I cant be the only one...

[jonb]

Correct about marriage stabilizing society. Marriage is actually more about in-laws than anything. Which is why:

*Many societies have polygyny. Fewer have polyandry, and it generally involves a woman marrying a group of brothers. The former's fairly widespread, but the latter is only in harsh environments. And contrary to popular belief, as long as certain protocols are followed, the co-spouses get along quite well.
*Most societies have an avoidance relationship with in-laws of the previous generation. (See? Americans aren't the only ones who move out when their mother-in-law comes to town.)
*Many societies in fact encourage people to marry their cousins. Either their parallel cousins (children of same-sex siblings) to avoid losing money to bride wealth and female inheritance or their cross-cousins (children of opposite-sex siblings) so that an indirect exchange of brides (or grooms) occurs between several lineages. Examples of the former in fact include the Jews. The latter can be found in a lot of places as well.
*At the same time, most societies have an incest taboo including in-laws, adopted relatives, and relatives specific to that society. Biology cannot explain any of these.
*In fact, in some societies, marriage can continue from beyond the grave in a system known as levirate or sororate! In this case, you "inherit" your spouse from a late brother or sister. (Think of the story of Er and Onan.)'
*Same-sex marriage also proves there's nothing new other the sun. Typically, roles of man and wife are arranged by age or special cultural positions. (Since Terry Nichols ordered a mail-order bride from Australasia, think of the bakla or katoey.)
*Many societies have a bride price, paid by the groom's family to the bride's. Others have a dowry, paid by the bride's family to the couple.

I guess you could say, we're held together by wenches according to Levi-Strauss and the Frenches.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by gwinea2000@Nov 4 2004, 10:48 AM
When was the last time the Right decided the best way to bring about change was to organize a destructive mob and "protest" in the streets?

[post=262386]Quoted post[/post]​

Florida '00. While we're at it, how many Republicans threatened to kill Clinton? Enough that CNN polled Americans about whether or not they hated Clinton. Not disagreed with his policies, but outright hated him.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Nov 4 2004, 11:50 AM
IMHO I don't think the government has any right whatsoever to endorse any form of marriage. Marriage, or matrimony is a religious institution and should not be dealt with by the United States government, the seperation of church and state is fundemental in safegaurding all of our civil liberties.

[post=262387]Quoted post[/post]​

I completely agree. By endorsing a lifestyle choice, the government ensures that your choices on marriage will be legally judged. It's bad enough that our choices are personally judged.

 

[Donk]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Nov 4 2004, 02:18 AM
the most ignorant and repressive . . . makes me feel filthy . . . retarded . . . I hope this bites every right-winger hard in the ass. . . . mess. . . . ignorance . . . repression . . . conformity . . . sad . . . perverted

[post=262292]Quoted post[/post]​

Hmm. Interesting expression of the politics of "love" vs. the politics of "hate."

 

[13788]

fireman57: I actually voted for Bush...I went against the suggestion of my union (the IAFF) and chose to vote for someone that I thought was the better choice. That was my opinion and I voted that way. People agree (apparently the majority) and people disagree...that's one of the foundations of our great nation.

On the subject of Gay Marriage. I think that it's a total waste of time and effort for our government to be even considering one way or the other on this. My opinion is that this is and should be a choice of the state and not the federal government. Additionally, I think that this should apply to only things like benifits, and protections for same sex couples. As for the actual term of "marriage", I think that should be left to the church. My religious beliefs (and these are my opinions, of which I am entitled) have taught me that same sex marriage is morally wrong. However, the more rational side of me agrees that there should be some form of civil union or something of that nature. Being an emergency medical provider, I have had to deal with cases of same sex couples who were unable to get information on partners who were receiving medical treatment for example. Those barriers should be dealt with in a civil way.

So, I guess, on the subject of marriage, I'm old fashioned and set in my ways, however, times are changing and we need to address that...and I'm willing to compromise. But, as I said before, our government should be more worried about education, health care and national security than same sex marriage.

Ok, enough of my rambling.

 

[KinkGuy]

The GOP made this an issue. No one else. Major pay off to the evangelicals and far, far beyond the right, haters. Gays, guns and God. A trifecta. Took your mind off the real problems and issues facing this country didn't it?

 

[MisterMark]

It's so typical of conservatives to say that it's LIBERALS who are closed-minded and intolerant. But your arguments don't make sense. You seem to be saying that gays, for instance, should just accept being considered second-class citizens.

Conservatives used to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, but all I see from conservatives now is a desire to legislate every social issue that comes down the pike.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Originally posted by gwinea2000+Nov 4 2004, 06:48 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gwinea2000 &#064; Nov 4 2004, 06:48 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Nov 4 2004, 06:29 PM
When was the last time the Left poured kerosene over a guy? Now, the only time I&#39;ll pay &#036;2 for gas is to pour it over SUVs, but I&#39;m still not killing anyone.

[post=262381]Quoted post[/post]​

When was the last time the Right decided the best way to bring about change was to organize a destructive mob and "protest" in the streets?

Both sides have their flaws. But right now, the Left is embarassing themselves with their name-calling, hate-spewing, generalizing, and overall bitterness. I have never seen EITHER party in such a confused state, completely lacking a coherent sense of direction and cause.

Living in SF, I am constantly in contact with the most devoted strains of the Left. And you know what? Very few are willing to converse in any civilized manner. Most prefer to talk AT you, to preach and label and accuse and vent. What good does this do? The close-mindedness is awe-inspiring, and the rhetoric used to back up the arguments is usually laughable.

Though I certainly lean farther Right than Left, I am a far cry from the ignorant, prejudiced, bloodthirsty redneck you try to characterize me as. But you know what? When you seek to label me as such, you&#39;re being what you claim to despise. The only post containing any wisdom in this thread is Pecker&#39;s. Hate doesn&#39;t erase hate. Ignorance doesn&#39;t erase ignorance.

Pot, meet the kettle.

[post=262386]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
If you define yourself into such a pathetically tiny definition, then by calling yourself the pot, you&#39;ve already got kettles onto you.

See my last post. See? It&#39;s called "having beliefs, and being real". Actually, I shouldn&#39;t pick on you alone, goes for 99.9999% of the population who think they have obliged loyalty to their "chosen" political stance.

 

[HungArnold]

All,

As a Canadian I find am saddened by the actions of 60% of the American adults - voter turnout was reported to be this high.

In 11 states an overwhelming majority of this "60%" voted to ban gay marriage yet the elected a president who felt it economically prudent to invade a country and steal its oil.

An often-quoted reason for the strong support against gay marriage is that it is a "sin against God". Not one of this same subset of the American population calls the invasion of a sovereign nation and the murder of innocent people a sin. It does not say much for level of common sense among members of the electorate.

 

[B_RoysToy]

Exactly, HungArnold. It&#39;s embarrassing for me as a Christian living in the Southern part of the country, to be identified as one of the electorate. Please know that not all Democrats are conservatives and that we remain hopeful for truth to prevail. My son only yesterday asked when we were moving to Canada.

 

[MisterMark]

The whole situation is becoming comical to me. I think we should start to expect stories like this every day in the news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6415905/

I won&#39;t be surprised to see a few cities and states outlaw hand-holding between 2 people of the same sex.

 

[madame_zora]

oops, double post

 

[madame_zora]

You see, evangelical religions like Christianity must necessarily convert others to fulfill their own mission, so that&#39;s my objection to having it involved in government- we WILL DEFINITELY be affected as a nation by having such a Republican pres-house-senate-supreme court package. Anyone who thinks it&#39;s even possible to overreact will probably be surpried to see the results play out...

 

[Simon9]

Although I&#39;m not a Republican, don&#39;t like Bush, nor did I vote for Bush either time, I share (here and elsewhere) Pecker&#39;s observation about the hyperbole and hatred here.

Such folk can comfort each other as presenting "reasoned" statements and professing "love and tolerance" yatta, yatta, yatta, but if they could get honest for a few moments, they&#39;d realize that they&#39;re 180° off the mark. I&#39;m sure there must be many others here who don&#39;t appreciate these vicious hate-fests.

I for one would love it if people would keep their political views to OFF-TOPIC postings and not invade the other posts with their frequent anti-Republican, anti-Bush, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative venom. More people in America don&#39;t think like you than do think like you. Unless and until you can change their minds, get used to it.

Sneer at them if it makes you feel better. But you&#39;ll never defeat them that way. Kerry wasn&#39;t the answer. America just wasn&#39;t buying.

 

[MisterMark]

Originally posted by Simon9@Nov 5 2004, 01:51 PM
More people in America don&#39;t think like you than do think like you.

[post=262563]Quoted post[/post]​

That doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re right. And besides, I don&#39;t think the LPSG represents all of America. It&#39;s clear that the majority of members here are not conservatives. Actually, in this venue, liberals are in the majority.

 

[madame_zora]

And, FWIW, sneering at the conservatives DOES make me feel better. Oh- it&#39;s different when it&#39;s YOU in minority whose voice isn&#39;t respected, isn&#39;t it? So that&#39;s the difference, WE have lpsg, YOU have the whole country. Now maybe you can see why we&#39;re pissed.

 

[13788]

gwinea2000:

Originally posted by madame_zora@Nov 5 2004, 10:29 PM
And, FWIW, sneering at the conservatives DOES make me feel better. Oh- it&#39;s different when it&#39;s YOU in minority whose voice isn&#39;t respected, isn&#39;t it? So that&#39;s the difference, WE have lpsg, YOU have the whole country. Now maybe you can see why we&#39;re pissed.

[post=262572]Quoted post[/post]​

See, that is EXACTLY where you are mistaken. Your voice IS respected. Your voice was, is being, and shall be, heard. Your vote counted for no more and no less than mine. But, you know what? The way this country works (thank god) is that we settle things by VOTING on them. You win some, you lose some. Your inability to grasp that disagreement is acceptable and welcomed is unfortunate because, ultimately, we are on the same team: We both want what is best for our country, our fellow citizens, and for the world. The fact that we are allowed to disagree on the means to those ends, coupled with a system which allows us to debate them in a civilized manner, is our greatest gift.

I understand being pissed. Sneering is fine. But, at it&#39;s core, it&#39;s good ol&#39; fashioned name-calling. I don&#39;t appreciate being called an ignorant racist war-mongering redneck any more than the gay men on this board appreciate being called fags. And, as pathetic is the man who calls another man a fag, so too is the person who tries to belittle and label me due to my political affiliations. It&#39;s exactly why Kerry couldn&#39;t win: his campaign was based around the character assassination of Bush. His platform had NO substance. Gay marriage was not the issue.

If you want to see changes, make them happen. Calling names and pointing fingers won&#39;t help you or your cause. And, in all honesty, it makes you look pathetic and foolish.

* In most cases, I intended the term &#39;you&#39; in a much broader sense -- not you specifically.

 

[madame_zora]

Well, to be honest I&#39;m groveling in my own misery at the moment, so I doubt much that is rational or compelling will escape my fingers right now.

My voice is heard/read because I never shut up&#33; That&#39;s the plan, the only way I know to make a difference, hold true to the tenets I hold dear. I can in no way call every member of the Republican party a racist, but I can and do point to the Republican party as not taking racial issues seriously. Same with gay people being treated the same as straight people, if YOU personally feel that this should be done, that&#39;s great, but the party you belong to does not share that view, so it&#39;s a kind of guilt by association.

We all get stuck with aspects of our preferred party that we do not agree with, and I understand that- I don&#39;t blindly follow everything the Dem. party stands for either, but in this particular case it seems more imperative. The reason for that feeling is that I feel strongly negative things about THIS man being in office. I feel that his impact on our nation is equivalent to Saddam Hussein&#39;s on his, so how can I be polite? There does come a time when being polite is not going to do anything, and the time for agressive resistance is upon us&#33; I will continue to vote with my minds, words, and actions that the direction bush is taking our country is NOT okay with me OR the disenfranchised 49% (+?). I do not wish to attack anyone on a personal level and in time will get a grip, so to speak, but I don&#39;t wish to lose the momentum or the venom in this issue because change will not happen through inaction and silence, or even passive disagreement.

 

[13788]

gwinea2000:

Originally posted by madame_zora+Nov 5 2004, 11:52 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Nov 5 2004, 11:52 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Same with gay people being treated the same as straight people, if YOU personally feel that this should be done, that&#39;s great, but the party you belong to does not share that view, so it&#39;s a kind of guilt by association.[/b]

In all honesty, I&#39;m not even a conservative. I voted for Badnarik because I couldn&#39;t convince myself to vote for either of the two primary candidates. I&#39;ve just gotten SO fed up with the bickering of the Left....

Originally posted by madame_zora@Nov 5 2004, 11:52 PM

I feel that his impact on our nation is equivalent to Saddam Hussein&#39;s on his, so how can I be polite?

You&#39;re entitled to your opinion, but this is beyond being a stretch. It&#39;s a statement that is IMPOSSIBLE to rationally defend.

<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Nov 5 2004, 11:52 PM

There does come a time when being polite is not going to do anything, and the time for agressive resistance is upon us&#33; I will continue to vote with my minds, words, and actions that the direction bush is taking our country is NOT okay with me OR the disenfranchised 49% (+?). I do not wish to attack anyone on a personal level and in time will get a grip, so to speak, but I don&#39;t wish to lose the momentum or the venom in this issue because change will not happen through inaction and silence, or even passive disagreement.
[/quote]

When it comes to politics, there&#39;s no need for politeness. However, it&#39;s fair to expect common decency. As for &#39;aggressive resistance&#39;, well, perhaps. IMO, the Left tends to go about this in a very militant and often scary manner. Of course, I wouldn&#39;t suggest that throwing up your hands would be the thing to do. But there are more productive ways to bring about change than just being pissed off at the &#39;victors.&#39;

Again, I often used the word &#39;you&#39; as a generalization. When it comes down to it, our views probably aren&#39;t TOO dissimilar. Best wishes with your venting.

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by gwinea2000+Nov 5 2004, 05:27 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gwinea2000 &#064; Nov 5 2004, 05:27 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Nov 5 2004, 10:29 PM
And, FWIW, sneering at the conservatives DOES make me feel better. Oh- it&#39;s different when it&#39;s YOU in minority whose voice isn&#39;t respected, isn&#39;t it? So that&#39;s the difference, WE have lpsg, YOU have the whole country. Now maybe you can see why we&#39;re pissed.

[post=262572]Quoted post[/post]​

See, that is EXACTLY where you are mistaken. Your voice IS respected. Your voice was, is being, and shall be, heard. Your vote counted for no more and no less than mine. But, you know what? The way this country works (thank god) is that we settle things by VOTING on them. You win some, you lose some. Your inability to grasp that disagreement is acceptable and welcomed is unfortunate because, ultimately, we are on the same team: We both want what is best for our country, our fellow citizens, and for the world. The fact that we are allowed to disagree on the means to those ends, coupled with a system which allows us to debate them in a civilized manner, is our greatest gift.

I understand being pissed. Sneering is fine. But, at it&#39;s core, it&#39;s good ol&#39; fashioned name-calling. I don&#39;t appreciate being called an ignorant racist war-mongering redneck any more than the gay men on this board appreciate being called fags. And, as pathetic is the man who calls another man a fag, so too is the person who tries to belittle and label me due to my political affiliations. It&#39;s exactly why Kerry couldn&#39;t win: his campaign was based around the character assassination of Bush. His platform had NO substance. Gay marriage was not the issue.

If you want to see changes, make them happen. Calling names and pointing fingers won&#39;t help you or your cause. And, in all honesty, it makes you look pathetic and foolish.

* In most cases, I intended the term &#39;you&#39; in a much broader sense -- not you specifically.

[post=262578]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Tell that to rush limbaugh, sean hannity, michael reagan, et al, et al, et al. THAT, IS TRULY HATE, working for the party. zeig heil&#33; (guess I had better learn how to spell that)