human sexuality is not a simple thing

Post #391,004 by boxley 6/20/14 10:29:25 AM Reply	human sexuality is not a simple thing http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/life-as-ex-ex-gay-paulk-108090_Page3.html#.U6RAFbH5T1U ex ex gay 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 #391,005 by drook 6/20/14 10:38:44 AM 6/20/14 10:50:13 AM Reply	Here's the link to the first page http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/life-as-ex-ex-gay-paulk-108090.html#.U6RHEKXD_qA He's hotter now than he was on the Newsweek cover. -- Drew Edited by drook June 20, 2014, 10:50:13 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #391,007 by Andrew Grygus 6/20/14 11:32:13 AM Reply	Gay? . . an earing in both ears - can't be more clear than that. And yes, human sexuality is complex, extremely erratic, powerful and almost impossible to control. Respect should be normal for all orientations that do not seek to harm others - or try to force them to change.
Post #391,009 by folkert 6/20/14 11:57:31 AM Reply	I'm impressed. That last sentence is exceptionally powerful. Respect should be normal for all orientations that do not seek to harm others - or try to force them to change. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #391,025 by Ashton 6/20/14 6:08:14 PM Reply	(Second the Gregster's approval of no less than, wisdom-espied.)
Post #391,016 by mmoffitt 6/20/14 1:48:38 PM Reply	"the Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C." Holy crap. That's funny.
Post #391,017 by boxley 6/20/14 1:50:34 PM Reply	why not? the white hetro christian right wing has a task force 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 #391,020 by rcareaga 6/20/14 4:02:49 PM Reply	not clear, mmoffitt Refresh my memory: Are you one of those folks who imagine that the fudgepackers and carpet munchers are just doing it to annoy the rest of us, or do you accept that they're most of 'em wired that way? I know that you're largely disdainful of the movement and would prefer for the closet to remain nailed shut. I shared your attitude in my teens. I do not claim that the fact of my having moved away from this stance is prima facie evidence of moral superiority (you might very well think so, but I couldn't possibly comment), but I regard your own position as rather of a piece with some of your other idiosyncratic beliefs, and would venture to suppose that we will never find you smoking pot in San Francisco's Castro District on Lincoln's birthday. cordially,
Post #391,024 by Ashton 6/20/14 6:02:30 PM Reply	I bow to thy superior Google-foo in finding (isolated) that apex-aside of the snideliest malevolent-PM of all Time! (Bonus: at its conclusion, various mixes of, Does not one Wish.. one was possessed of such a rapier (even one..) within one's own puling store of ripostes?) Ah well, we the proud, the ruthless (though cuthless) must dawdle on.. all illegible, from our guzzles to our zatches --at least plagiarizing the best. er, cf. Bravo! Sir Ian (I shall always wonder what he might have mumbled-under-breath? on the occasion of receiving that broad-sword, gently, across his bowed shoulder.)
Post #391,048 by mmoffitt 6/21/14 8:57:42 PM Reply	I'd honestly prefer closets nailed shut, as you suggest. But more importantly, I'd prefer bedroom doors remain nailed shut. I do not care what anyone does, it is fairly plainly none of my business. It is not something to be celebrated, boasted of; it does not rise to the level of being significant enough to establish "protected class" status under the law and sure as heck doesn't rise to the level of the establishment of a "Task Force." Deep down, I think the overwhelming majority would say, "You're gay? So what?", "You're bisexual? So what?", "You're a polygamist? So what?", "You prefer animals? So what?" just as they'd say, "You're heterosexual? So what?" I commented on the "Task Force" because I am familiar with the definition of "Task Force". task force noun : a group of people who deal with a specific problem : a military force that is sent to a particular place to deal with a problem http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/task%20force So, exactly what specific problem does the "Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C." deal with? From the title of the group, it would appear that they think being homosexual is a problem. Is the irony of that lost on you?
Post #391,050 by Another Scott 6/21/14 9:23:50 PM Reply	Google is your friend. (Maybe this is mentioned in the original Politco linky - I dunno.) National Gay and Lesbian Task Force - History: Task Force History An uncompromising voice for equality for more than three decades... "No account of the changes in laws and public policies would be complete without attention to [the Task Force's history]. The Task Force played a critical role in the campaign to eliminate the sickness classification of homosexuality. It worked to lift the prohibition on federal civil service employment for gays and lesbians. It strove in the 1970s to make the Democratic Party responsive to the gay community. It took the lead in the 1980s in national organizing against homophobic violence. As AIDS began to devastate gay male communities, the Task Force shaped the first serious efforts in Washington to address the epidemic. It was a founding member of the Military Freedom Project, which prepared the ground for the gays-in-the-military debate of 1993. It has worked with the administrations of presidents from Carter to Clinton." - — From John D'Emilio's Interpreting the NGLTF Story Sounds kindy task forcey to me. YMMV. It's fine to say that people's sexuality and gender identity shouldn't matter. But it does (as I'm sure your daughter(s) can tell you. ;-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #391,051 by boxley 6/21/14 9:38:44 PM Reply	you are black, so what. You are hispanic so what. you are muslim so what we don't live in that world yet 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 #391,054 by Ashton 6/22/14 3:09:20 AM Reply	(Believe I mentioned that small impediment, earlier-on?) in a thread far-away. I sympathize though; it seems that all of us amateur-solipsists are prone to extending our jelloware-version of the surroundings, (thus our unassailable humblest-Wisdom) as-if everyone shared Our logical, sensible, perforce even Reasonable version-of-it-All? {approximately, of course.} Hey! it IS Hard to settle-for the cumulative effects of fucking-Puritanism!/its effects upon absolutely-Everything which involves er, innocent-Fun? any where/any time. So.. cut him some slack, eh?
Post #391,073 by mmoffitt 6/22/14 8:06:42 PM Reply	Well, paint rose colored glasses on me then. That's the way I was raised. Do I know that in the 1960's we didn't live in that world? Hell yes, I do. I routinely got my ass kicked (in Southern California no less) when my dad's best friend and his family (a Black family) came to visit us in lily-white Lakewood, CA. I rejected that idiocy then (despite my bruises) and I reject it now. I refuse to believe the majority are that stupid.
Post #391,075 by Andrew Grygus 6/22/14 8:36:32 PM Reply	Where did you get that idea? Yes, the majority are that stupid, whether you refuse to believe it or not. Humans are pack animals. What that means is that the vast majority have to be followers, not leaders. Followers want simple beliefs handed to them as "received wisdom", to be certain they are RIGHT, without having to think about it, at all. They look to "leaders" to provide that. A leader waving an ancient "sacred book" as authority is the best kind. There are plenty of would be "leaders" who are more than happy to provide thoughts for the unthinking. Hitler was one of the most successful, picking on any and all minorities equally, but many pulpits host a "leader" with similar ambitions, and a willing flock. For many others, TV and radio shows are their pulpit, for the same ambition, and to a larger, but just as willing flock. Minorities are convenient targets for the rabble rousers, and the only counter is for minorities to show power and determination sufficient to look dangerous. That's what "Task Forces" are for.
Post #391,085 by a6l6e6x 6/22/14 11:15:01 PM Reply	Right on, bro! Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #391,056 by pwhysall 6/22/14 4:07:16 AM Reply	The problem? Are you serious? You're a white straight non-disabled English speaking male. You won the fucking life lottery. The entire apparatus of society and state is designed to work for you. Things you will never be systematically discriminated against for by random members of society at large: Your colour Your gender Your sexual orientation The problem is that in the second decade of the 21st century, gay people are being fired for being gay, being beaten (sometimes to death) for being gay, and are generally rendered as second-class citizens for being gay. It's a tired trope, but fucking hell, Mike. Check your privilege.
Post #391,074 by mmoffitt 6/22/14 8:24:51 PM Reply	I am NOT putting my head in that game. Do I know that there are knuckle-draggers that think sexual orientation is important? Of course I do. Hell, I live in a country where millions (that's MILLIONS) of people believe the earth is less than 5,000 years old. I reject, wholesale, their ideas about anything. And because, despite all evidence to the contrary, I believe I live in a country where the majority are thinking human beings I reject the idea that there's this mass conspiracy against people based upon their sexual orientation. My cabin is being rebuilt by a gay person I know (at least, she's acting as foreman). Think her sexual orientation entered into my thought process when we hired her for the task? If so, you need a better dealer, because he is causing you to smoke some crap that really causes you to leave reality. When I hired an SA, do you think I gave a tinker's damn what their sexual orientation was? FSCK NO I didn't. It didn't have FSCK ALL to do with the position I was hiring for, and despite what some here might think, I'm not nearly fscked up enough to screw myself over anything as silly as the sexual orientation of someone with whom I have no interest in having sex. You might be right, I might be nuts. It may well be that we have to have "Task Forces" and "Special Laws" and "Re-definitions of terms" and all the rest. But if the majority of us are so fscked up to require all of that, well, pretty clearly I have lived too long.
Post #391,076 by drook 6/22/14 9:10:38 PM Reply	Finally, something you can fix /snark -- Drew
Post #391,082 by rcareaga 6/22/14 10:18:48 PM Reply	but the game is giving you head I reject the idea that there's this mass conspiracy against people based upon their sexual orientation. No more a "mass conspiracy" than there was a mass conspiracy in certain parts of the country (cough the losing side in the War of Northern Aggression cough) for the past 150 years to disenfranchise non-white voters. It wasn't a conspiracy, you doofus, it was a consensus!. Just because some of my best friends are perverts and I'm fine with this doesn't mean that the rest of the country is similarly enlightened (enlightenment here meaning "Eeew...well, OK"). There are plenty of commercial establishments and employers who would be happy to refuse service to/fire at will individuals whose naughty bits are tickled by the same polarities. It really does happen, and it really is as unjust as when it used to happen to our swarthy citizens, and it really does deserve the protection of law. You might be right, I might be nuts. Thou sayest. But I persist in believing you can be brought around. cordially,
Post #391,084 by rcareaga 6/22/14 10:24:47 PM Reply	Another thing: When you find everyone here arrayed against you on a given subject, the conclusions you might derive from this fact are either (a) I am consorting in this forum with completely wrongheaded individuals, in which case why am I wasting my time here? or (b) perhaps the fact that the other participants unanimously and vehemently disagree with me is at least some evidence that I should re-examine the premises I have advanced here. cordially,
Post #391,087 by mmoffitt 6/23/14 9:17:06 AM Reply	Join the pack, iow. I've never been afraid to stand alone if I believed my positions were well reasoned. For instance, I never believed the Soviet Union was a threat. I never believed the Mujahadeen were our allies. I never believed communism was a bad thing. I held those positions despite almost my entire country saying I was wrong. In similar fashion, I won't believe that the majority of southerners are racists because I know that to be false. It is likewise false that the majority of people give a tinker's damn about anyone else's sex lives (their own significant others excepted, of course). Basing the law on the attitudes, activities and inclinations of the weak minded trivial minority offers little hope for sound legislation. But, we're wildly off topic. I entered this thread with a comment about something that struck me as funny. "Violent Crime Task Force", "Amerithrax Task Force", "Hate Crimes Task Force", etc. All those task forces named after the thing they were assembled to combat. I found it funny (or at least ironic) that you'd name a task force after something you were assembling to promote. That's the full extent of it.
Post #391,088 by pwhysall 6/23/14 9:41:15 AM Reply	Dude. Stop. Staaaaaaaahp. It. Is. A. Problem. Your continued handwaving does not alter the cold, hard facts.
Post #391,089 by rcareaga 6/23/14 9:46:46 AM Reply	Believe I've seen those movies "I've never been afraid to stand alone if I believed my positions were well reasoned." This is usually followed by the speaker, snazzily arrayed in a double-breasted white lab tunic buttoned to the throat, continuing along the lines of, "When the Department of Phrenology refused me tenure at Heidelberg, they said I was mad." (Voice rising to a shriek) "Mad!" (Snorts). "Yes, we'll see who was mad, won't we? Igor! Show our guests to their room..." cordially,
Post #391,090 by crazy 6/23/14 9:48:43 AM Reply	trivial minority? http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry/poll-45-of-americans-think-homosexuality-a-sin-but-60,51b22b42da27f5d9d0d9546e So 45% think gay sex is a sin. And the word sin is loaded with the connotation of going to hell, something quite serious. And the people will treat sinners (especially those that continue to SIN, not just who sinned in the past and changed their ways) way different then others, as agents of the devil that are trying to entice others to sin with them. And you consider this a trivial minority to be ignored rather than fought against? These people vote. These people attempt to enforce their morality onto others. These people have impact. And even if you aren't part of this group, you certainly enable their efforts to enforce a religious state. The only thing evil needs to do to win is to be ignored.
Post #391,091 by Andrew Grygus 6/23/14 3:12:17 PM Reply	And a timely example. The GOPUSA Web site today published a front page article urging everyone to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) because the church has authorized ministers to perform gay weddings, if legal in their state and if acceptable to the minister's conscience. Of course, in my opinion, in keeping with separation of Church and State, any tax exempt political organization that meddles in church affairs should have their tax exempt status pulled by the IRS.
Post #391,092 by crazy 6/23/14 4:09:38 PM Reply	On the other hand, I liked this Given the fact, though, that the vote to redefine marriage was three-to-one in favor, it appears that the only viable protest is to make a complete exodus. http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/06/23/its-time-to-leave-the-presbyterian-church-u-s-a/ 3-1 in favor of sanity. A good number.
Post #391,096 by Andrew Grygus 6/23/14 6:10:08 PM Reply	We had an event right here in La Crescenta. There's a historic fieldstone church just down the street from me, St. Luke's of-the-Mountains. When the Episcopalians voted to allow gay ministers, the local minister organizes a revolt and convinced a majority of the parishioners to support leaving the Episcopal Church and joining the African Anglican Church, a guaranteed rabidly no-queers church. Of course, nearly half the parishioners left. Then ensued a long and vicious battle over the church property. Eventually the Episcopal Church won, and the church has sported a big "All are Welcome" banner out front since then. The African Anglicans are now time-sharing the Seventh Day Adventists Chapel in Glendale on Sundays, with Wednesday services at the YMCA Chapel in La Cañada
Post #391,100 by mmoffitt 6/24/14 8:11:36 AM Reply	Perfect. They're being minimalized. Isn't that what we want? Did this result require new legislation? Did it require laws that somehow successfully caused them to change their minds and behavior? Nope.
Post #391,095 by mmoffitt 6/23/14 4:53:20 PM Reply	And won't the Presbyterian Church (USA) be better off?
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?
Post #391,094 by Ashton 6/23/14 4:48:57 PM Reply	As an oft-contrarian I feel a smidgen-of-your-pain But one has to be/become aware that a big-C Contrarian is oft expressing a conceit of her inner-Authoritarian, thus the vanity of self-bestowed Wisdom. J'accuse ... nobody (of matters privy only to their internal gut-senses. Simply.. If the foo shits.. it just means it doesn't pinch. Yet.)

Welcome to IWETHEY!