[QUOTE=jasong;344813]Unofficially, the government is supposed to stay "out of the bedroom." So why not define these unions in a non-gender way? I don't object to homosexuals getting tax write-offs, I object to the government officially approving of something that a large portion of the population finds offensive, and giving the offensive behavior a tax write-off.

What if I got a tax write off for [/QUOTE][...]
Jasong, they are getting a tax write-off because they are legally married. If you get legally married, you will get exactly the same tax write-off. Deciding that some legal marriages are not entitled to the tax write-off that everyone else get is wrong.

[QUOTE] Chalsall: I find it a bit interesting that historically "gay" meant something along the lines of "happy" and "out-there". Perhaps it still does to most people...
[URL="http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gay?q=gay"]
Four of many definitions of gay:[/URL]

[QUOTE]
adjective (gayer, gayest) 1 (of a person, especially a man) homosexual. Relating to or used by homosexuals: "a gay bar" 2 dated light-hearted and carefree: "Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face" 3 dated brightly coloured; showy: "a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas" 4 informal, often offensive foolish, stupid, or unimpressive: "he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay"[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][QUOTE]She was a picture in old Spanish lace
Just for a tender while I kissed the smile upon her face
For it was fiesta, and we were so GAY
South of the border, down Mexico way.[/QUOTE]Chris Isaac changed this line to "...and love had its day."
Sigh. :smile:

[QUOTE]And then I thought, "What would BrianE do?"[/QUOTE]:bow wave:

[QUOTE=chappy;344816](SNIP).....

Brother, I'm sure you understand that I don't pray, but if I did, or if I thought that the complexity that is the universe actually gave a damn, I would ask it to help you find peace within yourself, right after I asked the same for myself.[/QUOTE]

Well said, Sir! (All of it really is, but I'll focus on this part of it. Xyzzy already did a good job on the bigger picture.)

[QUOTE=kladner;344836]Well said, Sir! (All of it really is, but I'll focus on this part of it. Xyzzy already did a good job on the bigger picture.)[/QUOTE]
What we have is a war of ideas rather than bullets. Ideas are what separate us from the animals, the ability to take knowledge and continuously build on it.

My position is that there is a thing that destroys the soul, something referred to as sin, and it is in the nature of people to seek these destructive factors. Brian E is a real nice guy, probably better than me in a lot of ways. Homosexuality is destructive, but it's only a tiny part of the destruction the Devil's been building over the last 10 thousand years or so.

Think of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. Everyone was wearing green-tinted spectacles so that they'd think everything was made of emeralds. Well I'm telling you that Christianity is the removal of those spectacles, and that the reality is so much better than what you've been offered in the past.

The only thing that is eternal is the soul, and it is the only thing that is truly valuable.

[QUOTE=jasong;344881]The only thing that is eternal is the soul, and it is the only thing that is truly valuable.[/QUOTE]Ah, souls.

[QUOTE=jasong;344881]
Think of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. Everyone was wearing green-tinted spectacles so that they'd think everything was made of emeralds. Well I'm telling you that Christianity is the removal of those spectacles, and that the reality is so much better than what you've been offered in the past.
[/QUOTE]

First I want to appreciate that you are referring back to the books. Yes, Emerald city was city colored, not green. :)

Second, I want you to look up the phrase "Friend of Dorothy."

Third, we are still in the age where most atheists you will run into grew up Christian. We've seen what you see. And we also have very different ideas about which side is fooling themselves.

Fourth, [QUOTE=jasong;344881] Homosexuality is destructive[/QUOTE] have you met any homosexual people? Because they are just people. No better and no worse than anyone else. And until and unless you can come up with something more than "an ancient book seems to tell me that it is bad" and/or "I don't like it cause its icky," as a set of premises arguing the validity of that line, I'm going to feel free to ignore it.

[QUOTE=chappy;344908]...we are still in the age where most atheists you will run into grew up Christian. We've seen what you see. And we also have very different ideas about which side is fooling themselves.[/QUOTE]

+1.

In france, at least, we have a third-generation of *god-less' people. Anyone born after the second world war has high chance of having receive an atheist education.
My father's parents were protestant , but did not practice, and neither did my father.
My mother's had a catholic upbringing, got to her first communion, but didn't follow.
My sister and I... well we were given a choice : If you want to, go to. neither of us did. My sister children probbably won't educate her children within religion, and neither will I (if I have any).
How terrible would my sister feel if religion ever interfered with her love life?

Problem solved!

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/04/paul-scalia-homosexuality-antonin-scalia_n_3543284.html[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;345291]Problem solved!

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/04/paul-scalia-homosexuality-antonin-scalia_n_3543284.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
Denying the existence of something which in most people's view quite obviously occurs - in this case homosexual orientation - suggests to me that the person is suffering from being "in denial". It does not take much intuition to think of a possible reason why someone might be in denial about this issue. I feel very sorry for Justice Scalia's son if my hunch is correct.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;345297]Denying the existence of something which in most people's view quite obviously occurs - in this case homosexual orientation - suggests to me that the person is suffering from being "in denial". It does not take much intuition to think of a possible reason why someone might be in denial about this issue. I feel very sorry for Justice Scalia's son if my hunch is correct.[/QUOTE]

I believe that my thoughts on Scalia Fils are similar to yours. If I am correct, I do hope that he manages to dig himself out of the closet one of these days. I have long thought that the most virulent homophobes are likely to be closet cases. However, I can't be terribly sympathetic to someone who is so deeply invested in repression.

[QUOTE=kladner;345335]I believe that my thoughts on Scalia Fils are similar to yours. If I am correct, I do hope that he manages to dig himself out of the closet one of these days. I have long thought that the most virulent homophobes are likely to be closet cases. However, I can't be terribly sympathetic to someone who is so deeply invested in repression.[/QUOTE]
Well, I have to agree with you that it's hard to be sympathetic, really, with someone who's taken it on himself to do so much unnecessary harm. Perhaps I was just being politically correct when I said I felt sorry for him.:smile:

Still, you never know how things can turn out in the future: people who have invested in repression can sometimes see sense and then do what they can to turn it round completely. For example, I was very impressed with the recent apology of John Paulk, and then to a slightly lesser extent that of Alan Chambers, both of whom had been heavily involved as figure-heads in the "ex-gay movement" before acknowledging that they themselves were still gay and that their efforts had caused terrible harm.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;345359]Well, I have to agree with you that it's hard to be sympathetic, really, with someone who's taken it on himself to do so much unnecessary harm. Perhaps I was just being politically correct when I said I felt sorry for him.:smile:
[B]
Still, you never know how things can turn out in the future: people who have invested in repression can sometimes see sense and then do what they can to turn it round completely.[/B] For example, I was very impressed with the recent apology of John Paulk, and then to a slightly lesser extent that of Alan Chambers, both of whom had been heavily involved as figure-heads in the "ex-gay movement" before acknowledging that they themselves were still gay and that their efforts had caused terrible harm.[/QUOTE]

Being good-hearted transcends political correctness. IMHO, you are a powerfully empathetic person, Brian, and feel for people even when you utterly disagree with them.

Your second point about those who recant long-held positions is well taken. There have been some eye-opening turn-arounds lately.

In some ways, your thoughts on this brought to mind this exchange between Frodo and Gandalf.

[QUOTE]
‘But this is terrible!’ cried Frodo. . . . O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!’
‘Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began the ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.’
‘I am sorry,’ said Frodo. “I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.’
‘You have not seen him,’ Gandalf broke in.
‘No, and I don’t want to,’ said Frodo, ‘. . . He deserves death.’
‘Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. [B]For even the very wise cannot see all ends.[/B] I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when it comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.' (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994) 65-66.) [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;345395]Being good-hearted transcends political correctness. IMHO, you are a powerfully empathetic person, Brian, and feel for people even when you utterly disagree with them.[/QUOTE]

+1. (IMHO)

[i]Mod note: Moved from the turmoil-in-Egypt thread[/i]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;345380]But, TheMawn, there are other freedoms apart from Economic ones, and I'm not sure that Singapore scores so well here. Section 377A of the Singapore penal code, making sex between two consenting adult males punishable by up to two years in prison, is still in force to this day.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's prison, so it's a 2-year sex vacation.

Honestly, though, I don't think people should be punished for being homosexuals. I just have a problem with rewarding it.

I think of it as being like tattoos. If you do the deed, be prepared to accept the consequences.
[quote=Re-quoting Ewmayer's post]Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price for it, whereas Obama is at wit’s end to articulate where he stands on the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.

Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.

Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on Harvard Yard and other American temples of the “progressive” movement.

Like most Americans, I have no truck with the ideas of the Brotherhood, but the mob in the streets objecting to Morsi chose methods other than ballots to remove him. Sadly for him, the Egyptian military is neither under civilian control nor primarily financed by the Egyptian government. It gets its manna from the Obama Administration via more than $1 billion annually in U.S. foreign aid...[/quote]
Looks like Obama has his own "tattoo."

@JasonG:

Dude, that is some seriously offensive stuff ... but at the very least do us the tiny courtesy of confining your inane commentary to the nearby thread dedicated to such matters. Also, unless you're speaking from personal experience re. prison, I suggest "talk is cheap", so unless you've actually taken a "prison vacation", you should just STFU.

May I also suggest that gay rights is rather tangential to the goings-on in Egypt? It may be more or less important to the various folks here, but I suspect the vast majority of the folks over there have other issues they are more concerned with just now, such as "staying alive", "whither democracy?", "rule of law", etc.

[QUOTE=chappy;344908]Fourth, have you met any homosexual people? Because they are just people. No better and no worse than anyone else. And until and unless you can come up with something more than "an ancient book seems to tell me that it is bad" and/or "I don't like it cause its icky," as a set of premises arguing the validity of that line, I'm going to feel free to ignore it.[/QUOTE]
Homosexuality is destructive because it is against God. If it suddenly became a sin to use Firefox, then using Firefox would be destructive because it would be "against God."

I could just as easily argue that the damage against those little girls I molested when I was a teenager was 100% from society, since the problem had nothing to do with forcible rape or any sort of kidnapping.

Sometimes things are immoral simply because God says they are immoral.

Oh, and in regards to that "ancient book." It only makes sense if you believe it was written by people and that God doesn't exist. So instead of being a mis-leading bastard, be honest and say you don't believe in God. Because if God wrote the book, the knowledge is infinitely old, rather than thousands of years old.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;345484]@JasonG:

Dude, that is some seriously offensive stuff ... but at the very least do us the tiny courtesy of confining your inane commentary to the nearby thread dedicated to such matters. Also, unless you're speaking from personal experience re. prison, I suggest "talk is cheap", so unless you've actually taken a "prison vacation", you should just STFU.[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, I think I'd suffer more than the average homosexual in such a situation, so right back at you with the STFU.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;345297]Denying the existence of something which in most people's view quite obviously occurs - in this case homosexual orientation - suggests to me that the person is suffering from being "in denial". It does not take much intuition to think of a possible reason why someone might be in denial about this issue. I feel very sorry for Justice Scalia's son if my hunch is correct.[/QUOTE]
[sarcasm]Quick, fetch me a 15-year old girl, I've been in denial too long.[/sarcasm]

[QUOTE=jasong;345486]With all due respect, I think I'd suffer more than the average homosexual in such a situation, so right back at you with the STFU.[/QUOTE]

I get the sense that your real fear may well be that you'd find yourself proven wrong on the above point. Especially since "healthy sexual relationship with a woman in the biblically-prescribed fashion" is apparently not on your menu of life choices.

I was working my way back through this thread, 1) to give myself time to not reply to Jasong they way I normally would and 2) to look for a particular posting that I want to quote--I still haven't found it, when I happened upon this particular bit of genius on my part:

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=321241&postcount=724[/url]

Boom! Nailed it. I should have stuck with my legal career. and Where the the heck is Zeta?

Sunday morning reading
 

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/rabbi-takes-a-stand-for-gay-marriage-and-a-segment-of-the-congregation-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&[/url]

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23159390[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;345549][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/rabbi-takes-a-stand-for-gay-marriage-and-a-segment-of-the-congregation-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&[/URL]

[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23159390[/URL][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the interesting history.

[QUOTE=chappy;345542][...]Boom! Nailed it. I should have stuck with my legal career[...][/QUOTE]
...and congratulations. You do indeed seem to have correctly predicted the outcome of the ruling on DOMA.

The broader question in this thread is "Should government legislate morality?" There are huge differences in the way married people are treated legally vs the treatment of couples who are living together. This is so embedded in the laws and "culture" of our society that the strike down of DOMA alone is not enough to erase the bias.

I don't accept homosexuality but at the same time, I don't believe that I should be telling anyone how to live their life. My position comes down to saying that LESS government meddling in moral issues is better.

[url]http://www.out.com/entertainment/art-books/2013/07/08/enders-game-boycott-begins#[/url]

Boycotts are rarely successful and I feel like I've already given up on delicious salty chicken sandwiches for the cause...can't we just all get along?

[QUOTE=jasong;345486]With all due respect, I think I'd suffer more than the average homosexual in such a situation, so right back at you with the STFU.[/QUOTE]

Once again you show that you have no clue about normal adult sexual relations. Understandable I suppose, but sad given the many gentle nudges (and not so gentle nudges) toward a little bit of understanding or empathy of others.

[QUOTE][sarcasm]Quick, fetch me a 15-year old girl, I've been in denial too long.[/sarcasm][/QUOTE]

Again you seem to completely miss the point.

[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

*joking *what? liberty is kissing passionately a blindfolded women?

i know it's supposed to be 'liberty' and ' justice'. But i'm sure Justice' would want to see who is kissing her.

[QUOTE=jasong;345485]Homosexuality is destructive because it is against God. If it suddenly became a sin to use Firefox, then using Firefox would be destructive because it would be "against God."[/QUOTE]

Homosexuality is destructive if and only if it is actually destructive. Your example of Firefox is perfect, since any G-d that would declare Firefox use as a sin is obviously focused on the wrong things and therefore not worth my time/effort/belief.

[QUOTE=jasong;345485]I could just as easily argue that the damage against those little girls I molested when I was a teenager was 100% from society, since the problem had nothing to do with forcible rape or any sort of kidnapping.[/QUOTE]

You could try that argument, I suppose. And I suppose we could weigh the pros and cons of a destructive sexual relationship (just look at the bitterness it has caused in you!) against the [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=321270&postcount=737"]genuinely beautiful loving relationships among consenting adults[/URL]. I calculate that you will not like the answers we come up with.

[QUOTE=jasong;345485]Sometimes things are immoral simply because God says they are immoral.[/QUOTE]

See above but also that is just nonsensical even from a Christian viewpoint (at least once you are past 3rd grade Sunday School). The 10 commandments (neither version of them) are supposed to be "because I said so's" They are supposed to point toward a better way to live. Setting aside the fact that the ritual transgressions get completely ignored by Jesus when he is asked by the crowds. Remember he, like this forum, was a [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=88057&postcount=1"]reciprocity kind of guy.[/URL]


[QUOTE=jasong;345485]Oh, and in regards to that "ancient book." It only makes sense if you believe it was written by people and that God doesn't exist. So instead of being a mis-leading bastard, be honest and say you don't believe in God. Because if God wrote the book, the knowledge is infinitely old, rather than thousands of years old.[/QUOTE]

There's a [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17223"]whole thread [/URL]on this forum where you and I have interacted a bit wherein I have made it abundantly clear my views on the subject--no mis-leading involved, though probably bastardy was. I don't even notice it anymore. But just in case you missed it those times, or [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=323676&postcount=770"]this time[/URL], [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=321056&postcount=708"]or this time,[/URL] perhaps once again: [B] I do not believe in anything that can't be Thumped. [/B] It's true that we don't know all the ways to Thump things yet, but that is a matter for smarter people and future generations. When Science knows everything it will stop.

[QUOTE=jasong;345487][sarcasm]Quick, fetch me a 15-year old girl, I've been in denial too long.[/sarcasm][/QUOTE]Stop being so lazy and expecting everyone to do your work for you.

Head off to Spain where the age of consent is 13.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;345702]*joking *what? liberty is kissing passionately a blindfolded women?

i know it's supposed to be 'liberty' and ' justice'. But i'm sure Justice' would want to see who is kissing her.[/QUOTE]

But you see, not knowing is what makes it so interesting. <3

[QUOTE=firejuggler;345702]i know it's supposed to be 'liberty' and ' justice'. But i'm sure Justice' would want to see who is kissing her.[/QUOTE]

Like many blind people, Justice observes just fine without sight.

Or, at least, many of them do, and she is supposed to....

[QUOTE=xilman;345704]Stop being so lazy and expecting everyone to do your work for you.

Head off to Spain where the age of consent is 13.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Red][U][B]ZAP! [/B][/U] [/COLOR]:goodposting: :bow:

Well said, Sir! Right to the point in more ways than one.

And Jason, am I to understand that your transgression twenty-plus years ago involved you at seventeen and a girl of fifteen? I don't think that is universally illegal even in this hidebound country. For sure, you're nowhere near Jerry Lee Lewis territory.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lee_Lewis#Marriage_to_a_minor[/url]

[url]http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/07/pat-robertson-says-he-vomits-at-the-sight-of-gay-couples/[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;345738][url]http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/07/pat-robertson-says-he-vomits-at-the-sight-of-gay-couples/[/url][/QUOTE]

Pat Robertson is stupid.

IMO.

[url]http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/08/2267671/its-official-civil-unions-are-not-equal-to-marriage-under-federal-law/[/url]

Christie dodges the bullet of having to act against a large portion of his constituents. Now he can wait a month and blame the courts.

The thought process in this image is vaguely related to this thread:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;345781]The thought process in this image is vaguely related to this thread:[/QUOTE]
:rofl:
The bigger picture always puts things into perspective, doesn't it? Those who can handle such ultimate truths should make the effort and enlarge the image.

w00t! Good one, Mike!

in response to[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=345694&postcount=900"] this,[/URL]

the other side: [QUOTE][URL="http://www.avclub.com/articles/enders-game-author-orson-scott-card-issues-plea-fo%2C99915/"]Sadly for Card, we may not yet have reached that more enlightened era, when homophobes are allowed to live freely without fear of their movies suffering a slight dip in profits. Nevertheless, Card is here, he hates queers, and he suggests you get used to it in time for the movie’s premiere. [/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chappy;345856]in response to[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=345694&postcount=900"] this,[/URL]

the other side:[/QUOTE]

Poor widdle intolerant jerk. He can dish it out, but he can't take it.

[QUOTE]I know there are those who do not love their fellow human beings, and I HATE people like that![/QUOTE] -Tom Lehrer, National Brotherhood Week intro, [U]That Was The Year That Was[/U]

[url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gay-marriage-catholic-protest-group-2050564[/url]

The reaction to such religio-political shenanigans over there is mind-bogglingly different than it is here. So many US pols kowtow to such pressures.

[QUOTE=kladner;346269]The reaction to such religio-political shenanigans over there is mind-bogglingly different than it is here. So many US pols kowtow to such pressures.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the majority of the people are more level headed (on this issue) but there's always [URL="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-fd-up-over-1902335"]these people.[/URL]

[QUOTE=chappy;346271]I agree that the majority of the people are more level headed (on this issue) but there's always [URL="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-fd-up-over-1902335"]these people.[/URL][/QUOTE]The slim legal barrier is all that keeps Tebbit from marrying his own son to avoid inheritance tax?

The end is nigh?
 

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23320624"]Gay marriage: Peers approve legislation[/URL]

Single-sex marriage is close to being approved in the UK.

[QUOTE=xilman;346399][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23320624"]Gay marriage: Peers approve legislation[/URL]

Single-sex marriage is close to being approved in the UK.[/QUOTE]Update: it is [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279"]now approved[/URL].

[QUOTE=xilman;346559]Update: it is [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279"]now approved[/URL].[/QUOTE]

Excellent.

Interesting that some of the "Colonies" were actually faster at such modern thinking....

[QUOTE=chalsall;346560]Excellent.

Interesting that some of the "Colonies" were actually faster at such modern thinking....[/QUOTE]
...and it's not difficult to see where the former colonies which are still lagging behind in the dark ages originally got their ideas from.

But that's enough cynicism from this disgruntled ex-Brit. Clearly this is wonderful news for England and Wales. The turn-around in attitudes on this issue has occurred phenomenally fast, too, resulting in legislation which was unthinkable even just a few years ago. As late as 2010 Stonewall, the largest organisation in Britain devoted to campaigning for equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, was still failing to support the campaign for equal marriage, evidently regarding it as a pipe dream. I have huge admiration for the campaigners who convinced the three major political parties that equal marriage was the way forward and made it all happen so fast.

[QUOTE=chalsall;346560]Excellent.

Interesting that some of the "Colonies" were actually faster at such modern thinking....[/QUOTE]
Indeed.

On the other hand it would have been possible for me to have spoken face to face with a freed American slave, though none are now still alive.

Slavery in the rest of the Empire was abolished much earlier and with much less fuss.

[QUOTE=xilman;346617]Indeed.

On the other hand it would have been possible for me to have spoken face to face with a freed American slave, though none are now still alive.

Slavery in the rest of the Empire was abolished much earlier and with much less fuss.[/QUOTE]


Not exactly true, the northern US states outlawed slavery well before the Brits. Even the states who traded heavily with the South (like New York and New Jersey) came around a decade or so before Britannia. And that freedom only came after a particularly brutal slave rebellion that was well [FONT=Calibri]publicized [/FONT]in the British press. And before you jump on that as some kind of wishy-washyness, you should also remember that Great Britain had plenty of exceptions (ie. where economics prevailed) to their freeing the slaves. Also Great Britain had no qualms about trading with the slave States (nor any particular hurry about freeing all the British slaves.)

It should also be noted that the people who benefitted economically from the British program to 'buy' the slaves freedom from the owners--to the tune of 20 million pounds--were mainly the ones voting on the freedom in the first place. In other words, I'll vote to have the Government pay me fair market value for the slaves, who I will then hire as cheap labor. Double bonus!

[url]http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/28311/The-Satanic-Temple-Performs-Same-Sex-Ceremony-At-Westboro-Baptist-Church-Leaders-Family-Gravesite?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Thegauntletcom+%28thegauntlet.com%29[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;346624]Not exactly true, the northern US states outlawed slavery well before the Brits.[/QUOTE]To be precise, the Brits abolished slavery in parts of the Empire long before the [strike]terrorists[/strike] freedom fighters started causing any unpleasantness in Boston (that is Mass., not Lincs.).

Slavery had been illegal in England and Wales long before the North American colonies were founded. To the best of my knowledge, it was never legal in India, Australia, NZ, Canada and much of British Africa. I am very willing to be educated on this point if my belief is erroneous.

As for unpleasantness, again to the best of my knowledge, seriously destructive warfare never occurred within the Empire as a consequence of the abolition of slavery.

Odd that people complain so much about the American public educational system. Slaves were legal in all parts of the British Empire until 1833-34. There were slaves in [URL="http://archives.gnb.ca/Exhibits/FortHavoc/html/Slave-in-Canada.aspx?culture=en-CA"]Canada[/URL], [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-28/revealing-a-dark-stain-on-australias-history/4446744"]Australia[/URL], [URL="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7104398M/The_law_and_custom_of_slavery_in_British_India"]India[/URL] (which was exempted from the 1834 act), [URL="http://www.theprow.org.nz/slavery-in-colonial-times/#.Ueg-0I2bPQM"]New Zealand[/URL] (not a British colony until after the time we are discussing--but still a leader in Slavery)

The [URL="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/slave-trade-slavery.htm"]British were the major force in African slavery [/URL]long after Slavery had been outlawed by most of the Northern states. And [URL="http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html#26t"]continued to build slave ships support the slave trade financially for decades after this practice was outlawed.[/URL]

It's true that African slaves were never as numerous in England as they were in English colonies. Chattel slavery was largely ended by the Normans and replaced with the much more convenient debtors prison and penal slavery systems that had the advantages of getting work out of people while they are young and effective workers and relieving the end user of any kind of moral responsibility to care for them when they got old and could no longer work.

[QUOTE=xilman;346660]
As for unpleasantness, again to the best of my knowledge, seriously destructive warfare never occurred within the Empire as a consequence of the abolition of slavery.[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_War"]the slave rebellion[/URL] (and the brutal English retaliation) led to push for emancipation of the slaves. Not that freeing slaves led to warfare.

[QUOTE=xilman;346660]To be precise, the Brits abolished slavery in parts of the Empire long before the [strike]terrorists[/strike] freedom fighters started causing any unpleasantness in Boston (that is Mass., not Lincs.).

Slavery had been illegal in England and Wales long before the North American colonies were founded. To the best of my knowledge, it was never legal in India, Australia, NZ, Canada and much of British Africa. I am very willing to be educated on this point if my belief is erroneous.
[/QUOTE]

Slavery was outlawed in England in 1834, now my math isn't as good as some but 1834-1776 = some non-negative number.

Who needs slavery at home when one has exploitative global colonialism with which to enrich oneself on the blood and toil of others? Both means serve the same ends. Also, while e.g. WW1 and WW2 may have not "been about" the colonies "owned" by the various participants, those resource-rich chips figured prominently in the incentives calculus of the game, as it were.

There are no "clean shirts" on the exploiter side of any of this history.

Now, getting back to what I was saying about the unconscionable denial of the civil rights of single-person couples...

[QUOTE=ewmayer;346675]

There are no "clean shirts" on the exploiter side of any of this history.

Now, getting back to what I was saying about the unconscionable denial of the civil rights of single-person couples...[/QUOTE]

Part 1) agreed. And every group has been an exploiter at one point or other in history.

Part 2) sorry. (though I think the two lines of thought aren't so far removed from each other. )

[QUOTE=ewmayer;346675]Now, getting back to what I was saying about the unconscionable denial of the civil rights of single-person couples...[/QUOTE]
Yes? What were you saying?

This isn't intended to be flippant. I'm seriously interested, Ernst, in any on-topic view you in particular want to express in this thread. Have your views on marriage for same sex couples altered at all since your contributions in this thread 5 years ago? A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then, after all.

@Brian-E:

I have not been following this thread closely since the initial back-and-forths you mention over the past 5 years, not because it's not interesting or important, but because other issues - broadly, global-economic and western-democratic - are more interesting or important to me personally. My view is perhaps "extreme libertarian", in that I believe government has only two legitimate reasons to "institutionalize marriage":

1) The very basic "perpetuation of society" [i.e. procreational/raising-children-to-become-responsible-adults] one. Given long-term global population trends the procreational aspect is moot. In the child-raising arena any government meddling should be based on what it legal terms is described as "compelling interest", i.e. absent clear evidence of harm to children, government should stay out. AFAIK there is no such clear evidence w.r.to same-sex couples raising children. But, the same standard should apply elsewhere - for example, polygamy/polygyny seems to work just fine [in the sense that the overall long-term societal result is no better or worse than for one-man-one-woman cultures] in areas of the world where it has been long-practiced. I mention the "long practiced" aspect because the "western world" - and especially the U.S. - is a bad proving ground for such forms of marriage because stigmatization and outright legal bans on such customs have forced them to "go underground", which favors "pathological practice of custom", as exemplified by various religious cults in which such practices are clearly exploitative.

2) Public health - There is a clear compelling interest in preventing procreation between close kin - how close should be left to medical science to establish broad consensus on. The rubric "child endangerment" should similarly be left to scientific and public-health professionals to delineate. In the U.S. the federal government's major role should be to reconcile state-by-state differences in applicable law and practice, but again such a role should be limited to demonstrable compelling interest.

I hold out no hope of any such things coming about in my lifetime, so I suppose you could say my view has evolved to "if governments insist on meddling in areas in which they have no legitimate reason to meddle, they should meddle equal-opportunistically." On that basis same-sex couples should be offered the same opportunity for unwarranted government meddling as opposite-sex ones. As should the millionaire playboy/girl who wants to have hundreds of kids by his/her dozens of wives/husbands. As long as the kids are well taken care of and the wives are not underage or close relatives of Mr. playboy, it's nobody else's business.

[QUOTE=xilman;346660]Slavery had been illegal in England and Wales long before the North American colonies were founded. To the best of my knowledge, it was never legal in India, Australia, NZ, Canada and much of British Africa. I am very willing to be educated on this point if my belief is erroneous.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, then, that Barbados has a long and well documented history of slavery.

Please note that Barbados was the only Caribbean island which was solely under British rule (every other island changed hands at least once).

Also please note that solicitors (and programmers) can be very exact in their language. Slavery may have been made illegal in England and Wales, but this does not necessarily mean this was done so in their colonies nor protectorates.

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/barbados_01.shtml"]Just putting this out there....[/URL]

@ewmayer

Thanks for the response, Ernst. The government hands-off ideal, except for encouraging procreation and protecting public health, was broadly what you were arguing in this thread in 2008, and [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=66789&postcount=13"]before that too[/URL] (before my time here). While I disagreed in 2008 with what I thought you were implying then, namely that marriage should not be opened up to same sex couples because it would be government meddling which would not be justified on procreation or public health grounds, I find myself now in complete agreement with you now that you have explicitly added your last paragraph above, that governments should meddle "equal-opportunistically" if they must meddle. I would add that I think government has a clear duty to guard the welfare of all citizens and therefore must combat oppression against groups which are unfairly targeted: treating different types of family unit in the same way is an important pre-requisite to removing this oppression.

[url]http://www.rgj.com/article/20130727/LIV/307270033/Retired-Methodist-ministers-buck-church-say-they-ll-do-same-sex-marriages?gcheck=1[/url]

Rick Santorum Files for Divorce, Blames the Gays
 

Read about it [URL="http://dailycurrant.com/2013/07/29/rick-santorum-files-for-divorce-blames-the-gays/"]here[/URL]! :razz:

[QUOTE]"Unfortunately the homosexuals have ruined my marriage," he explained to reporter Bruce Nolan. "Every year more and more of them get married, and every year the relationship with my wife gets worse.
"Ever since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, we've been sleeping in separate rooms. It's like I don't even know who she is anymore. This is what the gays want: to destroy the institution of marriage. We won't be the last."
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;348082]Read about it [URL="http://dailycurrant.com/2013/07/29/rick-santorum-files-for-divorce-blames-the-gays/"]here[/URL]! :razz:[/QUOTE][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Currant[/url][QUOTE]The Daily Currant is an American satirical news blog that focuses on politics, technology, and entertainment.[1] A number of its satirical stories have been taken for true news reports by press and members of the public.[2]
The Daily Currant is a competitor to The Onion. According to Quantcast, the site garners over 1.5 million page views a month.[3][/QUOTE]

I was waiting to see who picked up on the satirical nature. :smile: The headline along was worth posting.

[QUOTE=kladner;348134]I was waiting to see who picked up on the satirical nature. :smile: The headline along was worth posting.[/QUOTE]
It certainly was. I have to admit that I read the portion of the article which you quoted with credence (and face-palming) for a short time before noticing its source. Rick Santorum is one of a series of serious hopefuls since 2000 for the post of United States president, including the one who actually attained the presidency and held it for a second term at the start of that period, who came out with such breathtaking idiocy time after time that I would not have employed them in any position which involved opening their mouths. Hence my brief credence.

This makes the whole Catholic notion that Mary stayed a virgin more understandable...

:goodposting: +11!

Who's Afraid of a Little S0d0my?
 

[COLOR=Red][B][SIZE=3]Warning! Warning! [/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

Mark Morford column on Ken Kuccinelli and his ilk. (The Mozilla spell checker wanted to replace the name with "Fettuccine". :smile:)

[url]http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2013/08/13/whos-afraid-of-a-little-sodomy/[/url]

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/pentagon-gay-benefits_n_3756266.html"]Pentagon To Extend Benefits To Gay Spouses[/URL][QUOTE]The benefits will be made available to same-sex spouses as long as the service member provides a valid marriage certificate. But earlier plans to provide benefits to unmarried gay partners have been dropped, officials said Wednesday.

Military personnel in a same-sex relationship who are stationed in a state that does not permit same-sex marriage will be allowed to take leave for travel to a jurisdiction where they can marry legally.

"This will provide accelerated access to the full range of benefits offered to married military couples throughout the department, and help level the playing field between opposite-sex and same-sex couples seeking to be married," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman.[/QUOTE]So it looks like any legally married couple will get benefits regardless of what state they are stationed in. And if they want to marry but are in a state that does not offer same sex marriage, they will be granted leave to travel to another state to get legally married.

[url]http://community.feministing.com/2011/03/28/%E2%80%9Cstraight-male-gamer%E2%80%9D-told-to-%E2%80%98get-over-it%E2%80%99-by-bioware/[/url]

some classic lines: [QUOTE]if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]And the person who says that the only way to please them is to restrict options for others is, if you ask me, the one who deserves it least.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-supreme-court-prop-8-20130814,0,1311803.story"]California Supreme Court rejects bid to revive Prop. 8[/URL][QUOTE]SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to revive Proposition 8, ending the last remaining legal challenge to same-sex marriage in the state.[/QUOTE]

The world needs more [URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/russian-gold-medalists-kiss-medal-stand-world-championships-132337366.html"]protests[/URL] about the silliness of certain Russian laws, imo.

[COLOR="White"]Yes, I'm aware that I've become a silly hetero cliche. I don't know why it works that way, but it does.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;274693]jwb, Polyamory was the word I meant. I just tossed it in as a sidenote for the general conversation.[/QUOTE]Nice article about a [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23726120"]polyamorous relationship[/URL].

[QUOTE=xilman;350105]Nice article about a [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23726120"]polyamorous relationship[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Thanks for posting this link. It makes a fascinating case study, very rare in that so few such set-ups are documented but maybe more commonly occurring than is recognised.

This group has clearly identified what I also believe to be far and away the most important factors in a good, lasting love relationship: openness, honesty, and the ability to discuss potentially out-of-the-box situations with your partner. Or, in this case, partners.

The article also introduces a wonderful new word in the English language, one which I intend to start using:
[QUOTE]"Compersion," explains Tom, "is the little warm glow that you get when you see somebody you really care about loving somebody else and being loved."[/QUOTE]

EDIT: I've just googled and noticed that "compersion" is not a new word. It was unfamiliar to me before.

It seems that senior politicians are coming out with ever more ingenious arguments against opening marriage to same sex couples. This one leaves me quite speechless with awe.
[URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mexican-politician-says-gay-people-should-not-be-allowed-to-marry-because-they-dont-face-each-other-during-sex-8773982.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]Ana María Jiménez Ortiz, a congresswoman for the Mexican political party PAN, has caused outrage by saying that gay people should not be allowed to marry because they don't face each other during sex.
According to Mexican media reports Jimenez Ortiz told supporters during a forum on whether to legalize gay marriage in the state of Puebla that “marriage should only be considered in those relationships in which the members have sex while facing each other.”
"A marriage should only be considered amongst people that can look at each other in the eye while having sexual intercourse," Jiménez Ortiz said. "Something that does not happen in homosexual couples."
[/QUOTE]

It's nice to see others in an arrangement that I idealize and aspire to. It's not something you can make happen, but something you can allow for. I have long felt that jealousy is an expression of insecurity to which one does not have to submit.

A sort of corollary for me is that love is not a zero-sum proposition. That is, the love one feels for Person A does not diminish the love one feels for Person B. And, if A and B also cherish each other then there's just more to go around.

I love defining "cheating" as "lying". Openness and honesty are everything.

[QUOTE]You want to know
How it will be
Me and him
Or you and me
You both stand there your long hair flowin'
Eyes alive your mind still growin'
Sayin' to me, "What can we do now that we both love you?"
I love you too
I don't really see why can't we go on as three


You are afraid
Embarrassed too
No one has ever said such a
Thing to you
Your mother's ghost stands at your shoulder
Face like ice a little bit colder
Sayin' to you, "You can not do that, it breaks all the rules
You learned in school"
I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three


We love each other
It's plain to see
There's just one answer
That comes to me
Sister lovers water brothers
And in time maybe others
So you see what we can do is to try something new
If you're crazy too
I don't really see
Why can't we go on as three
[/QUOTE]
"Triad" -Grace Slick

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/new-mexico-same-sex-marriage_n_3790685.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&ir=Gay+Voices[/url]

It's a classic case of you didn't tell us we couldn't do the right thing.

Haven't posted in this thread for a while, no idea what's been going on in here. I was getting a bit uptight about things, so I've taken a long break from this thread.

Anyway, I wanted to talk about auto-hypnosis and politics, specifically as it relates to me and my liberal friend. Full disclosure, one could argue that my communication with the Holy Spirit is auto-hypnosis. I fully understand the opinion that it's just my mental illness making me hear the Holy Spirit even though I don't agree with it.

The problem with my friend is that he is convinced that hating homosexuality automatically equates to hating homosexuals. So I've been trying to find behaviors that he despises without hating the person who exhibits them. I hang with him because he argues in the ways that my brain keys into. While many people object to trying to put people into neat little categories, that's how my brain works, and he thinks in a way that makes compartmentalization easy. I know it may make me sound like a bad person, but that's just how I deal with the world.

In my mind, homosexuality is a sin, but it's just one aspect of a person. I believe when the Bible says homosexuals don't go to heaven, it's only talking about people who fully embrace the lifestyle, rather than people who simply suffer from temptation. It's like with my pedophilia urges, if I treat it as a negative aspect of my personality that I continuously have to deal with and actively reject, then God will view me as a non-pedophile. And it extends to the other things as well. Someone could be a mass murderer, but if they get into the mental state where they realize what they did was wrong and decide to never do it again, then they are forgiven and are not a murderer in God's eyes. Though, obviously, there are still consequences to deal with.

[QUOTE=kladner;350111]

"Triad" -Grace Slick[/QUOTE]

Correction: David Crosby wrote the song. He got shoved out of the Byrds because the song was too "edgy" for the other members.

[URL="http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury-and-IRS-Announce-That-All-Legal-Same-Sex-Marriages-Will-Be-Recognized-For-Federal-Tax-Purposes;-Ruling-Provides-Certainty,-Benefits-and-Protections-Under-Federal-Tax-Law-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples"]Treasury and IRS Announce That All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For Federal Tax Purposes; Ruling Provides Certainty, Benefits and Protections Under Federal Tax Law for Same-Sex Married Couples[/URL][QUOTE]IR-2013-72, Aug. 29, 2013

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today ruled that [B]same-sex couples, legally married[/B] in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, [B]will be treated as married for federal tax purposes[/B]. The ruling applies [B]regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage[/B] or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

The ruling implements federal tax aspects of the June 26 Supreme Court decision invalidating a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
Under the ruling, same-sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes. The ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.

Any same-sex marriage legally entered into in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or a foreign country will be covered by the ruling. However, the ruling does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law.

[B]Legally-married same-sex couples generally [U]must [/U]file their 2013 federal income tax return using either the married filing jointly or married filing separately filing status.[/B]

[B]Individuals who were in same-sex marriages may, but are not required to, file original or amended returns choosing to be treated as married for federal tax purposes for one or more prior tax years still open under the statute of limitations.

Generally, the statute of limitations for filing a refund claim is three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. As a result, refund claims can still be filed for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012.[/B] Some taxpayers may have special circumstances, such as signing an agreement with the IRS to keep the statute of limitations open, that permit them to file refund claims for tax years 2009 and earlier.

Additionally, employees who purchased same-sex spouse health insurance coverage from their employers on an after-tax basis may treat the amounts paid for that coverage as pre-tax and excludable from income.[/QUOTE]Another thing that may be huge is many states' tax returns closely follow federal tax returns in structure and calculation of deductions, exemptions, etc.
The Huffington Post notes:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/same-sex-couples-federal-taxes_n_3837444.html[/url]
[QUOTE]The policy only applies to married couples, and not those in domestic partnerships or same-sex unions.[/QUOTE]So this is now another way that a domestic partnership is not equal to a same-sex marriage.

No idea what a domestic partnership is supposed to be. Maybe that's what I've been advocating without knowing the term.

Technically, I don't object to same-sex marriage, it's the same-sex sex that I have a problem with. If the law can define things in a way that doesn't reference homosexuality, than I'm okay with it.

[QUOTE=jasong;351667]Technically, I don't object to same-sex marriage, it's the same-sex sex that I have a problem with. If the law can define things in a way that doesn't reference homosexuality, than I'm okay with it.[/QUOTE]

In the voice of Robin Williams: "Ever been to sea, Billy?"

Things can get complicated in rarefied environments....

[QUOTE=chalsall;351670]In the voice of Robin Williams: "Ever been to sea, Billy?"

Things can get complicated in rarefied environments....[/QUOTE]

In the voice of Peter Graves: "Joey, have you ever.....
.....been in a Turkish prison?"
.....seen a grown man naked?"

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

Oh, yeah. I came here for a different reason. Damn your suggestive comments, Chris! :wink:

The pastor and the politician:

[YOUTUBE]TzV1r5SCc8U[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=kladner;352198]The pastor and the politician:

[/QUOTE]
Thanks for this. Yes, Kevin Rudd has clearly thought it through from a Christian perspective and is unafraid to have changed his tune on the issue. It's probably now a net vote-winning stance for the election, with his main opponent Tony Abbott firmly against equal marriage, given that public attitudes have changed radically during the last few years. We don't know how representative that audience is, but the pastor's questions were not received anything like as well as Rudd's answers were. Whether the issue of equal marriage can be a significant factor in swaying Australia's election is another question though, and Rudd seems to be far behind in the polls. Still, it's never over until the fat lady sings and I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised!

George Bush Senior has attended, and acted as official witness for, a wedding between two women who are longstanding friends of his.
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/09/25/george-h-w-bush-is-witness-at-same-sex-marriage-in-maine/?hpid=z4[/URL]

How significant is it for a former Republican president to show support for a same sex marriage in this way?

[Off topic: are his socks, one red and one blue, referred to in the article as a "style statement", a suggestion that George Bush now wavers between Republican and Democrat sympathies?]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;354234]George Bush Senior has attended, and acted as official witness for, a wedding between two women who are longstanding friends of his.
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/09/25/george-h-w-bush-is-witness-at-same-sex-marriage-in-maine/?hpid=z4[/URL]

How significant is it for a former Republican president to show support for a same sex marriage in this way?

[Off topic: are his socks, one red and one blue, referred to in the article as a "style statement", a suggestion that George Bush now wavers between Republican and Democrat sympathies?][/QUOTE]

The significance, as I see it, is that Poppy Bush is an old-time Republican. While this faction has not always been the most tolerant, gross bigotry has not been an absolute hallmark, either. There used to be more personal variation and flexibility than is seen in the "New" Republicans.

As to the socks, I first thought of absolute color-blindness. But Bush is a very wealthy old man in a wheel chair. Clearly, someone does such things for him as getting socks out of the drawer. That says that it is a choice of some sort. However, if it were to suggest a mix of political redness and blueness, I could only think of it as repudiation of the extremes to which the current "red" side of the political spectrum has gone.

It could well be that mismatched socks are just an attention-getting device. At this they are quite successful. I don't think they indicate any fundamental shift in H.W.'s aims and alignments.

It must be remembered that he has been deeply involved in the Intelligence apparatus for most, or all of his adult life. He is also the current patriarch of a multi-generational criminal enterprise. He is the Godfather of the Bush Crime Family. His interests and means of operation are much deeper than the petty bigotry of the Johnny-Come-Lately stooges of the Tea Party.

Thanks for that analysis Kieren. I was only vaguely aware of the concept of "old" and "new" Republicans (the rise of the Tea Party a few years ago had registered with me a bit!), and I did not know that bigotry was particularly associated with the new variety rather than the old.

Your reference to the multi-generational criminal enterprise of the Bush family must be a controversial description, I guess, but I've heard of that before too from Michael Moore's writings and films and have no problem giving it credence.

I have had second thoughts after posting about the Bushes, but I guess I've said other strange things here. A Google will turn up quite a lot on the subject. My father was angrily obsessed with the family, and I have friends who will talk your ear off about it.

The "old" Republicans ran a wide gamut. Some were more prejudiced than others, but not so drastically different from their contemporaneous surroundings. I knew of anti-gay liberals back in the 60's and 70's, after all.

They could variously be called the Goldwater, Rockefeller, Nixon, or even Reagan Republicans.

Goldwater was further to the right in some ways, but I don't think he was much concerned with prejudice. I came to somewhat like the crusty old bird before the end. In the years after loosing to Johnson, I've heard it that he said things to the effect that he didn't really need to have run since Lyndon did everything in Viet Nam that he would have.

Reagan came from Hollywood, and was totally opportunistic. I don't think he had much in the way of principles.

Rockefeller, as in "Nelson" would be a flaming liberal today, though he did great damage on the drug war front.

Nixon was batshit crazy: a tormented, conflicted character. He actually did some good things if you leave aside the war, and Kissinger, and a few other minutia like the China opening, which made Walmart possible.

It is often said, and is probably true, that none of the above could get anywhere in today's Republican party. Even Saint Ronny Raygun would be way too far to the left, even though he is idolized.

[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

:fusion: :missingteeth: :goodposting:.

[url]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/172630#.UlRTCYabPQN[/url]

Finally straights will have their own gaydar to line the cliffs of Dover and protect us from the Huns...oh, wait that's something else. This appears to be state sponsored homophobia in the form of stupidity. Nothing new to see here--move along...move along.

[QUOTE=chappy;355624]...[/QUOTE]

I thought spellling it G-d was a show of respect for the "entity".

As an atheist, I almost never spell it that way.

[QUOTE=davar55;355627]I thought spellling it G-d was a show of respect for the "entity".

As an atheist, I almost never spell it that way.[/QUOTE]

One response would be that it is hard to have respect or non-respect for a thing that doesn't exist. But, that wouldn't really fit my world-view. I have some grudging respect for certain belief systems. One of which is the notion that if you believe in a deity and hold it as the Ultimate concern then you should be careful about how you speak of it.

So a less long-winded answer would be: I respect some aspects of the belief system.

Also it screws with people.


Back on topic:

[URL="http://dailycurrant.com/2013/10/08/pope-francis-says-he-supports-gay-marriage/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pope-francis-says-he-supports-gay-marriage"]Parody websites just make me sad sometimes[/URL]...New Pope is better than Classic Pope, but he's still the choice of a few generations ago.

[QUOTE=chappy;355645]One response would be that it is hard to have respect or non-respect for a thing that doesn't exist. But, that wouldn't really fit my world-view. I have some grudging respect for certain belief systems. One of which is the notion that if you believe in a deity and hold it as the Ultimate concern then you should be careful about how you speak of it.

So a less long-winded answer would be: I respect some aspects of the belief system.

Also it screws with people.
...
[/QUOTE]

OK, I can't hold respect for parts of that belief system as a negative.
So you certainly may do as you wish ITO messing with their minds.

I personally can still feel respect for the people who accept their
religious beliefs, though the beliefs themselves get no respect
from me.

Didn't mean to (momentarily) hijack this thread.