 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
|
|
|
Subject: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Janie Date: 08 May 12 - 11:41 PM It is not a surprise, but still sad that North Carolina voters, by a large majority have passed a constitutional amendment that bans same sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Ebbie Date: 08 May 12 - 11:48 PM That is sad. And it stems from fear- but fear seems such an unnecessary emotion from a civil rights act that harms no one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 09 May 12 - 12:04 AM It is a simple definition of terms...a very necessary first step in debate and in law. They are free to call it ANTHING else (contract, civil undetstanding, binding covenant) ... but the term "marrage " aplies to a man AND awoman. Sincery Gargoyle President Bill Clinton (an accomplished university debater ánd lawyer) underderstood the power of precise language...during his impeachment proceedings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 May 12 - 12:14 AM Are they so 'free', though, gargoyle??? Both the details shown in the OP & the following would appear to contradict that:- 'The amendment would alter North Carolina's constitution to say that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."' Also the fact that the benefits now payable to certain same-sex couples could be lost due to this amendment. You may think that what happens in NC is no put-in of anyone over here in UK; but an important point of semantic interpretation seems involved here. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 09 May 12 - 03:47 AM I think the pendulum may be in "swing" "Gay Marriage" is not about "love" as Mr J Biden suggests, but about the normalisation of a minority sexual behaviour, which has proved to be damaging to the health of many who practice it. The "word" is very important in that context. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Marks(on the road) Date: 09 May 12 - 04:22 AM There is no good reason why the affective orientation of any person should disqualify them from enjoying the same civil rights as any other person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Will Fly Date: 09 May 12 - 05:05 AM I haven't read such idiotic, illogical, prejudiced and loathsome posts for quite some time, so this thread is very instructive about the mindset of the posters. On Friday afternoon, Mrs. F. and I attended the civil partnership ceremony of my next door neighbours, who have been neighbours of mine for many years - kind, thoughtful, funny guys who are well liked in our village community - and good neighbours at that. In the evening, after food in our local pub, I played a couple of hours of jazz with another guitarist and a bass player, and we had a great time. The music went down well and was appreciated by everybody there. My neighbours, one of whom I've known since he was a boy, have been happily together for quite a few years now. They can rest easy in the knowledge that their relationship has been legally recognised and that their joint property arrangements will also be recognised by the legal system. They are perfectly decent people. Akenaton and others: a minority sexual behaviour, which has proved to be damaging to the health of many who practice it disgusting, loathsome, shamefully wicked and vile people Says it all about the posters, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 09 May 12 - 05:13 AM Quite right Will, extremely disappointing and disturbing comments on this thread. I cannot comprehend why folk don't find some kindness, understanding and tolerance towards people who do them no harm. I can only assume that, unlike you and myself, they don't actually have any gay friends and therefore speak from total ignorance, fear and hate. It makes me despair it really does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 May 12 - 05:17 AM I should point out that the post from "Guest - Bishop Gundulf Morris" (above) is not in fact from Bishop Gundulf Morris. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Will Fly Date: 09 May 12 - 05:20 AM I'd also guessed that, Richard. It's interesting, Eliza, to note the preoccupation with sex in the mindset of these prejudiced posters - as though relationships of any sort were based solely on this aspect of life. They forget, love, companionship, affection, common interests, and a host of other factors that bring people of any persuasion together. You have to wonder what causes them to spout this nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: banjoman Date: 09 May 12 - 05:46 AM Much of the argument about this issue has been discussed in another thread. However, I also find the comments above disgusting and reprehensible. I have no problem with civil unions, partnerships etc. However, I feel that to redfine the meaning of marriage to incorporate them is wrong. The government is not allowing proper consultation despite a significant number who are opposed to their proposals. These include a significant number of MP's of all persuasions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 09 May 12 - 06:01 AM I agree again, Will. And what people choose to do privately in sexual matters is IMO absolutely their own business and no-one else's. My husband and I know one gay couple, for example, two men, who have been together for years, love eachother devotedly and are excellent company. We had dinner with them just a few days ago, and enjoyed the evening very much. To have this nasty and condemnatory attitude towards such nice, kindly and gentle people is where the real 'wickedness' lies. We would be over the moon if marriage could be offered to our friends, and would attend the ceremony with great joy. The viciousness of these cruel posts reminds me somewhat of the same type of thing voiced during the struggles for racial equality in the West, and also women's rights. Looked at now, they seem almost primitive and very out-of-date. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 09 May 12 - 06:07 AM Curiously enough, while there are states that want to stay rooted in the past, there are also several states that have legalized gay marriage. A clear and growing majority of Americans now support allowing gays to marry. And this "forward into the past" mentality will no doubt affect where progressive companies will locate their "job creation" businesses. And as might be imagined, count on "the usual suspects" of homphobes to celebrate the passage of this ammendment while insisting that "some of my best friends are..." Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Allan C. Date: 09 May 12 - 06:15 AM Never underestimate the power of ignorance and fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 09 May 12 - 08:45 AM Well, most child abuse happens in families with hetero parenting units. So we should ban hetero marriage? This kind of logic could play itself out in other areas of human activity in some "interesting" ways. For example, just for starters... "Some" priests have molested children. Ergo, we should ban the priesthood? Just for starters... Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: SINSULL Date: 09 May 12 - 08:52 AM Maine has Same Sex Marriage on the ballot for November. We can hope... SINS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 09 May 12 - 10:10 AM banjoman wrote: However, I feel that to redfine the meaning of marriage to incorporate them is wrong. To me, marriage has always been defined as the union of people who want to share their lives and enter into the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. The whole current attitude that we are trying to redefine marriage is just an attempt to grab the word and make it mean something else, and make it belong to one group and not to another. From my point of view, you are the one who is stealing a word and changing its meaning to suit yourself. If you want to redefine marriage for yourself, feel free. But please stop trying to make your incomplete definition be the law of the land. In the United States we are supposed to live according to a Constitution that guarantees us equal treatment under the law and doesn't mention marriage at all. I actually don't care what we call it legally, as long as it gets called the same and is enforced the same for everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 09 May 12 - 10:16 AM Don't blame me... I voted "no"... But let's get real here... Who paid for all those ads??? (None your business, Boberdz...) See??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: katlaughing Date: 09 May 12 - 10:57 AM It will be interesting to see what happens when an unmarried hetero couple runs afoul of this new law...property rights, child custody, domestic violence, etc. The idjits don't seem to realise this is a law against them, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 09 May 12 - 10:57 AM Akenaton and others: "a minority sexual behaviour, which has proved to be damaging to the health of many who practice it disgusting, loathsome, shamefully wicked and vile people" Says it all about the posters, doesn't it?" This post, from Will, is an absolute disgrace......is he trying to say that I and others are "disgusting, loathsome, shamefully wicked and vile, or is he implying that I and others, think homosexuals are "disgusting,loathsome, shamefully wicked and vile people?" In either case he is totally wrong, I do not consider myself or homosexuals "disgusting,loathsome, shamefully wicked or vile". In fact, I would find it difficults to apply such a judgement to any sector of society. I, like your president and a large section of society am not in favour of "Gay Marriage", for reasons I have given on other threads. Our opinions are as valid as any given as pro "gay Marriage", perhaps more valid, as the pro "Gay Marriage" argument seems to consist of an "equality" agenda, promoted in a society which is corrupt and inequitable from top to bottom. The real problem is that a sexual minority(that is how one defines "homosexual")are in a position through the entertainment and information media, to promote their lifestyle as safe, healthy and normal, when in fact it carries with it extreme health issues. Will's post is a deliberate distortion of my position. It also constitutes a personal attack, no matter how it is viewed and should be removed...IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 May 12 - 11:11 AM "Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 09 May 12 - 11:40 AM People don't undertstand the ins and outs of these amendments/laws... They get led to the voting booth with the most simplistic ads imaginable and vote agaoinst their own best interests... In Charlotte we were bombarded by these ads and every time one came on all I could do is think "These ads are aimed at morons"... But morons vote... The one I was behind in line to vote yesterday was dumber than a box of creek rocks and the poling people had to all but vote fir her... She was seriously challenged just giving her name and address??? But in her hand was a sample Republican ballot so all she had to do was color inside the lines in the booth... We need to get $$$ the heck outta politics and force people to actually learn about candidates and issues... As I have suggested in the past, everyone should have the right to vote but only the ones where the voter can identify the 3 branches of government, the name of the president and the name of one of their 2 senators should be counted... I'll even make it easier by making it multiple choice... ************************SAMPLE QUESTION************************** The 3 branches of government are A. the Executive Branch B. the NASCAR Branch C. the Legislative Branch D. the Judicial Branch E. the Walmart Branch ****************************************************************** I mean, really... Tom Jefferson said democracy was dependent on an informed electorate... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Will Fly Date: 09 May 12 - 11:42 AM Akenaton - if you re-read my original post you'll see quite clearly that my italics are direct quotes from other posters - including you - not descriptions of those posters. Nonetheless, if you really believe that the lifestyle of my next-door neighbours and friends - and other gay couples I have known - carries extreme health issues, then you are indeed illogical and prejudiced in my view. You're ascribing the lifestyle of some people in the gay community to all people in the gay community - merely to assert that "gay marriage" or a civil partnership ceremony is which a legal equivalent is "not about love". Your words. I firmly believe that gay people can't help the sexual orientation that they are born with. It's not a "disease". It can't be "cured". It's not an "aberration". It's existed for thousands of years in different cultures. To try and stigmatise it in particular is illogical. If you're going to fulminate about sexually transmitted diseases and the behaviour that causes it, then there's a whole barrel of stuff for you to fulminate about - chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes and others. All transmitted by many different sections of society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 09 May 12 - 12:02 PM What has proven to be "damaging to the health of many who practice it" is not homosexual sex, but sex with multiple partners. 100% monogamous gays and 100% monogamous heterosexuals have exactly the same chances of experiencing sex-related health problems. None. So, if marriage promotes monogamy which, in turn, advances the cause of sexual health, why would one wish to deny it to anyone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Will Fly Date: 09 May 12 - 12:04 PM Exactly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bill D Date: 09 May 12 - 12:06 PM EVERYONE should read...and/or listen to... the statement by The Rev. Dr. William J. Barber on the issue. He makes the point that most people are answering the wrong question with their vote...even those who vote FOR marriage equality. Many of the votes ... on various issues... all over the country these days are as Dr. Barber says: (In case you can't be bothered to read it all.) **"A vote on the same sex marriage amendment has nothing to do with your personal opinion on same sex marriage but everything to do with whether or not you believe discrimination should be codified and legalized constitutionally.** Make no mistake... the law, as passed IS discrimination! Someone else being married has NO effect on you or what YOU do. If you meet two men, and have occasion to speak to them, and enjoy the conversation... and later find out they were *gasp* married! NOTHING CHANGES! No one is forcing YOU to do anything. Marriage equality simply makes life happier for MORE citizens, and if YOU feel your life is somehow diminished by THEIR enjoying the same rights YOU have, you need to examine very carefully what 'rights' means........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 May 12 - 12:23 PM If Ake fulminates does that mean he is a brown powder that explodes when trodden on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,999 Date: 09 May 12 - 12:26 PM "Someone else being married has NO effect on you or what YOU do." I disagree on this point alone. Insofar as it affects tax structures it does indeed affect *me*, whoever that me may be. However, I'm being picky because the vastly rich who seem to have no conscience at all could more than make up for any change in taxes caused by homosexuals having legally sanctioned marriages by paying taxes equitably. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 09 May 12 - 12:26 PM Then let us tread on him immediately! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bill D Date: 09 May 12 - 12:40 PM BTW... I believe that Ake is incensed at public ads on buses and the like IN THE UK which he calls "promoting" homosexuality. One can argue whether they do 'promote', or merely are demands to be left alone. I personally doubt that such ads, whatever one thinks of them, would induce anyone to become gay, just as quoting 'health statistics' is not likely to cause anyone to NOT be gay. Those who ARE gay have certainly seen the warnings about proper precautions. As I told him, I have not seen any such ads here in the US. (I live in the Greater Washington DC metro area, where there are many, many gay & lesbian citizens living in relative harmony. There are always folks who condemn the lifestyle of others, but at least where I live there seems to be a general truce on the matter.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 May 12 - 12:48 PM There was this guy, who used to 'make love' to his mattress, for years. No diseases, no arguments, no abuse to the kids......and STILL he wasn't insistent on calling it 'marriage', nor marrying it!! Just a thought................ GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 09 May 12 - 01:12 PM Once again, Andy Borowitz... May 9, 2012 North Carolina Weighs Ban on Electricity, Soap Amendment One Supporters Push New Law NORTH CAROLINA (The Borowitz Report) – Flush with victory from yesterday's statewide vote, supporters of North Carolina's Amendment One today moved forward with a bold proposal to ban electricity and soap. Cal Pinckton, a leading proponent of Amendment One who has helped craft the new law, says the principles behind it are simple: "If the Bible doesn't mention something, it's against the law, and the Bible makes no mention of either soap or electricity." He adds that North Carolina will "still have plenty of stuff that the Bible does mention, like boils and locusts." While some critics of the proposed law said that it could be damaging to North Carolina's economy since it would drive away fanciers of soap and electricity, Mr. Pinckton sees it differently. "I think we'll see a huge boom in tourism," he says. "North Carolina is on its way to becoming one great big old timey theme park, like Colonial Williamsburg." But Mr. Pinckton is careful to emphasize that under the proposed law, there would be certain situations in which the use of electricity would be permitted: "You could still use electricity for things that are explicitly mandated by the Bible, like transvaginal ultrasounds." Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: BrendanB Date: 09 May 12 - 01:35 PM Thank you Will Fly for expressing my views with greater fluency than I could (I assume that the post from which came the second italicised line in your first post has been deleted-quite rightly). And thank you Bill D for the clear and lucid explanation of what the vote meant. Why do some people appear to delight in recycling bigoted misinformation about others? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 May 12 - 02:09 PM As some already have surmised, the constitutional amendment may affect contracts between same-sex partners. I believe that this is unconstitutional, if that is what the amendment says. I have not read the text of the amendment, so don't know. The amendment, of course, ignores the findings of genetics, and is scientifically nonsensical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Will Fly Date: 09 May 12 - 02:17 PM Thank you, Brendan, for pointing out that one of the posts I quoted - and a very obnoxious one at that - had been deleted. If Ake hadn't seen that obnoxious post (not by him), then he indeed had some reason to be angry - and that wasn't my intention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 09 May 12 - 02:27 PM Soap and electricity??? How they gonna listen to Rush Limbaugh without electricity??? As for soap??? Folks 'round these parts ain't heard of it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: gnu Date: 09 May 12 - 02:50 PM Sickening! Regarding same sex marriage for health benefits, if tax reduction or whatever seems to be a problem, should it not also apply to "normal" marriages? If so, I would assume there should be inspectors that visit these couples regularly to observe them engaged in coitus (I assume this is the only legal form of sexual relations in the backwoods of NC) for verification of being "legally married", what's the pay? I've become interested in becoming a snowbird and such a position, albeit only for part of the year, could help a lot with my finances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: gnu Date: 09 May 12 - 02:53 PM Of course, depending on the workload, I might apply for citizenship in the land of opportunity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 09 May 12 - 03:19 PM Well, this should be interesting. NPR reports that President Obama has just, er, "come out" for legalized same-sex marriage. Let the bashing begin! Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: gnu Date: 09 May 12 - 03:57 PM Yeah... all this tolerance is just gonna lead to a big fight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: KB in Iowa Date: 09 May 12 - 04:41 PM I can tell you from experience that NC just dodged a bullet. Here in Iowa same sex marriage has been legal for three years. The recruitment to the "Lifestyle" never stops. I see them wandering around town looking for unwitting victims. They are easy to spot. It is always two young males dressed in similar outfits, a clean white shirt with a dark tie and dark slacks. When they knock on my door I pretend I am not home. They won't draw me into their unholy circle, no sir. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Amos Date: 09 May 12 - 04:48 PM I think those are Jehovah's Witnesses, KB, not gays. What is the MATTER with these folks? WHAT DO THEY THINK LIFE IS ABOUT? The evolution of better modes of hatred and imagined superiority over others? For Crissakes, people! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: KB in Iowa Date: 09 May 12 - 04:55 PM I think those are Jehovah's Witnesses, KB, not gays. That's the problem with sarcasm on the internet. I was hoping it would read true but be just goofy enough... Truth be told life goes on here the same as before. The only difference is that some people are married who would otherwise not be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: gnu Date: 09 May 12 - 04:59 PM KB... made me laugh. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don Firth Date: 09 May 12 - 05:07 PM I am acquainted with a number of gay couples. As to the canard about gay men abusing adopted kids, one of the couples I know have adopted two boys, at different times, from a Chinese orphanage. I have watched these kids grow up. And there is obviously NOTHING untoward in their upbringing. They refer to one of the men as "Daddy" and the other as "Papa." They have plenty of contact with girls and women, because the sisters and women friends of the two men often take care of them, and both in school and at the church they attend they have plenty of contact with girls and women. One of the boys is an acolyte in the church. The other is still too young, but he attends my wife's Sunday school class. Incidentally, the two men were married—whether the state recognized it or not—in this church. These two lads are going to have—and are having—a far better life than they would have had if they had just been left in the Chinese orphanage. And I know another gay couple who have four children. They hadn't quite planned it that way, but it's the kind of surprise that same sex couples sometimes get! One of the men had a child (in vitro fertilization) with a surrogate mother. After the child, a boy, was born, the other man also intended to have a child by the same method with the same woman. They wanted to use the services of the same surrogate mother so that the children would be at least half-siblings. But the vagaries of biology altered the plan a bit. Surprise surprise!! She gave birth to triplets!!! All boys. It's a real snort when these two guys come to church with their horde of kids in tow. Believe me, the young 'uns have lots of women doting on them. Between female relatives and friends, the boys have plenty of exposure to the fair sex. So—what's the problem!?? #### Well, North Carolina . . . welcome to the Dark Ages! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 May 12 - 05:25 PM ""I'll even make it easier by making it multiple choice... ************************SAMPLE QUESTION************************** The 3 branches of government are A. the Executive Branch B. the NASCAR Branch C. the Legislative Branch D. the Judicial Branch E. the Walmart Branch"" And many of them'll still get it wrong Bobert. "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits" Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: BrendanB Date: 09 May 12 - 05:43 PM My wife was engaged to a gay guy before I knew her (it just suited both of them at the time). That was before the word gay was in common usage. When we got together I was adopted by her gay friends and in consequence met a whole group of people who I might never have found otherwise. I'm not going to say how wonderful they were, they were just people - some were funny, some were hard going, some were .....whatever straight people are they were the same. This ludicrous preoccupation with people's sexuality seems to me to be some kind of horrible, medieval prurience which has no place in the minds or attitudes of rational people. If you need to get upset about other people's sexual behaviour start hassling your political representative about the ridiculously low rate of convictions for rape, that is something to be concerned about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 09 May 12 - 08:11 PM "We'll have a yabadabadoo time, Adabadoo time, We'll have a gay old time." So sayeth Fred Flintstone. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,David E. Date: 09 May 12 - 08:59 PM I know that gay marriage is legal in many states but just out of curiousity and NOT LOOKING FOR TROUBLE!!!, is there any state where the residents of that state have actually voted FOR gay marriage? Seems like everywhere I can think of it's been a court decision, not resident decision. Just wondering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 09 May 12 - 09:17 PM Maybe we a national referendum with no advertisements allowed... The problem here isn't about what people want... The problem is the BIG LIES that the extreme right can afford to throw against gay rights... These are the angry, rich old white guys... And they buy up all the slots and so all we hear/see is right winged twisting of reality into a pretzel and then we wonder why if the majority of Americans are for gay marriage that we get these election results which are so out of touch with what Americans say they want... What we need is a constitutional amendment overturning Citizen United and getting the $$$ out of our elections... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 May 12 - 09:19 PM David, you are assuming this is a democracy. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,David E. Date: 09 May 12 - 10:16 PM Well I was just wondering because I couldn't find the answer anywhere. I figured people here would have an answer. Whether I agree or disagree it concerns me when courts overturn the will of the voting public. That has happened, regarding this issue, at least twice in California. In time, gay marriage will be legal everywhere and hopefully because the majority of people say so and not because of a court ruling. But right now it's only a big deal to educated white liberals, to everyone else... not so much. (Just my opinion, please don't stone me.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bill D Date: 09 May 12 - 10:26 PM "Seems like everywhere I can think of it's been a court decision, not resident decision" And it should NOT be an item which can be decided by popular vote! Basic human rights should simply be affirmed by legal means, as in the Constitution. Where would the Civil Rights movement be if it had been put to 'popular vote' in the South? Or the right of women to vote? What is possible, and what is often done by conservatives, is to drum up opposition using distortions, lies and scare tactics...then tying votes on 'rights' to other issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Janie Date: 09 May 12 - 11:12 PM Thanks, Bill D. Excellent point. North Carolina had already passed a law prohibiting gay marriage. Laws can be challenged in court. Constitutional amendments have to be repealed by the voters. The constitutional prohibition against civil unions and domestic partnerships that is included in the amendment applies equally to heterosexual couples. 31 states now have constitutional amendments banning same sex unions, although there is considerable variation in the extent of the ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type There was significant variation in the vote in North Carolina by regional demographics. Rural vs. urban, areas with large numbers of professionals, higher incomes, and higher education tended to vote against the amendment in large numbers. Some of those people are Christian and also evangelical. However, the pastors of most of the churches they attend probably did not speak out and enjoin their congregations to vote against the amendment as did many conservative pastors. I haven't been attending my own, generally liberal Episcopal church regularly for awhile, but am pretty sure if I had, I would not have heard my Rector address the issue from the pulpit. My church leadership has been remarkably silent, publicly, in articulating a position on the controversy and chism within the Episcopal church regarding our gay bishop, other than to make clear his support for staying within the American Episcopal union. I can not but help think of the central role leaders in African American churches played in the American civil rights movement, and to a certain extent continue to play. Conservative pastors today took a page from that book of lessons and wield it very effectively. This is a civil rights issue in every way. Generally speaking, neither the liberal churches nor the African-American churches that continue to advocate for civil rights for African-Americans have had the courage to take a stand on this issue, or fail to recognize it as a civil rights issue. It is a difficult task for a society to balance the benefits of acceptance and diversity with the benefits of cohesiveness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 09 May 12 - 11:45 PM is there any state where the residents of that state have actually voted FOR gay marriage? Seems like everywhere I can think of it's been a court decision, not resident decision. The Washington State legislature passed a gay marriage law. Sort of like the people voting on it. Since our local bigots have fielded a petition to revoke the law it won't be allowed to go into effect until after the elections this fall. So we will be voting on it. But all of that is beside the point: You don't get to vote on my civil rights. Or you shouldn't, to be more accurate. Apparently in the Land of the Free you get to vote on other people's sex lives. There is nowhere this should be decided except in the courts. It's a Constitutional issue, not a school levy. Interestingly, one of the big bigots here is the Seattle Catholic Cardinal, the same one who is "investigating" the American nuns for the Vatican. He is encouraging all Catholic churches to put the anti-gay initiative petitions out for people to sign when they come to Mass. Parishioners can get their love and their hate with one stop shopping. Thankfully, three local churches, including the big cathedral, refused to engage in his hateful, sexually perverted politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 May 12 - 11:56 PM I've heard good things about that Seattle cathedral. I'm glad to hear they are still fighting the good fight. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: ChanteyLass Date: 10 May 12 - 12:16 AM Thanks, saulgoldie, for your post, "Well, this should be interesting. NPR reports that President Obama has just, er, "come out" for legalized same-sex marriage." Soon after Obama decided to reveal this opinion, Sen. Jack Reed of RI finally did, too. Until now, he has been silent on his position. Coincidence? I don't think so, but now is better than never. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Mike in Brunswick Date: 10 May 12 - 12:39 AM Voter turnout in North Carolina was around 34 percent. The amendment passed by a 61% to 39% margin. So about 20% of the electorate voted to deny civil rights to gays. Here in Maine, we've been on all sides of this issue in recent years. The legislature passed a law legalizing gay marriage. Unfortunately, it was subsequently overturned by a citizen's referendum. Now, as Sinsull says, we'll get a chance to vote on it again in November. But, as North Carolina proved, turnout is everything. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 10 May 12 - 05:18 AM Apologies Will, i wasn't aware that a subsequent post had been deleted. I still see no need to bracket what I see as fair comment, with the sentiments expressed in the deleted post. I know many couples who "love" one another and have no desire to marry, so marriage is not a prerequisite for a loving relationship. In the UK, Civil Unions provide all the benefits and legal protections of marriage, yet homosexual activists continually push for "the word",though their union is different in many ways from a hetero one. I keep coming back to the "liberal" equality agenda which served a useful purpose in fighting real discrimination in the past, but is now a joke and has been twisted into a tool of manipulation for any minority, sexual or otherwise to impose their will on the silent majority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Will Fly Date: 10 May 12 - 07:10 AM If I ever was to marry again - highly unlikely as it is - it would be a civil ceremony in a Registry Office. The ceremony would, in essence, be very similar to the ceremony for my friends I attended last Friday. I wouldn't actually don't care whether it was deemed a Civil Ceremony or a Marriage - the social and legal ramifications would be the same. The basis for my disregard for such a label is that I'm not, and never have been, religious in any sense of the word - a mindset I've had since I was old enough to reason - so the religious overtones of the word marriage hold no meaning for me. So, what's in a word? I suppose, in that sense, I'm equally amused by gay couples who feel the need for the word "marriage" - and by those who insist "marriage" shouldn't be used! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Will Fly Date: 10 May 12 - 07:20 AM "wouldn't actually don't care" - should read "wouldn't care" - Doh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 10 May 12 - 07:58 AM I'm not religious either Will, so that aspect doesn't bother me. In our area (West Scotland)"marriage" is widely perceived as a foundation for the building of a family structure and not so much a declaration of "love" Maybe we are closer to nature here, and treat life a little more seriously than the Mudcat "liberals" :0) As I said in another thread, many young couples are happy to live together unmarried, 'till the children come along, then the foundation of marriage seems much more important. Many of my friends and neighbours find the "institution" devalued by opening it to what they see as a rather odd sexual minority. However it is encouraging that you and I can discuss this issue in calm and adult manner....Ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 May 12 - 08:18 AM That's more than somewhat illogical, ake, in that the vast majority of animals are not monogamous and do not form permanent liaisons (there are exceptions) so if one were to take the set of all mammals rather than the set of all human beings it would be the unnatural preferences of a tiny minority that you support. By way of contrast, throughout most of the world, within the set of human relationships, marriage is statistically rarely anything other than the formal subjugation of a woman to a man. It is only recently that the promise to obey became an option in CofE marriage. I find it rather dispiriting that your discriminatory views are tolerated, even to the extent that they are. The reason that your views are bracketed with those of the revolting and deleted guest (I have a note of some of them) is that those views of yours were (indeed have frequently seemed to be) similar and on this occasion appeared adjacent and seemed to give active support to those of the deleted guest to the extent that I for one thought that you were actively allying yourself with him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 May 12 - 08:31 AM PS - chance googling led me to some information on Akhenaten, the father of Nefertiti, and his life style choices seem to have been the very stuff of which Akenaton might have disapproved - being possibly bisexual and almost certainly having fathered Nefertiti by an incestuous relationship, also trying to introduce monotheism to supplant previous polythesim and the agricultural changes during whose reign may perhaps have been the melting pot that lead to the development of the first flu virus and a deadly pandemic. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 10 May 12 - 08:31 AM Well, I guess the silver lining is in the poll numbers and not election results... The country has come a long way in a relatively short time and like other moral/pro-human movements we will overcome the bigotry here, as well... What we are unfortunately seeing today is the last stand for the "AAWWM" (aging, angry, wealthy white man)... With the recent horrible Supreme Court ruling in "Citizens United" the AAWWM is taking his last shot with his $$$ to turn back the clock... Here in Charlotte we were inundated with "Yes" ads... I mean, someone dropped some $eriuo$ ca$h on this campaign... Whose money was that??? The 5 $upreme Clown$ say it's none of our business to know... We just need to ride this out... Bigotry dies hard... But it will die in terms of public policy one day... Just not today... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 May 12 - 09:04 AM I'm willing to bet, that the BEST thing, at that ceremony, WAS the music, and you playing it! It, otherwise, was just a gig. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Wesley S Date: 10 May 12 - 09:56 AM I loved the cartoon I was sent this morning. It said - "North Carolina - where you can marry your cousin, just not your gay cousin." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: meself Date: 10 May 12 - 10:25 AM I think we should approach this the other way: take the word 'marriage' out of the law, and replace it with something like 'civil union' - then you can call your own relationship whatever you want. Other than looking at how the benefits and assets get divided, it's not the state's business. As for the religious angle - I'm not sure how the Church got control of the marriage business, but I suspect it was something like this: some cardinal realized that if the church were able to get a few cents, pence, or drachma for every new marriage in Europe, he would within the year be able to finance the construction of a villa for his latest whore - so the word went out: be married by clergy or be burned at the stake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 10 May 12 - 10:46 AM I, like your president and a large section of society am not in favour of "Gay Marriage", for reasons I have given on other threads Alas, only today Mr Obama has given a speech in full favour of equal marriage rights. This is his opinion and probably will have no political teeth though, at this particular time, it could be politically damaging to him. Well done him for having the guts to "come out" on the issue once and for all. The sooner this whole "gay" marriage wordage is dropped and it simply be called equal marriage (or just marriage) the better. The actual inequality and discrimination of the whole debate stands out a mile for putting the word "gay" in there with the title in the first place. Obama's endorsement of equal marriage Once again Mr Dylan's prophetic words are sounding out... The times they are a changing'. Indeed they are! mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 May 12 - 11:00 AM ""The problem is the BIG LIES that the extreme right can afford to throw against gay rights... These are the angry, rich old white guys"" Half of whom are probably closet gays, envious of anyone who gets what they didn't have the guts to handle. ""If I ever was to marry again - highly unlikely as it is - it would be a civil ceremony in a Registry Office."" The point, Will, is that your union with a woman, whether you care about the words or not, will be a wedding leading to a marriage. A same sex civil ceremony denies the participants the same right that you would happily discard. The discrimination is in the fact that they don't get the choice. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Wesley S Date: 10 May 12 - 11:05 AM I'd like to point out that since yesterday the only thing that has changed is one mans opinion. No new laws have been written, no amendments ratified, no executive orders handed out and no court cases decided. Even though he's the President it's just one mans opinion. Gays are still in the same place they were last week. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 May 12 - 11:18 AM "The problem is the BIG LIES that the extreme right can afford to throw against gay rights... These are the angry, rich old white guys". The 'extreme left' has their 'big lies' as well....it's just harder to see them when you live within their confines...just like 'the right'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bill D Date: 10 May 12 - 11:27 AM meself said: "I'm not sure how the Church got control of the marriage business..." In the 800s, Charlemagne had no restrictions...he had 5 'wives' and at least that many mistresses...and about 20 children. There were no particular restrictions, and the rich & powerful collected as many women as they pleased. As society climbed out of the 'dark ages', and property was defined in a more 'orderly' manner, ownership, succession, power...etc. needed to be decided clearly... and the church was about the only institution with any organized ways to do this. Controlling 'marriage' was an obvious path to controlling other things. After all, all they had to do was SAY that they spoke for God in defining who is 'married'...(Henry VIII spent half his life scheming how to 'get around' church rules so he could change wives.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Amos Date: 10 May 12 - 12:18 PM David: People do not have to vote FOR rights. The way oour society is notionally built, all rights come naturally from the people and are seconded to the States and the Federal government by acts of assignment. That's the theory, anyway. Some folks fall into an upside-down blind spot where they think it works the other way around: that only those rights assigned to citizens by the government are valid. But those folks are nach'l born Fascists, not true Americans. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Greg F. Date: 10 May 12 - 01:06 PM The 'extreme left' has their 'big lies' as well. What is your definition of the 'extreme left'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Stim Date: 10 May 12 - 01:16 PM Amos is right, people don't have to vote to grant civil rights--what tends to happen is that referendums on Same-Sex Marriage are initiated by people who oppose various sorts of enabling actions by state and local governments. Following what Janie says about African-American clergy--in D.C., which is one of the most politically progressive places in the U.S., the coalition of Progressive Liberals and African-American clergy was ripped apart on the issue of Same-Sex marriage, because not withstanding the extreme support Civil Rights issues have always had in the Liberal community, the African-American religious community is reactionary when it comes to Gay Rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 May 12 - 01:29 PM Greg F: "What is your definition of the 'extreme left'?" What's the matter?..Can't see the forest 'cuz of the trees?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 10 May 12 - 02:27 PM You are, of course, quite right Wesley. It is only one man's opinion but he happens to the President of what is called the most powerful country in the world: Land of the Free. All changes are made by just one man, or woman, making a stand and being counted. Personally I think highly of all those who have gone before and stood up when it was VERY dangerous to do so. Truth is it is still dangerous for many gay people to stand up - and their straight supporters - in many countries on this planet. Some countries still have the death penalty for being gay and there are no shortage of homophobes and bigots only too willing to murder gay people in any case. Nevrtheless it was brave politically of Mr Obama to stand up and be counted. He did not have to. I doubt the gay vote alone would get him a second term. But saying what he believes in puts him on collision course I dare say with many dissenters. Whoever would have thought, within my lifetime even, that America would have a Black President? Who would have thought that blacks may marry whites and that too be recognised? Who would have thought so many human rights would could into being in such a shgort space of time that would allow such things? All these changes started with one person at one time starting to make a change and others joining in with them to bring it about. All that is needed for evil to survive is that good men do nothing. The rights that gay folk now seek are akin to the struggle of many other minorities that have gone before them. The colour of a person's skin, their disability, their gender, their sexuality: all have been victim to discrimination and hate. All those folks deserve the same rights as the majority around them So whilst I agree with your statement Wesley I hold great hope that such a man's decision will have far greater repurcussions than any of us could imagine best wishes everyone mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Amos Date: 10 May 12 - 02:32 PM There's never a wrong time to do the right thing. I'm proud of him for making his position crystal clear. Back in the Fifties I never thought I'd see the day when a black President would espouse gay marriage, but I am surely glad to see it here now. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 10 May 12 - 03:29 PM Dont know where you have been Googling Richard, but try to use a site with some credence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 May 12 - 03:52 PM Land of the free? Why is it that only Americans say that? And HOW can it be said on this thread at all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 10 May 12 - 04:16 PM Richard: I am not American. I used the term "Land of the Free" in a way to emphasise that, for so many Americans, they are not free at all. However, they are heading there, as are so many countries, by every human right that they give to all. I look forward to a day when America truly is a land of the free and, in the meantime, accept that their President was and is willing to make a statement on the world stage that perhaps helps those freedoms get a little closer. His words have actually leant more weight to a cause that can say "Land of the free" today with less discrimination than it could yesterday. People will be more exposed to the arguments and discussions than they were a week ago. Some will be educated. Some will change their minds for the better. Have you ever noticed how such changes tend to create better citizens and a more open minded society. It does not create more bigotry and hate: it quells a great amount of misinformation. Soon the boot will be on the other foot hopefully. In this I can say I am proud that the UK is actually ahead in its fight to give human rights to one and all and that for our 'special relationship' with the US to mean anything, perhaps our leaders can now sing off the same hymn sheet to bring about more rapid, and fair, change in a global context. These rights affect everyone and I think what opponents to human rights - rights they may have and take for granted - overlook is this. Once we get rid of all the minorities, if they had their way, who would they turn on then? What do these people think about if one of their family is born coloured, disabled, gay, transsexual, female opposed to male, brown eyes, red hair... the list is endless. This is a global problem. The Americans are not responsible for this one. However, so many of them, and now their President, have took a stand for freedom of rights we should not lose sight of the good that has gone on here :-) Best wishes as ever mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don Firth Date: 10 May 12 - 04:35 PM "What is [GfS's] definition of the 'extreme left'?" Anything to the left of the emperor Caligula. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 10 May 12 - 04:47 PM Thanks , mauvepink, for your thoughtful posts... Yes, the times they are a'changin'... We just need to get thru this last line of Neanderthals and with their $$$ it's going to be a slobber-knocker of a fight... They kinda have the game rigged right now in their favor and they are busy trying to set up as many roadblocks as they can so once we get by them we'll have even more work undoing the damage they are inflicting on out country... That's the other part of Dyaln's song that is quite relevant: Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it's a ragin' It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a'changin' Seems that the $$$ is pushing about as hard as it can to "take the country back" to another time... As a student of American history, me thinks that the early 1820's is about where these folks would be happiest... Just so long as they could take their $$$, their McMansions and their toys with them... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Stim Date: 10 May 12 - 04:57 PM Richard: We Americans get to use "Land of the Free", (often with some measure of irony) because it is a phrase from our National Anthem. Lines from our National anthem are also used as titles for films and books (these also with some measure of irony). "At the Twilight's Last Gleaming" is a particular favorite. Here's the first verse. No one knows the rest of it. Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bill D Date: 10 May 12 - 07:22 PM "Land of the Free" is pretty much an 'official' position. Getting all groups and individuals to agree on how to define 'free' and determine how & when to implement this 'freedom' thing is rather like herding cats. So far, we still are able to express our varied opinions on the matter, as opposed to certain countries in the news recently where expressing the wrong opinion can get you arrested. We currently face attempts by one party to curtail 'free' voting rights. The struggle to live up to our claimed virtues never ends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,kendall Date: 10 May 12 - 07:56 PM According to Jon Stewart, originally, marriage was not about love. It was about property and inheritance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 May 12 - 09:22 PM Kendall: "According to Jon Stewart, originally, marriage was not about love. It was about property and inheritance." Note the first verse............and the rest seems 'not so dated'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bill D Date: 10 May 12 - 10:37 PM According to Jon Stewart?? According to ME yesterday, about 20 posts above. (Well, I got MY information from Dr. J. Kelly Sowards in about 1958.... maybe Jon Stewart took a history course from him, too... *grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Janie Date: 10 May 12 - 11:51 PM Ummm...the institution of marriage existed long before monotheism, folks, and in some form or other appears to have existed in every human culture. Whether the cultural institution that we generally call marriage is a dyad or polygamous, the formal union, witnessed and acknowledged as a formal, contractual union by the community results in very real institutional obligations between the formally united parties, and also between the united parties and the community. Some such formal, contractual arrangement appears to exist, and to have existed in every human culture. While the shape of institutions may vary considerably across human cultures, there are certain institutions that are universal to human cultures, and marriage is one of them. Richard, we are certainly animals. Through the process of natural selection we have evolved as social animals and that social attribute has contributed mightily to our survival as a species thus far. Survival of a species depends on evolutionarily successful strategies for producing a next generation and providing the conditions for a sufficient number of that next generation to do the same, and there is no doubt that the institutions of human groups, including marriage, have and continue,to date, to accomplish that imperative. All social institutions, including those of other social species, are best understood as thus far successful adaptations that allow the continuation of the species. Successful species continue to adapt and evolve. For social species, there will always be a dynamic tension in play between the individual and/or smaller social units, and the larger social unit. All species of animals whose survival and successful adaption thus far has been promoted by a combination of in-species competition and cooperation experience this constant dynamic tension. The same is true regarding diversity and cohesion. Both are necessary and also in constant tension. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Neil D Date: 11 May 12 - 12:15 AM To reiterate the point being made by Amos and Stim, perhaps others, have made, civil rights should not be voted on. Putting minority rights to a popular vote turns majority rules into mob rule. The statement that "All men are created equal" is quite literally, the the first and founding concept of American democracy, enshrined in the two foundational documents of our republic. Passing laws that infringe on that self-evident truth, including laws prohibiting gay marriage, is by nature, unconstitutional. I call it Un-American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 May 12 - 12:20 AM You couldn't make up sillier stuff than this.....Obama comes out about the homosexual thing..after the White House says they were 'shotgunned' into HAVING to do it, because of comments by Biden, so he does...and says he still believes is 'States Rights' deciding it...and North Carolina just voted to ban homosexual 'marriage' by a 22% margin....and the Democratic Convention is slated to held in North Carolina!!!...and in the meantime, the Democrats are bitching about Romney who is accused of being a 'flip flopper'..when Obama has made comments both ways, but for him it's called 'evolving'...This is hilarious...and going to be a real trip watching the Democrats finagle there way out of this one!!! ..and the parrots are going to be flapping whatever bullshit, they think is going to work...and will call anyone who sees through the bullshit, and call them a 'Tea Bagger', extreme right wing bigot!!! Laughing my ass off!!..... ..and THESE are the fucknut Keystone Cops you want running your health care???????????????????????? Quick, 'Media Matters' will come up with something inane, and fictional to explain and excuse it all away....just WATCH!!! Fucking hilarious! No, I'm not a right winger, but just not so fucking stupid! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 11 May 12 - 01:00 AM Here's a question for you, Michael: I would be happy to have my family, friends, and fans read anything I've written on Mudcat. Can you say the same? You're not hiding behind anonymity anymore. You might want to start learning to behave like a civilized human being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 May 12 - 01:16 AM No, I don't mind if they read it...actually there are quite a few people I know who just love reading the exchanges, but they don't post, just read....but they are fairly intelligent people, who've got it clocked. A LOT of your posts, are the ones that I'd be embarrassed of letting people read; Some are just plain stupid, because some of you take holding the 'party line' to new heights of escaping common sense!!! ..and what's even funnier, some of you are SOOOO serious about being so ridiculous!! ...not only that, 'some of you' start attacking, instead of 'discussing' differences, and even trying to get to the truths about anything. Come on, John, you can do better than that!....(I think)... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 May 12 - 05:45 AM I don't think I've seen any post from FFS that constitutes civilised debate, and precious few that constitute rational debate. I'd also point out that characterising the changing of a point of view as "flip-flopping" is a foolish macho posture. Rational thought evidence and discussion ought to lead to changes of view. Anyone whose views are not susceptible of being altered by such things is a fool or a bigot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 11 May 12 - 09:25 AM Neil D's point is what this is really all about... We shouldn't be voting to oppress anyone in America... Live and let live is an easy concept... Here in NC the Republican statehouse purposely scheduled this vote to be held in conjunction with a primary where only about half the number of voters participate as in general elections... This was not by coincidence... More election riggin'... Here's the deal... Less than 20% of the NC electorate voted for this amendment... Now that's the kind of democracy that Republicans love... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 11 May 12 - 10:43 AM Yes, we may as well have a vote on whether or not redheads should be able to buy gasoline. The truth is that I have followed the logic and ethics on every stance against gay marriage that I've heard and they all add up to one thing: "I don't like it so it ought to be illegal!" To anyone who thinks people ought to be discriminated against in this way, I offer a challenge: a moderated debate on the subject, where the logic has to add up, personal attacks get you kicked out, and all facts come from mainstream newspapers. Any takers? GfS, you seem to think your mind works better than mine, all evidence to the contrary. Do you think you can take me on in a real debate, one where you have to act like an adult and support your statements? I'm tired of you rudely claiming superior discernment in near-illiterate terms. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 11 May 12 - 10:43 AM I'm from Massachusetts, the first of the US states to legalize same-sex marriage. There have been many gay and lesbian marriages in my state since then, and despite all the dire predictions, it hasn't done me or anyone else a bit of harm, nor has it threatened my (heterosexual) marriage in any way. Someone else quoted Jon Stewart; I always liked another of his quotes on this issue: "I was against gay marriage, until I learned that it wouldn't be compulsory." Why anyone wants to restrict anyone else's right to enter into a marriage involving two consenting adults is beyond me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: KB in Iowa Date: 11 May 12 - 10:50 AM A LOT of your posts, are the ones that I'd be embarrassed of letting people read; Some are just plain stupid ...not only that, 'some of you' start attacking, instead of 'discussing' differences GfS Gotta love GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: kendall Date: 11 May 12 - 11:10 AM This will probably go to the Supreme Court, and when it does, I hope the justices glance up at the portal where it says, "Equal Justice under the law." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST Date: 11 May 12 - 11:13 AM Richard Bridge: "I'd also point out that characterising the changing of a point of view as "flip-flopping" is a foolish macho posture. Rational thought evidence and discussion ought to lead to changes of view. Anyone whose views are not susceptible of being altered by such things is a fool or a bigot." GfS: "....and in the meantime, the Democrats are bitching about Romney who is accused of being a 'flip flopper'..when Obama has made comments both ways, but for him it's called 'evolving'...This is hilarious...and going to be a real trip watching the Democrats finagle there way out of this one!!!" ...Like I said. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 11 May 12 - 11:53 AM Exactly, Whistle-Stop, nobody is in the least affected or harmed by people, of whatever sex, getting married. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Amos Date: 11 May 12 - 12:01 PM Eliza, it could not have been put more succinctly. Marriage is surely the first great "no harm, no foul" proposition. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 11 May 12 - 12:13 PM " Rational thought evidence and discussion ought to lead to changes of view. Anyone whose views are not susceptible of being altered by such things is a fool or a bigot." As far as I can see, the Pro Gay Marriage "liberals" have never put forward rational thought evidence or discussion, but rely on a threadbare "equality" agenda, exemplified by the posts of mauvepink and others here. In this society equality does not exist. While you lot engage in mental masturbation over the "rights" of a minute sexual minority, whose behaviour is producing over 70% of new aids infections, we are being systematically robbed by our respective governments. Pensions, savings and public services are being decimated, one in five and rising of our young people are without jobs, thrown on the scrapheap, life blighted before it has begun.......and you have the fucking audacity to get uptight over "marriage rights" for homosexuals. You know nothing about attaining equality, you live in some La-La Land inhabited by TV celebrities, popsingers and burt out politicians. You and your worn out "liberalism" do our children a huge disservice and make the battle against the forces of real evil...the corporate capitalists,the arms manufacturers, the global drug and insurance cartels, a thousand times harder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 May 12 - 12:25 PM Akenaton: "You and your worn out "liberalism" do our children a huge disservice and make the battle against the forces of real evil...the corporate capitalists,the arms manufacturers, the global drug and insurance cartels, a thousand times harder." A HUGE 'Amen' to that!!!! 'Straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel!' ...other than the FACT, that ANYTHING that eats away at the natural family unit, the so-called 'liberals' get right behind it! You'd think that our elected officials would consider the PEOPLE, as a 'special interest'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 11 May 12 - 01:01 PM Flip-flopping ain't a bad thing if one is moving toward become more tolerant and compassionate... Actually, flip-flopping is how intelligent people become wise... I understand Obama's struggle here... Black Christians tend to be conservative when it comes to gay marriage... As for Romney??? He has a much larger problem on his hands here with credibility here with his "I don't remember" stand on being involved with assaulting a gay classmate... Something as hateful as that isn't something that anyone could reasonably not remember... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 May 12 - 01:35 PM Bobert: "Flip-flopping ain't a bad thing if one is moving toward become more tolerant and compassionate... Actually, flip-flopping is how intelligent people become wise... I understand Obama's struggle here... As for Romney??? He has a much larger problem on his hands here with credibility here....." GfS: "....and in the meantime, the Democrats are bitching about Romney who is accused of being a 'flip flopper'..when Obama has made comments both ways, but for him it's called 'evolving'...This is hilarious...and going to be a real trip watching the Democrats finagle there way out of this one!!!" ...Like I said." GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don Firth Date: 11 May 12 - 01:47 PM GfinS, if you were to suddenly decide to LEARN something and express yourself in a manner that doesn't make you look like a half-witted, foul-mouthed barbarian, that would not be "flip-flopping," that would be a step in the right direction and possibly a glimmer of growing awareness. That is, if your intention is to actually try to say something intelligent and not just pee in the punchbowl. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don Firth Date: 11 May 12 - 01:59 PM And I note that Akenaton is still beating the "homosexuality spreads disease" hum-drum. One would think that if he were REALLY interested in curtailing the spread of HIV/AIDs, he would encourage homosexuals to form stable, monogamous relationships. Especially since it does not affect anyone else in any significant way. And "moral outrage" based on ignorance does not count as being "affected in any significant way." Hypocrisy reeks! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Amos Date: 11 May 12 - 01:59 PM YOUR ASSERTION ABOUT THE "NATURAL FAMILY" IS INTERESTING. In most cultures it takes a lot of strenuous control to keep these "natural families" together and make them the "natural" option. The United States has one of the highest divorce rates despite 200 years of devout Christian influence protecting the "natural" family from "unnatural" evil influences. Where do you get the idea that a highly refined cultural practice --monogamous formalized marriage with legal and cultural practices support it and a large commercial industry behind it--is actually natural? Go study bonobos. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 11 May 12 - 04:18 PM As far as I can see, the Pro Gay Marriage "liberals" have never put forward rational thought evidence or discussion, but rely on a threadbare "equality" agenda, exemplified by the posts of mauvepink and others here. Why do you insist on making this personal Akenaton? You bullied me off one thread some time back with your potty mouth and you seem to insist on putting my name in the frame on such discussions. You don't have a clue do you what this is about? I doubt you ever will. And I am not being personal when I say I actually pity you your mind and your obsession on the subject of homosexuality. I am being honest. Because this is not about being pro-gay, gay positive, or any such agenda as you would insist it is based on liberalism. I have said in many thread before where you have 'pointed out the error of my ways' with your supposed intellectual superiorty. If the only insult you can throw at me is "liberal or liberalist" then I will wear that tag with great pride. Am I allowed to mention pride without it upsetting you predispostion to attacke anything remoteley attached to being gay? This is not about marriage. It's not about HIV/AIDs, and it's not about the arguments about what causes homosexuality, whether it is genetic )which I believe it to be) or a mix of nature and nurture. This is, plainly, a human rights issue. It's about allowing all people to have the same rights as each other, no matter their minority or majority position within society. It's about outing those bigots and the haters who actually fear so much about themselves they have to diverta attention onto others. It's about allowing everyone to be seen in the same light, to be treated the same in law as all others, and to be able to access all the things that the majority of people can within and under the human rights banner. I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unnarmed opponent. It is very obvious you do not understand the issue here, and the principle of equality, or else you would drop this constant line you have. I know nothing about you with the exception of what I have seen issue from your mouth on here. You know nothing about me except that which you see here. I have heard people say some good things about you - once away from your 'pet' topic - and I can respect their views. I have no idea why you personalise your contributions. Attacking me and calling me names will not make the issue any less viable or important. If it makes you feel big to attack someone and mouth off at them then so be it. I keep revisiting BS because there are lots of good threads on here and decent people trying to have open discussion. Sadly, sir, your actions do you and your ilk a disservice in that, far from actually making a valid contribution to a thread, you try to belittle others who say anything different than your own deep rooted fear or hatred about something you constantly show you know nothing about. What do you actually fear? What is it to you if a gay person gets a right to be able to marry, shop in the same shop as you, raise children, be free from assault, drink out of the same glass you drink out of, etc? So call me names. Call me liberal. Think and call me whatever you want. You don't have a right to do that but you seem to think you do. I wonder how you would feel if you had your rights taken off you, or never given to you, because of your sexuality whatever it is? I will leave this thread once again. You win big man. As I say. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with any unnarmed opponent but I don't need to stick around for what will become the usual meltdown of what was a reasoned and decent thread with good intentions mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 11 May 12 - 04:29 PM Hmmmmmm??? Look at the states that have banned gay marriage... They also have the highest heterosexual divorce rates??? Tell us again about them "family values"... As for flip-flopin' Mitt... Hey, he has flip-flopped on just about everything in which he now says he believes and according to his campaign is going to shake the etch-a-scetch again before the election??? Go figure??? Fact is stranger than fiction... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 11 May 12 - 04:33 PM mauvepink, I heartily agree that this is in fact a Human Rights issue, and concerns equality and fair treatment of all. I also agree that certain people and one in particular have been abusive and offensive in their posts, instead of discussing things in an adult and civilised manner. As you do, I believe this vituperative attitude stems from fear and hatred. IMO, this type of contributor is not worth bothering with, as they are beneath contempt. For what my humble opinion is worth, I have found your comments and posts well expressed and interesting. I would have found them so even if I hadn't necessarily agreed with them (although I do, unreservedly!) Surley folk can have opposite viewpoints without viciously and offensively attacking posters. Let's just ignore such nastiness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 May 12 - 04:43 PM Agreed. A most cogent and dignified response, mp, on which congratulations. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 11 May 12 - 06:12 PM Please show me where I have attacked MP or any other poster personally. I have commented on MP's posted content, as it is a fine example of waffle and platitude, containing nothing of substance to add to the breadth of the debate. Each post can be reduced to the phrase....."its just not fair!" That is not a satisfactory argument. Eliza....you pronounce me "abusive and offensive"....and in the next line accuse me of being motivated by "fear and hatred"??? Think before you set your half baked,un substantiatable opinions to print. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don Firth Date: 11 May 12 - 06:13 PM And I also, mp. And your comment, "those bigots and the haters who actually fear so much about themselves they have to divert attention onto others," is right on target. I'm sure that's the basis for the most vituperative homophobia. Fear of what lies within themselves. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 May 12 - 06:39 PM What's that tag? "Homophobia is a man's fear that gay men will treat him like he treats women"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 11 May 12 - 06:56 PM Wow! I had no idea! All the proponents of civil rights on this thread haven't a clue that our world is being screwed by "the corporate capitalists,the arms manufacturers, the global drug and insurance cartels". Bowl me over! I've never heard that before. I'm shocked! I've always thought that gang has our best interests at heart. Thank you, thank you, thank you Akenaton and GfS for cluing me in on how our world works! Obviously, I should stop working on the things I might be able to fix and instead worry about things I haven't a chance of making a scratch on. Who would have thought that there is no such thing as voting for the lesser of two evils, or that righting the wrongs we are able to right is a stupid thing to do? Now which one of you wants to have a real debate about civil rights? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 11 May 12 - 07:11 PM Here's the real deal... The United States has tens of millions of closet homosexual/homophobists... Huh??? Go in any bar in these anti-gay-marriage st and see how many men come in and hang with other men while their wives wait at home for them to come home... Tens of millions... Yeah, they talk all this homophoblic stuff but if these guys love women so much then why don't they go the fuck home and be with one rather than spend night after night with other men??? This is the joke without a punchline... Redneck Nation is an entire sect of latent homosexuals... Race cars... Fishing... Hunting... Boating... Whatever it takes to be with other men... Hey, I'm fine with that... What I am not fine with is latent gays bashing gays... It's hypocritic... Just come the heck out, Bubba!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: gnu Date: 11 May 12 - 08:11 PM Bobert... that's a tad drastic, innit? I like spending time with my buddies but I don't wanna fuck em. And, I'll add that, if they wanna fuck each other, I don't care. None a my business. To quote another Mudcatter, I just hope they have the courtesy to give their buddy a reach-around while they are at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 May 12 - 12:33 AM ..or ladies dressing to impress other ladies....and going to the hairdressers...Gosh Bobert, you might be onto something!....or blues payers, who play with more balls than Stevie Ray.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 12 May 12 - 03:53 AM When you resort to wild accusations which have no foundation in fact(the last few posts), its a sure sign there is nothing left in the locker. This happens on every thread regarding the "Gay marriage" issue you finally fall back to the default position of trying to undermine your opponent by insisting that if he or she is against "Gay marriage" they must be a latent homosexual in denial. I know dozens of local ladies who are very much against the whole idea of the redefinition of marriage ......can you dig up some newspeak to undermine their opinions? I'm surprised that you go along with these people Bob,I treat your views with the utmost respect (tho' some I don't agree with) and thought that over all these years you knew me a bit better. I never go to the pub, drink alchohol very rarely and for quite a few years, I have cared for an increasingly sick wife on most of the time that I am not at work. I do not intend to say anymore about my personal life, but is it not disgracefull that one should have to defend themselves from such insinuations after so many years on this forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 12 May 12 - 08:59 AM I ain't going along with gay bashing, Ake... I'm just throwing out the hypothesis that a lot of the bashers very well might be latent homosexuals... I mean, it ain't all about sex but which gender you'd rather spend your time with... Think about it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 12 May 12 - 10:18 AM Ha! akenaton, if you read my last post again, you will find that I mentioned NO names. But if the cap fits.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 12 May 12 - 10:33 AM Racism is racism is racism. Sexism is sexism is sexism. Homophobia is Homophobia is Homophobia. You either believe that all humans are entitled to fair and equal treatment, or you don't. If you don't then you are obligated to embrace the fact that you think some humans are somehow sub-human. Embrace it. Defend it. Own it. Or join the civilized people who are not sexists, bigots, or homophobes. We really are not evil. We are just intolerant of irrational hatred. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 May 12 - 11:59 AM Simply Simpletons Spouting. Try getting an education on the subject OUTSIDE the political rhetoric. I'd hate to see some of you embarrassing yourselves, in such grand style....but then, some of you deserve to be!...SAUL! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 12 May 12 - 12:29 PM I agree with Akenaton that assuming all or most anti-civil rights people are gays-in-denial is not a good idea. It's pretty much on the same level as saying all gay people are perverts. On the subject of civil rights, Akenaton is wrong-headed, illogical, unethical, selfish, and way too interested in other people's sex lives. But that's all we know about him from his posts. It's usually best to respond to what people actually say than to try to discern their inner emotional state and then speak to that too-often incorrect assumption. All I know about Akenaton's personal life, from what he's said over the years, is that he seems to love his wife very much. Akenaton does have some serious problems in these debates: he draws fallacious conclusions (many of them!) from health data, and then won't (can't) support his conclusions when these fallacies are pointed out to him. He almost always rudely describes all opponents as brain-washed victims of a left-wing gay agenda, allowing him to dismiss anything they say. He has selected one minority group to irrationally deny civil rights to, and that can only be called bigotry. But none of these things make him a closet homo; he's just someone who is too stubborn to give up positions that don't make any sense and who isn't willing to take on, or at least respond to, new information on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Manuel Date: 12 May 12 - 04:14 PM Akenaton, I think you and I would agree that we live in a world infested with red herrings thrown out whenever convenient by evil and powerful people who will not have their lucrative pursuits interfered with by others, such as the State, and must therefore keep those others perpetually "otherwise occupied". There are too many people, many of them good and well-intentioned, in this world who will never learn to look for the bigger picture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 12 May 12 - 05:00 PM Name one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: gnu Date: 12 May 12 - 05:22 PM Saul... well said. Bravo! Bravo! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 May 12 - 05:30 PM ...except deceivingly inaccurate! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 12 May 12 - 06:49 PM Me thinks there is a epidemic of polymorphous perverse guilt gripping the country and it is producing all this homophobic reaction by folks who are more than likely latent homosexuals themselves... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 May 12 - 07:24 PM Why??..because you might fall into the latter category?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: gnu Date: 12 May 12 - 07:34 PM Bobert... careful. Whether homosexuality is (not) wrong or right, insinuation could close this thread as it may offend some and could be considered a "personal" thing. You know, breaking the only rule at the Mudcat? Ya know eh? Now, this here latent homosexual thing. Are there any tests I could take to see if I am a latent on accounta I prefer the company of people I like to hang out with and most of them are male? And, by "hang out with", I mean have some beers, watch the game, tell lies and stories, play tunes and sing songs, go fishin an huntin (when I used to hunt), build shit, fix shit and whatever. If I was gonna hang it out, I wouldn't want any of them for company. Unless your tests could show otherwise... but my guess is nahhhh. Of course, I have never met Spaw in person so there is no definitive answer I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 12 May 12 - 07:51 PM I'm not part of the bashers, GfinS, so that leaves me out of the epidemic... Hey, gn-ze... I am in no way, shape or form talking right or wrongness... That is 100% not me... I have thrown out a hypothesis that there are alot of folks out there bashing homosexuals who may very well be latent homosexuals who have been told "Hey, that shit ain't right" and rather than come out they have to pretend to hate gay people... Meanwhile they go out and spend most of of their waking hours with folks of the same gender (by choice)... I think my hypothesis is going over everyone's heads here... Read closer... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 12 May 12 - 10:41 PM BTW, the studies of polymorphous perverse guilt are interesting... Lotta folks out there with lot's of "baggage" from adolescent behaviors and rather than live up to them these folks go 180 degrees the other way... And guess who suffers??? Yup, gay people... I know that I am way out in front of this but I had the pleasure of having many in depth discussions on this and other mental health issues with Dr. Paul Baxter in the 70s.... So what I am throwing out is way beyond folks thinkin'... Ya'll gonna have to Google this up and do some reading... I'm not going to get into the details here... I could... But I'm not... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 May 12 - 12:55 AM Bobert: "I'm not part of the bashers, GfinS, so that leaves me out of the epidemic.." Did it ever occur to you, that disagreeing with the POLITICAL INTERPRETATION of homosexuality, has NOTHING to do with 'hating' them, or being a 'basher'?????...or is that beyond your scope of understanding?? Bobert: "Meanwhile they go out and spend most of of their waking hours with folks of the same gender (by choice)..." 'Choice'....ahh, the word that partisan politicos despise!... Bobert: "I think my hypothesis is going over everyone's heads here.." Yeah, "I'm not crazy..it's the rest of the world"!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 13 May 12 - 02:57 AM Did it ever occur to you, that disagreeing with the POLITICAL INTERPRETATION of homosexuality And what, pray tell, is the political interpretation of homosexuality? Saul said: You either believe that all humans are entitled to fair and equal treatment, or you don't. If you don't then you are obligated to embrace the fact that you think some humans are somehow sub-human. And GfS has taken two pot shots at him so far for doing so. So, GfS, please defend the concept that denying civil rights to people is affording them equal treatment. Please tell us explicitly why you think Saul was out to lunch for saying that it's bad to discriminate against minority groups. Come on, get specific. So far you're just farting. Bumper sticker slogans are easy. And lazy. And ignorant. My offer of a real debate on the subject stands. If you have the balls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 May 12 - 09:40 AM John p: "GfS, please defend the concept that denying civil rights to people is affording them equal treatment." I'm not denying anybody anything...except credence for nonsensical false premises. People can do and fuck anything they want....what they want to call it, is just a matter of interpretation of gibberish! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 13 May 12 - 11:52 AM Fucking isn't the issue... Getting fucked over is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 13 May 12 - 12:14 PM GfS, try again, in English this time. Your last post doesn't make any sense. Do you think everyone should have the same civil rights or not? A simple yes or no will suffice. You do say "I'm not denying anybody anything". Does that mean that you are now in support of gay marriage? If not, what does it mean? It's really hard to jam with someone who doesn't tune their instrument, doesn't know the chords, can't keep time, and shouts at people if they don't play the tune they want to play. Ambiguity stalks your posts, sheltered by syntactical confusion and excessive choler. Language literacy and clarity of expression in a conversation is the same as musical skill in a jam session or recording project. You are extremely sub-par, and it makes you exactly as welcome as a really bad musician would be if you were trying to play music. It also means you often have to repeat yourself using different words in order to be understood. Do you think everyone should have the same civil rights or not? The offer of a real debate on the subject stands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 May 12 - 12:15 PM Bobert got it right. And any of you who waste your time arguing with Gust from inSanity are doing just that - wasting your time. He/she has some pretentions to being a musician, and should stick to that. In politics and social issues he is clueless. He wrote: I'd hate to see some of you embarrassing yourselves, in such grand style....but then, some of you deserve to be!...SAUL! Now that is a classic "pot calling the kettle black," except that Saul made perfect sense and Gust RARELY makes any sense. He's just here to argue, and if you keep arguing with this baby troll, he'll keep it up. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: gnu Date: 13 May 12 - 03:18 PM Thanks for the explanations, Bobert... I am on board now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Wesley S Date: 13 May 12 - 03:22 PM Interesting article: Full story here When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University's history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John. A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman 'pronubus' (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men. Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as 'secret Christians' by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven. While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai," or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today. Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales ('Geraldus Cambrensis') recorded. Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded". Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion. Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century. The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, "Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae" (Paris, 1667). While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn't appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place. At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality. For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: frogprince Date: 13 May 12 - 11:21 PM Somebody bring the smelling salts for Ake and Gfs!! : ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 14 May 12 - 03:51 AM Frogprince.....my stance on this issue is on health, but I do understand the concerns of those who feel that re-definition would have a negative effect on the the family structure. The religious aspect does not bother me in the least, but it does concern a huge body of religious people wordwide, who don't share my atheistic views. Reserve the smelling salts for your "liberal" friends who are so agitated by the "right" of homosexuals to purloin the word marriage, yet support wholeheartedly an economic system which has inequality at its black heart. The battle for homosexual rights is a sham, a sop to the conscience of those too cowardly to bring real equality to all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Stu Date: 14 May 12 - 06:20 AM "my stance on this issue is on health" OK. Better stop the rutting millions out every Friday and Saturday night too then. "Reserve the smelling salts for your "liberal" friends who are so agitated by the "right" of homosexuals to purloin the word marriage" Huh? I thought this was a health issue. If health is all you're worried about why are you suggesting the word 'marriage' is being purloined? Even then that seems odd . . . surely 'marriage' is more than a word, more a commitment to another human being whom you love deeply. In which case, whether it's same-sex or mixed-sex marriage, why would that matter as it's between two people and it's only a sham when they don't love each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 14 May 12 - 10:26 AM I haven't seen anyone stealing the word "marriage" except those who want to make it mean only their own limited definition. The rest of us are perfectly willing to share the word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Wesley S Date: 14 May 12 - 11:16 AM I noticed that when describing marriage that Mitt Romney described it not as between "a" man and "a" woman - but as between "one" man and "one" woman. To distance himself from polygamy perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: frogprince Date: 14 May 12 - 04:51 PM Possibly, Wesley; but I would be more apt to think that he is simply aware that that is the phrasing that the "protection of marriage" people have been pushing for at least a few years now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Ebbie Date: 15 May 12 - 02:57 PM Hmmm. I didn't get the URL for this email. If you want to check it out, though, it is from a Professor Baudsomething or other. I'll look again later when I have time. "You see, the Homosexual Classrooms Act contains a laundry list of anti-family provisions that will: *** Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so "homosexual students" don't feel "singled out" during already explicit sex-ed classes; *** Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to "experiment" with the homosexual "lifestyle;" *** Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to "freedom of self-expression;" *** Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a "hostile learning environment" for homosexual students." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Ebbie Date: 15 May 12 - 03:30 PM It was written by and mailed from a Eugene DeGaudio through Townhall Spotlight TownhallMessage@townhallmail.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 15 May 12 - 04:26 PM Many folks quickly point to "the Bible" for their "defense of marriage." Well, this is what "the Bible" has to say about "acceptable" marriage: Marriage in the Bible Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 15 May 12 - 05:15 PM Very interesting, saul... Tell ya'll what... If you have to use a Bible quote to justify your position then... a. there is a 99.9% chance that somewhere else in the Bible there is something that contradicts that position and... b. you can't come up with any non-Biblical justifications for that position BTW, I am Christian and know my way around the Bible... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 15 May 12 - 05:26 PM Having viewed the link about the Bible, I note with interest that a victim of rape is obliged to marry her attacker. How delightful. I think we can treat Biblical condemnation of gay marriage with the same reaction, ie disgust. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 15 May 12 - 05:40 PM My my...we're really scraping the barrel now! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 15 May 12 - 07:28 PM My point was that "they" like to point to something that "they" think of as the one and only biblical notion of marriage as "one man and one woman," whereas it really mentions several versions, most of which are what civilized people would think of as horrific, or at least, somewhat weird. And as the great Willie said (and I'm paraphrasing), "The devil can cite scripture for his own purposes." So basically, this whole notion of "biblical" marriage that is so often mentioned is a fraud. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Janie Date: 15 May 12 - 11:22 PM I started this thread expressing sadness. Now I have a different, more hopeful perspective - and fwiw, not from the many posts to this thread that display the usual ineffective bickering and finger pointing by the usual suspects on either side of the political spectrum who are mostly concerned with personally belittling one another, playing the martyr, one upsmanship, or otherwise getting in the last accusatory word or pointed finger, which is not to say I do not appreciate or learn from the thoughtful, rational posts and links that also have been made. As I continue to follow the news reports and editorials within North Carolina I comprehend that a sea change is occurring that I think likely is reflective of the nation. The good news is there is real discussion and real thinking about this issue that is likely to lead to greater recognition among many that this is a human rights issue. This discussion is broader and involves more of the population than likely would be occurring at this point in time without this amendment, and without it's passage. This North Carolina amendment is not a "last gasp" but I think it is nearly so, and will have the effect of raising the consciousness of people within the State and around the nation. There will, of course, continue to be the idiotic sniping and finger pointing among our citizenry that is reflected on this thread, but clearly the times they are a changing, and the day is coming - not soon enough, but clearly now sooner rather than later, when a vast majority of people will look back and be appalled at the ruckus. Rather like Jim Crow in that while racism is still alive and well, the number of people, including rather obvious racists to whom separate drinking fountains still make some kind of sick sense are a bonafide rarity. I don't think I am being overly optimistic in thinking along these lines. I guess time will tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: John P Date: 16 May 12 - 09:02 AM I agree Janie. I've had a sense that the tide is turning. More and more people are "evolving". Speaking of which, one of my current favorite quotes was from last year sometime when columnist Leonard Pitts ending a column about civil rights by urging President Obama to "evolve faster." I'm glad the president finally evolved to the point of supporting equal rights for all Americans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: saulgoldie Date: 16 May 12 - 09:48 AM So let's hear it for "evolution?" Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 16 May 12 - 10:52 AM Unfortunately we do not always evolve in a manner beneficial to society. Evolution these days is heavily influenced by factors like the Entertainment Media in which as we all know there is a massive over-representation of homosexuals. No??? Just turn on your TV any hour of the day or night and absorb the propaganda. Perhaps US TV is not so badly affected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 16 May 12 - 01:02 PM Lots of pro-rights letters in the Charlotte Observer, as well... The Republican statehouse should have had this as part of the general election and not a primary where there was more interest on the Republican side... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 16 May 12 - 02:21 PM In todays Times the latest poll from "independent" US voters shows President Obama's popularity falling by 5% since his statement on "Gay Marriage".....A great political mistake from Mr O I think..... to underestimate the silent majority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 12 - 02:32 PM Ake, how do you know that the "silent majority" is opposed to same-sex marriage when they are silent? That obviously reflects your prejudices. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 16 May 12 - 03:05 PM Poll numbers will bounce between now and November in 5 to 8 point swings... They mean nothing... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 16 May 12 - 03:26 PM I think President Obama has, in this instance, been very badly advised. The trouble with the "liberal" left is that they ALWAYS believe their own propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Amos Date: 16 May 12 - 04:51 PM You sure love them sweeping generalizations, huh, Ake? Confusing the issues of civil rights with individual health issues is a great way to go blind and grow hair on your palms, ya know... May you have strapping sons who all discover they are gay. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 12 - 06:59 PM But, Ake, perhaps it was the right thing to do. Politicians sometimes do that, you know. Do something they really should do, even if it isn't necessarily politically expedient. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: akenaton Date: 16 May 12 - 07:27 PM Oh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 12 - 08:08 PM Yes. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Bobert Date: 16 May 12 - 08:28 PM The United Sates is 1 Supreme Court justice short of striking down all these oppressive laws... Just one!!! Vote Obama and restore civil rights to everyone... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 May 12 - 01:45 AM Don: "Ake, how do you know that the "silent majority" is opposed to same-sex marriage when they are silent?" Because they are answering polls, now! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Amos Date: 17 May 12 - 10:03 AM The surveys of opinion I have seen are predominantly in favor of tolerance. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina From: Janie Date: 19 May 12 - 09:40 PM The NAACP appears to have listened, and thought through this issue. We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law. |
