Originality Rating for this thread: 4.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 3.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #971
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
   
    
|
Posted: Fri 2004-04-16 16:28
|
 |
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: ok too sexy for lace, thus we must be all gay......(?) |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Bill wrote: |
| Wishful thinking Carl?. According to her profile Lace is male (I certainly got the impression from his postings that he IS male). |
Don't feel bad Carl... you're not the first to fall victim to a cross dresser. I was duped too, but for a different reason...
| George Orwell wrote: |
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy. "
|
(yes... not only am I an "ignorant racist", I am also a blatant sexist.)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bizarro
Junior Spy
Post #973
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 69
Total Words: 15,188
Average words per post: 220.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-04-16 17:57
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
im assuming youre not married?
when you marry, it becomes clear which sex really holds the power in this world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #974
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-04-16 18:43
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Bizarro wrote: |
| im assuming youre not married? |
How did you guess? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #981
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-04-17 00:21
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| biorhythms....psychic/emotional -logical/rational verbal |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
well, would a guy choose a name like 'Lace' 
Someone said you wanna stop sexcrime, get married with children.
We could argue deception in our mist, Lace argues like a chick.
Notice the way how she/he attacks White Males? Self-hating male/female? Rather girly eh?
Yes! I confess I'm a sexist; I love sex...
BIORHYTHMS
Try it from the electron Oracle called http://www.facade.com/
hmmm
.....figure-hugging red miniskirts.... time to shop for girlfriend, gotta get her measurements....tonight live jazz nightclub...perhaps more..
Saw on thursday, Sunshine of a spotless mind.
check the credits Deidre O'Connell, synchronicity....this surname keeps popping up where I go.
ZEH MAN
Last edited by carldiesturmer on Thu 2004-05-27 13:26; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #982
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Committee Member
Post #995
Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Posts: 411
Total Words: 42,715
Average words per post: 103.93
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-04-17 12:53
|
|
| Politics: X-tremely Silly Party |
Country: Airstrip One |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| postscript: people are really watching these posts, it is over 535 views! |
That's mostly me, checking my spelling and grammar.
I keep hitting submit instead of preview 
Hmm Conditioning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skrewdriver
Spy
Post #1022
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 136
Total Words: 11,952
Average words per post: 87.88
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-18 22:55
|
|
| Politics: Kneel before GOD! |
Country: Hungry |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Bizarro wrote: |
im assuming youre not married?
when you marry, it becomes clear which sex really holds the power in this world. |
Yeah... the man. At least if he's a half decent man he knows how to enforce the law. I don't see too many women in prison for abuse, although there might be 1 or 2 fucked up households where a disabled half-bodied cry baby marries bertha the barbarian. And most guys don't find women with bulging muscles too attractive... unless... THEY'RE ACTUALLY GAY! How enlightening!
_________________
Wait a second lois, a boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything... even a boat! You know how much we've wanted one of those! - Family Guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1024
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-18 23:15
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Archetypes and stereotypes |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| carldiesturmer wrote: |
-postscript: people are really watching these posts, it is over 535 views! |
Visits so far today: 8 Registered Users and 21 Guests.
Every day is like that.. The main site gets 500-1000 visitors, and about 20-30 "guests" wander into the forum. There are a lot of people coming in and taking a look, but for some reason very few actually stick around. (only about 1 in 40 create accounts)
I wonder why that is. 
Maybe we're just too scary.
But I guess I shouldn't expect too much. The forums have only beeen up for two months... And this new format is doing much better than that old guestbook... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1098
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
 
  
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-04-23 19:22
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Archetypes and stereotypes |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 21:56; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1099
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-04-23 19:26
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 21:56; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1128
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-04-24 18:29
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Archetypes and stereotypes |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
Well, you are taking a risk when you take the principle of freedom of speech to the extreme. |
What risk?
"If [a] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides if we choose." - Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia - 1787
TJ is the MAN!
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
Personally, I'm missing sections on Orwell and Nineteen Eighty-four, and I don't think I'm alone. I believe that initially, most people approach this forum because they are obsessed with the novel. I'm convinced that adding such sections wouldn't weaken the forum's political qualities; just look at alt.books.george-orwell. |
I've been doing this website for almost 7 years now. I've pretty much said everything that I wanted to say. (It's difficult to maintain an obsession for that long) I've added a "book review" section... please feel free to start a thread on 1984 if you wish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erethemeus
Outer Party
Post #1135
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 185
Total Words: 75,663
Average words per post: 408.99
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 04:25
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: United Nations |
|
| I only have these things to say on this one... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I've read through this forum a number of times and have been carefully thinking about what I would say in response, if in fact I were to make a response. Since it is obvious that I am posting a response, here is what I have to say:
Homosexuality is not sick or "evil". Evil is a subjective term, and is considered only in the mind of the beholder. In simple constitutioanl fact, we are all garunteed equal rights under the constitution, therefore I fail to see why this is even something that can be argued about.
Let's consider these ideas for a moment: A man and a woman who are in love, or not, have the legal right to be married, they have the right to obtain certain tax rights or abilities and are recognized as being together by both the state and by religion. If one group of people can do something and another group can be denied it, then what we have here is a clear example of some would call "discrimination". Allowing this type of thing to continue unabated is silly, ridiculous and unfair.
Some idiot cynic may conclude that there are many things in this country that are unfair to one group or another, to which I would respond that it is irrelevant. This is the issue at hand, this is the problem a large part of society seems to be focusing on and arguing about. Arguing that it is against God's law or rule is retarded, even if you are Christian. There is a clear distinction made in the United States that Church and State shall remain seperate. To be trully objective in these issues, the state is required to be atheitic or agnostic in thought and ideas as passing a law against homosexual marriage would be completely an act of current christian moral actions conflicting with constitutional reality. I fail to see the area in our constitution where it labels homosexuals as wrong and Christian doctrine as supreme.
Ridiculous as it may seem, if we outlaw homosexual marriage, then it would also be the right thing to do to outlaw government recognition of male-female marriage. One would think that the Christian dogmatists in this country would fall upon their own Jesus to follow up these arguments, "Judge lest thee be judge.".. or even, "Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone." What our government does here on earth is irrelevant because in your own belief, God is the ultimate judger of all men, and he will decide in death if we have sinned against him.
Don't mistaken me as hating Christians, but rather take me as I am: a man who dislikes, intensely, Christian dogma regulating his life simply because they are the majority in this nation. Again, I wish I could make this better, but the need for sleep has overtaken my mind, and for now I am done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1136
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 05:16
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Destruction of the family unit |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
As you can probably guess from my postings in the Religious discussion, I am not a Christian.
But that does not mean I can't a little conservative from time to time.
Ingsoc Officer suggested that we have more conversations about Orwell... and I think I'll start now.
What do you think our Lord and Savior Orwell would have to say on the subject of Gay Marraige?
If one has read 1984, you'll see that the decline of the family unit was one of his major concerns. And indeed, the modern family has been radically transformed by modern politics.
In the days of yore, The man was the bread winner and the woman was his servant... who primary task was rearing children and taking care of their upbringing.
Early in this century, woman were "liberated" from this oppressive system ... and now are free to become servants of the corporate world just like their husbands. While this is all well and good, the task of actually raising children has been left to strangers, and to the state -- who seem more than happy to take up this burden.
Result: Children who are taught more about the morality of interbreeding, prohibition, environmentalism than the old staples of Thou shall not Kill, Steal, etc. Children who, later in life, stand a better chance of being incarcerated by the state.
The tradition American family is in decline. And now the state seeks to alter the age-old definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "whatever you happen to stick your dick into".
I have to wonder what the fallout of this will be. It seems to be a bit of a slippery slope. Like I said before...
| The Great and Powerful Big Brother wrote: |
But, if "two people" can get married, why not 3 or 4? Why couldn't a cult leader marry all of his followers? Why couldn't some jag-off marry all of Mexico to give them citizenship? Why couldn't a corporation get married & adopt children... thereby circumventing most child-labor laws?
...And why should marriage be limited to people? Why not Horses?
If a Mexican marries an American horse, does that qualify him for citizenship?
Of course, most people would think these arguments are silly. But remember that only a few decades ago, the idea of 2 men getting married was equally ludicrous. (and some would maintain that it still is) And once you take the first step to redefine marriage from "1 man, 1 woman", each following step becomes shorter and shorter.
|
The rules of society are a completely human invention, and therefore society is free to change any rules it wishes. But I don't see why this particular rule needs to be changed.
If anything, polygamy should be legalized before gay couples, because there have been many societies throughout history that have accepted polygamist -- but none that equated homosexual couples with hetero ones.
Why is it so important for this change to occur? Only an extremely small portion of the population will take advantage of this new definition of marriage, so I have to wonder why there is so much political support for it. I don’t mean to sound all conspiratorial, but it seems like this has to be some sort of means to a yet-to-be-discovered end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #1138
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 06:11
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| This end .... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
this end we must set to find out in our agenda BB.
Presto.
Investigate along this lead...
Fur Die Vaterland
http://hem.passagen.se/replikant/fatherland.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1139
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 13:27
|
|
|
|
|
| --- |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:16; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1140
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 13:33
|
|
|
|
|
| --- |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:17; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1141
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 13:39
|
|
|
|
|
| --- |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:17; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1195
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-04-27 04:28
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Destruction of the family unit |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| We have the same problem over here. Just like in any country, we have unemployed people, poor people, people living in the streets etc. Nevertheless, hours and hours are spent discussing the rights of the homosexuals in the Parliament. They definitely need to get their priorities right. Of course, it's easier to write a law on homosexual rights than to solve the problem of poverty. And above all, it generates more headlines... |
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Thomas Pynchon
Just another media distraction. A circus sideshow of freaks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #1294
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-05-01 19:36
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Separation of Powers... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Perhaps this is one of those times when the speration of powers in the United States is a handy thing to have about. Let's keep our foot off of the legislative gas, and just let the courts handle it... After all, blanket rules affecting entire populations and subgroups might have unforseen consequences. Let's just let individual courts decide (preferably by jury) whether or not a particular gay couple has the right or the capability to be recognized as married. That way, we won't need to worry about objective moral philosophy in government until a later date...
Also, we won't have to worry about unwarranted extrpolations of such blanket rules by those who practice lifestyles the general public aren't quite yet willing to accept into mainstream culture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #1483
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-05-09 07:44
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| to your salute Big Brother....BB brand Martini |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I think we need for cocktails for this party here.
Kahlua, gin and cinzano rossi...
I am checking the formulae for the cocktails, make mine 007 BB
Get pissed with style...beer is out.
Most of us can’t live the 007 lifestyle, due to factors like jealous spouses, too many doughnuts, and a very real lack of casino chips. But don’t despair...we’ve all got a licence to swill. Get a taste of the good life with these authentic drink recipes. Cheers!
The James Bond Perfect Martini
(Created by Finlandia as a promotional tie-in with Die Another Day)
* 2 parts Finlandia vodka
* a whisper of vermouth
Shaken, not stirred, until cold. Serve in frosted martini glass.
more stuff here
http://home.earthlink.net/~atomic_rom/007/recipes.htm
Last edited by carldiesturmer on Thu 2004-05-27 13:22; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1683
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-05-17 05:13
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: to your salute Big Brother....BB brand Martini |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| carldiesturmer wrote: |
I think we need for cocktails for this party here.
Kahlua, gin and cinzano rossi...
I am checking the formulae for the cocktails, make mine 007 BB
Most of us can’t live the 007 lifestyle, due to factors like jealous spouses, too many doughnuts, and a very real lack of casino chips. But don’t despair...we’ve all got a licence to swill. Get a taste of the good life with these authentic drink recipes. Cheers!
|
I take you saw the little shindig last Friday night on my webcams.
A bottle of Moscato... a couple bottles of gewürztraminer and Riesling ... and a little Absinthe Martini to top the night off.
Yes... I was hurting the next day 
But that's not what I wanted to talk about. 
Since we've already brought up SOD elsewhere, I figured I should mention this little classic by MOD on this forum. I'm sure the General would get a kick out of it.
 MOD - A.I.D.S. - MP3 
You're accused of the following charges
You're a woman trapped inside a man
Your sexuality no one denies you
But your preference we can't understand
You are the lonelinest of all people
It's time for you to realize
AIDS like the plague is from God
For he sees something wrong in his eyes
Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.
Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.
Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.
Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.
That's what you get for having
A penis up your ass
You should have used a condom
That's what you get when you
Swallow another man's load
A lubricated condom
How do you find love in another man's hairy ass?!
You should have used a condom
Millions of hamsters running ramped in your bowels
Take the Hershey Highway
Fudge packing men
Fudge packing men
Fudge packing men
Fudge packing men
A manly man
Fudge packing men
Fudge packing men
Fudge packing men
Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #1687
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-05-17 13:29
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| My band... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Here's my military band to play the music for that song, for you...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #1713
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-05-18 08:06
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| what's missing in this picture |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
THE OVERDRIVEN ELECTRIC GUITARS...
where is the funeral service for their fallen comrades, our people?
I have a few March songs of my own here. A number of classics I did not know the names till now.
http://dws.org/sousa/works.htm
I trust people know the presidential marches, star and stripes et al already.
This one is fave of mine, it is called "I'M GONNA FLY NOW", you heard it, it is glorious when jogging. Nifty farfare
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/1935/rocky-gonnafly.mid
Rocky, you must fight your way to the top, for yourself, your family, your girlfriend, your son, for your country, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT YOU S.O.B!!!!
Perhaps you heard this one
Semper Fidelis "always faithful"
http://dws.org/sousa/mid/semperfi.mid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1907
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-05-26 07:10
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Sex is genetic... no shit. |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Death by Theory?
| From Fox News: Death by Theory? |
The little boy that Bruce Reimer was never had a chance. As an adult, he chose suicide on May 4 rather than live in unbearable torment. Underlying his death is a theory that still impacts children across North America: that sexual identity comes from nurture not nature and, so, can be entirely determined by proper social conditioning.
In 1966, Reimer’s mother took her 8-month-old identical twins to a local doctor in Winnipeg, Canada, for circumcision. The procedure went badly for Bruce, leaving him without a sex organ.
Although the Reimers were working-class parents, they took their mutilated son to a string of doctors until finally arriving at the door of medical psychologist Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore.
Money was out to prove a theory that would subsequently bring him fame and fortune. He maintained that Bruce was young enough to be successfully raised as a girl because gender was not determined by DNA but by environment. For Money, Bruce was a perfect candidate for the experiment because his identical twin brother would act as a control for the experiment.
At that time, surgery to reassign gender had never been performed on a boy born with normal genitalia. Bruce’s testicles were removed, and he underwent 12 years of social and hormonal treatment to become "Brenda."
The transformation became internationally renowned as "the John/Joan case." Dr. Money’s research was offered as proof positive that sexual identity was learned behavior. He declared, "The child's behaviour is so clearly that of an active little girl and so different from the boyish ways of her twin brother."
Every textbook on gender included Money’s experiment and grants poured into his pocket. Doctors began to surgically "reassign" the gender of babies born with ambiguous genitals. Feminists declared human beings to be "psychosexually neutral" at birth and campaigned to change everything from children’s stories to the curricula of schools in order to change the gender identity being taught to children. Money’s research supported their contention that patriarchal conditioning, not nature, was entirely responsible for women’s roles in society.
Behind the scenes, Reimer's mother told Money that Brenda ripped off dresses, rejected dolls, insisted on standing up to urinate, and asked to shave like her father. Nevertheless, Money’s 1972 book "Man and Woman, Boy and Girl" declared the experiment to be a success.
Indeed, Money urged the Reimers to complete the gender experiment on the pubescent Brenda by having a vagina surgically constructed. When she threatened to commit suicide rather than undergo more treatment by Money, the Reimers revealed the truth. Brenda adopted the name David and began to live as a man.
Of his childhood, David later stated: "It was like brainwashing … I’d give just about anything to go to a hypnotist to black out my whole past. Because it’s torture. What they did to you in the body is sometimes not near as bad as what they did to you in the mind with the psychological warfare in your head."
For years, David remained silent while Money’s version of the research was applauded by feminists and continued to influence public policy on gender. Then, in 1997, biologist Milton Diamond and psychiatrist Keith Sigmundson published a report in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, which exposed the John/Joan case as a failure and fraud. To the extent that the case proved anything, it proved the opposite of what Money claimed. John/Joan suggested that maleness developed in the womb; gender could not be reassigned through medical and social conditioning.
Money’s response? The report was "part of the anti-feminist movement."
In 2000, Rolling Stone journalist John Colapinto published "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl." The book created a sensation by popularizing the findings of the Diamond-Sigmundson report.
Shortly thereafter, the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center released two scientific studies that indicated "prenatal exposure to normal male hormones alone dictates male gender identity in normal XY male babies, even if they are born without a penis." If true, this utterly discredits the medical practice of reassigning the gender of babies.
The studies came too late for David Reimer. Although he endured four reconstructive surgeries to reverse Money’s experiment and to rebuild his penis, David was unable to overcome a tortured past. After several setbacks in his personal life, David committed suicide at the age of 38. It was the last of several attempts to die that dated back to his teenage years.
Although Money’s research has been widely discredited, the belief that sexual identity is socially constructed still deeply impacts our culture. A good first step toward reversing the damage this belief can inflict is to reclaim a word usage that has been virtually abandoned. We should use the word "sex" and reject the word "gender" when discussing sexual identity.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Committee Member
Post #1911
Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Posts: 411
Total Words: 42,715
Average words per post: 103.93
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zombywuf
Outer Party
Post #3262
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 177
Total Words: 23,627
Average words per post: 133.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-07-04 13:13
|
|
| Politics: Complete Idiot |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Ok, I'd like to refute several points. First off, the idea that homosexuality does not exist in the 'lower' animals. If you've ever worked on a sheep farm you'll know the only thing stopping them being homosexual is the fact that most fields contain only one male, male lambs will fuck anything.
Now, the evolution argument. To quote George Carlin, "This is really stupid." Homosexuality can not harm evolution, in fact evolution harms homosexuality. What damages evlution is medicine and sanitation. Weak genomes stand far more chance of surviving than ever before. I don't see this as a bad thing. The only evolution humanity can really carry out any more is memetic, and to use annother quotation, "Without homosexuals there would be no such thing as art, poetry or the colour salmon." -- Robin Williams. To add to this, the computer your sitting at right now, probably wouldn't exist (at least wouldn't be as advanced) without that famous homosexual Alan Turing. I find it especially amusing that the most vitrolic poster against homosexuality's now talking about cocktails (btw, Stolichnaya is the one true vodka.)
The degrading of morals argument is just silly. Morality is an extremely dynamic quantity, in some parts on Ancient greek society not buggering young boys was considered immoral. But what did the ancient greeks ever do for us, other than philosophy and democracy.
I find it intresting BB that you don't want to see the family unit degraded but think monogamy is an unnatural act. For the truely traditional family unit we have to go back as far as the apes, where the family unit is a harem. Unless you want to take the usual stance of traditional being the bits of history you like.
And for no other reason than he's been brought up, it's important to note that Winston Churchill was a drunken racist, bless 'is little cotton socks.
Bah, this whole debate is stupid, and could only really occur between americans. Perhaps when you've had a few hundred more years you might grow up to be a real country.
_________________
If you can read this you've gone too far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #3301
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-07-05 18:53
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| You are wrong on one point, we are strengthing the human genome, to create a super soldier, one that is 10x stronger, but will follow orders from his superiors only. Welcome the dawn of the corperate army, with me in command... hold one sec, Group, Atten-HUT!; Forward, MARCH!... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #3305
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-07-05 19:07
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| now you are talking |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
you talking about a supersoldier serum eh?
Say nanoids or supervirus that re-encrypt human DNA to super-human status, coolest man, love it, just like most excellent defender Captain America, one of my Marvel heroes, like Spiderman and Punisher....
I am not being facetious or smartass either.
Honest, I love that stuff.
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #3308
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-07-05 19:19
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| Re: now you are talking |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| carldiesturmer wrote: |
you talking about a supersoldier serum eh?
Say nanoids or supervirus that re-encrypt human DNA to super-human status, coolest man, love it, just like most excellent defender Captain America, one of my Marvel heroes, like Spiderman and Punisher....
I am not being facetious or smartass either.
Honest, I love that stuff. |
The Punisher is awesome, great hero, but my real heros are Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell) and Riddick (Pitch Black/Chronicles of Riddick) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #3309
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-07-05 19:25
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-capitalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| fuckyeah! |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
fuckyeah! I am with you man....I know that's the coolest shit ever...
Fuck we live in the same country....we know the good shit....Marvel Comics.
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #3319
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1697
Total Words: 329,434
Average words per post: 194.13
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-07-05 21:32
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You are wrong on one point, we are strengthing the human genome, to create a super soldier, one that is 10x stronger, but will follow orders from his superiors only. Welcome the dawn of the corperate army, with me in command... hold one sec, Group, Atten-HUT!; Forward, MARCH!... |
I'll see YOU in 2077. Maybe you'll get to a Vault... And maybe I'll grow a tree called Bob.
(I guarantee that very few will understand, if you want an explanation, PM me.)
| Quote: |
| but my real heros are Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell) |
Tut, tut, tut. No amount of sneakyness is going to make a spy as cool as a well-armed military man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #4946
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-08-12 01:40
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| Re: Homosexuality and why its wrong |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| General Hein wrote: |
Homosexuality and why its wrong
An essay by (General Hein/Talin)
[snip]
Finally, other animals only have sex to reproduce. Humans and dolphins are the only to races on Earth that have sex for fun. Therefore it is seen in the natural world that homosexuality is wrong for the survival of the species. |
Incorrect on the fun assessment.
Bonobo's do it, as do many others.
So what if it is 'wrong' for the survival of the species?
Not everything in nature, nor do the 'ethics' of nature, revolve around survival. Having a Coles Notes understanding of evolutionary theory doesn't make you a biologist, let alone an expert on biological ethics.
| General Hein wrote: |
| As I have said, homosexuality is, in my mind, a plague, and in today’s America, its is becoming more and more popular. As I have stated, I strongly believe that it will slowly lead to our demise as a species. Although many say my views are hateful, I would like to say that my views are backed with a reason that has been well thought of and developed. |
Do you mean well thought 'out'? I have yet to see much which indicates that is the case. But I will say you did put honest effort into it, and that you actually think reason supports your position. (I assure you, it does not.) This is not to say you are wrong, but you have a long way to go to demonstrate you have a point.
Demise of our species? How's that going to come about if fine people such as you and me never become homosexual?
| General Hein wrote: |
| To all who say I’m hateful, just remember, what you preach is hateful too, hateful to those who hold fast to morals, religion, and the human race. As the debate on homosexuality grows larger everyday, I decided to make my points against it clear and on paper. Just because I wrote this doesn’t mean I will always hold the views. As life progresses, we experience different things, that shape and re-shape our views on life. But if there is anything about this topic that will always remain clear in my head is that I will never be a homosexual. |
You sound a little paranoid. Anyway its good you at least hold the door open to the possibility of change. It's interesting you claim to be holding fast fast to 'morals', 'religion' (gag reflex), and the 'human race' with your ignorance. Bravo, you are (almost) a textbook example of tyranny. Where slave masters, the inquisition and other morally reprehensible institutions; maintained the moral high ground while enslaving, torturing and denying the rights of others.
| General Hein wrote: |
Works Cited-
Jalandoni, Rex. “Rex’s Facts on Gay Marriage” Sanity’s Requiem
10 Feb 2004. Sanity Corp.
2003. <www.freewebs.com/sanitys-requiem>
For any of you who want to see what “Rex’s Facts on Gay Marriage”, says, I’ll include it here.
| Quote: |
Valid points to oppose “Gay Marriages”:
• The only reason I see that “Gays” would want their marriage to be recognized is for them to receive the advantages of marriage. Allowing this would give them the benefits of a regular married couple, increasing taxes to normal working families.
[snip]
• Homosexual reproduction does not contribute to the population of any organism.
[snip]
• Homosexuality has led to the unfortunate corruption of certain religions. EX Catholic clergymen
|
|
I snipped to the things which were glaringly idiotic. You may assume the rest are also invalid. If you think otherwise, point a few out I may have dismissed out of hand. I will answer the above in order as they are listed.
That isn't the only reason, Rex. Anyhow, gays pay their fair share of taxes, and they should get their fair share of benefits. If taxes go up, they go up for everyone, gay and normal inclusive. BTW, it wouldn't be a huge burden. Especially considering the offsetting *benefits* of gay marriage... that it seems you have not even considered.
No it doesn't contribute to the population, thank god (unless you include bisexuality). There are more than enough kids to go around on this planet that is facing multiple crises because of overpopulation. On top of that, gay families can provide homes for children. This may not be 'ideal' for children that are straight, but little is ideal in a world of divorce, foster kids, and such. I consider it important to study the effects (be they positive or negative) on children that live in a gay household. If it is scientifically demonstrated there is more harm then good, then, and only then, do we have a basis to restrict or stop gay parenting.
Homosexuality didn't need to corrupt these institutions. They are inherantly flawed with the man-made rule of priests being unable to marry, and the priesthood being an ideal place for a confused individual to hide from their own sexuality.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #4950
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-08-12 02:55
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| Re: Homosexuality and why its wrong |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
I was just having this discussion with somebody else the other day.
Here's how I see the slippery slope...
Marriage used to mean "1 man + 1 woman". Now, people want to redefine to mean merely "2 people". |
Hopefully you're not being serious. No one proposed any such thing, and if they did it was a wildly oversimplified statement... something which routinely makes the 'sound bite' level of corporate media outlets.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But, if "two people" can get married, why not 3 or 4? Why couldn't a cult leader marry all of his followers? Why couldn't some jag-off marry all of Mexico to give them citizenship? Why couldn't a corporation get married & adopt children... thereby circumventing most child-labor laws? |
Because it undermines our social fabric of having not enough eligible females to marry young males. This has significant repercussions.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| ...And why should marriage be limited to people? Why not Horses? |
Horses cannot enter into a legal contract. People insist this is a 'fundamental' change... it is for marriage, but it isn't for the legal framework of civilization. The fact Bush needs to add an amendment to the constitution is evidence of exactly that.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Of course, most people would think these arguments are silly. But remember that only a few decades ago, the idea of 2 men getting married was equally ludicrous. (and some would maintain that it still is) |
They are silly. Referencing how backward society was a few decades back isn't much of a point. Only a few centuries ago blacks were property. It was stupid then, and it is stupid now. Likewise for (most) arguments against same-sex marriage.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And once you take the first step to redefine marriage from "1 man, 1 woman", each following step becomes shorter and shorter. |
Marginally. But even if it were true in an alarmist sense, that isn't a valid argument against it. Just as it wasn't a valid reason against interracial marriage. I actually spoke to a black woman on the subject of same-sex marriage, and when she played the bestiality card... I was dumb-founded. Not too long ago significant numbers of people were equating marrying blacks with marrying animals.
| Big Brother wrote: |
People who oppose gay marriage are generally called "homophobes". So for those of you that think that people who practice Polygamy, Bestiality, Pedophilia, or Necrophilia should be denied the right to marry, all I have to say is…
Polygaphobe.
Bestiaphobe.
Pedophobe
Necrophobe.
|
Excellent technique, poor rationale.
Polygaphobe - Polygamy is based on hierarchy (almost universally men over women). It undermines womens rights and history time and again has shown it to be an unstable institution leading to jealousy, blah blah blah. Even the hippies couldn't get it to work, and they tried their best. 8)
Bestiaphobe - Animals can hardly provide consent, let alone be able to enter into a legal arrangement. I would almost be inclined to let them do their 'thing' in private, but the potential of animal abuse and cross species diseases are significant concerns.
Pedophobe - Lack of informed consent. Potential for abuse, similar to bestiality; except these victims can attest to the damage caused.
Necrophobe - I dislike the potential for disease again, but if things are 'safe', and they have written, verified consent from the body prior to death... go to town, just don't expect me to watch... much.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I mean, who the hell are you to judge somebody else’s “lifestyle” |
A reasoned observer of nature, and a little interested in history.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I really don't give a damn whether two faggots get married. (It does kinda bother me if the start adopting children because a lot of homosexuals are pedophiles... but that's another issue) |
LOL!
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But I think people need to think these things through a little more before they start tinkering with societal rules that have been with us since the dawn of time. |
*yawn* Done, now what? These appeals to tradition are pointless. If you don't want to tinker with those rules... fine. Legalize prostitution, do regular blood sacrifices to appease various gods (including the Biblical one), reinstate slavery and strip women of their rights.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Random thought... Given that homosexual relationships are generally even more short-lived than their hetero counterparts, I suspect that the biggest lobby for gay marriages is divorce lawyers. |
A decent point.
Would same-sex marriage increase or decrease the stability of gay relationships?
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #4959
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-08-12 05:40
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Homosexuality and why its wrong |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
I was just having this discussion with somebody else the other day.
Here's how I see the slippery slope...
Marriage used to mean "1 man + 1 woman". Now, people want to redefine to mean merely "2 people".
|
Hopefully you're not being serious. No one proposed any such thing, and if they did it was a wildly oversimplified statement... something which routinely makes the 'sound bite' level of corporate media outlets.
|
Not at all. Marriage will be for two people - period. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that. It's pretty much the precise definition of what we are talking about, isn't it?
Nor do I think I'm wrong to say that the "two" part will be the next to go. If it's OK for 2 guys, 2 girls, or 1 guy and 1 girl to get married, what would be the legal justification for keeping 3 people from getting married?
It isn't just a slippery slope. It the next obvious step. Unlike homosexuality, Polygamous marriages have been recognized in the past and I don't see what the constitutional basis would be for prohibiting them once homosexual marriages are recognized.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Because it undermines our social fabric of having not enough eligible females to marry young males. This has significant repercussions.
|
It undermines the social fabric? I don't see how you can argue that Homosexual marriages are good for society while at the same time being against polygamy.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| ...And why should marriage be limited to people? Why not Horses? |
Horses cannot enter into a legal contract. People insist this is a 'fundamental' change... it is for marriage, but it isn't for the legal framework of civilization. The fact Bush needs to add an amendment to the constitution is evidence of exactly that.
|
| RoyBoy wrote: |
They are silly. Referencing how backward society was a few decades back isn't much of a point. Only a few centuries ago blacks were property. It was stupid then, and it is stupid now. Likewise for (most) arguments against same-sex marriage.
|
No.. the idea of black as property wasn't silly. It was the law. And more than that, not many people thought that this situation would really ever change. Even after the slaves would freed, nobody seriously though that they would ever be given the right to vote -- or god forbid -- run for office themselves. Go back in time and tell an abolitionist from the 1850's what modern society looks like today and see what he says.
The rules of society are whatever we decide that are. None of this shit is written in stone. You have to be incredibly short-sighted to think that one societal change will not in time lead to another. I'm not saying that Gay Marriage will lead to the downfall of western civilization. I'm just saying that it will definitely lead to polygamy -- and where it goes after that is debatable. But don't think that this will be the last and final alteration of societal rules.
If you think all of these societal rules are crap, that is fine. Like I said -- not of this crap is written in stone. We can create any type of society we want. But what I find odd is that you are OK with Homosexual marriage, but you still think polygamy is weird.
Oh, yeah... that's right.. unlike Gay Marriage, your TV hasn't told you that Polygamy is OK... yet. Check back with me in a few years and tell me how you feel then. After polygamy is legal, people will look back and laugh at how "backwards" you were for being against it.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Excellent technique, poor rationale.
Polygaphobe - Polygamy is based on hierarchy (almost universally men over women). It undermines women’s rights and history time and again has shown it to be an unstable institution leading to jealousy, blah blah blah. Even the hippies couldn't get it to work, and they tried their best. 8)
|
It isn't hierarchy... it is love. Lot's of love.
And how does it harm woman? It could just as easily be 1 woman + x men.
You are obviously a sexist, because nobody ever said that polygamy would be limited to 1 man + x women.
And besides... who the hell are you to tell these people that they can't get married if they want to?
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Bestiaphobe - Animals can hardly provide consent, let alone be able to enter into a legal arrangement. I would almost be inclined to let them do their 'thing' in private, but the potential of animal abuse and cross species diseases are significant concerns.
|
Animals do have rights. And there are people working on giving them more rights in the future.
Ever hear of KoKo?
You should read the Interview with and about Koko.
It is pure racism to say that an animal that can communicate should not be granted the same rights as the rest of us. They may not speak as well as the rest of us, but we don't treat retarded people as animals just becasue they aren't as smart as the rest of us. And if you believe that animals should share the same rights as their less-hairy cousins, why wouldn't this extend to marriage as well?
So here... put two societal changes together...
1) Animals have the same rights as humans
2) The state will recognize the marriage of any two adults (or groups of adults)
Now, given this legal precedent --- and assuming that KoKo would say (or sign) "yes" when I pop the big question -- what will be the legal basis for denying us our right to marry?
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Pedophobe - Lack of informed consent. Potential for abuse, similar to bestiality; except these victims can attest to the damage caused.
|
Marriages between adults has been known to damage people emotionally – but that hasn’t stopped them.
And going back to what you said about "hierarchies" earlier... Why do you think it's OK for a parent to tell a 17-year old what to do? Are you suggesting that a 17-year can't think for himself? Why do you want to oppress teenagers? I find this whole idea of treating teenagers like kids is backwards and outdated.
If a 16-year-old loves as 18-year[quote="RoyBoy"]he state stop them from getting married?
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Necrophobe - I dislike the potential for disease again, but if things are 'safe', and they have written, verified consent from the body prior to death... go to town, just don't expect me to watch... much.
|
Really, why is pre-consent a requirement? Once you are dead, you are just a chuck of meat. And if somebody wants to play with food, I see no reason to stop him.
(By the way... i should mention that there is a lot of  going on here)
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I mean, who the hell are you to judge somebody else’s “lifestyle” |
A reasoned observer of nature, and a little interested in history.
|
Yes... look at this issue from a historical perspective... Follow the progress of societal change. Realize that progress is generally slow, but it the are no set rules on the direction it can go. Fantasize for a few minutes about what the rules of society would be if the Nazis had won WWII. What sort of views would they consider "backwards".
Don’t confuse random change with "progress".
| RoyBoy wrote: |
*yawn* Done, now what? These appeals to tradition are pointless. If you don't want to tinker with those rules... fine. Legalize prostitution, do regular blood sacrifices to appease various gods (including the Biblical one), reinstate slavery and strip women of their rights.
|
Get a few congressmen, judges, and media outlets to agree with you and anything is possible.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Random thought... Given that homosexual relationships are generally even more short-lived than their hetero counterparts, I suspect that the biggest lobby for gay marriages is divorce lawyers. |
A decent point.
|
I have them every now and again.
But this does bring me to another question... What sort of effect will gay marriage have on society on a whole? Break out the crystal ball...
The supreme court has just ruled that rules banning gay marriage are unconstitutional -- Now what?
Well, probably not very much. Gays will get married. Their spouses will get all the legal benefits of marriage. There will probably be a few groups here and there who do not want to "play ball", but a few lawsuits should change that. But all-in-all, the day-to-day lives of most people will be unaffected. I mean... there will be a few related changes here and there. All terminology which describes "marriage" will be declared oldspeak, and anybody that utters the phrase "man & wife" will probably get sued for discrimination. But other than that, not much will change. Only a small percentage of people are gay in the first place, and even fewer of them will want to get married... so the most part they will be invisible. (A little like inter-racial couples are today -- blacks are free to marry whites, but 99% of the population prefer not to.)
But one thing is for sure -- this issue will not go away. As things currently stand, most of the population do not support the recognition of gay marriages -- and I see no reason for that to change any time soon.
In fact, I can see this issue becoming a battle cry for the religious right -- and the Republican party will undoubtedly benefit.
So, there you have it --- If you like the Republican party and want to see them succeed in the future, you should support gay marriage.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Would same-sex marriage increase or decrease the stability of gay relationships? |
I don't think it will matter. Marriage will continue to decline in popularity into the foreseeable future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #4981
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-08-12 21:24
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:18; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #4996
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-08-12 23:08
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
Welcome to the board, RoyBoy! My bet is that you and Big Brother will engage in many a heated debate. It's good to have you on the team.  |
Thanks for inviting me. I didn't take long for me to get started...
and to extrapolate who you are. BR - Forever!
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #5001
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-08-13 01:17
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| Re: Homosexuality and why its wrong |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Not at all. Marriage will be for two people - period. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that. It's pretty much the precise definition of what we are talking about, isn't it? |
No. Marriage will be for two competent adults.
Of course the definition of 'competent' and 'adult' can certainly be flexible,
but it also certainly isn't as imprecise as 'people'.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Nor do I think I'm wrong to say that the "two" part will be the next to go. If it's OK for 2 guys, 2 girls, or 1 guy and 1 girl to get married, what would be the legal justification for keeping 3 people from getting married? |
There is anti-polygamy legislation on the books, and that will be challenged. However I think it can be detrimental to society, because the ratio of single men to women gets messed up.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| It isn't just a slippery slope. It the next obvious step. Unlike homosexuality, Polygamous marriages have been recognized in the past and I don't see what the constitutional basis would be for prohibiting them once homosexual marriages are recognized. |
I agree.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| It undermines the social fabric? I don't see how you can argue that Homosexual marriages are good for society while at the same time being against polygamy. |
I think you can. I've stated my reason(s) twice.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| No.. the idea of black as property wasn't silly. It was the law. |
So? Still silly. It's also against the law to pump your own gas in New Jersey.
Silly is as silly does. 
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And more than that, not many people thought that this situation would really ever change. Even after the slaves would freed, nobody seriously though that they would ever be given the right to vote -- or god forbid -- run for office themselves. Go back in time and tell an abolitionist from the 1850's what modern society looks like today and see what he says. |
I have no idea where you're going with this.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| The rules of society are whatever we decide that are. None of this shit is written in stone. You have to be incredibly short-sighted to think that one societal change will not in time lead to another. |
Indeed. I disagree with the changes you foresee, I see other consequences.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I'm not saying that Gay Marriage will lead to the downfall of western civilization. I'm just saying that it will definitely lead to polygamy -- and where it goes after that is debatable. |
No. The case for polygamy will be made and will periodically be made... especially in Utah, but it won't come to pass for the foreseeable future. Perhaps if and when we start colonizing other planets circumstances will be favorable for polygamy, but till then... too bad.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But don't think that this will be the last and final alteration of societal rules. |
Why would I? Prostitution still needs to be liberalized. 8)
| Big Brother wrote: |
| If you think all of these societal rules are crap, that is fine. Like I said -- not of this crap is written in stone. We can create any type of society we want. But what I find odd is that you are OK with Homosexual marriage, but you still think polygamy is weird. |
Why's that? (And I don't think its weird, I think its wrong.)
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Oh, yeah... that's right.. unlike Gay Marriage, your TV hasn't told you that Polygamy is OK... yet. Check back with me in a few years and tell me how you feel then. After polygamy is legal, people will look back and laugh at how "backwards" you were for being against it. |
TV is my friennnnndddd... *drool*
| Big Brother wrote: |
| It isn't hierarchy... it is love. Lot's of love. |
As I said, even the hippies couldn't make it work.
It's not just love, but everything else that comes with marriage...
multiplied by the number of adults (and perhaps children) involved.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And how does it harm woman? It could just as easily be 1 woman + x men. |
If that were the case one would expect an even distribution of patriarchal and matriarchal polygamy. That is not the case.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| You are obviously a sexist, because nobody ever said that polygamy would be limited to 1 man + x women. |
Alternatively I could obviously know what I'm talking about.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And besides... who the hell are you to tell these people that they can't get married if they want to? |
Why do I have to be anyone? The rationale is the pertinent stuff.
| Big Brother wrote: |
Animals do have rights. And there are people working on giving them more rights in the future.
Ever hear of KoKo? |
Yes I have. I've seen her on the idiot box. *drool*
I have also used her in 'debates' against ignorant creationists.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| It is pure racism to say that an animal that can communicate should not be granted the same rights as the rest of us. They may not speak as well as the rest of us, but we don't treat retarded people as animals just becasue they aren't as smart as the rest of us. And if you believe that animals should share the same rights as their less-hairy cousins, why wouldn't this extend to marriage as well? |
The appropriate term is speciesism and I have argued against this little appreciated phenomenon. Specifically regarding our treatment of animals in testing, as food 'product units' and so forth. However I don't believe other species should have the same rights as bipedal apes, or as I've recently come to see us, the water ape.
| Big Brother wrote: |
So here... put two societal changes together...
1) Animals have the same rights as humans
2) The state will recognize the marriage of any two adults (or groups of adults)
Now, given this legal precedent --- and assuming that KoKo would say (or sign) "yes" when I pop the big question -- what will be the legal basis for denying us our right to marry? |
You guys would make a cute couple.  The legal basis is firmly entrenched (even if its hopelessly idealistic) that all men (humans) are created equal under the law. To change that would be impossible during this epoch. And I repeat my firm position that polygamy will not be recognized any time soon in developed nations.
| Big Brother wrote: |
Marriages between adults has been known to damage people emotionally – but that hasn’t stopped them.
|
LOL! That's no fair!
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And going back to what you said about "hierarchies" earlier... Why do you think it's OK for a parent to tell a 17-year old what to do? Are you suggesting that a 17-year can't think for himself? Why do you want to oppress teenagers? |
If the teenager (of any age) is living with the parents, then that is their right. And as the law and society clearly stipulates the parent is responsible for the teenager, legally and morally. If that changes, you let me know.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I find this whole idea of treating teenagers like kids is backwards and outdated. |
It is. But it is a natural consequence of more education on one hand and pop-culture dumbing them down, and the world being more complex. At the same time the biological reality, both sexually and intellectually creates a tension between maturity and immaturity that won't disappear any time soon. Particularly since corporations seek to expand and exploit that segment of the population. (mainly to younger ages, tweens, etc.)
| Big Brother wrote: |
| If a 16-year-old loves as 18-year (snip) he state stop them from getting married? |
The parents legal responsibility.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Really, why is pre-consent a requirement? Once you are dead, you are just a chuck of meat. And if somebody wants to play with food, I see no reason to stop him. |
LOL, now that's quality! Food fight!
The reasons are many, some obvious, some not.
One is the wishes of family members... then religious reasons.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| (By the way... i should mention that there is a lot of going on here) |
I have been warned.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Yes... look at this issue from a historical perspective... Follow the progress of societal change. Realize that progress is generally slow, but it the are no set rules on the direction it can go. Fantasize for a few minutes about what the rules of society would be if the Nazis had won WWII. What sort of views would they consider "backwards". |
I've considered that potentiality for hours in years past.
They would consider so many views backwards they wouldn't be able to maintain their hold of society. From a historical perspective, it is much easier to create an oppressive society, than it is to maintain it.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Don’t confuse random change with "progress". |
Random? This along with the previous paragraph are confusing, what are you getting at? And I don't measure 'progress' by change, be it random or not.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Get a few congressmen, judges, and media outlets to agree with you and anything is possible. |
You forgot generals, religious leaders and intellectuals. And this supports what?
| Big Brother wrote: |
I have them every now and again.
But this does bring me to another question... What sort of effect will gay marriage have on society on a whole? Break out the crystal ball...
The supreme court has just ruled that rules banning gay marriage are unconstitutional -- Now what?
Well, probably not very much. Gays will get married. Their spouses will get all the legal benefits of marriage. There will probably be a few groups here and there who do not want to "play ball", but a few lawsuits should change that. But all-in-all, the day-to-day lives of most people will be unaffected. I mean... there will be a few related changes here and there. All terminology which describes "marriage" will be declared oldspeak, and anybody that utters the phrase "man & wife" will probably get sued for discrimination. But other than that, not much will change. Only a small percentage of people are gay in the first place, and even fewer of them will want to get married... so the most part they will be invisible. (A little like inter-racial couples are today -- blacks are free to marry whites, but 99% of the population prefer not to.) |
Hehehe, sued... I think political correctness is past its heyday.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But one thing is for sure -- this issue will not go away. As things currently stand, most of the population do not support the recognition of gay marriages -- and I see no reason for that to change any time soon. |
Agreed, but I do think it will occur sooner than you suspect. What I precisely mean by that, don't bother asking. Okay, what I mean by that is that gay marriage will be legal in a few states... when the sky doesn't fall, it will be adopted by other states in relatively quick order. (certainly there will be hold-outs... such is the strength and weakness of the U.S.)
| Big Brother wrote: |
| In fact, I can see this issue becoming a battle cry for the religious right -- and the Republican party will undoubtedly benefit. |
Good for them. They need all the help they can get.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| So, there you have it --- If you like the Republican party and want to see them succeed in the future, you should support gay marriage. |
I can support it, but that doesn't mean I have to push it during election time.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I don't think it will matter. Marriage will continue to decline in popularity into the foreseeable future. |
Damn straight!
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #5034
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-08-13 23:05
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 22:18; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #5040
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-08-14 02:18
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Homosexuality and why its wrong |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RoyBoy wrote: |
There is anti-polygamy legislation on the books, and that will be challenged. However I think it can be detrimental to society, because the ratio of single men to women gets messed up.
|
Doesn't homosexuality do the same thing? Are there an equal ratio of male homosexuals to female homosexuals? I would guess that there are far more male homosexuals than females.
hmm... let me check that assumption...
[/url]
| The first source I could find wrote: |
Studies indicate that 0.3 percent of adult females report having practiced homosexual behavior in the past year, 0.4 percent have practiced homosexual behavior in the last five years, and 3 percent have ever practiced homosexual behavior in their lifetime. A study in Developmental Psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate which is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population.
Numerous studies indicate that while nearly 5 percent of males report having had a homosexual experience sometime in their lives, the number of exclusive homosexuals is considerably less: Between 1 and 2 percent of males report exclusive homosexual behavior over a several-year period. However, J. M. Bailey et al. found that 9 percent of the adult sons of homosexual fathers were homosexual in their adult sexual behavior: "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission."
|
Ok.. so there are about twice as many gay males as females, so if destroying the "equal ratio" was such a concern, you should oppose homosexuality as well.
The population as a whole generally has more females than males anyway, due to the slightly lower life expectancy of males (wars seem to exacerbate this problem as well).
If restoring the "equal ratio" were a goal, you should oppose homosexuality and support polygamy. It is likely that most polygamist marriages will be 1 man and several women, which would help bring us closer to an equal ration of available mates.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And more than that, not many people thought that this situation would really ever change. Even after the slaves would freed, nobody seriously though that they would ever be given the right to vote -- or god forbid -- run for office themselves. Go back in time and tell an abolitionist from the 1850's what modern society looks like today and see what he says. |
I have no idea where you're going with this.
|
You had said that my polygamy et al arguments were nothing more than a slippery slope. I'm sure the abolitionist dismissed the opponents arguments as "slippery slopes" as well...
"Ha! Just because we free does slaves does not mean they will ever be allowed to vote or marry white women... That would just be CRAZY!"
But I would guess that if you were to go back in time and prove to these abolitionists that these "slippery slopes" would really come to pass, most would start signing another tune.
Of course, our society has "progressed" to the point were we can look back and laugh at the "racist" attitudes of the past. But the people of the past would have never have dreamed that the world would be as it is today. I am just saying that you can't dismiss these "slippery slopes" just because you think they are crazy. The people of the future might not agree with you.
But he who controls the present controls the future. We can alter the course of societal evolution, but we cannot decide on its final destination. That will be up to the future generations who grow up in the world we have created for them.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Indeed. I disagree with the changes you foresee, I see other consequences.
|
What does your crystal ball tell you?
| RoyBoy wrote: |
No. The case for polygamy will be made and will periodically be made... especially in Utah, but it won't come to pass for the foreseeable future. Perhaps if and when we start colonizing other planets circumstances will be favorable for polygamy, but till then... too bad.
|
What will be the legal basis for denying polygamy once homosexual relationships are recognized? If the case of polygamy makes it to the supreme court, what would they have to base their opinion on? What would be the rationale for denying the right to marry multiple wives?... That it goes against our "traditional values"? I don't quite think that's gonna fly.
And how 'bout this one?... Homosexual polygamy!
If three guys want to all get married to each other, why would be the "moral basis" for denying their request?
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Why would I? Prostitution still needs to be liberalized. 8)
|
I would tend to agree. Not that I would ever pay for sex, but I think if the business were properly regulated everybody involves would be better off.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Why's that? (And I don't think its weird, I think its wrong.)
|
Interesting...
| RoyBoy wrote: |
TV is my friennnnndddd... *drool*
|
Hey... you started the "media" thing...
| Quote: |
Hopefully you're not being serious. No one proposed any such thing, and if they did it was a wildly oversimplified statement... something which routinely makes the 'sound bite' level of corporate media outlets
|
...I think the only "sound bite" here is that gay couples should be recognized an man & wife, and that this change will have no other effect on society. It's up to you to decide if the changes that will follow this one are desirable or not... but you can't pretend other changes will not follow.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| It isn't hierarchy... it is love. Lot's of love. |
As I said, even the hippies couldn't make it work.
It's not just love, but everything else that comes with marriage...
multiplied by the number of adults (and perhaps children) involved.
|
:DA: But what business is it of yours what these people do with their lives?
| RoyBoy wrote: |
If that were the case one would expect an even distribution of patriarchal and matriarchal polygamy. That is not the case.
|
Yes... it will probably not be equal. But wouldn't it be "sexist" to deny polygamy on this basis alone?
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| You are obviously a sexist, because nobody ever said that polygamy would be limited to 1 man + x women. |
Alternatively I could obviously know what I'm talking about.
|
He's a SEXIST! He's a SEXIST! 
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And besides... who the hell are you to tell these people that they can't get married if they want to? |
Why do I have to be anyone? The rationale is the pertinent stuff.
|
Well... if start discussing the "rationale" of one many wanting two wives, you open yourselves up to attacks from people that want to discuss the "rationale" of one man wanting to marry another.
This may be an oversimplification... but I think the best argument in favor Gay marriage is the "It's none of your business" argument. But I don't see why homosexuality isn't our business, but polygamy is. If anything, I find polygamy to be a little more "natural" that gay marriage.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
The appropriate term is speciesism and I have argued against this little appreciated phenomenon. Specifically regarding our treatment of animals in testing, as food 'product units' and so forth. However I don't believe other species should have the same rights as bipedal apes, or as I've recently come to see us, the water ape.
| Big Brother wrote: |
So here... put two societal changes together...
1) Animals have the same rights as humans
2) The state will recognize the marriage of any two adults (or groups of adults)
Now, given this legal precedent --- and assuming that KoKo would say (or sign) "yes" when I pop the big question -- what will be the legal basis for denying us our right to marry? |
You guys would make a cute couple. The legal basis is firmly entrenched (even if its hopelessly idealistic) that all men (humans) are created equal under the law. To change that would be impossible during this epoch. |
"Speciesst"... I like that one.
But really... If an Ape has the same IQ as a severely retarded human, why is the "moral basis' for denying them the same rights?... "Genetics"? ... That argument might have gone over well in the past. But if modern society is to consistent in their views, we all have to agree that there really isn’t any reason -- apart from Nazi-like "speciesism" -- to deny rights to any of "god's children".
And Like I said... If Gorilla’s someday are bestowed the exact same rights as man, what would be the basis for denying them the right to marry under our laws? If they would ever become citizens, would you be opposed to their right to vote?.... or run for office?
| RoyBoy wrote: |
And I repeat my firm position that polygamy will not be recognized any time soon in developed nations.
|
I'm telling you -- it will. It won't happen right away, but I suspect that you are going to start seeing legal challenges within a couple years after gay marriages are recognized. After that, I'd say that you could see polygamy legalized within 5 years -- although I concede that it might take a couple decades. But barring some sort of major "religious revival" in this country, I see no reason that the polygamist wouldn't eventually win their case.
And on a side note, I have to wonder what effect legal polygamy would have on society. I imagine that a few Mormon types will be the first to take advantage of the re-legitimization of polygamy. But I suspect eventually, you'll start seeing actors, rock stars, and the like start to jump on the polygamy bandwagon. You know that eventually somebody is going to try it as a publicity stunt -- probably Madonna. But I can see how polygamy could eventually turn into a sort of status-symbol among te rich and famous.
(Although personally, I don't think a man with two wives it to be admired... I think he should be pitied)
But in any case, I don't think I would like the effect of legal polygamy on society. And since gay marriage is an obvious step in this direction, I don't think I'm wrong for being generally opposed to the idea.
For comparison, many prohibitionist claim that "Medical Marijuana" is nothing more than a stepping stone to all-out legalization. And you know what?.... They are absolutely correct. Anybody who is honest will admit it. Everybody who favors ending prohibition will also be in favor of "Medical Marijuana" ... and just about everybody who is in favor of "Medical Marijuana" is also in favor of ending prohibition. And there is no denying that once marijuana is used for medical purposes, it will become increasingly difficult to justify its illegality. At the very least, it will be difficult for the [url=http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/]ONDCP to run ads claiming that marijuana destroys you life while, at the same time, marijuana is used by thousands of people for health purposes.
It is difficult to argue against medical marijuana. The only real argument opponents have is that it is a slippery slope... which it is. as for myself, this slippery slope does not bother me -- it is my goal! Yet, at the same time, I wouldn't dismiss my opponent’s uments a pure "paranoia", because I know they are correct. Likewise, Polygamy IS the next step after gay marriage. If gay marriages are ever recognized, I would lay hard money down on polygamy laws being repealed within at least the next 25 years.
There is no such thing as a 100% fool-proof bet in politics, but I'd say that this gay marriage/polygamy thing is about the bets odds you can possibly get. So therefore, I don't think somebody would be completely off-base if they opposed gay marriage because they did not want polygamy. (And I won't even get into the other zanier "slippery slopes" I mentioned before)
| RoyBoy wrote: |
If the teenager (of any age) is living with the parents, then that is their right. And as the law and society clearly stipulates the parent is responsible for the teenager, legally and morally. If that changes, you let me know.
|
I'm not necessarily saying that it will happen, I am just saying that it is changeable.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
I've considered that potentiality for hours in years past.
|
It's one of my favorites as well. History is cool.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
They would consider so many views backwards they wouldn't be able to maintain their hold of society. From a historical perspective, it is much easier to create an oppressive society, than it is to maintain it.
|
Hitler felt the same way about us...
"I don’t see much future for the Americans.... Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it’s half Judaized, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together?" - Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German dictator. Hitler’s Table Talk, pt. 2 (1953)
...But perhaps I should save that for the Was Hitler right or wrong? thread.
| RoyBoy wrote: |
Hehehe, sued... I think political correctness is past its heyday.
|
I wish it were. But don't try to tell me I'm wrong on this one. You know that eventually some company will have a little goofy "man & wife" potato-sack race at their company picnic and some crybaby will whine that this language excludes "domestics partners", and a lawsuit will ensue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #5056
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-08-14 07:36
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| Re: Homosexuality and why its wrong |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
Doesn't homosexuality do the same thing? Are there an equal ratio of male homosexuals to female homosexuals? I would guess that there are far more male homosexuals than females.
hmm... let me check that assumption...
[snip source]
Ok.. so there are about twice as many gay males as females, so if destroying the "equal ratio" was such a concern, you should oppose homosexuality as well.
The population as a whole generally has more females than males anyway, due to the slightly lower life expectancy of males (wars seem to exacerbate this problem as well).
If restoring the "equal ratio" were a goal, you should oppose homosexuality and support polygamy. It is likely that most polygamist marriages will be 1 man and several women, which would help bring us closer to an equal ration of available mates. |
My last post said reason(s), emphasis on the (s). The pertinent part of the argument is not only the ratio, but who is potentially left without partners. Men without partners are much more troublesome then women. Having more women is a good thing, its a safety margin.
Also polygamy messes up the ratio in the heterosexual world, which is the important segment. Gay marriage doesn't affect this, since they are GAY 
| Big Brother wrote: |
You had said that my polygamy et al arguments were nothing more than a slippery slope. I'm sure the abolitionist dismissed the opponents arguments as "slippery slopes" as well...
"Ha! Just because we free does slaves does not mean they will ever be allowed to vote or marry white women... That would just be CRAZY!"
But I would guess that if you were to go back in time and prove to these abolitionists that these "slippery slopes" would really come to pass, most would start signing another tune. |
Well, that's their problem. Each issue as it comes. To base ones decision making on potential effects, and not on the matter at hand (can be) dishonest, lazy... and foremost, just plain wrong. Given the context of their times your likely right about many abolitionists, but then again if that's the case... they weren't true abolitionists. Merely people with economic and political motives that were served by joining the movement that DID see those consequences is ultimately just (even if they were unconfortable with it at the time). Nothing wrong with that given blacks were pretty rough around the edges (at the time) and indeed needed time to be integrated into society.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Of course, our society has "progressed" to the point were we can look back and laugh at the "racist" attitudes of the past. But the people of the past would have never have dreamed that the world would be as it is today. I am just saying that you can't dismiss these "slippery slopes" just because you think they are crazy. The people of the future might not agree with you. |
Stop that! Crazy, weird... eh? And I'm not dismissing it, I'm explaining why I think you are fundamentally wrong in your prediction. In the above you added a hypothetical on top of your assertion, I'll simply nullify it by saying the the 'people of the future might not agree with you' and the entire abolitionist argument amounts to nil. (Well not quite, I clarified what would make a true abolitionist, the fact some people were not sincere in 'freeing' the blacks isn't my problem; and doesn't support the slippery slope.)
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But he who controls the present controls the future. We can alter the course of societal evolution, but we cannot decide on its final destination. That will be up to the future generations who grow up in the world we have created for them. |
Yup, and I want a world of tolerance. Not constant second guessing.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| What does your crystal ball tell you? |
Good question. More exceptance/integration of gays in society. Leading to less promisquity in its culture, more people accepting themselves for who they are (coming out of the closet), fewer suicides associated with sexual identity and being gay becoming less important, and just normal. Smaller gay pride parades, and fewer homo bashing incidents.
With more members (out), the gay lobby begins placing individuals in government, military and media outlets. In just a few short decades they have thoroughly infiltrated society, and just when everyone thinks we are getting along... they slip in a gay President and he enacts draconian measures against straight people! THE SEX WARS HAVE BEGUN!!!
| Big Brother wrote: |
| What will be the legal basis for denying polygamy once homosexual relationships are recognized? |
The exact same it was prior to this.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| If the case of polygamy makes it to the supreme court, what would they have to base their opinion on? What would be the rationale for denying the right to marry multiple wives?... That it goes against our "traditional values"? I don't quite think that's gonna fly. |
No it wouldn't.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And how 'bout this one?... Homosexual polygamy! |
Now your talking! Same problems with polygamy.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| If three guys want to all get married to each other, why would be the "moral basis" for denying their request? |
Not sure if there is one. Thankfully that isn't necessary to deny it.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I would tend to agree. Not that I would ever pay for sex, but I think if the business were properly regulated everybody involves would be better off. |
Darn right!
| RoyBoy wrote: |
TV is my friennnnndddd... *drool*
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Hey... you started the "media" thing... |
|
That doesn't excuse you from driving it into a ditch.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| ...I think the only "sound bite" here is that gay couples should be recognized an man & wife, and that this change will have no other effect on society. It's up to you to decide if the changes that will follow this one are desirable or not... but you can't pretend other changes will not follow. |
Okay.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But what business is it of yours what these people do with their lives? |
If it effects me and society at large detrimentally, I'll get all up into their business. That's the way society works. (meaning both how it functions successfully, and how it addresses problems)
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Yes... it will probably not be equal. But wouldn't it be "sexist" to deny polygamy on this basis alone? |
I didn't deny anyone anything. I just made the observation that typically polygamy is dominated by men, and I see no reason to think that would change now. And I didn't make it explicit before, but the opposition to polygamy would be fierce (if necessary) from feminist rights groups. This by itself is enough to freeze polygamy in its tracks, however I predict they wouldn't even need to be mobilized.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| He's a SEXIST! He's a SEXIST! |
I might be 8) , but not from what I said here.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Well... if start discussing the "rationale" of one many wanting two wives, you open yourselves up to attacks from people that want to discuss the "rationale" of one man wanting to marry another. |
Go right ahead. But its a non-starter since I'm talking about the rationale 'against' something (regarding polygamy), rather than 'for' something. (even though you did explicity ask for my predicted consequences, but that isn't the basis for my support of same-sex marriage)
| Big Brother wrote: |
| This may be an oversimplification... but I think the best argument in favor Gay marriage is the "It's none of your business" argument. But I don't see why homosexuality isn't our business, but polygamy is. If anything, I find polygamy to be a little more "natural" that gay marriage. |
Your right... its an oversimplification, and leads you down the polygamy path where you don't need to go. A better argument is intersexuals. People who are neither male or female. Polygamy is more documented than gay marriage and as I've already said has its practical (natural) advantages.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| "Speciesst"... I like that one. |
The philosophers who wrote a journal article on it thought so.
http://www.stpt.usf.edu/hhl/papers/species.htm
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But really... If an Ape has the same IQ as a severely retarded human, why is the "moral basis' for denying them the same rights?... "Genetics"? ... That argument might have gone over well in the past. But if modern society is to consistent in their views, we all have to agree that there really isn’t any reason -- apart from Nazi-like "speciesism" -- to deny rights to any of "god's children". |
They're intelligence affords them rights, but not equality. Why not?
Yes, because of their genetics... which practically translates into
differing capacities for development of emotion and such.
Retarded humans also have differing capacities, and indeed it is hypocrital of us to afford the same rights to retards as normal people. But we don't, so what's your point? Yes indeed we define them as human, and try our best to treat them as equals, but that is us being nice (politically correct) guys, it isn't an acknowledgement that things of lesser capacity have equal rights as us. Because when it comes down to it, they don't.
| Big Brother wrote: |
And Like I said... If Gorilla’s someday are bestowed the exact same rights as man, what would be the basis for denying them the right to marry under our laws? If they would ever become citizens, would you be opposed to their right to vote?.... or run for office?
|
Loaded question, so I won't bother.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I'm telling you -- it will. It won't happen right away, but I suspect that you are going to start seeing legal challenges within a couple years after gay marriages are recognized. |
Absolutely.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| After that, I'd say that you could see polygamy legalized within 5 years -- although I concede that it might take a couple decades. But barring some sort of major "religious revival" in this country, I see no reason that the polygamist wouldn't eventually win their case. |
Wrong, wrong and dead wrong. There are valid reasons, you haven't thought about it thorougly enough, and you obviously haven't begun to consider the opposition it would receive ASSUMING it made any headway in the courts. Which it won't. (Unless the courts simply want to expedite it to the Supreme Court so that it can be soundly rejected.)
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And on a side note, I have to wonder what effect legal polygamy would have on society. |
Maybe you should do that before arguing it will happen.
Perhaps you can take a gander at religions, like Islam, which allow it.
Certainly a different culture, and one the west isn't in a rush to emulate.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I imagine that a few Mormon types will be the first to take advantage of the re-legitimization of polygamy. But I suspect eventually, you'll start seeing actors, rock stars, and the like start to jump on the polygamy bandwagon. You know that eventually somebody is going to try it as a publicity stunt -- probably Madonna. But I can see how polygamy could eventually turn into a sort of status-symbol among te rich and famous. |
The rich and famous angle is intriguing, I hadn't considered that out of left field possibility. Course in so doing they would destroy their career, hence unlikely to happen, unless its already destroyed and they just want attention. Michael Jackson anyone?
| Big Brother wrote: |
| (Although personally, I don't think a man with two wives it to be admired... I think he should be pitied) |
Hehe.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But in any case, I don't think I would like the effect of legal polygamy on society. |
Neither would judges who would resoundedly vote against it.
Simply because you haven't bothered to conjure up a defense (legal or otherwise to polygamy) doesn't mean judges will be without ammo.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And since gay marriage is an obvious step in this direction, I don't think I'm wrong for being generally opposed to the idea. |
Well, ah... sure, I guess. Not!
| Big Brother wrote: |
| For comparison, many prohibitionist claim that "Medical Marijuana" is nothing more than a stepping stone to all-out legalization. And you know what?.... They are absolutely correct. Anybody who is honest will admit it. Everybody who favors ending prohibition will also be in favor of "Medical Marijuana" ... and just about everybody who is in favor of "Medical Marijuana" is also in favor of ending prohibition. And there is no denying that once marijuana is used for medical purposes, it will become increasingly difficult to justify its illegality. At the very least, it will be difficult for the ONDCP to run ads claiming that marijuana destroys you life while, at the same time, marijuana is used by thousands of people for health purposes. |
Good point. What does that have to do with this discussion?
Um, before you explain to me why you think it does,
I'll try to reassure you it doesn't.
Even if you did the near impossible and showed polygamists were actually in support of same-sex marriage because it improved their chances of accomplishing their goal (keep in mind they can think it helps them, but at the same time be against same-sex marriage); one doesn't lead to the other as easily has medical to legal marijuana. The slippery slope is self evident from the fact its the same thing (marijuana), with different labels. Polygamy and same-sex marriage are significantly different. You're making the thread unnecessarily long with these tangents. 
| Big Brother wrote: |
| It is difficult to argue against medical marijuana. The only real argument opponents have is that it is a slippery slope... which it is. as for myself, this slippery slope does not bother me -- it is my goal! Yet, at the same time, I wouldn't dismiss my opponent’s uments a pure "paranoia", because I know they are correct. Likewise, Polygamy IS the next step after gay marriage. If gay marriages are ever recognized, I would lay hard money down on polygamy laws being repealed within at least the next 25 years. |
No.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| There is no such thing as a 100% fool-proof bet in politics, but I'd say that this gay marriage/polygamy thing is about the bets odds you can possibly get. So therefore, I don't think somebody would be completely off-base if they opposed gay marriage because they did not want polygamy. (And I won't even get into the other zanier "slippery slopes" I mentioned before) |
Well, they would be off-base. Actually they wouldn't even be in the infield.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I'm not necessarily saying that it will happen, I am just saying that it is changeable. |
Okay.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| It's one of my favorites as well. History is cool. |
8)
| Big Brother wrote: |
Hitler felt the same way about us...
"I don’t see much future for the Americans.... Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it’s half Judaized, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together?" - Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German dictator. Hitler’s Table Talk, pt. 2 (1953)
...But perhaps I should save that for the Was Hitler right or wrong? thread. |
Good thing he was deluded and narrow-minded, and in this case wrong in his basic count.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I wish it were. But don't try to tell me I'm wrong on this one. You know that eventually some company will have a little goofy "man & wife" potato-sack race at their company picnic and some crybaby will whine that this language excludes "domestics partners", and a lawsuit will ensue. |
I agree. Just because its past its heyday doesn't mean its gone. Anyway, there wouldn't be a lawsuit for several reasons. One, if a company does have openly marriage gay couples, they would be sensitive enough to account for that (one of the GOOD consequences to gay marriage). If they overlook it they would change it immediately if called on it in order to avoid a potential lawsuit and looking homophobic as a result. Three, gay couples wouldn't have much of a lawsuit if they were still allowed to participate in the inappropriately named event.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
