Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . Hmmm, yes, that's really credible in Texas. After all, Texans are just as much in favor of gay rights as Californians, aren't they? As Ford notes, In California, same-sex couples enjoy significant civil rights protections and legal status as domestic partners, and voters have shown no interest in changing that. So it makes sense to assume that in the five years since the Supremes struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law in its ruling on Lawrence v. Texas, Texans have all seen the light, right? At the time, according to the Washington Post, Reflecting an increasingly laissez-faire attitude toward private homosexual and heterosexual acts between consenting adults, most states have abandoned sodomy laws. Only 13 states still ban private anal or oral sex between consenting adults; of those, only four, including Texas, criminalize homosexual sodomy exclusively. In striking down the law, the Supreme Court said, The State cannot demean [homosexuals'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime, thus acknowledging that the Texas law was inherently homophobic. I'm sure Texans took the Supremes' reprimand to heart and cleansed themselves of their homophobia, becoming as accepting as Californians of gay rights by the time they were called on to vote in the referendum, and were entirely sincere in saying they were voting to preserver [sic} gender roles. Texas is a diverse place. There's been a lot of Californication, especially in major cities like Austin, DFW and Houston. There aren't many towns left in Texas where The Beverly Hillbillies are shown on the local public broadcast channel. I would imagine however that most of the people voted against gays and not to preserve gender roles. Remember we still tell the story of Mrs. (Ma) Barker who, in 1944 said to the Dallas County Board of Education that she was against bilingual education in the Dallas County School System because if English was good enough for our Lord and Savior then it must be good enough for the school children. My own take on Lawrence v. Sullivan is that the people who set up the police to raid Lawrence et. friend and the police who did the bust violated a Texas and Southern tradition which states that I'll overlook your activities just as you overlook mine as long as what we do is done with discretion. It's the same rule which makes Baptists not see each other in liquor stores and enabled that wonderful piece of Texas history the Chicken Ranch to survive. Some damned Yankee named Marvin Zindler with Eyewitness News in Houston went and spoiled a solution to an age old Texas problem: how every body's sister can go to the alter a virgin yet every boy wed as a man of experience. I wonder what duty the cops who made the Lawrence arrest are pulling now? The plot in Texas thickens. There's a guy/guy movement that calls itself g0ys which opposes gay marriage and wants Lawrence v Texas reversed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I'm sure Texans took the Supremes' reprimand to heart and cleansed themselves of their homophobia, becoming as accepting as Californians of gay rights by the time they were called on to vote in the referendum, and were entirely sincere in saying they were voting to preserver [sic} gender roles. Texas is a diverse place. There's been a lot of Californication, especially in major cities like Austin, DFW and Houston. There aren't many towns left in Texas where The Beverly Hillbillies are shown on the local public broadcast channel. I would imagine however that most of the people voted against gays and not to preserve gender roles. That's what I'd imagine as well. But I find the thesis that the same may not have been true of most or at least many Californians pretty convincing. Thanks for the rundown. I love this: It's the same rule which makes Baptists not see each other in liquor stores Why do you think the folks who called the cops on Lawrence and his friend were led to violate the rule? snip The plot in Texas thickens. There's a guy/guy movement that calls itself g0ys which opposes gay marriage and wants Lawrence v Texas reversed. By the Supremes?? Good luck with that. What's a guy/guy movement?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I'd imagine as well. But I find the thesis that the same may not have been true of most or at least many Californians pretty convincing. Thanks for the rundown. I love this: It's the same rule which makes Baptists not see each other in liquor stores Why do you think the folks who called the cops on Lawrence and his friend were led to violate the rule? Because the Rule of Discretion states that what people do in private stays private. It could have just as easily have been the cops having some fun with Lawrence et friend and just leaving. There's a tradition in the south and especially in Texas that you take care of your own problems and don't rely upon others (unless you need help dragging the body into your house before calling the Law). snip The plot in Texas thickens. There's a guy/guy movement that calls itself g0ys which opposes gay marriage and wants Lawrence v Texas reversed. By the Supremes?? Good luck with that. Actually, they want the sodomy laws put back in place. What's a guy/guy movement? What else are you going to call these guys? They refuse to call themselves gay because gay comes with baggage and some of these guys have had girlfriends so they can't be gay. As long as neither party is used as a bitch it's OK and sanctioned by God. It's just, err, vigorous male bonding. www.g0ys.org/ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of this justifies the opposition to same- sex marriage. But it does help to explain it. I wish voters had overcome their identity crises and supported gay marriage. But many same-sex marriage advocates have been talking past the people they need to convince: the large, moderate opposition that voted for sex difference, not homophobia. Dropping the oversimplified analogy between racism and homophobia would help same-sex marriage supporters make their case more effectively He makes a lot of other points in support of his thesis; it's worth reading the whole thing. What he says makes a lot of sense to me. What do others think? Here in Texas we had an off year referrendum. I asked others about the voting we were doing. Most us said that we were voting to preserver gender roles and not because we were homophobic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: Funny. The Slate article I read today - http://www.slate.com/id/2204534/ - dealt with the fact that African-American voters were largely responsible for passing Proposition 8 because Blacks, more than European-Americans or Latinos, consider homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice, rather than inborn and immutable, and hence are less likely to accept it. From the article: The NBJC [the pro-gay National Black Justice Coalition] report notes that blacks are 'more likely than other groups to believe that homosexuality is wrong, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that sexual orientation can be changed.' Polls confirm this. So that's another take on Prop 8. I'm not sure the two contradict each other, actually. I've read several different analyses of the vote that don't support the largely responsible idea (although it's hard to know exactly what largely responsible means). The votes in favor were mostly white, although blacks voted for it in higher percentages. It doesn't seem to be the case that if blacks had voted against it in the same percentage as whites, it would have lost. The article by Ford doesn't say that there was no homophobia involved, only that he thinks the majority of those who voted for it didn't do so out of homophobia. (Far as I know, he doesn't have any actual data; it's just a hypothesis, but it's a logical one considering that there's majority support for gay rights generally.) I wouldn't argue with the premise that blacks are more likely to believe homosexuality is a choice, but I was a bit annoyed by the teaser for the article, which suggested it would explain *why* they believed this, and it didn't, it just said *that* they did. I'd like to know more about why. I do think Ford's point that the analogy to racism doesn't really work is important, and he makes an awfully good case for it. Throwing the analogy in black people's faces isn't going to make black people feel any more friendly toward gays, so it would be better if we could legitimately ditch it. As for preserving sex roles, I can go along with that premise, too, because I belive the Matriarchy is not only rising, but is the root cause of most of the social upheaval we see today, domestically and internationally. Sorry I can't back that up with statistics or good stories - it's just an opinion my wife and I share. Power is flowing to women, and it's freaking people out. Goodness knows we've seen plenty of freaking out right here on FFL! I agree that power is flowing to women and that this is making a lot of people uncomfortable (women as well as men). I do hope we don't ever move past balance all the way to matriarchy, though. Perhaps the black people associate homosexuality with being percieved as weak. Since such a disproportionate amount of black people have been imprisoned, and because of that enviornment, homosexuality is regarded as submitting to another's will, and not in a loving way... And how all of the rap music, kind of perpetuates the image of homosexuality as one of weakness and submission... I also found in Mexico, the Spanish culture, is very anti-gay. Much of that has to do with the macho culture, and the presence of the church teachings, in their culture...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of this justifies the opposition to same- sex marriage. But it does help to explain it. I wish voters had overcome their identity crises and supported gay marriage. But many same-sex marriage advocates have been talking past the people they need to convince: the large, moderate opposition that voted for sex difference, not homophobia. Dropping the oversimplified analogy between racism and homophobia would help same-sex marriage supporters make their case more effectively He makes a lot of other points in support of his thesis; it's worth reading the whole thing. What he says makes a lot of sense to me. What do others think? Here in Texas we had an off year referrendum. I asked others about the voting we were doing. Most us said that we were voting to preserver gender roles and not because we were homophobic. Hmmm, yes, that's really credible in Texas. After all, Texans are just as much in favor of gay rights as Californians, aren't they? As Ford notes, In California, same-sex couples enjoy significant civil rights protections and legal status as domestic partners, and voters have shown no interest in changing that. So it makes sense to assume that in the five years since the Supremes struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law in its ruling on Lawrence v. Texas, Texans have all seen the light, right? At the time, according to the Washington Post, Reflecting an increasingly laissez-faire attitude toward private homosexual and heterosexual acts between consenting adults, most states have abandoned sodomy laws. Only 13 states still ban private anal or oral sex between consenting adults; of those, only four, including Texas, criminalize homosexual sodomy exclusively. In striking down the law, the Supreme Court said, The State cannot demean [homosexuals'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime, thus acknowledging that the Texas law was inherently homophobic. I'm sure Texans took the Supremes' reprimand to heart and cleansed themselves of their homophobia, becoming as accepting as Californians of gay rights by the time they were called on to vote in the referendum, and were entirely sincere in saying they were voting to preserver [sic} gender roles.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The funny thing about the prop 8 passage is that the Mormon Church was so heavily promoting it, despite the Church's history of polygamy. It's a whole cultural and religious, and political package that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. I just read a really interesting essay on Slate.com by Richard Thompson Ford, a law professor, about Prop 8's passage. He says he doesn't think it passed because of homophobia but rather because the folks (or many, or most of them) who voted for it wanted to preserve traditional male/female social roles. This would make sense in the Mormon context; polygamy--many wives, one husband--does preserve the social roles of men and women (and it does have a long tradition behind it, even if it never took hold in Western society). He notes that a majority in California are in favor of civil unions and other rights for gay people and don't seem to have much trouble accepting homosexuality per se. He writes: After all, traditional marriage isn't just analogous to sex discrimination--it *is* sex discrimination: Only men may marry women, and only women may marry men. Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles--husband and wife--by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role--spouse. Sure, we could call two married men 'husbands' and two married women 'wives,' but the specific role for each sex that now defines marriage would be lost. Widespread opposition to same-sex marriage might reflect a desire to hang on to these distinctive sex roles rather than vicious anti-gay bigotry. I know some gay and lesbian couples do define each other as husband and wife; I don't know what the percentage is. But that doesn't make much difference in this context. He continues: By wistfully invoking the analogy to racism, same- sex marriage proponents risk misreading a large (and potentially movable) group of voters who care about sex difference more than about sexual orientation. I'm not sure how potentially movable these people are, but if it isn't homophobia that led them to vote for Prop 8, it really does suggest that those who want to legalize same-sex marriage need to take a different approach to promoting that goal. He writes: The combination of widespread opposition to same-sex marriage and equally widespread support for other gay rights is easier to understand. Gay rights in employment and civil unions don't require the elimination of longstanding and culturally potent sex roles. Same-sex marriage does. And while a lot of people reject the narrow and repressive sex roles of the past, many others long for the kind of meaningful gender identities that traditional marriage seems to offer. You might say that this shouldn't matter to anyone who's secure in his masculinity (or in her femininity). Fair enough, but what if you aren't secure? The sex roles of the moment are contested and in flux. And amid the uncertainty and anxiety, most people still think they matter. Even the feminist movement hasn't really tried to eliminate distinctive sex roles instead, it has struggled with how to make them more egalitarian and less constricting None of this justifies the opposition to same- sex marriage. But it does help to explain it. I wish voters had overcome their identity crises and supported gay marriage. But many same-sex marriage advocates have been talking past the people they need to convince: the large, moderate opposition that voted for sex difference, not homophobia. Dropping the oversimplified analogy between racism and homophobia would help same-sex marriage supporters make their case more effectively http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/ He makes a lot of other points in support of his thesis; it's worth reading the whole thing. What he says makes a lot of sense to me. What do others think? I'd certainly rather it was a matter of preserving sex differences than homophobia; the latter is a whole lot uglier, it seems to me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
Funny. The Slate article I read today - http://www.slate.com/id/2204534/ - dealt with the fact that African-American voters were largely responsible for passing Proposition 8 because Blacks, more than European-Americans or Latinos, consider homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice, rather than inborn and immutable, and hence are less likely to accept it. From the article: The NBJC [the pro-gay National Black Justice Coalition] report notes that blacks are 'more likely than other groups to believe that homosexuality is wrong, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that sexual orientation can be changed.' Polls confirm this. So that's another take on Prop 8. As for preserving sex roles, I can go along with that premise, too, because I belive the Matriarchy is not only rising, but is the root cause of most of the social upheaval we see today, domestically and internationally. Sorry I can't back that up with statistics or good stories - it's just an opinion my wife and I share. Power is flowing to women, and it's freaking people out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante wrote: The funny thing about the prop 8 passage is that the Mormon Church was so heavily promoting it, despite the Church's history of polygamy. It's a whole cultural and religious, and political package that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. I just read a really interesting essay on Slate.com by Richard Thompson Ford, a law professor, about Prop 8's passage. He says he doesn't think it passed because of homophobia but rather because the folks (or many, or most of them) who voted for it wanted to preserve traditional male/female social roles. This would make sense in the Mormon context; polygamy--many wives, one husband--does preserve the social roles of men and women (and it does have a long tradition behind it, even if it never took hold in Western society). He notes that a majority in California are in favor of civil unions and other rights for gay people and don't seem to have much trouble accepting homosexuality per se. He writes: After all, traditional marriage isn't just analogous to sex discrimination--it *is* sex discrimination: Only men may marry women, and only women may marry men. Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles--husband and wife--by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role--spouse. Sure, we could call two married men 'husbands' and two married women 'wives,' but the specific role for each sex that now defines marriage would be lost. Widespread opposition to same-sex marriage might reflect a desire to hang on to these distinctive sex roles rather than vicious anti-gay bigotry. I know some gay and lesbian couples do define each other as husband and wife; I don't know what the percentage is. But that doesn't make much difference in this context. He continues: By wistfully invoking the analogy to racism, same- sex marriage proponents risk misreading a large (and potentially movable) group of voters who care about sex difference more than about sexual orientation. I'm not sure how potentially movable these people are, but if it isn't homophobia that led them to vote for Prop 8, it really does suggest that those who want to legalize same-sex marriage need to take a different approach to promoting that goal. He writes: The combination of widespread opposition to same-sex marriage and equally widespread support for other gay rights is easier to understand. Gay rights in employment and civil unions don't require the elimination of longstanding and culturally potent sex roles. Same-sex marriage does. And while a lot of people reject the narrow and repressive sex roles of the past, many others long for the kind of meaningful gender identities that traditional marriage seems to offer. You might say that this shouldn't matter to anyone who's secure in his masculinity (or in her femininity). Fair enough, but what if you aren't secure? The sex roles of the moment are contested and in flux. And amid the uncertainty and anxiety, most people still think they matter. Even the feminist movement hasn't really tried to eliminate distinctive sex roles instead, it has struggled with how to make them more egalitarian and less constricting None of this justifies the opposition to same- sex marriage. But it does help to explain it. I wish voters had overcome their identity crises and supported gay marriage. But many same-sex marriage advocates have been talking past the people they need to convince: the large, moderate opposition that voted for sex difference, not homophobia. Dropping the oversimplified analogy between racism and homophobia would help same-sex marriage supporters make their case more effectively
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny. The Slate article I read today - http://www.slate.com/id/2204534/ - dealt with the fact that African-American voters were largely responsible for passing Proposition 8 because Blacks, more than European-Americans or Latinos, consider homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice, rather than inborn and immutable, and hence are less likely to accept it. From the article: The NBJC [the pro-gay National Black Justice Coalition] report notes that blacks are 'more likely than other groups to believe that homosexuality is wrong, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that sexual orientation can be changed.' Polls confirm this. So that's another take on Prop 8. I'm not sure the two contradict each other, actually. I've read several different analyses of the vote that don't support the largely responsible idea (although it's hard to know exactly what largely responsible means). The votes in favor were mostly white, although blacks voted for it in higher percentages. It doesn't seem to be the case that if blacks had voted against it in the same percentage as whites, it would have lost. The article by Ford doesn't say that there was no homophobia involved, only that he thinks the majority of those who voted for it didn't do so out of homophobia. (Far as I know, he doesn't have any actual data; it's just a hypothesis, but it's a logical one considering that there's majority support for gay rights generally.) I wouldn't argue with the premise that blacks are more likely to believe homosexuality is a choice, but I was a bit annoyed by the teaser for the article, which suggested it would explain *why* they believed this, and it didn't, it just said *that* they did. I'd like to know more about why. I do think Ford's point that the analogy to racism doesn't really work is important, and he makes an awfully good case for it. Throwing the analogy in black people's faces isn't going to make black people feel any more friendly toward gays, so it would be better if we could legitimately ditch it. As for preserving sex roles, I can go along with that premise, too, because I belive the Matriarchy is not only rising, but is the root cause of most of the social upheaval we see today, domestically and internationally. Sorry I can't back that up with statistics or good stories - it's just an opinion my wife and I share. Power is flowing to women, and it's freaking people out. Goodness knows we've seen plenty of freaking out right here on FFL! I agree that power is flowing to women and that this is making a lot of people uncomfortable (women as well as men). I do hope we don't ever move past balance all the way to matriarchy, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Now let me get this straight...you are saying that Jesus H. You have been told 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' BUT *I* say unto you... Christ would have succumbed to superstition and gone with rabbinical law. You and I must have read different bios, dude. Are you sure that you are not projecting a bit of your own fundamentalism and superstition and fear of violating law onto someone who was clearly beyond such fears? Jesus' whole *career* was based on rejecting the parts of rabbinical law he didn't agree with, and his whole *message* was about the rejection of violence. I'm sorry, John, but you're coming across as as much of a fundamentalist w.r.t. the Christian Bible as you do w.r.t. the vedic literature you are a slave to. And, you are committing the sin Gordon Charrick spoke of so eloquently: You know that you have created God in your own image when he hates the same people you do. It would be one thing if you just admitted to your own fear and homophobia and stood on that. But to attempt to hide it behind an appeal to scripture (and a total misreading of that scripture to boot) is beyond comprehension. You are so offended by gays that you want to kill them. That's really the bottom line here. And you want to kill them so much that you have come up with an inner justification that tells you that Jesus would have wanted to kill them, too, and not only that, he would have had advanced ways of doing so, sooper-dooper siddhi weapons I would imagine. Would he have caused them to burst into flame? (And would that be considered a 'death threat' under rabbinical law?) Or would he have come up with some other way of displaying how much he and God hates them because they don't obey their holy word in a book they were too lazy to write themselves, and had to have ghost- written for them by humans? Curious minds want to know the methods by which you imagine Jesus killing these horrible gay sinners. Gay-bashers are often found to be latent homosexuals. Seems they try to hide it by overt negative expressions against gays. Fundamentalist repression and guilt seems to nurture this kind of behavior. It appears that you are accusing those who voted for the proposition to be latent homosexuals. I think instead that he's saying that the vehemence we're seeing in a lot of gay-bashers who voted for Prop 8 seems to demonstrate more self-hatred of their own unresolved feelings about homosexuality than it does hatred of gays. That's a lot of people to be believable. It is more likely that those who voted against the proposition and their sympathizers are gay. Actually, statistically, it's not. The vast majority of people who voted against Prop 8 did so because they thought it was an attempt to make certain people *unequal* before the law based on their sexual preference. They voted against the unequality, not for the sexual preference. You may have fallen into a trap set up by a certain person in this thread. He may have outed you without your intention to do so. I was wondering how long it would take John to start shooting the messenger, since he obviously cannot deal with the message. Did anyone notice that he did not deal with even ONE of the points I raised in my post above? Further, this person appears to be erratic in his personality as he unilaterally issued a fatwa of silence for those people he did not approve of. He (I) said that I would no longer read or reply to any posts made by the four people on my Do Not Bother With List. I have not, since slightly before the election. You were never on that list. My decision to not interact with them in any way is based on several things, not approving of them not being one of them. First, I think that inter- acting with them is a waste of my energy, and I prefer to save it for other things. Second, I think that interacting with them is what they WANT. They live to argue, and to start and prolong arguments. Since I don't get off on arguments the way they do, why on earth should I engage in activity that gives them what they want? And again, you were never on that list. I enjoy reading your posts on FFL, John. I may consider them insane, but I enjoy reading them. Same with Nabby. I consider you and what you write here one of the best arguments *against* belief in vedic philosophy that could possibly exist. What I *did* say about you personally was that I didn't believe that you were capable of engaging in real con- versation. I said that because -- so far -- you seem capable of only spouting dogma, and dogma I consider less than sane. But that did
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip He (I) said that I would no longer read or reply to any posts made by the four people on my Do Not Bother With List. I have not, since slightly before the election. As we all know, Barry *has* bee reading these people's posts and frequently comments on them at least indirectly; he certainly hasn't stopped since before the election. In fact, here he *admits* reading their posts, in a post dated November 6: [My way of living with them] is to notice when (and these days it's a rare occurrence) something one of them says pushes some residual attachment button in me. My guideline is that if a post from one of the known trolls causes me to instantly reach for the Reply button, I shouldn't. So I don't. You were never on that list. My decision to not interact with them in any way is based on several things, not approving of them not being one of them. First, I think that inter- acting with them is a waste of my energy, and I prefer to save it for other things. Second, I think that interacting with them is what they WANT. They live to argue, and to start and prolong arguments. Since I don't get off on arguments the way they do, why on earth should I engage in activity that gives them what they want? When you encounter one of these blowhards, you don't have to expend your energy informing other people what they are. All you have to do is push their buttons and sit back and allow them to do it themselves, in their own words. --Barry Wright, November 9 snip Again, the only posts I do not read are by the four people on my Do Not Bother With List. They have all established a track record of not being worth the investment of my time in challenging the things they say. (Note that the only kind of interaction worth Barry's time is *challenging* what somebody says.) snip The other four, they can do what they want, because at this point I don't think anyone pays any attention to them anyway. Barry's frustrated because despite saying this for *years*--and *urging* others not to pay attention to these people (in direct contradiction to what he says above)--they still enjoy plenty of interaction here. snip To make matters worse, he unilaterally broke his own fatwa and wrote a spurious and manipulative accusations about a post not addressed to him. 1) I never suggested that I had a fatwa (and you should look up what this term means...it doesn't mean what you think it does) Yes, it does. snip If *I* had suggested that it was not only acceptable but honorable for Jesus to kill a man for asking another man to suck his dick, I think I'd have something to say to explain myself a bit further. But that's just me. This from a person who has repeatedly asserted that he has no need to defend his opinions... snip I repeat my invitation -- not demand -- for you to back up what you said earlier. You suggest that in the scenario Patrick proposed that the historical Jesus would have held to rabbinical law and the Torah (two scriptures he consistently rejected and urged his followers to reject throughout his recorded life) Actually that isn't what he said, to the contrary: Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt: 5:19). and would have considered the hillbilly trying to force him to suck his dick an abomination. Gonna give Barry a little help here. The prohibition interpreted to be against homosexuality doesn't say anything about men sucking each others' dicks; the abomination (ritual impurity) involves one man lying with another as with a woman. This was interpreted by the Rabbis to mean only anal intercourse (and only between Jews, at that). snip I offered you a chance to respond to them to clarify them a bit and help us to understand what you meant when you said these things, and possibly believe that maybe you are rational when you say such things. You failed to take advantage of that opportunity. Instead, you launched into shoot the messenger and made up some things about me, none of which (as pointed out above) are true. A technique with which Barry is intimately familiar, since he uses it all the time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip He (I) said that I would no longer read or reply to any posts made by the four people on my Do Not Bother With List. I have not, since slightly before the election. As we all know, Barry *has* bee reading these people's posts and frequently comments on them at least indirectly; he certainly hasn't stopped since before the election. But don't you see how ridiculous that comment is even if true? The election happened on Nov. 4th. It's Nov. 10th today...just 6 days since the election...and, okay, let's add two days because he said slightly before the election for a total of 8 days of self- imposed abstinence. But this insanity on Barry's part has been going on for nigh on 12 years (i.e., 4,380 days)! And he's bragging about being sober for 8 friggin' days? Please. Any sane person would have taken such a course of action 11 years, 11 months and 10 days ago (i.e., 4,360 days ago). So even if true (which of course it isn't...he's not only reading this but all posts having to do with him), 8 days is nothing to speak of balanced against the 4,360 days ago when he should have started the plan. In fact, here he *admits* reading their posts, in a post dated November 6: [My way of living with them] is to notice when (and these days it's a rare occurrence) something one of them says pushes some residual attachment button in me. My guideline is that if a post from one of the known trolls causes me to instantly reach for the Reply button, I shouldn't. So I don't. You were never on that list. My decision to not interact with them in any way is based on several things, not approving of them not being one of them. First, I think that inter- acting with them is a waste of my energy, and I prefer to save it for other things. Second, I think that interacting with them is what they WANT. They live to argue, and to start and prolong arguments. Since I don't get off on arguments the way they do, why on earth should I engage in activity that gives them what they want? When you encounter one of these blowhards, you don't have to expend your energy informing other people what they are. All you have to do is push their buttons and sit back and allow them to do it themselves, in their own words. --Barry Wright, November 9 snip Again, the only posts I do not read are by the four people on my Do Not Bother With List. They have all established a track record of not being worth the investment of my time in challenging the things they say. (Note that the only kind of interaction worth Barry's time is *challenging* what somebody says.) snip The other four, they can do what they want, because at this point I don't think anyone pays any attention to them anyway. Barry's frustrated because despite saying this for *years*--and *urging* others not to pay attention to these people (in direct contradiction to what he says above)--they still enjoy plenty of interaction here. snip To make matters worse, he unilaterally broke his own fatwa and wrote a spurious and manipulative accusations about a post not addressed to him. 1) I never suggested that I had a fatwa (and you should look up what this term means...it doesn't mean what you think it does) Yes, it does. snip If *I* had suggested that it was not only acceptable but honorable for Jesus to kill a man for asking another man to suck his dick, I think I'd have something to say to explain myself a bit further. But that's just me. This from a person who has repeatedly asserted that he has no need to defend his opinions... snip I repeat my invitation -- not demand -- for you to back up what you said earlier. You suggest that in the scenario Patrick proposed that the historical Jesus would have held to rabbinical law and the Torah (two scriptures he consistently rejected and urged his followers to reject throughout his recorded life) Actually that isn't what he said, to the contrary: Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt: 5:19). and would have considered the hillbilly trying to force him to suck his dick an abomination. Gonna give Barry a little help here. The prohibition interpreted to be against homosexuality doesn't say anything about men sucking each others' dicks; the abomination (ritual impurity) involves one man lying with another as with a woman. This was interpreted by the Rabbis to mean only anal intercourse (and only between Jews, at that). snip I offered you a chance to respond to them to clarify them a bit and help us to understand
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip He (I) said that I would no longer read or reply to any posts made by the four people on my Do Not Bother With List. I have not, since slightly before the election. As we all know, Barry *has* bee reading these people's posts and frequently comments on them at least indirectly; he certainly hasn't stopped since before the election. But don't you see how ridiculous that comment is even if true? The election happened on Nov. 4th. It's Nov. 10th today...just 6 days since the election...and, okay, let's add two days because he said slightly before the election for a total of 8 days of self- imposed abstinence. But this insanity on Barry's part has been going on for nigh on 12 years (i.e., 4,380 days)! And he's bragging about being sober for 8 friggin' days? Please. Any sane person would have taken such a course of action 11 years, 11 months and 10 days ago (i.e., 4,360 days ago). So even if true (which of course it isn't...he's not only reading this but all posts having to do with him), 8 days is nothing to speak of balanced against the 4,360 days ago when he should have started the plan. -snip- to paraphrase keith obermann on his show, perhaps we keep a running total, like: four thousand, three hundred and seventy two days since B. has ignored Judy's posts...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip He (I) said that I would no longer read or reply to any posts made by the four people on my Do Not Bother With List. I have not, since slightly before the election. As we all know, Barry *has* bee reading these people's posts and frequently comments on them at least indirectly; he certainly hasn't stopped since before the election. But don't you see how ridiculous that comment is even if true? The election happened on Nov. 4th. It's Nov. 10th today...just 6 days since the election...and, okay, let's add two days because he said slightly before the election for a total of 8 days of self- imposed abstinence. But this insanity on Barry's part has been going on for nigh on 12 years (i.e., 4,380 days)! And he's bragging about being sober for 8 friggin' days? Please. Any sane person would have taken such a course of action 11 years, 11 months and 10 days ago (i.e., 4,360 days ago). So even if true (which of course it isn't...he's not only reading this but all posts having to do with him), 8 days is nothing to speak of balanced against the 4,360 days ago when he should have started the plan. -snip- to paraphrase keith obermann on his show, perhaps we keep a running total, like: four thousand, three hundred and seventy two days since B. has ignored Judy's posts... Yes! Making it a public tote board, so to speak, may be the very thing that will actually make him adhere to the policy! Great idea!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip He (I) said that I would no longer read or reply to any posts made by the four people on my Do Not Bother With List. I have not, since slightly before the election. As we all know, Barry *has* bee reading these people's posts and frequently comments on them at least indirectly; he certainly hasn't stopped since before the election. But don't you see how ridiculous that comment is even if true? The election happened on Nov. 4th. It's Nov. 10th today...just 6 days since the election...and, okay, let's add two days because he said slightly before the election for a total of 8 days of self- imposed abstinence. But this insanity on Barry's part has been going on for nigh on 12 years (i.e., 4,380 days)! And he's bragging about being sober for 8 friggin' days? What's even funnier is that he has *regularly* declared over those 4,380 days, and before that for years on alt.m.t, that he had stopped reading the posts of those he disagrees with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least. You could be right. Jesus may have opted for the alternative - to take a shotgun blast to the head. Gethsemane notwithstanding, He was a good sport about allowing himself to be sacrificed. I was thinking along this line: Jesus was a Jew and was very well versed of the Torah and its rabbinical laws. As such, it would have been an abomination for him to associate with another man in that fashion. It would have been justifiable for Jesus to kill the sumbitch easily, and I believe he had the power to do so very easily. Now let me get this straight...you are saying that Jesus H. You have been told 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' BUT *I* say unto you... Christ would have succumbed to superstition and gone with rabbinical law. You and I must have read different bios, dude. Are you sure that you are not projecting a bit of your own fundamentalism and superstition and fear of violating law onto someone who was clearly beyond such fears? Jesus' whole *career* was based on rejecting the parts of rabbinical law he didn't agree with, and his whole *message* was about the rejection of violence. I'm sorry, John, but you're coming across as as much of a fundamentalist w.r.t. the Christian Bible as you do w.r.t. the vedic literature you are a slave to. And, you are committing the sin Gordon Charrick spoke of so eloquently: You know that you have created God in your own image when he hates the same people you do. It would be one thing if you just admitted to your own fear and homophobia and stood on that. But to attempt to hide it behind an appeal to scripture (and a total misreading of that scripture to boot) is beyond comprehension. You are so offended by gays that you want to kill them. That's really the bottom line here. And you want to kill them so much that you have come up with an inner justification that tells you that Jesus would have wanted to kill them, too, and not only that, he would have had advanced ways of doing so, sooper-dooper siddhi weapons I would imagine. Would he have caused them to burst into flame? (And would that be considered a 'death threat' under rabbinical law?) Or would he have come up with some other way of displaying how much he and God hates them because they don't obey their holy word in a book they were too lazy to write themselves, and had to have ghost- written for them by humans? Curious minds want to know the methods by which you imagine Jesus killing these horrible gay sinners. Gay-bashers are often found to be latent homosexuals. Seems they try to hide it by overt negative expressions against gays. Fundamentalist repression and guilt seems to nurture this kind of behavior.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least. You could be right. Jesus may have opted for the alternative - to take a shotgun blast to the head. Gethsemane notwithstanding, He was a good sport about allowing himself to be sacrificed. I was thinking along this line: Jesus was a Jew and was very well versed of the Torah and its rabbinical laws. As such, it would have been an abomination for him to associate with another man in that fashion. It would have been justifiable for Jesus to kill the sumbitch easily, and I believe he had the power to do so very easily. Now let me get this straight...you are saying that Jesus H. You have been told 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' BUT *I* say unto you... Christ would have succumbed to superstition and gone with rabbinical law. You and I must have read different bios, dude. Are you sure that you are not projecting a bit of your own fundamentalism and superstition and fear of violating law onto someone who was clearly beyond such fears? Jesus' whole *career* was based on rejecting the parts of rabbinical law he didn't agree with, and his whole *message* was about the rejection of violence. I'm sorry, John, but you're coming across as as much of a fundamentalist w.r.t. the Christian Bible as you do w.r.t. the vedic literature you are a slave to. And, you are committing the sin Gordon Charrick spoke of so eloquently: You know that you have created God in your own image when he hates the same people you do. It would be one thing if you just admitted to your own fear and homophobia and stood on that. But to attempt to hide it behind an appeal to scripture (and a total misreading of that scripture to boot) is beyond comprehension. You are so offended by gays that you want to kill them. That's really the bottom line here. And you want to kill them so much that you have come up with an inner justification that tells you that Jesus would have wanted to kill them, too, and not only that, he would have had advanced ways of doing so, sooper-dooper siddhi weapons I would imagine. Would he have caused them to burst into flame? (And would that be considered a 'death threat' under rabbinical law?) Or would he have come up with some other way of displaying how much he and God hates them because they don't obey their holy word in a book they were too lazy to write themselves, and had to have ghost- written for them by humans? Curious minds want to know the methods by which you imagine Jesus killing these horrible gay sinners. Gay-bashers are often found to be latent homosexuals. Seems they try to hide it by overt negative expressions against gays. Fundamentalist repression and guilt seems to nurture this kind of behavior. It appears that you are accusing those who voted for the proposition to be latent homosexuals. That's a lot of people to be believable. It is more likely that those who voted against the proposition and their sympathizers are gay. You may have fallen into a trap set up by a certain person in this thread. He may have outed you without your intention to do so. Further, this person appears to be erratic in his personality as he unilaterally issued a fatwa of silence for those people he did not approve of. Then, although not qualified, insisted that he can certify the sanity of people here in this forum. To make matters worse, he unilaterally broke his own fatwa and wrote a spurious and manipulative accusations about a post not addressed to him. Now, he demands that his accusations be answered to satisfy his own questionable motives. It appears that this person has lost his
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: the fact remains that Proposition 8 passed. If you really want to fight this out, you can sue the state of California in the courts. I believe it will eventually be resolved in the US Supreme Court in favor of Constitutional equal right for everyone. The process has already begun. There was a time when bigots like you were also against inter-racial marriage. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of civil rights that have been protected via votes and civil rights that have been protected via court orders. For example, it took a combination of Constitutional amendments and legislation to give African-Americans the vote. Women got the vote via Constitutional amendment alone. What about sex ordinances - states used to have all sorts of laws proscribing sex practices. Did those go away via legislation, or were they found unconstitutional? And inter-racial marriage - that must have been found Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia That's one example. Thanks! For all the time we in this forum spend poking holes in Maharishi's teachings, I've yet to abandon his theory of there being such a thing as collective consciousness. (It helps that Jung, Campbell and others promote the same idea.) Because I believe in collective consciousness, I believe this nascent movement to make gay marriage legal is an expression of the life force that arises from consciousness. (That, as opposed to gay marriage being an evil force that's attacking the purity of life the way heat is drawn to cold, which is another (less propounded) teaching of MMY.) Proposition 8 passed in California. Gay marriage is illegal there, and in what - 49 other states? So obviously collective consciousness is not ripe for gay marriage. But I have to think gay marriage is a generation away from being accepted. Maybe two generations. It won't go away. Sometimes collective consciousness expresses itself via legislation, sometimes via Constitutional amendments (which are voted upon by the public), and sometimes via court decisions. I imagine it's more likely that gay marriage will be legalized via court decisions before it's legalized via votes. Conservatives hate it when courts decree social changes. They've wanted such things as equal rights for minorities and freedom of choice for pregnant women to be granted, if they are to be granted at all, by popular vote, rather than by court decree. I can see their point. But I also see an irony here. Conservatives tend to be more authority-oriented than progressives. That is, conservatives have been found to be more inclined than others to give orders or take orders, one or the other. Yet when it comes to social change, they resent taking orders from courts. I guess this is where higher authorities come in, such as church teachings and their own revulsion at the thought of butt sex. When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. You're on a roll with well-considered, well-written statements lately, Patrick, and this whole post was one of them. But the above paragraph, and especially its punchline, just nails it. WWJD, indeed. If you believe that he would have reacted with the same revulsion you feel, or with violence, then how much more evolved than you are do you really think he was? You know you've created God in your own image when |he hates the exact same people that you do. - Gordon Charrick
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Yeah but remember what Kung Fu's Cain said to the Amish dude who was getting pushed around when he told Cain that he couldn't be violent and defend himself against the guy hitting him with a stick by picking up a stick of his own? Cain said in his Quaalude slow voice: Yes, but you can take the stick! I don't believe that Jung and Campbell's formulation of collective consciousness shares more than just a similar name with Maharishi's. Especially Campbell's. Jung had a little more woo woo going in the direction of Maharishi perhaps. Oh, yeah, and I agree with Turq that you have been laying down some very interesting writing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: the fact remains that Proposition 8 passed. If you really want to fight this out, you can sue the state of California in the courts. I believe it will eventually be resolved in the US Supreme Court in favor of Constitutional equal right for everyone. The process has already begun. There was a time when bigots like you were also against inter-racial marriage. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of civil rights that have been protected via votes and civil rights that have been protected via court orders. For example, it took a combination of Constitutional amendments and legislation to give African-Americans the vote. Women got the vote via Constitutional amendment alone. What about sex ordinances - states used to have all sorts of laws proscribing sex practices. Did those go away via legislation, or were they found unconstitutional? And inter-racial marriage - that must have been found Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia That's one example. Thanks! For all the time we in this forum spend poking holes in Maharishi's teachings, I've yet to abandon his theory of there being such a thing as collective consciousness. (It helps that Jung, Campbell and others promote the same idea.) Because I believe in collective consciousness, I believe this nascent movement to make gay marriage legal is an expression of the life force that arises from consciousness. (That, as opposed to gay marriage being an evil force that's attacking the purity of life the way heat is drawn to cold, which is another (less propounded) teaching of MMY.) Proposition 8 passed in California. Gay marriage is illegal there, and in what - 49 other states? So obviously collective consciousness is not ripe for gay marriage. But I have to think gay marriage is a generation away from being accepted. Maybe two generations. It won't go away. Sometimes collective consciousness expresses itself via legislation, sometimes via Constitutional amendments (which are voted upon by the public), and sometimes via court decisions. I imagine it's more likely that gay marriage will be legalized via court decisions before it's legalized via votes. Conservatives hate it when courts decree social changes. They've wanted such things as equal rights for minorities and freedom of choice for pregnant women to be granted, if they are to be granted at all, by popular vote, rather than by court decree. I can see their point. But I also see an irony here. Conservatives tend to be more authority-oriented than progressives. That is, conservatives have been found to be more inclined than others to give orders or take orders, one or the other. Yet when it comes to social change, they resent taking orders from courts. I guess this is where higher authorities come in, such as church teachings and their own revulsion at the thought of butt sex.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. Minor quibble, FWIW (I didn't read the book, but I did see the movie): I'm not sure the hillbillies were queer. Male-on-male rape has a very long history as a means of dominance, a way to humiliate and subjugate males over whom one has power by reducing them to the status of women. Happens in prisons all the time. Yes, there are homosexual relationships, but in many cases it's just a matter of dominance of one straight man by another. The men of Sodom who threatened Lot's visitors with rape weren't homosexual either. They wanted to teach the visitors a lesson, that they couldn't just stroll in and demand hospitality from the Sodomites. I don't think that changes your WWJD conclusion any, but I just thought I'd mention it...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam wrote: snip When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. Minor quibble, FWIW (I didn't read the book, but I did see the movie): I'm not sure the hillbillies were queer. Male-on-male rape has a very long history as a means of dominance, a way to humiliate and subjugate males over whom one has power by reducing them to the status of women. Happens in prisons all the time. Yes, there are homosexual relationships, but in many cases it's just a matter of dominance of one straight man by another. The men of Sodom who threatened Lot's visitors with rape weren't homosexual either. They wanted to teach the visitors a lesson, that they couldn't just stroll in and demand hospitality from the Sodomites. I don't think that changes your WWJD conclusion any, but I just thought I'd mention it... !! Of course. Rape is violence, not sexual desire, no matter who's being raped. D'oh. I had never considered this angle. I've never had the impulse. I've never gotten a woody at the prospect of dominating another man. But this must be the dynamic at play when one man dismisses another by saying, You can suck my dick. I had heard of men bitching up in prison, but understood it to be an adaption to the absence of women, not an exercise of dominance. But both things could happen in prison, couldn't they? - rape as dominance, and bitching up as an outlet for sexual and emotional desire. I wonder if gay sex makes so many hetero men squeamish because they associate it with aggression. For all my talk of being pro-gay- marriage, I get uncomfortable when hit upon by a man. Sure, some women are uncomfortable too, but many take it in stride or even enjoy the attention. http://tinyurl.com/6kw6tg
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: Oh, yeah, and I agree with Turq that you have been laying down some very interesting writing. Well, thank you very kindly indeed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam wrote: snip When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. Minor quibble, FWIW (I didn't read the book, but I did see the movie): I'm not sure the hillbillies were queer. Male-on-male rape has a very long history as a means of dominance, a way to humiliate and subjugate males over whom one has power by reducing them to the status of women. Happens in prisons all the time. Yes, there are homosexual relationships, but in many cases it's just a matter of dominance of one straight man by another. The men of Sodom who threatened Lot's visitors with rape weren't homosexual either. They wanted to teach the visitors a lesson, that they couldn't just stroll in and demand hospitality from the Sodomites. I don't think that changes your WWJD conclusion any, but I just thought I'd mention it... !! Of course. Rape is violence, not sexual desire, no matter who's being raped. D'oh. I had never considered this angle. I've never had the impulse. I've never gotten a woody at the prospect of dominating another man. But this must be the dynamic at play when one man dismisses another by saying, You can suck my dick. Absolutely! I had heard of men bitching up in prison, but understood it to be an adaption to the absence of women, not an exercise of dominance. But both things could happen in prison, couldn't they? - rape as dominance, and bitching up as an outlet for sexual and emotional desire. My understanding is that it's both. I wonder if gay sex makes so many hetero men squeamish because they associate it with aggression. For all my talk of being pro-gay- marriage, I get uncomfortable when hit upon by a man. Sure, some women are uncomfortable too, but many take it in stride or even enjoy the attention. Interesting point. You could well be right. For me, it depends entirely on the specific type of coming-on behavior. I get pissed off if I have the sense the man feels entitled, even if he's not explicitly aggressive. As far as women coming on to me is concerned, I am uncomfortable if she gets touchy-feely, but up to that point I have a terrible time not flirting back, which is kind of unfair to the woman since I'm just not a candidate. http://tinyurl.com/6kw6tg Oh, I love this! The most imaginative come-on I've ever had was from a Middle Eastern guy in a little grocery store I used to frequent in NYC. (He would surely never have followed through, but it was lovely anway.) I handed him a five for something I was buying. He held onto it by the two ends, and staring deep into my eyes, he convulsively ripped the bill in half.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: Oh, yeah, and I agree with Turq that you have been laying down some very interesting writing. Well, thank you very kindly indeed. For the record, I've never known Patrick to do any *other* kind of writing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least. Please explain to us why. Seriously, I would love to hear it. I will probably not comment, but I would like to hear you explaining why Patrick's sentence is misguided. What view of Jesus should he have been guided to?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least. You could be right. Jesus may have opted for the alternative - to take a shotgun blast to the head. Gethsemane notwithstanding, He was a good sport about allowing himself to be sacrificed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] You could be right. Jesus may have opted for the alternative - to take a shotgun blast to the head. Gethsemane notwithstanding, He was a good sport about allowing himself to be sacrificed. I have it on good authority that when Jesus came back from the dead, the first thing he did was become a member of the NRA. Although it was his Father's Divine Plan that he be sacrificed, he simply didn't cotton to the whole sordid experience and went out of his way to mention the nails in his left foot (something about having gout there already and the nail put in was rusty and that it really exasperated the condition). Jesus was not going to ever go through that again. Apparently, there was a poster made at the time that was very popular...it was on practically every lamppost and wall in both Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Pilote, unfortunately, had most of them taken down within a fortnight. Some enterprising disciples squirrelled away a few of them and -- surprise, surprise! -- the curators at that secret library in the basement of the vatican that we've all heard rumors about have a few pristine copies (they keep them right next to the Hendrix at Fillmore East vintage posters from '67). I was able to procure a digital copy for your consideration: [[Jesus+Hard.jpg]]
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least. You could be right. Jesus may have opted for the alternative - to take a shotgun blast to the head. Gethsemane notwithstanding, He was a good sport about allowing himself to be sacrificed. I was thinking along this line: Jesus was a Jew and was very well versed of the Torah and its rabbinical laws. As such, it would have been an abomination for him to associate with another man in that fashion. It would have been justifiable for Jesus to kill the sumbitch easily, and I believe he had the power to do so very easily. Specifically, we are acquainted with the two angels who obliterated the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. It can assumed that the destruction could have been done through an earthquake, volcano eruption, or atomic blast. Jesus could have done the same thing if provoked. Nonetheless, Jesus had a different mission for this earth, which was peace. So, since he was an advanced yogi, he could have avoided the situation by intuition, or if forced in a corner, he could have eluded his captors by disappearing. For example, in one of the gospels, there is a story about the Jews wanting to kill Jesus by attempting to throw him off a cliff. But for some magical reason, he was able to elude and escape the crowd unharmed. So, the sacrifice he endured on the cross was for a specific reason and not for mundane occurances. The reason was very well documented by the evangelical writers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] So, the sacrifice he endured on the cross was for a specific reason and not for mundane occurances. The reason was very well documented by the evangelical writers. Yes, I am familiar with the reason. It was to swindle earnest, well-meaning folks into believing that they could magically eliminate all their karma by buying into a cult which promises you ever-lasting life if believe only in THEIR God...that the death of Jesus washed away not only the karma of those living at the time but the karma of everyone who would come into existance in the future who, magically, accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. And as an extra, sweet, little incentive, the admonition that if you DON'T accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, you will burn in and be tortured in Hell for all eternity. It's probably the most successful marketing scam in the history of mankind...worthy of anything Don Draper could have dreamed up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: When I read James Dickey's Deliverance and saw the movie, I didn't question that the queer hillbillies deserved to die for sexually assaulting the suburban canoers. In the movie, when it appeared that Jon Voight's character was going to have to take that cracker's dick in his mouth, I was repulsed as much as I could possibly be. I was relieved and triumphant when Burt Reynold's character killed the rapist by firing two arrows into his chest. But now, in my more mellow middle age, I think, What would Jesus do? I believe Jesus would suck the cracker's dick, and spare his life. Although well written as a whole, your last sentence is misguided to say the least. You could be right. Jesus may have opted for the alternative - to take a shotgun blast to the head. Gethsemane notwithstanding, He was a good sport about allowing himself to be sacrificed. I was thinking along this line: Jesus was a Jew and was very well versed of the Torah and its rabbinical laws. As such, it would have been an abomination for him to associate with another man in that fashion. It would have been justifiable for Jesus to kill the sumbitch easily, and I believe he had the power to do so very easily. Now let me get this straight...you are saying that Jesus H. You have been told 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' BUT *I* say unto you... Christ would have succumbed to superstition and gone with rabbinical law. You and I must have read different bios, dude. Are you sure that you are not projecting a bit of your own fundamentalism and superstition and fear of violating law onto someone who was clearly beyond such fears? Jesus' whole *career* was based on rejecting the parts of rabbinical law he didn't agree with, and his whole *message* was about the rejection of violence. I'm sorry, John, but you're coming across as as much of a fundamentalist w.r.t. the Christian Bible as you do w.r.t. the vedic literature you are a slave to. And, you are committing the sin Gordon Charrick spoke of so eloquently: You know that you have created God in your own image when he hates the same people you do. It would be one thing if you just admitted to your own fear and homophobia and stood on that. But to attempt to hide it behind an appeal to scripture (and a total misreading of that scripture to boot) is beyond comprehension. You are so offended by gays that you want to kill them. That's really the bottom line here. And you want to kill them so much that you have come up with an inner justification that tells you that Jesus would have wanted to kill them, too, and not only that, he would have had advanced ways of doing so, sooper-dooper siddhi weapons I would imagine. Would he have caused them to burst into flame? (And would that be considered a 'death threat' under rabbinical law?) Or would he have come up with some other way of displaying how much he and God hates them because they don't obey their holy word in a book they were too lazy to write themselves, and had to have ghost- written for them by humans? Curious minds want to know the methods by which you imagine Jesus killing these horrible gay sinners.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
On Nov 7, 2008, at 5:37 AM, do.rflex wrote: The Mormon church also for example, takes in approx $500,000,000.00 per month and the membership is required to pay 10% monthly of their income to the church in order to maintain their 'worthiness' status to receive a certificate allowing them to participate in their temple ceremonies and get to their highest heaven. What would their lowest heaven be like? Could any old nonbeliever get in there? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 7, 2008, at 5:37 AM, do.rflex wrote: The Mormon church also for example, takes in approx $500,000,000.00 per month and the membership is required to pay 10% monthly of their income to the church in order to maintain their 'worthiness' status to receive a certificate allowing them to participate in their temple ceremonies and get to their highest heaven. What would their lowest heaven be like? Could any old nonbeliever get in there? Sal They've got 3 basic heavens. Regular people go to the lowest. Really 'righteous' people go to the middle one. And the obedient ca$h paying customers who have the secret Mormon Temple handshakes [borrowed from the Masons], secret names and sacred underwear get the best seats in their top heaven. Really rotten bastards get sent to what they call outer perdition. Interestingly, nobody gets into the highest heaven without the direct approval of their 'prophet' Joe Smith Jr. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of god without the consent of Joseph Smith... Every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance... I cannot go there without his consent. ... He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. ~~ LDS president and prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Mormon church also for example, takes in approx $500,000,000.00 per month and the membership is required to pay 10% monthly of their income to the church in order to maintain their 'worthiness' status to receive a certificate allowing them to participate in their temple ceremonies and get to their highest heaven. The point is that the Mormon church really does not want to pay taxes on all that free cash and its implications of power by pissing off the IRS. They are meticulously careful to stay just barely within the parameters of the law, which they have taken to its bare limits in the Prop 8 situation. If they and the RCC were totally unfettered in their efforts it would be a slam dunk for them to block vote themselves into practically any area they wished. As it is, it appears that they succeeded anyway - which further shows that they need more restraint. And they have succeeded in Utah as well, which is why I don't see why you are clinging to this argument. Have you ever tried to buy a drink there? I did, on one of my many visits to Moab. Moab is about as far away from the headquarters and domination of the Mormon Church as it is possible to be, both physically and spiritually, but you still have to go through the pretense of filling out a form to join the private club before anyone can serve you a beer. I understand that there could be some areas in which the majority would rule, and rule harshly, attempting to impose their Puritanical beliefs on others. But my point is that this happens ANYWAY. Churches fuck with politics all the time. Why not make them pay for the privilege like everybody else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip One of the ways in which we can see exactly how strongly religion has bilked America is the reaction to this issue when it comes up. When someone like myself or Curtis proposes taxing the churches and taxing religion, the majority of the people TUNE OUT, as if someone had said something heretical, and as if they don't want to get any of God's spittle on them when he reacts to the heresy. Far from tuning out, there's a very active debate on this topic. And it's not just the religious people on one side and the secularists on the other. It isn't a cut-and- dried issue; there are a lot of ins and outs. They are just PEOPLE. The things they believe in are FICTION, unless you happen to believe in them, too. Those who believe in the fictions have set aside a block of thoughts and concepts in their minds and said, These are sacrosanct and can never be challenged. God exists. The churches must never be taxed. No, wrong. That isn't what they say. There are excellent *rational* reasons for not taxing churches, and excellent rational reasons *for* taxing them that have to do with how churches function in society. Has nothing to do with whether churches are or are not sacrosanct. The issues would be the same whether churches taught about God or taught secular humanism. From Barry's earlier post on this: Please don't claim their good works. Anyone who has ever looked at the financial records of a large religious organization knows how little of that is actually spent on good works. Far more would become available to help society if they just paid their fair share as tax revenues. Even if this were true across the board, which it isn't, contributions to churches would fall sharply if they weren't tax-deductible. Smaller churches, which play a *major* role in providing social services of all kinds, would have to cut back significantly, and the people who need them would be left in the lurch unless the gummint stepped in with the funds it received in taxes from the churches. And that's just one of the side effects. It's not just the political angle, although that's important as well. Like it or not, churches play a major and complex role in society in this country, and the revisions of that role that taxing them would require are not all automatically desirable. It's probably best not to leave it up to the folks with a hatred of churches and their membership that is no less irrational than the members' beliefs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I don't really understand your point. Religious people already do that and they have a right to try. According to constitutionally upheld rulings and legislation because of those rulings, religious entities are kept in check as to the extent of their political influence by the IRS mandates to take away their tax exemption if they violate those laws. That is interesting. I think I'll have to look into how effective these restrictions are. It may mean that their influence is just more underground because they can't be more overt. But I appreciate you pointing this out because I don't know much about this. You may be right that this is essential to maintain the separation. I don't see how them paying taxes gives them more access to power than they have now? It would eliminate legislatively the separation between church and state and would among many other things, give them unfettered access to creating a church-run theocracy if they so wished [which they currently cannot get away with] - as major segments of the Christian Right certainly aim to do. But don't you think we have become so diverse that this fear is a bit unrealistic today? The separation of church and state has to do with avoiding a state sponsored religion above other religions. But religious people are already voting in blocks according to their own religious doctrines aren't they? Would they really gain more power than having an evangelical president supporting faith based initiatives and supporting bans on stem cell research? I'm not sure how taxing them makes them less in control with their voting power than they already are now. It's quite an effective restraint on their political influence among many other laws - for example with regard to federal funding of their endeavors to help others in terms of specifics like not allowing them to demand their religious doctrinal qualifications on their workers who are paid with those federal funds. The Mormon church also for example, takes in approx $500,000,000.00 per month and the membership is required to pay 10% monthly of their income to the church in order to maintain their 'worthiness' status to receive a certificate allowing them to participate in their temple ceremonies and get to their highest heaven. The point is that the Mormon church really does not want to pay taxes on all that free cash and its implications of power by pissing off the IRS. They are meticulously careful to stay just barely within the parameters of the law, which they have taken to its bare limits in the Prop 8 situation. If they and the RCC were totally unfettered in their efforts it would be a slam dunk for them to block vote themselves into practically any area they wished. As it is, it appears that they succeeded anyway - which further shows that they need more restraint. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. ~~ Thomas Jefferson And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism. ~~ Barry Goldwater
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. Horseshit. That's plain misinformation and bigotry. Marriage and Gays: The government should keep it strictly as a legal contract and keep religious doctrine or personal bias out of it. Any religious or cultural limitations or requirements should remain separate and within the preference of the parties making the contract. In that way, religionists and/or bigots can define marriage totally as they wish *within their own religious or cultural standards* - and the legal contract itself can apply to the whole citizenry and remain free from any controversy. What's most disturbing is religionists and bigots attempting to legislate *their* doctrines and biases as mandated public policy for everyone else. We can argue these point until the cows come home. But the fact remains that Proposition 8 passed. If you really want to fight this out, you can sue the state of California in the courts. It will cost you beaucoup bucks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. Horseshit. That's plain misinformation and bigotry. Marriage and Gays: The government should keep it strictly as a legal contract and keep religious doctrine or personal bias out of it. Any religious or cultural limitations or requirements should remain separate and within the preference of the parties making the contract. In that way, religionists and/or bigots can define marriage totally as they wish *within their own religious or cultural standards* - and the legal contract itself can apply to the whole citizenry and remain free from any controversy. What's most disturbing is religionists and bigots attempting to legislate *their* doctrines and biases as mandated public policy for everyone else. We can argue these point until the cows come home. But the fact remains that Proposition 8 passed. If you really want to fight this out, you can sue the state of California in the courts. It will cost you beaucoup bucks. It won't cost me a penny. I believe it will eventually be resolved in the US Supreme Court in favor of Constitutional equal right for everyone. The process has already begun. There was a time when bigots like you were also against inter-racial marriage. ~Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8~ Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters. If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it, said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society. Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters. The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved a broader scope of changes, said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case a stretch. UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said his research found too little case law on constitutional revisions to predict how the state high court might resolve the question. There is very little law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to revision, he said. Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude. The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it, she said. Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation of a minority group by a simple majority vote. Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, called the lawsuits frivolous and a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process. The first action was filed by the ACLU, the National
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 7, 2008, at 5:37 AM, do.rflex wrote: The Mormon church also for example, takes in approx $500,000,000.00 per month and the membership is required to pay 10% monthly of their income to the church in order to maintain their 'worthiness' status to receive a certificate allowing them to participate in their temple ceremonies and get to their highest heaven. What would their lowest heaven be like? Could any old nonbeliever get in there? Sal not -quite- celestial: no live harp music for one-- piped in instead from a cd with an occasional skip. wings missing a few feathers on the angels. just small time miracles (healing acne and hair loss vs cancer or birth defects), and a fairly long line to actually get some facetime with The Big Guy...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: The Mormon church also for example, takes in approx $500,000,000.00 per month and the membership is required to pay 10% monthly of their income to the church in order to maintain their 'worthiness' status to receive a certificate allowing them to participate in their temple ceremonies and get to their highest heaven. The point is that the Mormon church really does not want to pay taxes on all that free cash and its implications of power by pissing off the IRS. They are meticulously careful to stay just barely within the parameters of the law, which they have taken to its bare limits in the Prop 8 situation. If they and the RCC were totally unfettered in their efforts it would be a slam dunk for them to block vote themselves into practically any area they wished. As it is, it appears that they succeeded anyway - which further shows that they need more restraint. And they have succeeded in Utah as well, which is why I don't see why you are clinging to this argument. Have you ever tried to buy a drink there? I did, on one of my many visits to Moab. Moab is about as far away from the headquarters and domination of the Mormon Church as it is possible to be, both physically and spiritually, but you still have to go through the pretense of filling out a form to join the private club before anyone can serve you a beer. I understand that there could be some areas in which the majority would rule, and rule harshly, attempting to impose their Puritanical beliefs on others. But my point is that this happens ANYWAY. Churches fuck with politics all the time. Why not make them pay for the privilege like everybody else. What restraint they DO have they have as a result of, among other laws, the threats to their tax exemption. Without it they would without a doubt be far worse. I lived in Mormon Utah for 35+ years and I can attest first hand that they get away with imposing their horseshit beliefs as far as the laws allow - and stretch it at that. Getting rid of those laws and tax restraints would unlock the possibility of a direct tyrannical ecclesiastic rule. Under Brigham Young they used to kill people as part of church policy for not obeying the church priesthood. That was when Utah was for the most part isolated from the rest of the country and prior to statehood. But even after statehood and federal intervention the church got away with imposing its dictates unrestrained on non-members to whatever extent they could *legally* or covertly get away with. And they most often did. Today, the laws are more clearly defined and the church has an army of lawyers to use in getting away with their impositions on others to whatever extent they can within those laws. Their motive is to maintain and expand their 1/2 billion dollar monthly income [and power because of it] and keep their tax free status while doing it. They will back off when those exemptions are threatened like when it came to a head when they faced civil rights violations for institutionalizing racism. They had a 'convenient' revelation in 1978 that blacks all of a sudden became 'acceptable to the Lord'.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
\On Nov 7, 2008, at 12:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: What would their lowest heaven be like? Could any old nonbeliever get in there? Sal not -quite- celestial: no live harp music for one-- piped in instead from a cd with an occasional skip. wings missing a few feathers on the angels. just small time miracles (healing acne and hair loss vs cancer or birth defects), and a fairly long line to actually get some facetime with The Big Guy... As long as you don't need to show a badge I'm cool with all that. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. The government has no business addressing the religious beliefs of citizens. That's what churches are for. Allowing same-sex marriages does not mean requiring churches to perform them (although a lot of the promotion for Prop. 8 pretended it would in order to scare people into voting for it). Judy, this proposition is highly contentious and is not going away any time soon. From the looks of it, the opposition groups have already filed suits regarding this measure. So, we should stay tuned on the progress of those suits, if they have any merits. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. As I've already pointed out, not all straight marriages create children; and gay couples are perfectly able to *nurture* children for the continuation of [hu]mankind and the American [as well as any other] way of life] just as well as straight couples. I've already addressed this argument in an earlier post. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union Absolute, total bullshit. Both gays and straights can and do have all the sexual indulgence they want whether they're married or not, so obviously that isn't why they want to get married. Very true. We are getting into points not directly related to the proposition. So, I'll hold off on this and address this point some other time when this point arises. Gay people fall in love just like straight people do. They want to marry to make a formal commitment to each other. Sex is no more (and no less) the basis of their unions than it is for straight people. I've also addressed this point before in my earlier post. Support for Prop. 8 is grounded in bigotry, and it fosters discrimination. Not allowing gays to marry brands them as second-class citizens--and this is exactly what Prop. 8 proponents want to accomplish. Shame on them. The fact remains that Proposition 8 passed. It may take the US Supreme Court to resolve this issue. Whatever the highest court decides, the rest of the country will have to follow. Amen?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: the fact remains that Proposition 8 passed. If you really want to fight this out, you can sue the state of California in the courts. I believe it will eventually be resolved in the US Supreme Court in favor of Constitutional equal right for everyone. The process has already begun. There was a time when bigots like you were also against inter-racial marriage. Conservatives tend to get upset when courts determine the legality of acts the conservatives don't like, but then again, conservatives have historically been on the losing side of civil rights issues. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of civil rights that have been protected via votes and civil rights that have been protected via court orders. For example, it took a combination of Constitutional amendments and legislation to give African-Americans the vote. Women got the vote via Constitutional amendment alone. What about sex ordinances - states used to have all sorts of laws proscribing sex practices. Did those go away via legislation, or were they found unconstitutional? And inter-racial marriage - that must have been found unconstitutional too, right?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: the fact remains that Proposition 8 passed. If you really want to fight this out, you can sue the state of California in the courts. I believe it will eventually be resolved in the US Supreme Court in favor of Constitutional equal right for everyone. The process has already begun. There was a time when bigots like you were also against inter-racial marriage. Conservatives tend to get upset when courts determine the legality of acts the conservatives don't like, but then again, conservatives have historically been on the losing side of civil rights issues. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of civil rights that have been protected via votes and civil rights that have been protected via court orders. For example, it took a combination of Constitutional amendments and legislation to give African-Americans the vote. Women got the vote via Constitutional amendment alone. What about sex ordinances - states used to have all sorts of laws proscribing sex practices. Did those go away via legislation, or were they found unconstitutional? And inter-racial marriage - that must have been found Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be curious to see a breakdown of civil rights that have been protected via votes and civil rights that have been protected via court orders. For example, it took a combination of Constitutional amendments and legislation to give African-Americans the vote. Women got the vote via Constitutional amendment alone. What about sex ordinances - states used to have all sorts of laws proscribing sex practices. Did those go away via legislation, or were they found unconstitutional? And inter-racial marriage - that must have been found Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia This probably deserves a new thread but it is on topic for this one (and also due to the way the majority of the web users seem to use the site): You Can Forget My Taxes by Melissa Etheridge November 6, 2008 | 2:15pm Singer Melissa Etheridge rails against the passage of the gay-marriage ban in California—and she won't be paying the state a dime. Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books. More here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-06/you-can-forget-my-taxes To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. This statement is more dickish than a gay pride parade. The basis of the unions of my gay friends and relatives is LOVE. They love each other, just like good little heterosexual couples do. It is no surprise that gays rights is so slow in coming with attitudes like the one you expressed. Or would you like to amend your statement to include the possibility that gay people might have the exact same depth of emotions as you do? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue-- at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. John, I don't think you're getting the picture. You're replying as if I considered you sane, and wanted to initiate a conversation with you. Neither is true. I wrote you off as a nut case when you persisted in clinging to fairy tales as if they were real. Trying now to cloak your fear and homophobia in religious terms does not make you seem more sane. Fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance is what I said, and fear, bigotry, and religious intol- erance is what I meant. You embody all three in my opinion. It is your right to do so, but please do not imagine for a moment that I con- sider you sane enough to have a conversation with. Are we clear?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. The government has no business addressing the religious beliefs of citizens. That's what churches are for. Allowing same-sex marriages does not mean requiring churches to perform them (although a lot of the promotion for Prop. 8 pretended it would in order to scare people into voting for it). They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. As I've already pointed out, not all straight marriages create children; and gay couples are perfectly able to *nurture* children for the continuation of [hu]mankind and the American [as well as any other] way of life] just as well as straight couples. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union Absolute, total bullshit. Both gays and straights can and do have all the sexual indulgence they want whether they're married or not, so obviously that isn't why they want to get married. Gay people fall in love just like straight people do. They want to marry to make a formal commitment to each other. Sex is no more (and no less) the basis of their unions than it is for straight people. Support for Prop. 8 is grounded in bigotry, and it fosters discrimination. Not allowing gays to marry brands them as second-class citizens--and this is exactly what Prop. 8 proponents want to accomplish. Shame on them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
John wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. We have a little thing in this country called separation of church state. Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Prop 8 was nothing more than trying to turn some outdated religious belief into law. We simply can't have that. If we start instituting religious beliefs as law then its time to burn the country down and start over again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. Horseshit. That's plain misinformation and bigotry. Marriage and Gays: The government should keep it strictly as a legal contract and keep religious doctrine or personal bias out of it. Any religious or cultural limitations or requirements should remain separate and within the preference of the parties making the contract. In that way, religionists and/or bigots can define marriage totally as they wish *within their own religious or cultural standards* - and the legal contract itself can apply to the whole citizenry and remain free from any controversy. What's most disturbing is religionists and bigots attempting to legislate *their* doctrines and biases as mandated public policy for everyone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Taxing churches...me likey. The original intention of their tax exempt status was to keep the government from taxing one out of existence in preference to some state religion, right? It is not really possible for our government to get away with that today. They can exist fine while paying taxes like I do. So I say, Tax em all, tax em good. Why should they not contribute to the infrastructure growth of an area just because they believe in mock-cannibalistic rituals, or that praying to an elephant headed god will improve your ability to overcome obstacles. My crazy beliefs never gets me out of any taxes! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. We have a little thing in this country called separation of church state. Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Prop 8 was nothing more than trying to turn some outdated religious belief into law. We simply can't have that. If we start instituting religious beliefs as law then its time to burn the country down and start over again.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
On Nov 6, 2008, at 2:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Why should they not contribute to the infrastructure growth of an area just because they believe in mock-cannibalistic rituals, or that praying to an elephant headed god will improve your ability to overcome obstacles. My crazy beliefs never gets me out of any taxes! Start a religion. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a little thing in this country called separation of church state. Lately the churches have been creeping over the line. They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. The tax exempt status of religions needs to be gotten rid of, period. They are clearly *for profit* businesses. They rake in *millions* that are not taxed. WHY? Can anyone present to me a reason why ANY relig- ion deserves to not pay taxes on the millions it extorts from its followers? Please don't claim their good works. Anyone who has ever looked at the financial records of a large religious organization knows how little of that is actually spent on good works. Far more would become available to help society if they just paid their fair share as tax revenues. For the record, I would say the same about ALL supposed non-profit organizations. If they make a profit, they should pay the same taxes on that profit as any corporation or individual. And I've actually known a few spiritual teachers who agree with me on this issue. They *refused* to allow their followers into badgering them into being non-profit or declaring themselves a religion. They kept careful books, and paid every penny of tax that they would owe as a business, because they realized that that's what they were.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Taxing churches...me likey. The original intention of their tax exempt status was to keep the government from taxing one out of existence in preference to some state religion, right? It is not really possible for our government to get away with that today. They can exist fine while paying taxes like I do. So I say, Tax em all, tax em good. [snip] The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention].
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention]. That is sort of what the cannibalists...I mean Christians have done concerning other religions. They control the show now. It was factions of Christianity that was the problem when the constitution was written. Now with our pluralistic society we have multi-religious issues unimaginable by our founding fathers. Judging by how much hatred was spewed on Obama for being a secret Muslim, I think we have a long way to go. Let's use some of the tax money from religions to support religious education and tolerance. They can write off the amounts they spend on charity just as we do, to avoid taxes. But exempting them from taxes elevates their beliefs above the common good, and I don't buy that. So you have an imaginary friend...you still gotta pitch in like the rest of us. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Taxing churches...me likey. The original intention of their tax exempt status was to keep the government from taxing one out of existence in preference to some state religion, right? It is not really possible for our government to get away with that today. They can exist fine while paying taxes like I do. So I say, Tax em all, tax em good. [snip] The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention].
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
I don't consider myself very adept at perceiving the underlying motivations of people, but the arguments against gay marriage are so transparently Ick Factor-motivated that I'm surprised the arguments are not laughed off as just that - a bias against sex that makes them squeamish. I guess most heterosexuals get an ick response at the thought of gay sex, so they go along with specious reasoning like that John articulates below. It reminds me of the tortured arguments of the Dred Scott decisions of the 1850s, when all but one of the Justices went to extreme lengths to justify their decision that Africans were not fully human. It's funny to read queers' responses to thoughts of straight sex. They get creeped out just thinking about stuff we heterosexuals love. I think it was Pauline Kael who observed that there are no generally agreed-upon classics in the realm of porno movies - no Casablancas or It Happened One Nights - because sex is too personal and idiosyncratic for a wide swath of society to agree on what turns them on. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. The government has no business addressing the religious beliefs of citizens. That's what churches are for. Allowing same-sex marriages does not mean requiring churches to perform them (although a lot of the promotion for Prop. 8 pretended it would in order to scare people into voting for it). They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. As I've already pointed out, not all straight marriages create children; and gay couples are perfectly able to *nurture* children for the continuation of [hu]mankind and the American [as well as any other] way of life] just as well as straight couples. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union Absolute, total bullshit. Both gays and straights can and do have all the sexual indulgence they want whether they're married or not, so obviously that isn't why they want to get married. Gay people fall in love just like straight people do. They want to marry to make a formal commitment to each other. Sex is no more (and no less) the basis of their unions than it is for straight people. Support for Prop. 8 is grounded in bigotry, and it fosters discrimination. Not allowing gays to marry brands them as second-class citizens--and this is exactly what Prop. 8 proponents want to accomplish. Shame on them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it was Pauline Kael who observed that there are no generally agreed-upon classics in the realm of porno movies - no Casablancas or It Happened One Nights - because sex is too personal and idiosyncratic for a wide swath of society to agree on what turns them on. That is definitely an interesting insight. Thanks for passing it along.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention]. That is sort of what the cannibalists...I mean Christians have done concerning other religions. They control the show now. It was factions of Christianity that was the problem when the constitution was written. Now with our pluralistic society we have multi-religious issues unimaginable by our founding fathers. Judging by how much hatred was spewed on Obama for being a secret Muslim, I think we have a long way to go. Let's use some of the tax money from religions to support religious education and tolerance. They can write off the amounts they spend on charity just as we do, to avoid taxes. But exempting them from taxes elevates their beliefs above the common good, and I don't buy that. So you have an imaginary friend...you still gotta pitch in like the rest of us. I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention]. That is sort of what the cannibalists...I mean Christians have done concerning other religions. They control the show now. It was factions of Christianity that was the problem when the constitution was written. Now with our pluralistic society we have multi-religious issues unimaginable by our founding fathers. Judging by how much hatred was spewed on Obama for being a secret Muslim, I think we have a long way to go. Let's use some of the tax money from religions to support religious education and tolerance. They can write off the amounts they spend on charity just as we do, to avoid taxes. But exempting them from taxes elevates their beliefs above the common good, and I don't buy that. So you have an imaginary friend...you still gotta pitch in like the rest of us. I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else. Why is it anyone's business who marries who?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote: I think it was Pauline Kael who observed that there are no generally agreed-upon classics in the realm of porno movies - no Casablancas or It Happened One Nights - because sex is too personal and idiosyncratic for a wide swath of society to agree on what turns them on. Well I don't know about anyone else, but my personal fave is The Porn Dukes of Hazzard--The Sequel. Then again, I've always been sort of a free thinker. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it anyone's business who marries who? *** The funny thing about the prop 8 passage is that the Mormon Church was so heavily promoting it, despite the Church's history of polygamy. It's a whole cultural and religious, and political package that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. In this complicated society, marriage is tied up with a whole bunch of issues. Now that we have a Muslim-heritage President, why not allow people to take more than one spouse? But this would allow people to bring in multiple spouses from other countries, throwing immigration into even more chaos than it enjoys now, besides all the other issues that multiple partners would entail. Only the intelligent can live intelligently. When people open up their awareness to its Real value, the infinite, then these silly little problems will go away in the Sat Yuga.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else. I don't really understand your point. Religious people already do that and they have a right to try. I don't see how them paying taxes gives them more access to power than they have now? Separation of church and state is an ideal I share, but people don't leave their religious beliefs behind when they vote or take office. But they sure have a lot more money to advance their political agendas without being taxed. With religious leaders regularly backing certain candidates they seem like a part of the political process as it is. I just want them to pony up like the rest of us. Thanks for advancing the discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention]. That is sort of what the cannibalists...I mean Christians have done concerning other religions. They control the show now. It was factions of Christianity that was the problem when the constitution was written. Now with our pluralistic society we have multi-religious issues unimaginable by our founding fathers. Judging by how much hatred was spewed on Obama for being a secret Muslim, I think we have a long way to go. Let's use some of the tax money from religions to support religious education and tolerance. They can write off the amounts they spend on charity just as we do, to avoid taxes. But exempting them from taxes elevates their beliefs above the common good, and I don't buy that. So you have an imaginary friend...you still gotta pitch in like the rest of us. I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
Well I don't know about anyone else, but my personal fave is The Porn Dukes of Hazzard--The Sequel. Then again, I've always been sort of a free thinker. Gee, I'd think Debbie Does Des Moines would be a favorite and a classic in the Iowa cornfields. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Thu, 11/6/08, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 5:32 PM On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote: I think it was Pauline Kael who observed that there are no generally agreed-upon classics in the realm of porno movies - no Casablancas or It Happened One Nights - because sex is too personal and idiosyncratic for a wide swath of society to agree on what turns them on. Well I don't know about anyone else, but my personal fave is The Porn Dukes of Hazzard--The Sequel. Then again, I've always been sort of a free thinker. Sal To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: I think it was Pauline Kael who observed that there are no generally agreed-upon classics in the realm of porno movies - no Casablancas or It Happened One Nights - because sex is too personal and idiosyncratic for a wide swath of society to agree on what turns them on. That is definitely an interesting insight. Thanks for passing it along. Glad you like it. Don't quote it as Kael's, though. Coulda been some other New Yorker movie reviewer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else. I don't really understand your point. Religious people already do that and they have a right to try. According to constitutionally upheld rulings and legislation because of those rulings, religious entities are kept in check as to the extent of their political influence by the IRS mandates to take away their tax exemption if they violate those laws. I don't see how them paying taxes gives them more access to power than they have now? It would eliminate legislatively the separation between church and state and would among many other things, give them unfettered access to creating a church-run theocracy if they so wished [which they currently cannot get away with] - as major segments of the Christian Right certainly aim to do. Separation of church and state is an ideal I share, but people don't leave their religious beliefs behind when they vote or take office. But they sure have a lot more money to advance their political agendas without being taxed. With religious leaders regularly backing certain candidates they seem like a part of the political process as it is. I just want them to pony up like the rest of us. Thanks for advancing the discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
snip I don't really understand your point. Religious people already do that and they have a right to try. According to constitutionally upheld rulings and legislation because of those rulings, religious entities are kept in check as to the extent of their political influence by the IRS mandates to take away their tax exemption if they violate those laws. That is interesting. I think I'll have to look into how effective these restrictions are. It may mean that their influence is just more underground because they can't be more overt. But I appreciate you pointing this out because I don't know much about this. You may be right that this is essential to maintain the separation. I don't see how them paying taxes gives them more access to power than they have now? It would eliminate legislatively the separation between church and state and would among many other things, give them unfettered access to creating a church-run theocracy if they so wished [which they currently cannot get away with] - as major segments of the Christian Right certainly aim to do. But don't you think we have become so diverse that this fear is a bit unrealistic today? The separation of church and state has to do with avoiding a state sponsored religion above other religions. But religious people are already voting in blocks according to their own religious doctrines aren't they? Would they really gain more power than having an evangelical president supporting faith based initiatives and supporting bans on stem cell research? I'm not sure how taxing them makes them less in control with their voting power than they already are now. Separation of church and state is an ideal I share, but people don't leave their religious beliefs behind when they vote or take office. But they sure have a lot more money to advance their political agendas without being taxed. With religious leaders regularly backing certain candidates they seem like a part of the political process as it is. I just want them to pony up like the rest of us. Thanks for advancing the discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else. I don't really understand your point. Especially in light of the fact that the Mormon Church (not a favorite group of John's) basically *sponsored* Prop 8 and put $20 million into making it a reality. Religious people already do that and they have a right to try. Exactly. End this fiction that they're not *going* to try because we're not taxing them. They do it Big Time, and they're not going to stop. Make them pay for the privilege like all other Americans, and then take their chances at the polls like everyone else. I don't see how them paying taxes gives them more access to power than they have now? Separation of church and state is an ideal I share, but people don't leave their religious beliefs behind when they vote or take office. But they sure have a lot more money to advance their political agendas without being taxed. With religious leaders regularly backing certain candidates they seem like a part of the political process as it is. I just want them to pony up like the rest of us. Thanks for advancing the discussion. Indeed. One of the ways in which we can see exactly how strongly religion has bilked America is the reaction to this issue when it comes up. When someone like myself or Curtis proposes taxing the churches and taxing religion, the majority of the people TUNE OUT, as if someone had said something heretical, and as if they don't want to get any of God's spittle on them when he reacts to the heresy. They are just PEOPLE. The things they believe in are FICTION, unless you happen to believe in them, too. Those who believe in the fictions have set aside a block of thoughts and concepts in their minds and said, These are sacrosanct and can never be challenged. God exists. The churches must never be taxed. Marriage is some- how sanctified and made real when one of our guys waves water and wafer and says words over the union. And marriage is between ONLY a man and a woman. We know these things because God told them to us in this Big Book here. Now that we've established what constitutes real Truth, I'll go back to my job as a scientist and never talk about or challenge these ideas again. I'm sorry, but I cry bullshit. Tax every entity that makes a profit. Tax them all at the exact same rate, using a flat tax system. If one of these religions can make an incontestable case for the existence of God, tax HIM, too, if he makes a profit, and at the same rate. If he's the mensch they claim he is, he can cope with tax time without resorting to fire and brimstone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: I think it was Pauline Kael who observed that there are no generally agreed-upon classics in the realm of porno movies - no Casablancas or It Happened One Nights - because sex is too personal and idiosyncratic for a wide swath of society to agree on what turns them on. That is definitely an interesting insight. Thanks for passing it along. Glad you like it. Don't quote it as Kael's, though. Coulda been some other New Yorker movie reviewer. I do like it. You know me...I'm a total film freak. And a perv, someone who the religionists have never convinced that sex is a Bad Thing. So I freely admit to having cruised the Net and checked out the various lists there of The Best Sex Scenes In Film (regular mainstream film, not porn). And there is basically NO agreement on what these scenes are. They change depending on whether the lists were compiled by a man or a woman, and from man to woman, depending on taste. Some of the same scenes show up on many lists, but no film shows up on all of them. So whoever said it, it's a remarkable insight in my opinion, and one that should be remembered by those who attempt to legislate *their* taste in Things Sexual and impose them on others. In doing so, they are essentially saying, Hey, God hath decreed that sex and marriage looks like this scene from an old Doris Day / Rock Hudson movie, and should. And in so doing, they're ignoring who and what Rock Hudson really was. And probably Doris Day as well. She probably had a few kinky fantasies going down in her bedroom as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: Yeah, yeah, I know; my prediction record is in the shits considering I predicted McCain would get 300 electoral votes. Be that as it may, let me try again. It appears (but isn't yet certain) that California's Prop 8 -- the ban on gay marriages -- is going to win. But not by much...it's winning at around 52% now. My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). This is where push comes to shove. Congress will come on line and vote for it because the Dem's will be shared as hell to love their seats in the next election. As I wrote in an earlier post, Barack Obama spent the entire campaign since he procured the nomination flip- flopping his way to the right. Conservatism set the agenda for this election and it will continue doing it over the next 2 years (and beyond). Why, more conservative measures may be passed with Republicans as the Royal Opposition than they could if they were in power! First off it hasn't been decided yet as they have to count 3 million absentee and provisional ballots. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures It would truly be a sad day if it passed because it is the first time a constitutional amendment actually took away rights. Not true, Bhairitu: 16th amendment, allowing federal income tax. This took away the right not to have income be taxed. 18th amendment, prohibiting the right to sell, buy, or consume alcohol. 22nd amendment, prohibiting the right of a citizen to run for president more than two terms. And believe me if it passes there will be a Supreme Court case filed. Same for the US Constitution. We have no business taking away rights and we need to make that plain and clear to the public.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: Yeah, yeah, I know; my prediction record is in the shits considering I predicted McCain would get 300 electoral votes. Be that as it may, let me try again. It appears (but isn't yet certain) that California's Prop 8 -- the ban on gay marriages -- is going to win. But not by much...it's winning at around 52% now. My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). This is where push comes to shove. Congress will come on line and vote for it because the Dem's will be shared as hell to love their seats in the next election. As I wrote in an earlier post, Barack Obama spent the entire campaign since he procured the nomination flip- flopping his way to the right. Conservatism set the agenda for this election and it will continue doing it over the next 2 years (and beyond). Why, more conservative measures may be passed with Republicans as the Royal Opposition than they could if they were in power! First off it hasn't been decided yet as they have to count 3 million absentee and provisional ballots. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures It would truly be a sad day if it passed because it is the first time a constitutional amendment actually took away rights. Not true, Bhairitu: 16th amendment, allowing federal income tax. This took away the right not to have income be taxed. That's rather a spin the intent of that amendment. 18th amendment, prohibiting the right to sell, buy, or consume alcohol. And repealed. 22nd amendment, prohibiting the right of a citizen to run for president more than two terms. That really doesn't take away the rights from a group of people. It protects us from coups or dynasties. A good amendment IMO. All these are a bit of a stretch if you want to show that rights were taken away from a group. California voted to take away rights from gays but give rights to chickens. Go figure. At least teen age girls won't have to tell their Krischun fascist parents if they need an abortion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: Yeah, yeah, I know; my prediction record is in the shits considering I predicted McCain would get 300 electoral votes. Be that as it may, let me try again. It appears (but isn't yet certain) that California's Prop 8 -- the ban on gay marriages -- is going to win. But not by much...it's winning at around 52% now. My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). This is where push comes to shove. Congress will come on line and vote for it because the Dem's will be shared as hell to love their seats in the next election. As I wrote in an earlier post, Barack Obama spent the entire campaign since he procured the nomination flip- flopping his way to the right. Conservatism set the agenda for this election and it will continue doing it over the next 2 years (and beyond). Why, more conservative measures may be passed with Republicans as the Royal Opposition than they could if they were in power! First off it hasn't been decided yet as they have to count 3 million absentee and provisional ballots. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures It would truly be a sad day if it passed because it is the first time a constitutional amendment actually took away rights. Not true, Bhairitu: 16th amendment, allowing federal income tax. This took away the right not to have income be taxed. That's rather a spin the intent of that amendment. I don't see why it's spin. This country was founded in large part because of the confiscatory taxes the founders thought the mother country, Britain, was imposing upon the colonies. Ever heard of a certain tea party? The very idea of an income tax was anathema to the founders. Passing an amendment enabling income tax was very much a taking away of a right. 18th amendment, prohibiting the right to sell, buy, or consume alcohol. And repealed. So, what's the point? It was still an amendment and in effect before it was repealed...and you said that there never was an amendment that took away rights. You were wrong. 22nd amendment, prohibiting the right of a citizen to run for president more than two terms. That really doesn't take away the rights from a group of people. It protects us from coups or dynasties. A good amendment IMO. All these are a bit of a stretch if you want to show that rights were taken away from a group. Who was talking about group rights? Not me. Not you. Indeed, the subject at hand -- gay marriage -- can only happen to individuals. Many people would even make the argument that rights and freedoms can only be enjoyed by individuals and not groups. Be that as it may, Bhairitu, you stand corrected. California voted to take away rights from gays but give rights to chickens. Go figure. At least teen age girls won't have to tell their Krischun fascist parents if they need an abortion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: Yeah, yeah, I know; my prediction record is in the shits considering I predicted McCain would get 300 electoral votes. Be that as it may, let me try again. It appears (but isn't yet certain) that California's Prop 8 -- the ban on gay marriages -- is going to win. But not by much...it's winning at around 52% now. My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). This is where push comes to shove. Congress will come on line and vote for it because the Dem's will be shared as hell to love their seats in the next election. As I wrote in an earlier post, Barack Obama spent the entire campaign since he procured the nomination flip- flopping his way to the right. Conservatism set the agenda for this election and it will continue doing it over the next 2 years (and beyond). Why, more conservative measures may be passed with Republicans as the Royal Opposition than they could if they were in power! First off it hasn't been decided yet as they have to count 3 million absentee and provisional ballots. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_ge/ballot_measures It would truly be a sad day if it passed because it is the first time a constitutional amendment actually took away rights. And believe me if it passes there will be a Supreme Court case filed. Same for the US Constitution. We have no business taking away rights and we need to make that plain and clear to the public. * Obama did so well in part because he brought a new wave of African- American voters to the polls. But for Golden State liberals, minority turnout was a mixed blessing. Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, passed by about four percentage points. According to exit polls, Obama's African-American supporters helped put Proposition 8 over the top. That's the irony of Obama's victory: Had black turnout matched levels of previous elections, the vote on the gay-marriage banwhich trailed in the polls for much of the summerwould have been much closer. It might even have failedAccording to the '08 exit poll, blacks favored Proposition 8 by a margin of 70 to 30. (All other ethnic groups were about evenly split on the measure, with white voters leaning slightly against it.) http://www.slate.com/id/2203912/
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. ** People get married under state laws, so a federal law banning gay marriage is not possible. However, Federal law -- the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- has virtually done exactly that by banning any meaningful use of gay marriage even if legal in any state by disallowing the usual automatic reciprocal recognition in other states and for all federal purposes: immigration, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
