Yes in my opinion...

Post #391,098 by folkert 6/23/14 9:34:37 PM Reply	Yes in my opinion... but that ain't the point. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #391,099 by mmoffitt 6/24/14 8:09:54 AM Reply	But I think it is. Group A doesn't like they way Group B plays. Then Group A shouldn't play with Group B. Better, Group A should ignore Group B.
Post #391,101 by boxley 6/24/14 9:48:17 AM Reply	group A doesn't like rap or salsa Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #391,103 by folkert 6/24/14 10:44:06 AM 6/24/14 11:13:29 AM Reply	It is called... Religious or Racial or Gender or Sexual Orientation intolerance (or other intolerance)... And it is a bad thing and itself is intolerable and should be shamed. Period. *PERIOD* You of all people should get that, many of us here find your cretinous views on this particular subject very horrible... yet we tolerate you just fine. Some would probably say "suffer"... :D -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec Edited by folkert June 24, 2014, 11:13:29 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #391,114 by mmoffitt 6/24/14 1:54:12 PM Reply	I've no argument with you. Religious or Racial or Gender or Sexual Orientation intolerance (or other intolerance)... And it is a bad thing and itself is intolerable and should be shamed. I quite agree. The point I'm trying to make is that those who embrace intolerance will never have their opinions changed via legislation.
Post #391,118 by pwhysall 6/24/14 2:40:50 PM Reply	No, they won't. But they will most definitely have their actions constrained by such.
Post #391,120 by folkert 6/24/14 2:50:27 PM Reply	Only Punitively. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #391,121 by pwhysall 6/24/14 2:51:39 PM Reply	True. But that's how some societal change works. Just like the racists, they can adapt or die (or at least die under a mountain of paperwork caused by their appearances in court).
Post #391,128 by folkert 6/24/14 3:24:01 PM Reply	After the fact though loses much of its impact... because that they got away with it, at least initially. Many will "do it again" and pay again... until you change the forward-bias thinking, the retro-bias damages and punishments just won't be enough or work to help erase the bias. In fact, the retro-bias against, will in many cases INCREASE the forward-bais... many fold, as "those damned (gays/niggers/kikes/chinks/whops/etc) caused me to have to pay those reparations and I'll get them... you'll see, I'll get them." So, they only learn by being FORCED to deal with it... personally and majorly out in the open, subject to public scrutiny... as the saying goes: Those more you tell a lie, the more you believe it! But it goes both ways much of the time. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #391,119 by folkert 6/24/14 2:49:52 PM Reply	Ok. Understand achieved on this. I still think intolerance is for closed minded people. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #391,105 by drook 6/24/14 11:07:19 AM Reply	Let's accept your premise Group A should ignore group B. (And vice-versa I assume?) Imagine we're already in that world. If that's the case, there are no laws on the books that refer to marriage. It's up to me and whoever I want to associate with to use that word (or not) however we choose. But in our world, there are thousands of laws that refer to marriage: inheritance, custody, insurance beneficiaries, medical decisions just to name four broad categories. Are you suggesting that group B should just pretend those laws don't already exist? Because I can guarantee group A is planning to enforce them. So should laws exist that are based on what we call "marriage"? It sure does simplify those four categories I named above. And by the way, that's why gay marriage is not on par with multiple marriage. The simplicity of saying, "This is my spouse, they can speak for me," goes out the window when there are multiple spouses who may not agree. -- Drew
Post #391,111 by mmoffitt 6/24/14 12:57:04 PM Reply	Re: should laws exist that are based on what we call "marriage" Not anymore. The term no longer uniquely defines a unique human relationship that most often yields a net positive upon society. I'd full-throatedly support changing all laws containing the word "marriage" to "committed cohabitional arrangement" instead. An s/marriage/committed cohabitational arrangement/gi, if you will, on all legislation referring to marriage. Why? Because that phrase far more accurately describes what is now meant by "marriage" in today's parlance and our legislation should reflect this change in definition.
Post #391,112 by boxley 6/24/14 1:03:39 PM Reply	moffat CCA works let religions have their marriage let dna determine heirs and contracts determine divvying up the dumplings. Register them in the local courthouse and register dissolutions there as well. You meet a new potential pojo a quick title search will determine availability and one could buy title insurance. Lots of potential lucrative markets there :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #391,113 by folkert 6/24/14 1:44:55 PM Reply	What about adoptions? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #391,122 by boxley 6/24/14 2:57:46 PM Reply	same way we do it now, register them Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #391,129 by folkert 6/24/14 3:24:43 PM Reply	But you said DNA... So... backtracking now? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #391,284 by Another Scott 6/29/14 10:59:34 PM Reply	DNA isn't simple, and it's getting more complicated. NY Times: In August 1996, at St. Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., a 39-year-old mechanical engineer from Pittsburgh named Maureen Ott became pregnant. Ott had been trying for almost seven years to conceive a child through in vitro fertilization. Unwilling to give up, she submitted to an experimental procedure in which doctors extracted her eggs, slid a needle through their shiny coat and injected not only her husband’s sperm but also a small amount of cytoplasm from another woman’s egg. When the embryo was implanted in Ott’s womb, she became the first woman on record to be successfully impregnated using this procedure, which some say is the root of an exciting medical advance and others say is the beginning of the end of the human species. The fresh cytoplasm that entered Ott’s eggs (researchers thought it might help promote proper fertilization and development) contained mitochondria: bean-shaped organelles that power our cells like batteries. But mitochondria also contain their own DNA, which meant that her child could possess the genetic material of three people. In fact, the 37 genes in mitochondrial DNA pass directly from a woman’s egg into every cell of her offspring, including his or her germ cells, the sperm or eggs that eventually produce the next generation — so if Ott had a girl and the donor mitochondria injected into Ott’s egg made it into the eggs of her daughter, they could be passed along to her children. This is known as crossing the germ line, something that scientists generally agree is a risky proposition. [...] I think I've mentioned Lydia Fairchild here before: Lydia Fairchild and her children are the subjects of a British documentary called The Twin Inside Me (also known as "I Am My Own Twin").[1] Lydia Fairchild was pregnant with her third child when she and the father of her children, Jamie Townsend, separated. When Fairchild applied for welfare support in 2002, she was requested to provide DNA evidence that Townsend was the father of her children. While the results showed Townsend was certainly the father of the children, the DNA tests indicated that she was not their mother. This resulted in Fairchild's being taken to court for fraud for claiming benefit for other people's children or taking part in a surrogacy scam. Hospital records of her prior births were disregarded. Prosecutors called for her two children to be taken into care. As time came for her to give birth to her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at the birth. This witness was to ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild. Two weeks later, DNA tests indicated that she was not the mother of that child either. A breakthrough came when a lawyer for the prosecution heard of a human chimera in New England (Karen Keegan) and suggested the possibility to the Fairchild's lawyer, Alan Tindell, who then found an article in the New England Journal of Medicine about Keegan.[2][3] He realised that Fairchild's case might also be caused by chimerism. As in Keegan's case, DNA samples were taken from members of the extended family. The DNA of Fairchild's children matched that of Fairchild's mother to the extent expected of a grandmother. They also found that, although the DNA in Fairchild's skin and hair did not match her children's, the DNA from a cervical smear test did match. Fairchild was carrying two different sets of DNA, the defining characteristic of a chimera. DNA doesn't define families. Marriage is a civil construct and should be governed by civil laws, IMHO. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #391,289 by boxley 6/30/14 9:05:28 AM Reply	great, bring that up in your criminal trial, see how far you get :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #391,149 by Another Scott 6/24/14 9:45:32 PM Reply	Counterpoint from the Great White North. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/28/john-moore-are-we-really-still-arguing-about-gay-marriage/ FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #391,162 by mmoffitt 6/25/14 10:12:55 AM Reply	Heh. I guess I'm a lexicographer. In all honesty, I actually prefer my hastily defined CCA term to the word marriage. I think, however, there is a non sequitir in that post. SSM opponents frequently argue that they are perfectly fine with gays being able to enter into civil unions. But if the state is to offer first and second class marriage, what is the state’s interest in holding one more special than the other? How does defining a "civil union" in the law to be in all ways the equal of "marriage" cause the state to "offer first and second class marriage"? I will not ever understand this objection. From my POV, that reasoning is indistinguishable from the reasoning behind the argument that "we can't use the words brother and sister in describing our siblings because one must be inferior to the other. So we must choose one of the two to describe sibilings without regard to gender." To me, that argument is ridiculous on its face. But it is the very argument in that post. If you think I've gone even further around the bend thinking that, consider this: VANCOUVER -- Grammar teachers may need to amend their lesson plans after the Vancouver school board approved Monday a policy change that welcomes a brand-new string of pronouns into Vancouver public schools: “xe, xem, and xyr.” The pronouns are touted as alternatives to he/she, him/her, and his/hers, and come as last-minute amendments to the board’s new policy aimed at better accommodating transgender students in schools. The vote came after a brief debate that sparked unrest among opponents of the policy who shouted “dictator” and “liar” at trustees, as security guards and police officers watched from their posts at council doors. But supporters waved pink and blue-coloured flags and drowned out the detractors with their cheers once the policy passed. Three previous public meetings were similarly rowdy. The vote may be the knockout blow in a bitter and protracted fight over the controversial plan to put gender-neutral washrooms in schools and support students in expressing their preferred gender identities. http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Vancouver+school+board+approves+policy+addressing+transgender/9945194/story.html Sorry, I just can't buy "xe" as progress. But, often language is the first to go before the fall. So I say, "Come On, Comet."
Post #391,163 by boxley 6/25/14 10:19:35 AM Reply	nails it exactly A civil clerk can ramble through the Napoleonic rights, obligations and privileges of union, and those who want the blessings of a faith leader can seek it out as a separate matter. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #391,509 by jake123 7/4/14 2:03:47 PM Reply	The origins of marriage are civil and far predate Christianity. If the Christianists want a special thing, they can come up with their own fucking name for it. Oh, and betrothed belongs to the pagans, so that's not one of the ones they can use.
Post #391,521 by Ashton 7/4/14 6:09:53 PM Reply	¡Precísamente! Your sophistry-cutter is keen, today.. mightn't that have something to do with Freedom (cha cha cha) n'stuff? celebrated today also via various Pagan rituals involving ..explosions, (hubris) and just plain jingoism of Xian-bent?
Post #391,143 by Ashton 6/24/14 8:22:02 PM Reply	Couldn't 'say' with any possible corroboration the source of your intransigence on this issue-set, but I can suggest one process which might apply: (Since you persist in rationalizing (into Ideal-sunniness?) the mindsets of millions of fellow planetary-inmates.) Y'know about? that particular odd-state between sleep and (what we deem to be our 'conscious'-state, whether we're brain-dead or über-mensch, actually?) This can occur just-before deep sleep or, upon gradual (non!-Noise!) awakening. Well, Do Ya? Many students of such matters, of our barely-yet-explored, many-States-of-consciousness, deem that one to be pregnant with self-info, had we the wit to try to prolong it a bit: and learn. (Some call that mood? mode? when we Can prolong it .. conscious dreaming or directed-dreaming.) Being merely a rank amateur in such experiments to 'enhance', I can only report here, that: It is a State where momentarily you Do Not Know-fershure if you have-awakened [into the dull daily small-r reality?] or, simply: Realize-not Who/What/Where "you" Are. Period. [No exaggeration intended. Or needed.] (If you've experienced such, you don't need those words. If you "can't recall it ever having occurred?" then none of this will make any sense, with any more of them.) But that's all just preamble to my Point here: On occasion I've sorta-awakened into: the 'world of mass humanity' which you are convinced is the Same version as the 'world' everyone awakens-to: One where you don't Need all those laws: Each One passed to keep churlish defectives from imposing their deranged fantasies on everyone else, one where n-husbands do Not regularly traumatize their unlucky mates nor fire their not-like-me employees; one where a 'family-pet' is Not icily-discarded like last month's obsolescent X-box, one where ____add-lengthy-list. the Source-code for most every Hollywood soap opera or musical or TV sit-com since either medium was invented? But then.. this. never. lasts. In seconds (if lucky, the State might persist for 5? 10 !? seconds.. longer for others, I hear.) "I" am thrown back in to the maya/the imagined-world of imagined-"opposites": A grotesque collection including Cheneys, Reagans, the walking monkey-brain-wounded: those who make the most Noise of all … along with the permanent pleasures of the efforts of the collected, timeless artists of all stripes who mean to transform the latter into the?/some? former unpolluted-State. ie. I do not think that (well, most of us here anyway) summarize the zeitgeist as being 'Really' anything like the one you carry around: whether that one derives from some extended-conscious-dream-state (?) or just is an inculcated version you happen to possess (or are possessed by.) Others could be, of course, deranged. But.. you know.. (Any er, more-granular analysis gets into Shrink's-rates) .. and there are already too-many clients clamoring for a release from the Murican Dream-state, as they notice ... quite more often now: the horror of that neurasthenia within their actual-Lives.) :-/ ;^> Carrion. (Hey! too: if you Can maintain that vision, while realizing where it aims: you'll be joining cohorts: on the Barricades!) And be an invaluable planner, should the deranged be routed and their corpses provide sufficient nutrients for a much Greener re-habbed core-Civilization. Eh?

Welcome to IWETHEY!