Please enlighten me about how you perceive this as binary?

Post #348,247 by beepster 9/28/11 2:42:03 PM Reply	Please enlighten me about how you perceive this as binary? I'm really interested in that. It would seem to me that those trying to discredit her are being binary, not me by pointing out an apparent misalignment of position. But, of course, I'm sure you will enlighten me. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,248 by Another Scott 9/28/11 3:11:53 PM Reply	Re: Please enlighten me about how you perceive this as binar not surprised by what? that he is "rumored" to be gay or that the "all inclusive" democratic machine is going to use a possible homosexual to try and discredit a woman? [2 choices] All this based on how he talks, up to this point. [No other evidence in the public domain considered] I suppose its better than being misogynistic, right? [no other possible category] (at least according to an openly gay singer) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #348,250 by beepster 9/28/11 3:41:06 PM Reply	Ok I will make sure I include more options... And is there other evidence? I've not seen it. And the last was a near direct quote of Elton john, so there can be no other category. I guess he's binary too. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,255 by beepster 9/28/11 5:30:21 PM Reply	Re: Ok Modification, I've now seen a youtube video of him >walking< as well. More "evidence" And again, I'm surprised that this "evidence" is being used by a group that has long worked at NOT being stereotyped to actually stereotype someone. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,256 by Another Scott 9/28/11 5:56:12 PM Reply	Re: Ok http://thinkprogress...-and-disciplined/ It's called "psychological projection" - http://en.wikipedia....ogical_projection Remember Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard and ...? It's not a stretch to observe that many famous "religious" people who yell and carry on about sins of others are often caught doing/being the things they most decry. Film at 11:00. I'm reminded of a certain parable about splinters and logs. Dr. Bachmann needs to look it up sometime. I couldn't care less the way he walks or dances or what he finds sexually appealing or whatever. I feel bad for his patients, but that's between them and the state medical licensing board. I'm more concerned about her opinions, votes, and actions in office. Fortunately, since she's not running for re-election to Congress, and since she's got zero chance of winning the presidency, she won't be able to do much more real damage. Cheers, Scott.
Post #348,258 by beepster 9/28/11 6:27:23 PM Reply	Oh, I get it Because I vehemently oppose higher taxes, I'm really a closet liberal... Scientific, even. And if you aren't concerned, why come here and talk about evidence of him being gay that doesn't exist? And if it's her opinions and actions that concern you, why do you jump in here to seemingly defend attacks on her husband? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,260 by Another Scott 9/28/11 7:25:07 PM Reply	Binary Man continues to be Binary. Film at 11:00. :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #348,273 by beepster 9/28/11 10:17:01 PM Reply	Hmmm. No evidence, no med diagnosis to support So just default to that. Okee dokee Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,283 by crazy 9/29/11 7:36:38 AM Reply	As usual This is a very common scenario. We (our society) are used to seeing rabid anti-gay religious leaders get caught. Especially those on the way fringes, and dammit, this guy is way fringe. We don't NEED to care when we are wrong. Know why? Because even if we are, the guy doing the preaching is such an asshole that he should suffer under the shadow of his co-religionists suspecting him. This is not tarring someone with something that anyone other than his stupid culture cares about. So let him suffer his own persecution. This is a win-win from my perspective, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT. Even if he is not gay, the prejudice he suffers from when people thinks he is is well deserved. Fuck'em, perfect punishment.
Post #348,284 by beepster 9/29/11 7:42:34 AM Reply	Re: As usual Okee doke. Just find it ironic that those preaching about being more tolerant are out in public saying " listen to the way he talks, look at they way he walks...he Is so gay" and the only reason it's acceptable now is because hes a candidates husband and she is anti gay marriage. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,285 by crazy 9/29/11 7:51:13 AM 9/29/11 10:55:42 PM Reply	Whoa, "more tolerant"? Fuck that. You don't tolerate people attacking you. And when someone whines and says: You're so mean to me, you said I'm just like you, in a way that makes me hate you. Good. Gay people didn't start attacking straight people. They have and will continue to suffer for no reason than idiotic religious edicts. Those that cause the suffering need to be punished. Fuck'em. Hard. With a splintered broom handle. And no lube. And glue some glass shards to that broom. And a dessicated hedgehog too! (the porcupine won't fit up the ass). Edited by crazy Sept. 29, 2011, 09:15:45 AM EDT Edited by crazy Sept. 29, 2011, 10:55:42 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,339 by boxley 9/29/11 8:23:16 PM Reply	dont forget dessicated porcupines :-) 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 55 years. meep
Post #348,287 by crazy 9/29/11 8:03:09 AM Reply	And as far as tolerance: http://thenewcivilri...cs/2009/01/13/338 Here, let me give you the ending: Tolerance is for someone who doesnÂt know better, like my dog who likes to jump on people. Tolerance is for someone whose views negatively impact your life, like people who want to stop me from loving the man I love, with all my heart. I do not want your tolerance. I do not deserve your tolerance. I will not accept your tolerance, any longer. What I will do is my best to ensure that we are all given equality and the legal right to love and marry the person who loves us back. From now on I will tolerate nothing less. No, they don't want or need your tolerance, and they have been tolerating you for far too long.
Post #348,290 by beepster 9/29/11 9:34:47 AM Reply	Well then 1) don't assume their views are mine, they're not. I support civil unions. I just don't call it marriage. This way, I'm choosing not to try and change thousands of years of cultural and religious beliefs, I'm simply trying to get equal treatment under the law. Got it? Good. 2) you still miss the basic point..that gay supporters and openly gay people, who always complain about being stereotyped are using those very stereotypes to accuse the husband, NOT THE CANDIDATE, of being in the closet. 3) his "barbarians" statement deserves to be ridiculed, and is. 4) your attitude fits well with the opposing antigay community as well...and I'm sure if given the opportunity, the group you support so vehemently here would not appreciate the broom handle reference. Just sayin. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,293 by crazy 9/29/11 9:58:41 AM Reply	You don't get to own the word. 1) don't assume their views are mine, they're not. I support civil unions. I just don't call it marriage. Guess what? You support their views. You just couch it in gentler terms. You see the ability to judge what you support is based on outsiders seeing you support it. Not what you say. I don't need to convince you. I don't expect to. But I won't leave your statements alone, too harmful to too many people. Those that stay silent when others are persecuted are complicit. I'd prefer not to be. This way, I'm choosing not to try and change thousands of years of cultural and religious beliefs, I'm simply trying to get equal treatment under the law. Got it? Good. Nope. Already stated why. 2) you still miss the basic point..that gay supporters and openly gay people, who always complain about being stereotyped are using those very stereotypes to accuse the husband, NOT THE CANDIDATE, of being in the closet. Hehehehehehehehehehe. Ok. I understand. Really. I'm supporting their use of it. Got it? This guy has caused enough damage to enough people, public life or not, that he has put himself in the cross-hairs (Palinism here). 3) his "barbarians" statement deserves to be ridiculed, and is. Please point it out, missed this so I don't understand the reference. 4) your attitude fits well with the opposing antigay community as well...and I'm sure if given the opportunity, the group you support so vehemently here would not appreciate the broom handle reference. Just sayin. I'm not trolling for support. I don't care if a violent reaction fits in to a community that is starting violence. Non-violent resistance does NOT work, at least not fast enough, and who the fuck wants to put up with rednecks dragging gays from their pickup trucks just so some idiot can claim a higher moral ground. Does not matter. Some people only understand pain. When brought up under fire and brimstone, it seems it is the only thing.
Post #348,299 by beepster 9/29/11 10:45:31 AM Reply	My statements? please enlighten. I don't believe I've made any statements here. As to civil union vs marriage. Very simple. WHAT IS THE GOAL? I believe the GLB community's goal to be equal treatment under the law to those who are "married". What is the path of least resistance to meet that goal? Try and change thousands of years of culture and history by re-defining a word? Hardly think so. Words >do< matter to people..but the word "marriage" has nothing to do with the goal. There is something "harmful" here? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,308 by crazy 9/29/11 12:07:20 PM Reply	Path of least resistance? What is the path of least resistance to meet that goal? You mean how can you guide them to an answer the is allowable based on how much resistance you put before them? No picking and choosing on which pieces of marriage fit in YOUR definition and then can be shoe-horned in civil union. I don't care what the piece by piece argument is. It is a stupid trap. It is one of definition. But for you, sure, Here: Every use of the word marriage, married, and spouse in public life, EVERY, that is not directly part of a church gets applied. Laws, insurance policies, wills, medical access, death benefits, housing access, transportation (as a couple, someone doesn't like them snuggling in their seats can just fuck off, the heterosexual couple is snuggling down the way without any hassles), EVERYTHING. If a store such as Chick Filet (a christian organization) offers ANY benefits using this terminology, they have to offer it to gay couples as well. Am I clear enough on this point?
Post #348,311 by beepster 9/29/11 12:17:20 PM Reply	Hmm. You appear to not be paying attention. I didn't say anything about "pieces of marriage"...I said EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER LAW. I don't believe that to be even remotely ambiguous, nor a "trap", nor an attempt to guide. Your entire list applies. Is it that hard to understand? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,313 by crazy 9/29/11 12:30:25 PM Reply	Marriage 2 people in love. Committing their souls to each other for all eternity. Publicly. Before their family and peers. Within whatever religion chooses to marry them. And NO contract, no rule, no agreement that either of them has made needs to be reviewed. They know they are safe. Civil union: The local bureaucrat stamps the paper that says most of the rules apply to them, but get back to him when it doesn't work out. But make sure you've got the lawyers prepaid, because you are in for a ride. No thanks. Separate but equal is an oxymoron. Tell that to the blacks during Jim Crow.
Post #348,315 by beepster 9/29/11 12:37:53 PM Reply	Can't believe this you are arguing AGAINST separation of church and state here. I am arguing specifically for it. Everything you wanted in your list is "civil"...protections by law. Everything in your post supports MY argument. a complete separate of "marriage" from the law that applies to "civil unions" Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,344 by crazy 9/29/11 10:32:02 PM Reply	And neither does anyone else Because the offer of civil unions is a red herring to avoid giving them what they want. Because YOU equate marriage with YOUR (or any other of the popular "current") religions, and they pretty much feel GOD HATES FAGS (and shrimp, too). But I don't. So your statement concerning separation of church and state and your belief that I'm arguing against that missed the core piece. Marriage is not a religious issue. It is a personal issue between 2 people. You (your culture) does not get to take away something and graciously offer to give it back, with a different name. It existed before your culture did, and will exist long after your culture is gone. Not yours to take, not yours to give. It's a generic fuck-off feeling here. You assume some level of power here. Maybe because you are so tolerant of others and feel they should appreciate your kindness toward them.
Post #348,360 by beepster 9/30/11 8:31:38 AM Reply	Sure appears that way You want legal protection for a personal/religious choice of 2 committed persons...and you appear to want it without a clear legal definition. In will ignore the various bullshit accusations thrown in your post .. Because simply all of those YOU statements about equating marriage and such are accusatory to me, and simply wrong. No one is offering to take something away and give it back you idiot. The law in current form is based on the religious culture in which it was written. You know, the one that you say was stolen from you...etc. And I assume no level of power...I know the basis of our legal code and know that to solve this issue requires a legal definition separate from one so entwined by the majority to a religion. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,378 by crazy 9/30/11 10:30:20 AM Reply	Ah, me idiot It's ok beep. But, really, read the whole thread again.
Post #348,381 by beepster 9/30/11 10:41:47 AM Reply	I don't need to re-read your completely ignoring the basis of the laws in this country being attached to those religious beliefs you obviously don't share. Willful ignorance or idiocy. You choose. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,397 by Another Scott 9/30/11 11:26:10 AM Reply	Hmm, I thought our laws were dervied from English common law http://en.wikipedia....the_United_States At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. http://en.wikipedia....erican_common_law I don't see anything about our laws being attached to religious beliefs there. Cheers, Scott.
Post #348,398 by beepster 9/30/11 11:33:51 AM Reply	dig deeper start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,400 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 11:40:07 AM Reply	I think I can make the argument that Canon Law is the reason behind the 1st Amendment.
Post #348,401 by crazy 9/30/11 11:41:32 AM Reply	Yup And Beep would probably like it revoked. Only when people are insulting religion, of course.
Post #348,404 by beepster 9/30/11 12:09:39 PM Reply	Know what. Fuck you. Full stop. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,408 by crazy 9/30/11 12:16:05 PM Reply	Very good example I say something insulting (as considered by some, a perfectly reasonable observation to others), I get a demand to stop, using directed profanity. I think we are pretty clear this point has been proven. Hey Beep: I'll fight for your right to continue to insult me. Something tells me you don't agree with that attitude.
Post #348,410 by beepster 9/30/11 12:18:28 PM Reply	Of what, exactly. Your ability to assume a position for me and insult me, directly? Barry, we are done here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,412 by crazy 9/30/11 12:22:36 PM Reply	If you say so But again and again, either an insult of association fits or it doesn't. Either prove the accusation wrong or say openly they fucked up. Don't defend where we are simply because it's been that way long enough, and the rest of us need to put up with it, or follow YOUR path to fix it. Oh, actually, here the core phrase. LONG ENOUGH. But once you do that, you now have to deal with NOT fixing it. And that hurts you. Sorry.
Post #348,414 by beepster 9/30/11 12:34:57 PM Reply	There's an accusation now? Why don't you make up my response, too. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,456 by crazy 9/30/11 6:44:22 PM Reply	Easily But I know when to stop. You've displayed enough to be obvious. Don't peel away the layers, danger there. Of course, when the same silly argument pops up in the future, I'll slap it down. Unless admin tells me otherwise, or until enough people I respect (you know, the rational kind as well as willing to actually tell their kids the truth) tell me to stop.
Post #348,411 by crazy 9/30/11 12:18:34 PM Reply	Hey, I'm a canon law scholar now, yay http://en.wikipedia....he_United_Kingdom My area of interest would be in punishment for Blasphemy of course. Happy reading!
Post #348,405 by beepster 9/30/11 12:12:20 PM Reply	That would all be well and good. But it wouldn't make a difference. If the basis of common law is canon law, which it is, it's too ingrained. And I would also reply in retort that the church of england, and not canon law, was the reason for the first amendment. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,452 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 5:20:53 PM Reply	Not sure it is. What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in the first century has developed into a highly complex legal system encapsulating not just norms of the New Testament, but some elements of the Hebrew (Old Testament), Roman, Visigothic, Saxon, and Celtic legal traditions. In the Roman Church, positive ecclesiastical laws, based upon either immutable divine and natural law, or changeable circumstantial and merely positive law, derive formal authority and promulgation from the office of pope, who as Supreme Pontiff possesses the totality of legislative, executive, and judicial power in his person. The actual subject material of the canons is not just doctrinal or moral in nature, but indeed all-encompassing of the human condition. While the original rules included those traditional elements above, the Canon law as a whole dictates what is acceptable and what is not. (Thus the term Canon) Common Law does not have "rules". In fact, the entire composition of Common law is based on "what has been decided before", particularly in civil suits. It's not because someone (or some God) decreed what is the ideal, but rather it's because this case is similar to the case last year. ie: stare decisis In fact...if you go back to Henry II (birthplace of Common Law) you'll see that there was a huge fight between the law of the King (Common) vs Church Law (canon).
Post #348,453 by Another Scott 9/30/11 5:26:19 PM Reply	Thank you.
Post #348,457 by beepster 9/30/11 6:47:33 PM Reply	Re: Not sure it is. It's in there. http://www.hanselawr...f/Vol1No1Art7.pdf Roman and canon law were used to fill gaps while common law was emerging. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,463 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 7:48:38 PM Reply	Actually, if you read carefully... Local matters were dealt with by the feudal courts, which were eventually eclipsed by the popularity and expansion of the royal courts.The extent to which judges drew upon the Roman Law and Civil Law during the formative years of the common law is unclear. She goes on to state that because they were trained at schools that taught Roman law there must have been influences. Oh and they used Roman terms (actually they still use Latin). One writer suggests that the early royal judges made new laws Âout of necessityÂ, reshaping local customs, Roman Law and Civil Law principles to fit around the forms of action that were used in the courts. The courts never revealed the origins of these customs and principles. Instead, the doctrines of precedent and stare decisis as well as the fiction that judges merely declare the law ensured that their decisions would be presented as the product of reason. I'll grant you that our legal system (both criminal and civil) still uses Latin.
Post #348,470 by beepster 9/30/11 8:22:49 PM Reply	Can't cut and paste from pdf First paragraph page 82 Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,528 by S1mon_Jester 10/1/11 10:10:29 PM Reply	Here is your quote. The ecclesiastical courts applied the canon law, a subcategory of the Civil Law as defined. These courts dealt with the clergy and personal matters including matrimony and probate. While the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was eventually transferred to the common law courts in the 19th century, the canon law influenced equity before then,which, in turn, later became a part of the Common Law. A few thoughts. 1) Roman Law != Canon Law. 2) I am not willing to concede that Canon Law is the basis of Common Law. I will, however, concede that Canon Law influenced Common Law. (Canon law include laws of matrimony and probate after all, and these areas were originally outside the King's dominion. However, influence is slippery term. Certainly Canon Law influenced Henry VIII decision - but I'm not sure I'd argue that that they were based of Canon Law. :-)
Post #348,529 by beepster 10/1/11 10:57:24 PM Reply	Concession My first post was too broad, should have.said canon law was influential, but not "the" basis. In the areas under discussion in this thread, it was the basis...but not overall. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,295 by crazy 9/29/11 10:12:33 AM Reply	Also, you STOLE the word and the concept http://en.wikipedia....f_same-sex_unions So f'off when you claim you are trying to protect something of historical and cultural significance from being corrupted. YOUR PEOPLE ALREADY DID THAT!
Post #348,300 by beepster 9/29/11 10:47:46 AM Reply	>I< didn't do anything and >you< posted something that vanished as a limited practice in the 3rd century. Try harder. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,304 by crazy 9/29/11 11:52:19 AM Reply	Sure, when your people killed off the competition Just like the 1st drug war, killing off the competition is the way of the crusades. Whenever I say your people, it is simply ANYONE associated with Pope driven Catholicism and most of the other Jesus based cults that look around and try to tell others what do do, and often use force to make it happen. I'm pretty sure that is your culture, it sure as hell seems to direct any of your non-financial non-personal (your own, not others) freedom issues. So please don't tell me because disappeared when your cultural ancestors killed off most of the practitioners that it is irrelevant. It is even MORE so at that point.
Post #348,306 by beepster 9/29/11 11:59:48 AM Reply	You mean, like Islam? your "you people" would have to include them also. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,309 by crazy 9/29/11 12:10:39 PM Reply	Sure Islam is based on your cult as reinterpreted by a whack job pedophile warlord, which was based on my cult with a total rewrite on pretty much everything, possibly based on Jesus, but mostly nothing more than a bunch of political deals to keep people in power. Still yours.
Post #348,319 by rcareaga 9/29/11 5:04:59 PM Reply	ICLRPD Islam is based on your cult as reinterpreted by a whack job pedophile warlord, which was based on my cult with a total rewrite on pretty much everything, possibly based on Jesus, but mostly nothing more than a bunch of political deals to keep people in power. Not particularly pithy, and perhaps a little dodgy in terms of religious scholarship, but a worthy entry nevertheless. cordially,
Post #348,347 by crazy 9/29/11 11:13:56 PM 9/29/11 11:21:02 PM Reply	Interesting side track Did you hope to trip me up with some specifically against christians? Some day you will realize they are ALL bullshit, rather than all BUT the particular one you were brought up with. It's just so amazing that with all the crazy fuckers spouting prophecies, and all of them just so stupid, and some people fell for (or were tortured into accepting) a particular line of bullshit, that you magically were born into the right one. The one that makes sense. hehhehehehhahahahahahehehehehahahaahahahah. Does not pass the laugh test. And until then, you will think those of us who simply accept that not just 99% of religions, but all of them are bullshit, are gunning for YOURS. You're not that special, only a soft target. Edited by crazy Sept. 29, 2011, 11:21:02 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,362 by beepster 9/30/11 8:47:25 AM Reply	You disavow your own arguments so easily All this intolerance after pope driven catholics kill the opposition...your statement. Islam, far from pope driven catholicism also is intolerant. So now you shift to the " They're all bullshit" tack. That's all well and good. But now, back to my initial point, you seem to want to fight this battle against a mid 90s percent of humanity, using language that has significance the their core beliefs..with the attitude that oozes from your every post on this subject...and you think that it should magically happen without a fight, cause shit, after all, the Romans did it in 200 bc? And because I've suggested that for legal equality you need a clear legal term separate from one so mired in religious baggage you have gone on this little tear very thinly patching together some very insulting accusations about what must be my deep inner feelings (one post saying you doesn't mean you ain't cutting it bub) ... All because religion is tied to the issue. Thank you for proving my point. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,375 by crazy 9/30/11 10:21:59 AM 9/30/11 10:29:04 AM Reply	"intolerant" Yay!!!! Yes! I do not need to tolerate it. I can be intolerant. And I can choose not to tolerate others of a group that have historically caused me harm (yes ME dammit), when they are proceeding in that direction again. You finally got it. Oh, a tiny bit, of course, because it raised your hackles. one more time. I am not a politician. I am never going for office. Commenting on the awfulness of a way something is said does NOTHING to address what is said. You are merely acting like a whining subgroup. And for this group of people, I don't see a reason to couch it in gentle terms. CULTURE WAR KILLS PEOPLE. The only thing I see coming out of this discussion is 1 or 2 people doing a drive by read. It'll piss off the believers, and the few that look around and say SHIT, I might have been lied to about EVERYTHING, but they only admitted to Santa Clause, and having a serious depressed moment. And then getting on with their life with their eyes open. But you? No. People like you? No. I like you. You are awesomely smart. You are educated. You are generally a very nice kind giving person. I patterned my attitude about how family life should be after watching you, your wife, and your kids. Really, mine was FUCKED, and you showed love and acceptance. It was great. Please understand what you see as a personal attack is about as far as this can get. This is the same spiel I have been giving my VERY catholic daughter for years. And I love her. Take care Also (here's the edit), look into the nocebo effect. Religion works via placebo and nocebo, but the nocebo is a straight trip to hell for most of them when you don't do what you're told. And enough people believe so it causes real pain in daily decisions. I DO NOT LIKE PAIN FOR THE SAKE OF PAIN. THERE IS ENOUGH ALREADY. Edited by crazy Sept. 30, 2011, 10:29:04 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,377 by beepster 9/30/11 10:29:44 AM Reply	to what point and to what end this entire thread, which you, in the end, agreed with >me< on, was simply just so you could bullshit pulpit about your particular brand of non religion by assuming a set of beliefs for me (which aren't) and then launching a bunch of personal attacks against it (oh, sorry, you never really meant you). Frankly, you're better than that. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,379 by crazy 9/30/11 10:37:45 AM 9/30/11 10:41:27 AM Reply	No, I'm not I'm not "better" than that. I'm expressing a variety of viewpoints that my attitude is based on. It has evolved pretty dramatically over the years, and I accept that there might be something else out there. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not faith. You've heard me spiel enough before, but NEVER in front of your family. That would be wrong. I'm better than "that". On the other hand if your kids reads this some day, and this discussion causes him to question his faith, that would REALLY make you unhappy. Right? Oh, BTW: Religion stole both freedom of choice and love. I want them back. And it can only be done by informing the next generation. This is a long term project. Edited by crazy Sept. 30, 2011, 10:41:27 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,383 by beepster 9/30/11 10:49:32 AM Reply	Wrong, and there you go again assuming a set of beliefs onto me that just aren't there. Faith is personal. If my children question it, then they are doing the right thing, for themselves, and I would be anything BUT unhappy. This has already happened. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,385 by crazy 9/30/11 10:50:55 AM Reply	Good But my question to you is why did you program something into them that questioning makes you happy?
Post #348,389 by beepster 9/30/11 11:00:59 AM Reply	Who? its societal...unless you're suggesting that I somehow wronged my children by not locking them in the basement. And, btw..this is it. I'm done here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,391 by crazy 9/30/11 11:03:39 AM 9/30/11 11:36:55 AM Reply	I had the same decision When the boy when to his 1st class when he was around 6 years old. Religious training. Yes, I know the teacher is spouting bullshit. Your job is to NOT argue with her. She believes, and we know better, but you are not allowed to argue with the teacher. You are capable of cultural transmission without lying to your kids. At least I was. And now you have another chance. How's the grandkids? Pushing a parent to utilize the local religious school / daycare? And so it happens again. Will you be telling the next generation the truth? And an additional note: I obviously spend a lot of time trying to figure out motivations. Mine 1st, then others. And I toss them out to see which ones get a response, which in turn allows me to focus my thoughts. This really upset you. Adversarial interaction in the forum means personal stuff. What things in your (or anyones else's life) got them to this point that they say and think these things. Whenever it hits that, it's bibi for you. But this discussion is about deeply personal things. It started there. You attempted to couch it in the vast legal framework that may or may not be applied into the situation. But you don't consider the initial goal one that is ever gonna happen, so you are guiding accordingly. Condescendingly. You often say I (and others) have no clue why you think these things. And we should stop bothering to dig. And then you say I'm full of shit when I write in that direction. Pick one or the other. Engage and give reason why you think certain ways (even when personal), or realize that we only have your writing to choose from. And we make our judgments. Feel free to correct them with real information. Or if TOO personal, realize that your lack of serious input is noted. Also, the things we choose not to discuss are the thing we usually aren't very proud of. Are you not proud of your method of cultural transmission, even if you are NOT a believer (which is where this seems to be going but I'm not supposed to ask)? Edited by crazy Sept. 30, 2011, 11:20:40 AM EDT Edited by crazy Sept. 30, 2011, 11:33:18 AM EDT Edited by crazy Sept. 30, 2011, 11:36:55 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,310 by Another Scott 9/29/11 12:14:14 PM Reply	"Separate but equal" doesn't work. We tried that. Civil Unions are "separate but equal" in a different dress. It won't work. Marriage rights need to be equal. If you think "marriage" hasn't evolved over time, you're misinformed - http://www2.hu-berli...e_in_western.html Cheers, Scott.
Post #348,314 by beepster 9/29/11 12:35:12 PM Reply	You are missing the point to..so let me be clear It is NOT separate but equal. It is working on the LEGAL side..having the LEGAL term "marriage" changed to the LEGAL term of "civil union". If you walk down the street and ask, "where do people get married?"...the response will be "in a church". Try it. Like it or not, its cultural and religious. And its not a US only phenomenon, though our current discussion is about US law. So the term "same sex marriage" has a built in error for the vast majority. Change the "Certificate of Marriage" to a legally defined "Certificate of Civil Union", grandfather all existing certificates to the new definition and voila, equal recognition and treatment under law, no separation whatsoever. Its a different approach, a softer approach, and EASILY turned into a civil rights discussion without all the religious baggage that drives the nutjob right so crazy. Plus, you just posted a wordier version of the wikipedia article crazy did talking about marriage in ancient rome (which collapsed, by the way, crazy...the catholics didn't kill them). Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,316 by Another Scott 9/29/11 12:42:39 PM Reply	Nice try. Lots of churches will happily perform gay marriages. Lots of people don't get married in churches. Lots of people are "married" without any ceremony at all (see: http://en.wikipedia....the_United_States ) You're tilting at windmills to think that the term "marriage" needs to be somehow redefined or that it can be done "easily" or that doing so will make everyone "equal". (Sorry if I reposted info in a crazy link.) Cheers, Scott.
Post #348,321 by beepster 9/29/11 5:18:20 PM Reply	Re: Nice try. Why dont you try what I asked before attempting to rationalize it away with Wikipedia articles about state programs designed to give equal protection under law to those living together in committed fashion for x years ( depending on the state) as those who have been granted the appropriate state license. Define "lots of", too, ideally as a percentage of all. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,348 by crazy 9/29/11 11:16:33 PM Reply	Why does it matter?
Post #348,340 by boxley 9/29/11 8:27:00 PM Reply	better yet, no need for a state marriage license at all get married at a church, fill in and notarize your civil union papers and file them. Would work for both hetro and others 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 55 years. meep
Post #348,345 by crazy 9/29/11 10:51:38 PM Reply	Agreed
Post #348,364 by beepster 9/30/11 8:50:45 AM 9/30/11 8:51:13 AM Reply	Argh After all this, you agree with him...when hes saying the exact same thing. I fucking give up. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are. Edited by beepster Sept. 30, 2011, 08:51:13 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,374 by crazy 9/30/11 10:10:14 AM Reply	No, I want it at the FEDERAL level I want the state power removed in the 1st place though. Don't pretend you understand. You didn't have enough info yet.
Post #348,380 by beepster 9/30/11 10:39:35 AM Reply	Go back and read, butthead is there ONE MENTION of which government level I was talking. No. Is there one mention of which government level box's legal "civil union" form was filed? No. He just said get rid of the state marriage license...which is directly implied..if you change everything legally to civil union, there is no marriage license anymore. Equal protection under law and a legal definition of civil union that applies to all. Local, state, federal level of this was not discussed. You agreed with him. You disagree with me. We're saying the same thing. Which basically affirms to me that you were using me and attacking me to further an anti-religious rant at my expense. Thanks for that. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,384 by crazy 9/30/11 10:49:51 AM Reply	The single word matters Obvious you feel that word is IMPORTANT. So do I. I can agree with all kinds of stuff you say. And disagree with a core point as well. That is a cornerstone of holding multiple ideas in your head, realizing some of them conflict, and working through the issues. Not typically the religious way of thought. All or nothing, ya know? sigh And if that launches into my rant, so be it. You invite it.
Post #348,386 by beepster 9/30/11 10:55:34 AM Reply	no, actually it doesn't. your assumptions about his post versus your assumptions about mine were different. You agreed with him and launched a religious tirade on me. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,393 by crazy 9/30/11 11:06:45 AM 9/30/11 11:46:07 AM Reply	Of course not - to you Because you want it. You currently THINK you own it. You ain't giving it up. Edited by crazy Sept. 30, 2011, 11:46:07 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,303 by S1mon_Jester 9/29/11 11:51:32 AM Reply	Well, a little off there... Okee doke. Just find it ironic that those preaching about being more tolerant are out in public saying " listen to the way he talks, look at they way he walks...he Is so gay" and the only reason it's acceptable now is because hes a candidates husband and she is anti gay marriage. No, the reason it's acceptable is fact that he offers "Gay Therapy" (taking taxpayer dollars in the process). Whom he's married to has nothing to do with it. For the record - I'm more than willing to provide evidence of other groups providing "Gay Therapy" and the criticism they have received.
Post #348,307 by beepster 9/29/11 12:03:48 PM Reply	Re: Well, a little off there... We wouldn't even know who this guy was if it weren't for his wife. Who his wife is has everything to do with it. And I'm NOT saying that he doesn't deserve criticism. He absolutely does. Its the direction by which it is being done which I find ironic. Stories published about how he sets of peoples "gaydar" and when he opens his mouth, Prada bags fall out. Etc. This is coming from the community that wants talk like that to stop. That makes it ironic, by my definition. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,312 by crazy 9/29/11 12:24:09 PM Reply	I like irony. I'm ok with that On the otherhand, some of you may remember meeting a guy at my wedding, initials MH. I have old stories about playing with his head, focused on sexuality. He sounds and acts gay. It is pretty simple. We are KEYED to pick up on sexual characteristics and mannerisms. It's core to our ability to go find a mate and produce offspring, pretty much what MOST of us are biologically programmed to do. M is married and very unhappy at the thought of his sexuality coming into question. So that's the fun of it. Hey, I hung out at the PA ballet for a long time. I spent years at the RHPS. My X-BIL is VERY gay (and I got along with him much better than I did with my wife, and that was even in the early (good?) years of my marriage). I'm ok with pretty much all the spectrum of sexuality as long as it is consensual, but importantly, I know my opinion simply doesn't matter to anyone living that difficult life, nor should it.
Post #348,392 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 11:03:46 AM Reply	Really, you haven't heard of Richard Cohen? Richard Cohen, the author of Coming Out Straight. http://www.thedailys...is--mystery-pt--2 Let's go back 10 years - perhaps you've heard of Dr. Spitzer? http://www.thedailys...1/gayer-than-ever Lots of history of this - perhaps you're just hearing about this because of who he's married to.
Post #348,394 by beepster 9/30/11 11:09:34 AM Reply	Hmm ok, I you wouldn't know who this guy was until he was lampooned on the Daily Show. Better? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,395 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 11:12:50 AM Reply	Nope. Your complaint was that Bachmann was being unfairly treated: that they were lampooning and questioning her husband's activities. I have pointed out: 1) He's taking tax payer dollars. (Legitimate target) 2) He chose to be in this business 3) Others have been lampooned for the same activity. Your argument has no merit.
Post #348,396 by beepster 9/30/11 11:22:26 AM Reply	NO IT WAS NOT "Your complaint was that Bachmann was being unfairly treated" Go back and read. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,399 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 11:37:50 AM Reply	My apologies - your argument was that Okee doke. Just find it ironic that those preaching about being more tolerant are out in public saying " listen to the way he talks, look at they way he walks...he Is so gay" and the only reason it's acceptable now is because hes a candidates husband and she is anti gay marriage. Are you arguing my proof doesn't disprove your claim? Again - I have show others who are lampooned who aren't candidates husbands.
Post #348,402 by crazy 9/30/11 11:43:37 AM Reply	He doesn't do that He can't go back and prove you wrong. He's not dumb. He's just painted himself into a corner. But he'll say you are being mean, that you can depend on.
Post #348,409 by beepster 9/30/11 12:16:33 PM 9/30/11 12:20:33 PM Reply	Ask youself Acceptable to whom? The glb community is outing him. Using these methods. They are currently finding it acceptable. Why? I have stated, clearly, that he deserves criticism for his views. But he is being "outed" as well in a way I find ironic, for reasons stated above. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are. Edited by beepster Sept. 30, 2011, 12:20:33 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,449 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 4:53:47 PM Reply	Apparently not acceptable to you... The gob community is on him for this. Using these methods. They are currently finding it acceptable. Why? You do realize that "outing" has been a long practice WITHIN the glb community, right? Mr. Rocheford said the magazine, with about 130,000 readers, has a policy against ÂoutingÂ homosexuals. ÂOne exception to the rule is a public figure who makes public pronouncements against the gay community and is in fact a homosexual,Â he said, noting that this was the only time he had invoked that exception. http://mediadecoder....-draws-criticism/ Probably the best known example would the magazine OUTWEEK and the movie OUTRAGE. They (in particular Gabriel Rotello, the editor for OUTWEEK) was known for outing celebrity homosexuals, particularly when the subject is actively opposing gay rights and interests. To quote Peter Tatchell Lesbians and gay men have a right, and a duty, to expose hypocrites and homophobes. By not outing gay Bishops who support policies which harm homosexuals, we would be protecting those Bishops and thereby allowing them to continue to inflict suffering on members of our community. Collusion with hypocrisy and homophobia is not ethically defensible for Christians, or for anyone else. Certainly the entirely gay and lesbian community isn't a united front on this. Christopher Barron of the Log Cabin Republicans (a glb group) disagree with outing, but it's been a practice going back almost 30 years. It certainly isn't something that was invented just for Michelle Bachmann's husband. (Want to try again?)
Post #348,455 by beepster 9/30/11 6:38:52 PM Reply	Well then, I certainly wasn't aware it was a duty. And I guess my friends and family in the community are not followers of that gentleman. Score one for simon Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,458 by crazy 9/30/11 6:48:08 PM Reply	Tough when you don't understand the culture
Post #348,460 by beepster 9/30/11 6:56:52 PM Reply	You proven only one thing here That you know shit about me. And yes, it's gone personal. You've reached kms status. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,468 by crazy 9/30/11 8:18:16 PM 9/30/11 8:25:34 PM Reply	Such a surprise I was talking to a coworker this evening. She said she just got an email from her sister out west. She gets them all the time. They start with how much danger they are in, and if they only voted the safe choice, they could stop worrying. They always throw urban legends that are easily disprovable via snopes. She asked me how to deal with it. I told her to drop it, ignore it, there was nothing to be done and she'd only break her sister and destroy any relationship she had with her. The ONLY time you engage in a religious discussion is if you are willing to rip out the fabric of the reality of the person you are talking to. It can shatter them. Don't do it. Of COURSE I knew it hit that. Except I ain't going anywhere, I'm not KMS, and I'm not pissed (or even pissy). It's part of the process. Also, if I know shit, how can it be personal? It can't be. It has to be generic. If you take it personally, then it must mean I've struck a nerve. Pretty cool how that works out. Edited by crazy Sept. 30, 2011, 08:25:34 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #348,472 by beepster 9/30/11 8:31:55 PM Reply	You had an argument with yourself On positions you assumed..not mine. Then you took those assumed positions and attacked me with them...and brought in my family..all based on positions I don't hold. You ripped up no reality of mine. You ripped up a fiction of your own invention. But you crossed a line while doing it... You might not be. I, however, am Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!