Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/10/2010 10:20:54 PM · #4626

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Has societies contempt for Christianity rubbed off on you?

Society does not have contempt for Christianity. The notion is silly. Seventy-six percent of Americans identify as Christian. You can't swing a bishop's girdle anywhere in the States without striking a dozen true believers. The persecutorial complex amongst believers of the Christian persuasion would be funny, if it wasn't so disingenuously self-serving. Forgive the apparent Godwin invocation (I'm a student of German history), but a Christian in Ã¼ber-Christian America complaining about society's "contempt" for his religion is a little like the ReichsfÃ¼hrer-SS climbing the podium in Posen to bemoan how the Jews are taking over the world, even as the bodies pile higher around him.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Are you one of those "life has meaning because I say it does" people? If not, what does give life meaning? I've always wondered how an atheist would answer that question...

I don't know what the first sentence is supposed to mean (don't bother explaining), but I've been giving your last question some thought, because it arises from such a skewed perspective on what it means to have meaning in one's life that it is, in fact, truly depressing. I feel deeply sorry for anyone that sincerely believes all happiness and meaning arise out of exactly where that individual finds himself in life, or from exactly the perspective his world view gives him. These divides and these sorts of self-aggrandizing philosophies are precisely why there is so much unhappiness, and why there will never be an end of suffering for people.

What sort of meaning do you think Stephen Hawking has in life? Or what meaning had Charles Darwin had? Or Carl Sagan? Or George Carlin? Or Bill Maher? Or 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences in the States? To dismiss huge swathes of humanity, and in fact precious portions of society without whom we would cease to function as the society you recognize, as having lives without meaning, or lives lived in a vacuum, or lives lived purposelessly, really goes beyond arrogance, beyond over-weaning hubris. It enters the arena of the dangerous, the irretrievably deluded.

Those without religion live lives absolutely filled with meaning, overflowing with meaning. They have spouses, and children, and parents, and they experience life exactly as you do, and find its sorrows unbearable and joys ineffable, just like you. Some (like Hitchens) find the deepest of meaning in academia and literature, and the pleasures and love of their children and their spouses, and make their contributions thereof for the benefit of others. To ask in all sincerity where these good people find meaning in their lives isn't just outrageous; the notion is truly, truly sad.

Imagining things about a being nobody has seen who issues arcane commands about sex and slaves and other bronze-age nonsense from the pages of an ancient text, when literacy was low and credulity high, does not enhance the meaning of life. It seriously detracts from the joy of life in my view, from the thing that gives life its loveliness, its base reason for being lived. Life is to be lived for the joy of the company of others and the beauties and pleasures of the universe, not for the petty feudal gods that a species in its social infancy had to conjure in order to cooperate successfully together.

People of all persuasions love life and find meaning in the very act of living it, thankyouverymuch. It is well worth living, it is meaningful in the extreme, despite the best efforts of the least clued amongst the believers. Any suggestion that the only meaning is to be derived from the beliefs of the credulous, beliefs that must go unchallenged to survive, is backward-looking.

Message edited by author 2010-03-10 23:07:22.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

03/10/2010 10:29:37 PM · #4627

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

"Marriage", as it exists today, isn't much more than a contractual agreement between two people and the government.

I was going to stay out of this thread, but this is just too far.

You know nothing about marriage. How you can even make a statement like this is beyond any reasonable comprehension whatsoever. Are you even married? What you really need to do if you want to actually speak with one whit of credulity about marriage, which at the ripe age of 24 is virtually impossible, would be to make a study of people who have been married for some time, and find out, from them, what it's all about. Of course, you'd actually have to shut up, listen to them, and accept that absolutely, unequivocally, they damn sure know more about marriage than you, especially if they've been together for decades. But you still wouldn't understand it because it's not something you can hear about and know.

My wife and I have been together for almost 32 years, 27 of them as legal man & wife, and after all this time, we are still friends above all else. We love, care about, respect, and genuinely want to make the other happy in every way we can. Our lives have been completely entwined, and everything we do is in some way or another, an extension of each other.

If you think you can reduce that to a contractual agreement between us and the government, you're even more clueless, naive, and misguided than I already think you are. Grow up a lot, shut up every once in a while, and listen, and you might actually learn something.

If you think this whole thing is about contractual agreements, your complete incomprehension of what a marriage actually is all about is a major stumbling block. You can't read about it, you really cannot understand what it's really all about 'til you've gone through the troubles, struggles, joys, excitement, and the complete bonding of two people as one.

And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with gender. It's about two PEOPLE, and if you think a covenant is a Christian thing, again, you're dead wrong.

covÂ·eÂ·nantâ��noun
1.an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.
2.Law. an incidental clause in such an agreement.
3.Ecclesiastical. a solemn agreement between the members of a church to act together in harmony with the precepts of the gospel.

Definition #3.....and it doesn't say Christian, it says CHURCH. But the first two are about defining the word.

"Marriage", as it exists today, isn't much more than a contractual agreement between two people and the government."

Give me a f*cking break!

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

03/11/2010 10:29:53 AM · #4628

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Well, that is why I support covenant marriage. In my opinion, all marriages performed in a Christian church should be "covenants", not necessarily in the legal term, but definitely in the sense that the couple understands their marriage is not merely a contract that gives them certain rights, but that Christian marriage is a covenant between two people and God. "Marriage", as it exists today, isn't much more than a contractual agreement between two people and the government.

To redirect Jeb's anger into a more constructive criticism...

Many arguments focus on the fact that denying gay couples the right to marry legally also denies them legal rights available to other heterosexual couples (tax breaks, pension rights, guardianship issues etc). This is a clear and objective iniquity.

However, as Jeb says, marriage means a lot more than a contract - I married my wife for a lot of reasons and securing legal rights was not at the top of my list (and doing anything in front of god was completely off my list). Many gay couples want access to the same ceremony for the same reasons as any of us who is married. There is no obvious good reason why they should not have access to the same service and rights as those of us who choose a secular wedding service.

I would also posit that people have always been the same and that in permitting divorce we acknowledge a fact of human nature. Before divorce, a broadly equivalent proportion of people were either unhappily marrried or unfaithfully married.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Before you know it, single people will be struggling for the same rights all in the name of equality. In some respect, equality is the enemy of sanctity. Think about it. Being an American has less significance and meaning today than it did 200 years ago, because many people throughout the world have many of the same rights and privileges in their country. The more people that have access to something, the less special that something is.

Weird reasoning. In particular, the idea that single people want equivalent rights to married people - how does that work? The right to inherit my own wealth automatically when I die? With statements like these you really undermine any other of your more credible comments.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

At any rate Matthew, I agree with you. Christians should be more concerned with upholding the sanctity of Christian marriage, and less concerned with what the government decides regarding secular marriage.

Just to be clear - I was recommending this in order for Christians to be more logically consistent within their worldview, not because I think that there is a genuine issue that needs fixing.

JokersSoul

Canon EOS-50D

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Canon

03/11/2010 01:43:47 PM · #4629

I did not read this entire thread so forgive me if I repeat anything that has already been said.

I am a lesbian. Been out for 20+ years, but known my whole life. I am also a Christian. Some say that being both homosexual and a Christian can't happen. I beg to differ. I guess that may be another post, but I bring it up because I have been happily "un-married" to my partner Robin for almost 11 years. Do I want to get legally married to her... of course I do, but at the same token, we have been living as a committed, faithful couple for the entirety of our relationship. We are successfully raising our teenage son. We go to work, pay our taxes, watch TV, cuddle, fight, make up, go on vacations, etc... just like every couple. The only difference is what happens behind closed doors and frankly, it is no one's business. Just like I don't care what heterosexuals do behind their closed doors.

I think that there has been a lot of progress towards equality, but there have also been set backs. I live in Colorado (not a real gay friendly state). I agree with Jeb that marriage is a whole lot more than a piece of paper. Even though I am not legally married, I am in a committed relationship that I view as if I were married. I value my partner, love her, honor her, care for her in times of sickness.

In the end, the only one that I have to answer to is God. I will stand proudly before him and enter into his kingdom. I strongly believe this is so.

For the haters out there, it is okay for you to hate me. Just remember, you don't know me and what I go through. I just pray that one day your eyes will be opened and that you will see that I am a lot like you... a LOT like you.

frisca

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/11/2010 01:56:48 PM · #4630

Originally posted by JokersSoul:

And as such, if I might make an observation about your life, Kari, you and your partner deserve to be have all the legal benefits that are afforded heterosexual committed "married" relationships. Estate planning is greatly simplied with those benefits in place and certainly more strictly adhered to than without.

Incidentally, I just read an article in the USA Today that a Mississippi school board has cancelled its prom rather than change it homophobic policies to allow a lesbian student wear a tuxedo and bring her girlfriend to the prom. Its mindboggling!

JokersSoul

Canon EOS-50D

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Canon

03/11/2010 02:44:46 PM · #4631

Originally posted by frisca:

Thank you frisca! One other thing I forgot to mention is that if something were to happen to my partner, legally I have no right to make decisions for her. Luckily, her family is very supportive and would allow my input into life changing decisions, but they could at any time do what they want without my say in it. I think this is what worries me the most.

We had girls at our prom wear tuxes. It is a shame that the school is being this way. Goes to show that there is still a long way to go, but I am hopeful that one day we will prevail. I don't want special rights... just equal rights.

Mousie

03/12/2010 01:53:49 PM · #4632

Thanks JokersSoul, that was very well put. I'm afraid I've grown too cynical and snarky to bother pointing this kind of stuff out anymore... I hope at least some sympathetic people remember what I've said about the importance of marriage in the past, mostly around the time I actually got married, and earlier throughout these threads.

Everybody forgets that marriage isn't about two people and two people alone. It's about bringing a family together. It's about mother & father in-laws, and new nieces & nephews. It's about celebrating connections, building bonds, and bringing people together... well beyond the scope of two people in love. My new, larger family wants us to be married as much as we do! They share our joy.

What the conservatives want is to sever any legal or social bond between my mothers as well as the one my husband and I share. Of course this is in the context of denying me or mine any recognition, legal or not. We aren't even 20 years past my sex life being illegal in many states. It had been illegal for over half my life!!! I started dating my husband before Lawrence Vs. Texas was decided! Imagine how that feels, even if you happen to live somewhere you wouldn't be thrown in jail for expressing intimacy with your spouse.

This battle over equal marriage rights is just the latest front we've pushed our opposition back to, just one more step in a process of incrementally securing homosexuals' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm hopeful that we can continue to push conservatives harder and harder, as more people realize that I am a man like any other, JokersSoul is a woman like any other, and that our lives are pretty damn ordinary when you actually look. (My apologies if your life is spectacular, JokersSoul!)

Message edited by author 2010-03-12 19:24:15.

03/12/2010 06:27:54 PM · #4633

I just want to clarify that when I'm talking about marriage as a contractual agreement, I'm talking about what marriage is from the government's perspective. Is this thread about gay rights or gay relationships? I was under the impression that it was about rights, so I was talking about the legal aspect of marriage. I think that how Jeb described marriage as more than a contract is absolutely correct. But I was arguing from a legal perspective, not a personal perspective. And, for the record, I've been married for almost 3 years now. So I do know something about meaningful marrriage relationships.

03/12/2010 10:02:26 PM · #4634

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I just want to clarify that when I'm talking about marriage as a contractual agreement, I'm talking about what marriage is from the government's perspective. Is this thread about gay rights or gay relationships?

To paraphrase the Friendly Giant, look up...look way up, and there you will find a title which says what:"Are gay rights evolving?". Does that give you a hint.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I was under the impression that it was about rights, so I was talking about the legal aspect of marriage.

First of all, you might give a bit of consideration to the fact that the rights being addressed in this instance encompass a great deal more than those dealing with marriage issues.

No offence Johnny, but there have been several instances where legal issues were specifically addressed and your response in each instance has been to quote scriptures and provide us with biblical interpretations... hardly legal arguments those.

As far as your other comments where you state that you were talking about what marriage is from a government perspective I guess I will have to go back and re-read all that you said in this regard since I can't remember anything of the sort. I do on the other hand recall a great deal of reference to the bible, church dogma and tenet.

All factors considered, I should be busy for quite a while.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-03-12 22:44:53.

Mousie

03/16/2010 01:56:50 PM · #4635

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I just want to clarify that when I'm talking about marriage as a contractual agreement, I'm talking about what marriage is from the government's perspective. Is this thread about gay rights or gay relationships? I was under the impression that it was about rights, so I was talking about the legal aspect of marriage. I think that how Jeb described marriage as more than a contract is absolutely correct. But I was arguing from a legal perspective, not a personal perspective. And, for the record, I've been married for almost 3 years now. So I do know something about meaningful marrriage relationships.

If you know about something about the meaning of marriage, it reasons that you must think either:

- I don't understand marriage, after being effectively married for 15 years and legally married for a year and a half. (I popped the question the very minute it was possible!) I'm simply misguided about my own relationship's validity. In effect, I have a 'false' marriage that you don't want confused with your own.

- I don't deserve to share my legitimate, meaningful understanding of marriage with the person I choose. I've demonstrated myself as undeserving by choosing the wrong target for my affections. You would take away my right, my perhaps once in a lifetime chance, to express this ineffable feeling with the full support of the state, just like any straight couple.

I don't see much room for other options, if you're against equal marriage rights. Either I don't get it and am just 'playing house', or I don't deserve what you have. That's a treat to see again. And again. Am I wrong? Can you explain how this isn't the case? Is there an option I'm missing?

It hurts to see you hold your marriage out as evidence that you should know what you're talking about, in the context of a debate over the validity my own. It's an unfair playing field. You get to use your marriage as evidence, directly, but you can easily discount my own experience (because I shouldn't have had it) at any time.

Finally, while you didn't respond to my post directly, it's kind of hard not to see my (and JokersSoul's) description of some important aspects of marriage, for anyone, as the subject of what you're protesting: a discussion of 'gay relationships'. It's like you can't even see these aspects of marriage as commonalities and you have to box them up as 'gay'. How mother-in-laws, nieces, and nephews are 'gay' is beyond me. Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

Is this thread about gay rights or gay relationships? Yes. The idea that these are separate is ludicrous.

03/16/2010 01:59:00 PM · #4636

Smart kid.

03/16/2010 08:09:26 PM · #4637

Originally posted by Mousie:

In my opinion, what I highlighted in bold is the problem. You're reinterpreting what marriage is. That's the only problem that I have. You are entitled to have a loving relationship with the person that you choose, and you are entitled to same rights that I am. My problem is that you want to call it marriage. Let's pretend that a bunch of men want to join a woman's basketball league. I have a problem with that. Why? Because I think that men shouldn't be allowed to play basketball? No. I have a problem with that because if men join a woman's basketball league, then you can no longer call it "woman's basketball league". There are essentially two choices. Either you can allow the men into the league or you can create a new league just for men. But if you allow the men into the woman's league, you either need to rename the league "co-ed basketball league" or you need to redefine what a "woman" is. So here's the problem: Gay people want to get married, but they don't want to rename the institution or create their own new institution. They just want to be a part of the institution that already exists. Well, that leaves only one option left... the meaning of the word "marriage" is redefined. According to my worldview, gay marriage is a slap in the face of my God, and I don't want to be associated with someone who slaps my God in the face. If you want to slap my God in the face, that's your decision. Just don't associate me with it! It's highly offensive. It's the same feeling that I get when I hear someone say, "all Americans are fat, greedy, and selfish". I'm not offended because it's untrue (even though it is), or because I disagree with it (even though I do), or because I'm fat and greedy (which I'm not). That statement offends me because I'm an American, and I don't want to be associated with obesity, greed, and selfishness. One hundred years from now I don't want the border police to ask me, "is your husband traveling with you?" just because my passport says, "Marital Status: Married". In my opinion, removing the distinction between marriage and gay marriage is like removing the distinction between male and female. I am morally opposed to gay marriage, and the only way that will change is if I lose my faith. But I am also opposed to gay marriage because rather than simply providing equal rights, it also infringes on the institution that I cherish by claiming the same name. If somebody created a fake document that legalized racism nobody would care, because it has no impact on society. But if that same document was forged with President Obama's signature and the law went into effect, many people would care and President Obama would feel personally violated and offended. I feel the same way about gay marriage, and it's the same feeling that I have when somebody does something that I disagree with in the name of Christianity.

Originally posted by Mousie:

It hurts to see you hold your marriage out as evidence that you should know what you're talking about, in the context of a debate over the validity my own. It's an unfair playing field. You get to use your marriage as evidence, directly, but you can easily discount my own experience (because I shouldn't have had it) at any time.

I'm not holding my marriage as evidence that I know what I'm talking about. I was merely responding to NikonJeb's claim that I know nothing about marriage. He also questioned whether or not I was married, so I answered.

Originally posted by Mousie:

Finally, while you didn't respond to my post directly, it's kind of hard not to see my (and JokersSoul's) description of some important aspects of marriage, for anyone, as the subject of what you're protesting: a discussion of 'gay relationships'. It's like you can't even see these aspects of marriage as commonalities and you have to box them up as 'gay'. How mother-in-laws, nieces, and nephews are 'gay' is beyond me. Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

The only thing that I'm boxing up as "gay" is gay marriage, because I refuse to call it marriage. I also refuse to call a lion a zebra, but that's a different argument. If a man is sexually attracted to another man I call it sexual attraction, not gay sexual attraction. If a man loves another man I don't call it gay love, I call it love. In my opinion, calling a gay marriage, "marriage" is like calling a boy, "girl". It just doesn't make sense to me. A girl doesn't have boy parts, so I don't call her "boy". In the same way, a gay marriage doesn't have girl parts, so I don't call it "marriage". If you're so offended when I define a gay relationship as an abomination, then why are you surprised that I'm offended when you to define a marriage as "a man united with a man"?

Originally posted by Mousie:

Is this thread about gay rights or gay relationships? Yes. The idea that these are separate is ludicrous.

Could you explain what you mean?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/16/2010 09:07:18 PM · #4638

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Let's pretend that a bunch of men want to join a woman's basketball league. I have a problem with that. Why? Because I think that men shouldn't be allowed to play basketball? No. I have a problem with that because if men join a woman's basketball league, then you can no longer call it "woman's basketball league"... According to my worldview, gay marriage is a slap in the face of my God, and I don't want to be associated with someone who slaps my God in the face.

There is no women's marriage league. It's just marriageâ�� a commitment of love between two people, period. The bolded part is your problem. People were married long before any concept of your God (or even a single god) existed, and it wasn't strictly between opposite sexes. Therefore, YOU are the one attempting to redefine marriage as what you imagine it to be rather than what it really is. Buddhism and paganism are even greater slaps in the face of your god, yet there's no outcry to outlaw those... because their choice is none of your business. If an omnipotent god existed and didn't want something to happen, then it wouldn't happen. It always amuses me when people think their all-powerful god is so incapable of enforcing his own wishes that they have to help him out.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The only thing that I'm boxing up as "gay" is gay marriage, because I refuse to call it marriage.

You just did, and in doing so acknowledged that gay marriage is a form of marriage with a qualifier to identify the participants, just like interracial marriage and interfaith marriage, both of which were also widely considered a slap in the face of your god and a "redefinition" of the term until recently.

Message edited by author 2010-03-16 21:26:17.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

03/16/2010 09:12:27 PM · #4639

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Well, that leaves only one option left... the meaning of the word "marriage" is redefined. According to my worldview, gay marriage is a slap in the face of my God, and I don't want to be associated with someone who slaps my God in the face. If you want to slap my God in the face, that's your decision. Just don't associate me with it! It's highly offensive.

You don't get to be offended because marriage was around before your religion, so don't presume to claim it as yours.

Keep your religion out of my marriage, and keep it out of Mousie's, too, because our marriages have to do with equality, commitment, human kindness, love, and decency.......all things that never come to mind when homophobic zealots get all up in trying to claim marriage for their own.

You really don't know anything about marriage, or human decency, or you couldn't possibly be offended, or threatened by gay marriage. What effect does Mousie's relationship have on you? ZERO! Yet you're offended that he wants the same rights and privileges accorded to any two people who make the ultimate commitment to each other? What kind of person would deny that when the situation causes no effect on you whatsoever.

This thread has been raging for a freaking eon and never yet have one of you opponents produced one single example of how two men, or two women marrying affect your relationship. And the answer is so simple, but you'll never admit it.

It has no bearing whatsoever on your relationship. At all. NONE!!!!

03/16/2010 09:56:07 PM · #4640

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

According to my worldview, gay marriage is a slap in the face of my God...

Then your god is a monster and your worldview is an insult to humanity. Sorry, but that's the only way to say it. If you (or your worldview, or whatever) have the cajones to come up with something so breathtakingly insulting -- "the creator of the universe is affronted by your expression of human love", to someone who just told you he has been de facto married for 16 years, and obliquely to others here who you know for a fact are married, including me (for another 16 years) -- then you must be forced to hear the bald truth: only a monstrous lie could account for something so antithetical to what it means to be human. Your religion is false, and the god you've just described is a base lie. That's really all there is to it.

Message edited by author 2010-03-17 00:46:57.

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

03/16/2010 11:00:21 PM · #4641

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

... I am also opposed to gay marriage because rather than simply providing equal rights, it also infringes on the institution that I cherish by claiming the same name.

... and if they changed the name of marriage to "Handfasting" and if this or other similar nomenclature applied to all that wished to be united, would you still hold this untenable position.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Is this thread about gay rights or gay relationships? Yes. The idea that these are separate is ludicrous.

Could you explain what you mean?

...and herein lies the crux of the problem. Rather sad that you are so quick to condemn that which you don't understand.

Ray

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

03/17/2010 01:02:09 AM · #4642

Very cool.

Originally posted by Louis:

Smart kid.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/17/2010 01:26:21 AM · #4643

Smart Politicians

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

03/17/2010 07:08:00 AM · #4644

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Smart Politicians

Let me see if I've got this straight. You want to ignore the fact that once again, it's all about definition, and that A.) Never evolves, AND......B.) You want to offer up this mother of an unwed teen mom as an example of family/moral example, right?

That's your definition of a smart politician?

Got it!

ROFLMAO!!!!!

03/17/2010 10:26:12 AM · #4645

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Smart Politicians

Let me see if I've got this straight. You want to ignore the fact that once again, it's all about definition, and that A.) Never evolves, AND......B.) You want to offer up this mother of an unwed teen mom as an example of family/moral example, right?

That's your definition of a smart politician?

Got it!

ROFLMAO!!!!!

I said POLITICIANS. That's plural. I agree with the statements of both Palin AND Biden. It is all about definition. I acknowledged that. That's the only problem I have with gay marriage. And I never said anything about Palin being an example of family. Stop putting words in my mouth!

By the way. I'd also appreciate it if you stop telling me what I do and do not know about marriage. It's getting obnoxious.

EDIT: At any rate... what does Palin's family have to do with her level of intelligence? Do you seriously judge whether people are smart or not based on what their children do?

Message edited by author 2010-03-17 10:28:02.

03/17/2010 11:08:48 AM · #4646

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Smart Politicians

Let me see if I've got this straight. You want to ignore the fact that once again, it's all about definition, and that A.) Never evolves, AND......B.) You want to offer up this mother of an unwed teen mom as an example of family/moral example, right?

That's your definition of a smart politician?

Got it!

ROFLMAO!!!!!

I said POLITICIANS. That's plural. I agree with the statements of both Palin AND Biden. It is all about definition. I acknowledged that. That's the only problem I have with gay marriage. And I never said anything about Palin being an example of family. Stop putting words in my mouth!

By the way. I'd also appreciate it if you stop telling me what I do and do not know about marriage. It's getting obnoxious.

EDIT: At any rate... what does Palin's family have to do with her level of intelligence? Do you seriously judge whether people are smart or not based on what their children do?

Actually Johnny, you might want to read what Jeb wrote one more time and try real hard to understand exactly what it is he said...(insert hint here...something about morals)

Goodness, did you just try to put words in Jeb's mouth?

Ray

03/17/2010 11:18:43 AM · #4647

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Smart Politicians

Let me see if I've got this straight. You want to ignore the fact that once again, it's all about definition, and that A.) Never evolves, AND......B.) You want to offer up this mother of an unwed teen mom as an example of family/moral example, right?

That's your definition of a smart politician?

Got it!

ROFLMAO!!!!!

I said POLITICIANS. That's plural. I agree with the statements of both Palin AND Biden. It is all about definition. I acknowledged that. That's the only problem I have with gay marriage. And I never said anything about Palin being an example of family. Stop putting words in my mouth!

By the way. I'd also appreciate it if you stop telling me what I do and do not know about marriage. It's getting obnoxious.

EDIT: At any rate... what does Palin's family have to do with her level of intelligence? Do you seriously judge whether people are smart or not based on what their children do?

Actually Johnny, you might want to read what Jeb wrote one more time and try real hard to understand exactly what it is he said...(insert hint here...something about morals)

Goodness, did you just try to put words in Jeb's mouth?

Ray

And I never said anything about Palin being an example of family/moral example.

There. All better. I added /moral example so it perfectly matches what Jeb said. Happy?

Message edited by author 2010-03-17 11:19:37.

03/17/2010 11:55:34 AM · #4648

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

That's the only problem I have with gay marriage.

Oh really? What was all that insulting tripe about gay marriage being nothing more than a physical assault on the creator of the universe? What was all that stuff about you not wanting to have "anything to do" with anyone who supports gay marriage, because they're bitch-slapping your deity around? So much for all your previous high-sounding protestations that you're "not judging" anyone.

By the way, any deity capable of being slapped around by a mere mortal is no deity at all. Along with this "insult to god" silliness, all this "blasphemy" nonsense carries with it the seeds of the destruction of religious faith. If the faith is so sacrosanct, if the deity is so inviolate, so regal, so above the muck-squirming human bacilli it created, then surely a heretical remark here and a blasphemous retort there would be nothing more than the buzz of a gadfly in its holy ear. If that which underlies religious faith is real, blasphemy is irrelevant. Since it's so damn important, it belies the fact that the faithful are merely fretfully trying to shoo away the light of truth from their dank corner of reasoning.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/17/2010 11:57:37 AM · #4649

What exactly is it that makes them smart in your opinion? "Smart" is not attribute I'd associate with Palin at all (quite the opposite). Biden was known more for partying and sports than studying in college and graduated near the bottom of his class, and both are famously prone to embarrassing gaffes. I will give you this though: Biden had to overcome his girlfriend's "parents' initial reluctance for her to be dating a Roman Catholic." Not exactly a point in favor of "traditional" relationship definitions.