Gay marrage..?

Azulene said:

The "moral values" these voters were talking about were a strict and exaggerated code of masculinity that emphasized men's control of their own sensual desires and of women's bodies. Abortion, contraception, and same sex sexual relationships (especially between men) represent deep threats to this "moral" order. This equation of morality with hyper-masculinity also creates a mindset that demands unquestioning support for the military.
This hyper-masculine order is at the core of Fascism.

I think you are onto something about this appeal to a code of masculinity. Most polls on gay marriage show a significant difference in opinion based on gender, with many more women in favor of gay marriage or civil unions than men. What are men so afraid of?

soonerschwinn said:

The will of the people is what our Constitution is based on.

The will of the people can not override the rights granted under the constitution. IMO, the "will of the people' should not be the deciding factor in granting individual right and liberties. If things were up the "will of the people", slavery would probably still be legal. Thankfully, it will be judges who decide what is constitutional. They are in a better position to judge legal issues than the average joes. And that's why they're called "judges"! Yippee!

I predict gay marriage will be legal in many, if not all, states in ten years anyway. Recent events are a temporary backslide but it won't last long. Denying gay people the right to marry is unconstitutional and it is predicted that the November ballots will be struck down on this basis. In addition, the younger generation is more open-minded about this issue. The future is bright.

They're here. They're queer. Get used to it!

Saucy said:

What are men so afraid of?

Men are afraid that if they say gay marriages or being gay are OK then they are sending signals that THEY are gay - really [censored] up isn't it?

<SARCASM>
:eek: It must be because being gay means that you are inferior in some way, therefore as hot blooded males we MUST NOT show our gayness.
</SARCASM>

What a load of [censored]! Why can't people just get on with it!

Fact of the matter is, if you have no insecurities about yourself, and you know who you REALLY are and what you're REALLY about, then it's a non-issue.

soonerschwinn said:

BTW the 1st Amendment does not say "separation of church and state". It says that the government will not pass any law establishing a religion or prohibiting the excercise thereof. It doesn't say that we as a people must allow an "anything goes" morality (or immorality) to pervade our great country. Those same founding fathers also wrote into the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights such words as Nature's God, Creator and Blessings. They were obviously not a group of un-religous men. Thank God.

SS

I find it amazing that you would imply that a lack of religion equates to a lack of morals, that is simply ignorant. Religion has no part in a Civil union debate, as it has been stated previously, marriage was around along time before the bible. The civil union debate, as I see it, is simply about legal status and recognition of their right to have a relationship.

Azulene said:

What did the Fascist regimes in Italy, Germany, and Spain have in common? They consisted of a highly militarized state, backed by corporation and a wealthy elite, that rose to power through a false populism that exploited the public's fear of foreigners and "moral degenerates." This precisely defines the formula that Karl Rove designed to consolidate the Bush administration's power in the recent election.

Pollsters and pundits cited "moral values"(The same-sex marriage issue) as the key issue for majority of Bush supporters in the 2004 election. The "moral values" these voters were talking about were a strict and exaggerated code of masculinity that emphasized men's control of their own sensual desires and of women's bodies. Abortion, contraception, and same sex sexual relationships (especially between men) represent deep threats to this "moral" order. This equation of morality with hyper-masculinity also creates a mindset that demands unquestioning support for the military. Civil liberties issues come into play here as well - those who resist controls on their behavior must have some sort of deviant desires that they want to be able to play out freely.

This hyper-masculine order is at the core of Fascism. "Sexual deviants" were among the first targets of the Holocaust. In Colombia, when right wing paramilitaries take over a region they instill fear and establish their dominance by launching "social cleansing" campaigns that target gays, lesbians, prostitutes, street vendors, the homeless - all people who in some way threaten a "moral" code based on strength and masculine self-control.

Fascism views dissent differently than more subtle, liberal systems of control. Traditionally on a domestic level the U.S. has operated primarily through exercising dominance - creating the illusion of consensus around a dominant ideology to limit debate by drowning out dissent. If dissent grows too strong, it’s co-opted through subtle reform. Fascism replaces leadership with oppression, crushing dissent. Dissidents become the enemy. "You are either with us or against us." (Bush locality oath during his campaign).

As a Spanish Basque lady I know what my family went through during the Franco years in Spain. 😠

I take the points that you make - in fairness though a lot of male posters here actually think that homosexual unions should be afforded protections.

My own view is that they should.

yes we gays should be allowed the same legal rights as striaght couples.i'm not hung up on what you want ot call it, marrage, civil union or whatever, I just want equal legal protection in all aspects of of my life.

limerickman said:

I take the points that you make - in fairness though a lot of male posters here actually think that homosexual unions should be afforded protections.

My own view is that they should.

Yes I do agree with you and thanks 🙂

Azulene said:

Yes I do agree with you and thanks 🙂

Basically I couldn't care less what mhs's and female hs's do. If it is so important then you must make your own way as a minority for recognition by lobbying as a coordinated and cohesive group as regards social and policy change in the societies in which you live. Do not expect support from the general populace when 'camp' television hosts present themselves as limpwristed homosexuals, and ridicule the endeavours of the more serious. This is always from a male point of view, and their patter is of a school whereby they always speak in the same tone and use the same mannerisms. They are seen as oddities in society, and will remain so. Not to be taken seriously, put your own house in order.

Fixey said:

...................., marriage was around along time before the bible. ......................

So was God. So, what has that to do with it?

PseudoTrek said:

So was God. So, what has that to do with it?

Here we go again! ! ! Now before you baffle us with [censored]. Prove the existence of God, or let's have a laugh as to how you go about it.

FredC said:

Here we go again! ! ! Now before you baffle us with [censored]. Prove the existence of God, or let's have a laugh as to how you go about it.

Q: Why does a rock fall to earth when it left unsupported?
A: Because the earth exerts a constant gravitational force on all objects that have mass.
Q: Why does the earth exert that force?
A: Because the earth has mass and anything with mass exerts a force on anything else with mass.
Q: Why do things with mass exert forces on each other?
A: Well, it's because anything with mass actually causes a bending of the fabric of time space (if you believe Einstein) and this results in the attractive forces between objects.
Q: But why does time space bend in the presence of mass?
A: It bends because time-space works that way.
Q: Why does it work that way?
A: It just does.

(you can continue that train of questions past that point as well)

I see an object and perceive it's color, calling it blue. My friend see the object and sees that it is blue. Prove to me that what I am seeing really IS blue. Perhaps it's green to my eyes, but I learned it as blue.

Bottom line is, just because something can't be ultimately proven scientifically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If God CAN be proven scientifically (knowing what kind of being could do what is spoken of in the Bible), how arrogant is it to say that our current level of knowlege CAN prove God's existance.

PseudoTrek said:

Q: Why does a rock fall to earth when it left unsupported?
A: Because the earth exerts a constant gravitational force on all objects that have mass.
Q: Why does the earth exert that force?
A: Because the earth has mass and anything with mass exerts a force on anything else with mass.
Q: Why do things with mass exert forces on each other?
A: Well, it's because anything with mass actually causes a bending of the fabric of time space (if you believe Einstein) and this results in the attractive forces between objects.
Q: But why does time space bend in the presence of mass?
A: It bends because time-space works that way.
Q: Why does it work that way?
A: It just does.

(you can continue that train of questions past that point as well)

I see an object and perceive it's color, calling it blue. My friend see the object and sees that it is blue. Prove to me that what I am seeing really IS blue. Perhaps it's green to my eyes, but I learned it as blue.

Bottom line is, just because something can't be ultimately proven scientifically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If God CAN be proven scientifically (knowing what kind of being could do what is spoken of in the Bible), how arrogant is it to say that our current level of knowlege CAN prove God's existance.

As my good friend pictured opposite (Bob Fleming - from the Fast Show), would say :
"Hello viewers, and welcome to, achew achwew, acheew......I'll start that again...Hello viewers and welcome to, achew, achew, accccchhhhhhewww"

limerickman said:

As my good friend pictured opposite (Bob Fleming - from the Fast Show), would say :
"Hello viewers, and welcome to, achew achwew, acheew......I'll start that again...Hello viewers and welcome to, achew, achew, accccchhhhhhewww"

An' den he gi'um a good a good tumpin, now so he did.. Where's auld Gay Byrne these days? I liked a lot?.

FredC said:

An' den he gi'um a good a good tumpin, now so he did.. Where's auld Gay Byrne these days? I liked a lot?.

I worked with Gay Byrne - in a former life !

No codding here : Gay Byrne is alive and well and retired to Howth Head on Dublin Bay.
He's a very keen cyclist too.

Bob Fleming though - he is the master presenter of "Country Matters".

limerickman said:

I worked with Gay Byrne - in a former life !

No codding here : Gay Byrne is alive and well and retired to Howth Head on Dublin Bay.
He's a very keen cyclist too.

Bob Fleming though - he is the master presenter of "Country Matters".

Gaye Byrne used to work with Stuart Hall on North West regional news if I remember rightly. I always made a point of watching the Late Late Show, recorded. Don't know Bob Fleming. Difficult to remember the dates exactly. Years need a bit more thinking about. BRF asked me sometime ago about Peter Hill, It thought he was called Peter Head, cos I rode against him more than the one that lived in Normandy. Bonkers again. Hey, who gives a toss. Especially in my state. One thing that happens is that you stick with the bike, it might hurt you, but you'll never get divorced for all of your life.

FredC said:

Gaye Byrne used to work with Stuart Hall on North West regional news if I remember rightly. I always made a point of watching the Late Late Show, recorded. Don't know Bob Fleming. Difficult to remember the dates exactly. Years need a bit more thinking about. BRF asked me sometime ago about Peter Hill, It thought he was called Peter Head, cos I rode against him more than the one that lived in Normandy. Bonkers again. Hey, who gives a toss. Especially in my state. One thing that happens is that you stick with the bike, it might hurt you, but you'll never get divorced for all of your life.

Stuart "Ha ha ha ha" "it's a knockout" Hall.
Good presenter - he was too.
Is he confined to radio, these days ?

Bob Fleming is from a show called the Fast Show - BBC2.
The Fast Show was a comedy prog : written and produced by Paul Whitehouse (used to work with Harry Enfield).

limerickman said:

Stuart "Ha ha ha ha" "it's a knockout" Hall.
Good presenter - he was too.
Is he confined to radio, these days ?

Bob Fleming is from a show called the Fast Show - BBC2.
The Fast Show was a comedy prog : written and produced by Paul Whitehouse (used to work with Harry Enfield).

Stuart Hall, commentating on football in his initable style. Jeez, who can do this sort of stuff as an intermitent appraisial. It's bonfire night, or very nearly and M/c city set of with rockets on both sides of the pitch... fizzled out and not under pressure.....They are leading by 1-0 at half time scored by.... This is not to say that they have the position of Osimandious./.... Have alook at Ossi, the kingof kings. This was only a half time report. He just does it. He doesn't bother, he's happy, and he's made a contribution.

limerickman said:

Stuart "Ha ha ha ha" "it's a knockout" Hall.
Good presenter - he was too.
Is he confined to radio, these days ?

Bob Fleming is from a show called the Fast Show - BBC2.
The Fast Show was a comedy prog : written and produced by Paul Whitehouse (used to work with Harry Enfield).

Stuarts an old man now, he just does the radio football 'cos he likes it, and sees his old pals from the press, other than that he tootles about doing his hobby, antique clocks. A very well liked man, much like Gay. Do you still have the Late Late Show? I remember the Fast Show, but didn't follow it as I'm not a big fan of Whitehouse, I'm not saying he can't write, but at the time the fashion seemed to be for short sharp sketches, which were in fact jokes. Hey what's Dave Allen up to? I liked him, very dry.

PseudoTrek said:

Q: Why does a rock fall to earth when it left unsupported?
A: Because the earth exerts a constant gravitational force on all objects that have mass.
Q: Why does the earth exert that force?
A: Because the earth has mass and anything with mass exerts a force on anything else with mass.
Q: Why do things with mass exert forces on each other?
A: Well, it's because anything with mass actually causes a bending of the fabric of time space (if you believe Einstein) and this results in the attractive forces between objects.
Q: But why does time space bend in the presence of mass?
A: It bends because time-space works that way.
Q: Why does it work that way?
A: It just does.

(you can continue that train of questions past that point as well)

I see an object and perceive it's color, calling it blue. My friend see the object and sees that it is blue. Prove to me that what I am seeing really IS blue. Perhaps it's green to my eyes, but I learned it as blue.

Bottom line is, just because something can't be ultimately proven scientifically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If God CAN be proven scientifically (knowing what kind of being could do what is spoken of in the Bible), how arrogant is it to say that our current level of knowlege CAN prove God's existance.

So that's God sorted. A bit of Newtonian Laws of Mass and Motion, A dollop of Einsteins Theory of Relativity, and a look through a prism as to the constitution of light. Mind you, that's what faith in God is about. Brainwashing.

Well, not brainwashing. Just my way of saying that it is rather hard to really prove a lot of things, and some of those things we just have to take for granted. Not brainwashing, just unprovable in our current level of thinking. How many of us can really comprehend anything beyond 3 dimensions, or even moreso, 4 dimensions.

For what it's worth, I don't assume that you are brainwashed by your unbelief. Neither am I. I have seen and have heard of things happening that can only be labeled as a miracle. No scientific means of explaining it. Therefore no impirical proof of how it happened. Yet it did. That is where I'm coming from.

PseudoTrek said:

Well, not brainwashing. Just my way of saying that it is rather hard to really prove a lot of things, and some of those things we just have to take for granted. Not brainwashing, just unprovable in our current level of thinking. How many of us can really comprehend anything beyond 3 dimensions, or even moreso, 4 dimensions.
For what it's worth, I don't assume that you are brainwashed by your unbelief. Neither am I. I have seen and have heard of things happening that can only be labeled as a miracle. No scientific means of explaining it. Therefore no impirical proof of how it happened. Yet it did. That is where I'm coming from.

You digress and diminue your original proposition. The fact is that your reference to mathematical concepts and proofs made no reference to God. On the other hand, your quasi religious threateners of the souls of the populace were instilling wrath and doom on the unfortunate listeners of the Evangelists who transgressed their words. So how did the Russian unbelievers in God stuff you lot in the Space Race? Easy answer, by Mathematics and Engineering.