Clock Crew

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/day-after-gay-teens-suicide-lawmaker-says-gays-not-mentally-healthy-adult-human-beings/politics/2012/01/24/33596

Yes, they are actually trying to pass a bill that allows bullying if its for religious or moral reasons.

Tenesee is a backwards mixed up world, i wouldnt be surprised if they brought back slavery at this rate. Then before you know it well be dealing with a civil war 2 except this time its personal.

the guy's a bigot and a terrible person for trying to encourage shit like that. really hoping he gets some sort of backlash from this bullshit he's trying to pull.

well the good news is that there are plenty of other states that that gay people can move to to (hopefully) escape that kinda bullshit.

is it the perfect option?  no, but it's better than living in tennesee

I'm not gay but I wouldn't live in Tennessee anyway.

Quote from: PEANUTBUTTERCLOCK;1891361Tenesee is a backwards mixed up world, i wouldnt be surprised if they brought back slavery at this rate.

They wouldn't need to "bring it back" because slavery already still exists all over America in the form of the Prison Industrial Complex.

Quote from: EnglishClock;1891368They wouldn't need to "bring it back" because slavery already still exists all over America in the form of the Prison Industrial Complex.

Wow, I can't believe this is real. So many problems of hate and repression.

Quote from: Lump Clock;1891370Wow, I can't believe this is real. So many problems of hate and repression.

That article barely touches the surface of information about it, so if you're willing to become more aware and informed about 21st century slavery in your own country I highly recommend doing some research. There's a very good book called "Are prisons obsolete?" by Angela Y. Davis which you can preview the first 20 pages of here

California is actually one of the states that puts more of your tax money in to the expansion of prisons than in to education.

But that's different. You choose to be a criminal, you can't choose to be gay. Trust me, I've tried.

Thread kind of got derailed because peanutbutter mentioned slavery, yeah it's a different topic.
 However, in response to your comment, consider the fact that the majority of prisoners are non-violent offenders, for example merely being in possession of a "forbidden" plant. Combined with the fact that the only possible conclusion that can happen from identifying as a criminal (definition:someone who has broken the law, AKA all of us) is that you can be put in prison,  it's completely unreasonable to suggest someone would actively choose to be a criminal if they had better options given their circumstances. Laws are written in a way that allows for the maximum amount of people possible to potentially be locked up. Your government chooses who and who isn't a criminal.

I didn't have to read further than :

John Ragan, a Southern Baptist, pro-life, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-education Republican.

Now lets highlight the bad parts in red.

John Ragan, a Southern Baptist, pro-life, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-education Republican

Somehow people like this man end up as lawmakers and other high positions with way too much sway over everybody else.

touching briefly upon the prison industrial complex subject, that's a subject that makes me sick to my stomach that i know i will never have the power to do anything about :ohdear:

Quote from: EnglishClock;1891368They wouldn't need to "bring it back" because slavery already still exists all over America in the form of the Prison Industrial Complex.

Oftentimes fed by our draconian anti-drug laws.

Quote from: Buttplug;1891401Oftentimes fed by our draconian anti-drug laws.

Yep. Drug prohibition is the #1 tool used for getting more slaves, since it instantly categorizes a massive amount of non-violent citizens as criminals. They make up the majority of prisoners. That's one of the main reasons they will fight so hard to keep things like pot from becoming completely legal, there's far too much investment in slavery. Smokers are low-hanging fruit and there's millions upon millions of them in the US alone, if suddenly all those people weren't breaking any laws then authorities might have to actually spend more time focusing on murderers/rapists to try and make up for lost profit..

Is it REALLY that hard to not smoke pot? I mean, seriously?


I've never had trouble not smoking it.

The fact that you seem to simultaneously think it's okay to smoke pot while also saying the punishment is ridiculous is just hypocritical. The very fact that it has a ridiculous punishment is enough to make it I'm a edgy teen to smoke pot, regardless of what the plant actually does. I'm all for making marijuana legal, but as it is NOW only an antisocial FOOL would have enough weed to get arrested in his possession.

User was banned for this post - clock crew industrial complex

Quote from: Thor;1891432Is it REALLY that hard to not smoke pot? I mean, seriously?


I've never had trouble not smoking it.

The fact that you seem to simultaneously think it's okay to smoke pot while also saying the punishment is ridiculous is just hypocritical. The very fact that it has a ridiculous punishment is enough to make it I'm a edgy teen to smoke pot, regardless of what the plant actually does. I'm all for making marijuana legal, but as it is NOW only an antisocial FOOL would have enough weed to get arrested in his possession.

Here's my response:

QuoteMost folks who resolved to cut down on coffee this year are driven by the simple desire for self-improvement.

But for coffee drinkers in 17th-century Turkey, there was a much more concrete motivating force: a big guy with a sword.

Sultan Murad IV, a ruler of the Ottoman Empire, would not have been a fan of Starbucks. Under his rule, the consumption of coffee was a capital offense.

The sultan was so intent on eradicating coffee that he would disguise himself as a commoner and stalk the streets of Istanbul with a hundred-pound broadsword. Unfortunate coffee drinkers were decapitated as they sipped.

Murad IVââ,¬â,,¢s successor was more lenient. The punishment for a first offense was a light cudgeling. Caught with coffee a second time, the perpetrator was sewn into a leather bag and tossed in the river.

But people still drank coffee. Even with the sultan at the front door with a sword and the executioner at the back door with a sewing kit, they still wanted their daily cup of joe. And thatââ,¬â,,¢s the history of coffee in a bean skin: Old habits die hard. ââ,¬â€Adam Cole

You make a stupid ban on something that people enjoy doing, people aren't going to listen to your stupid ban.  Along with it, just like Prohibition had severe and irreversible negative impacts on the economy, as well as leading to the creation of organized crime, I imagine the same goes for the banning of weed and making prisoners work for cents a day instead of actually hiring citizens and paying them an honest wage.

Shit's fucked up and bullshit.

Downloading music is illegal.  Have you done that?  I could stop right now if I wanted to.

Yo Topcat, that's a nice post but he is obviously trolling. lol

Quote from: EnglishClock;1891435Yo Topcat, that's a nice post but he is obviously trolling. lol

I'm aware, but it's a thought I've had for a while now without any reasonable place to vent it so I was glad to jump on the opportunity.

Quote from: EnglishClock;1891382Thread kind of got derailed because peanutbutter mentioned slavery

Lol i had no idea it would happen

in my opinion educating people on the fact that something as shitty as the prison industrial complex exists is a good way to derail a thread

Yeah, I mean if there's people here who weren't even aware of such a tragic and powerful epidemic, who are now at least a bit more informed, then that's a good thing. But now we're just derailing a thread by talking about derailing a thread.

I wish slurpee was here. He'd be able to make such excellent contributions to both topics at hand.

I am okay with either discussion dominating this thread, carry on as you will.

Quote from: EnglishClock;1891455I wish slurpee was here. He'd be able to make such excellent contributions to both topics at hand.

truf :(

also i think this thread had to be derailed because what are we going to debate about this subject?  "yeah, i totally support that tennessee asshole".  is anybody really going to make that counterpoint in this thread?

also why'd you delete your post, english?  i agree with it

I knew nobody was gonna debate it, I just figured this was a better place for a serious political thread than general.

homosexuality is both an incurable mental disorder and a choice fueled by the individual's own lack of morality and faith in godjesus.

gyus i wish al l homsexes were dead.

blaks 2

Well last time I checked Christianity is founded upon nonviolence so if any christian sect is trying to make bullying legal then they aren't Christian. That's plain and simple. However I guess he is Baptist, and honestly the more I hear about Baptist beliefs the more they seem only Christian in that they believe in someone named Jesus Christ.

Also I feel you all are going to kill me over this but I'm still not wholly convinced on the idea of being purely "born" gay, what with what I've learned about how almost all aspects of an organisms behavior are determined by both their genetics and their environment, not just one or the other.

However, I will caution that this article is obviously biased and while I don't doubt that this guy is saying something wrong I doubt that this is doing anything to be impartial which really defeats the point of a news article to me. How does someone succumb to suicide? It's heartbreaking of course but that's clearly a decision. Also, by anti-education i am assuming that probably means anti-government enforced education or something like that which is more like what Ron Paul believes rather than literally against people being educated.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489Well last time I checked Christianity is founded upon nonviolence so if any christian sect is trying to make bullying legal then they aren't Christian. That's plain and simple. However I guess he is Baptist, and honestly the more I hear about Baptist beliefs the more they seem only Christian in that they believe in someone named Jesus Christ.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489bullying

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489aren't Christian.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489I guess he is Baptist

Doing much better as a Catholic.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489Also I feel you all are going to kill me over this but I'm still not wholly convinced on the idea of being purely "born" gay, what with what I've learned about how almost all aspects of an organisms behavior are determined by both their genetics and their environment, not just one or the other.

I failed to see how this conflicts with being "born gay"; even more so, what exactly you are trying to convey.

I'll pop a few things off to get the ball rolling: random genetic drift and mutation; darwinian ad hoc: aggression and population control amongst vary ratios of gender.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489Also I feel you all are going to kill me over this

They're going to kill you for making debate points in the debate forum. This boy aint right!

I heard the comparison once (I'm paraphrasing it now) that whether or not somebody is gay is the same as whether or not somebody likes tomatoes.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489Well last time I checked Christianity is founded upon nonviolence so if any christian sect is trying to make bullying legal then they aren't Christian.

You do realize Yahweh was originally a war god right? The old testament is filled with crap supporting violence, even the new testament has it, from Jesus himself:

"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.ââ,¬â,,¢Ã¢â,¬Â
-Luke 19:27

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
- Luke 22:36

In fact the bible denounces gays specifically

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God
-Deuteronomy 23:17-18

And even claims they should be put to death

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
-Leviticus 20:13

I couldnt find much about gays in the new testament besides this which still seems to view homosexuality as something negative to be shunned

For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27

And the old testament rulings are still in effect, anything jesus didnt specifically change is still there. Every "jot" and "title" (matt 5:17-9) still applies.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489Also I feel you all are going to kill me over this but I'm still not wholly convinced on the idea of being purely "born" gay, what with what I've learned about how almost all aspects of an organisms behavior are determined by both their genetics and their environment, not just one or the other.

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."
-Royal College of Psychiatrists

People may come out as gay or realize they were gay later in life, but thats usually because of repression of their actual sexuality.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489However, I will caution that this article is obviously biased and while I don't doubt that this guy is saying something wrong I doubt that this is doing anything to be impartial which really defeats the point of a news article to me.

The writer is obviously against what he's reporting for. That does not make what he's saying any less right or what he's attacking any less deplorable.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489How does someone succumb to suicide? It's heartbreaking of course but that's clearly a decision.

People are not in a very logical place when they are emotionally tormented to the point where they would commit suicide. Its almost never a decision made rationally while the person is under no serious mental duress.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489Also, by anti-education i am assuming that probably means anti-government enforced education or something like that which is more like what Ron Paul believes rather than literally against people being educated.

From what I can tell from looking around he doesnt like the government funding public schools and he voted to overturn teacher bargaining rights.

Basically my opinion on the Bible is that it is a corrupted, disorganized, divisive, over- under- and mis-interpreted amalgamation of texts, some of which probably shouldn't have been collected to begin with, and it more or less never needs to be quoted at anybody without their consent for any reason. And it can be used to "prove" just about anything.

Now here's some hit-or-miss biblical junk you can skip over which basically serves to confirm most of what Flounderman said:

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1891541You do realize Yahweh was originally a war god right? The old testament is filled with crap supporting violence, even the new testament has it, from Jesus himself:

"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.ââ,¬â,,¢Ã¢â,¬Â
-Luke 19:27

this is a quote from a mean guy in a parable and probably just represents judgement day

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1891541He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
- Luke 22:36

of course, later in the chapter, jesus is all like "dick, you weren't supposed to actually use the sword"

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1891541In fact the bible denounces gays specifically

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God
-Deuteronomy 23:17-18

Though the KJV is the money version, the NIV (not that I know shit about which Bible translation is the best) doesn't have the "sodomy" nuance, but fundamentally I'm not going to disagree with you on this one

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1891541And even claims they should be put to death

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
-Leviticus 20:13

I've always thought people were just misinterpreting the word "mankind" here, but I guess not. It's the Old Testament, so as far as wacko rules it's in good company; I won't bother arguing about whether it "still counts."

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1891541I couldnt find much about gays in the new testament besides this which still seems to view homosexuality as something negative to be shunned

For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27

Somehow completely forgot about that passage, although I'm sure I had to read it at some point. Wikipedia sez that Romans is one of the letters most people believe were actually written by Paul, so good on you for that. I think there are some other places in the Epistles where Paul is anti-gay (or I might just be thinking of the anti-woman parts), some of which are in sections where authorship is disputed, which is why I looked this one up in the first place. Paul is kind of a crazy guy anyway. edit Actually, come to think of it, I think I remember Paul hating fornication with a passion, so maybe there's a lot more anti-gay material in the Epistles.

everything in the bible is out of context.

OT is for ancient Jews, and the NT is a bunch of stuff from all different ancient Christian groups who all disagreed with each other. Paul would probably punch the writers of the other gospels in their faces.

Paul was actually pretty badass.

(https://clockcrew.net/talk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1lT2B.gif&hash=2d1c5a49a083d155d6e66d3d56ac2811be193639)

User was chilled for this post - Spamming that GIF in way too many threads

I think the better question than whether or not gay people are born that way or not is, does it matter?

I met someone who actually took the shellfish thing seriously once. It was pretty great.

Quote from: RibsClock;1891617The exact reason why it matters is because Leviticus says he who "lieth with a man as he lieth with a woman" "hath committed an abomination" and shall be put to death.

Despite how this was a law in Leviticus and not the Evangel, Christians started applying this in places to anyone who was homosexual. In the modern era, however, the debate came about that if homosexuality is a condition people are born with, then God made them that way and it would be unjust to punish them for it.

Because that logic is frankly pretty sound, some Christians then concluded that this must mean homosexuality is a choice, not a condition.

...all of this, mind you, failing to note that the condition of being attracted to people of the opposite sex is never specified anywhere in any book of the Bible, and that it is specifically the act of sodomy that's forbidden, and even that was part of Leviticus which Christianity believes was abrogated.

The other things that carry the same penalty in Leviticus:

• Jews or anyone else sacrificing their children to Moloch (this is one instance where it's specific that it's not just applied to Jews)
• Cursing your parents
• Committing adultery
• Having sex with your relatives and in-laws
• Beastiality
• Having sex with a man as you would with a woman
• Being a wizard
• Blaspheming
• Murder and Manslaughter

In other words, neither side on this actually really knows what they're arguing about, it's not whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a condition they're born with, it's whether or not you're allowed to have sex with the numerous people and things ancient Judaism says you can't have sex with. And Christians certainly don't think any of those other things are allowed either but at the same time I don't see them punishing people legally for working on the sabbath or saying "God damn" or eating shellfish either.

Yeah I mean I get all that jazz. I just mean when you really come down to it, does it delegitimize homosexuality if it isn't somehow inherent? It's a person's sexual preference, and why the Hell do we care what people's sexual preference is if it doesn't hurt anybody?

I think a lot of these people would argue that if God did make them gay it was some kind of test, or that they should remain celibate or something.

yeah!

Quote from: Buttplug;1891639I think a lot of these people would argue that if God did make them gay it was some kind of test, or that they should remain celibate or something.

Paul was all about the celibacy

Quote from: RibsClock;1891617The exact reason why it matters is because Leviticus says he who "lieth with a man as he lieth with a woman" "hath committed an abomination" and shall be put to death.

Despite how this was a law in Leviticus and not the Evangel, Christians started applying this in places to anyone who was homosexual. In the modern era, however, the debate came about that if homosexuality is a condition people are born with, then God made them that way and it would be unjust to punish them for it.

Because that logic is frankly pretty sound, some Christians then concluded that this must mean homosexuality is a choice, not a condition.

...all of this, mind you, failing to note that the condition of being attracted to people of the opposite sex is never specified anywhere in any book of the Bible, and that it is specifically the act of sodomy that's forbidden, and even that was part of Leviticus which Christianity believes was abrogated.

The other things that carry the same penalty in Leviticus:

• Jews or anyone else sacrificing their children to Moloch (this is one instance where it's specific that it's not just applied to Jews)
• Cursing your parents
• Committing adultery
• Having sex with your relatives and in-laws
• Beastiality
• Having sex with a man as you would with a woman
• Being a wizard
• Blaspheming
• Murder and Manslaughter

In other words, neither side on this actually really knows what they're arguing about, it's not whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a condition they're born with, it's whether or not you're allowed to have sex with the numerous people and things ancient Judaism says you can't have sex with. And Christians certainly don't think any of those other things are allowed either but at the same time I don't see them punishing people legally for working on the sabbath or saying "God damn" or eating shellfish either.

This is a very good post, and my answer to the argument against gay marriage is (and I'm not saying you don't agree with this, I'm just stating my view on the subject):

It's all pointless because Separation of Church and state dictates that homosexuality should not be disrupted by law of any kind, and since it's a subject of equality, and no matter what the Bible or the Quran or any kind of religious text says about any subject, no matter how vehemently said book opposes it, that should not be brought into politics in any way.  Unless you want to be inspired by some sort of mindset regarding ones self, be it inner peace or loving thy neighbor, religious texts and writing should be regarded as fiction.  Whether they are or are not fiction is a different debate that does not have any sort of effect on this subject.

You may say this is a subject related to the Bible or whichever book because marriage is a religious practice.  However, being married has guaranteed benefits from the government that are meant to help a couple in terms of finances and various other areas.  In essence, marriage becomes a contract between two people saying that they will operate for the government and hospitals and whoever as one entity (sort of).  I'm not saying marriages shouldn't be supported in this way, I think it's very necessary and helpful to families.  However, that must mean that the government should provide these same means of support to any citizen because equality has time and again been the driving motivation behind government development in the United States, no matter how successful it is at any time.  As such, the government should be focused on equality, and the fact that such a glaring inequality is supported by a large majority of the men who call the shots is disgusting.  The fact that so many citizens of this country agree with these men and vote with them even after this and many other injustices not even necessarily related to gay marriage have been explicitly pointed out by many people, with it an assured fact that people are aware of this issue, is to be a stain on history books like segregation and women's inequality.

Goddamn I sound like such a smelly hippie in those last two paragraphs, but I'm doing my best attempt at elaborating my full opinion on the subject.

Again, this isn't directed at you, Ribs, I am merely stating my opinion on the overarching subject of this thread, which is the government and it's actions based on the context of a person's homosexuality.

Quote from: RibsClock;1891753You're right.

Gracias

QuoteAnd yet the institution of marriage as we know it is a religious one. The limitations that exist upon it (gender, age, number of spouses, laws concerning adultery, blood relation, etc.) are really drawn from a religious definition of marriage.

Despite their religious origin many of those restrictions have pragmatic reasons to be there.

Gender:  Obviously out because it's the topic we're debating.
Age:  At that point the couple would be out of high school (ideally) and would be in a position to make the decision with what they would want to do regarding children, jobs, college, etc.
Number of spouses:  Because people get crazy when more people get involved in a relationship, and to avoid exploitation of the system.
Laws Concerning Adultery:  Once again, because people get crazy when more people get involved in a relationship, and to avoid exploitation of the system.
Blood Relation:  Because children get deformed when cousins go at it.

QuoteIf one really wants to have a true separation of church and state, the thing to do is not regulate marriage at all, and instead allow for social contracts concerning property division, child custody, and shared taxes and the like. The legal and economic aspects would just be contracts, and folks would be free to define it however their religion or personal philosophy dictates.

I think that sounds like an excellent idea, but I think there should still be regulation because of the reason I listed above, and because there are other things that marriage do that weren't defined by religion.  What of people who try to marry in people who aren't citizens so that they can gain citizenship?  Again, that could be and has been exploited.  

QuoteIf one doesn't want a separation of church and state...don't have it, and stop pretending and making excuses based on that. If you're going to enforce Mosaic law on one issue be prepared to go the whole nine yards.

I'm still very much for the separation of church and state.  However, because the church shouldn't be involved doesn't mean that there shouldn't be ways for the government to help you from screwing up.  When somebody screws up it messes with everybody else and I don't mind some rules here or there to prevent that.  So long as it's within reason and common sense.   That's me being naive and idealistic, though, that would never actually happen.

QuoteUsually even trying to comprehend these laws applied to this day and age is enough to cause even the most fanatical to backpedal pretty quickly

I understand, but just because religion isn't involved doesn't mean there could still be rules involved so people don't kill, steal from, or rape each other?

QuoteI um...wouldn't have thought it was directed at me...but now I'm all paranoid and worried... :(

It's because I included your post at the beginning of my tirade.  I've seen people think somebody is responding to them when that happens and I wanted to avoid that.  I step lightly during debates.

Quote from: RibsClock;1891783But you see, all of those are matters of sex.

Marriage is, again ideally, a matter of love and, yes, sex.  One could argue about whether or not marriage's should be supported by the government considering it's a matter of love and not some other state right, but it's a thing that people want to do and some even feel compelled to do it for religious or other reasons.

Laws concerning adultery, number of spouses, and blood relation?  Whether or not those are needed is a debate on a very hypothetical issue because marriage is currently defined by its religious limitations.  I'm sure reasonable arguments could be made for why those should not have restriction that I would feel make good points, but I feel arguing about those would be opening up a whole new can of worms.

QuoteIn the functional, legal sense, with the exception of basic age of consent and age for entering a contract, why have the contract be limited by considerations of jealousy and inbreeding when, in reality, the jealousy is an emotional matter and the inbreeding is a matter of who is having sex, not who is legally bonded to whom.

Because these legal unions, again in this very hypothetical situation, would ideally be two people deciding that they want to start a family together.  Whether or not this is just them spending their time together, having kids, adopting kids, moving out the country whatever, it would certainly make sense to try and help people avoid shacking up with someone looking to exploit them or the system.  Again, this is a sticky subject I won't pretend to have all the answers too, and I would be willing to listen to one's arguments on why a number of those restrictions could use some changing.

However, I think the restrictions, whatever they may hypothetically be, should be in place to help prevent exploitation of the system or of the partner, prevent them from doing shit that makes them kill each other, prevents them from screwing up their lives or the lives of their children -- all of this without actually getting in the way of said union, and with the government giving equal benefits to couples of all race/gender/financial/whatever combinations.

Is such a sweet spot possible?  I highly doubt it.

QuoteFrankly this seems like kind of a moot point considering people already do this. In fact, one might say that's the emotional nature of marriage being exploited for legal reasons: we don't want to say "you can't marry who you want" because they're not American, but at the same time we don't want to deny one or both of them legal citizenship based on this. The problem is one of our immigration policy there, and I don't see the statutes regarding age and relationship and adultery as addressing that effectively at all.

The whole situation with immigration in this country is another sticky subject I'm not even going to pretend I have any valid opinions on.  I'm willing to hear your thoughts on the subject, but it is a non-religious limitation that is currently in place for marriage (in regards to the government testing to see if green card marriages are based on love rather than getting into the country).

QuoteThe thing is, there's clear practical reasons for each of those things. With the constraints on marriage, the practical reasons are not always so clear. They involve things like emotions, sex, and social bonds, and beliefs on how a family should be structured.

An obvious example of a practical consideration would be the age one can enter into such a contract, whereas something like adultery or polygamy is something where the practical benefit is not agreed upon universally.

The debate on how whether or not legislation should be based on morality is definitely a difficult one, and I don't have any solutions for that one either.  However I think some of those issues could be solved if the legislation was based more on "Don't do this because it really screws that guy over" rather than "Don't do this because an invisible man in the sky told me to".

But I will admit it's not nearly that simple, and I again doubt I would be able to fully get a good enough perspective on the subject to argue it without giving myself away to be a complete moron.  However, again, this is in a naive and idealistic person's opinion, the men in charge of making laws, the ones who have the ability to travel all over the country and world to get a good look at the subject from every angle and who would be ideally more intelligent than me when it comes to making such decisions, would work to make themselves equipped to make better decisions on those subjects than I am giving and certainly than the decisions that are currently in place.

QuoteIn fact it seems to me that quite a few of our laws are de facto religious laws, that being one example, dry counties being another

Yeah but I don't necessarily agree with there being dry counties either.  As you said, if I am to argue for separation of church and state, we should go all the way.[/QUOTE]

Quotewhere they have some purported practical aspect but they're included in law because the majority agrees with it for religious reasons. Obviously some are less subtle, like southern Sodomy laws for instance. There's really only a constitutional check for overt ties of church to state, rather than covert inclusion of religious concepts and statutes into law.

There's a lot of failures in the checks in balances the Constitution has, not because they wrote the laws wrong or because they were misguided, but just because new ways of circumventing said checks and balances have come up in an evolving world.  I think there's a huge Constitutional problem in the way lobbying has so much sway in our country (it's one of my biggest bones of contention when it comes to the way this country is run), and I don't think it's the fault of the founding fathers, the world changed after they had died.  However, the United States laws have failed to change adequately enough in some regards.  On top of that, we have guys in charge like Tennessee douchebag John Ragan who seem to be adamantly opposed to evolving with the new world, despite the implications for failure to do so being so obviously and extremely negative.

QuoteUnderstandable, especially in the CC

Thank you.

This debating stuff is fun, I dunno why everybody usually gets so riled up about discussing differing opinions.  I like the perspective it gives me and the things I learn.

I guess you could say my opinion on that whole thing has changed a lot. I definitely never draw from leviticus. However I still don't like the concepts of homosexuality but I guess you can say not because it's two dudes but rather as an equivalent problem as promiscuity. I suppose someone could claim I'm interpreting this the wrong way, but there is a passage in Matthew.

Quote from: Matthew 5:27-28You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But now I tell you, anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her is guilty of adultery in his heart.
*I always like to use the wording in the bible I was given as a child so forgive me if the wording is a little different than what you may have heard elsewhere

It really is an extreme way of looking at things but the more I think about it the more I see that it's the culture of lust that has built up in our time that causes a lot of problems.

I suppose not to say it hasn't existed in the past, more that it has become accepted in our time, that lust is glorified.

Yea-wait, what?

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891893I guess you could say my opinion on that whole thing has changed a lot. I definitely never draw from leviticus. However I still don't like the concepts of homosexuality but I guess you can say not because it's two dudes but rather as an equivalent problem as promiscuity. I suppose someone could claim I'm interpreting this the wrong way, but there is a passage in Matthew.

It really is an extreme way of looking at things but the more I think about it the more I see that it's the culture of lust that has built up in our time that causes a lot of problems.

I suppose not to say it hasn't existed in the past, more that it has become accepted in our time, that lust is glorified.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sex.  Sex has many implications to it and it can affect peoples' relationships with one another in dramatic ways, but what exactly is it that makes sex wrong?  It feels awesome.  If some folks wanna fuck, so long as they practice safe sex, I don't see what the problem is.

Yeah, you really think you have a right over what people do in the privacy of their own home? I mean think about it, think about everything that is going on...Where is the part that is hurting anyone more than say, straight sex.

The point of all that sillyness about your sexual desires being evil and whatnot is that if you think sex is evil you'll only do it for procreation. There are practical reasons for this. One is that the more kids you have the more you'll have to help the family out on the farm. The big one is for spreading the religion, having kids is easier than converting. Growing a religion is important, if you stay small you risk being swept away. So pulling out, masturbating, or having gay sex was bad since it wasnt supporting the growth of your religion, and thus selfish. Premarital sex is bad because if a girl gets pregnant and the guy isnt bound to her then he might run off and not support the family. A single mother really wouldnt have a chance in those times. Its still very difficult for one.

Obviously none of this applies anymore, since the planet is so overpopulated and abrahamic religion is huge. And that contraception is so easy to get ahold of.  It doesnt matter who you have sex with, its fun and it can bring lovers closer together. If two people love each other, girl and girl, boy and boy, or girl and boy, who should tell them not to express it physically? Humans are MEANT to have sex, we're wired to want it. If we dont get some form of release regularly its bad for you mentally and physically. Of course you can take it too far, but outright denying yourself is silly. All things in moderation.

aye nice popst bro, props

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891893I guess you could say my opinion on that whole thing has changed a lot. I definitely never draw from leviticus. However I still don't like the concepts of homosexuality but I guess you can say not because it's two dudes but rather as an equivalent problem as promiscuity.

Oh so it looks like all gays are sluts now? This is seriously one of the most INSANE statements I have ever heard. I don't know if you know many gay people, but they are just like ANY other person. Some are sluts, yes, but a large collective are looking for long lasting relationships. Should you NOT be able to have sex with someone you love? It seems to me you are just trying to cover your ass here, and it's barely working. Go make broad generalizations about someone else, you silly sheep (LOOK, A BROAD GENERALIZATION! IT SUCKS DOESN'T IT?)

Oh, and for the argument that marriage is a religious institution so gays cant be married, christians don't own the concept of marriage, nor did they invent it. There's other religions that DO allow gay marriage.

Quote from: Girclock;1891913Oh so it looks like all gays are sluts now? This is seriously one of the most INSANE statements I have ever heard. I don't know if you know many gay people, but they are just like ANY other person. Some are sluts, yes, but a large collective are looking for long lasting relationships. Should you NOT be able to have sex with someone you love? It seems to me you are just trying to cover your ass here, and it's barely working. Go make broad generalizations about someone else, you silly sheep (LOOK, A BROAD GENERALIZATION! IT SUCKS DOESN'T IT?)

I'm a bisexual and I'm a huge slut I don't know about you Gir

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891893However I still don't like the concepts of homosexuality but I guess you can say not because it's two dudes but rather as an equivalent problem as promiscuity. I suppose someone could claim I'm interpreting this the wrong way, but there is a passage in Matthew.

Stones thrown: Protestants are bullshit; gays are whores. Generalizing an entire group based on sexual preferences and justifying said actions with Bible quotes is really low.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891893I suppose not to say it hasn't existed in the past, more that it has become accepted in our time, that lust is glorified.

Compared to Mesopotamia; Ancient Greek, Japanese and Chinese Culture (lots of homosexuality here too); French Polynesia and or The Sexual Revolution? By all rights, this is one of the tamest generations in history.

For the record, the ancient Judaic religion prior to Exodus had multiple God's and Goddess' of fertility and sexuality. Similar to the Greek religions it based itself off of. It was not until after the great fall that Yahweh Sabaoth (he who musters armies) came to power and all the guidelines changed.

I suppose I didn't properly explain. I would say its a bad tactic to overgeneralize when you believe someone else is generalizing.
1. Never said I wanted to control peoples lives. That just came out of nowhere.
2. I have a problem with the idea of lusting after anyone in any form, I'm not calling anyone sluts.

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1891909Obviously none of this applies anymore, since the planet is so overpopulated and abrahamic religion is huge. And that contraception is so easy to get ahold of.  It doesnt matter who you have sex with, its fun and it can bring lovers closer together. If two people love each other, girl and girl, boy and boy, or girl and boy, who should tell them not to express it physically? Humans are MEANT to have sex, we're wired to want it. If we dont get some form of release regularly its bad for you mentally and physically. Of course you can take it too far, but outright denying yourself is silly. All things in moderation.

Do you not see that saying the idea of sex is natural and yet stopping its function, something wholly unnatural, is totally hypocritical?
I'm not denying that animals have influences that drive them to procreate. The thing is though, we can control that, so why do we still make ourselves slaves to basal natures?
I suppose you might know something I don't, but isn't the claim of some kind of mental detriment to abstinence mostly anecdotal? Also, how could it possibly be bad for you physically?

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1891915Oh, and for the argument that marriage is a religious institution so gays cant be married, christians don't own the concept of marriage, nor did they invent it. There's other religions that DO allow gay marriage.

There is one thing I suppose we'll all find ourselves in agreement upon. In a government that is supposedly truly independent from religion, marriage should not be regulated whatsoever. I believe in rights over what my religion teaches as far as laws go because I do not believe people should be forced to do anything. However, I do believe that there are things people shouldn't do, and it is the job of Christians if they truly believe it is wrong for someone to do something to persuade, not force. Of course not everyone is going to listen, but that is their choice.

Quote from: GingeraleClock;1891993Stones thrown: Protestants are bullshit; gays are whores. Generalizing an entire group based on sexual preferences and justifying said actions with Bible quotes is really low.

Stones thrown or anything similar has always been such a misused phrase. If you look at what Jesus says he is not saying that no one should judge. It is more a message against hypocrisy. If the men judging are sinners as well, what right do they have to judge?
I suppose you could say my wording of Baptist beliefs was a bit harsh but I've looked into what they believe and I see complete hypocrisy in what they do and what the Gospel says.


Also, I didn't notice this when i first typed it out but I guess I use the word hypocrisy a lot. I think it isn't superfluous or anything, though, just kinda noticed that. A lot of what I have a problem with peoples beliefs is now adays is that they are hypocritical, especially towards fellow Christians. They will act one way in a bar and another in church and I don't see how it's right.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;18920042. I have a problem with the idea of lusting after anyone in any form, I'm not calling anyone sluts.

So you've never been sexually attracted to anyone before? Are you saying thats wrong? Why is it wrong?

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1892004Do you not see that saying the idea of sex is natural and yet stopping its function, something wholly unnatural, is totally hypocritical?

Having a child every time you're horny makes no sense. Lack of sex causes stress, not lack of pregnancy. Our main urge is to have sex, generally the desire for sex doesnt include thoughts of "I really want to impregnate this girl and have a child with her", though that is the evolutionary purpose of the desires. It feels good and makes us feel closer to the other person, thats why we do it. Humans desire sex in the same way they desire food or water or air. It just happens that you could live without it and not die within a short period of time.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1892004I'm not denying that animals have influences that drive them to procreate. The thing is though, we can control that, so why do we still make ourselves slaves to basal natures?

Yes we can control it, the same way we control our food intake and other pleasures. You dont simply have to stop doing it entirely. Again, all things in moderation. We're animals and we have desires. You eat foods you like dont you? People used to consider eating food for pleasure a grave sin.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1892004I suppose you might know something I don't, but isn't the claim of some kind of mental detriment to abstinence mostly anecdotal? Also, how could it possibly be bad for you physically?

Nope, studies have shown that people who abstain have heightened stress and as a result of that stress have detriment to their bodies and thus their lifespans. Our bodies are designed to get release on a certain basis. Look at this, and then maybe read some of the cited articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abstinence#Possible_physical_effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse#Benefits

Quote from: Marlin Clock;18920042. I have a problem with the idea of lusting after anyone in any form, I'm not calling anyone sluts.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1892004I'm not denying that animals have influences that drive them to procreate. The thing is though, we can control that, so why do we still make ourselves slaves to basal natures?

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489Also I feel you all are going to kill me over this but I'm still not wholly convinced on the idea of being purely "born" gay, what with what I've learned about how almost all aspects of an organisms behavior are determined by both their genetics and their environment, not just one or the other.

There are problems here.

I would also note that, strict abstinence amongst Catholic priests is a factor in the ongoing paedophilia scandals. Many individuals do not have the will power to fight such urges and pervert themselves in silence. Requesting that all individuals repress their sexual desires and emotions is counter-productive to many individuals healthy well beings.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1892004Stones thrown or anything similar has always been such a misused phrase. If you look at what Jesus says he is not saying that no one should judge. It is more a message against hypocrisy. If the men judging are sinners as well, what right do they have to judge?
I suppose you could say my wording of Baptist beliefs was a bit harsh but I've looked into what they believe and I see complete hypocrisy in what they do and what the Gospel says.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489Well last time I checked Christianity is founded upon nonviolence so if any christian sect is trying to make bullying legal then they aren't Christian. That's plain and simple. However I guess he is Baptist, and honestly the more I hear about Baptist beliefs the more they seem only Christian in that they believe in someone named Jesus Christ.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489bullying

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489aren't Christian.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1891489I guess he is Baptist

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1892004Also, I didn't notice this when i first typed it out but I guess I use the word hypocrisy a lot. I think it isn't superfluous or anything, though, just kinda noticed that. A lot of what I have a problem with peoples beliefs is now adays is that they are hypocritical, especially towards fellow Christians. They will act one way in a bar and another in church and I don't see how it's right.

Considering you are generalizing an entire sect of Christianity: I would say you are in the wrong. Even more so, that is under the presumption that you and your sect are holier and more devout than they are. Such I suppose are the ethnocentric Troubles amongst Christian sects.

 There are also groups amongst American Catholics that are just as influential and disdainful as the original post. The Catholic League being one of the largest and most powerful.

Here's a tidbit http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/victims-of-pedophile-priests-are-pitiful-malcontents-says-catholic-league/politics/2012/01/09/32957

I cannot understand how you can even contain such a position with so many scandals ongoing in Ireland, Africa and America regarding Catholicism. Not limited to the paedophilia and cover up scandal and trials. None of which I would deem very "Christian" in nature.

Hoo, this is going to be a doozy but I've got some free time, so let's get into it.

Quote from: RibsClock;1892036I'm afraid I disagree entirely.

Love, at least in the sense of passionate attraction and affection, and sex, both in the sense of exclusive sexual partnership and all that are not the point of marriage, they're for the intents and purposes of our discussion merely things that occur within marriage. This is one of the problems with marriage is people get married because they have a crush on someone and are really sexually attracted to them. But those things are not the point of a marriage, and when those things fade those marriages either fall apart or end up being distant and meaningless.

The point of marriage, in reality, is to form the bonds of mutual trust and support one has with family. Spouses become each others' family and treat each other as such. They agree to live their lives together, to support each other and consult with each other.

This is all very true and I don't disagree with any of it.  I however, do disagree with your saying that love is not involved.

Let's for the moment pretend sex isn't entangled in love.  Let's discuss what love is (oh joy of joys).

You say that the point of marriage is to form the bond of mutual trust and support.  I can honestly say that I don't trust nor care enough to support just anybody.  I have roommates and I never want to share my living space with friends ever again.  However, I did hang at my brother's place most of last semester, and it was completely fine.

That's because I love my brother.  I'm not talking about in a marriage context, of course.  However, my brother means enough to me that I'll stick with him through thick and thin and help him out when he's eating shit.  I don't do that for just anybody, even people I merely consider friends. I do that for people who I love.  Mutual trust, willing to spend their lives together, being there for each other, this is love.  Even when you bring sex into the equation, it doesn't make that stuff just passion.  It just means a couple is getting some nookie on the side.

QuoteYou'll see with increasing regularity in this day and age the notion of that passionate, romantic, sexual relationship being emphasized as the all-important raison d'être for the whole institution, and it's commensurate with the rate of divorce and marital infidelity, because they see that transient passion as more important than the familial bond they form. Marriage is an institution not of passion, but of trust.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Sidenote, but I used to hate Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet.  For the longest time I thought Romeo and Juliet was supposed to be the origin of all the tropes you see in chick flicks.  I even read it in high school and this thinking didn't change.

Then a teacher of mine opened my eyes to what Romeo and Juliet is all about, and it makes me really appreciate Shakespeare for the genius he wrote into the play.  Romeo and Juliet is the least goddamn romantic play ever.  It's about two kids who are so impulsive that they die for each other for no reason simply because they think they're in love.  Had they waited a week or two, they probably would have been sick of each other.  Dumb people think Romeo and Juliet had an insanely romantic and passionate relationship with each other, but it wasn't.  It was two 16 year olds being dumb and acting like 16 year olds and killing themselves over something so stupid and pointless.

My point is this:  People oftentimes get married for the same reasons that Romeo and Juliet killed themselves over each other:  because they wanted to screw like rabbits and thought it would be ultra romantic, all without realizing that, holy shit, what we're doing is stupid and I actually hate you now that I've spent time with you.

Romeo and Juliet is telling people what not to do when it comes to love and the choices you make regarding your involvement with somebody, but too many people use it as a benchmark for the zest in a relationship.

You probably have no idea what I'm talking about now and I dunno how to segue back to your argument, so I'll merely say: I agree with you.

QuoteAnd that trust, that agreement, in one sense is something that the government has every reason to regulate, particularly where the custody and welfare of children is concerned and where the division of property, taxes, debts, etc. is concerned.

I simply don't see a secular government as needing, however, to regulate the spiritual aspects as opposed to the temporal (to use the British government's terminology on the subject).

I also agree.  However, I have been trying to figure out whether restrictions like age and number of spouses and blood relation all have effects on the temporal and not just the spiritual.  I think that there are some.

QuoteAt some point, however, I think we have to step back and make the distinction of what "exploitation" of said system is as opposed to merely deriving the maximum benefit from it, and then perhaps at which point offering said benefits may be said to be unfair in the first place.

For instance, having tax incentives to be married? Gaining legal citizenship through marriage? Being insured through marriage? Perhaps the problem with these things is that they are not readily acquired in the first place.

In a perfect would, all those things would be readily acquired without the need for getting married.

QuoteWhy should marriage have any bearing on these things legally?

Because when a couple marries, people figure it's to start a family and raise some offspring.  The benefits are helpful because raising a kid ain't cheap or easy.

QuoteIf one looked at it from the opposite point of view: it's harder to be a citizen if you're single, you get higher taxes for being single, it's harder and more expensive to be insured if you're single
...seems like things that, if proposed that way, would be struck down quickly as unjust and absurd, does it not?

Again, this only really applies if the couple plans to have a kid, but it's not just the mom and dad who are getting the benefits.  Mom and dad don't get to have a kid and just buy a new TV.  That kids gonna be the most expensive goddamn thing in their lives, and if a single citizen can't get the benefits a married couple can in the first place, the benefits should at least still be there for the married couple.

Again, in a perfect world, everybody would get all of those benefits just by living here, but this world's pretty damn far from perfect.

QuoteWell I will say that it is, presently, a legal loophole that has yet to be satisfactorily addressed.

That's a good answer.

QuoteIt's so oft-repeated that it's downright cliche at this point but the whole argument against homosexuality violating the "sanctity" of marriage rather falls flat in consideration of the marriages of lust and convenience and legal loopholes and financial incentives that occur every day and fall apart due to boredom and infidelity the next.

As do the arguments that it's not a matter of homophobia or hatred when these things are done this way.

Again, I am in complete agreement.

QuoteAnd yet it seems that despite all those resources that individuals in those positions and institutions governing such things still manage to make fundamentally unequivocally stupid bad awful oh-my-God what-were-you-thinking decisions on the matter like the guy here.

Of course it goes without saying that the reasons for those kinds of decisions happening can be attributed to stupidity as well as other things.  It's unfortunate, really.

QuoteUnfortunately we tend to pendulum back and forth between oversimplified mentalities on the matter and overcomplicated ones.

Ugh, don't I know it.
You know I used to think there was some correct ideology that was the "right" one to have.  I never felt I had the right ideology, but I used to think it was a way of thinking that was fair and balanced and devoid of logical impurities.

Now I don't think there is such a thing as a "perfect" mentality.  In the end, somebody's going to have a legitimate problem with your way of thinking in some spot.  One can debate that maybe those who created religion knew this and made their gods infallible to get around this problem.

QuoteWell I've had some recent experience in trying to cobble together a stupid little constitutional system on this website you may have heard of (that thing about swinging back and forth between overcomplication and oversimplification, am I right or what?) and there's always a massive struggle to make a system that's resistant to abuse and manipulation but is still effective in its endeavors.

It's a massive struggle, and it's a headache, but I think it's a worthy headache.

I gotta say though, sometimes that pendulum swings pretty damn high sometimes.

QuoteI happen to think the architects of the United States' government, while certainly not the sainted heroes they're portrayed to be in our historical mythos, were damn smart. In particular, Washington's warnings in his farewell address were ridiculously accurate, particularly where it comes to things like partisan entanglements and division.

I should read Washington's farewell address.  I deeply admire Washington and the things he said and stood for.

QuoteBut I digress...severely. Where this comes in for individual rights and all that is the influence of either an oppressive majority or an overly influential aristocratic minority. Things like slavery would be an example of the former, and lobbyism the latter.

Unfortunate but true.

QuoteSome folks get really emotionally involved with a particular conclusion but aren't emotionally prepared to deal with it being examined logically. A lot of times these people haven't been brought up with the concept of critical thinking and fallacious premises are the basis of a lot of their ways of thinking, so something that may seem like a simple rational point may be upsetting to their whole world perspective.

Some folks get their ego deeply involved with being right or appearing smart, and fly off the handle if flaws in their argument are exposed or the basis of their conclusion questioned. A lot of this is, unfortunately, due to the fact that the pecking order socially will often be based around self-aggrandizement and the belittling and discrediting of others, so it amounts to more than merely the intellectual examination of a subject but the respect and basic decency a person is treated with.

And some people just thrive on drama.

Well I am very glad we can have this reasoned debate where I feel I am actually learning a thing or too.

My grandpa has a very good adage that he tells about love and sex:

A good sex life is ten percent of a marriage, a bad one is ninety

Quote from: RibsClock;1892084

This is a wonderful reaction image.

QuoteOh I completely agree that a familial form of love is essential. But here's the thing: that "love" folks have with lovers and all that is treated as something that you can just sever over dumb things, whereas you don't just divorce yourself from a sibling or child or parent something without a really major reason...

While familial love and lovers love, at least lovers love that is going to last, certainly have many things in common.  The trust, the confiding in one another, all that goofy shit.  With lovers love, the sex still comes into play, but if it's a marriage that isn't just blind passion then that other stuff is in the relationship too.

Quote...but moreover, you say "I don't do that for just anybody" but you fail to take into account that your brother is "just anybody". Your relationship with him is incidental not one you chose because you're "compatible" or "in love" or "it was meant to be" or some other schlock, he's some random bozo that just so happens to be related to you.

Oh, but it's only been the past couple of years I would even give my brother the time of day.  We used to hate each other and fight all the time.  We may have been forced to live together, but we certainly didn't enjoy it.  My bro and I actually like hanging out with each other now because we stopped fighting and got along, otherwise I might have just ignored him for the rest of my life had we not.

Just because I'm related to some bozo doesn't mean I actually have to love them like family.  It's just lucky my brother and I do now.

QuoteI get entirely what you're talking about. I could go into an even lengthier exegesis on Romeo and Juliet but I'll save that for another time.

Sometimes I wish the Clock Crew would get into discussions about books and plays and shit and actually dive into the deeper meanings, perceived or not, of those works.  I think that'd be a blast.

QuoteOh certainly. I happen to believe that those spiritual limitations that were placed had practical advantages that were not immediately apparent at that point in history, and obviously practical considerations (like age of consent, like inbreeding, like custody and property complications from vast polygamous marriages) bear noting for their ramifications in society.

Unfortunately we tend to confuse the two or look for/invent practical benefits in order to give ad hoc logical justification to something that would not have been put in place on its existing obvious practical benefit.

Word.  Going back to my post before the one you quoted, in a perfect world our politicians would sit down and look these things over and make sure they can successfully separate the two before they start trying to sign shit into laws.

Is it me or do most of those guys seem to just try and make the law as wordy as possible so people won't want to read it while still not thinking their shit all the way through?  More and more I think they're in it for the hookers and blow rather than the actual job.

QuoteYes comrade...the blood of the bourgeois shall water the tree of social justice!

Erm I mean...yes there are systemic legal flaws that should be addressed.

Da comrade!

QuoteIt's true that there is clear socioeconomic benefit to subsidizing the institution of the family. Unfortunately, the religious and civil and romantic aspects of marriage tend to obscure this.

Hence why we have this debate now.

QuoteQuite so, but it's good to at least be consciously aware of what's wrong.

The first step is always admitting you have a problem.

QuoteWell there's a whole other can of worms philosophically when you get the nature of divine decree into the equation. I happen to be theist, so obviously I hold the opposite perspective there.

That's fine.

QuoteBut as far as the "perfect mentality", one of the problems is we're not really talking about a mentality, we're talking about a unified and system, and finding a way for it to be dynamic to the needs of the participants as well as have integrity and sustainability.

Someone may have the perfect philosophy, but understanding of that philosophy may be beyond the comprehension of those whom they would communicate it to. There may be disagreement, people may misinterpret or intentionally obfuscate core concepts, or simply refuse to cooperate. These problems are entirely applicable to every theist doctrine, as well as every political ideology from totalitarianism to true anarchy.

The philosophy (and how it determines the actions of an individual who follows it) may be flawless, but there is no way of assuring flawless understanding, adherence, and participation. This is the inherent fault in attempting to judge a sect of philosophical, political, or religious thought by its adherents.

So, in the long run, a person can have a good philosophy but bad people will ruin it?  Makes sense, I guess the only thing one can do is examine that philosophy and make sure it's sound and than stick it to your guns even when other people try to mess shit up.

QuoteBoy does it friggin' ever. We get shit like the tax code that's a total clusterfuck of overcomplication and then you get folks like Stalin who are like "what, everyone just go farm, what could go wrong?" and millions die.

I'm not saying that anarchy is the answer because there are bad people would take advantage of the situation, but it seems that when you have some form of government, that runs the risk of having bad people in charge, like this Tennessee Ragan douchenozzle.

It's what makes me the misanthrope I am.

Am I being too childish in my views of people though?  There being good people and bad people?  I understand there are grey areas but I think ultimately what defines a person as "good" or "bad" is intention, method, and end result.

QuoteThe address was particularly well-written and comprehensive. I had a bit of it in my sig for a while.

Thanks for the link, I'll read it when I finish class tomorrow.

QuoteIt's nice to discuss something in-depth with someone, particularly on such a charged topic, where I don't have to walk on eggshells feeling like the whole thing is about to burst into flames.

Ditto

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1892161My grandpa has a very good adage that he tells about love and sex:

A good sex life is ten percent of a marriage, a bad one is ninety

My dad once told my brother and I "Start dating a girl and put a penny in a jar or something every time you have sex.  Then after you get married, take a penny out every week you don't have sex.  Eventually the jar will be empty and it will never fill up again."

At least I think that's what he said.  I was pretty young.

In related news me and some friends are crashing an anti-gay protest dressed as the Village People at some point this year.

Quote from: WrenchClock;1892231In related news me and some friends are crashing an anti-gay protest dressed as the Village People at some point this year.

Are you going to sing any of their songs?

Hopefully

That sounds like a blast, wish I could join.  I would be the Native American Village Person

Quote from: WrenchClock;1892231In related news me and some friends are crashing an anti-gay protest dressed as the Village People at some point this year.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to talk about what you believe with them as best you can instead of intentionally searching for indignant reactions?

How does one do an anti-gay protest anyway? Do you mean anti-gay marriage?

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1892329Wouldn't it be a better idea to talk about what you believe with them as best you can instead of intentionally searching for indignant reactions?

Well I don't think these are the sort who would talk with anyone, they're idiots.

QuoteHow does one do an anti-gay protest anyway? Do you mean anti-gay marriage?

Well I just found out who these people are (https://twitter.com/#!/MargieJPhelps/statuses/161229146494734336), and it leaves little time for us to get our costumes.

Quote#GodH8sU4That

Hahahaha

Quote from: Kombucha;1892390Hahahaha

What's funnier is that the men convicted were Muslim, who are also targets of WBC.

but still why this guy is Lmao, around? minimodding, not