FREE TAPATALK APP

elipse · 9th May 2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You don't; you explain why the behavior is immoral.
Seeing immorality displayed on television or in literature is very different than having a teacher sit your nine-year-old down and read her a book on how men and women having extramarital sex is perfectly normal behavior.

I think so.

But...Avalon,

I've read King and King. It doesn't mention that the two men who are married have sex.There's no mention of sex AT ALL, just like there's no mention of sex in ANY book for kindergarteners that would be read in school. So as far as the kids in kindergarten are concerned, you can either tell your own kids that the two men are in a totally moral, sexless marriage, or that they are having sex and are therefore immoral.

Either way, YOU'LL be the one introducing the topic of sex. So how is reading King and King in a classroom bad?

Also, the vast, vast majority of children's books with heterosexual parents do not specifically mention that they are married. Do you have to sit down with your kids to mention that if they are not, they are bad, bad immoral people?

If you are only concerned with the immorality of homosexual sex, that's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC than gay marriage. Gay people have sex without marriage, and some of them will have marriage without sex.

So why, if homosexual sex is what you object to, would you object to a teacher reading a book about two men getting married?

...One more thing. Most people today have sex before they get married. Would you object to a book for children that told the story of an aunt getting married if it did not explicitly state that the aunt had not lived with the new uncle beforehand? Because, really, it would be reasonable to conclude, if that's not mentioned, that she did live with him beforehand. That's just the way things are done these days.

Or what about if that same book had a sentence like "The wedding is going to be small, in their backyard. We all went over to pull weeds, and I got a sunburn."

This shows the two people lived together before marriage. Would you object to a book that showed the reality of people's lives in this way? Would you support sueing a school over it?

truethat · 9th May 2012, 04:04 PM

Children's books that mention people having sex would not be considered Children's books. But I guess Shrek is off his list of movies ok for his kids if that's his angle. Do you agree with that Avalon? Did your kids watch Shrek?

elipse · 9th May 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Children's books that mention people having sex would not be considered Children's books. But I guess Shrek is off his list of movies ok for his kids if that's his angle. Do you agree with that Avalon? Did your kids watch Shrek?

Actually, I specifically added that part about "read in school" because there are books that talk about sex and babies for that age group. They're not graphic or anything, but they do mention sex. Obviously they're not books that schools read to children, they're for parents who want to answer kids' questions.

Does Shrek mention sex? I don't remember that...

Lowpro · 9th May 2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by elipse

Actually, I specifically added that part about "read in school" because there are books that talk about sex and babies for that age group. They're not graphic or anything, but they do mention sex. Obviously they're not books that schools read to children, they're for parents who want to answer kids' questions.

Does Shrek mention sex? I don't remember that...

Donkey and Dragon aren't married, are of different species entirely, and have donkeydragon babies.

Mudcat · 9th May 2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Children's books that mention people having sex would not be considered Children's books. But I guess Shrek is off his list of movies ok for his kids if that's his angle. Do you agree with that Avalon? Did your kids watch Shrek?

It would be more their speed to lock out all of reality, which usually doesn't conform to their curious, unempethetic and cruel sense of morality. A largely ineffective and harmful measure if you ask me.

bookitty · 9th May 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

... which emphasizes the point, yet again, that there's no reason to keep calling the bloody thing marriage.

It's not between a man and a woman.

It's not about love or sex or procreation.

There's no requirement of exclusivity.

It's a property, child custody, and inheritence arrangement with some tax benefits.

It's a domestic partnership, for Pete's sake. Call it that, and a fair amount of the opposition fades away overnight.

Nope. That doesn't work. You can't have "special" marriage with a different name just for the LGBT community. They deserve the same exact rights that all citizens have because they are citizens. (I know, it sounds tautological but as they don't have equal rights now, it's really not.)

truethat · 9th May 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Donkey and Dragon aren't married, are of different species entirely, and have donkeydragon babies.

Yep.

Piscivore · 9th May 2012, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Children's books that mention people having sex would not be considered Children's books.

Depends on the child, I guess. My daughter read "Running with Scissors" when she was fourteen.

truethat · 9th May 2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Depends on the child, I guess. My daughter read "Running with Scissors" when she was fourteen.

I wouldn't consider 14 a child on par with a 9 year old. 14 year old books wouldn't be considered "Children's Books" to me.

Piscivore · 9th May 2012, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

I wouldn't consider 14 a child on par with a 9 year old. 14 year old books wouldn't be considered "Children's Books" to me.

It was a joke, it's not even a young adult book.

truethat · 9th May 2012, 04:52 PM

I read The World According to Garp when I was 14

crimresearch · 9th May 2012, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Don't worry about it; no such consequences exist.

A lot of states have constitutional amendments worded very similarly to this one. It's had no effect on standard marriages being recognized everywhere.

It will when the first military married gay couple gets orders to NC, and files as a married couple for state income tax purposes.

There are consequences, the shell game just hasn't played out all the way yet.

crimresearch · 9th May 2012, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm tired of having my motives impugned.

I've been advocating the abolition of marriage in government on this very forum pretty much since I got here. Look it up.

So I don't need you to tell me what I do or do not support, or why. You don't know me; you don't know my beliefs or my motives. So address my arguments, or back the heck off.

You refuse to address your own arguments, even when they are directly quoted to you a few posts later, so your fake outrage is as unconvincing as your assertions backed only by silence.

bookitty · 9th May 2012, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

California disagrees with you.

Or does the fact that the most populous State established domestic partnerships with explicitly all the same benefits of marriage, and then passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as opposite-sex-only, not count as evidence?

Yeah, you know, as a Californian I'm still pretty pissed at the Mormons. This isn't even their state and yet they're willing to spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns to mess with us.

A few pages back you parroted the usual NOM anti-gay rhetoric. Care to guess how I knew so quickly why it was all bogus? Months of phone calls, months of people telling me that they aren't bigoted but they really don't think churches should be force to marry gays. Or teach children about gay sex, or be jailed for a hate crime if they don't want gays in their church. A Hispanic woman told me how her church was telling the congregation that illegal aliens would have their children taken away and given to homosexual families.

All these total absolute lies, exaggerations, and twisted crap. I still don't know how any of those churches kept their tax exempt status after that.

JDC · 9th May 2012, 08:01 PM

Dear AvalonXQ,

I'm not sure how to put this into words but ...

I am genuinely impressed with you! You obviously have some deeply held beliefs and this is an emotional topic for you but you seem to be slowly putting that aside and viewing the issue from a rights and equality perspective.

As I age (and had sooo many arguments of my own ... and watched the crazy threads here between intelligent people) I had started to give up on the whole reasoned debate thing. You are changing that!

Everyone else, maybe retract the claws (I know its very emotional on the other side too) a bit and keep the conversation civil. Avalon seems to be genuinely listening and thinking about it.

Cheers to all!

Nay_Sayer · 9th May 2012, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Nope. That doesn't work. You can't have "special" marriage with a different name just for the LGBT community. They deserve the same exact rights that all citizens have because they are citizens. (I know, it sounds tautological but as they don't have equal rights now, it's really not.)

A simple concept. I can only dream of a day when it's the norm across the board.

Apparently some people cannot get over their own inadequacies towards the LBGT community.

I wonder why they have not tried to ban divorce.

SezMe · 9th May 2012, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Because, see, when you get married there is a cultural expectation of love, and sex, and possibly kids. And monogamy. And a bunch of other stuff, depending on the culture.

For the sake of this thread, suppose I agree. But the culture is changing, those expectations are changing and so marriage is changing. If your culture comes to see homosexuality as the expected norm, will you then approve of it?

Mashuna · 9th May 2012, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nobody has the right to my approval or society's approval. Westboro Baptist can picket funerals all day long, and has the right to do so. That doesn't mean I have to like them or have to agree with their views. Nor do they have any right to have the government endorse their views or teach my kids that their behavior is acceptable or appropriate.

Would you consider it ok for a teacher to teach your kids that the behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church is unacceptable and inappropriate?

Mudcat · 9th May 2012, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Would you consider it ok for a teacher to teach your kids that the behaviour of the Westforo Baptist Church is unacceptable and inappropriate?

If I had kids I wouldn't wait until they were in school before explaining that to them myself.

tsig · 10th May 2012, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Wasn't missed.

Ignored then.

Belz... · 10th May 2012, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Good Lt

Moreover, they'll cling to a particular Old Testament verse or two while discarding other verses about owning slaves, subjugating women, beating children, etc.

Not sure why they're so fixated on those particular verses about whom a person choose to sleep with, to be honest. Always wondered about this.

Remember: religion isn't the source of their beliefs, but the excuse.

Andrew Wiggin · 10th May 2012, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Marriage is an endorsement of a monogamous lifestyle where two people in love share bills and property ownership.

The highlighted bit is post-medieval. The underlying intent was to promote stability and family allegiances. Love was optional, and would happen if you were lucky enough to love the person you were arranged to marry.

mutile · 10th May 2012, 04:13 AM

This makes me sad. I think it is disgusting and all religious moderates who provide protection for those who preach this kind of nonsense are contemptible. To all those standing in the way of others happiness, shame on you.

ponderingturtle · 10th May 2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Expound upon that, please?

How is, "you can have any lifestyle you want, but that doesn't give you the right to indoctrinate my kids about what lifestyles are or are not moral" not a live-and-let-live attitude?

How is, "you can perform any ceremony you want, but we only perform ceremonies that reflect our beliefs about marriage" not a live-and-let-live attitude?

How is, "you can print anything you want, but I'm not going to print material I disagree with" not a live-and-let-live attitude?

Since when does "live-and-let-live" mean "I do what I want, and you also do what I want (you bigot)"?

Where is the outrage that in school I learned nothing about the evilness of jews, the moral deficiency of blacks and so on? Why are those ok to educate against?

There is in general laws about being open to the public, but true it is a shame we have to treat papists as something other than the demon worshiping scum they are.

Or wait do you support laws against discriminating against these groups for some reason but not against gays?

ponderingturtle · 10th May 2012, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, seriously.

I genuinely believe in equal rights. I still believe the behavior is immoral.

I believe that people have the right to do all sorts of immoral things that I don't want to become socially acceptable and I don't want the school to endorse.

So they should have equal rights but those rights should not be protected in any way.

AvalonXQ · 10th May 2012, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Nope. That doesn't work. You can't have "special" marriage with a different name just for the LGBT community.

I don't mean just call it a domestic partnership for gays -- I mean just call it a domestic partnership for everybody.

As has been pointed out, it's so far away from the cultural expectations and obligations of "marriage" to be laughable. I submit that if we were coming up with a name for what the government allows and requires today, "marriage" would not pop up in the top five.

AvalonXQ · 10th May 2012, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

For the sake of this thread, suppose I agree. But the culture is changing, those expectations are changing and so marriage is changing. If your culture comes to see homosexuality as the expected norm, will you then approve of it?

No, I won't.

But if we can keep the government out of the equation, then it won't matter what I do or don't approve of -- people who believe in gay marriage will call it marriage, others will say "it's not really marriage", and we'll continue to argue morality without unreasonable government interference.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So they should have equal rights but those rights should not be protected in any way.

Sorry, but I have no idea how you got that from anything I said.

ponderingturtle · 10th May 2012, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So you find gay marriage to be immoral.

Does it then follow from your previous comments that you would support the rights of gays to marry?

If not, then how can you claim to be for equal rights?

Because it is "Equal Rights*"

*Some exemptions may apply.

ponderingturtle · 10th May 2012, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

I haz a confuzzled.

AvalonXQ, do you ensure that your children are never exposed to any information about sex between unmarried heterosexual couples which presents their relationship in a positive light? Great swathes of classic literature is suddenly off-limits, any television show where a heterosexual couple is unmarried gets switched off, any mention of a celebrity couple who are unmarried is forbidden... I simply do not see how this could be achieved in the 21st century in the West.

At least we can get smut like Shakespeare and the bible out of our classrooms.

AvalonXQ · 10th May 2012, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Yeah, you know, as a Californian I'm still pretty pissed at the Mormons. This isn't even their state and yet they're willing to spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns to mess with us.

Yeah, this is a bit of rhetoric that really bothers me.

Black, Hispanics, and Catholics were all large supporters of Prop 8, but see, those groups aren't popular to bash.

Despite Catholic diocese coming out in favor of the Proposition, there were no commercials with a Catholic priest breaking into someone's home and assaulting them.

Despite what black community churches were saying, no commercial had a couple of black men show up and take away wedding rings.

No, it was all the Mormons' fault -- because people are already suspicious of Mormons; their religion is "weird". And because they're generally white, they're a "safe" target in California.

The vandalism and violence suffered by Mormons during and after Prop 8 was completely unreasonable. If pretty much any other minority had been targeted the way they were, liberals would have been outraged.

But apparently violence against a minority group is okay when you need to target someone for your frustration at losing a vote.

ponderingturtle · 10th May 2012, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

We do limit marriage on the basis of sexual relations, though. For instance, we don't allow close relatives to marry on the basis of problems with incestual breeding.

I think if we get to the point where civil unions are just another tax status, we're likely to see siblings, for example, who take the status for purely that reason.

No we limit it because of societal taboos. The inbreeding thing is a more recent rationalization of existing laws. If it were truly about that we would outlaw many other marriages known to be worse genetically, like between acondroplastic dwarfs.

AvalonXQ · 10th May 2012, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No we limit it because of societal taboos. The inbreeding thing is a more recent rationalization of existing laws.

I was not aware of that. Thanks for the clarification.

ponderingturtle · 10th May 2012, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yeah, this is a bit of rhetoric that really bothers me.

Black, Hispanics, and Catholics were all large supporters of Prop 8, but see, those groups aren't popular to bash.

Have you noticed how many people here bash catholics? The biggest thing that correlated with voting for that was how often someone went to church.

And the mormons did spread a lot of lies, or as people view them religious truths.

And why aren't you up in arms about the indoctrination that blacks are equal to whites in school? Why is that take on an issue ok?

AvalonXQ · 10th May 2012, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Have you noticed how many people here bash catholics?

I'm talking about the violence and vitriole directed specifically against Mormons by the No on 8 folks.

Even bookitty bought into this rhetoric.

ZirconBlue · 10th May 2012, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

... which emphasizes the point, yet again, that there's no reason to keep calling the bloody thing marriage.

It's not between a man and a woman.

It's not about love or sex or procreation.

There's no requirement of exclusivity.

It's a property, child custody, and inheritence arrangement with some tax benefits.

It's a domestic partnership, for Pete's sake. Call it that, and a fair amount of the opposition fades away overnight.

Exactly the opposite of my point, actually. No two marriages are the same, and it shouldn't be up to others to define what my marriage is.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Evidence?

The NC Amendment specifically bars recognition of any "domestic partnership" or "civil union", so, clearly it isn't just about "marriage".

AvalonXQ · 10th May 2012, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Exactly the opposite of my point, actually. No two marriages are the same, and it shouldn't be up to others to define what my marriage is.

No two marriages are the same, and it shouldn't be up to the government to define what marriage is.
If you allow the government to define it, then you are by definition allowing others to define it. And they might not define it in a way you agree.

Quote:

The NC Amendment specifically bars recognition of any "domestic partnership" or "civil union", so, clearly it isn't just about "marriage".

Agreed.

Ethan Thane Athen · 10th May 2012, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Agatha

...rather than risk a derail about male gay sex being icky in the minds of some bigoted people...

Interesting. I find the idea of male sex icky (though mostly if it involves any 'up the downpipe' action and I find that 'icky' whatever the gender). I probably am bigoted (I think most of us are to a greater or lesser extent) but I wouldn't have said I'm bigoted for that - that's just a personal taste / preference isn't it? I wouldn't seek to stop other people doing it if they enjoyed it - though I might say 'Urghh' if they tell me about it...just as I'd say 'Urghh' if someone said they liked eating Brussel Sprouts - or 'the devil's testacles' as I prefer to call them!

Ethan Thane Athen · 10th May 2012, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

... Marriage doesn't matter about sexual relationships, not legally...

Is this bit right? In the UK it certainly used to be about sex as it could be annulled if it wasn't consummated... Didn't it also used to be the practice (at least of Royalty etc) to show off the stained bedsheets to prove it had been consummated (and that the bride was a virgin)?

ponderingturtle · 10th May 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Interesting. I find the idea of male sex icky (though mostly if it involves any 'up the downpipe' action and I find that 'icky' whatever the gender). I probably am bigoted (I think most of us are to a greater or lesser extent) but I wouldn't have said I'm bigoted for that - that's just a personal taste / preference isn't it? I wouldn't seek to stop other people doing it if they enjoyed it - though I might say 'Urghh' if they tell me about it...just as I'd say 'Urghh' if someone said they liked eating Brussel Sprouts - or 'the devil's testacles' as I prefer to call them!

You certainly have a faulty equation between anal sex and gay sex. Many gay men don't like anal sex either, only around 60% regularly have anal sex.

It is not about what sex there is but which is having it that makes it gay or straight. The only exceptions are genital genital sex that varies between groupings.

Pup · 10th May 2012, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You certainly have a faulty equation between anal sex and gay sex. Many gay men don't like anal sex either, only around 60% regularly have anal sex.

It is not about what sex there is but which is having it that makes it gay or straight. The only exceptions are genital genital sex that varies between groupings.

I pretty much agree with Ethan Thane Athen, but it's not about anal sex. Two men kissing or holding hands is icky. A man and woman having oral sex is icky too, for that matter. I'd rather lick a brussels sprout.

But that has no bearing on the fact that I'm for gay marriage, for including all combinations of parents in books for children as if it were perfectly natural, because it is, and for allowing brussels sprouts in school lunchrooms.

So I don't think there's necessarily a 1:1 correlation between bigotry and ickiness.

9th May 2012, 03:44 PM	#121
elipse Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,917	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ You don't; you explain why the behavior is immoral. Seeing immorality displayed on television or in literature is very different than having a teacher sit your nine-year-old down and read her a book on how men and women having extramarital sex is perfectly normal behavior. I think so. But...Avalon, I've read King and King. It doesn't mention that the two men who are married have sex.There's no mention of sex AT ALL, just like there's no mention of sex in ANY book for kindergarteners that would be read in school. So as far as the kids in kindergarten are concerned, you can either tell your own kids that the two men are in a totally moral, sexless marriage, or that they are having sex and are therefore immoral. Either way, YOU'LL be the one introducing the topic of sex. So how is reading King and King in a classroom bad? Also, the vast, vast majority of children's books with heterosexual parents do not specifically mention that they are married. Do you have to sit down with your kids to mention that if they are not, they are bad, bad immoral people? If you are only concerned with the immorality of homosexual sex, that's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC than gay marriage. Gay people have sex without marriage, and some of them will have marriage without sex. So why, if homosexual sex is what you object to, would you object to a teacher reading a book about two men getting married? ...One more thing. Most people today have sex before they get married. Would you object to a book for children that told the story of an aunt getting married if it did not explicitly state that the aunt had not lived with the new uncle beforehand? Because, really, it would be reasonable to conclude, if that's not mentioned, that she did live with him beforehand. That's just the way things are done these days. Or what about if that same book had a sentence like "The wedding is going to be small, in their backyard. We all went over to pull weeds, and I got a sunburn." This shows the two people lived together before marriage. Would you object to a book that showed the reality of people's lives in this way? Would you support sueing a school over it?
elipse Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,917	__________________ either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue

9th May 2012, 04:04 PM	#122
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Children's books that mention people having sex would not be considered Children's books. But I guess Shrek is off his list of movies ok for his kids if that's his angle. Do you agree with that Avalon? Did your kids watch Shrek?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

9th May 2012, 04:16 PM	#123
elipse Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,917	Originally Posted by truethat Children's books that mention people having sex would not be considered Children's books. But I guess Shrek is off his list of movies ok for his kids if that's his angle. Do you agree with that Avalon? Did your kids watch Shrek? Actually, I specifically added that part about "read in school" because there are books that talk about sex and babies for that age group. They're not graphic or anything, but they do mention sex. Obviously they're not books that schools read to children, they're for parents who want to answer kids' questions. Does Shrek mention sex? I don't remember that...
elipse Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,917	__________________ either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue

9th May 2012, 04:23 PM	#124
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,642	Originally Posted by elipse Actually, I specifically added that part about "read in school" because there are books that talk about sex and babies for that age group. They're not graphic or anything, but they do mention sex. Obviously they're not books that schools read to children, they're for parents who want to answer kids' questions. Does Shrek mention sex? I don't remember that... Donkey and Dragon aren't married, are of different species entirely, and have donkeydragon babies.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

9th May 2012, 04:23 PM	#125
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,766	Originally Posted by truethat Children's books that mention people having sex would not be considered Children's books. But I guess Shrek is off his list of movies ok for his kids if that's his angle. Do you agree with that Avalon? Did your kids watch Shrek? It would be more their speed to lock out all of reality, which usually doesn't conform to their curious, unempethetic and cruel sense of morality. A largely ineffective and harmful measure if you ask me.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

9th May 2012, 04:32 PM	#126
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ ... which emphasizes the point, yet again, that there's no reason to keep calling the bloody thing marriage. It's not between a man and a woman. It's not about love or sex or procreation. There's no requirement of exclusivity. It's a property, child custody, and inheritence arrangement with some tax benefits. It's a domestic partnership, for Pete's sake. Call it that, and a fair amount of the opposition fades away overnight. Nope. That doesn't work. You can't have "special" marriage with a different name just for the LGBT community. They deserve the same exact rights that all citizens have because they are citizens. (I know, it sounds tautological but as they don't have equal rights now, it's really not.)
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

9th May 2012, 04:36 PM	#127
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by Lowpro Donkey and Dragon aren't married, are of different species entirely, and have donkeydragon babies. Yep.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

9th May 2012, 04:41 PM	#128
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,561	Originally Posted by truethat Children's books that mention people having sex would not be considered Children's books. Depends on the child, I guess. My daughter read "Running with Scissors" when she was fourteen.
	__________________ [R]evenge is a dish best served screaming and insane. - TM "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

9th May 2012, 04:46 PM	#129
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by Piscivore Depends on the child, I guess. My daughter read "Running with Scissors" when she was fourteen. I wouldn't consider 14 a child on par with a 9 year old. 14 year old books wouldn't be considered "Children's Books" to me.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

9th May 2012, 04:47 PM	#130
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,561	Originally Posted by truethat I wouldn't consider 14 a child on par with a 9 year old. 14 year old books wouldn't be considered "Children's Books" to me. It was a joke, it's not even a young adult book.
	__________________ [R]evenge is a dish best served screaming and insane. - TM "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

9th May 2012, 04:52 PM	#131
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	I read The World According to Garp when I was 14
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

9th May 2012, 06:57 PM	#132
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Don't worry about it; no such consequences exist. A lot of states have constitutional amendments worded very similarly to this one. It's had no effect on standard marriages being recognized everywhere. It will when the first military married gay couple gets orders to NC, and files as a married couple for state income tax purposes. There are consequences, the shell game just hasn't played out all the way yet.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

9th May 2012, 07:03 PM	#133
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'm tired of having my motives impugned. I've been advocating the abolition of marriage in government on this very forum pretty much since I got here. Look it up. So I don't need you to tell me what I do or do not support, or why. You don't know me; you don't know my beliefs or my motives. So address my arguments, or back the heck off. You refuse to address your own arguments, even when they are directly quoted to you a few posts later, so your fake outrage is as unconvincing as your assertions backed only by silence.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

9th May 2012, 07:06 PM	#134
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ California disagrees with you. Or does the fact that the most populous State established domestic partnerships with explicitly all the same benefits of marriage, and then passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as opposite-sex-only, not count as evidence? Yeah, you know, as a Californian I'm still pretty pissed at the Mormons. This isn't even their state and yet they're willing to spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns to mess with us. A few pages back you parroted the usual NOM anti-gay rhetoric. Care to guess how I knew so quickly why it was all bogus? Months of phone calls, months of people telling me that they aren't bigoted but they really don't think churches should be force to marry gays. Or teach children about gay sex, or be jailed for a hate crime if they don't want gays in their church. A Hispanic woman told me how her church was telling the congregation that illegal aliens would have their children taken away and given to homosexual families. All these total absolute lies, exaggerations, and twisted crap. I still don't know how any of those churches kept their tax exempt status after that.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

9th May 2012, 08:01 PM	#135
JDC Scholar Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Hamilton, Ontario Posts: 104	Dear AvalonXQ, I'm not sure how to put this into words but ... I am genuinely impressed with you! You obviously have some deeply held beliefs and this is an emotional topic for you but you seem to be slowly putting that aside and viewing the issue from a rights and equality perspective. As I age (and had sooo many arguments of my own ... and watched the crazy threads here between intelligent people) I had started to give up on the whole reasoned debate thing. You are changing that! Everyone else, maybe retract the claws (I know its very emotional on the other side too) a bit and keep the conversation civil. Avalon seems to be genuinely listening and thinking about it. Cheers to all!

9th May 2012, 10:46 PM	#136
Nay_Sayer Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 779	Originally Posted by bookitty Nope. That doesn't work. You can't have "special" marriage with a different name just for the LGBT community. They deserve the same exact rights that all citizens have because they are citizens. (I know, it sounds tautological but as they don't have equal rights now, it's really not.) A simple concept. I can only dream of a day when it's the norm across the board. Apparently some people cannot get over their own inadequacies towards the LBGT community. I wonder why they have not tried to ban divorce.
	Last edited by Nay_Sayer; 9th May 2012 at 11:07 PM.

9th May 2012, 11:49 PM	#137
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,645	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Because, see, when you get married there is a cultural expectation of love, and sex, and possibly kids. And monogamy. And a bunch of other stuff, depending on the culture. For the sake of this thread, suppose I agree. But the culture is changing, those expectations are changing and so marriage is changing. If your culture comes to see homosexuality as the expected norm, will you then approve of it?

9th May 2012, 11:49 PM	#138
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,589	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Nobody has the right to my approval or society's approval. Westboro Baptist can picket funerals all day long, and has the right to do so. That doesn't mean I have to like them or have to agree with their views. Nor do they have any right to have the government endorse their views or teach my kids that their behavior is acceptable or appropriate. Would you consider it ok for a teacher to teach your kids that the behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church is unacceptable and inappropriate?
	Last edited by Mashuna; 10th May 2012 at 12:09 AM.

9th May 2012, 11:53 PM	#139
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,766	Originally Posted by Mashuna Would you consider it ok for a teacher to teach your kids that the behaviour of the Westforo Baptist Church is unacceptable and inappropriate? If I had kids I wouldn't wait until they were in school before explaining that to them myself.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

10th May 2012, 02:46 AM	#140
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,243	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Wasn't missed. Ignored then.

10th May 2012, 02:59 AM	#141
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,974	Originally Posted by Good Lt Moreover, they'll cling to a particular Old Testament verse or two while discarding other verses about owning slaves, subjugating women, beating children, etc. Not sure why they're so fixated on those particular verses about whom a person choose to sleep with, to be honest. Always wondered about this. Remember: religion isn't the source of their beliefs, but the excuse.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey

10th May 2012, 03:55 AM	#142
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by godless dave Marriage is an endorsement of a monogamous lifestyle where two people in love share bills and property ownership. The highlighted bit is post-medieval. The underlying intent was to promote stability and family allegiances. Love was optional, and would happen if you were lucky enough to love the person you were arranged to marry.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

10th May 2012, 04:13 AM	#143
mutile Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 525	This makes me sad. I think it is disgusting and all religious moderates who provide protection for those who preach this kind of nonsense are contemptible. To all those standing in the way of others happiness, shame on you.
mutile Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 525

10th May 2012, 04:47 AM	#144
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Expound upon that, please? How is, "you can have any lifestyle you want, but that doesn't give you the right to indoctrinate my kids about what lifestyles are or are not moral" not a live-and-let-live attitude? How is, "you can perform any ceremony you want, but we only perform ceremonies that reflect our beliefs about marriage" not a live-and-let-live attitude? How is, "you can print anything you want, but I'm not going to print material I disagree with" not a live-and-let-live attitude? Since when does "live-and-let-live" mean "I do what I want, and you also do what I want (you bigot)"? Where is the outrage that in school I learned nothing about the evilness of jews, the moral deficiency of blacks and so on? Why are those ok to educate against? There is in general laws about being open to the public, but true it is a shame we have to treat papists as something other than the demon worshiping scum they are. Or wait do you support laws against discriminating against these groups for some reason but not against gays?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

10th May 2012, 04:54 AM	#145
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Yes, seriously. I genuinely believe in equal rights. I still believe the behavior is immoral. I believe that people have the right to do all sorts of immoral things that I don't want to become socially acceptable and I don't want the school to endorse. So they should have equal rights but those rights should not be protected in any way.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

10th May 2012, 04:57 AM	#146
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by bookitty Nope. That doesn't work. You can't have "special" marriage with a different name just for the LGBT community. I don't mean just call it a domestic partnership for gays -- I mean just call it a domestic partnership for everybody. As has been pointed out, it's so far away from the cultural expectations and obligations of "marriage" to be laughable. I submit that if we were coming up with a name for what the government allows and requires today, "marriage" would not pop up in the top five.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th May 2012, 04:59 AM	#147
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by SezMe For the sake of this thread, suppose I agree. But the culture is changing, those expectations are changing and so marriage is changing. If your culture comes to see homosexuality as the expected norm, will you then approve of it? No, I won't. But if we can keep the government out of the equation, then it won't matter what I do or don't approve of -- people who believe in gay marriage will call it marriage, others will say "it's not really marriage", and we'll continue to argue morality without unreasonable government interference. Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So they should have equal rights but those rights should not be protected in any way. Sorry, but I have no idea how you got that from anything I said.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th May 2012, 05:00 AM	#148
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus So you find gay marriage to be immoral. Does it then follow from your previous comments that you would support the rights of gays to marry? If not, then how can you claim to be for equal rights? Because it is "Equal Rights" Some exemptions may apply.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

10th May 2012, 05:05 AM	#149
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by Agatha I haz a confuzzled. AvalonXQ, do you ensure that your children are never exposed to any information about sex between unmarried heterosexual couples which presents their relationship in a positive light? Great swathes of classic literature is suddenly off-limits, any television show where a heterosexual couple is unmarried gets switched off, any mention of a celebrity couple who are unmarried is forbidden... I simply do not see how this could be achieved in the 21st century in the West. At least we can get smut like Shakespeare and the bible out of our classrooms.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

10th May 2012, 05:07 AM	#150
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by bookitty Yeah, you know, as a Californian I'm still pretty pissed at the Mormons. This isn't even their state and yet they're willing to spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns to mess with us. Yeah, this is a bit of rhetoric that really bothers me. Black, Hispanics, and Catholics were all large supporters of Prop 8, but see, those groups aren't popular to bash. Despite Catholic diocese coming out in favor of the Proposition, there were no commercials with a Catholic priest breaking into someone's home and assaulting them. Despite what black community churches were saying, no commercial had a couple of black men show up and take away wedding rings. No, it was all the Mormons' fault -- because people are already suspicious of Mormons; their religion is "weird". And because they're generally white, they're a "safe" target in California. The vandalism and violence suffered by Mormons during and after Prop 8 was completely unreasonable. If pretty much any other minority had been targeted the way they were, liberals would have been outraged. But apparently violence against a minority group is okay when you need to target someone for your frustration at losing a vote.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 10th May 2012 at 05:08 AM.

10th May 2012, 05:08 AM	#151
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ We do limit marriage on the basis of sexual relations, though. For instance, we don't allow close relatives to marry on the basis of problems with incestual breeding. I think if we get to the point where civil unions are just another tax status, we're likely to see siblings, for example, who take the status for purely that reason. No we limit it because of societal taboos. The inbreeding thing is a more recent rationalization of existing laws. If it were truly about that we would outlaw many other marriages known to be worse genetically, like between acondroplastic dwarfs.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

10th May 2012, 05:09 AM	#152
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle No we limit it because of societal taboos. The inbreeding thing is a more recent rationalization of existing laws. I was not aware of that. Thanks for the clarification.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th May 2012, 05:35 AM	#153
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Yeah, this is a bit of rhetoric that really bothers me. Black, Hispanics, and Catholics were all large supporters of Prop 8, but see, those groups aren't popular to bash. Have you noticed how many people here bash catholics? The biggest thing that correlated with voting for that was how often someone went to church. And the mormons did spread a lot of lies, or as people view them religious truths. And why aren't you up in arms about the indoctrination that blacks are equal to whites in school? Why is that take on an issue ok?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

10th May 2012, 05:46 AM	#154
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Have you noticed how many people here bash catholics? I'm talking about the violence and vitriole directed specifically against Mormons by the No on 8 folks. Even bookitty bought into this rhetoric.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

10th May 2012, 05:53 AM	#155
ZirconBlue Sole Survivor of L-Town Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Wilson, North Carolina, USA, Earth Posts: 11,402	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ ... which emphasizes the point, yet again, that there's no reason to keep calling the bloody thing marriage. It's not between a man and a woman. It's not about love or sex or procreation. There's no requirement of exclusivity. It's a property, child custody, and inheritence arrangement with some tax benefits. It's a domestic partnership, for Pete's sake. Call it that, and a fair amount of the opposition fades away overnight. Exactly the opposite of my point, actually. No two marriages are the same, and it shouldn't be up to others to define what my marriage is. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Evidence? The NC Amendment specifically bars recognition of any "domestic partnership" or "civil union", so, clearly it isn't just about "marriage".
	__________________ Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards.