Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #406
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

I mean, have I really done anything that bad?
Maybe you are ultimately responsible for the fate of all those kittens... :P

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #407
We've all sinned. We've also all made typos. We're not perfect. But when I bump into someone, it's my fault at that very moment. It's not God's, it's not my ancestors', it's mine. Accepting responsibility and making amends as much as is necessary and possible is exactly what morality is about. Turning to some spiritual third party doesn't help anyone.

—Alorael, who thinks this should end now. It's about as pure a religious argument as one can have, it obviously won't make any progress, and it's cluttering a thread that's already quite dense.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #408
The only "mistake" humanity made was deciding that God needs anything from us. A God Who needs Her own creation to be anything He didn't create it naturally to be, is an idiot. When people saw the sometimes malevolent forces of nature, they began to imagine that the gods, and later, the God, was angry with them.

God doesn't need your worship, your "obedience" or for you to be "good." God doesn't need your love. God doesn't need you to be anything in particular. God created you to be whatever you have in mind to be. That is true free will and love always gives the loved one complete liberty. Anything less is tyranny. God doesn't need anything. Judgement of our behavior can only occur if God needs us to be a certain way to be "happy" with us.

Good and evil only exist in an absolute sense if you believe that you can do permanent damage to a soul by anything that happens in this natural realm. Why would God create frailty and futility out of Its own perfection and permanence? If God is all there is, how can God be damaged anyway? You, as a part of God, cannot actually be damaged, because God cannot be damaged. It is only an illusion we have embraced that we are somehow separate from God, and in peril. God only wants to experience being God, so God created myriads of individuated souls out of Itself, of which you are a part, and an artificial illusory environment of duality, this universe, in which Love could be "needed," expressed, and experienced. We come here to play whatever roles we please to be a part of this collective experience of God being God.

The mistake came in when we got caught up in the illusion of the theater stage, and imagined the contrivance of duality was real, that the threat was real, that God needed something, and therefore there was judgement from God whether or not we were providing that for God. The Bible is a collection of some insight into the nature of God and a lot of mistaken thinking on a male father God who is angry with his own creation. The garden of Eden myth perfectly portrays the primordial mistake in our conception of God. But it's okay. Your soul, as an inseparable part of God, knows everything, even if you consciously do not. There is no threat of being permanently lost in this experience.

God does not need anything. God cannot be damaged. God doesn't need you to be or do anything other than what is in your desire and imagination to create of yourself. Being gay is just an experience that is part of the many we can have to share in the experience of God being God. It is neither right nor wrong. it is a texture woven into the tapestry of the theater trappings. You're all off the hook. God was never angry with anyone. God is thoroughly delighted with what we are and what we are doing. Your soul actually knows what you are doing. You chose your life.

This has been a view of God most deem Too Good To Be True. Would you exepect God to be anything other than exactly that? Really now. There is no fear in God, and there is nothing to fear ultimately in our experiences in life. Least of all, God "judging" us, as if we were wayward children. People like Jesus have come to earth time and again to remind us of Who We Are. We usually can't stomach it/don't get it/crucify such people. It's too good to be true, and we don't want to believe it.

-S-

[ Wednesday, December 19, 2007 19:56: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #409
quote:
Originally performed by a purple dinosaur:
I love you, you love me.
We're a happy family.
With a great big hug
And a kiss from me to you,
Won't you say you love me, too.

I love you, you love me.
We're best friends
Like friends should be
With a great big hug
And a kiss from me to you,
Won't you say you love me, too.



--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #410
We're not a family. There is only One of us. As you do unto another, you have literally done unto yourself. Think of it as a friendly, mindful, individuated Borg collective, collaboratively living out the experience of being God on this holodeck of the universe. The Matrix is closer to our reality than we dared imagine.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7298
Profile #411
If you want to create something with free will you have to give it the ability to do something you don't want it too. If what you created can't ever do anything that you don't want then it can never do anything contrary to your own will thus its will is slave to your own. My explanation for myself as to why god can let all these horrible(murder, rape, stealing,ect) things happen is that its apart of allowing us to have free will. People have the free will to choose to do bad things. Otherwise we would be little more then sophisticated robots.

--------------------
A rock has weight whether you admit it or not
Posts: 479 | Registered: Wednesday, July 12 2006 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #412
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

We're not a family. There is only One of us. As you do unto another, you have literally done unto yourself. Think of it as a friendly, mindful, individuated Borg collective, collaboratively living out the experience of being God on this holodeck of the universe. The Matrix is closer to our reality than we dared imagine.

-S-

The sad thing about hating you, Synergy, is that you sometimes come close to the right idea.

I stand by my characterization of Safey. I don't feel he's in this discussion in good faith. At least it's feasible to characterize the other participant, Stillness, as basically ignorant.

. . .

I refer any readers with serious reservations about homosexuality in light of their Christian morals to read Fred Clark's series, 'The Gay-Hating Gospel' (you'll have to dig for it yourself). It's actually an excellent treatment, as is much of what Clark does. I'd characterize him generally as who I'd be voting against in an ideal world - like Barack Obama, basically a Burkean conservative (unlike Burke, of course, who was an ass), someone working towards changing the evils of the world in a fashion moderate and slow enough to ensure they won't create more. 'Conservative' in the American political context is hopelessly warped, referring to someone who takes on a basically Satanist obsession themselves and their own stupid issues, an ideology of entitlement so fixated on Number One that it refuses to acknowledge even problems that grievously threaten their progeny if it damages their own bottom line. A good example is global warming - the executives fanning the flames of global warming denial know what's going on and know their children will suffer because of it, but don't care. We characterize that, as Americans, as 'conservative', while it goes beyond even 'reactionary' - it's a sort of deliberate ignorance, a direct refusal to work with accepted fact and a preference for revelation.

That digression aside, Clark writes really well on evangelical issues from a left-evangelical perspective, has a hilarious series on the Left Behind series - for him, the Worst Books Ever Written - and the Gay-Hating Gospel, among other pieces on evangelical cultural fixations, is pretty good.

[ Wednesday, December 19, 2007 23:28: Message edited by: Najosz Thjsza Kjras ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #413
Here's what I like about these forums: You all are smart. So when I compared the argument that the US should allow homosexual marriage to allowing interspecies marriage, you all gave me logical reasons why I was wrong and made me adjust my thinking. You let me see the other sides view, and I’ve found the other side is almost never as evil and illogical as one might think.

Here's where some of you are not smart: Somehow you always assume I have some agenda or motives other than what I'm saying I do. What could they possibly be!? I believe homosexuality is a sin and make no bones about it! I believe the Bible is God’s Word and live by it. Your side insisted on dragging that into the discussion, not me. What am I hiding? Do you think I'm trying to convert you all? Does it make you feel smarter or justified if you can categorize me as evil or sneaky or stupid? That’s unfortunate, because I’m just here to kick it around, toss out ideas to see if they stick, and maybe get some gaming tips once in a while.

I think you don’t know how to disagree amicably. Here is where that handicaps you: When I say, “you’ve made a great point, let’s explore it,” you don’t listen to me and instead want to recycle the same arguments. Do you really think I’m ducking something - as if losing a debate on an issue that I don’t even really hold a position on matters?! When I say, “you might have another point, let’s go through an exercise,” you think I’m trying to put seven year olds to work. You can’t even get jokes because you think I’m close-minded and underhanded. I hope you all aren’t like this outside these forums. I learned from you in spite of you, as always. It’s unfortunate if you went on for page after page and gained nothing.

And yes Alec, I am ignorant. So are you. Stating that does not make you look enlightened except to the dim-witted.

Here are some references for those that think using stuff for a purpose outside what it’s made for equates to using it in harmony with the design:

Sexually Transmitted Infection as a Cause of Anal Cancer
https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/19/1350
In women, receptive anal intercourse, particularly before the age of 30 years, and venereal infections in the partner were also associated with an increased risk (odds ratios, 3.4 and 2.4, respectively). Fifteen percent of the men with anal cancer reported having had homosexual contact, as compared with none of the controls (P<0.001).

Sexually transmitted diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus
The challenge of the nineties
http://www.springerlink.com/content/np03804015168p01/
Up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus. In addition, a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.

Sexually transmitted diseases in hetero-, homo- and bisexual males in Copenhagen.
[URL=http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=2130030&q=Sexually+transmitted+diseases+in+hetero-
%2C+homo-and+bisexual+males+in+Copenhagen&uid=7918860]http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?
requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=2130030&q=Sexually+
transmitted+diseases
+in+hetero-%2C+homo-and+bisexual+males+in+Copenhagen&uid=7918860[/URL] 50&setcookie=yes
Among males with homosexual partners, 14% had rectal infections.

Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/4/591
In comparison with adjusted estimates for the US female population, lesbians/bisexual women exhibited greater prevalence rates of obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use…

A case-controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians
http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/72/4/277
Bacterial vaginosis occurred in 65 (33%) of the lesbians and 27 (13%) of the heterosexuals (p < 0.0001). Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians.

Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women
http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/76/5/345?ck=nck
…women who have sex with women (WSW)…
Conclusion: We demonstrated a higher prevalence of BV, hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviours in WSW compared with controls.


Sexual behavior of women with repeated episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7q6p77833145v30/
One hundred and two women with a history of a median of six episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and 204 age-matched controls participated in a structured in-depth interview on sexual behavior… Sexual variables that remained significant or were of borderline significance after adjustment were: … regular oral sex (OR=2.4), experience of anal intercourse ever (OR=2.4), oral intercourse the last month (OR=3.1), and frequency of oral intercourse (p=0.02). Thus, the study indicates that certain sexual activities are associated with repeated episodes of VVC.

Bacterial Infection
Reviews in Medical Microbiology. 13(2):43-51, April 2002.
Spiegel, Carol A.
[URL=http://www.revmedmicrobiol.com/pt/re/revmedmicrob/abstract.00013542-200204000-00001.htm;jsessionid=HqRQhSSjxjqtC7Nkt1MLlT6jdh21lQp
NWptk285JQ6DLScyrhqsv!1609592453!181195628!8091!-1]http://www.revmedmicrobiol.com/pt/re/revmedmicrob/abstract.00013542-200204000-
00001.htm;jsessionid=HqRQhSSjxjqtC7Nkt1MLlT6jdh21lQpNWptk285JQ6DLScyrhqsv!1609592453!181195628!8091!-1[/URL]
BV is very common among lesbian women. Oral sex appears to be a risk factor for heterosexual and lesbian acquisition.

EDIT: Formatting on links was distorting thread

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 02:11: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #414
None of those summaries (I admit I haven't read the links) tie it to anatomy. They tie it to demographic fact about the people involved. That demographic fact is related to anatomy, it's true; but it's also related to other things that Alorael mentioned: lack of public acceptance leading to closeted behavior and inability to permanently couple. The biggest risk factor for STDs is number of partners. Obviously, in a faithful couple where neither party has sex with anyone else, no STDs will be transmitted since none will be introduced. So if there is a divine message in any of those statistics, surely it's "be faithful!" and not "don't lick vaginas!"

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #415
I’m not telling anyone what they should or should not lick or poke. I’m comparing sex implied by form of the organs with other kinds of sex typical of non-opposite sex couples/groups. It doesn’t matter what the public accepts or whether or not promiscuity is involved – they are different. A couple that hasn’t had sex with anyone else can still cause infection or other problems. You’re misinformed. If muscles and colon linings are over-expanded and/or torn or the female’s flora is disturbed enough you have a problem. For example, the yeast infection study above says specifically, “ VVC was not associated with multiple sexual partners or ever-experience of causal sex.” But it was connected to “oral sex.”

I think it’s a difference in world view that makes this concept difficult to grasp. You want to think it’s all natural and equal and ok with consenting adults, but nature disagrees.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #416
Right. Now, what does this have to do with the government's role in creating benefits for married couples? As I've mentioned, the role originally stemmed from creating a tax break for single-breadwinner families. If you're going to suggest that the government is continuing this benefit for the purpose of somehow promoting hetero-vaginal sex as better (which is patently absurd), then we're back in Lawrence v. Texas territory. The government has no business regulating sexual behavior short of cases in which matters or consent are concerned.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #417
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

what does this have to do with the government's role in creating benefits for married couples? As I've mentioned, the role originally stemmed from creating a tax break for single-breadwinner families.
It has to do with the claim that other unions are the same as hetero-couples.

Why did the government create benefits for married couples? Why not just say, "Hey, if your wife doesn't want to work, that's your problem"? Just saying it's a cultural norm leaves much to be desired in the way of an answer. Maybe you've got a point on this one, but I'm not seeing it.

The case striking legal action against sodomy has no connection that I see unless you explain it more clearly.

X is not illegal
Therefore Y cannot be subsidized

and

X is not illegal
Therefore X must be subsidized

are non sequitors.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #418
Safey: It is your assumption that God needs or wants you to be anything in particular. Why do you believe that that is how God would be, and how he would create beings out of Godself? Our first mistake was to foolishly imagine that God n e e d s anything. If God has a need, we are in trouble. Well, we are, but only because we have believed it.

Alec stated; "The sad thing about hating you, Synergy, is that you sometimes come close to the right idea."

Why waste the energy, Alec? Hating does you at least as much damage as it can do to me. I think anyone who is genuine and has a clue, has to admit that anyone can be quite right in some or many ways, and incorrect in others at the same time. The one does not negate the other...or the person. I will always afford this privilege to others and to myself. Be gentle with yourself. Be gentle with others. We hash through life seeking to orient ourselves in the midst of illusion, myth, and those who would seek to have you be afraid. You can know you are much closer to the truth when you have stopped being afraid of anything. Or hating. The master knows that all circumstances are perfect and does not hate them or the persons participating in them.

,,,

I do dig it when people get real, and Stillness put it succinctly in his (now second to) last post. which I appreciate. I will always seek to remember to respect another, even when I disagree with their basis for their belief, in this case, belief that the Bible reliably communicates God to humanity. I haven't seen any convincing argument for any natural or moral reason that gays deserve to form a "marriage" any less than any other two people who want to commit to a partnership together. Popular opinion in culture may dictate that "marriage" = such and such only, but that has nothing to do with the morality or healthiness of any excluded arrangement. Well, actually, it has a lot to do with morality, in that morality, too, is a chosen construct of collective agreement, whether you claim it came from the mouth of God or not. As I have pointed out, religious morality and political morality (there really isn't a true separation) on numerous issues, and sexual issues, has morphed rather tellingly over the centuries.

We're making all this up. Everything means what we say it does, and we continually change our meanings. The meaning of marriage is changing, based much more on practical social elements, as Drew is focusing upon with tax law, rather than any other agency I can think of.

It is my personal feeling that I would not wish to be homosexual, for numerous reasons. I do make the observation that in part, it "goes against nature." As a psychologist, I am mostly curious to ask the question, "What happened?" I won't go into any of my ideas on what might contribute to sexual development of this sort, but I imagine we all have them. Whether something is the "most natural" way of being or the "most healthy" or the "most desirable" is not the same thing as whether it is right or wrong. Right and wrong are designations we create in the context of our ideas about who we are and what we are trying to do. The fact that we are inclined to project them onto a God for us does not negate the fact that we are the ones deciding rightness and wrongness for ourselves, both individually, and collectively. Homosexuality, or homosexual marriage is not any more right or wrong than any other kind of marriage we arrive upon.

Might does not make right. Majority opinion does not make right. God does not make right (you are always taking someone's word on this claim, entirely unverifiably, anyway.) We make right and wrong. Let's own up to it and get over ourselves.

There is only one question in every sticky issue we confront in life: How is that working for us? How is our construct of marriage and our rules about sexuality and rightness and wrongness about such things working for us in this world? What experience is it creating for us? Do we reflect the people we see ourselves as being by what we are creating? Are we happy with our marriages, our institutions, our created roles for the genders, our attitudes, how we raise our children in the world, our relationships with one another on every level, our sense of love, joy, and peace in life? Are you truly enjoying your life?

How's it working for you? How does holding adversarial or patronizing attitudes toward populations with other beliefs, preferences and experiences and desires from yours working for you? What kind of world has this illusion of our separateness from one another created? The greatest extent of operating under the illusion of separateness has resulted in nationalism, nations with borders and who war with one another. How is nationalism working for us? How is not seeing ourselves as one working for us?

I conclude it is not working so well, and we are not demonstrating what most of us say we see ourselves as being and desiring: loving, peaceful, getting along, thriving.

You cannot argue with how it's working. If we can get past our obsession with rightness and wrongness of things, and just look at how they work for us when we make our choices, we'd start progressing out of the tiresome morass we have socially, culturally, nationally so far on planet earth. We imagine ourselves advanced, but we are yet so very primitive.

We're making this all up. What are you choosing to make up? You can find and create your own or do what most do, go through life on subconscious auto-pilot, following the rules, beliefs, agendas, and creations of others. How's that working for you?

We have Omaha mall shootings to remind us how it's working for us. Do something different. Think a new thought. Consider a new possibility, for yourself, for your God, for your role in the world. What we've been doing for some millennia now is not working. We need to break the paradigm, not keep haggling over the fine points of the broken one we've been living by.

-S-

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 09:55: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #419
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The case striking legal action against sodomy has no connection that I see unless you explain it more clearly.
I've already told you twice. Legally, same-sex intercourse is equivalent to opposite-sex intercourse, and neither (by the rights to privacy that trace back to Griswold v. Connecticut) can be regulated by the government except in issues of consent and the like.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #420
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I will always seek to remember to respect another, even when I disagree with their basis for their belief, in this case, belief that the Bible reliably communicates God to humanity. I haven't seen any convincing argument for any natural or moral reason that gays deserve to form a "marriage" any less than any other two people who want to commit to a partnership together.
Out of curiosity, are you aware that this is not what the discussion I've been in is about? Just so you know, the discussion is about the logical and legal arguments for legalization of non hetero-paired marriage...Unless your comments were directed elsewhere. If so, go right ahead.

EDIT:
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Legally, same-sex intercourse is equivalent to opposite-sex intercourse, and neither (by the rights to privacy that trace back to Griswold v. Connecticut) can be regulated by the government except in issues of consent and the like.
Delineate your logic please. To me it sounds like:

Since the government can't regulate sex
and Opposite-sex pairs can be subsidized
Same-sex pairs should be subsidized

It has a major logical disconnect. Fix it for me so I can understand.

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:11: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #421
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Delineate your logic please. To me it sounds like:

Since the government can't regulate sex
and Opposite-sex pairs can be subsidized
Same-sex pairs should be subsidized

It has a major logical disconnect. Fix it for me so I can understand.

Stillness, I don't think that you understand the difference between presenting an argument and presenting an objection. There have variously in this thread been efforts to present reasons why not granting same-sex marriages the same rights as opposite-sex marriage is discriminatory, and there have been efforts to show why your arguments that it's not are wrong. This was the latter.

Marriage cannot be legally recognized in order to promote a particular kind of sex. That's unconstitutional. That's what the cited court cases have to do with this.

All this is attempting to do is show that your argument doesn't work, not present an argument for the other side. It's just an objection to your reasoning.

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:25: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BANNED
Member # 10021
Profile #422
I tried to read all this but the constant back and forth bickering about the same things we hae been bickering about for centuries gave me a headache.

--------------------
When I close my eyes at night I see David Bowie.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Saturday, August 25 2007 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #423
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Marriage cannot be legally recognized in order to promote a particular kind of sex. That's unconstitutional. That's what the cited court cases have to do with this.

All this is attempting to do is show that your argument doesn't work, not present an argument for the other side. It's just an objection to your reasoning.

Well, that's why I didn't get it, because that's not my reasoning. My reasoning is that the government sees marriage between a man and a woman as good, so it supports it. It's allowing everybody to do what they want romantically/sexually/socially (just like you can live where you please), but if you marry one person of the opposite sex, regardless of your feelings toward them, you get benefits (just like living in the development zone).
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #424
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I will always seek to remember to respect another, even when I disagree with their basis for their belief, in this case, belief that the Bible reliably communicates God to humanity. I haven't seen any convincing argument for any natural or moral reason that gays deserve to form a "marriage" any less than any other two people who want to commit to a partnership together.
[b]Out of curiosity, are you aware that this is not what the discussion I've been in is about? Just so you know, the discussion is about the logical and legal arguments for legalization of non hetero-paired marriage...Unless your comments were directed elsewhere. If so, go right ahead.
[/b]

Yeah, well, that's the part of the part of the dialog that I find boring and distracting from the real underlying issues and convictions in play here, which is always what I am more interested in. There are no logical or legal arguments to prevent any two people from forming a union we call marriage. You certainly haven't presented any. Lingering legalities around marriage merely reflect historical/religious relics, prejudices, and hangups, which are today shifting dramatically after centuries of achingly slow progress or stagnation, including a long period we affectionately term The Dark Ages. It is amusing that we imagine there is a difference between the laws of our land and our dominant collective religious beliefs. They are a product of it. There is no actual possible separation of church and state unless the majority of people no longer are churched. Since that may finally be the case, our laws are shifting to reflect a different "morality."

There is so little to actually debate on the technical and legal aspects of marriage. It is so arbitrary, because what freaking difference does it make apart from serving our real god, money? If the government would get out of the marriage business, it wouldn't even be about money, and it would be only an argument for the pulpit and the romantic. It amuses me that so many pages of dialog have been devoted to dissecting the dry bones of the arbitrary qualities of what society has viewed and created as marriage, with so little progress made. But it also bores me, so I am engaging the aspect of it that seems meaningful to me. It's a chance for me to exercise my writing and my own thoughts on the matter. It doesn't matter at all who it's "for." If I'm lucky, someone actually engages the metaqualities of this topic, and not the tiresome nuts and bolts some keep sifting through and arranging over and over.

-S-

P.S. - the last post of Stillness draws attention to a simple point here about the government and the laws from the past it has constructed (government isn't a separate it...it's us and our morés.) Stillness is right in seeing that the government long saw man-woman marriage as proper, appropriate, healthy, normal, desirable, rewardable, because we the people have long held that attitude. 2000 years of Christian heritage saturating the western world doesn't dissolve overnight. What we are seeing is the "moral" clash betwee the dying old breed of churchianity and its morality, and a growing critical mass, if not majority of opinion that our former morality is messed up and in need of adjustment.

Like I keep asking, "How's it worked for us?" We have been asking that question to some degree, because we are finally rejecting a millennia old tradition around sexual and marital morality/legality (same thing). It's a messy period of adjustment and striving to decide what we are going to redefine. The religious are freaking out about it. The freaks are celebrating. The religious see it as a sign of the decline of the world, and a coming apocalypse or some such miserable prediction about how "bad" the world is becoming.

Old religion and law that came out of it is chafing against new belief. We all know how much we tend to cling to the past and familiar territory, and how hard it is to change laws already instituted. It stays the same by default until enough people make enough noise to get it changed. It's finally happening. A sign of the end indeed...merely of a former paradigm of marriage. I remind us that marriage as we now know it in the west, and all its ritual, is essentially a sacred creation and institution of churchianity. It really isn't a legal issue. It's a church issue. It's their territory. They can have it. I don't want their "marriage" and their vows of slavery and servitude and possession. For all the pomp and romance, it is a fear and control based institution in need of serious re-vision.

Our laws are coming to reflect it. Stick around. It will get more interesting, and the world will not go to hell in a handbasket for it.

-s-

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:03: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #425
Stillness, yet again, the development zone is pure pork (and therefore inappropriate) unless there is some good reason for wanting to develop that area. The government isn't supposed to just favor some people for no reason. You haven't given any reason — ever — for the government to favor same-sex couples that holds up to rigorous scrutiny.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #426
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Stillness, yet again, the development zone is pure pork (and therefore inappropriate) unless there is some good reason for wanting to develop that area. The government isn't supposed to just favor some people for no reason. You haven't given any reason — ever — for the government to favor same-sex couples that holds up to rigorous scrutiny.
This is more or less the crux of the dispute, from a legal and moral perspective, and you're going to have to answer this to the general satisfaction before going any further.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #427
Because we're one nation under God, and it's the only way that God said is right.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #428
By which logic, mind you, the Emancipation Proclamation was a terrible mistake.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #429
While we're at it, let me object yet again to one reason that Stillness has put forward: producing children. If marriage were for that purpose (and as Drew has pointed out, historically it is not), then it should be abolished entirely, because there are far more direct ways of accomplishing that objective. Producing children won't do as a reason.

Providing a stable household for children cuts both ways: that justifies same-sex marriage as much as it does opposite-sex marriage.

Anything relating to intercourse is not sufficient, for a whole variety of reasons, not least of which that the government cannot constitutionally regulate that, beyond a few basic restrictions.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #430
quote:
Matthew 15:11:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
I'd say the Bible is pretty clear on at least one thing: oral sex is fine as long as you swallow.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00

Pages