Quote of the week

[Blondin]

I came across this link (http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/03/quote-of-week.html) over at onegoodmove (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/):

Raskin: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

I have yet to find an anti-gay-rights person who can explain to me how allowing gay marriage affects them. I could understand if they had a problem with extending benefits to gay spouses (spice?) because of the cost but I'm not hearing that argument from anyone. The only argument you hear is either bible based or that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing paedophilia and beastiality. Frankly, I'm more inclinded to be scared of those people who make a connection between gay marriage and any kind of physical/sexual abuse. If/when gay marriage finally becomes legal they're the ones to watch out for.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Aren't you in Canada? It's already legal here.

[Aoidoi]

Heck, I still can't figure out why anyone wants to get married. Once I've figured that out, maybe I figure out why some people don't want other people to get married.

Good quote in any case. :)

[Serenity]

Heck, I still can't figure out why anyone wants to get married. Once I've figured that out, maybe I figure out why some people don't want other people to get married.

Good quote in any case. :)Only marriage offers federal benefits and protections in the good ol' USA. Same sex marriage is coming, and in a few years people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

[Blondin]

Aren't you in Canada? It's already legal here.
Yes, but according to our new PM the fight aint over yet. There is a parallel with the US situation. The former government enacted legislation making gay marriage legal because the supreme court had ruled against any laws preventing it as a breach of civil rights as laid out in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Mr Harper doesn't care what the supreme court says, he wants to bring it to a vote again. The only way he can get around the supreme court is to either amend the charter or invoke the "not withstanding clause (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_cs_can.htm)".

Afaik we are the only democracy that has a not withstanding clause in our constitution and I believe Stephen Harper is the kinda guy that'll use it.

[Mephisto]

Yes, but according to our new PM the fight aint over yet. There is a parallel with the US situation.

Well get with the program! You can either discriminate against gays for religious reasons or for economic reasons (why should anyone God disapproves of deserve the same monetary rights as a heterosexual spouse?). To do anything less encourages the terrorists, and even if you don't want to do it in the name of freedom and Democracy, . . . do it for the children. ;)

[the_bgma]

(the Book of Questions)

We have learned that all morality is based on sympathy, so we must go back to that. Are homosexual actions between two consenting adults harmful to anyone else? Of course not. Do the participants consider it harmful to them? Obviously not, they consented to it. So why should the rest of us care whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual or something in between?
Questions 24-34

As for gay marriage, we do see a large societal benefit in marriage, straight or gay. Pair-bonding creates a more stable family environment, and gives a person someone to rely on for support. Since it hurts no one, and helps those in such a relationship, why should there be a problem with gay marriage? The same goes with raising children. There is no evidence whatsoever that children of gay couples suffer more abuse, are less well-adjusted, or are in any way less nurtured or cared-for than children of straight couples.

(the Book of Questions)

******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist

[Meadmaker]

The only argument you hear is either bible based or that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing paedophilia and beastiality.

If those are the only arguments you hear, that might say something about your hearing, not about the arguments.

[Iacchus]

I'm not gay and I don't particularly sympathize with it. So I guess I have a problem with it.

[Ducky]

I'm not gay and I don't particularly sympathize with it. So I guess I have a problem with it.


I'm not a moron, and I don't particularly sympathize with them. So I guess I have a problem with Iacchus.

[Iacchus]

I'm not a moron, and I don't particularly sympathize with them. So I guess I have a problem with Iacchus.Oh, really? I thought we were both chums ... Or, was that chumps? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chumps) ;)

[Mercutio]

I'm not a moron, and I don't particularly sympathize with them. So I guess I have a problem with Iacchus.
If it makes you feel any better, he has yet to demonstrate that he has any understanding of what he says. If his statement here is as coherent as his philosophy, the one thing you can be sure of is that what he said has no relation whatsoever to what he actually believes.

...


Nah, I can't defend it...

[ruach1]

I came across this link (http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/03/quote-of-week.html) over at onegoodmove (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/):



I have yet to find an anti-gay-rights person who can explain to me how allowing gay marriage affects them. I could understand if they had a problem with extending benefits to gay spouses (spice?) because of the cost but I'm not hearing that argument from anyone. The only argument you hear is either bible based or that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing paedophilia and beastiality. Frankly, I'm more inclinded to be scared of those people who make a connection between gay marriage and any kind of physical/sexual abuse. If/when gay marriage finally becomes legal they're the ones to watch out for.
To these people, I think its the principle of the thing. Though they may not know a gay or lesbian person or live near a "gay community", they may not want homosexual marriage to be legal simply on principle. Its kinda' like environmentalists and pollution. They may live in a pristine, clean area of the world, yet when they hear about legislation to take away a wildlife preserve elsewhere, they act out against it.

[Iacchus]

I have yet to find an anti-gay-rights person who can explain to me how allowing gay marriage affects them.What, aside from the fact that it bugs people and they don't think it's normal? Hey, if they want to "shack up" together that's fine with me but, I don't think we should be made to treat it as if it were anything other than that. It's not a viable alternative to the genuine thing, in my opinion.

[Mercutio]

What, aside from the fact that it bugs people and they don't think it's normal? If they want to "shack up" together that's fine with me but, I don't think we should be made to treat it as if it were anything other than that. It's not a viable alternative the genuine thing, in my opinion.If I recall, your own website had a thread on this topic. Care to link it and let people know what you really think?

[Iacchus]

If I recall, your own website had a thread on this topic. Care to link it and let people know what you really think?In so many words, this is what I have said. Why, do you have a problem with that?

[slingblade]

What, aside from the fact that it bugs people and they don't think it's normal? Hey, if they want to "shack up" together that's fine with me but, I don't think we should be made to treat it as if it were anything other than that. It's not a viable alternative to the genuine thing, in my opinion.

It bugs some straight people. You say "people" as if homosexuals are something other than people.

What, exactly, is "normal," anyway? Aside from something incredulous neighbors say after the heinous crime: "But he/she/they seemed so normal!"

[aargh57]

(Sorry my computer's slow so I cut and pasted)
Iacchus said:
"What, aside from the fact that it bugs people and they don't think it's normal? Hey, if they want to "shack up" together that's fine with me but, I don't think we should be made to treat it as if it were anything other than that. It's not a viable alternative to the genuine thing, in my opinion."

So Iacchus, do you, or does anyone, have the right to make policy denying the rites of others based solely on your opinion. Shouldn't there be some Constitutional basis to do things like, say, ammend the Constitution to define marriage in the way that you would like it to be defined.

Also, no one is "making" you do anything. If you choose to continue to treat gay couples as if they aren't "normal" how will allowing them to marry stop you? You can still march down the street with a sign saying how immoral these people are if it trips your trigger. I suppose you could argue that allowing them to marry will "make" you not stop them from marrying. (Maybe that's another good one: Atheism's a religion like allowing homosexual's to marry is making the religous right not stop homosexual's from marrying. Maybe a tad convoluted.) Civil rights laws certainly haven't stopped bigots, racists, sexists, etc... from doing similar things. They have, however, given many people protection under law to enjoy the same rights you or I enjoy.

[Tricky]

What, aside from the fact that it bugs people and they don't think it's normal? Hey, if they want to "shack up" together that's fine with me but, I don't think we should be made to treat it as if it were anything other than that. It's not a viable alternative to the genuine thing, in my opinion.
Iacchus, you're not normal. Should we take away your legal rights because of it?

[Tricky]

Raskin: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
BTW, according to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/raskin.asp), the quip has been around for a while.

Their earliest reference was from Bill Maher (http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_040105.htm), who has been shortchanged all over the place. I've received at least three e-mails attributing his new rules (http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/) to George Carlin. He is a very funny guy, who would be a lot more well-known if it wasn't that darn streak of honesty. He had the audacity to suggest that the 9-11 terrorists, while crazy, were at least brave.

[Mercutio]

In so many words, this is what I have said. Why, do you have a problem with that?
Oh, but you said so much more than that, if memory serves. Why not link it? Are you ashamed of your words? Come on, let everybody here know what sort of person you are when you are on your own forum and relatively safe from people who might challenge you.

Do I have a problem with what you said? No more than I have problems with any other ignorant bigot, no. But let people decide for themselves. Post the link.

[gnome]

I believe one argument tries to present the idea that for those that believe a homosexual relationship is immoral, giving societal approval by allowing marriages takes some of the significance away from their "real" marriage. Personally I think it's lame. My usual take is to lay out all of the legal rights that marriage gives and dare anyone to explain why a gay couple should not have any of these rights. Then I ask why it would be wrong to collect them together in a package. By then you're talking domestic unions, and eventually the distinction will fade.

In fact, I would like to see the LEGAL portion of all marriages be subsumed under a domestic partnership law... and the religious or personal significance of the union be left up to the couple and their church (if they have one).

[gnome]

What, aside from the fact that it bugs people and they don't think it's normal? Hey, if they want to "shack up" together that's fine with me but, I don't think we should be made to treat it as if it were anything other than that. It's not a viable alternative to the genuine thing, in my opinion.

Can you explain why it's not viable without including heterosexual couples that marry without having children?

[Iacchus]

It bugs some straight people. You say "people" as if homosexuals are something other than people.

What, exactly, is "normal," anyway? Aside from something incredulous neighbors say after the heinous crime: "But he/she/they seemed so normal!"I am a non-conformist, I don't fit the norm. Maybe it's because I have enough trouble with this in my own regard that I don't really care?

[Tricky]

I am a non-conformist, I don't fit the norm. Maybe it's because I have enough trouble with this in my own regard that I don't really care.
Then you should have no right to get married. Not that it's ever going to be an issue...

[Iacchus]

Can you explain why it's not viable without including heterosexual couples that marry without having children?Let's just say it's a physiological thing and, that the (physical) parts don't line up properly. In other words it doesn't fit the design.

[Mercutio]

Let's just say it's a physiological thing and, that the (physical) parts don't line up properly. In other words it doesn't fit the design.
Are you speaking on behalf of gay people here? They can't have sex? This will be such a dissappointment to them to find out!

Funny thing about descriptive laws, though, Iacchus: when something doesn't fit, we change the law. Here, by your own admission, something doesn't fit the design...and yet exists anyway. Obviously, you are quite simply wrong about there being a "design".

If you were honest, you'd admit it. I doubt any here will hold their breath...

[Iacchus]

Oh, but you said so much more than that, if memory serves. Why not link it? Are you ashamed of your words? Come on, let everybody here know what sort of person you are when you are on your own forum and relatively safe from people who might challenge you.

Do I have a problem with what you said? No more than I have problems with any other ignorant bigot, no. But let people decide for themselves. Post the link.Rhinoceros (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A107771).

[Mercutio]

Rhinoceros (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A107771).
Bigot. (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=1940) Do try to stay on topic, Iacchus. Post the link--it is so much easier than trying to elaborate on your position post-by-post. Surely you are not ashamed of what you said, since you knew you were morally right...right?

[Iacchus]

Bigot. (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=1940) Do try to stay on topic, Iacchus. Post the link--it is so much easier than trying to elaborate on your position post-by-post. Surely you are not ashamed of what you said, since you knew you were morally right...right?Follow the link and read the story line. I almost posted it here but I didn't think it was necessary.

[Mercutio]

Follow the link and read the story line. I almost posted it here but I didn't think it was necessary.
No need to--I've read the play.

Post the link to your thread, Iacchus. Show everybody what you are really like.

[Iacchus]

No need to--I've read the play.

Post the link to your thread, Iacchus. Show everybody what you are really like.Why do you goad me? I am perfectly capable of starting it here if you like. However, I don't see that it's necessary to repeat any more than I've already said above, because it was about the same thing I had said there, before everyone (the few people I was debating with) got up in arms about it. They were just ticked because I wouldn't agree with them. The fact is, I probably never will.

And right at the end of the movie Gene Wilder goes, "I will never give in! ... give in! ... give in!" ... as it resonates and echoes throughout the empty/abandoned city.

[Iacchus]

The movie (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A107771) was all about giving in to social pressures.

[Mercutio]

They were just ticked because I wouldn't agree with them. I read it much differently than you, then. It was not your disagreement, but your stance itself that was objectionable.

But people can decide for themselves. (http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gay&start=0&sid=90f194bbff5935310658494ec4790b47&mforum=dionysusforums)

[Orangutango]

(the Book of Questions)

We have learned that all morality is based on sympathy, so we must go back to that. Are homosexual actions between two consenting adults harmful to anyone else? Of course not. Do the participants consider it harmful to them? Obviously not, they consented to it. So why should the rest of us care whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual or something in between?
Questions 24-34

As for gay marriage, we do see a large societal benefit in marriage, straight or gay. Pair-bonding creates a more stable family environment, and gives a person someone to rely on for support. Since it hurts no one, and helps those in such a relationship, why should there be a problem with gay marriage? The same goes with raising children. There is no evidence whatsoever that children of gay couples suffer more abuse, are less well-adjusted, or are in any way less nurtured or cared-for than children of straight couples.


A very good post, and one that pretty much sums up the reasons why there are no real arguments specifically against same-sex marriage/unions. Even the utterly ridiculous "we need to protect the sanctity of marriage" debate fails every time to mention just how by allowing a legally binding gay/lesbian partnership will have any effect on those individuals who are currently involved in, or one day plan to enter into, an opposite-sex marriage.

[Tricky]

Why do you goad me? I am perfectly capable of starting it here if you like. However, I don't see that it's necessary to repeat any more than I've already said above, because it was about the same thing I had said there, before everyone (the few people I was debating with) got up in arms about it.
I can well see why you don't want it repeated here. There are actually still a few people here who respect you for being a "nice guy". If they look at that link Mercutio posted, they should be cured of that misconception. Were you molested at an early age by a gay person, Iacchus? I can't see any other reason for such hate. If that is the case, then I offer my sympathy, but it doesn't excuse your continued vilification of gays.

They were just ticked because I wouldn't agree with them. The fact is, I probably never will. That's not the impression I got reading it. It looked more like they were revolted by your bigotry. But I do not doubt at all you will not change. Your intransigence is legendary.

[Orangutango]

I read it much differently than you, then. It was not your disagreement, but your stance itself that was objectionable.

But people can decide for themselves. (http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gay&start=0&sid=90f194bbff5935310658494ec4790b47&mforum=dionysusforums)

Thank you for posting the link, Mercutio... with the plethera of oh-so-insightful comments and observations made by Iacchus on that thread, even I... a member of the lesbian persuasion... am finding myself ready to defect to the "other team"!


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well, if there was no little kids, there would be no one to grow up into moms and dads you see. And, if there was no more moms and dads, there would be no more little kids. So, I'm just doing the math.

My god! It's all so clear to me now!! All of my life, I have been an active and willing participant for the possible extinction of the entire human race!! What am I doing here waisting my time posting??? I need to go repent and redeem myself by shacking-up with the 1st virile male I can find and start popping out babies!!!

Wait a minute... why should only the homosexuals take the blame for this insidious plot to end humanity?? It should be made manditory for every heterosexual, married couple to reproduce!! My god... don't they realize what's at stake here???

Thank you for doing the "math" for us, Iacchus...:rolleyes:

Oh... I'm sorry... I meant to use this smilie... ;)

[Orangutango]

Originally posted by Iacchus32:
Whatever happened to this "Significant Other" thing? Why can't they just leave it at that?

Yeah! And whatever happened to those Sodomy laws? Why can't they just leave it at that?

And whatever happened to segregating blacks? Why can't they just leave it at that?

And whatever happened to slavery? Why can't they just leave it at that?

And whatever happened to burning witches at the stake? Why can't they just leave it at that?

And whatever happened to stoning to death heretics? Why can't they just leave it at that?

Yeah... why can't we just all settle for how things used to be...;)

[Iacchus]

Boy, you folks think I would be responsible for the whole of the human predicament. I'm not. And, since when does saying something bothers you automically gets you termed a bigot? Talk about painting things in term of black and white. Sheesh!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32:
Whatever happened to this "Significant Other" thing? Why can't they just leave it at that? Yep, that pretty much sums up what I've said here so far. Isn't that just awful?

[Tricky]

Boy, you folks think I would be responsible for the whole of the human predicament. I'm not.
No, you're not alone. There are many like you.

And since when does saying something bothers you automically gets you termed a bigot? Talk about painting things in term of black and white.
Discriminating (or advocating discrimination) against a person because, through no action of their own, they have a harmless trait you are "bothered by" is is what gets you termed a bigot. But it is not black and white. You aren't the worst bigot I've ever met.

[gnome]

Let's just say it's a physiological thing and, that the (physical) parts don't line up properly. In other words it doesn't fit the design.
Ok... what do the physical problems have to do with the viability of a marriage? Remember, the challenge is to answer that without including childless heterosexual marriages.

As for any physical difficulty, I'm sure they'll improvise.

[gnome]

Apparently every homosexual marriage actually subtracts from the reproductive activities of their heterosexual counterparts, in a way that not being married doesn't.

[Iacchus]

Ok... what do the physical problems have to do with the viability of a marriage? Remember, the challenge is to answer that without including childless heterosexual marriages.Well yeah, if man wasn't made for woman, and woman wasn't made for man, we would have no little children, period. Why can't we honor that, at least in the institution of marriage?

As for any physical difficulty, I'm sure they'll improvise.Sure, and they don't need a marriage license in order to do this.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus32:
Whatever happened to this "Significant Other" thing? Why can't they just leave it at that? Yep, that pretty much sums up what I've said here so far. Isn't that just awful?Because the "Significant Other" thing doesn't provide equal protection under the law. And yes, it may seem trivial to you, but denying equal protection is just awful.

[Iacchus]

Because the "Significant Other" thing doesn't provide equal protection under the law. And yes, it may seem trivial to you, but denying equal protection is just awful.And, perhaps I don't appreciate it because I'm not married myself? What do you mean by equal protection?

[Complexity]

I read it much differently than you, then. It was not your disagreement, but your stance itself that was objectionable.

But people can decide for themselves. (http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gay&start=0&sid=90f194bbff5935310658494ec4790b47&mforum=dionysusforums)
I could only read a few pages at one sitting.

Iacchus is a thoroughly nasty piece of work. I'm so glad we'll never meet.

I had thought he was just an idiot, but now I see he is an utterly homophobic bigot. Just love the AIDS remark.

Thanks, Merc.

[Iacchus]

What, corn babies out of wedlock? Yep, all it takes is a little goading. ;)

[Orangutango]

Christ on a cracker... I'm still only on page 1. There is simply not enough hours in a day to adress every little pearl of wisdom you have thrown out here...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Homosexuality is an aberration. It is not the norm.

aberration

Let us start out by having you share with all of us which definition you prefer when using the term "aberration" in regards to homosexuals. Personally, I prefer being labeled "an abomination in the eyes of the lord"....:rolleyes:

If we grant equal statis in this case, where do we stop? Beastiality? Pedophilia? At some point everyone's going to want to get into "the act," don't you think?

I have already made an attempt to adress the "slippery slope" argument here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1504272#post1504272

And what if it finally got to the point where heterosexuality is not normal? Do we outlaw it?

Are you serious? Really... do I even need to adress this? Is this a concern of yours that wakes you up screaming in the middle of the night drenched in a cold sweat? This comment of yours wins the award for the most outlandish commentary I have ever heard.

Allow me to put your fears ar ease... should we homosexuals finally acheive our nefarious plans for world domination, I can assure you that you quaint, little heterosexuals will still be allowed to be fruitful and multiply. It's what makes your kind soo endearing...

I guess that's pretty much what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.

You mean having god annihilate entire cities down to every man, woman and child in order to teach a few of them pesky gays a lesson?

Now I'm not saying we should attack those for holding different views, but at the same time I don't see what we stand to gain by throwing wide open the doors to licentiousness. In which case I think they should leave the "sanctity" of marriage alone.

licentiousness

Ah, yes... sometimes I forget that besides my lacking any morals whatsoever in regards to whom I take as my lover (whom I have been with for over 9 years now, and plan to spend the rest of my life with), I also thoroughly enjoy engaging in rape, murder, larceny, child abuse and a multitude of other, illegal acts. Yes... we homosexuals love to take every opportunity to thumb our noses at society's rules and standards.

Think of it this way, if homosexuality were normal, there would be no homosexuals, because homosexuals don't reproduce.

Well... it seems that I was a bit hasty to give out the award for the most outlandish comment I have ever heard. Let's cut it with your paranoid delusions, shall we? There have been, and always will be, homosexuals. We are born this way, just the same as our heterosexual counterparts. Got it so far? I can type slower if you're having a hard time keeping up. In addition, there is, for all intents and purposes, a zero % chance of homosexuality becoming the "norm", so your argument is moot to begin with.

And what's the point of promoting "marriage," if there were no "little ones" running around?

By all means go ahead and tell every couple that wishes to wed that unless they plan to reproduce, that there is absolutely no point for them to get married.

I want to thank you for providing me with my daily dose of finding at least one absurd argument to tear to shreds.... hell, this one post of yours is enough to keep me sated for the rest of the week.

I'll let the other posters have fun with the rest of your comments...;)

[cyborg]

Well yeah, if man wasn't made for woman, and woman wasn't made for man, we would have no little children, period. Why can't we honor that, at least in the institution of marriage?

Because people wanting sex has generally f-all to do with the possible resulting product; namely children.

You need to worry about people stopping having sex, not who gets married to whom - being an entirely irrelevant and unnecessary construct for sexual relations.

Idiot.

[Iacchus]

Christ on a cracker... I'm still only on page 1. There is simply not enough hours in a day to adress every little pearl of wisdom you have thrown out here...

aberration

Let us start out by having you share with all of us which definition you prefer when using the term "aberration" in regards to homosexuals. Personally, I prefer being labeled "an abomination in the eyes of the lord"....:rolleyes:

I have already made an attempt to adress the "slippery slope" argument here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1504272#post1504272

Are you serious? Really... do I even need to adress this? Is this a concern of yours that wakes you up screaming in the middle of the night drenched in a cold sweat? This comment of yours wins the award for the most outlandish commentary I have ever heard.

Allow me to put your fears ar ease... should we homosexuals finally acheive our nefarious plans for world domination, I can assure you that you quaint, little heterosexuals will still be allowed to be fruitful and multiply. It's what makes your kind soo endearing...

You mean having god annihilate entire cities down to every man, woman and child in order to teach a few of them pesky gays a lesson?

licentiousness

Ah, yes... sometimes I forget that besides my lacking any morals whatsoever in regards to whom I take as my lover (whom I have been with for over 9 years now, and plan to spend the rest of my life with), I also thoroughly enjoy engaging in rape, murder, larceny, child abuse and a multitude of other, illegal acts. Yes... we homosexuals love to take every opportunity to thumb our noses at society's rules and standards.

Well... it seems that I was a bit hasty to give out the award for the most outlandish comment I have ever heard. Let's cut it with your paranoid delusions, shall we? There have been, and always will be, homosexuals. We are born this way, just the same as our heterosexual counterparts. Got it so far? I can type slower if you're having a hard time keeping up. In addition, there is, for all intents and purposes, a zero % chance of homosexuality becoming the "norm", so your argument is moot to begin with.

By all means go ahead and tell every couple that wishes to wed that unless they plan to reproduce, that there is absolutely no point for them to get married.

I want to thank you for providing me with my daily dose of finding at least one absurd argument to tear to shreds.... hell, this one post of yours is enough to keep me sated for the rest of the week.

I'll let the other posters have fun with the rest of your comments...;)Yes, I agree that the marriage law as it stands (or stood?), stands for some degree of normalcy. In fact I have already said this much.

[strathmeyer]

Yes, I agree that the marriage law as it stands (or stood?), stands for some degree of normalcy. In fact I have already said this much.

Evidence?

[Iacchus]

Evidence?I said some degree of normalcy. The fact that the American family has become wholly dysfunctional, again, is not my fault.

[Tricky]

And, perhaps I don't appreciate it because I'm not married myself? What do you mean by equal protection?
Is it really possible that you are as ignorant as your forum persona suggests?

Okay, for the slow class. Under current laws, only married people have certain rights, such as tax breaks, making each other the beneficiary of some insurance policies, inheritance laws, common property, and yes, even the right to sue for divorce and division of property. These are things that married people take for granted, but "significant others" are not entitled to.

Frankly, I'm betting that few gay and lesbian couples care a whole lot what you call it, as long as it is legally identical to marriage. People can call their own relationship anything they like. I sometimes refer to my wife as my ex-fiancee.

[Orangutango]

Is it really possible that you are as ignorant as your forum persona suggests?

Okay, for the slow class. Under current laws, only married people have certain rights, such as tax breaks, making each other the beneficiary of some insurance policies, inheritance laws, common property, and yes, even the right to sue for divorce and division of property. These are things that married people take for granted, but "significant others" are not entitled to.

Frankly, I'm betting that few gay and lesbian couples care a whole lot what you call it, as long as it is legally identical to marriage. People can call their own relationship anything they like. I sometimes refer to my wife as my ex-fiancee.

Bingo.

I don't give a rat's buttocks what a legally binding relationship between myself and my girlfriend is called... as long as it is legally identical to the rights and privileges given to heterosexual couples.

[bruto]

I read it much differently than you, then. It was not your disagreement, but your stance itself that was objectionable.

But people can decide for themselves. (http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gay&start=0&sid=90f194bbff5935310658494ec4790b47&mforum=dionysusforums)

The link to Iacchus's forum is always in his signature line, and from there you can get all the links to his other stuff. It's pretty silly for him to be coy about posting a link to the particular subject now, having linked to his own pages many times in the past.

I do urge anybody who seriously intends to argue with Iacchus to browse his writings, so as to be informed of just how detached he is from what the rest of us consider to constitute reality and rationality.

Iacchus: homosexuality does not appeal to me much either, and it makes me uncomfortable. Can you tell me one actual reason why my comfort level or yours should be used as a standard for deciding the civil rights of other people? And, in relation to the original question posed at the beginning of this thread, can you identify one actual way in which gay marriage or civil union has affected the quality of heterosexual marriage in a negative way? Imean something real, not imagined.

[Orangutango]

I said some degree of normalcy. The fact that the American family has become wholly dysfunctional, again, is not my fault.

And it is most certainly not the fault of homosexuals, either. So, who's fault is it, then.... <gasp>... could it be all of you aberrant and licentious heterosexual types that are to blame???:eek:

There should be laws against people like that...;)

[Orangutango]

The link to Iacchus's forum is always in his signature line, and from there you can get all the links to his other stuff. It's pretty silly for him to be coy about posting a link to the particular subject now, having linked to his own pages many times in the past.

I do urge anybody who seriously intends to argue with Iacchus to browse his writings, so as to be informed of just how detached he is from what the rest of us consider to constitute reality and rationality.

Iacchus: homosexuality does not appeal to me much either, and it makes me uncomfortable. Can you tell me one actual reason why my comfort level or yours should be used as a standard for deciding the civil rights of other people? And, in relation to the original question posed at the beginning of this thread, can you identify one actual way in which gay marriage or civil union has affected the quality of heterosexual marriage in a negative way? Imean something real, not imagined.

An excellent post, Bruto. I do hope that Iacchus answers it.

Then again, I hope that I win the lottery. Doesn't mean it's going to happen....

[Mercutio]

The link to Iacchus's forum is always in his signature line, and from there you can get all the links to his other stuff. It's pretty silly for him to be coy about posting a link to the particular subject now, having linked to his own pages many times in the past.
Actually, his signature link goes to his current forum; from that forum, you can click to the archives. This thread is in neither; apparently there was a third forum between the other two--that's what this is.

[bruto]

And, perhaps I don't appreciate it because I'm not married myself? What do you mean by equal protection?

Others have addressed this, but I'll just add: Iacchus, you are an absolute pill of concentrated foolishness, intellectual laziness and ignorance! So you're not married! What a [rule8ing] surprise! You could still have figured out by now just what benefits accrue to people who are married, and you could have done a little teeny bit of research into the reasons why gay activists have striven so hard for some of those rights and benefits.

I doubt very much if you will stir your vacant mind enough actually to do any research on the subject, but if you are inclined, I recommend Civil Wars, by David Moats. Moats was an ediitor of the Rutland Herald during Vermont's battle for civil unions, and won a Pulitzer prize for his editorials on the subject. I imagine the book can be found in a library.

[Tricky]

The link to Iacchus's forum is always in his signature line, and from there you can get all the links to his other stuff.
Actually, the link that Mercutio posted appears to be to a different set of boards than Iacchus' sig line points to. I'm not saying Iacchus is intentionally hiding what he wrote previously, but he would have had an easier time finding the old dead forum than Mercutio, yet he declined to do so despite repeated requests.

[Iacchus]

And it is most certainly not the fault of homosexuals, either. So, who's fault is it, then.... <gasp>... could it be all of you aberrant and licentious heterosexual types that are to blame???:eek:

There should be laws against people like that...;)No, and it's probably not the fault of those who land in prison either, at least to begin with.

[Iacchus]

Actually, the link that Mercutio posted appears to be to a different set of boards than Iacchus' sig line points to. I'm not saying Iacchus is intentionally hiding what he wrote previously, but he would have had an easier time finding the old dead forum than Mercutio, yet he declined to do so despite repeated requests.Actually I was about going to before the forum crapped out, and then Mercutio spared me the trouble.

[Mercutio]

Actually I was about going to before the forum crapped out, and then Mercutio spared me the trouble.
Well, now that you say so, it was so obvious:
Why do you goad me? I am perfectly capable of starting it here if you like. However, I don't see that it's necessary to repeat any more than I've already said above, because it was about the same thing I had said there, before everyone (the few people I was debating with) got up in arms about it. They were just ticked because I wouldn't agree with them. The fact is, I probably never will.

And right at the end of the movie Gene Wilder goes, "I will never give in! ... give in! ... give in!" ... as it resonates and echoes throughout the empty/abandoned city.Quite obviously just about to post the link...

Sheesh. :oldroll:

[Iacchus]

Others have addressed this, but I'll just add: Iacchus, you are an absolute pill of concentrated foolishness, intellectual laziness and ignorance! So you're not married! What a [rule8ing] surprise! You could still have figured out by now just what benefits accrue to people who are married, and you could have done a little teeny bit of research into the reasons why gay activists have striven so hard for some of those rights and benefits. It's funny, but I don't plan on sticking around forever. I guess I never felt it was that important. ;)

I doubt very much if you will stir your vacant mind enough actually to do any research on the subject, but if you are inclined, I recommend Civil Wars, by David Moats. Moats was an ediitor of the Rutland Herald during Vermont's battle for civil unions, and won a Pulitzer prize for his editorials on the subject. I imagine the book can be found in a library.You're right, I wouldn't want to surprise you.

[Iacchus]

Well, now that you say so, it was so obvious:

Quite obviously just about to post the link...

Sheesh. :oldroll:Oh, and right towards the end of the movie (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A107771), he was in his apartment talking to his girlfriend Daisy. And he stepped away from the camera for a moment (or something), and there it was, written on an inconspicuous little blackboard in the background, although it was quite plain for anyone to see (I suspect most people didn't), "Don't compromise yourself, it's all you've got." And boy, I felt real special after that. ;)

[Mercutio]

Back to the thread, after that nice little distraction: Iacchus, do you stand by everything you said in that loathesome thread, or will you retreat from any of it?

[gnome]

Well yeah, if man wasn't made for woman, and woman wasn't made for man, we would have no little children, period. Why can't we honor that, at least in the institution of marriage?
A heterosexual marriage without children doesn't fit that bill either. Sorry, you haven't met the terms of my question. You haven't described a problem with homosexual weddings that doesn't also apply to childless heterosexual weddings, so to be consistent, you should oppose them as well. But if you follow your track record, you'll move on to discussing something else without addrssing this point.

Sure, and they don't need a marriage license in order to do this.
But they do need a marriage license or something equivalent in order to visit each other in intensive care, make medical decisions if the other is incapacitated, provide for survivorship if one wants to inherit from the other, and so forth. Don't tell me you're ignorant of the LEGAL purposes of a marriage.

[Iacchus]

A heterosexual marriage without children doesn't fit that bill either. Sorry, you haven't met the terms of my question. You haven't described a problem with homosexual weddings that doesn't also apply to childless heterosexual weddings, so to be consistent, you should oppose them as well. But if you follow your track record, you'll move on to discussing something else without addrssing this point.I'm an idealist.


But they do need a marriage license or something equivalent in order to visit each other in intensive care, make medical decisions if the other is incapacitated, provide for survivorship if one wants to inherit from the other, and so forth. Don't tell me you're ignorant of the LEGAL purposes of a marriage.What, are you saying they can't sign a waiver that provides for this?

[cyborg]

I'm an idealist.

Your ideal is crap.

Reality 31231097329847. Iacchus 0.

[Iacchus]

Your ideal is crap.

Reality 31231097329847. Iacchus 0.Yes, the number 312 is a very good number. It corresponds to the number 4 and signifies the Greek letter delta, hence the door which opens up into one's mind. ;)

[cyborg]

Yes, the number 312 is a very good number.

Numbers: Infinite. Iacchus: still a zero.

[Iacchus]

Oh, the number 312 was also the number on the door in the movie, Millenium. And, although the movie kind of stunk, the plot was interesting. ;)

[Mercutio]

Numbers and movies...are you trying to distract attention from questions you have not answered?

Iacchus, do you stand by everything you said in that loathesome thread, or will you retreat from any of it?

[cyborg]

Oh, the number 312 was also the number on the door in the movie, Millenium. And, although the movie kind of stunk, the plot was interesting. ;)

Millenia: a long time. Iacchus: hanging around longer than anyone wants.

[Iacchus]

Numbers: Infinite. Iacchus: still a zero.Oh, 343 is pretty cool too (as in your post count), it's 7 x 7 x 7. It was also the number that was on the tank that James Bond drove in the movie, Goldeneye (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:135622). ;)

[Orangutango]

I just stopped home on my work break to see if Iacchus has given us the honor of deeming to answer the one question posed to him time and time again by not only myself, but Gnome, Mercutio, Tricky and Bruto to name a few as well... how will legalizing same-sex marriage detract/diminish/effect opposite-sex marriages... and lo and behold! No answer has been forthcoming! Shocking.

In addition... I must say that I feel a bit cheated that you have chosen not to respond to my posts with your infamous "answering a question with a question" shtick. And what is with your suddenly deciding to skimp out on adding your trademark ";)" at the end of your post...? You know the one that oh-so-subtly conveys the message: "Just between you and me... you know that I'm really correct here, but I'll be gracious enough not to point it out... wink wink". Oh, well... I'll try to somehow carry on, I suppose...

You see, Iacchus... I am well aware of your modus operandi. After all.. much like your clumsy, amateur attempt to psychoanalyze myself when I first joined the boards... you remember, don't you? About my thoughts not existing in a vacuum? Well, neither do yours. You just so happened to have chosen to debate (and quite poorly, I might add) a topic that is of great import to myself.

You wish to try your hand defending your position on gay marriage? Well, I suggest that you had better bring your "A" game, otherwise you will quickly find yourself my intellectual b*tch...;)

Work break's over... I eagerly look forward to more of your scintillating statements when I return home...

[cyborg]

Oh, 343 is pretty cool too (as in your post count), it's 7 x 7 x 7. Was also the number that was on the tank that 007 drove in the movie, Goldeneye (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:135622). ;)

Cool numbers: infinite. Iacchus: not cool at all.

[Iacchus]

The number 343 also signifies the name Dennis (http://www.dionysus.org/x0403.html#51), as well as the Holy Marriage ... between a man and a woman that is. ;) It was also the number of firefighters that died in the 9-11 catastrophe.

[cyborg]

The number 343 also signifies that name Dennis (http://www.dionysus.org/x0403.html#51), as well as the Holy Marriage ... between a man and a woman that is. ;) It was also the number of firefighters that died in the 9-11 catastrophe.

343: 343. Iacchus: 0.

[Tricky]

The number 343 also signifies that name Dennis (http://www.dionysus.org/x0403.html#51), as well as the Holy Marriage ... between a man and a woman that is. ;) It was also the number of firefighters that died in the 9-11 catastrophe.
It also signifies bigotry, rudeness and a pathological need to prove to ones own inflamed ego that they are important. We've got your number, Iacchus.

[Mercutio]

The number 343 also signifies the name Dennis (http://www.dionysus.org/x0403.html#51), as well as the Holy Marriage ... between a man and a woman that is. ;) It was also the number of firefighters that died in the 9-11 catastrophe.
Ok, so you have decided to try to distract from your words. Once again, I guess I will have to bring the real Dennis here to talk.

If someone is dying from aids, I don't think there's much of a chance of leaving a lasting impression. --Dennis (Iacchus), explaining why it might be acceptable for gay couples to adopt, as long as it is a baby with AIDS that a heterosexual couple does not want.

[cyborg]

It also signifies bigotry, rudeness and a pathological need to prove to ones own inflamed ego that they are important. We've got your number, Iacchus.

His number is 0, not 343. He's a nothing.

[Mercutio]

Yes, and aren't the sick and weak usually the first to be culled in the wild? Maybe there's a reason for this?--Dennis (Iacchus), with another compassionate comment about AIDS babies.

[Mercutio]

If people want to be chums, fine, there's nothing that says they can't be chums. If they are afraid of the opposite sex however -- which I can understand, because I have had my own problems in this regard -- I mean who hasn't? :'( -- this is their problem, and does not justify bringing down an entire level of society just to "appease" their feelings of inadequacy which, is exactly what it is. There are other alternatives than "choosing" to be homosexual by the way.--Dennis (Iacchus), compassionately suggesting an alternative to marriage.

[Mercutio]

In response to "What you are saying is "it isn't my cup of tea, so it can't be yours either." What's wrong with having many flavors of tea?", Iacchus finds the perfect metaphor to describe the difference between...well...
What's the difference between manure and a flower? ... albeit, in many respects, you can't have flowers without manure or, something "dead" and decaying. Hmm ... maybe that's why the human reproductive organs are so close to the anal orifice? Anyway it goes to show how closely life is related to death now doesn't it? By the way, have you ever noticed how homosexuals -- some, not all -- hiss like snakes when they speak? Kind of reminiscent of the original temptation in the Garden of Eden don't you think?
Hiss like snakes? Do they, Iacchus?

[Mercutio]

I know Orangutango already commented on this post of Iacchus's, but it is so much more musical in its original form, without interruption.Homosexuality is an aberration. It is not the norm. If we grant equal statis in this case, where do we stop? Beastiality? Pedophilia? At some point everyone's going to want to get into "the act," don't you think? And what if it finally got to the point where heterosexuality is not normal? Do we outlaw it? I guess that's pretty much what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. Now I'm not saying we should attack those for holding different views, but at the same time I don't see what we stand to gain by throwing wide open the doors to licentiousness. In which case I think they should leave the "sanctity" of marriage alone.

Think of it this way, if homosexuality were normal, there would be no homosexuals, because homosexuals don't reproduce. And what's the point of promoting "marriage," if there were no "little ones" running around?

[arthwollipot]

What, are you saying they can't sign a waiver that provides for this?

No, Iacchus. They can't sign a waiver. It doesn't matter is she's your girlfriend, your de facto or your live-in lover. If you haven't got a signed, authorised marriage certificate, you don't get the same rights and benefits.

I have a close friend who was in a civil union with a military man who was killed in action. She fought for seven years for the war widows' pension which would have been given to her immediately if the two of them had signed the marriage certificate.

And that's in Australia, where the law is a whole lot more lenient than it is in the US. Well, it was before Johnny got his double majority, anyway.

[gnome]

I'm an idealist.
That's no response. In fact, it doesn't address the point at all.

You force me to a conclusion, Iacchus, that I've been holding back on. When someone gives a reason for their opinion, but then resists rigorous examination of that reason, it is a clear sign that this is not their reason at all... only one that suffices enough for surface impressions. If it were the actual reason behind your thinking, having a meaningful discussion about it wouldn't be like pulling teeth.

I suspect that this "reason" is simply a polite veneer to avoid people disapproving of your actual reasons. It's the sort of front someone puts up who deep down feels it IS their business what other people do in private, but knows that opinion won't fly in today's society.

What, are you saying they can't sign a waiver that provides for this?
Perhaps... and perhaps one for each of the rights I describe. If you have no objection to granting these rights separately, why do you object to having these rights as a package? In fact, as arthwallipot says, some may not be obtainable except by a marriage-like arrangement.

[Iacchus]

His number is 0, not 343. He's a nothing.No, the 0 comes into play when adding the numbers 32 (4) and 23 (9), in which case you get, 320 (40) + 023 (09) which, equals 343. Oh, the number 49 (7 x 7) also corresponds to the name Dennis (http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html).

[Mercutio]

No, the 0 comes into play when adding the numbers 32 (4) and 23 (9), in which case you get, 320 (40) + 023 (09) which, equals 343. Oh, the number 49 (7 x 7) also corresponds to the name Dennis (http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html).
If gay "couples" wish to adopt, and nobody else will take the children in, fine.You can play with numbers all you want, Dennis. You aren't fooling anyone.

[Iacchus]

Perhaps... and perhaps one for each of the rights I describe. If you have no objection to granting these rights separately, why do you object to having these rights as a package? In fact, as arthwallipot says, some may not be obtainable except by a marriage-like arrangement.It is not the ideal and sets a bad example for the kids. Oh, and the Holy Marriage is typically portrayed between God (the Husband) and the Church (the Wife) ...

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. ~ Revelation 21:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=9)

[Iacchus]

You can play with numbers all you want, Dennis. You aren't fooling anyone.Well, everyone except for myself perhaps. :D

[Mercutio]

It is not the ideal and sets a bad example for the kids. Oh, and the Holy Marriage is typically portrayed between God (the Husband) and the Church (the Wife) ...So you assert. Why is a committed gay relationship less ideal than my uncle's abusive heterosexual marriage? Less ideal than whatever celebrity marriage-of-the-week is on magazine covers today, to be the divorce-of-the-week next month?

Do you hold gays to a higher standard? How gallant of you...

[cyborg]

No, the 0 comes into play when adding the numbers 32 (4) and 23 (9), in which case you get, 320 (40) + 023 (09) which, equals 343. Oh, the number 49 (7 x 7) also corresponds to the name Dennis (http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html).

Your number dancing crap impresses the hell out of no-one.

Hey look everyone, Iacchus can piss around with numbers until he finds something symbolic he can attach to it! Isn't that just totally underwhelming?

[bruto]

I'm an idealist.


What, are you saying they can't sign a waiver that provides for this?

Iacchus, I know that you are, as always, implacably ignorant, but I cannot understand why you have not realized that your appalling arrogance about it makes your ignorance not only more outrageous but more offensive.

We are talking here, whether you like it or not, and whether your mystical idealism can ever disentangle itself from your accidental but stubborn utilitarianism, about one of the most important civil rights issues of recent years. If you're going to participate in the discussion, the least you could do would be to learn some of the most basic reasons why.

Oh, and homosexuals do not hiss like snakes, you freaking idiot.

[Iacchus]

So you assert. Why is a committed gay relationship less ideal than my uncle's abusive heterosexual marriage?It's not normal? Aside from the fact that most abusive heterosexual marriages tend to wind up in divorce. Or, if they don't, that's not my problem.

Less ideal than whatever celebrity marriage-of-the-week is on magazine covers today, to be the divorce-of-the-week next month?Well, if nothing else it gives everyone something to gossip about. That's pretty important too don't you think?

Do you hold gays to a higher standard? How gallant of you...Perhaps. It might save them from burning in hell ... ;)

[Iacchus]

Your number dancing crap impresses the hell out of no-one.

Hey look everyone, Iacchus can piss around with numbers until he finds something symbolic he can attach to it! Isn't that just totally underwhelming?And, how do you know for a fact that I'm not the high priest (http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html) of this whole affair?

[Iacchus]

Oh, and homosexuals do not hiss like snakes, you freaking idiot.Who ever in the world said that? Albeit I must admit, I have heard one or two "hissies" in my time? ;)

[bruto]

It is not the ideal and sets a bad example for the kids. Oh, and the Holy Marriage is typically portrayed between God (the Husband) and the Church (the Wife) ...

The debate isn't about holy marriage. It's about civil marriage. Civil marriage is a civil institution. It always was. The first marriage performed in the colony of New England was civil. It's not some symbolic crapola about god and the church. Do you at least understand that? That two people, even us heteros, can go to a town clerk and get a marriage license and get married without any crap about god and the church? That when we do this, certain civil rights and benefits are granted to us that are not granted to people who do not (or cannot!) marry?

During the debate about civil unions, the Catholic bishop of Vermont took up an argument similar to yours. I thought the bishop of Vermont was an arrogant, sanctimonious, hypocritical craphead. Hey, what a coincidence, eh?

Ideal!?!? Getting drunk and knocking up your teenage girlfriend in the back of a car isn't the ideal, either, but you can marry the poor cow. Civil marriage is not about the ideal.

[bruto]

Who ever in the world said that? Albeit I must admit, I have heard one or two "hissies" in my time? ;)

Was this not a quote from Iacchus, in Mercutio's post above?

By the way, have you ever noticed how homosexuals -- some, not all -- hiss like snakes when they speak? Kind of reminiscent of the original temptation in the Garden of Eden don't you think?

[Mercutio]

Who ever in the world said that? Albeit I must admit, I have heard one or two "hissies" in my time? ;)
You did, you ignorant bigot. This is one of the statements I have asked you whether you still stand by. You have thus far refused to distance yourself from them, so what are we to conclude?

You are not only an ignorant bigot, but also a coward. You run from your own posting history rather than admit it or admit it was wrong. Too bad, Dennis, but you wrote it. At length. With many opportunities to recant. You are a loathesome person, Dennis, and now anyone can see.

So...do you want to reconfirm or recant any of your statements now?

[Iacchus]

Was this not a quote from Iacchus, in Mercutio's post above?Oh, I guess it was. This is the first time I've read it. And yes, I will fess up to having said it. Mind you it was also something I said how many months ago? Twelve? Oh, and did you notice I also used the word "some?"

[Iacchus]

By the way, have you ever noticed how homosexuals -- some, not all -- hiss like snakes when they speak? Kind of reminiscent of the original temptation in the Garden of Eden don't you think? Oh, man, this is just atrocious. :D

[Iacchus]

Ideal!?!? Getting drunk and knocking up your teenage girlfriend in the back of a car isn't the ideal, either, but you can marry the poor cow. Civil marriage is not about the ideal.Well, if it were a couple of gays in the back seat of the car I guess you wouldn't have to worry about it. No paternity suits, no nothing. ;) Hence, it would seem, the ideal pertains more to heterosexual activity ... i.e., in that it might help insure a future for the children.

[Iacchus]

It also signifies bigotry, rudeness and a pathological need to prove to ones own inflamed ego that they are important.Rude? I can't think of anyone more rude than you on this damn board.

We've got your number, Iacchus.Which one? ... 312, 49 or 343? It doesn't matter really, because it all amounts to about the same. Oh, and let's not forget the number 479 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html). That's the number of the high priest.

[gnome]

It is not the ideal and sets a bad example for the kids. Oh, and the Holy Marriage is typically portrayed between God (the Husband) and the Church (the Wife) ...

It is not the government's job to ensure that something remains holy. Hmmm seem to recall someone said something recently about how our leaders don't put their hand on a constitution and swear to uphold the bible?

There are lot of marital situations that are not ideal. If you select only one for forbidding... then you're only revealing that idealism has nothing to do with it. I say once again, you're revealing that the reasons you give are only a sham for something uglier that you prefer not to reveal.

[gnome]

Well, if it were a couple of gays in the back seat of the car I guess you wouldn't have to worry about it. No paternity suits, no nothing. ;) Hence, it would seem, the ideal pertains more to heterosexual activity ... i.e., in that it might help insure a future for the children.
Ok... what does this have to do with marriage... either situation is going to happen whether there's marriage or not. Forget it. I don't believe you. This reason is a farce. You have demonstrated so by arguing dishonestly and dropping in nonsequiturs when you're cornered.

[cyborg]

And, how do you know for a fact that I'm not the high priest (http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html) of this whole affair?

Because you're too goddamn stupid do to anything that's actually remarkable with numbers.

[Mercutio]

Well, if it were a couple of gays in the back seat of the car I guess you wouldn't have to worry about it. No paternity suits, no nothing. ;) Hence, it would seem, the ideal pertains more to heterosexual activity ... i.e., in that it might help insure a future for the children.
Is this what you think gays are fighting for? You have ignored all these people's attempts to open your eyes? That is terribly insulting, I hope you realize.

[Mercutio]

Oh, I guess it was. This is the first time I've read it. And yes, I will fess up to having said it. Mind you it was also something I said how many months ago? Twelve? Oh, and did you notice I also used the word "some?"
It was pointed out to you some time back...do you pay that little attention to what people ask of you?
Oh, man, this is just atrocious. :D
In the words of All the President's Men, this is "a non-denial denial". Do you stand by your words, or do you admit you were wrong back then and claim you feel differently now?

The things you said in your thread are gross insults; I would like to see if you still feel that way.

[Mercutio]

Rude? I can't think of anyone more rude than you on this damn board.
I doubt you would find anyone at all on this board who would agree with you. And if Trixie is rude here, how would you characterize your own behavior on your own thread in your own forum?

[Orangutango]

The truth of the matter is is that Iacchus has no logical, rational or coherent answer to the question posed to him ad nauseam here on this thread: How will legalizing same-sex marriage detract/diminish/effect opposite-sex marriages?

His blatant and tiresome attempt to evade adressing a topic that is outside of his intellectual "comfort zone" by attempting to change the subject once again exposes his incapacity to carry on a debate.

You bit off far too more than you can chew this time, kiddo, and your ignorance is showing. Do yourself a favor and spare yourself the equilvalent of an intellectual beat-down by admitting that your stance in regards to same-sex marriages being somehow legaly damaging and/or disastrous to their opposite-sex counterparts are based solely on your own personal prejudices, rather than on any tangible facts or evidence to the contrary.

Trust me... I am an intellectual lightweight compared to most of the other posters here on this thread, yet I am still more than capable of easily and effortlessly tearing apart any any every argument you can dream up.

[Genesius]

The truth of the matter is is that Iacchus has no logical, rational or coherent answer to the question posed to him ad nauseam here on this thread: How will legalizing same-sex marriage detract/diminish/effect opposite-sex marriages?
The truth of the matter is that Iacchus has no logical, rational, or coherent answer to any question ever posted on the board. This has not stopped him posting ad nauseam.

His blatant and tiresome attempt to evade adressing a topic that is outside of his intellectual "comfort zone" by attempting to change the subject once again exposes his incapacity to carry on a debate. Iacchus' intellectual "comfort zone" can be measured in small multiples of the Planck length.

You bit off far too more than you can chew this time, kiddo, and your ignorance is showing. Do yourself a favor and spare yourself the equilvalent of an intellectual beat-down by admitting that your stance in regards to same-sex marriages being somehow legaly damaging and/or disastrous to their opposite-sex counterparts are based solely on your own personal prejudices, rather than on any tangible facts or evidence to the contrary.

Trust me... I am an intellectual lightweight compared to most of the other posters here on this thread, yet I am still more than capable of easily and effortlessly tearing apart any any every argument you can dream up.
Nice try, but nothing can stop the mighty onslaught of Iacchus' non sequiturs, irrelevancies, and deliberate misunderstandings. Having his arguments torn up does not deter the power of his illogic in the least.

Welsome to the club, Oh furry one. Accept now the Holy Symbol of those who strive against the Pointless One: :bwall

[Orangutango]

<Heavy sigh> Yes... you are right, of course. Better men, women and those still undecided have tried in vain to engage him in intelligent discourse, only to discover that his idea of a well-reasoned and insightful reply is to bang his head against a calculator and post whatever numbers pop up. Yup... there's no defense against that kind of razor-sharp intellect.:D

[Abbyas]

It is not the ideal and sets a bad example for the kids. Oh, and the Holy Marriage is typically portrayed between God (the Husband) and the Church (the Wife) ...

I know I'm preaching to the choir and one lone nut here, but I really want to add a point that hasn't been added.

The nuclear family of one man and one woman was not originally the ideal. Bunches and bunches of years ago, children were raised (and nursed) by many different women and grandparents. This kept mothers away from unnecessary emotional and physical strain.

There. I know the above statement will completely change Iaccus's mind. Yay for hope.

[the_bgma]

The truth of the matter is is that Iacchus has no logical, rational or coherent answer to the question posed to him ad nauseam here on this thread: How will legalizing same-sex marriage detract/diminish/effect opposite-sex marriages?


Well put!!!! Here's the relevant passage from the Book of Questions, chewing up the "next" question after gay marriage, the one most people put forth:


Q. Is homosexuality (or gay marriage) immoral?

A. We have learned that all morality is based on sympathy, so we must go back to that. Are homosexual actions between two consenting adults harmful to anyone else? Of course not. Do the participants consider it harmful to them? Obviously not, they consented to it. So why should the rest of us care whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual or something in between?

As for gay marriage, we do see a large societal benefit in marriage, straight or gay. Pair-bonding creates a more stable family environment, and gives a person someone to rely on for support. Since it hurts no one, and helps those in such a relationship, why should there be a problem with gay marriage? The same goes with raising children. There is no evidence whatsoever that children of gay couples suffer more abuse, are less well-adjusted, or are in any way less nurtured or cared-for than children of straight couples.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, homosexuality and gay marriage neither pick your pocket nor break your leg.


Q. Since homosexuality is okay, have we opened the door to child molestation, bestiality, and polygamy?

A. This is a commonly-used extrapolation by theists who argue the immorality of homosexuality. It is also quite an absurd argument. As stated above, homosexuality between consenting adults is morally acceptable. However, neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent, so any sexual activity with them would be morally unacceptable. Especially in the case of children, sexual activity is doubly immoral, in that we are both causing harm to the child and to the child’s parents.

The extrapolation to polygamy is quite curious, given the history of many religions in support of it. The bible supported polygamy and extramarital concubines, and polygamy was supported by the Mormon religion until they sought statehood in the United States. And, in some Islamic countries polygamy is still legal. Should polygamy be legal? Now we are treading into the area of cultural norms, and (if all participants are willing adults) outside the concern of mere morality. There are significant cultural benefits to only officially sanctioning pair-bonding, not the least of which is simplicity of laws. Beyond that, many cultures with polygamy have been tied to the subjugation of women and to attempts at child marriage, which are immoral.

So, although lasting polygamous relationships between consenting adults are possible and the participants should not be guilty of any crime, still there is a legitimate argument that society should only officially sanction pair-bonding with a legal status such as marriage, due to the inherent complexities and confusion of polygamy. Preventing homosexuals from using the “marriage” structure only causes undue hardships on innocent people who are otherwise fulfilling all the other duties of members of society. And granting them marriage causes little to no confusion, harm, or complexity to the rest of us.



******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[Dr Adequate]

If people want to be chums, fine, there's nothing that says they can't be chums. If they are afraid of the opposite sex however -- which I can understand, because I have had my own problems in this regard -- I mean who hasn't? :'( -- this is their problem, and does not justify bringing down an entire level of society just to "appease" their feelings of inadequacy which, is exactly what it is. There are other alternatives than "choosing" to be homosexual by the way. Hmmm ... let's change a couple of words.

If people want to be chums, fine, there's nothing that says they can't be chums. If they are afraid of the same sex however -- which I can understand, because I have had my own problems in this regard -- I mean who hasn't? :'( -- this is their problem, and does not justify bringing down an entire level of society just to "appease" their feelings of inadequacy which, is exactly what it is. There are other alternatives than "choosing" to be hetrosexual by the way. I think that's fair, is it not? Apparently the only reasons a woman might not want to have sex with a man is "fear" and "inadequacy". So the reasons a man might not want to have sex with a man?

Incidentally, Iacchus, while we're doing amateur psychoanalysis, do tell us about bisexuals. That must be the ultimate in adequacy, yes?

Well, I can't stay and chat, I have an orgy to attend ...

[Dr Adequate]

Rude? I can't think of anyone more rude than you on this damn board. You award that palm to Tricky?

Oh, now I'm just insulted.

I demand a recount!

[Hardenbergh]

Homosexuality and gay marriage are two completely different issues. I'm not homophobic (I have a few gay friends and co-workers) but I am against gay marriage. Marriage is one institution that should be held sacred without any aberration. Polygamy was practiced in Old Testament times (before Christ).

[Genesius]

Homosexuality and gay marriage are two completely different issues. I'm not homophobic (I have a few gay friends and co-workers) but I am against gay marriage. Marriage is one institution that should be held sacred without any aberration. Polygamy was practiced in Old Testament times (before Christ).

What about those of us who aren't Christians? Why should we have to follow your ideas about what is "sacred"?

If your church doesn't want to allow gay marriage, don't perform them. Just don't tell the rest of us what to do with our lives.

[Orangutango]

Marriage is one institution that should be held sacred without any aberration.

Why?

I understand that you have stated your own personal viewpoint, but if I may ask, what is the reason behind your stance?

[Dr Adequate]

Polygamy was practiced in Old Testament times (before Christ).Well hold on.

By Jesus' time, Israel had already gone monogamous.

What I can't find anywhere in the Bible is anywhere where God announces his new matrimonial policy. In the OT polygamy's taken for granted --- in the NT, monogamy.

Do any of the prophets mention it?

[Hardenbergh]

What about those of us who aren't Christians? Why should we have to follow your ideas about what is "sacred"?

If your church doesn't want to allow gay marriage, don't perform them. Just don't tell the rest of us what to do with our lives.

I obviously can't tell anyone what to do. Those people who live in a state where gay marriage is not recognized can go out of state to get married. In fact, I know of a woman who once worked as a waitress in a local restaurant who did just that. I heard that her partner had been running around with a man and the former waitress almost went berserk and even went so far as to buy a gun. Thankfully, she kept her head and never used it. To my surprise, I saw her on the arm of a very handsome man recently and she appeared to be very happy.

As for another poster's comment about children not being harmed by same-sex relationships, I can think of one case in particular. A former employee in a state government program had adopted the daughter of her partner who died. She is now in a relationship with another woman and when her daughter came in to the office to visit occasionally, she always seemed extremely nervous and once confided to another co-worker that she wasn't comfortable with her mother's relationship with this woman and was always afraid that her friends would find out. She said that she tried to appear accepting for her adoptive mother's sake but she said that she felt like she was living a lie and it caused her a great deal of stress by pretending to be one big happy family. She said that she wasn't miserable but she would be happier in a typical family with a mother and a father. I don't know her exact words but this was the way she came across to the person that she had confided in. I don't know how she felt about her mother's relationship with her birth mother because I didn't know her then. I'm not saying that all children feel this way but some children are embarrassed by such a relationship.

[Mercutio]

Ever know any children of heterosexuals who were ashamed of (or embarrassed by) their parents? If not, I could introduce you to a few...

[Abbyas]

Those people who live in a state where gay marriage is not recognized can go out of state to get married.

Where? Hawaii? Not in Mass as of today.

What does sacred mean to you? If it means what I think it means, then it has no place in an unreligious government. If it's "sacred" let your church protect it and restrict it, not the government.

[Hardenbergh]

Where? Hawaii? Not in Mass as of today.

What does sacred mean to you? If it means what I think it means, then it has no place in an unreligious government. If it's "sacred" let your church protect it and restrict it, not the government.

Here's the article:

Massachusetts Court Limits Same-Sex Marriages

By PAM BELLUCK
Published: March 30, 2006

BOSTON, March 30 — Massachusetts's highest court ruled today that same-sex couples who live in other states cannot get married in Massachusetts unless gay marriage is legal in their home states.

In an opinion written by Justice Francis X. Spina, the court upheld a 1913 statute that says that no out-of-state resident can get married in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in the person's home state, unless the person intends to live in Massachusetts. Five justices concurred, at least in part, with Justice Spina's opinion; one justice dissented.

"The laws of this commonwealth have not endowed nonresidents with an unfettered right to marry," Justice Spina wrote for the majority. "To the contrary, the rights of nonresidents to marry in Massachusetts have been specifically restricted."

He added, "I recognize that the brunt" of the law's impact "has inevitably fallen disproportionately on nonresident same-sex couples rather than on nonresident opposite-sex couples" because no other state currently allows gay marriage.

However, he said, the fact that the court had ruled in November 2003 that Massachusetts same-sex couples should be allowed to marry "does not now compel a conclusion that nonresident same-sex couples, who have no intention of living in Massachusetts, have an identical right to secure a marriage license that they could not otherwise obtain in their home states."

The original lawsuit was filed by eight out-of-state couples and 12 cities and towns, claiming the 1913 statute was discriminatory and had been invalidated by the legalization of gay marriage in the state.

In its decision, the court denied the claims of all but the couples from New York and Rhode Island, because laws in those states have not specifically outlawed said gay marriage.

The high court sent those cases back to the superior court judge who had originally denied them, asking the judge to determine whether same-sex marriage is allowed in those states.

The case began after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in May 2004. Gov. Mitt Romney, a gay marriage opponent, invoked the 1913 statute, which had been originally adopted in part to block interracial marriages. Mr. Romney refused to record marriages of out-of-state same-sex couples, saying "Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."

On Thursday, Mr. Romney said in an interview: "This is an important victory for traditional marriage and for the right to each state to be sovereign as it defines marriage. It would have been wrong for this court to impose it's same sex ruling on the other 49 states of America."

Only one justice, Roderick L. Ireland, dissented, writing that "the commonwealth's resurrection of a moribund statute to deny nonresident same-sex couples access to marriage is not only troubling," but "also is fundamentally unfair."

Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall concurred with much of the Justice Spina's opinion, but said that same-sex couples "who reside in states where they are not expressly prohibited from marrying by statute, constitutional amendment, or controlling appellate court decision, be permitted, at the very least , to present evidence to rebut the commonwealth's claim that their home state would prohibit their marriage."

Massachusetts Court Limits Same-Sex Marriages (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/national/31cnd-marriage.html?hp&ex=1143781200&en=903921786587a007&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[Abbyas]

Yes, that's right. Someone from a state that does not allow for gay marriage cannot go to Mass to get married.

That's just what I said.

You said:

Those people who live in a state where gay marriage is not recognized can go out of state to get married.

No they can't.

That's what I meant when I said this:

Where? Hawaii? Not in Mass as of today.

[Orangutango]

I obviously can't tell anyone what to do.

That's what the government is for, and that is what it is doing when the politicians you, I and everyone else help to elect into office... should they be the ones who are against same-sex unions... vote against legalizing gay marriages.

Those people who live in a state where gay marriage is not recognized can go out of state to get married.

There are a few problems with this idea, I'm afraid. One is why should gay couples need to move just in order to enjoy the same benifits given to straight couples, who do not have to relocate just in order to get married? Would you say that this is fair, where just because two individuals who happen to be of the same sex are in love and wish to enter into a legally-binding union, they should have to give up their homes, jobs, families and social networks and move to one of the precious, few states that allow same-sex unions?

One thing also to remember... in those states that do allow for same-sex civil unions, they are almost always only valid in the state where the ceramony was performed and nowhere else. So, if a gay couple from California goes to Vermont to have a civil union, then heads back... the state of California is not legally bound to acknowledge nor afford any of the rights and privileges of a civil union to that same-sex couple.

As for another poster's comment about children not being harmed by same-sex relationships, I can think of one case in particular. A former employee in a state government program had adopted the daughter of her partner who died. She is now in a relationship with another woman and when her daughter came in to the office to visit occasionally, she always seemed extremely nervous and once confided to another co-worker that she wasn't comfortable with her mother's relationship with this woman and was always afraid that her friends would find out. She said that she tried to appear accepting for her adoptive mother's sake but she said that she felt like she was living a lie and it caused her a great deal of stress by pretending to be one big happy family. She said that she wasn't miserable but she would be happier in a typical family with a mother and a father. I don't know her exact words but this was the way she came across to the person that she had confided in. I don't know how she felt about her mother's relationship with her birth mother because I didn't know her then. I'm not saying that all children feel this way but some children are embarrassed by such a relationship.

I think the word "harmed" is used in a very, loose context here.

To expound on what Mercutio had said... it is also completely understandable for a child to feel "uncomfortable" around a new stepmother or stepfather should their heterosexual, biological parents divorce, then remarry to another person. This is not reason enough of a reason to deny them from doing so, just as it is not enough of a reason to deny gay parents from getting married.

The bottom line is that there is, nor has there ever been, any studies or evidence to show that homosexuals parents are somehow detrimental to the well-being of their children. Not only that, but who can deny that giving these children a stable home with married parents... whether they be gay or straight... is not a desirable thing?

[Genesius]

Ever know any children of heterosexuals who were ashamed of (or embarrassed by) their parents? If not, I could introduce you to a few...

As a counterpoint to Hardenbergh's example: My wife is bisexual (yes, I have her OK to post this info). In between her first marriage and our marriage, she lived in a monogamous lesbian relationship for 5 years along with her daughter. Holly had no problem at all living in a family with two moms and to this day gives her classmates royal h*ll if they say anything homophobic around her. With the amazing clarity of purpose often found in teenagers, she feels anyone who is against gay marriage should be "slapped until their brains start working." Fortunately her boyfriend has no problem with gays, otherwise there might be bloodshed.

:D Gotta love that kid.

[bluess]

Hardenbergh,

What about polygamy with multiple male and female partners? OK, unless the men are boffing the men and the women boffng the women?

[Genesius]

Hardenbergh,

What about polygamy with multiple male and female partners? OK, unless the men are boffing the men and the women boffng the women?

Got any videos of such people?

<ahem> Strictly for research into the question at hand, of course. . .

:D

[bluess]

Hey, let's not sully another thread.

[Gravy]

Yep, that pretty much sums up what I've said here so far. Isn't that just awful?

Uh, no, Iacchus. You equated loving a person of the same sex with licentiousness, and suggested that it's one step from bestiality. You're right up there with leading lights like Rick Santorum.

[arthwollipot]

(munches popcorn, waits for Iacchus' view on bisexuality and polyamory)

[bruto]

Homosexuality and gay marriage are two completely different issues. I'm not homophobic (I have a few gay friends and co-workers) but I am against gay marriage. Marriage is one institution that should be held sacred without any aberration. Polygamy was practiced in Old Testament times (before Christ).

First of all, the simple question is obviously "why?" Why must civil marriage be held sacred without any aberration? It's so easy to say, but is it so easy to explain?

Second, CIVIL marriage is not, and never was, sacred unless the persons involved decide to consider it so. It is a civil institution involving certain civil rights and obligations. Holy matrimiony is an overlapping option. These rights are not available to anybody who does not marry, and therefore they are not available to anybody who, for reasons such as homosexual orientation, cannot marry (unless of course you believe that marriage should be trivialized by the idea that homosexuals should enter loveless heterosexual marriages for ulterior reasons).

In answer to your later post, it's already been pointed out that Massachusetts, for example, does not allow out of state couples to marry. It should also be pointed out that gay marriages and civil unions are not recognized outside of the states that allow them, and therefore suggesting that getting an out of state marriage is a solution to those who live in states where it is unavailable is a pretty stupid "let them eat cake" kind of suggestion.

[gnome]

It's a way of saying "I don't mind if they do, as long as it isn't near me." Whence comes this right to dictate what your neighbors are allowed to do? (absent a proven standard of harm)

[Orangutango]

(munches popcorn, waits for Iacchus' view on bisexuality and polyamory)

It seems that Iacchus has been suspended for some unknown reason. Anybody have any idea what for?

[Genesius]

It seems that Iacchus has been suspended for some unknown reason. Anybody have any idea what for?
Hmmm. . . nothing in Public Notices. C'mon Mods, give us the scoop!

Until then, may I just say. . .

YAHOO!!!
:yahoo
:thanks

:Banane24::purplebananna::Banane34::not_ripe:

[Orangutango]

Interesting.... he is currently logged on.

[Mercutio]

Actually, it is a "red tape" sort of reason, and not related to anything he has posted. That's all I will say, to preserve his privacy.

[Hardenbergh]

Deleted

[cyborg]

Marriage is one institution that should be held sacred without any aberration.

Then we should do away with the idea that anyone should get married out of romantic notions.

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, let's not sully another thread. Well, could I put in a word for sullying?

* gets sullied and loves it *

Otherwise, I'd like Hardenberg to answer my question about the change from polygamy to monogamy.

Once it was a sign of God's favor to have lots of wives and concubines (sex slaves). Now it's a bad thing. The NT just takes it for granted that it's a bad thing. Where did God change his mind? Where did he say so? Why, for so long, were his favorite people polygamists who owned sex slaves?

[Hardenbergh]

Otherwise, I'd like Hardenberg to answer my question about the change from polygamy to monogamy.

Once it was a sign of God's favor to have lots of wives and concubines (sex slaves). Now it's a bad thing. The NT just takes it for granted that it's a bad thing. Where did God change his mind? Where did he say so? Why, for so long, were his favorite people polygamists who owned sex slaves?

This article should address some of your questions about the change from polygamy to monogamy. There are many others if you want to take the time to research it.

http://www.british-israel.ca/Polygamy.htm

[Hardenbergh]

Actually, it is a "red tape" sort of reason, and not related to anything he has posted. That's all I will say, to preserve his privacy.

I posted this yesterday in the Must Gay Marriage Advocates Endorse Polygamy thread in the Politics Forums but I thought I should also post it in this thread as Iacchus posts almost exclusively in the Religion and Philosophy forum. There's a new forum Fun at JREF in the Dionysus Forums with a new thread titled the The Gay Question (dionysusforums.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=jref&action=display&thread=1143920626) if anyone is interested in reading or participating.

Please note there is also a thread with an explanation about Iacchus' Suspension at JREF (http://dionysusforums.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=announce&action=display&thread=1143718177)

[Complexity]

Hardenbergh - Iacchus has been suspended and is not allowed to post.

Why are you conveying his messages to this forum on his behalf?

[Hardenbergh]

Hardenbergh - Iacchus has been suspended and is not allowed to post.

Why are you conveying his messages to this forum on his behalf?

Is Iacchus' name Hardenbergh? I posted this message as there may be some :eye-poppi JREF members that may be puzzled by his suspension.

The fact that Iacchus has been suspended doesn't mean that I can't utter his name or refer to him in the forums.

[kuroyume0161]

(munches popcorn, waits for Iacchus' view on bisexuality and polyamory)

Pass the popcorn, please. :)

[Mercutio]

Hardenbergh - Iacchus has been suspended and is not allowed to post.

Why are you conveying his messages to this forum on his behalf?
I would not interpret this as posting on Iacchus's behalf. This is closer to the reports we have been getting from Loose Change, despite the bannings of at least one person from there--that is, a report of what's going on, rather than an attempt to plead a case on someone's behalf.

Feel free to report it, though, for discussion by the mod group, if you disagree. This is just my opinion.

[bruto]

I would not interpret this as posting on Iacchus's behalf. This is closer to the reports we have been getting from Loose Change, despite the bannings of at least one person from there--that is, a report of what's going on, rather than an attempt to plead a case on someone's behalf.

Feel free to report it, though, for discussion by the mod group, if you disagree. This is just my opinion.

I was curious about Iacchus's suspension too, but not seriously curious enough to wade through his forum to find out more. I'm happy to have someone else do the dirty work. Whatever Hardenburgh's personal opinions or sympathies may be, his post isn't either a continuation of Iacchus's argument here, or an attempt to contest the suspension. Just a link to an explanation that we can read as we please.

[Orangutango]

I, too, have been keeping up with that wascally wabbit's musings over at his own message board. Personally, I do not wish to inflate his pompous ego any further by giving his site any action... I'll sit back and await his return here to continue his intellectual drubbing.

Anyways... Risa's got it all under control...;)

[Melendwyr]

Hardenbergh - Iacchus has been suspended and is not allowed to post.

Why are you conveying his messages to this forum on his behalf? What messages do you believe Hardenbergh has conveyed? I see nothing that would obviously have come from Iacchus, and little that could non-obviously have come from Iacchus.

[arthwollipot]

Pass the popcorn, please. :)

Sorry, I think I've run out.