| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/17/2005 12:14:39 AM · #1026 |
Why are we talking about hot dogs and tacos? Shouldn't it be hot dogs and muffins?
Night everyone! |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:14:39 AM · #1027 |
Some of the reasons I'd be ashamed to be a Texan, in addition to the anti-gay marriage amendment, would be:
-the KKK
-James Byrd
-history of lynchings
-Tulia, Texas
-George W. Bush (worked to kill a Texas hate crimes bill because it
included gay issues)
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:26:51 AM · #1028 |
i'm so stupid. I honestly thought the hot dog to taco statement was something to do with evolution (changing from a hot dog to taco).
muck -- i've got one for ya -- my uncle is as gay as he can be. He is also as redneck as he can be.
He has a lispy drawl.
He wears spandex under his hot overalls.
He lives on top of a mountain in E. TN, but has a boyfriend in Atlanta (or did, last I heard)
Don't know his TV habits.
He could be quoted as saying, "Git R done, girlfriend"
And I'm not kidding.
Message edited by author 2005-11-17 00:28:21. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:35:41 AM · #1029 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...those who believe that homosexuality is NOT a genetic issue would likewise consider transexuality to be not a genetic issue, and would deny that anyone could be "born" that way |
For the purpose of that post, I am referrring specifically to human beings born with physical male AND female characteristics or indeterminate physical sex. |
Gotcha. That's NOT transexual, though. If you have both sets of organs, I believe that makes you a hermaphrodite. Definition: "one having both male and female sexual characteristics and organs; at birth an unambiguous assignment of male or female cannot be made"
So let the argument rage on the basis of hermaphroditism (rare, but it happens) and lay the transexual issue to rest... I'll be interested to see what comes of this particular mini-thread LOL.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:44:39 AM · #1030 |
I have an hypothesis of my own... maybe not a theory, but it seems to fit observation pretty well: Human beings (and maybe all social animals) tend to distort their perceptions in favor of their own social groups. This is evident in nationalism, political parties, peer groups, religion, etc.
People in the U.S. tend to think of Christianity as the dominant world religion while those in Indonesia think of Islam as dominant (nobody has more that 33%), and all major religions express some disdain or outright condemnation of the "competition." Followers believe their acts are morally justified by their faith, even if that involves practicing slavery (Christians until very recently) or killing civilians (Al Qaeda).
It's respectable to defend your beliefs and your rights, but true character is shown by recognizing and defending the beliefs and rights of all groups, not just your own. I know too many people who believe that democracy is a simple matter of "majority rules." It's not. Democracy is about allowing equal representation and respecting the rights of all so that minority groups are not trampled and oppressed by the mainstream. That is the genius of Thomas Jefferson (and the failure of Texas).
Message edited by author 2005-11-17 00:45:21. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:48:38 AM · #1031 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I know too many people who believe that democracy is a simple matter of "majority rules." It's not. Democracy is about allowing equal representation and respecting the rights of all so that minority groups are not trampled and oppressed by the mainstream. That is the genius of Thomas Jefferson (and the failure of Texas). |
That's the great fallacy of our time. I tend to blame the schools, in this country, for not teaching the true meaning of constitutional democracy. They teach (some of them anyway) the mechanics of it, but not the underlying rationale.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 06:01:32 AM · #1032 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
- Only 17% of all registered voters determins the fate of all.
|
This tallies with a thought that I was having: the "let's ban it" camp is motivated by religious zeal and/or homophobia. They will go to some effort to have a go at gay people. In contrast, there is probably moderately limited active support for same sex unions, probably substantially limited to the gay community.
The people between camps probably don't object to same sex civil unions, but have no motive to go out and vote to protect those rights for a group of people that they don't really care about. The manner of presentation was such that a vote against the amendment could have been viewed as a vote for gay marriage, which, as we have seen here, provokes a lot of controversy (even though the participants in the debate probably would not particularly object to it, per RonB and res0).
It should not be a surprise that the turnout was low and the homophobic camp was bigger than the homosexual one. Not that homosexuals aren't good at camp - camp is something of a speciality for some of my friends, but the result is not very surprising as the proposition was fundamentally biased.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 07:00:40 AM · #1033 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by jsas:
You want to go from a hot dog to a taco that is up to you, but don't expect people to accept it. |
i would just like to note that this is the funniest thing i have read all day.
whether i "choose" a hot dog or a taco is up to me. i don't give a shit who accepts it. all i expect is not to be discriminated against because i prefer one entree instead of the other.
frankly, who i choose to marry is of no more consequence to anyone else than what i choose to have for dinner. it doesn't affect them one way or the other. why the hell should they care what choice i make?
if you have a moral objection to it, fine. that's YOUR moral objection. if you don't violate it, your morals are still intact. morals are in the eye of the beholder. if you're a vegetarian, you have a moral objection to me eating a cheeseburger. you're not seriously going to try and make cheeseburgers illegal, are you?
let's look at another demographic. rednecks offend me. some might say you're born a redneck, some might say it's a lifestyle choice. either way, they bug me. what the hell do rednecks and homosexuals have in common? what the hell is my point? let's compare stereotypes:
1) they talk funny (gay people: lispy; rednecks: syrupy drawl)
2) they wear wierd clothes (gay people: hotpants; rednecks: spandex. and overalls.)
3) they shop at stores geared especially for them (gay people: abercrombie; rednecks: wal-mart)
4) they congregate in specific geographic regions that are compatible with their lifestyle (gay people: urban areas; rednecks: wal-mart)
5) they only like certain tv shows (gay people: the oc; rednecks: blue collar tv)
6) they have annoying catchphrases (gay people: "girlfriend!"; rednecks: "git 'er done!")
7) they consume tobacco (gay people: camel lights; rednecks: skoal)
8) they do the same thing every sunday (gay people: brunch, preferably somewhere with a bloody mary bar; rednecks: nascar, preferably somewhere with a case of schlitz)
the point is, no matter how much they bug me, i just let them live their lives. i do what i can to avoid them, but i don't actively try to intervene. i don't preach any gospels about the benefits of showering or using proper grammar. i don't promote legislation that forces them to conform to societal norms. i leave them alone. they have their little lives and they really don't affect me at all.
if you want to be straight or gay or a hick or a religious zealot or a vegan, go for it. just don't try to push your views on me. don't try to legislate my life. i've done nothing to harm you. i've not tried to recruit you or hit on you or forced you to go to a margaret cho concert. i just want to live my life the way i see fit. and i just want to have the freedom to determine what "fit" is.
and with that, me and my hot dog are goin' to bed. |
You made my point exactly, with bouns points, you "Got R done" rednecks are a whole new thread. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:26:42 AM · #1034 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
People in the U.S. tend to think of Christianity as the dominant world religion while those in Indonesia think of Islam as dominant (nobody has more that 33%), and all major religions express some disdain or outright condemnation of the "competition." Followers believe their acts are morally justified by their faith, even if that involves practicing slavery (Christians until very recently) or killing civilians (Al Qaeda). |
A point that I find intrigueing is that 3 of the worlds religions base their foundational books on the same set of writings (the Torah) and all 3 are awaiting the coming or return of the Messiah. Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. When these 3 religions are combined, they account for much more than 33%. Additionally, I am not aware of any of the 3 that condone or define same sex unions as permissable within the framework of their doctrine.
As a social matter, choice is choice. Individuals can and do make a multitude of choices. That is their responsibility. I am in alighnment with Muckpond's reasoning. I support choice. Choice to believe or not believe. Choice to worship or not worship. Choice to sleep with whom you consent to. Choice to bring to term or end a pregnancy. Choice to be armed or not be armed. Choice to vote or not vote. But the tenents of religious doctrine are not so tolerent.
Again, 3 of the world's religions are based on the same writings and awaiting the same Messiah.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:34:36 AM · #1035 |
I just had a thought - Good job Adam wasn't gay!
Back to the debate!
:)
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:59:06 AM · #1036 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Democracy is about allowing equal representation and respecting the rights of all so that minority groups are not trampled and oppressed by the mainstream. That is the genius of Thomas Jefferson (and the failure of Texas). |
For the record and in defense of my home, it's not JUST Texas. Can we please make sure everyone understands that prejudices are everywhere and not just here? Just sayin'... ;)
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:04:19 AM · #1037 |
I hear you Laurie. When I first saw this thread I thought of a case and thought of posting the link to the story thinking it was in Texas. It wasn't so I didn't post. The case was in Laramy Wyoming. Google Laramy if your interested in details.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:07:32 AM · #1038 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
...it's not JUST Texas. |
No doubt. I just meant in this case. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:09:28 AM · #1039 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I hear you Laurie. When I first saw this thread I thought of a case and thought of posting the link to the story thinking it was in Texas. It wasn't so I didn't post. The case was in Laramy Wyoming. Google Laramy if your interested in details. |
Yes, I thought about that story too. The Matthew Shepard case is certainly an example of intolerance at its worst. His foundation is working to educate and enlighten in the wake of his brutal murder.
//www.matthewsplace.org
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:13:24 AM · #1040 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Just found this, which will probably add fuel to this fire.
Burials in Greek Macedonia: Possible Evidence for Same-Sex Committed Relationships in Early Christianity
JHC 4/2 (Fall, 1997), 33-56. available here:
//www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/ |
I don't see any discussion of this. I went to the sight, but can't find anything but an article listing for that particular issue. Is the text available?
Without having the text to respond to, I'll just say this: From the epistles, and particularly 1st Corinthians, its clear that the church in Corinth was engaged in many activities that were not in line with Christian doctrine. Paul says in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." And, taken in context, this is directed at the believers, so its fairly clear that the church was engaged in behavior that was unacceptable - including homosexual behavior, "committed" or otherwise. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:41:35 AM · #1041 |
Originally posted by Flash:
3 of the worlds religions base their foundational books on the same set of writings (the Torah)... When these 3 religions are combined, they account for much more than 33%. |
You're mixing apples and oranges (based on the similar DNA) to claim a higher percentage of fruit. Try telling a Muslim and a Jew that their religions are the same (or even compatible). You could just as easily claim that the Torah itself is based on monotheistic ideas that were common to still more religions, but what difference would it make? If, as each religion proposes, we are all created and descended from those few original people, then ALL religion must trace back to those origins. Regardless, the three religions have since evolved (LOL) into distinct beliefs and moral codes.
Originally posted by Flash:
I am not aware of any of the 3 that condone or define same sex unions as permissable within the framework of their doctrine. |
Until recently, I am not aware of any of the 3 that allowed priests to marry (though to be honest, I didn't look it up). Should we propose a constitutional amendment to ban such practices?
Message edited by author 2005-11-17 10:47:33. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:46:00 AM · #1042 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Paul says in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." |
Interesting that the passage references only MALE prostitutes, no? Unless female prostitutes are exempt, why narrow it down with a qualifier? Hmm... |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 11:21:14 AM · #1043 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Until recently, I am not aware of any of the 3 that allowed priests to marry (though to be honest, I didn't look it up). Should we propose a constitutional amendment to ban such practices? |
I believe only the Catholic Church requires celibacy of its leaders. Protestant ministers, imams, and rabbis are all free to marry as anyone else is. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:01:32 PM · #1044 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Until recently, I am not aware of any of the 3 that allowed priests to marry (though to be honest, I didn't look it up). Should we propose a constitutional amendment to ban such practices? |
I believe only the Catholic Church requires celibacy of its leaders. Protestant ministers, imams, and rabbis are all free to marry as anyone else is. |
Not only that, but neither the Apostolic nor the early Catholic church required celibacy, although it was encouraged. In fact, St. Peter was married; the gospels make mention of his mother-in-law.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:26:26 PM · #1045 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Not only that, but neither the Apostolic nor the early Catholic church required celibacy, although it was encouraged. |
Dangit, you guys are gonna make me go look it up. ;-P
The Apostles were married, but they were Jewish before Christ came along- and celibate afterwards. Celibacy is required in both the Catholic and Orthodox Christian faiths with some exceptions, yet Islam forbids it. So both may be based upon the Torah, but they vary widely in practice.
Episcopalians elected a gay bishop and the Lutherans just allowed an openly gay priest a couple of weeks ago. Point being, you can't lump three religions together based on similar origins and claim that they all agree and should be considered an overwhelming majority.
Message edited by author 2005-11-17 12:27:06. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:33:31 PM · #1046 |
It's worth noting, also, that in the original use of the term, "celibacy" referred to the state of being, and remaining, unmarried; it did not refer to abstention from sexual activity, which would be "chastity". And, in fact, the long history of the Catholic Church is full of examples of licentious priests & monks. It was common, for example, for Bishops and Cardinals to father sons and pass their churchly territories on to them. I believe even Popes did this. I can't cite references, but I know it happened.
This is just a sidenote, of course, to the discussion; it's irrelevant to anything we're saying here.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:36:24 PM · #1047 |
weren't there two popes that were father and son?
damn. i've tried to stay outta this religious stuff, but now i've gotta see.... |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:40:02 PM · #1048 |
i {heart} google:
Originally posted by about.com:
40. St. Innocent I (401 - 417)
First pope whose father was also a pope, Anastasius I. Had Anastasius' marriage not been valid, Innocent would have been an illegitimate child and therefore ineligible for the priesthood.
|
this indicates that there are more than one father-son combo, but i really don't care enough to search more.
in any event, there's definitely some debate about celibacy/chastity being there from the beginning.
Message edited by author 2005-11-17 12:41:15. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:42:24 PM · #1049 |
Originally posted by karmat:
muck -- i've got one for ya -- my uncle is as gay as he can be. He is also as redneck as he can be. |
sounds like he'd be a hell of a lot of fun at a party! :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 12:46:58 PM · #1050 |
It was Pope Benedict VIII, in 1022, who banned marriages and mistresses for priests. Before that time, Pelagius I had made all priests sign away the inheritance rights of their sons, and Gregory took it a step further and declared all sons of priests "illegitimate". The common thread here is neither religious nor moral; the Chruch was seeking to protect Her property...
Robt. |
|
