg

Donger
05-28-2009, 03:38 PM
http://i42.tinypic.com/kdvghw.gif

Being legally barred from marrying ANYONE with whom you can form a healthy, loving relationship = having to settle for somebody who's fat or ugly.

Got it.

Why should a process/institution between males and females that has been going on for a few thousand years suddenly be altered to include variations?

Ultra Peanut
05-28-2009, 03:39 PM
Ah, yes. Exclusion by tradition.

Good choice. That's always founded in a great logical basis.

Donger
05-28-2009, 03:44 PM
Ah, yes. Exclusion by tradition.

Good choice. That's always founded in a great logical basis.

Can you offer some reason beyond, "I want it, too!"? Why should the norm bow to the wishes of the other?

Sully
05-28-2009, 03:45 PM
I can overlook what you say to me, because well, I realize that I trip over my own humanity constantly.

Do you not believe that God talks through people? Even if you may see them as flawed? Because well, every single one of the people of the Bible whom God used were flawed...down to the Eunich in Acts. Paul? Freaking persecuted the Christians before becoming one. Peter? Denied Christ three times. Moses? Murdered someone. David? Committed adultery and had someone killed in the process. Mary Magdalene? Was a prostitute.

So are you denying that God uses flawed people? Even me? Even UP? Even you, stevieray.

Who are you to think that you're so much better then the people of this world that you choose to say who God does and doesn't talk to? If you live your life this way, then you are truly missing some beautiful things that God is saying to you. Open your eyes and see that any time you come within contact of another human being, you are standing on Holy Ground. Have some humility.



Bible-burn Five!

*SMACK*

- The Todd

Jilly
05-28-2009, 03:50 PM
Bible-burn Five!

*SMACK*

- The Todd

ROFLROFLROFL

Sully
05-28-2009, 03:54 PM
ROFLROFLROFL

In all seriousness, though, I'm going to have to ask you to never talk to our daughter...or anyone actually. You've lost all validity in anything you ever say...because you have talked about sex...and you are married...and you are a minister.


Sinner

Jilly
05-28-2009, 03:59 PM
In all seriousness, though, I'm going to have to ask you to never talk to our daughter...or anyone actually. You've lost all validity in anything you ever say...because you have talked about sex...and you are married...and you are a minister.


Sinner


so, I'm thinking I should wear my robe tonight for you, sans clothing underneath......I mean, if I'm going, I'm going, right?

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:03 PM
Why should a process/institution between males and females that has been going on for a few thousand years suddenly be altered to include variations?

Because alterning it to meet the needs of the current society has been a standard part of it's history.

Arranged marriages as a business agreement that provides a committed woman to a man for among other reason a means of tracking which offspring belongs to the man.

We've come a long way baby!

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:04 PM
Can you offer some reason beyond, "I want it, too!"? Why should the norm bow to the wishes of the other?

Happens all the time? The norm is to bend marriage to meet the needs of the current society. Not doing so would be breaking with the norm.

Donger
05-28-2009, 04:08 PM
Because alterning it to meet the needs of the current society has been a standard part of it's history.

Arranged marriages as a business agreement that provides a committed woman to a man for among other reason a means of tracking which offspring belongs to the man.

We've come a long way baby!

I don't really care if current society suddenly thinks that abnormality should be normalized.

Donger
05-28-2009, 04:09 PM
Happens all the time? The norm is to bend marriage to meet the needs of the current society. Not doing so would be breaking with the norm.

As it relates to the union of a male and female, of course. Propagation of the species and all that.

Simply Red
05-28-2009, 04:15 PM
conversations like these are why I don't play here. Call it what you will.

Reaper16
05-28-2009, 04:27 PM
Good luck with that.

I am telling you right now that I am exactly the type of person that you want on your side. I am young, well off financially, white, male, married, and very conservative politically.

If you can get even a moderate percentage of people like me on your side, you can advance this cause. Seeing this kind of attitude is exactly what makes someone like me say, "F--- 'em." That point of view doesn't make me a piece of shit. Why should I carry the water for someone who goes out of their way to piss all over my beliefs in a feeble attempt to advance a cause?
No, but not being in touch with your humanity enough to immediately recognize that the discrimination that the LGBT community faces is intrinsically wrong kind of does.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:40 PM
As it relates to the union of a male and female, of course. Propagation of the species and all that.

As it relates to enriching the father, of course. Wealth of the species and all that.

Reaper16
05-28-2009, 04:45 PM
There are some insufferable people on this forum. Jesus H. Fuck.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:52 PM
I don't really care if current society suddenly thinks that abnormality should be normalized.

Ahh... I suspect you are still down with the old-school selling of the young girls like slaves to older men in order to enrich the father... and have deep objections to the abnormality of letting a woman choose her own husband and path in life.

vailpass
05-28-2009, 04:54 PM
100% recycled

Has there been a new topic in this forum in like the last 3 years?

Donger
05-28-2009, 04:55 PM
Ahh... I suspect you are still down with the old-school selling of the young girls like slaves to older men in order to enrich the father... and have deep objections to the abnormality of letting a woman choose her own husband and path in life.

Oh no. I think jAZ is trying to catch me in some elaborate gotcha!

ROFL

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:55 PM
conversations like these are why I don't play here. Call it what you will.

Why so?

I thought some of UP's posts in this thread were quite outstanding contributions to a disucssion that can often spiral into venom because the issues are so personal or passionate.

She elevated the discussion above where you might normally expect.

I didn't read every post though.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 04:58 PM
Oh no. I think jAZ is trying to catch me in some elaborate gotcha!

ROFL

You should stick with "I don't think gays should marry" and stop trying to justify your feelings based on history and you would get a lot further. No one can disprove your feelings. But your falsely imagined history can and almost always will be knocked down in no time.

Donger
05-28-2009, 05:01 PM
You should stick with "I don't think gays should marry" and stop trying to justify your feelings based on history and you would get a lot further. No one can disprove your feelings. But your falsely imagined history can and almost always will be knocked down in no time.

I have a few thousand years to back up my assertion that "marriage" is something between a man and a woman.

What do you have to back up your assertion?

KC Dan
05-28-2009, 05:02 PM
100% recycled

Has there been a new topic in this forum in like the last 3 years?
Not if you substitute "Bush" with "Obama" and invert the poster's names.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:04 PM
I have a few thousand years to back up my assertion that "marriage" is something between a man and a woman.

What do you have to back up your assertion?

A few thousand years of a changing definition of marriage to adopt to the standards of each new society.

Donger
05-28-2009, 05:08 PM
A few thousand years of a changing definition of marriage to adopt to the standards of each new society.

And what has been the constant over the years?

Iowanian
05-28-2009, 05:09 PM
Jesus' Dad's beat up your dads.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:09 PM
A few thousand years of a changing definition of marriage to adopt to the standards of each new society.

Oh, plus a 600 year history of marriage between two men as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004

Gay marriage goes way back
Historian says men wed as early as 600 years ago in medieval Europe
By Jeanna Bryner

updated 10:56 a.m. MT, Mon., Aug 27, 2007

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.”

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:12 PM
And what has been the constant over the years?

Your contorted efforts to justify your opinions against all facts.

Donger
05-28-2009, 05:12 PM
Oh, plus a 600 year history of marriage between two men as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004

Gay marriage goes way back
Historian says men wed as early as 600 years ago in medieval Europe
By Jeanna Bryner

updated 10:56 a.m. MT, Mon., Aug 27, 2007

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.”

Heh. Priceless. I don't see the word "marriage" in that article at all. No one is denying that homosexuality has always existed.

Donger
05-28-2009, 05:13 PM
Your contorted efforts to justify your opinions against all facts.

Come on, you can say it (we all know anyway).

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:13 PM
And what has been the constant over the years?
That was too easy, but to address your expected point, not the definition of marriage. Not even the man-woman aspect you like to claim.

Donger
05-28-2009, 05:14 PM
Not even the man-woman aspect you like to claim.

Oh? Can you back that up?

KC Dan
05-28-2009, 05:15 PM
Oh, plus a 600 year history of marriage between two men as well.

Gay marriage goes way back
Historian says men wed as early as 600 years ago in medieval Europe
By Jeanna Bryner


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


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


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.”

Well, there it is. Proof??? Sounds like a civil union not a marriage to me. MSNBC gotta love 'em

KC Dan
05-28-2009, 05:16 PM
Your contorted efforts to justify your opinions against all facts.
And you quoted MSNBC...

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:24 PM
Heh. Priceless. I don't see the word "marriage" in that article at all. No one is denying that homosexuality has always existed.

Well, are you talking about the *word* marriage or the "process/institution ... that has been going on for a few thousand years"?

Those are not the same.

The word marraige only goes back to 1297. That's clearly not "a few thousand years". Of couse the concept that does go back a few thousand years also man-man legal agreements.

So you've sort boxed youself in here.

Can cling to the literal word, because of your claim of a few thousand years. Can cling to the concept because history isn't on your side.

Just say it like my son would: "I don't like that!" and be done with it.

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:24 PM
Sounds like a civil union not a marriage to me.

Explain the difference, other than spelling. Please don't use circular logic.

KC Dan
05-28-2009, 05:31 PM
Explain the difference, other than spelling. Please don't use circular logic.
Damn you! :clap: I, like probably most, cannot adequately explain the difference from my pont of view. I firmly believe in civil unions and have zero problems with them. However, I believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I guess that I base my belief (or the difference) on a religious component that I was raised with. If that is right or wrong in someone else's mind - I don't care. It's what I believe. Wish I could be more specific but I can't. Some would say it's shallow or bigoted, f'em....

jAZ
05-28-2009, 05:36 PM
Damn you! :clap: I, like probably most, cannot adequately explain the difference from my pont of view. I firmly believe in civil unions and have zero problems with them. However, I believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I guess that I base my belief (or the difference) on a religious component that I was raised with. If that is right or wrong in someone else's mind - I don't care. It's what I believe. Wish I could be more specific but I can't. Some would say it's shallow or bigoted, f'em....

I disagree, but can respect your willingness to just admit it. Others try to hid behind contorted logic. We don't have to agree on the issue in order to speak on similar terms.

BTW, I'm all four giving the word "marriage" over to religion (even though they don't have a legacy that dictates ownership of it). And establishing a 2nd securlar institution implemented by the Gov't.

Civil Unions for All.

Marriage for the churches.

Donger
05-28-2009, 06:34 PM
Well, are you talking about the *word* marriage or the "process/institution ... that has been going on for a few thousand years"?

Those are not the same.

The word marraige only goes back to 1297. That's clearly not "a few thousand years". Of couse the concept that does go back a few thousand years also man-man legal agreements.

So you've sort boxed youself in here.

Can cling to the literal word, because of your claim of a few thousand years. Can cling to the concept because history isn't on your side.

Just say it like my son would: "I don't like that!" and be done with it.

Argh! You got me! Okay, only 700+ years.

ROFL

jAZ
05-28-2009, 09:59 PM
Argh! You got me! Okay, only 700+ years.

ROFL
It's not suprising in the least that you are a valiant defender of a French word that's existed for 700 years, but not the very institution that's existed for thousands of years.

Typical.

Saul Good
05-28-2009, 10:03 PM
It's not suprising in the least that you are a valiant defender of a French word that's existed for 700 years, but not the very institution that's existed for thousands of years.

Typical.

Are you really trying to argue that tradition supports gay marriage?

It seems like earlier you argued that the only difference between marriages and civil unions was the spelling. Do you even think before you type, or do you have some heretofore unseen version of tourette's that manifests itself through the keyboard? I mean, if there is no appreciable difference between civil unions and marriages, why argue for marriages?

Velvet_Jones
05-28-2009, 10:24 PM
Are you really trying to argue that tradition supports gay marriage?

It seems like earlier you argued that the only difference between marriages and civil unions was the spelling. Do you even think before you type, or do you have some heretofore unseen version of tourette's that manifests itself through the keyboard? I mean, if there is no appreciable difference between civil unions and marriages, why argue for marriages?

jAZ never thinks period. Typing or not, he is still stupid.

banyon
05-28-2009, 10:26 PM
jAZ never thinks period. Typing or not, he is still stupid.

dude, you nailed jAZ so hard that time, oh man wow, you really got him!

irishjayhawk
05-28-2009, 10:57 PM
There are some insufferable people on this forum. Jesus H. ****.

No shit. This is one hilarious and yet very disturbing thread.

Why so?

I thought some of UP's posts in this thread were quite outstanding contributions to a disucssion that can often spiral into venom because the issues are so personal or passionate.

She elevated the discussion above where you might normally expect.

I didn't read every post though.

I got that impression as well and can attest I'd have flown off the handle by now.

Ultra Peanut
05-29-2009, 12:18 AM
If there's one lesson to take from that, it's this:

Estrogen rules.

Unless you're a trans guy, in which case you should replace that shit with some T you doofus!

stevieray
05-29-2009, 01:12 AM
Who are you to think that you're so much better then the people of this world that you choose to say who God does and doesn't talk to? .


...says the person who just told me who God was talking to and through.

..you offered advice, I declined for reasons stated...it's really as simple as that.

patteeu
05-29-2009, 07:27 AM
http://i42.tinypic.com/kdvghw.gif

Being legally barred from marrying people with whom you can form a healthy, loving relationship = having to settle for somebody who's fat or ugly.

Got it.

How much you have to settle depends on how unattainable your ideal is. If your dream life as a young boy is to grow up, change into a girl, and then fall in love with and marry the BMOC, you're setting yourself up for some disappointment.

I don't know why you want to lead such an extreme life, but I'm OK with you doing it. Try not to whine so much about having the inevitable problems of a social outlier though. You have a right not to be assaulted, but OTOH you don't have any right to expect society to bend to meet all of your desires. You're bound to have to "settle" more than the average person in more ways than one.

patteeu
05-29-2009, 07:34 AM
Oh, plus a 600 year history of marriage between two men as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004

Gay marriage goes way back
Historian says men wed as early as 600 years ago in medieval Europe
By Jeanna Bryner

updated 10:56 a.m. MT, Mon., Aug 27, 2007

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.”

Gay couples can execute legal contracts today to do the same things as these historical couples did. What has changed is that now we have a lot more government entanglements in marriage (social security survivorship, different tax tables, etc.) so these historical relationships didn't have the same overall effect that marriage does today.

Donger
05-29-2009, 08:04 AM
It's not suprising in the least that you are a valiant defender of a French word that's existed for 700 years, but not the very institution that's existed for thousands of years.

Typical.

Huh? You posted an article that claimed that "gay marriage" has historical precedent, when all that it really shows is that there have been homosexuals for a long time and that they have formed various unions, but marriage is not mentioned once. Does that surprise you? Did you even bother to read it? It seems that both the author and yourself were incorrect.

Here:

"Civil unions"
"same-sex unions"
"affrèrement"
"brothers"
"brotherments"

Ultra Peanut
05-29-2009, 09:42 AM
How much you have to settle depends on how unattainable your ideal is. If your dream life as a young boy is to grow up, change into a girl, and then fall in love with and marry the BMOC, you're setting yourself up for some disappointment.

I don't know why you want to lead such an extreme life, but I'm OK with you doing it. Try not to whine so much about having the inevitable problems of a social outlier though. You have a right not to be assaulted, but OTOH you don't have any right to expect society to bend to meet all of your desires. You're bound to have to "settle" more than the average person in more ways than one.Wow, I've never considered how much more difficult some very basic facets of my life will be compared to those of cis people. Verily, this is a revelation. Thaaanks.

You're not dense enough to actually equate "a person settling for a less-than-ideal mate" with "a deeply in-love couple being prevented from getting married due to laws with religious bases." You do some amazing, almost shamefully admirable gymnastics in DC, but that's not something you're capable of.