301. elliot803 - July 16, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
Jenerator:
I just knew you were into that kinky sex stuff (or, rather, that you will be if and when you eventually lose your virginity).
302. cllrdr - July 16, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
I'd always suspected you were a closet dominatrix, Jen.
303. EricCartman1 - July 16, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
Cellar:
Exactly. He still has class pretensions (can't fight *all* of his breeding), but at least he focuses his disdain on the foolishness of people he most likely went to prep school with. They've got it coming, especially since *they* focus their disdain generally on people who either can't defend themselves, or can't afford to contribute to the political campaign.
304. cllrdr - July 16, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
Precisely.
305. Jenerator - July 16, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
Elle and Cllr,
The only person around here who has admitted to algolagnia of sorts is from the NW. Secondly, I don't want to beat my husband, just Elliot.
306. elliot803 - July 16, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
Jenerator:
But you said you were just kidding. So why not include your husband, too. You can make it a 3-way. They're a lot of fun, you know.
307. Jenerator - July 16, 1999 - 2:26 PM PT
No, I wouldn't know.
308. glendajean - July 16, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
"I'm still waiting for Gore (Vidal) to start slamming (Al)Gore"
Eric -- Gore Vidal did a profile for Esquire several months ago on A. Gore. I didn't read it, but I would assume it was less than positive.
309. CalGal - July 16, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
He always follows whatever he says about Al with the same clause, "...and his wife, Tipper, the scourge of the First Amendment".
310. cllrdr - July 16, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
LOL!
311. EricCartman1 - July 17, 1999 - 12:51 AM PT
The Vatican's Ongoing Struggle Against Reality: "If We Had Our Way, We'd Still Be Burning Cats At the Stake!"
312. cllrdr - July 17, 1999 - 7:57 AM PT
Will the last person to leave the Catholic church please turn out the lights.
313. cllrdr - July 18, 1999 - 7:00 AM PT
Stop Press: "New York Times" Admits Matter-of-Factly That Hart Crane Was Gay
314. uzmakk - July 19, 1999 - 5:59 AM PT
Ladies and Gents:
This argument seems to come down to a matter of equality, and we all know that equality is a good thing, so good a thing that we are willing pretend that things that are different are actually equal. i.e. we start with the intellectual construct of equality, assume its virtue, and go about the process of making all things equal.
Now, imagine a man and a woman, imagine them naked, and ask yourself whether there is any difference between the two. Then ask yourself whether this difference is significant.
Try the same operation with two men or with two women.
Tabulate your results.
The simple reality is that there is a difference, a significant difference, and that differnce and the results of that difference is what marriage is all about. Msit and Cellar have traced the origins of marriage back to property and inheritance. Perhaps, perhaps not. Tell all the Catholics and Christians and Muslims and etc. etc. all over the world that they are married for the purpose of pproperty and inheritance rather than to provide their children with a home and see whether you get an arguemnt. You will. And it is an arguemtn that you cannot win, because the fact is that the conception of marriage that is alive in the heads of millions and millions of people has everything to do with children and their upbringing first and inheritance and property a distant second. We could perhaps trace the evolution of the rose back to a slime mold that smelled like rotten eggs, that does not change the characteristics of the rose as it exists today. Likewise with marriage.
315. uzmakk - July 19, 1999 - 6:28 AM PT
Among the publications to which I subcribe is The Nation. I recall reading that it is claimed that sexual relations between the sexes have become more homosexual in nature, or something like that. I would agree with this statement in that relations between men and women have become more hedonistic, more pleasureable. Atleast this is what one is lead to believe. Now,we must all admit that we have sex for the pleasure it gives us and not for our duty to God and the Church. This is true in my case anyway. But this is where marriage comes in, and this is where the Church comes in, and the church says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and it says that there is more to the relationship between a man and a woman than pleasure. And you know what, the Church is right. How clever of the Church. There is certainly more to marriage than the psychological well-being of the man and the woman, marriage also has to do with the psychological well being of the child. There is certainly more to marriage than the psychological well-being, or the societal status of homosexuals. If homosexuals have a problem with their status in society, pretending that they are heterosexuals in a heterosexual relationship doesn't seem to be the path to go down. Fact is, we are not equal.
316. cllrdr - July 19, 1999 - 6:36 AM PT
"There is certainly more to marriage than the psychological well-being of the man and the woman, marriage also has to do with the psychological well being of the child."
That's an entirely 20th Century concept resulting from the invention of the middle-class. Prior to that children were property and *nothing more.*
"There is certainly more to marriage than the psychological well-being, or the societal status of homosexuals."
The Church is supremely indifferent to the psychological well-being of heterosexuals. Psychology is anathema to systems of irrational thought.
"If homosexuals have a problem with their status in society, pretending that they are heterosexuals in a heterosexual relationship doesn't seem to be the path to go down."
I couldn't agree with you more.
"Fact is, we are not equal."
True. We pay the same taxes, but I'm not allowed access to all the goods and services that you are.
And my very existence is still proscribed in a number of states.
317. Mazaska - July 19, 1999 - 6:38 AM PT
I certainly agree that men and women are different. In fact that guy next to me at work is different than the guy down the hall and the woman two offices dwn is different than my sister.
So?
The key is "equal opportunity" or "equal treatment under the law". The fact is no two human beings are "equal" if by that you mean exactly the same.
This is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they should have equal opportunity or equal treatment under the law.
318. cllrdr - July 19, 1999 - 6:45 AM PT
"The key is "equal opportunity" or "equal treatment under the law". The fact is no two human beings are "equal" if by that you mean exactly the same."
The deliberate confusion of "equal opportunity" with literal equivalence has long been a mainstay of Conservabot propaganda.
319. uzmakk - July 19, 1999 - 7:00 AM PT
Go back and try the intellectual exercises again. You both did very poorly. Masaska asks so what's the big deal about the differnce between men and women and what makes it differnent than the differences between the size of one fellows nose and another fellows nose. I am afraid I cannot help Mazaska.
Cellar, the fact that people have been bad Christians and that people have not lived up to the ideal put forth by Chrisitanity in the past in no way invalidates the value of that ideal. The fact that Christ appears as a child is significant. Children merely as property, rediculous. Children have been special in the Church for 2000 years. As I have said before in other places, the idea of constraints and limits is essential to the understanding of life itself. The average american hedonist's conception of freedom is positively infantile. Thank god for the rock of the Church. LONG LIVE THE POPE!!!!!
320. benear - July 19, 1999 - 7:16 AM PT
Yes, children are special to the church. Without them, the priests would have no sex at all!
321. uzmakk - July 19, 1999 - 7:19 AM PT
Last post until this evening. Go back and read more carefully, gents. My argument is not with equal opportunity for homosexuals in society, it is the equating of the homosexual relationship with the heterosexual relationship in the name of some abstract notion of equality and calling it marriage. Marriage has priviledges that go with it BECAUSE it is different than homosexual relationships. BECAUSE it brings forth children.
"The deliberate confusion of "equal opportunity" with literal equivalence has long been a mainstay of Conservabot propaganda."
I would suggest that it is you who is confused on this point, Cellar. Equal opportunity for homosexuals to be heterosexuals? The fact is that there is a genuine differnce between the heterosexual relationship and homosexual relationship and this difference is accentuated and special priviledges are granted because of the diffences, the real differences, the flesh and blood differences, of the relationship.
322. uzmakk - July 19, 1999 - 7:25 AM PT
Even that, my dear benear, merely shows human frailty. No doubt the church should rethink the business of celibacy. But I don't think there is anything in Catholic doctrine that says that priests should bugger alterboys. Goodness, benear, what were you expecting, perfection?
323. elliot803 - July 19, 1999 - 9:14 AM PT
uzmakk:
"Marriage has priviledges that go with it BECAUSE it is different than homosexual relationships. BECAUSE it brings forth children."
How many times do we have to go over this? There are *millions* of heterosexual marriages that have nothing to do with having or raising children. Conversely, there are many homosexual couples who do have children. I don't know why you keep pretending otherwise.
So what is the crucial difference between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships that justifies denying the latter equality under the law?
324. BoomerJeff - July 19, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT
The "law" should not be involved in regulating marriage. The "law" should not be corrupted to become a system that provides benefits to married folks at the expense of unmarried folks.
325. LadyChaos - July 19, 1999 - 10:29 AM PT
For once, I agree with Boomer. The law shouldn't favor marriage of any sort, nor should it favor the unmarried.
To those who persist in judging gays for religious reasons, I can only offer the insight that you are living this life on Earth for the purpose of internalizing God's message of love, forgiveness, and tolerance. If you fail to heed that message in this life, you will have to learn it in another, perhaps as a person who suffers from religious persecution.
The religious idealogues who condemn homosexuals (and other "freaks," such as me), are exploiting fear for their own personal power, much like the sellers of a home security system will begin an ad by telling you how much you have to fear from burglars, so the church has told us for thousands of years how much we have to fear from hell if we fail to adhere to its hate and fear-filled doctrine.
Love is the only thing that is real. Everything else - fear, mistrust, hate, anger - only causes us to stumble along our spiritual path.
326. Mazaska - July 19, 1999 - 10:34 AM PT
uzmakk -
I understood you perfectly. I do not agree. As far as I know, I am not yet living in a Theocracy in the USA. Therefore all your ranting about the Church is irrelevant to the issue, IMHO. Your personal faith, my personal faith, and the personal faith of any number of people is not a sound basis for secular law, IMHO.
Homosexuals can be biological fathers and mothers to children. Homosexuals can also adopt and be good parents if allowed to do so. Heterosexual couples many times are unable to bear children or choose not to, but their marriages are not invalidated by this. Therefore, all your ranting about children is also irrelevant, IMHO.
I look forward to your response this evening.
327. ChristinO - July 19, 1999 - 10:54 AM PT
LadyC, I think it's the only thing on which BoomerJeff and I agree, but I do vehemently agree: The law should promote and favor no specific marital status.
Uzmakk Re Message #321
"Equal opportunity for homosexuals to be heterosexuals? The fact is that there is a genuine differnce between the heterosexual relationship and homosexual relationship and this difference is accentuated and special priviledges are granted because of the diffences, the real differences, the flesh and blood differences, of the relationship"
Substitute 'Whites' or 'Men' for 'heterosexuals' and 'Blacks' or 'Women' for 'homosexuals' and you just might be able to see part of the problem people are having with your position.
328. elliot803 - July 19, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
I completely disagree with the idea that there shouldn't be such a thing as legal marriage. It's a good social institution.
People will accept gay marriage far more readily than they'll accept the elimination of marriage entirely.
329. ChristinO - July 19, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
Elliot,
I don't disagree with the contract of marriage I just disagree with there being financial incentives or legal benefits promoted by the government which are denied to the unmarried.
330. harper - July 19, 1999 - 2:01 PM PT
uzmakk: Message #321
You state:"Marriage has priviledges that go with it BECAUSE it is different than homosexual relationships. BECAUSE it brings forth children."
Don't be ridiculous. You don't need *marriage* to bring forth children. All you need is SEX. Children conceived *within* marriage could inherit; children conceived *outside* of marriage could not. Once again, this brings up the contractual nature of marriage. It is all legalistic and had nothing to do with religion originally.
There are state that recognize a "common-law" marriage. A couple who lives together for seven years (in PA anyway) is considered to be in a common-law marriage. It has nothing to do with religion.
331. ChristinO - July 19, 1999 - 2:04 PM PT
The Church at one time expressly forbid legal marriage as a sinful and worldly union based upon material gain rather than a union blessed by God.
Besides, married people don't have to have children in order to receive benefits for being married.
332. uzmakk - July 19, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Hey folks:
Had a bunch of glib answers, but you all deserve better. Am about to return to work for the evening. Will have to post tomorrow some time.
333. cllrdr - July 19, 1999 - 4:59 PM PT
"But I don't think there is anything in Catholic doctrine that says that priests should bugger alterboys."
You know so little of the ways church, uzmakk. benear got it right.
It's all just Organized Hypocrisy -- like so much else in this benighted world.
334. BoomerJeff - July 20, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
Elliot
Nobody suggested "elimination of marriage entirely."
What I proposed is that government regulation of marriage, government benefits based on marital status be eliminated.
Government should not be attempting to define and regulate marriage, a religious institution that pre-dates the US by several thousand years. The matter of gay marriage has become the content of acrimonious debae because, given that government has stuck its big nose into the matter, someone has to lose. Either gay folks lose because nanny government doesn't recognize their marriage, or religious folks lose when government calls a same-gender union "marriage."
There is no way to keep someone from losing when government gets involved. The same religious folks who oppose gay marriage have deep, doctrinal differences with people of other religions and with atheists. Yet there is no acrimonious public debate over how to pray, the divinity of Jesus, the meaning of the last supper, etc. The reason for the lack of strife is that government doesn't take a position on these issues so nobody has to be the loser.
The solution to the gay marriage conflict is simple. Get government completely out of marriage. Let everyone define marriage as they choose.
335. cllrdr - July 20, 1999 - 3:17 PM PT
"The solution to the gay marriage conflict is simple. Get government completely out of marriage. Let everyone define marriage as they choose."
But the government does that *already* Boomer. Each religion is free to have ceremonies and define marriage as they like. The state recognizes all such unions: Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon, etc., etc. as legal.
It also offers citizens a Non-Religious "Civil Ceremony." Gays and lesbians should have access to such ceremonies. They wouldn't affect the others one jot.
Why do you object to this? Of is its failure to produce a "loser" the thing that upsets you?
336. elliot803 - July 20, 1999 - 3:17 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
"There is no way to keep someone from losing when government gets involved."
What does anyone lose when the government ceases to discriminate against same-sex couples?
"Yet there is no acrimonious public debate over how to pray, the divinity of Jesus, the meaning of the last supper, etc."
Good grief, talk about denial. Protestants killing Catholics. Catholics killing Protestants. Both of them killing Jews and Muslims. Does any of this ring a bell?
337. JJBiener - July 20, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
Elliot - "Protestants killing Catholics. Catholics killing Protestants. Both of them killing Jews and Muslims. Does any of this ring a bell?"
Is this a typical party at Elliot's house?
338. BoomerJeff - July 20, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
Elliot
You make my point for me. The killing occurs when the government and "the " religion are one in the same. There's no need to fight over it in the US because every religion has equal status under the law.
339. elliot803 - July 20, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
"Elliot: You make my point for me."
I don't think so, Boomer.
"The killing occurs when the government and "the " religion are one in the same. There's no need to fight over it in the US because every religion has equal status under the law."
Which shows the importance of keeping church and state separate, and not having the government favor, or even appear to favor, one religion over another, doesn't it? It's divisive, isn't it? It provokes resentment, doesn't it? That's why government schools should not be posting the Ten Commandments on classroom walls.
What does anyone lose when the government ceases to discriminate against same-sex couples?
340. cllrdr - July 20, 1999 - 5:08 PM PT
Boomer loses his Condescension Privileges.
341. BoomerJeff - July 20, 1999 - 7:38 PM PT
Cllrdr #335
"But the government does that [let's everyone define marriage as they choose] already."
I can't believe you said that!! Isn't your big problem that government defines marriage as hetero?
"The state recognizes all such unions."
It is not the appropriate business of the state to either recognize or deny any union. Marriage is a religious institution that pre-dates the US government by several thousand years.
The definition of marriage is the business of churches. If non-believers want to have a union without any religious "strings" attached, and call it marriage, they can develop whatever institution they want to conduct a ceremony or draw up a contract or whatever they think marriage, by whatever definition they wish to give it, requires.
There is no reason for the government to get involved in any way in any marriage. And there is CERTAINLY no reason for government to tax people differently because they are married than if they are not married. And government shouldn't be handing out "benefits." But if it has to be in the benefit business, the criteria used to select benefit recipients should exclude marital status.
Elliot
"What does anyone lose when the government ceases to discriminate against same-sex couples?"
I don't know what anyone loses. But I am proposing the means to the end you seek, no more discrimination.
342. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 5:50 AM PT
"Marriage is a religious institution that pre-dates the US government by several thousand years."
Wrong Boomie. Marriage began as a civil institution that religion horned its way in on as a means of asserting authority. Religion continues to horn its way into everything -- even in country whose Founding Fathers (them again!) decreed a separation between Church and State. Civil ceremonies are a living embodiment of that separation.
343. uzmakk - July 21, 1999 - 6:11 AM PT
Message #330 Harper:
Just one glib comment for now. You are such a spiritualist and a historian to boot. You seem to have passed biology 101 with flying colors("Sex brings forth children not marriage"), but have no conception of anything else that human beings have attached to this biological process. And once again, the attachments and constructions, traditions, customs, etc.that we have made to this biological process are real. They change the nature of our world, and of our civilization. "Marriage orders society" --someone has quoted WFBuckley.
You are quite right, Harper, all you need is sex to bring forth children, and you can fill the streets and alleys with those children. The children of Hillary's village.
"There are state that recognize a "common-law" marriage. A couple who lives together for seven years (in PA anyway) is considered to be in a common-law marriage. It has nothing to do with religion."
Nonsense. The state apes the relgious institution because the religious institution orders society.
344. colossus - July 21, 1999 - 6:46 AM PT
Not being exactly PC myself, I'd never heard this term used but on Saturday I heard the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church use the term "sexual self understanding" in a homily delivered at the Diocese of California's 150 Anniversary Celebration at Grace Cathedral in SF.
Immediately, it became clear to me that the term "sexual preference" was grossly incorrect implying, along with the right-wing "cure" folks, a conscious choice.
345. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 7:15 AM PT
cllrdr
From an article on the subject:
"The historical origins of the civil institution of marriage contributed to a theologically grounded view of marriage as a natural right. A right to marriage, from this perspective, was an opportunity to conduct one's life in consonance with God's law so as to ensure salvation. See Homer H. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States 21-22 (2d ed. 1988) (noting that after the Norman Conquest, the power to regulate marriage was put in the hands of the Church, which viewed marriage religious matter). See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165 (1878) (referring to marriage as "a sacred obligation"); United States v. Ritchie, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 525, 529-30 (1854) (argument for appellee) (enumerating the right to marry as among the natural rights of humanity possessed by Native Americans and Europeans alike, when the Native Americans at issue were "native civilized Indians, converted to the Christian faith, in full communion with the established Catholic church"); Hopkins v. State, 69 A.2d 456, 459 (Md. 1949) (same); Drach v. Drach, 9 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 353, 55 Wkly. Law Bull. 86 (stating that marriage is a "more important and sacred contract than others").
As another commentator put it:
"The first issue involves the degree to which the centrality of marriage to regulation of the family proceeds from, or necessarily involves, regulation of sexual morality. The historical answer is unequivocal. Review of the origins of American family law reveals an almost seamless integration of social, legal, and religious strictures regulating sexuality and the family."
Santa Clara Law Review
1996
ETHICS, PUBLIC POLICY, AND THE FUTURE OF THE FAMILY: MORALITY, PUBLIC POLICY AND THE FAMILY: THE ROLE OF MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE DIVIDE
346. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 7:23 AM PT
Moreover, it really doesn't matter the "true" origins of marriage for purposes of a discussion on gay marriage. The American experience equates traditional marriage with the sacred. The fact that it is inextricably intertwined with the religious must be factored into any analysis of whether gay marriage is possible, or consonant, with the prevailing view that 1) marriage is sacred; 2) that sacred status is codified in law; and, 3) recognition of gay marriage - on a par with male-female marriage - is offensive to the sacred nature of the codification.
Thus, gays favoring same-sex marriage laws (not a monolithic group) are left with certain options: 1) demand inclusion in existing codification, to hell with the politics and perspectives of the quasi-religious present codification or 2) recognize the quasi-religious codification, and move on fronts of social justice (i.e., demonstrate that you are interested in the rights, not the equivalence that would be offensive to those that hold the view of the sacred nature of the union).
I favor the second avenue because I recognize the reality that certain laws are wound up tight to religious doctrine, marriage laws being one such law. Moreover, I see quicker success on a social justice front. That said, I'm not gay, and I'm sure the draw of equivalence is tempting, and the shunt of "separate but equal" stings.
347. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 7:31 AM PT
"I favor the second avenue because I recognize the reality that certain laws are wound up tight to religious doctrine, marriage laws being one such law."
Have you read the latest edict from the Catholic church, Niner?
To hell with them! It's a civil ceremony. Period. End of story.
TAX THE CHURCH!!!!!
348. Ronski - July 21, 1999 - 7:31 AM PT
Re: Message #342 --
Partly correct. Marriage as an institution predates its religious use, but it was a civil institution in the sense of civil society, not a government institution. Government appropriation of marriage rites came last, after religion stepped in.
349. Mazaska - July 21, 1999 - 7:33 AM PT
I am at a loss to understand why some people are so intensly interested in what takes place in the bedrooms of strangers.
But back to marriage...
Perhaps we should do it like they do in Germany. The only marriage recognised by the government is a civil marriage. You can go out and have a second, religious ceremony if you wish (most Germans do), but the only *legal* marriage is the civil one.
Add to that the definition that a legal civil marriage can be between any two consented adults (with sensible provisions to prevent incest, of course) and you have a workable plan, imho.
I think
350. Ronski - July 21, 1999 - 7:33 AM PT
Message #343 is also incorrect in that regard (see above).
351. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 7:34 AM PT
cllrdr
I'm no longer on the Vatican's mailing list.
352. Ronski - July 21, 1999 - 7:36 AM PT
#343 is correct, however, in that marriage orders society (I'm the one who quoted Buckley). But it is simple common sense that gay marriage will do the same for gays in this regard that it does for heterosexuals (with the inherent problems associated with marriage, as well, as others in the Fray have pointed out).
353. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 7:45 AM PT
The church has never been able to recognize sexual pleasure as anything other than evil. And I'm talking about *all* forms of sexual pleasure, btw. It wants its followers to be men and women who have never had sex before meeting one another in opposite-sex pairiing, and have sex only for purposes of procreation. It is deafeningly silent about the pelasure involved because the church fears such pleasure viewing it as a means to undermine its authority. Why listen to a priest or minister rattle on about transcendent ecstatic experience when you can be home in bed having saem with the party of your choice? If the church were rational it would spend its time estab;lishing an ethics of sexual pleasure for its followers. But the church is not rational. It is hysterical. And it is therefore useless as an arbiter of ethics -- not to mention the society it claims to "serve."
You can's "serve" that which you wish to *own.*
354. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 7:49 AM PT
Corrected version of #353:
The church has never been able to recognize sexual pleasure as anything other than Evil. And I'm talking about *all* forms of sexual pleasure, btw. It wants its followers to be men and women who have never had sex before meeting one another in opposite-sex pairing, and have sex only for purposes of procreation. They call it "Morality." I call it Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. The church is deafeningly silent about the pleasure involved in sexual relations, because the church fears such pleasure -- viewing it as a means to undermine its authority. Why listen to a priest or minister rattle on about transcendent ecstatic experience when you can be home in bed having same with the party of your choice? If the church were rational it would spend its time establishing an ethics of sexual pleasure for its followers. But the church is not rational. It is hysterical. And it is therefore useless as an arbiter of ethics -- not to mention the society it claims to "serve."
You can't "serve" that which you wish to *own.*
355. uzmakk - July 21, 1999 - 7:50 AM PT
Mazaska:
Am working on a good post for you. Have a good chunk saved. You're going to love it. Cellar will too. Must get to work on real work.. Very busy these days. Sent a big package off last night and allowed myself a fray treat this morning, but that is all over.
MSG NUM=342>Cellar:
You say that, cellar, as if you know it. You can't possibly know it.
In the dim past extending into prehistoric times, Cellar can make a distinction between the religious and the civic and tell us how the institution of marriage leans far to the civic side.
356. BoomerJeff - July 21, 1999 - 8:03 AM PT
Cllrdr
Your 353/354 rant is so ignorant, so completely wrong one doesn't even know where to start.
You should read Song of Songs in the Old Testament. (Song of Solomon in some Bibles) You'll find a sexual love dialogue between a Jewish maiden and her lover, King Solomon. It's a very short book, you should be able to read it in about 30 minutes.
357. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 8:11 AM PT
That's the Bible, Boomer. I'm talking about the Church. Not at all the same thing.
358. BoomerJeff - July 21, 1999 - 8:49 AM PT
Whatever...
359. tckrulak - July 21, 1999 - 8:52 AM PT
cllrdr:
Have you ever had discussion about your POV w/ any clergymen or anything? Your POV is so blatantly misguided that I am left to wonder if you are just saying these things to get a reaction or whether you really are just plain ignorant.
360. benear - July 21, 1999 - 9:02 AM PT
On the contrary, Celler has it right. All, and I do mean all organized religions are fundamentally power structures. Small wonder they are almost all patriarchal. They are institutions in which men claim to know exactly what God intends. And guess what, God intends for women to be subjugated to men among other things.
For the purposes of self preservation, I have personally decided to be hostile to that which is so openly hostile to my existence, namely the Southern Baptist Church.
361. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 9:05 AM PT
Thank you b.
Yes I *have* talked to clergymen. They love to chatter away during sex.
362. BoomerJeff - July 21, 1999 - 9:15 AM PT
#360
ignorance pretending to be experience
363. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 9:29 AM PT
109109:
"Moreover, it really doesn't matter the "true" origins of marriage for purposes of a discussion on gay marriage. The American experience equates traditional marriage with the sacred. The fact that it is inextricably intertwined with the religious must be factored into any analysis of whether gay marriage is possible, or consonant, with the prevailing view that 1) marriage is sacred; 2) that sacred status is codified in law; and, 3) recognition of gay marriage - on a par with male-female marriage - is offensive to the sacred nature of the codification."
This is just utter nonsense. Civil marriage is entirely separate from religious marriage. There is no religious component to civil marriage at all. A marriage between atheists conducted in a government office by a JP is every bit as legal as any other marriage.
"Thus, gays favoring same-sex marriage laws (not a monolithic group) are left with certain options: 1) demand inclusion in existing codification, to hell with the politics and perspectives of the quasi-religious present codification or 2) recognize the quasi-religious codification, and move on fronts of social justice (i.e., demonstrate that you are interested in the rights, not the equivalence that would be offensive to those that hold the view of the sacred nature of the union)."
In other words, your "separate but equal" crap again. Sorry, not good enough. Equality means equality, nothing less. I don't *care* that some people are offended by gay marriage, any more than I care that some people are offended by interracial marriage. That's not a legitimate reason to oppose either kind.
364. colossus - July 21, 1999 - 9:32 AM PT
The Dottie Watson's of this world are what make America Great!
"Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:42:57 -0700
From: "Linda Muller" linda@buchanan.org
Subject: [BRIGADE] Update from Louisiana and .....
Dear Brigade,
Dottie Watson [Buchanan 2000 - Louisiana] - sent us an update from Pat's recent visit to the Bayou! She also points out that all of us in the Brigade need to focus on the Iowa Straw Poll which is coming up on August 14th. Please visit our site: Pat Porks Chicken George In Iowa!
and click on the "Iowa Straw Poll" links for info. If you have not
seen it yet, we also have a video of Pat asking for your help and talking about theimportance of the Straw Poll. All of us across the USA can work to make sure Pat has a great showing in one of the most important political events this year. Lets do it!
GO BRIGADE GO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Linda
365. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 9:34 AM PT
109109:
"I favor the second avenue because I recognize the reality that certain laws are wound up tight to religious doctrine, marriage laws being one such law. Moreover, I see quicker success on a social justice front. That said, I'm not gay, and I'm sure the draw of equivalence is tempting, and the shunt of "separate but equal" stings."
Are you proposing your "separate but equal" thingy as a temporary step on the way to true gay marriage, or are you proposing it as an ultimate goal? Do you actually oppose the inclusion of gay couples in existing marriage laws?
366. colossus - July 21, 1999 - 9:34 AM PT
Ooops wrong thread. Not even the butt fucking reference can save it.
367. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 9:35 AM PT
What is #364 doing in "Gay Issues"?
Unless Pat (or Dottie or Linda) is gay, of course.
368. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
uzmakk:
"And once again, the attachments and constructions, traditions, customs, etc.that we have made to this biological process are real. They change the nature of our world, and of our civilization. "Marriage orders society" --someone has quoted WFBuckley."
And? Why does marriage not have this (allegedly) ordering and stablizing effect for same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples? Why must same-sex couples be excluded?
Stop evading the question.
369. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 9:49 AM PT
elliot
Yes. At present, I do oppose the inclusion of gays into existing marriage laws because I believe the laws are inextricably intertwined with religious values at odds with the concept. My cite above pretty much represents those values in the law. As some say, two steps forward, one step back. At present, I advocate the social justice approach (i.e., get gays the rights without impinging on the powderkeg).
So, I'm 2 out of 4 on the homosexual rights meter.
And, you should be understandably unsatisfied, though you accept half-measures with enthusiasm in other arenas of gay rights (i.e., you lick Clinton's ass even in the face of DOMA and Don't Ask/Don't Tell). As for your concept of marriage and my points on its religiosity, I'll respond in kind for group edification: fatswallow skullfluffery.
370. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 9:51 AM PT
Two other points.
To benear's post: Homosexuals should be hostile to organizations that are hostile to them. It seems rather natural.
And churches, for the most part, are not awful, monolithic bastions of, as benear puts it, "men claim[ing[ to know exactly what God intends. And guess what, God intends for women to be subjugated to men among other things."
Rather, most churches are constructs of smaller communities that follow in the good works of Jesus and attempt, in a collaborative way, to understand his teachings and apply same to modern life. They are really quite mundane and simple. They are led by men schooled in interpreting Scripture. Sermons are given. A lesson is learned, hands are shaken, the minutes are read so the community can tend to its own needs (the choir, who is sick, who needs prayer or a lawn mowed) and the hat is passed for society's less-fortunate.
371. Mazaska - July 21, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
As you discuss whether to hold out for inclusion of gays in the current marriage laws or to push for a separate partnership contract, I am reminded of a couple of things.
I know someone who says that it is entirely uneccessary to do anything about gays wishing to get married as they are already free to write up any sort of partnership contract they wish and it will be legally binding.
I also have a friend who lived with a man for eight years before he married her. The only reason they finally got married was that he was dying and wanted to leave some property to her. His lawyers and accountants all told him over and over and over that it didn't really matter what his wishes were or what he put in his will, if his children and siblings decided to challange the will in court, they would probably win if he didn't marry her.
Makes you think, doesn't it, about how effective any partnership contract would be.
Of course this totally ignores the issues that a partnership contract doesn't even affect - such as medical insurance and taxes, etc, etc.
(just a few thoughts - carry on now)
372. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 10:00 AM PT
"for the most part"
Gee I wish we heard from that part more. But no we hear from "His Holiness," Pat Robertson and all the other invisible snake-oil salespersons who have more rights than I do.
373. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 10:03 AM PT
#371 hits the nail right on the head. Thanks, Mazaska.
374. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 10:07 AM PT
109109:
"Yes. At present, I do oppose the inclusion of gays into existing marriage laws because I believe the laws are inextricably intertwined with religious values at odds with the concept."
I see. How may the law be rewritten so as to disentangle it from these supposed religious values at odds with gay marriage? Do you support or oppose such a change?
375. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 10:12 AM PT
109109:
"At present, I advocate the social justice approach."
You advocate the phony "separate but equal" bullshit. It was an insult to black people fifty years ago, and it's an insult to gay people today.
"So, I'm 2 out of 4 on the homosexual rights meter."
Sorry, but you score a big fat zero on the gay marriage test.
"And, you should be understandably unsatisfied, though you accept half-measures with enthusiasm in other arenas of gay rights."
I most certainly do not.
"As for your concept of marriage and my points on its religiosity, I'll respond in kind for group edification: fatswallow skullfluffery."
No, that's not a response in kind, it's an evasion of the points I made about the separation of civil and religious marriage.
376. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 10:17 AM PT
109109:
"And churches, for the most part, are not awful, monolithic bastions of, as benear puts it, "men claim[ing[ to know exactly what God intends. And guess what, God intends for women to be subjugated to men among other things.""
But you just claimed that gay marriage is at odds with the religious values that, you claim, are "inextricably intertwined" with our civil marriage laws. Now you're apparently saying that churches aren't so bad. Does this mean you support their anti-gay "values?"
"Rather, most churches are constructs of smaller communities that follow in the good works of Jesus and attempt, in a collaborative way, to understand his teachings and apply same to modern life."
Is discrimination against gay people a "good work of Jesus," in your opinion?
377. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT
cllrdr
You should more savvy than that. Given your incisive view of the media conglomerate, I'm surprised you clap when the "APPLAUSE" sign lights for the grandiose, the wacky, the hell-fire damnation types, because they are so telegenic.
And Geraldo isn't interested in talking to lowly and gentle preachers.
378. glendajean - July 21, 1999 - 10:21 AM PT
109109 -- your response is probably a bit more advanced than the majority of the public. Doonesbery has been running a whole series of strips playing up tolerant folks nervousness about the topic of gay marriage.
Marriage wasn't on the radar of many in the gay community until recently. The whole impetus behind DOMA was not the great threat of such marriages happening overnight, but rather the right seeing it as what you call it, a powderkeg. The politicians who ducked were innumerable. I think only 13 Senators voted against it (a reason I will do what I can to support Chuck Robb for his re-election campaign).
There's a great irony in some of us wanting straight people to be completely up to speed on accepting gay marriage and at the same attacking with some hostility those gay people who advocate for such a middle class and heterosexual instititution.
BTW, good thing my partner and I had a union service years ago. Given what you posted, we might have kept you off the invitation list (although I suppose gifts are always appreciated).
379. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 10:26 AM PT
elliot
I don't belong to a church.
To other questions.
"How may the law be rewritten so as to disentangle it from these supposed religious values at odds with gay marriage? Do you support or oppose such a change?"
Over time. Like sodomy laws, which are almost wneded out and were merely symbolic hindrances . And I support such a change.
"Sorry, but you score a big fat zero on the gay marriage test."
Yes. That would be no. 3. Gays in the military would be no. 4.
"No, that's not a response in kind, it's an evasion of the points I made about the separation of civil and religious marriage."
Cadswallow poltroonery.
"Does this mean you support their anti-gay "values?"
No.
"Is discrimination against gay people a "good work of Jesus," in your opinion?"
No.
380. PsychProf - July 21, 1999 - 10:32 AM PT
Come on guys...as I have said befor...Jesus was gay. Wore a dress, not married, rode a donkey, mother was a virgin, hated fighting, what more evidence do you need. He would have loved gay marriage.
381. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 10:32 AM PT
glenda
I would have been there with bells on. If that was proper attire.
But, of course, "some of my best friends are gay."
And I'd like to support Robb, who I think is all in all a decent doofus, byt George Allen got that death penalty up and running like clockwork, so I feel I owe him.
382. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 10:34 AM PT
"Given your incisive view of the media conglomerate, I'm surprised you clap when the "APPLAUSE" sign lights for the grandiose, the wacky, the hell-fire damnation types, because they are so telegenic."
I'm not applauding at all. I'm simply aware of "the clap" in its ideological manifestations. "Telegenic"? Well they sure as hell HOG a lot of television time that might be better taken up with persons able to examine the truly serious issues of the day, like Spudboy and garry Webb. As for Gays in the Media those choice TV spots are reserced for the likes of la Sullivan and Richie Rich Tafel. In fact, according to the Media, *all* gays are Republicans.
But the Republican party hates gays.
Therefore all gays are masochists?
I think not.
But you'll have to take this grotesque disparity up with NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, UPN, and Faux News.
I'm available and camera-ready at the drop of a hat.
383. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 10:36 AM PT
"what more evidence do you need."
How about a copy of the cast album of "Happy Hunting"?
384. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
cllrdr
Yes.
But do you have a John John anectdote?
385. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 10:48 AM PT
109109:
"I don't belong to a church."
I didn't think you did.
"Over time. Like sodomy laws, which are almost wneded out and were merely symbolic hindrances . And I support such a change."
So you support changing the laws to eliminate this alleged link between them and religious values that are at odds with gay marriage (you didn't explain what change in the laws you believe would be necessary to accomplish this). If you support this change, it's hard to see what basis you have for opposing gay marriage.
"Yes. That would be no. 3. Gays in the military would be no. 4."
Zero on gay marriage. Zero on gays in the military. Or have you changed your position on the latter? I notice you fell silent after I and others explained the problems with your reliance on the unsupported opinions of certain "military leaders" to justify your support for the exclusion of gay people. Do you have any response? Did you see my citation of the RAND study commissioned by the Defense secretary?
386. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 10:49 AM PT
Actually I do. Todd Haynes went to school with John-John. And while many of the same-sex oriented were smitten, he was not. That's largely because Todd wasn't impressed with what the lad had to offer "above the belt." Not the brightest bulb in the bunch it seems.
387. cllrdr - July 21, 1999 - 10:53 AM PT
Elliot, I think Niner is tablulating how much he might make out of this as a lawyer, and whether or not he wants to spend time in that branch of the law. I've been telling him since I-Don't-Know-When that Gay Divorce would be a cash cow of enormous proportions, but he doesn't listen to me.
He hasn't even gone to see "Eyes Wide Shut" despite all my nagging.
388. BoomerJeff - July 21, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT
Elliot:
"My mind's made up about the church. Don't confuse me with the Bible."
389. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 11:05 AM PT
elliot
Ha ha ha. Forget the numbers. You're missing it. I accept my zeros on 2 of the 4 issues that instituted this thread.
On gays in the military, the Rand study looked mainly at police departments and fire departments. In the military, I'm mainly interested in the attitudes of those who will do the killing (i.e., your bane, anectdotal evidence), and given the special purposes of the military (to kill effectively), I don't give a shit if they discriminate against you for being gay, me for being an ex-drug user, cllrdr for being a pacifist, or Cartman for being a mantis-armed Lola.
I believe the military should discriminate with extreme prejudice as long as it deems the discrimination a boon to its killing ability.
When the military decides it can kill just as well with open homosexuals, count me in.
390. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 11:07 AM PT
cllrdr
This weekend on Tom and Nicole.
391. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 11:52 AM PT
109109:
"On gays in the military, the Rand study looked mainly at police departments and fire departments. In the military, I'm mainly interested in the attitudes of those who will do the killing"
They looked at the best comparisons available: foreign militaries and domestic law enforement and other neo-military organizations. They also interviewed U.S. military personnel themselves. They concluded on the basis of this and other evidence that, contrary to the opinions of "military leaders," the disruptive effects of allowing openly gay service members in the U.S. military would most likely be small.
"I believe the military should discriminate with extreme prejudice as long as it deems the discrimination a boon to its killing ability."
So if "it" (i.e., the military brass) tomorrow announced--contrary to all independent study and analysis--that "discrimination with extreme prejudice" by the military against Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, would be a "boon to its killing ability," you'd just accept this unsupported claim, too, would you?
392. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 12:00 PM PT
elliot
"So if "it" (i.e., the military brass) tomorrow announced--contrary to all independent study and analysis--that "discrimination with extreme prejudice" by the military against Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, would be a "boon to its killing ability," you'd just accept this unsupported claim, too, would you?"
Nope. It would be contradictory to a proven track record of excellence in killing by Muslims, Jews and blacks, and a proven track record of excellence in killing by non-Muslims, non-Jews and non-blacks. So, I would ask, "Why the change?"
And I would never trust any study that took into consideration the performance of the French military.
393. Mazaska - July 21, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
"And I would never trust any study that took into consideration the performance of the French military."
109109 - I disagree with your stance on gays in the military, but this made me chuckle. Thanks.
394. elliot803 - July 21, 1999 - 12:08 PM PT
109109:
"Nope. It would be contradictory to a proven track record of excellence in killing by Muslims, Jews and blacks, and a proven track record of excellence in killing by non-Muslims, non-Jews and non-blacks. So, I would ask, "Why the change?""
Openly gay military personnel have a proven track record of excellence in killing, both in the U.S. military and in foreign militaries.
And how do you know the net track record of those other groups, anyway? How do you know that the disruption caused by allowing blacks, Jews, etc. to serve doesn't outweigh their benefits to the military? If "military leaders" opined that the costs of allowing these groups to serve outweighed the benefits, why wouldn't you accept their word on that point, too?
395. LadyChaos - July 21, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
109,
"When the military decides it can kill just as well with open homosexuals, count me in."
Ooh, yeah, baby! I just knew this about you! 'Guess it must have been your endless flirting with cllrdr that tipped me off.
396. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 12:36 PM PT
elliot
"Openly gay military personnel have a proven track record of excellence in killing, both in the U.S. military and in foreign militaries."
Proven to you. Not to the combat veterans of the United States military. When they are convinced, I'll be happy as a clam to have you kill for me. Until then, you are stuck with the Foreign Legion.
"And how do you know the net track record of those other groups, anyway? How do you know that the disruption caused by allowing blacks, Jews, etc. to serve doesn't outweigh their benefits to the military? If "military leaders" opined that the costs of allowing these groups to serve outweighed the benefits, why wouldn't you accept their word on that point, too?"
Because the military assures me that it does not. I gather in about 40 years, when minds and hearts have changed, the new generation of combat leaders and trainers will be able to assure me that the benefits of open homosexuals outweigh the detriments.
Clinton deferred to their expertise. So should you.
397. 109109 - July 21, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
Lady
I do love a man in a uniform. Even the Hertz guys.
398. LadyChaos - July 21, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
The day that America is faced with such a huge military crisis that the services of all able-bodied persons are required to defend the country is the day that gays will be openly welcomed into the military.
But then every gay person would have to ask whether this was an America that was worth defending. The answer, I suspect, would be yes. But it makes you wonder.
399. Mazaska - July 21, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
I am sure that gays served in the military during WWII and no one cared.
(I could be wrong, but I'm sure!)
400. benear - July 21, 1999 - 12:46 PM PT
The military allows wiccans but not homos. All those buff hunky soldiers dancing naked around the bonfire is just wasted without the proper audience, imho.