Hot Topics, v. 2009.2
For topics that need to be handled with extra care. NO FLAMING.
Continued from version 2009.1.
Date: April 20, 2009
Categories: Ideas, Life, The Universe
Comments RSS TrackBack 607 comments
-
1
/gradster(1)/
in April 20th, 2009 @ 22:12So wait, we’re moving the entire thing to here?
Where were we, anyway? I am thoroughly lost.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
2
Piggy
in April 20th, 2009 @ 22:17It was too garbled and controversial there, so I moved it here. Hopefully it’ll be less disorganised here, but probably not as “hot”.
0
0
-
2.1
Piggy
in April 20th, 2009 @ 22:30Er, wait. That didn’t make sense. Disregard that last part.
0
0
-
2.1.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in April 20th, 2009 @ 22:37That’s all right, Piggy. It’s too late in the day to make sense. I meant to make it an early night myself. Fail.
0
0
-
2.1.1.1
/gradster(1)/
in April 20th, 2009 @ 22:44I think we all need some sleep, myself definitely included (given that I’m probably the worst offender or some other more sense-making word).
I vote ‘night.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
3
/gradster(1)/
in April 20th, 2009 @ 22:35I want to make something clear. I hardly mean to glamorise suicide. It’s still a horrible thing in my opinion, but that’s my opinion as an outsider – as the one who isn’t making the choice.
I guess you could put it this way: Before someone commits suicide, I would see that they are feeling down (understatement aside) and attempt to convince them that suicide is not the right thing to do. As someone commits the actual act, I would intervene as much as possible to stop them from hurting themselves. But after a suicide is committed, and the victim is dead… I would and do recognise that there is nothing I can do now, and that I would rather remember them in an honourable way than be ashamed every time I think of them.
It all comes down to time, again… Interesting.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP – musing
0
0
-
3.1
Piggy
in April 20th, 2009 @ 22:41Are you sure it’s a choice? Are you sure that these people who want to end it all A. are in their right minds, B. know exactly what they’re doing, C. know the implications of their actions, and D. have a complete reason for committing suicide, i.e., have a reason where the pros for suicide outweigh all the cons, e.g., their families, the rest of their life and it’s possibilities, etc.? I really don’t think anyone can meet all those criteria.
0
0
-
3.1.1
bookgirl_me
in April 21st, 2009 @ 09:28I think that when people commit suicide they aren’t thinking straight. They just want to get out and can’t face life anymore. But I don’t think that´s a reason to give up. When I’m depressed, I think I can’t do anything. I feel like I can’t cope, I’m just to stupid, I can´t cope… A sort of endless mantara. But I can and I did. I feel like I don’t have friends-but I do, as was pointed out to me. When you’re really, really depressed, you don’t think logically or straight. You just bawl and bawl and want it to end. I guess some people reach the point where they don’t care about the price.
At school, part of the 8th grade curriculum is reading a book called “The student Gerber”, which is about a boy who commits suicide after he thinks he failed the Matura*. At the end, we find out that he passed after all.
The scariest part is that one of the movies was filmed at my school. I stand at the window he threw himself out of before Biology. Or used to. The movie really freaked me out.
The worst part was that he passed. His big reason for dying actually didn’t exist. Okay, his girlfriend really did cheat on him and humiliate and dump him, but he had his mother, his father, his other friends, the retired teacher who was almost a second father to him. He skied, played piano… he had so many reasons to live. It isn’t a true story, but still…
I think that there is no reason good enough to take your own life. I don’t even think it’s a real choice, since the victim isn’t thinking straight. I don’t think you should feel ashamed, but rather sorry for the person.
*freaky, really, really important exam at the end of school. Flunk and you can kiss your career goodbye.
0
0
-
4
Faye Beauchamp
in April 21st, 2009 @ 09:46There are reasons for suicide.
Suicide happens.
If my friend is being suicidal, I will try encourage them to my very best to not take their life, to step back and really think about it. I will yell at them that taking their life is a stupid idea and that there are much better ways of handling this.
But it’s their choice in the end. Honestly.
0
0
-
4.1
/gradster(1)/
in April 21st, 2009 @ 11:00Exactly. There’s only so far you can go to try to convince someone.
If they’ve made up their mind…
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
5
Vendaval
in April 21st, 2009 @ 15:03On suicide and states of mental health- did anyone read In Suicide Prevention, It’s Method, Not Madness? Very interesting.
0
0
-
6
Jadestone
in April 21st, 2009 @ 16:21This reminds me of a discussion we had in psych–whether people have the right to die.
It is one thing for a hormonal, depressed teen who might have a chemical imbalance to try to commit suicide–I think eveyone in the class who said something said that an effort should be made to get her help.
But if you move it to a different situation, people had to think a lot more. Say there is an old man, maybe about 70-80 years old. His wife has died, he doesn’t have any close friends, and only distant relatives. He isn’t doing anything with his life, just going day to day to day, and he decides he’d like to move on. He’s not depressed, there’s nothing wrong with him, he just feels like it’s time for him to pass on.
Would a doctor, or anyone at all, be required to stop him? Should he be kept under constant care to be stopped from ending his life (I believe in our class the teacher presented the situation as though he was asking a doctor, maybe? Or wanting to die peacefully somehow)?
Just a thought.
0
0
-
6.1
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 pp and 3 b-dp and 42 KAGp!)
in April 21st, 2009 @ 16:59Ethical suicide centers? Did you ever read “Welcome to the Monkey House” by Kurt Vonnegut? It’s online (most of it, anyway), right here: http://books . google . com/books?id=-Yh_A3WqRlgC&dq=Welcome+to+the+Monkey+House&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=D0HuSbfyJc2clQem4vk0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA38,M1
Go to the story entitled “Welcome to the Monkey House,” and then tell me what you think about “ethical suicide”.
0
0
-
6.2
♫ Agrrrfishi {Aggie}♫, also known as Rosa, Zena, Klara, Jean, etc.
in April 21st, 2009 @ 17:29Considering that he likely doesn’t have long to live anyway, I don’t really think it would be ethical to help him end his life. He still has a life, even if e feels that there is nothing more he can do with it. However, instead of having a doctor hold him against his will or put him in a home where he has little or no freedom at all, they should suggest some things to do that would make his life more worthwhile: such as hobbies, activities, groups of people who share common interests and could help him get a grip back on life. And, if he really wants to end his life, he should contact some of his distant relatives. Maybe they could make him feel useful and welcome again. There are many possibilities in that situation.
I guess that if there is a chance for a natural ending to life in this old man, then he should be helped towards it, not discouraged and handed a needle. That’s just my thoughts.
0
0
-
7
Beavo
in April 21st, 2009 @ 16:55Somehow this won’t let me reply, sorry.
Jade- That’s an interesting question, one I’ve never thought about before. I can’t really come up with an intelligent response without thinking about it too much but my immidiate response would be yes, he has the RIGHT do die, if he chooses. So does anyone. If I decide of off myself right now, I have the total right to, it’s my life. But that dosn’t mean it dosn’t effect anyone else. I guess it all depends on the effects. I’m sure there’s a lot this old man hasn’t done and there’s things he could do to make his life more exciting, and I know there’s things a depressed teen hasn’t done. The teen (most of the time) has friends and family who care whether he realizes it or not, who would be devastated. The old man, however…
I’ll have to think about this some more.
0
0
-
8
cromwell
in April 22nd, 2009 @ 13:25What causes depression? I think it’s a rapid fall in self-esttem from high to low. Thoughts?
Speaking of self esteem, what are the pros and cons of high self-esteem? Low? Middle? None(I don’t know if that’s possible)?
0
0
-
9
nolagirl7
in April 22nd, 2009 @ 20:40Did you get the Muse on that? It was pretty good but it didn’t list many pros.
0
0
-
9.1
Cat's Meow
in April 24th, 2009 @ 18:36I don’t think that Muse did a very good job of distinguishing between high self esteem and conceit. There’s a difference, but it’s obviously pretty subtle.
0
0
-
9.2
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 pp and 3 b-dp and 42 KAGp!)
in April 24th, 2009 @ 19:38I have high self-esteem! I figure it’s better than having low self-esteem!
0
0
-
10
Faye Beauchamp
in April 22nd, 2009 @ 20:59Changes in weather can cause depression. So can chemical imbalances in the body.
0
0
-
11
Silver Lining and Mia (^..^)
in April 23rd, 2009 @ 17:12What are we talking about? I think suicide and/or depresion, right?
0
0
-
12
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 24th, 2009 @ 20:3311. seems like it.
10. Depression is caused by many things. Chemical inbalances are part of that (bi-polar dissorder) but so are stress, trauma, all around misery, certin medicines, especially those for treating other mental diseases or disorders, and other mental disorders like OCD.
0
0
-
13
Beavo
in April 24th, 2009 @ 22:44I don’t think you can really point your finger at one (or a couple) of things and say that it causes depression. There are too many factors. Since each person is different, there are different things that affect them. People can call me gay all they want and although I used to care, it really dosn’t bother me. Someone else might be pushed over the edge. It also depends on their situations. A fifty year old man dosn’t have to deal with jocks pushing him around in the hallways at school, and a teenager dosn’t have to deal with his dying wife. Not to mention personal struggles (is there a God, am I gay, etc.) and the thought of dissapointing loved ones. Then you add the overall situation of the whole world right now (suckish) and the worrying that you’ll never be happy because you aren’t right now (just thinking about the world right now, it’s a surprise an epidemic of suicide hasn’t wiped out India or something). Plus current small situations (jobs, money, whatever) PLUS the weather and chemical imalence and family history of depression.
There’s a lot more to think about, but there’s no point in listing it all, I’m sure I can’t even list half of things that go into depression.
0
0
-
13.1
Faye Beauchamp
in April 25th, 2009 @ 10:38I *like* your post
0
0
-
13.2
Agrrrfishi
in April 25th, 2009 @ 11:24I really liked that post. It says a lot about depression and what causes it, and I think that you’re absolutely right.
Here is a definition that I clipped from Wikipedia:
“Major depressive disorder (also known as clinical depression, major depression, unipolar depression, or unipolar disorder) is a mental disorder characterized by an all-encompassing low mood accompanied by low self-esteem, and loss of interest or pleasure in normally enjoyable activities. ”So basically, your analogy is right on.
0
0
-
13.3
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 25th, 2009 @ 20:03You are quite correct. There are millions of personal and environmental factors to wiegh in. I was listing the medical reasons, but I don’t think depression is ever solely medical.
People calling people gay has led to depression and sucicide in the victims of what the press calls “harrasment” and in one case at least, someone commited homicide and killed a person in thier high-school class because of the persons sexual orientaiton. It scares me that people can be that homophobic. Personally, however, if someone called me gay, I’d take it as a compliment.
0
0
-
13.4
Cliff Eagle
in April 25th, 2009 @ 20:36Wow. I’m using this for future reference when debating depressing.
Well said.
0
0
-
14
AthenianPsycho
in April 25th, 2009 @ 14:34This is interesting. I think I’ll stay a while.
At one point, I was completely happy despite my lack of actual social life. Then it all started to crash down, because a friend of mine from my dance class stopped talking to me. She wasn’t mad at me or anything, she was, er, “pursuing new interests”, those interests being this other girl who became her best friend. I had nothing against them being best friends, but I did have something against being stonewalled whenever I tried to talk to either of them. I started being sad. I realized that it would be easier on my nerves, brain, and heart if I, well, not shut them down, but more like put them to sleep. I spent about half a year learning to ignore everything, not to laugh, not to cry. To withstand both physical and mental pain. (The physical pain thing was simple, it’s amazing how far braces will get you.) Then, something odd happened. I’m not sure if I even want to talk about this, but…
He came.
Well, not exactly. He’d been there all along, since we were both about six. But the thing is…when I was going through the “training”, the mental pain part, I went through all the insults that had ever been thrown at me. I learned to ignore them, to not react, to not brood about them for hours after (this was especially hard, I’m a brooder by nature). Things like “metal-mouth”, “you’re stupid”, “you’re retarded”, “pizzaface”, and others were first. Then more vague ones, the ones that I heard no more than once a day. Overall, I was used to it all.
But he was different. Not that he was nice, no. His insults were more original, they weren’t the kind of thing I heard every day. They were not something I could not react to. I started waking up.
Despite myself, I started respecting him. I had been reading Twilight, and now I imagined Edward not just as Simon from Firefly, like I had previously, but like a combination of Simon and this guy, who, incidentally, was also named Edward. During dance class (yes he went there too), I wanted to dance with him, and whenever I did get paired with him, I was overall satisfied. Basically, I started to like him.
I understood that no one wants to be even friends with a rock. I started smiling/laughing again. At first, this really failed. “You’re retarded” was heard more than ever, because honestly, once I began to laugh, I couldn’t stop. Everyone would just stare at me and back away. I noticed this and shut up. I decided to set myself a rule of no more than ten hahas per funny thing said, and that I would stop myself. First this looked really weird, because I’d be laughing uncontrollably, then abruptly, I’d stop. I eventually learned how to transition.
Now I was normal and ready to react more lively-like to things around me. This whole time, I had kind of forgotten why I was doing this in the first place, I had avoided Ed, but apparently not enough. By the time I was normal again, so was he. He was no longer unique. He was just like everyone else: same gibes, same gossip, same annoyingness. He as I thought of him for a long time was gone.
Edward Cullen went back to being Simon. And I had nothing to do with my weird laughs, my liveliness, all of that. I started to hurt like I had before being a rock. And I couldn’t convert back to rockness, because that doesn’t happen in just a week. By the end of the month, I was already maimed quite a bit. I didn’t like it. I wanted to go back. I decided it was better to hurt for a while, then stop, then to decide that it’s not worth the time and keep hurting. But it was harder the second time. I had kind of enjoyed living, even if it hurt. I had seen that people around me always had someone to talk to, someone to email, something to be happy about, and I did not want to leave this world (I’m not talking about suicide, I’m talking about rockness). I knew that I couldn’t live life without pain, and I knew that I couldn’t become a rock and enjoy the beauty of life. I was torn. I was sad. I didn’t know what to do.
Also, just saying, about a month after I stopped liking Edward the dance class guy, I started liking this guy T. That also kind of tore me, because, once again, I couldn’t have both bliss and rockness.
I started to think about killing myself. Now before anyone says, “kill yourself because of a guy? that’s stupid.”, I want to say something. I was not killing myself because of a guy. The guy had woken me up, made me realize that I didn’t really know what I was doing. Currently, I am both grateful and resenting him- grateful for waking me up, resenting for putting me back to a peaceful sleep.
My friends managed to talk me out of killing myself. I’ve decided to live life, and see if I like it. If I don’t..I’ll become a rock again, even if this time, it takes years.
0
0
-
14.1
/gradster(1)/
in April 26th, 2009 @ 21:02*hugs* I have been in your position before.
My entire primary school experience involved me slowly shutting out the world and alienating everyone I knew but the people that would accept me in that form. Because I’m also sort of a geek, it meant I got stuck with the nerds, but that’s okay.
I only started opening up at freshman year. I’m learning, now, how to maintain the “rockness”, as you call it, but to reach out over that to the people I love.
What it means for me… I always feel detached, and most feelings are dull and don’t come naturally to me, besides my basest instincts. I get suicidal thoughts a bunch, but choose to philosophise about why I get them rather than about what I would do to myself, let alone actually acting on them. What I’m most proud of, though, is that I’ve succeeded in making the closest group of friends I likely ever will, gotten myself a wonderful girlfriend, and managed to overcome yet still keep the benefits of my emotion block, which I call the firewall.
That’s the real key, dear. You’ve got to make that rock selectively permeable, if you remember that from science. Let only the positive things in. Make everything else just bounce off.
One of the [surprisingly few] detriments of my experience is that what little self-confidence I had was completely destroyed, and I doubt I’ll ever regain it. I’ll always be the delightfully awkward boy, although I can use that to my advantage.
Don’t ever do that to yourself, okay? Don’t do it because of me. Don’t do it because of all of us. Don’t do it because of your friends, and don’t do it because of your family. Most importantly, though, don’t do it because of you. Think of what you’d say to yourself, if that makes any sense. Look at things subjectively. Be pessimistic. Killing yourself really isn’t all that smart.
Okay, honey? I’m pretty sure you’re just recounting, not actually feeling these thoughts, but remember this any time you’re feeling down.
And now, if you ever get those thoughts again, you can’t follow through with them, because that would make me feel REALLY guilty, because I hadn’t convinced you.
Really. Don’t. Ever.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
14.1.1
♢RoseQuartz♢ and Deluska (T_T)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 17:08Same here. I was homeschooled until the end of fourth grade, and then i attended the local elementary school for two years. BIG mistake. Fifth grade taught me not to trust anyone; sixth grade, that every single person in the universe hated me and was out to get me. Not to mention the academics: nonexistent. We (my family and I) decided that I HAD to go to a different school for seventh grade. After quite a bit of searching, we found a private school an hour from my house. I applied. I got in. I took the entrance exams. I passed. I thought it would be better. It wasn’t.
I’ve been constantly depressed for four years.
I never entertain suicidal thoughts, though. If a thought about killing myself pops into my head, I leave it there for about an hour, until I can get out of my funk. The whole time, though, I know that’s just stupid; I could never do anything like that. Put simply, I couldn’t even start to kill myself. It’s just not my personality. My personality is to be depressed for very long periods of time.
Sometimes I’ll be OK. Not happy, just OK. Then someone will say or do something, and I’ll get depressed again. My depression manifests itself in different ways: sometimes, I’ll just feel kind of dull. I don’t really feel like eating. I’m constantly tired and bored. Other times, I feel completely depressed. I go around in a black haze all the time, I don’t want to listen to any music but Kelly Clarkson’s CD Breakaway (totally depressing), I won’t eat anything at all, I don’t want to do anything. But I never want to commit suicide.
0
0
-
15
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 25th, 2009 @ 20:14Be who you are. Be who you want to be. Don’t let idiots who bug the hell out of you ruin your life. Who cares if they think your a retard?
Rockness is a risky proposition. make sure you aren’t completely detached from your feelings, or it’ll be hard to “retrive” them in a way.
Being who you are can hurt in todays socoitey, because no matter what you do, someone’s going to pick on you for it. But remember that in reality, they’re the retards. Ignore them, fight them, but please don’t make life changing discissons based on thier words and actions.
some friends are also a bit of a risky propisiton. A little rockness is good, because it means that if they all leave you, you can live by yourself (it sucks but you get used to it)
if you don’t know what your doing, figure out what to do. It’s all part of learning how to deal with hellishly annoying people.
One last note- thank god for your friends.
0
0
-
15.1
Cyndi
in April 29th, 2009 @ 17:10You are right. I definitely agree! I think that everyone should try to be a “Minerva Clark”. (Minerva Clark Get a Clue – By Karen Karbo. Read it!!!) It’s important to feel proud of yourself, and to have respect for the people around you. It’s not nice to make someone feel bad, for goodness sake. I would like it if we moved on to another topic. Suicide is a bit saddening. (Is that a word??)
0
0
-
16
Beavo
in April 26th, 2009 @ 00:20You also have to remember that suicide and depression are different things. Depression is of course a factor in suicide, but not every person who is depressed every once in a while is going to off themselves. Not even people who are clinically depressed are necessarily suicidal.
I agree with post 15. A couple years ago I’d come home crying from insults I got. And now that I look back on it, it wasn’t even that bad. But I get worse now, and I could really care less because if someone dosn’t want to take the time to get to know me instead of assuming things based on my clothes/appearence/whatever else, and on top of that they’re too closed minded to accept it as a difference, then I really don’t need them as a friend. “Those who matter don’t mind, and those who mind don’t matter”- Dr. Suess.
I see a lot of depression, which is sad because I’m sure it didn’t used to be like this. My mother knew one anorexic in her school, and I’m friends with two anorexic girls, countless bulimics, and most of my friends self-mutilated at some point. That’s kind of what brought us together, which is why I’m eternally grateful to my friends. We all had our issues (and although they were stupid, they were a big deal then) and we pulled each other out of the holes we dug, which motivated us to help ourselves.
Sometimes I feel bad because I’m usually trying to help three people at once (now I’m at my best friends’ anorexia and bulimia and one of my closer friend’s cutting) and it’s really emotionally whipsawing to see them go through this, and know that I’m not helping a great deal. But then I remember what they’re going through, what I went through, and thank Whoever that I’m not where I was anymore. Life’s really nice sometimes.
0
0
-
17
nolagirl7
in April 26th, 2009 @ 15:26You’re right. Just last year I was on a soccer team with what turned out to be the worst group of people I have ever hung out with, and I guess they thought I was an easy target or something. I would get really upset, and now I can’t think why I let them get to me. But one of my best friends was on the team, and when the other girls got bored and started drriving me ccrazy, she just reminded me to laugh at thier insanity.
0
0
-
18
Zallie
in April 26th, 2009 @ 20:00.This is a follow-up from our discussion last month about women serving in the military. I think it’s a really interesting (and upsetting) article:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8005198.stm
0
0
-
18.1
Beavo
in April 26th, 2009 @ 23:04Of course, they didn’t get the men’s side of this…
I’m not trying to say that the women were wrong in complaint and that the treatment they got was terrible especially for someone in the armed forces, but I felt like they were generalizing all men in the military as perverts and insensitive sexists. I don’t think this is so. You can’t generalize something so large and diverse. It makes it seem like being a guy in the military is a peice of cake. What about the nice guys? What about the gay guys? Are they ALL perverts? This article made it seem like it.
0
0
-
18.1.1
Zallie
in April 27th, 2009 @ 16:54.”According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”
I don’t know, it’s pretty hard to argue with those statistics. Even if we assume they are a little inflated, if 3/4 women serving in the US military are sexually harassed, that is a HUGE problem. A soldier cannot work to her best potential if she is constantly worried about being harassed, assaulted or raped by soldiers from her own side.
I do think that one can generalize about this sort of situation. If most of the women serving in the military are sexually harassed or assaulted, that means that there is a much larger problem. The US armed forces are notorious for being sexist, and this exemplifies that. Not all of the men in the military are perverts/insensitive sexists, but there does seem to be a culture of disrespect towards women which is ignored, if not perpetrated by many of the men. If this weren’t true, the numbers reported would be much, much lower.
Soldiers have an incredibly difficult and stressful life, which can lead to a lot of mental stress and psychological issues, but taking that out on a female comrade? Not okay.
0
0
-
18.1.1.1
Enceladus (Faglan) (10 wung points)
in April 27th, 2009 @ 18:22Here is another thing: openly gay people aren’t allowed in the military. This makes no sense to me. It’s like saying “You can’t help your OWN COUNTRY because you don’t like people of the opposite gender” . Wouldn’t the military want all the help it could get? Also, it won’t let Sikhs wear their turbans, Jews to wear their yarmulkas, just to protect conformity. That is my view on the military. It creates mindless robots who do what they are told to, and get punished if their orders are illeagal. The military is like a cookie cutter to me. Just like those cookie cutter playgrounds, it is incredibly boring. No offence to vetrans, or to military members. The military IS necesary, but it is too conformist.
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 27th, 2009 @ 20:11yeah- the “don’t ask don’t tell law” drives me crazy- I believe it promotes homophobia (the military’s homophobic, it’s great if you are sort of thing) and hurts not only soldiers but also avrage gay people struggling to come out as it is. What really infuriates me, though, is that according to an article in Upfront magizine- “in the last 15 years, 11,000 people have been discharged under this policy [don’t ask don’t tell]” COME ON! WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR HERE PEOPLE! 11,000 soldiers is alot, especially to be dischared on such a STUPID rule.
I however, being lesbian, may be a bit biased. Would someone please explain the benifits of “don’t ask don’t tell” to me?
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.1.1
Zallie
in April 27th, 2009 @ 22:24I believe the law is designed not as a way of discriminating against homosexuals, but as a way of eliminating distractions from combat spaces. Sexual activities between soldiers can create social barriers, favouritism, as well as distractions from more important work or duties. Sexuality doesn’t really have a place in the army.
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.2
Zallie
in April 27th, 2009 @ 22:17Yes, but conformity is rather the goal of the military, is it not? It’s designed to be impersonal and effective, not friendly and individualized. It does not matter if the military is ‘boring’ or not, just whether or not its tactics are effective.
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.2.1
Enceladus (Faglan) (10 wung points)
in April 28th, 2009 @ 05:41But which is more important? Your religion, or what the military says. Oh, and Book Theif, that sounds like something I would say, and I’m straight.
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.2.1.1
Zallie
in April 29th, 2009 @ 17:45If you’re in the military, it should be your first priority. As a soldier, I think it’s expected that you put your country first. If your religious convictions prevent you from performing effectively or from following rules, the military is probably not the best place for you.
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.2.1.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 13:32So you’d be willing to give up all your morals, murder injustly, and steal just because some army oficer dude says so?
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1
Zallie
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 15:10Hardly. I’m Quaker, so I would (could?) not serve in the military in the first place.
Joining the military isn’t about giving up your morals. If you are giving up moral convictions to join the army or act as a soldier, you shouldn’t be there at all. I don’t mean that it’s in anyone’s moral code to kill other humans, but to some people, the need to protect the values of our country, to stand up for what we believe in as a nation through violence trumps all else. I do not agree with these views, but I suppose I respect them.
I do admire anyone who is willing to put their country first to the extent that they would join the army out of choice. I don’t believe in armed violence or warfare, but the dedication and patriotism of our soldiers is certainly admirable. I wish it were put towards a different cause, but it’s admirable nonetheless. Few other Americans are doing as much to serve the country.
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.2.1.2
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 29th, 2009 @ 20:03thanks- that’s reassuring
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.3
Cyndi
in April 29th, 2009 @ 17:15Yeah, I agree. The people who run the military (or whoever makes these bad rules) should respect how people are and want to be, and they should respect their religion, too. If we’re all going to live together in this world, can’t we be a bit nicer?!?! (“we” as in the all of the not so great people)
0
0
-
18.1.1.1.3.1
Zallie
in April 29th, 2009 @ 17:43Ironically, it’s not the military’s intention to be either nicer or allow everyone to live in the world together. Maybe the military should respect people’s views, but not at the expense of effective tactical performance.
0
0
-
18.1.2
Axa
in April 27th, 2009 @ 22:49Explain to me what the men’s side of this issue is. If you are referring to sexual harassment of men, which ties into don’t ask don’t tell and general homophobia in the army, then I can understand that.
Sexual harassment and assault is a fact in the military. Brutal facts on the matter often help people to understand it’s not just derogatory comments and being “too friendly” etc. “They called me names” doesn’t make as much of an impression as “I was constantly in danger of sexual assault” does.
Of course there are nice guys but that’s not the issue. It’s obvious that not everyone in the army is doing this.
0
0
-
18.1.2.1
Enceladus (Faglan) (10 wung points)
in April 28th, 2009 @ 05:43Of COURSE there are nice guys in the military. But the fact that even SOME think it is OK to do that is just plain WRONG. Rape and murder shouldn’t even be thinkable as good.
0
0
-
19
Capricious the Great and Terrible
in April 29th, 2009 @ 10:47First of all, what ever happened to this place? I remember watching people beg for icons, I guess you must have started a union or something because here they are! Strange how much a place can change.
Anyway; I’ve been depressed before. Most everybody becomes depressed at some point in their life, and most everybody comes out of it. While it’s true that some people stay depressed for a while, most don’t, and people just disregard it because it’s not that big of a deal, as they should. Depression has a couple meanings. It’s a disease, it’s a state of mind and it’s an emotion. It’s sort of hard to differentiate if you’re depressed, but as an onlooker it’s pretty easy to see the difference. Depression as an emotion is what I described earlier, something almost everybody experiences. Depression as a state of mind is usually only present after a traumatizing event or many small things (like being teased at school etc.) and depression as a disease is something you are born with and most likely have to take medicines to prevent. Suicide is a completely different thing, but it’s possible in all situations. I suppose that it takes a weak person to commit suicide. People commit suicide to ecape life because they can’t take life anymore, which is just sad. It’s also fascinating because of a human being’s will to live as an instict. You’re strong for a moment, to actually kill yourself, I mean, but when you step back and look at the big picture it’s all just very sad and pathetic. That’s my opinion. While I, myself, hate being compared to people with worse living conditions (such as the poor people in Darfur) I also want to bring up that in many cases of suicide, the person might not realize how good they have it, and it’s just really even worse.
Anyway, that was pretty rambling. I hope I didn’t bore you too much.
I don’t really know what to say about discrimination in the army. I agree that it shouldn’t matter what a person’s sexuality is, because why should it? But I understand why they wouldn’t let their soilders wear certian religious things. The army is the army, it’s for fighting, not for dress-up. That’s a pretty harsh way to say it, but that’s what I think. I wouldn’t mind if they were more flexible, but it’s just my opinion.
Discrimination against women might be lowered if more women joined the military, I think. Maybe not, but… Anyway… That’s obviously wrong, and should be changed, but I wouldn’t know how to go about it.Hooray for random insane babble. :/
0
0
-
19.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 29th, 2009 @ 11:28Hey, Capricious! It’s great to see you around again.
As for the new ‘blog layout…..Some malicious individual decided it would be great fun to hack MB, install spyware and adware and all sorts of other nastiness. So, the GAPAs had to install newer software, etc, which resulted in a different look. That’s the much condensed, very simplified version of events. You can read more here if you wish.
0
0
-
19.2
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 29th, 2009 @ 11:30Capricious: Welcome back! You can learn all about our transmogrification by reading the What’s New on MuseBlog 2 page.
0
0
-
19.3
bookgirl_me
in April 29th, 2009 @ 12:19Evolution… it happens to the best of us, voluntary or not. MB just made a big leap, so to speak.
0
0
-
19.4
Zallie
in April 29th, 2009 @ 16:52The problem (with women in the military) addressed in the article is not discrimination, so much as blatant sexual assault and harassment. The situation might be improved if women joined the military, but it also might mean a higher number of incidents. The culture of disrespect needs to change, not the numbers of women in combat.
0
0
-
19.4.1
Enceladus (Faglan) (10 wung points)
in April 29th, 2009 @ 17:05But….. women HAVE joined the military. Who do you think is getting raped? The innocent bystanders? And yes, it is the culture that looks down upon women that is doomed to fail.
“Hell hath no fury like a women scorned”
– Some Greek playwrite (I don’t remember who!)
0
0
-
19.4.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 29th, 2009 @ 17:37She meant if more women joined the military.
0
0
-
19.4.1.2
Zallie
in April 29th, 2009 @ 17:41The article is entitled “Women at war face sexual violence.” I (surprisingly) was able to figure out that it was the women in the military who were facing sexual violence. I meant to imply that if MORE women joined the military, it’s possible the number of incidents would rise.
And yes, it is the culture that looks down upon women that is doomed to fail.
I don’t think this is necessarily true. I wouldn’t say that our culture (or any other patriarchal one, for that matter is doomed to fail. Why do you think this is true?
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1
shadowfire
in April 29th, 2009 @ 18:46Because women are an essential part of society, and should be treated as such.
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1
Zallie
in April 29th, 2009 @ 19:31I’m not questioning that part. Women should absolutely be treated with respect (as should men).
However, I don’t think that disrespect towards a certain group (be it homosexuals, women, a certain race, etc.) means that a society is doomed to fail. Without the disrespect, the society would without doubt become a more welcoming and accepting place, but that’s not synonymous with a successful society. Idealistically speaking, yes, the most successful society would respect all members equally. But, there are many cultures/societies today (ours included?) which could be termed as ‘successful’ yet still discriminate against a certain group.
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1
Enceladus (Faglan) (10 wung points)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 06:03I don’t believe that discrimanation can EVER lead to success. Look what happened to the confederacy in the civil war. Look what happened to the British Empire. Look what’s happening in Darfur. Look what’s happening to US, with this economic crisis. People, aren’t you getting the message? “Nous sommes égaux” We are equal. If one person is ‘better’ than another, then we shall fail.
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.1
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 18:46Well, civilizations all fall eventually, at least from what history has shown us. All civilizations have held some prejudices and discriminated against some other group, and all civilizations have eventually fallen, so in that sense, I suppose you’re right.
In a more short term sense, though, discrimination necessarily causes or leads to these down falls. The Gypsy or Roma people have been discriminated against since the Middle Ages, yet the civilizations who discriminated against them (all of Europe, essentially) haven’t fallen.
In what way do you think discrimination caused the fall of the British Empire? I would argue that Britain is still one of the most successful countries of our era.
How are you defining success anyway?
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 13:31No, they haven’t succeded. They were cut apart after WW1. Would you call THAT succeding?
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zallie
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 14:54Who is this vague “they”? England? England is one of the world’s more prosperous nations. Would you call THAT failure?
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:13The British EMPIRE. THEY failed.
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.2
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:13Enceladus: You’ve cited examples of countries that had various kinds of inequality and suffered various kinds of reversals. To support the claim that greater equality would have prevented those problems, though, I think it would help to give examples of countries that had equality, lasted forever, and enjoyed constant prosperity. Can you?
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.2.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:14No, because humans are almost always biased towrd themselves, and are greedy, and selfish!
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:20So, a successful country would be one that lasted and prospered forever? If countries achieved equality, then they would do that. But they can’t, so they don’t. That’s the argument?
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.2
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:25Yes. I’m idealistic. A normal society is one that will fail. To stop the failiure, it must get rid of greed, anger, hatred, discrimanation, and ignoring science. Unfortunately, those (or most of those) are human qualities, so ALL COUNTRIES WILL FAIL, UNLESS HUMANS BECOME PERFECT.
0
0
-
19.4.1.2.1.1.1.3
Vendaval
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:43Correlation does not imply causation.
0
0
-
20
Donaldo the Supercoolio Awesome Nerd
in April 29th, 2009 @ 21:17Women should be treated like princesses. I hope no one takes this the wrong way and thinks that I am saying that women should sit around in a tower all day and wait for their prince. What I mean is women should be given as much respect as men. When I go to school, I hold doors open for girls and female teachers. I pick up books or things girls drop, etc.
It is true that our society discriminates still. However I do not think sexism is not the most obvious form now. In all honesty, I believe Christians and conservatives are getting ignored. The news media cuts them out of the topic. People tell Christians and conservatives that they are being sexist and racist and should be silent, but I have just as much a right to voice my beliefs as others. To quote author Brad Thor about a controversial fiction book he wrote about Muslims, “We’re getting soft and lazy in this country, and if we’re going to back off every time somebody gets offended, we’re going to give up a lot of our rights that men and women bled and died for. I live in America. I have the right to write whatever I want. And it’s equaled by another right just as powerful: the right not to read it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people.
What you hear coming out of the radical Muslim community is that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to offend. Well, yeah, it does.”
0
0
-
20.1
Zallie
in April 29th, 2009 @ 21:44When I go to school, I hold doors open for girls and female teachers. I pick up books or things girls drop, etc.
It sounds to me that you treat women differently from men, which some would argue is a type of sexism. Chivalry, while a nice idea, strikes me as a little bit outdated in a society where women are supposed to be on completely equal footing with men.
It is true that our society discriminates still. However I do not think sexism is not the most obvious form now. In all honesty, I believe Christians and conservatives are getting ignored.
Are you honestly saying that you think most of the discrimination in America is being directed towards (I assume white) conservative, Christians? I just want to be very clear I understand you here, because that’s quite a statement.
0
0
-
20.1.1
Piggy
in April 29th, 2009 @ 22:54In regard to the chivalry thing, I saw a bumper sticker on Facebook I liked. It was originally a feminist one, but modified slightly, which reflects my views. “Feminism-The Radical Idea That Women Are
PeopleMen?”I agree with Donaldo. Conservatives are a minority. It’s a fact, not an opinion. And because they are a minority, especially in the media, their opinions are being repressed as “radical” or prejudice-filled. Remember how on April 15th (tax day) people organised those tea parties to protest the government’s actions? These protests were simply exercises of freedom of speech, a nonviolent way to speak out. However, only Fox News covered them as this. Yes, I watch Fox News. CNN and NBC, on the other hand, were downright obscene with their coverage of the tea parties. I’m not going to repeat NBC’s (my memory’s a bit shaky–it could be another network) comments due to the young nature of MuseBlog. CNN, though not reaching into obscenities, was atrocious to the people who wanted their voice to be heard. One reporter, hearing that the man whom she was interviewing was saying that Obama was going against our founding fathers’ ideals, quickly interrupted the man, said, “What does this have to do with your taxes, sir?” and immediately cut back to the studio. I find this an abhorrent attack on freedom of speech. However, I’m not here to pout about how conservatives aren’t getting a fair shot. They are starting their own websites, their own grassroots campaigns. They’re rallying around Fox News not because Fox News is leading them, but because it is the only major news station that allows them to speak their minds. Many liberal networks, CNN and MSNBC specifically, have put down these protests as fear-mongering and mob mentality, but the fact is, these are simply American citizens doing what they think is right for America. Can people really stoop so low as to say these honest, hard-working people are un-American?
There has been some speculation that Texas may secede from the Union. I sincerely hope this happens. It may not be permanently, but I believe that Obama and his Congress are too arrogant and blind to pay attention to the country’s actions thus far. I think that more drastic action must take place to bring about change, and will. When that happens, my family and I are going to find somewhere in Texas.
I apologize if I offend anyone. I’m not trying to begin a flame war. It’s late, I’m tired, I’m ranting. I’m not attacking anyone in particular; I just happened to click “reply” on Zallie’s post.
One last word, directed to Obama and his Congress: Don’t Tread On Me.
0
0
-
20.1.1.1
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 18:29Conservatives are indeed a minority in America (which is a good thing, IMO). However, the idea that conservatives are being discriminated against or oppressed is ridiculous, at least compared to the struggles of other minority groups. It’s a bit like complaining about getting a papercut, when the man in the next bed just had his feet amputated.
Let’s look at conservatives and another minority group, like African Americans/blacks. There are 40 senators who identify as Republican, which I’m taking to mean as more conservative (I understand this is not true in all cases, but I think it’s a fairly good estimate nonetheless). There is one black senator, Roland Burris, who replaced President Obama. The senate (while not a perfect system) should technically represent an accurate breakup of the American public. 12.8% of the US population identifies as black or African American, yet there is only one senator? Conservatives have a much stronger voice in Congress than African Americans and always have had this advantage. There have only been 4 black senators since Reconstruction, which was nearly 150 years ago. There was a lot of doubt President Obama would be elected because of his race, yet America has elected conservative presidents dozens of times.
The point I’m trying to make is this: the discrimination you are claiming conservatives are being subjected to cannot even compare to the discrimination and racism that black Americans have been subject to and continue to deal with. They’re on completely different levels. White conservative Americans may be being ignored by some left-wing media, but that is nothing compared to the institutionalized racism still present in America.
0
0
-
20.1.1.2
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 18:37I do think that bumper sticker is rather amusing, though. Chivalry and feminism are thought of as complete opposites, but I’d like to think they can coexist. I would (probably) consider myself a feminist depending on who’s asking, but I also think chivalry is a rather nice concept.
0
0
-
20.2
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 29th, 2009 @ 22:10sure “right-wing” politicians and conservative christians are being discriminated against- but so are the left wing politicians.
I have no problem with anybody voicing thier opinon- I do, occasionally, have problems with thier opinions.
For instance- if someone says something bad about me just because I’m gay, I will take issue with that.I believe that you have the freedom to offend, but you also have not only the freedom to, but you are required and expected to take full resopsibilty for everything you say or do, and if someone is offended by you, that could be an issue, so the freedom to offend is not saying it’s a good idea to offend.
then there are the people who are being discriminated against-not on account of thier opinion, but on account of who they are. I think we, as citizens of a suposedly fair and just country, need to work on that quite alot, and that it should take priority over opinons- if you want to express your opinoin and no one will publish your work or point of view, there is the internet or you can start a newspaper. You can’t change who you are.
0
0
-
20.2.1
Piggy
in April 29th, 2009 @ 22:41Oh, so anyone whose opinion’s are deemed “radical” by the media can just up and start a newspaper? Are you serious? Even the big newspapers are failing now. How could anyone just “start a newspaper”?
I’m sorry if I seem mean–I’m far too tired to think clearly, and should really not even be posting here.
0
0
-
21
Donaldo the Supercoolio Awesome Nerd
in April 29th, 2009 @ 21:19Sorry for the double post but I missed something:
19.4.1- I hope you are not saying then that only military women are getting raped. I am absolutely sure that many innocent bystanders get raped too. Most rapes in the news recently have been done to innocent women.
0
0
-
22
Donaldo the Supercoolio Awesome Nerd
in April 29th, 2009 @ 22:4220.1- See, there you go. Taking it the wrong way. Although, I get what you are saying. And I actually open the door open for both men and women and pick things up for anyone. I was just trying to get a point across… and chivalry is not dead. And no, I do not think that is where most of the discrimination is directed, but it is becoming much more common, especially (and I mean no offense) now that Obama is president.
20.2- I completely agree with what you are saying about taking responsibility for what you say. And I am not saying that you should go willy-nilly offending people. Just because I have the freedom to offend doesn’t mean I tell “your mom” jokes or racist jokes all the time. However, I must remind you that you don’t have to read what I say. And since you said you were gay, I am going to say right out that I was Yes on Prop 8. I hope we can stay civil on this because you seem like a great intelligent guy, and I don’t want to get anyone in trouble. I am just saying this so you can understand where I am coming from in future posts.
0
0
-
22.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 29th, 2009 @ 22:52Book Thief is female, just so you know.
0
0
-
22.1.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:17yes, I am, thank you Luna
22- I am sure we can stay perfectly civil. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. Now, since you are yes on prop 8, could you please explain to me why that is? I don’t want to start a war here, but I am fairly curious.
0
0
-
22.2
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 18:33No, I actually don’t think I’m taking it the wrong way at all. If you hold the door open for men as well as women, then you don’t really have a point. What are you trying to say here?
And no, I do not think that is where most of the discrimination is directed, but it is becoming much more common, especially (and I mean no offense) now that Obama is president.
Now that Obama is president and racism has magically disappeared, you think people are starting to discriminate against white, Christians, conservatives? Can you please clarify that statement?
0
0
-
22.2.1
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:50*white, conservative Christians.
0
0
-
23
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 29th, 2009 @ 23:03(20 and replies; 22) I’m not sure I understand what you all mean by “discrimination.” I’ve always understood it to mean that some people are unfairly denied rights or opportunities that most other people have. Is that what you have in mind? If so, as everybody here seems to be claiming to be a victim of discrimination, I think it makes sense to ask which rights or opportunities the different groups you mention are being unfairly denied. In 20.2 for example — Book Thief, how are politicians victims of discrimination?
(20.2.1) Piggy: Anyone can start a blog, however. We’ve proved that.
0
0
-
23.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:19You are absolutely right- and I don’t have any examples in politicians.
0
0
-
24
Donaldo the Supercoolio Awesome Nerd
in April 29th, 2009 @ 23:0723- That is an excellent idea. I’m going to say that first, for a Christian conservative, we are being denied rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And people are starting to get at us for our right to bear arms….
0
0
-
25
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 29th, 2009 @ 23:28(24) Examples, please?
As a reminder, in the United States “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” are guaranteed in the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights, which reads in full:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You might disagree with things you read in the papers or see on TV, but they aren’t the same as laws restricting what you’re allowed to say or publish. In fact, I’d say that the success of Fox News and talk radio is an example of free speech in action.
So… examples, anyone?
0
0
-
26
Donaldo the Supercoolio Awesome Nerd
in April 29th, 2009 @ 23:43OK. Good point. I am not speaking of laws specifically. Just actions. The Catholic owner of a popular ice cream store called Leatherby’s supported Prop 8. Now gay supporters and gays are boycotting his restaurant. The head of the California Musical Theatre Company had to leave his job because he supported Prop 8. Everyday I get snide comments from other kids because of my beliefs. This, I believe, infringes on my right to freedom of speech. If good people cannot voice their beliefs because they are afraid of losing their job or their business or being persecuted, then I think that is infringement on those rights.
Oh yea, I forgot to say earlier, “Go Miss California!”
0
0
-
26.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in April 29th, 2009 @ 23:50But those aren’t examples of the government‘s restriction of free speech, which is what the Constitution refers to. You may disagree with the boycotts and the snide remarks, but aren’t those people exercising their rights just as you are, just as the store owner did? Speech has consequences. We don’t always like them.
0
0
-
26.2
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:13Ok, I really probably should not be saying anything on a controversial subject at this time of night, when I’ve not gotten more than maybe 6 hours of sleep any given night for the past week,a nd typically more like 4. But what common sense tells me and what I do rarely mesh, so……
You’re right, in that a person has freedom of speech. The ice cream store owner you mention has the right to voice his support for prop 8. However, supporters of gay rights have every right to boycott him as a result. It is their right to express there own opinion in any (legal) way they see fit, which includes boycotting the business of somebody with opposing views.
And if it is discriminatory for an individual to boycott the establishment of someone who opposes their “way of life” (not sure I like that term, but you get the idea), then what on earth do you think prop 8 is? That is a much more blatant form of discrimination, it is close-minded, discriminatory, and completely infringes the rights of homosexuals. Boycotting an establishment does not. They are not saying that the ice cream shop owner can not express his views, but prop 8 is preventing homosexuals from having the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution, it is, quite completely, restricting their rights. It’s discriminating against them.
Excerpts (as in, intro and closing paragraph, summarizing general ideas. The rest argued for it mainly through religious arguments. If you are interested in seeing the full paper, it’s on one of the religion threads awhile back, but according both to my sister, and a few others, it apparently comes off as offensive to those opposed to same-sex marriage, which was NOT the intent….. https://musefanpage.com/blog/?p=1479 Post #83) from a paper I wrote back in highschool, spring semester of my Junior year, I believe. It’s slightly more specific (arguing specifically against AK’s amendment banning same-sex marriage, but the same principles hold, regardless):
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness….to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men….whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it….†These are the words of one of our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, in the famous Declaration of Independence. Sadly, we do not seem to have taken these words to heart. The amendment to Alaska’s Constitution banning same-sex marriage indicates that not all men (or women) are created equal. It makes homosexuals inferior to the rest of the population. This amendment is preventing them equality by denying them one of their “unalienable rights….the pursuit of Happiness.†It is our duty to do as Jefferson instructed and alter the government, by removing this amendment and legalizing gay marriage, for keeping the amendment is destructive to the theory of equality. Clearly, the majority of people do, or did, support this amendment, but times change, and so must beliefs and values, and above all it is important to hold to equality, or the whole foundation of this country will crumble beneath us.
Therefore, in order to stay true to the principles that founded this country, we must join together to convince Alaska’s legislators to remove the amendment banning same-sex marriage. By removing the amendment, we would become a better state—one that does not teach the impressionable young minds who are our future that it is acceptable to treat people as inferior just because they are different. Is that really the message we want to send them, one of hate as opposed to love? Removing the amendment is the only right thing to do; it’s the only Christian thing to do. It’s the only American thing to do.
As for Miss California? I saw a clip of her Q&A on the web, and with as much restraint as my sleep deprived brain can muster, I am quite glad she did not win. I was utterly disgusted with her close-minded answer, and would have happily booed her off the stage had I been in the audience. and I would have been furious had she won; had they voted for a close-minded discriminatory individual to be Miss America.
0
0
-
26.2.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 07:491. That is the Declaration of Independence, a marvelous document but in no way law. You can’t put down laws because they disagree with that.
2. So, if a person is raised with certain beliefs, they should abandon their morals to win a beauty pagent?
3. I’m assuming Donaldo is opposed to gay marriage. I can’t speak for him, but I’d imagine he doesn’t believe that homosexuals have the right to marry, and so he could believe that proposition 8 is in no way violating anyone’s rights.I’ve been raised with certain morals which state that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. I don’t think gay marriage should be allowed because I believe it is not true marriage. Nothing more, nothing less. Call me what you will, but I have an opinion to which I am entitled, and you can’t oppose me for expressing it.
0
0
-
26.2.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 09:011. Yes, I know. However, our constitution is supposed to guarantee us our freedoms, such as those expressed in the Declaration. Preventing same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual couples indicates that they are not equal. “We hold this truth to be self-evident that all men are created equal…..” Or something along those lines. Just like preventing interracial couples to marry violated this, so does preventing same-sex couples.
2. “Abandon her morals?” That implies that anyone who supports same-sex marriage/rights possesses a lack of morals. But, no, a person should not abandon their beliefs to win a beauty pageant. Beauty pageants are, to be quite honest, stupid. But if the judges (or whomever cast the vote) had “elected” her, I would have been disappointed, because it would speak volumes as to their (in my opinion, highly discriminatory) views, if they wanted to be represented by someone who was against total equality and equal rights.
3. Honestly, regardless of one’s opinion on the morality of same-sex marriage, I don’t see how it can be argued that they have the right. They are hurting no one else (and that’s pretending for the sake of thea rgument that they’re even hurting themselves). Why should they be discriminated against because of who they love? How is it anyone else’s place to say that the love between them is not as important as the love between members of the opposite sex? They should have th same basic freedom’s as everyone else, which means they should be able to marry whomever they want.
And I’m not trying to say you’re not entitled to your opinion–you are. But likewise, I am entitled to my opposing opinion, and have the right to express, just as you have the right to express yours.
0
0
-
26.2.1.1.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 19:51I’m not saying people who support same-sex marriage don’t have morals. Of course not. I’m saying they have different morals. That’s it.
In the long run, I’m sick of this whole beauty pageant thing. I don’t think it should’ve been reported on national news. There are more important things about which to worry in this world.
0
0
-
26.2.1.1.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:12Gotcha……I can agree with that, I think. (your comment about morals, that is).
But I agree with you about the beauty pageant, as well. They’re rather ridiculous in the first place, and they’re not worthy of national news, because as you say, there are more important things on which to report and worry about……
0
0
-
26.2.1.1.1.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 13:26Exactly. I feel that beauty pagents are aren’t worthy to BE. People care to much about the image, not what it actually is. (I wrote a great bit on this in music class. Hopefully she’ll give it back)
0
0
-
26.2.1.2
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:28you are most certinally intitled to your opinon.
The thing is, there are people in this country who are racist, anti-semitic, discriminatory on account of religon, whatever. We do not have laws to satisfy their belifs that discriminate agaisnt other people.
There are also homophobic people.
We have laws siding with them and denying 1 in 10 people rights garenteed to them by the constitution. Can you tell me how that is right?Lifting bans on same-sex marriage does not require churches to marry same-sex couples. It simply allows same-sex couples to be lawfully married and reconized by the government as so.
0
0
-
27
Donaldo the Supercoolio Awesome Nerd
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:00Oh poop. I’m too tired. It’s ten o’clock. I’ll come back to this tomorrow when my brain is recharged…
0
0
-
27.1
Raynpho
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:02Lucky. It’s one o’clock here. Yes, AM.
0
0
-
27.1.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:03So it is. Why are we still up? A pleasure to see you, by the way. I was just thinking you hadn’t been around in awhile.
0
0
-
27.1.1.1
Raynpho
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:09Hello, thanks! I’d been avoiding MB in a desperate attempt to curb my procrastination-on-the-internet habit. Obviously, it’s not working. MuseBlog’s been neglected, though, because I know I’ll have to spend a good amount of time here, if any at all. But I can trick myself into thinking that those other websites aren’t nearly as addicting, or I’m really doing something productive, and I’ll end up whiling away a couple hours. Wung.
0
0
-
28
Donaldo the Supercoolio Awesome Nerd
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:05Well, good night. I was working on an essay on the play “Antigone” just so ya know as to why I was still up, but I am done now.
Raynpho- you are crazy. Why are you up?
0
0
-
28.1
Raynpho
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:11I-I-I… zzz…
If only. I’m really
surfing the ‘webwriting up a mini-paper.
0
0
-
28.2
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:30ughh…
I wrote a paper on Antigone (goes with our previous suicide argument)
it nearly drove me crazy
0
0
-
29
Rainbowstar and Serendipity (o.o)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:11Speaking of Prop 8 (post 26), I’d be interested to know people’s opinions on it. *hopes not to start a flamewar*
For the record, although I don’t hold many political opinions, I oppose it. Anyone should be allowed to get married.
0
0
-
29.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 00:18I am most definitely opposed. It DISCRIMINATES against people for no good reason and infringes upon peoples’ rights.
I think it is a very sad thing indeed that it passed, just like wh atever the proposition (or whatever) in FL that said homosexual couples could not adopt was very disappointing. Especially my aunt’s (she lives in FL) exultant email about the fact. It quite honestly took all of the limited self-restraint I possess to keep from writing back a horribly *****y email to her, which would have been unadvisable for many reasons. One of which being that she wrote the email in early/mid November, and I was going to be spending Thanksgiving break at their house. Where I managed quite a bit of self-restraint in not making snide remarks when they voiced numerous subtle/not so subtle attacks on homosexuality throughout the week. ’twas infuriating.
0
0
-
30
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 08:12Piggy’s post raises an interesting question: why should the government be performing marriages at all? If marriage is defined in religious terms, why shouldn’t the government get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches? (There’s a hot topic for you.)
0
0
-
30.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 09:03To be quite honest, I don’t think the government should have anything to do with it. Anybody who is legally allowed to perform a marriage should be allowed to perform it on any couple they wish (provided, of course, the members of the couple are of legal age).
0
0
-
30.1.1
/gradster(1)/
in April 30th, 2009 @ 13:38Didn’t you sort of contradict yourself there? “Anyone who is legally allowed to…” – what is legal is determined by the government.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
30.1.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 15:19Um, I guess I sort of did……’twasn’t awake fully at the time.
0
0
-
30.2
/gradster(1)/
in April 30th, 2009 @ 13:36The government should be performing marriages because they are no longer defined as only religious, if religious at all (I don’t think they can be legally identified as religious because of the separation of church and state) – there are tax benefits, visitation rights, adoption rights, and such attached with being married.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
30.2.1
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 18:39Agreed. How else are atheists supposed to get married?
0
0
-
30.3
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:34the government defines marriage in conjuction with property rights, taxation, insurance, child- coustody rights and adoption rights.
I’m not saying that’s nessicarily the best way to handle marrage- but it is an easier way to handle marriage.
for instance, if a lesbian couple decides to have a kid, only the birth mother actually haas gardianship of the child, which don’t think is fair.
0
0
-
31
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 14:31(30.2) Raising children, sharing money, etc., are certainly important, but do they have to be determined by a marriage contract? Maybe another sort of contract would work equally well — say, a “household incorporation contract” similar to the ones businesses use to incorporate. Then anyone who wanted to merge assets could make that kind of arrangement. A pair of elderly sisters who wanted to look after each other, for example, could declare themselves a household with many of the legal and economic rights that marriage now affords. By separating the legal rights of partnership from the “sacred union” that Piggy mentions and that many people consider a central part of life, maybe we could avoid a lot of the current fuss over who should and should not get married.
(I’m not advocating this plan, by the way — just saying it’s an interesting idea to think about.)
0
0
-
32
Vendaval
in April 30th, 2009 @ 15:0631- That is an interesting plan, but how would it differ from a civil union? As you say, it creates “a household with many of the legal and economic rights that marriage now affords.” Which is not all of the rights gained as when a heterosexual couple marries. I think it’s a great plan for, say, those sisters, but still completely discriminatory against other couples who do want to be married.
Why can’t we make it an issue solely for the churches to decide? Then the government can grant marriage rights to anyone, and if you don’t believe that gay couples should get married, you won’t marry them.
0
0
-
32.1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 15:15It would be like a civil union, but more broadly available (to close relatives, for example). By shifting the focus away from love, sex, and parenthood and toward property and caregiving, it could be made so humdrum and boring that nobody would care much who got one. And people who also wanted to get married would go to church.
I wonder whether any country has ever tried anything like this — in Europe, maybe.
Here, though, it’s really just a thought experiment about all the different things that marriage means to different people and the many functions that it serves. Science-fiction scenario, POSOC?
0
0
-
33
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in April 30th, 2009 @ 18:33I heard a man named Neil Mammen speak. He is an apologetic Christian that is really smart. He said that gay marriage should be legal IF and only if marriage were about love. Alas, marriage is NOT about love. This came as a shocker to me, but he explained. He was an immigrant from an African country (which one escapes me at the moment) and in his country arranged marriages were very common. These people were not necessarily in love when they were married, but their marriage is very successful. Case in point: you can learn to love each other.
Another example: In 6th grade I HATED this girl. Hated everything about her. But finally I had to ask her for a pencil. We ended up becoming great friends after talking for a while. People can learn to love each other.
Also, think back to when you were a little kid. Be honest here- wouldn’t the idea of a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman be appalling? Gay marriage defies natural law.
Lastly, in the Netherlands, gay marriage has become legal. After this, the divorce rate jumped. This is not necessarily because gays got divorced. I am not saying that. However, mariage should be treasured. It should be something special between a man and a woman. Neil’s theory is that because marriage was opened up to everyone, it was not as special. To relate this, think of a dollar. If there were too many dollars, it would not be worth as much. Marriage, if it is viewed as something that is not valuable, then people won’t care as much. They will marry on a whim, maybe have kids, realize they are not right for each other, and divorce.
OK, that’s all.
32.1- I support the domestic partnership idea for homosexuals.To end, I would like to say that I am NOT a homophobe. Most of my friends support gays, and I am friends with a few gays myself. So please don’t say I am a homophobe or something like that.
0
0
-
33.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:00In all fairness, same-sex marriage, or homosexuality in total, to be more accurate, isn’t just about “love”. It’s a physical attraction to the same sex, just as you or I are attracted to the opposite sex. You can have attraction to someone without love, and you can love someone without being attracted to them.
As for the whole “civil union-like idea”, I don’t support that either, but that’s because of my beliefs and morals, which I will not explore further on MuseBlog.
I agree with Donaldo. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends. I just don’t support the idea of same-sex marriage or sodomy. It’s my religion, they’re my beliefs, I’m not changing them, so it’s no use arguing. You can say, “But you’re violating their rights!” and I’ll say, “No, I’m not,” and the discussion will end there.
I may just be more obstinate than most people, but I, for one, change my opinions or stance on an issue rarely if ever. I realise that the Hot Topics thread is for issues dealing with morality, but, in all honesty, I haven’t seen any useful discussion here in as long as I remember. I hate to change the subject, but there certainly must be a hot topic which isn’t based off people’s beliefs or morals?
0
0
-
33.1.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:55I hate to piont this out- I really do not mean to offend anybody.
But many religons are homophobic. Need proof? read the bible- Leviticus 1:16ish, Romans 1:26. If they aren’t the definition of homophobic, than I don’t know what homophobic means.
the bible is the center of religon, so if this is your religion, how can you claim that it is not homophobic?
0
0
-
33.1.2
Vendaval
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:44Except you won’t be able to give any proof that you’re not violating rights, leading to a conclusion that you are, in fact. Just saying “No, I’m not” doesn’t really mean anything.
0
0
-
33.2
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:09Marriage, if it is viewed as something that is not valuable, then people won’t care as much. They will marry on a whim, maybe have kids, realize they are not right for each other, and divorce.
But is it your job to decide who can and cannot get married? It’s none of your business if Chris and Betty get a divorce, or if George and Edward get married in the first place. It doesn’t effect you at all, so why do you have any say in the matter at all? George and Edward’s marriage isn’t harming you (or anyone else), so why forbid it?
To end, I would like to say that I am NOT a homophobe. Most of my friends support gays, and I am friends with a few gays myself. So please don’t say I am a homophobe or something like that.
This is a silly statement. It’s like saying, “I have a black friend, so I can’t be a racist!” It just doesn’t work like that.
0
0
-
33.2.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:20So how does it work?
0
0
-
33.2.1.1
/gradster(1)/
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:31You tell us – you’re the one explaining why you aren’t a homophobe.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
33.2.1.1.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:36I’m just asking Zallie to explain her statement. Obviously, I must’ve thought that was how it worked, so how would I explain it?
Ugh, I can see fingers of flame beginning to grab this thread already. I’m leaving.
0
0
-
33.2.1.1.1.1
/gradster(1)/
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:49Exactly! How would you explain it?
Bother. Is it really that bad if we have some arguing?
And also – I’m sorry, I can’t really be trusted to not be violently active about gay rights. In my group of friends, straight people are the minority – there are three, including me. Tartarus, I’ve got an ongoing journal with a lesbian who’s also been experimenting with one of the other straight people, I’m dating a bi, and I’m friends with her ex, a lesbian. It’s just… What’s right, for me. You can expect me not to feel violated when people I care about start getting treated like second-class citizens.
I do wish you’d come back.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
33.2.1.2
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:42Homophobe: a person who hates or fears homosexual people
Anyone who isn’t a homophobe would, I guess, accept that homosexuals are a part of society as anyone else and deserve the same rights.
I wasn’t implying that Donaldo was a homophobe. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. I was merely taking issue with his argument that he is not a homophobe because he “friends with a few gays.” That’s not adequate proof for anything aside from the fact that Donaldo has friends.
0
0
-
33.3
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:40“Also, think back to when you were a little kid. Be honest here- wouldn’t the idea of a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman be appalling? Gay marriage defies natural law.”
How do you define natural law? Technically, yes, gay mariage defys evolution- but so does healthcare and charity work and housing programs (they all support the evolutionarlily “weak”)
Some animals need to worry about reproducing, but I don’t think we humans do- we’re not about to go extinct anytime soon.
So is natural law all about reproducing, or are we humans actually superior enough to marry for love instead of a need to reproduce?
0
0
-
33.4
/gradster(1)/
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:271. How is that remotely relevant to our discussion here? Are you saying that homosexuals can learn to live a heterosexual life?
2. Same question.
3. Not at all. And no, it doesn’t; not nearly.
4. Marriage is just as valuable to gays as it is to you. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that they are any less worthy than you.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
33.5
Vendaval
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:36What’s you point about learning to love someone?
Correlation does not imply causation.
And now for some quotes, because they’re funnier than me at the moment:
“Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.”
“Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. ”
“Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because “separate but equal” institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.”
“Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.”
“Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.”
0
0
-
33.5.1
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:45Real talk, Vendaval, real talk.
0
0
-
33.6
Beavo
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 16:48I just had to butt in here, I know it’s an old post. What you said about it being weird as a child: When I was seven or eight, I hung out with only girls, which was unnatural for most boys, in my school at least. I wasn’t attracted to them at all. I didn’t know what homosexuality was. I realized later that the boys I would hang out with were the ones I thought were attractive, not the ones I had something in common with or honestly enjoyed being with. I even imagined marrying boys, but never told anyone about it because soon after I had those thoughts, my mother told me that homosexual relationships were unloving and that it was a mental disease. So as a kid, I was completely gay, no doubt about it. I only imagined my physical attraction to women because it was expected of me. I started to be attracted to women in the seventh grade, last year, the same time I began to see that homosexuality wasn’t wrong or weird. And my attraction to boys is still there. So I’m bisexual. It was only weird to me because my mother said it was. It wasn’t weird when I thought about it on my own.
0
0
-
33.6.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 17:34i didn’t find it wierd either- but, then again, I never really thought about it all that much until last year (6th grade) and then I found it less wierd than heterosexual relationships.
ugh.. I feel really sorry for you Beavo, with your mum and all.
0
0
-
33.6.2
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 27th, 2009 @ 19:10I’ve never told anyone this, but that really is me spelled out…. I know I sort of talk against it(but not really), but I realized the same thing that you did… Of course, now I am not attracted to guys, but I realized that I did have a few crushes on guys, and that was who I would hang out with. No, I was not “completely gay,” I didn’t really have any orientation back then… This is all very personal to me, but I had to say it, because I never knew that someone shared such an experience.
P.S. I’m in seventh grade.(How old are you?) I just never pictured myself with guys, so I am certain that I am not gay. I’ve been having a lot of crushes lately too, I hope its only puberty….
0
0
-
33.6.2.1
Beavo
in May 27th, 2009 @ 20:22I’m in eighth grade, going on ninth.
*hug* I remember the feeling of confusion and the knowledge I couldn’t tell anyone my feelings (I’ve only had a crush on one guy, and it was short lived- like I said, I don’t get along well with most boys but I’m talking about my attraction to men here). It hurts, it really does, to know that you have to keep in emotions, especially when you’re a seventh grader… I changed as a person more than I ever have my whole life during seventh grade. I know what you’re going through. I hope it helps that we’re here for you and I can totally symapthize.
In my opinion, anyone can fall in love with anyone, so you don’t really have to be attracted to men to fall in love with one. The love of that person’s personality will provide the lust on its own. I just happen to be attracted to both sexes, that’s how it worked out. I’ve never wanted a relationship with a guy, but I’m more attracted to them. I’m not so attracted to girls but I’ve been in a one year relationship with one. Funny how that works out, huh?
Re: Mom- She has more important things to worry about, and sure, she’s closed minded on this topic as well as many others, but I still love her. I just hope she’s nice enough to come to my gay wedding/drag presentation of the 2021 Oscars.
0
0
-
33.6.2.1.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 28th, 2009 @ 21:00Yeah… But a I’m sure. I’m definitely straight. I just can’t picture myself with a guy… *shivers* it just wouldn’t work… But now I have other relationship problems, which I should probably bring on the relationship thread…
0
0
-
34
Kokonilly
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:26Okay, one thing:
Homosexuals are people, too. Therefore they have the basic freedom guaranteed by the Ninth (or Tenth?) Amendment (the one that says you have other rights, not just the ones listed in the Bill of Rights) to marry.
Yeah. So.
I also agree with Zallie – How is it hurting you, you people who are against this? Really?
0
0
-
34.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 20:43Ninth. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” However, you have to notice it says “certain” rights without specifying which rights these are. This reminds me of a Dilbert comic strip. I can’t remember how it goes exactly, but it’s a bunch of Elbonians (from an imaginary country, Elbonia) presenting their first version of their new constitution to their ruler. Among the rights they specify are the right to collect string and the right to find potatoes shaped like their favourite celebrities. I’m not saying that marriage is something silly, not at all. I’m saying you can’t prove it’s a “right” and not a privilege.
0
0
-
34.1.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:31but you have a constitutial right to pursue happiness “we hold this truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed certin and [can’t remember how to remotely spell this word] rights”
among those rights is the pursuit of happiness.Getting married falls under the pusuit of happiness. If you don’t agree, think about it this way- would you be happy if you could not marry the person you love? I know that you could still live with that person under a civil union, but you get taxed differently, don’t get full child custody, work insurence plans that can’t cover your child or spouse, if that person is serverlly ill you cannot visit them, and you are not socially and religously accepted, even if your religon is alright with your sexuallity? would you really be as happy as someone who has all these rights, which are provided under mariage but not civil unions? really?
0
0
-
34.1.1.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:39*sigh* I’ve explained this before. That’s the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Please check your sources, kthxbai.
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.1
Vendaval
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:52Ohsnap Piggy is correct- That is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
So that means it isn’t law. And therefore we shouldn’t pay attention to it. I guess the Book Thief’s whole argument just fell apart, because it’s not one of the founding documents of America or anything. They were just getting warmed up, and said some very silly things like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But wait, wasn’t that their entire reason for rebelling against the Crown?
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.2
/gradster(1)/
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:53Regardless, I’m pretty sure it’s got to be relevant in some way, given that it represents the very ideals our country was built on. Even if it’s not legally true, do you not acknowledge the Declaration as a pillar of our society?
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:00chatspeak=HUGE ANNOYANCE
rly, pgy, u r old enuf 2 no btr ur not a phyte
Seriously, do you know how long it took me to translate “kthxbai”? The worst of it is I actually managed, because that indicates to me that my mental state is deteriorating.
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.1
Vendaval
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:09Luna, I don’t think it’s much of an issue here. He only used one phrase (not even central to his argument) that expresses exactly how he’s feeling. And as for “translating” kthxbai- isn’t it really just like a dialect of Ble? Sound it out phonetically and you should be fine. If you don’t get it,. it’s most likely not important.
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:33I don’t speak Ble……But, yes, I did probably overreact a bit there. I am just so exhausted from school and my head feels like it is going to explode, and I still have a bunch of things I have to do before i can go to bed…..College sucks
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.2
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:12I used it for a reason, not because I was using chatspeak. I would in no way attempt to communicate in that travesty of the human language, I can assure you.
Vendaval- Yes, it is a founding document. Yes, it is a marvelous piece of philosophy upon which our country was founded. But technically, as lawyers like to act, as I’m sure you know, it’s not law, and so you can’t treat it as that.
But really, I’m leaving now. I’m being attacked, I may have attacked people, I’m gone. For real this time. Kthxbai.
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.2.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:34wait! don’t go! none of us meant to attack you, I’m sure-I certianally didn’t.
if you do go, then thank you. I do not agree with you opinon, but it has given me a nice view of what I may be up against as well as provided me with a good opertonity to debate.
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.2.2
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:37Piggy, sorry, I was unnecessarily grumpy/rude in my comment. [see post above for lame excuse]
As for attacks (the one on chatspeak excluded) I don’t think anyone is truly trying to attack you. Not maliciously, anyway. I’d like to think we’re all friends, regardless of our differences of opinions. I like and respect you, despite the rare occasions when you sound disturbingly like my father. [don’t get me wrong, I love my dad, despite the fact that he can be a HUGE PAIN, but…….it’s just creepy how much you sound like him sometimes]
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.2.2.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:47No, it’s not you specifically. I don’t know if I’m just reading the posts with a certain phrasing in my mind while they were meant in a different light in the poster’s mind, but I always find this thread to become negative astonishingly quickly. As for “kthxbai”, you translated it correctly.
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.2.3
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:45I really dislike the tactic of leaving because you ‘are being attacked.’ If you can’t stand by your opinion under pressure, you (and this is a general ‘you’) probably shouldn’t have stated it in the first place.
Unless, of course you are leaving because it is your bedtime. Goodnight.
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.2.3.1
Piggy
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:57No, it’s not just that. It’s… I’d rather not get into it. Just some things I regret doing that I don’t want to repeat. Let’s leave it at that.
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.3
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:31wait, what does “kthxbai” mean? for that matter, what does “phyte” mean?
0
0
-
34.1.1.1.3.3.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:38I think “kthxbai” probably means: “Ok, thanks, bye.” Or at least that’s how I ended up translating it.
As for “phyte”, that is short for “neophyte”, which is what newcomers to the ‘blog are fondly termed. It’s greek (?) for “newly planted”.
0
0
-
34.1.2
/gradster(1)/
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:41The word certain here is used not to distinguish between different rights in said document but instead to reference them.
If things were as you said, life would be far more muddled than it actually is, because everyone could argue their way through that loophole when they violated someone else’s rights; just by saying that those rights were not the ones indicated by the “certain”.
And marriage is both a right and a privilege, and one that every citizen deserves, no matter their sexual orientation.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
34.1.3
Zallie
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:48If it’s a privilege, then it should still be extended to all Americans, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Why should the privilege of marriage only be given to straight couples? Straight couples haven’t even proven themselves to be particularly faithful, given the huge number of divorces, so why is marriage still this holy, sacred thing that will surely be tainted if homosexuals are allowed to have it?
0
0
-
35
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 21:58Hell, I know that’s from the declaration of independance. The “rules” set down in the declaration of independance are supposed to guide what this country deams lawful as well as what this country stands for. We are not suposed to pass laws against our country’s standards.
0
0
-
36
/gradster(1)/
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:10I have succeeded in losing myself the early night I promised me. Fail.
I’ll refute more arguments in the morning. ‘Night, all.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
36.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in April 30th, 2009 @ 22:35really? it’s only 8:34pm here.
0
0
-
36.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in April 30th, 2009 @ 23:05You’re lucky……It’s now 11 here.
0
0
-
37
Axa
in April 30th, 2009 @ 23:42There is a difference between marriage as a legal institution and marriage as a facet of religious life. How else would atheists be married? If a man and a woman can got to city hall and get married I don’t see why two men or two women can’t.
Also the claim that you have gay friends has nothing to do with anything. I have gay friends too, and I support them 100% in their future happiness.
“In all fairness, same-sex marriage, or homosexuality in total, to be more accurate, isn’t just about “loveâ€. It’s a physical attraction to the same sex, just as you or I are attracted to the opposite sex. ”
No, you are saying that marriage and sexual desire are the same thing. This is false. I suppose heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with sexual desire? The attraction is not simply sexual, as with heterosexuals, bisexuals, etc. I see that you believe homosexuals do not truly love each other but only lust for each other. This is a stereotype. Not all homosexuals are sexually promiscuous. It is completely possible for homosexuals to be celibate.
I don’t think someone would get married just so they could have sex all the time. If they were promiscuous, marriage would not be the answer.
0
0
-
37.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 1st, 2009 @ 01:15Very true. If any indiv–(oh, god, it’s a sign of how tired I am that I can’t even remember how to spell “individual” without having to consciously think about it)–OK. If any individual just wanted to go and have sex all the time, they certainly wouldn’t get married to do so. That would just make it so much more complicated, because if it’s just about sex, marriage would create unnecessary bonds between the individuals, making it much harder for them to split and move on to different sexual encounters.
If all you want is sex, marriage is definitely not going to be very high on your list of priorities.
*must go to sleep* *cannot think straight anymore* So if what I typed doesn’t make sense, this is probably why. I think it does, but I’m too sleep deprived to know what does or doesn’t make sense anymore.
0
0
-
37.1.1
Enceladus (Faglan) (10 wung points)
in May 1st, 2009 @ 05:52Everyone, here is some news! New Hampshire and Maine’s senates have decided to allow same-sex marrige! Of course, we’ll have to see what the goveners do…
0
0
-
37.1.1.1
Jakob Wonkychair
in May 1st, 2009 @ 10:18Really? I thought it was just Maine. Of course, that comes from not being able to watch your own states news because of bad reception.
0
0
-
38
Kokopelli52
in May 1st, 2009 @ 04:54What are your views on same-sex marriage? I personally can’t understand why everyone’s making such a big deal about it. In my opinion, if someone wants to marry another of the same gender, that’s their business. The problem is people like that will be constantly shunned by society so you have to get people to accept it BEFORE legalizing it…
0
0
-
38.1
Enceladus (Faglan) (10 wung points)
in May 1st, 2009 @ 05:33Unfortunately, to get people to accept it, you have to legalize it!
0
0
-
39
Vendaval
in May 1st, 2009 @ 05:4638- I think if you read some of the previous posts you’ll figure out how each of us stand on the issue. Why must it become accepted by everybody before it is legalised? That certainly didn’t happen with racial equality.
0
0
-
39.1
The Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 1st, 2009 @ 19:41I agree with Enceladus, many people are homophobic merely because thev don’t know any better and are ignorant- they don’t know what it means to be gay, don’t care, don’t know anybody who is gay, or something like that making it alot easier for them to think we aren’t people, that we don’t fall in love, and that we don’t deserve our basic rights. If they knew more about us they might accept us more. When you pass a law, not only does it get everybody thinking about the subject, but if the law is passed I bet a whole lot more people would “come out”. We need people to see that we are just regular people, like them, and campiagning to pass the law as well as passing the law might help them see that.
I do not expect that it is possible to eradicate anti-gays and homophobes (slightly different things, actually) but I do hope to cut down on the stereotypes, bullying, anti-gay “jokes” and sexual-orientation related violence and suicide. If we cut down on this, more people may see us less as sterotypes and more as people, because we aren’t being forced into the stereotypes as much.
0
0
-
40
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in May 1st, 2009 @ 19:3237- I just wanna make sure that you know that quote about sexual desire and marriage and stuff isn’t from me.
OK. Obviously I am outnumbered here, and I will not change anyone’s ideas, nor will anyone change mine. I feel like I am getting attacked and put down, so I am leaving. I stayed civil, but I suppose some MBers can’t, so I am going to leave.
Or we can change the subject to a hot topic that isn’t a moral dilemma, and then I would stay AND Piggy would come back.
0
0
-
40.1
The Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 1st, 2009 @ 19:43how is anyone attacking you and putting you down? we all value your opinions, even if we don’t agree with them. You are outnumbered, but that makes your opinons even more important.
0
0
-
41
Cliff Eagle
in May 1st, 2009 @ 19:51Donaldo and Piggy- I don’t necessarily agree with all of your posts, but I respect both of you because of the fact that you take the most **** from everybody else. I think you should both stay- don’t let the fact that your outnumbered prove your point.
0
0
-
42
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in May 1st, 2009 @ 20:0440- OK, I know I said I would leave, but you cheered me up. Thank you. Also, I wanna say I am anti-gay LIFESTYLE, not anti-gay or homophobe. Just as you said there is a difference between anti-gay and homophobe, there is another difference that is anti-gay LIFESTYLE. In my religion (Christianity) I am told to love everyone, like Jesus did. That is why I said I have a lot of gay friends and gay-supporter friends. I do not say things like, “That’s gay!” or “Gays suck!” Because they don’t.
I LIKE gay people. I DON’T LIKE the lifestyle they have chosen (or not chosen, if you think it is genetic- but I won’t get into that). I am friends with Democrats, with pro-choicers, etc, and get along great with them. Sure, I don’t agree with their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I hate them.
Jesus says to love everyone, and that is what I try to do. Just because I don’t support gay marriage doesn’t give any reason for me to hate gay people. So I don’t hate gay people.
0
0
-
42.1
Vendaval
in May 1st, 2009 @ 20:53Sounds like “hate the sin love the sinner,” which is usually good.
Please explain this “lifestyle” thing though, I’m not quite sure what that means.
0
0
-
42.1.1
The Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 1st, 2009 @ 21:28WE ARE NOT SINNERS!! WE ARE PERFETLY NORMAL, RIGHT PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU! CAN YOU PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT?
0
0
-
42.1.1.1
Piggy
in May 1st, 2009 @ 21:31So much for leaving before you blow up.
0
0
-
42.1.1.1.1
The Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 1st, 2009 @ 23:03oops, really sorry. I guess I really lost it there
0
0
-
42.1.1.2
/gradster(1)/
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 13:21He wasn’t saying that being gay is a sin, he was simply relating it to a well-known saying – sort of like saying what he said a while ago, “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” Excuse any discrepancies, I looked that up pretty quickly.
Point being, don’t take what he said to mean he believes you are a sinner.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
43
The Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 1st, 2009 @ 20:28wait a minute- what do you mean by gay lifestlye? our lives are often EXACTLY LIKE YOURS
*leaves before she blows up*
0
0
-
44
Piggy
in May 1st, 2009 @ 20:4141- I’m not leaving because I’m taking the most s███ or that I’m outnumbered. It’s just something that I did a while ago on MuseBlog that I don’t want to do again. It’s just that, if I get too emotional about something or feel overpowered, my self-control shuts off and I can’t really control what I’m saying to people. I may make a comment now and again, but I’ll not contribute to a discussion which I oppose morally. That’s all. So basically, “It’s not you, it’s me,” as cliched as that is. Hm. I apologize for that self-censored language, but that’s what I’m assuming you meant. It could’ve been something milder. It doesn’t matter, anyhow.
Anyway, don’t let me get the discussion down. Carry on.
0
0
-
44.1
Piggy
in May 1st, 2009 @ 20:57Hm. That could be clarified. If I get too emotional, I say things I later regret. But in this discussion (and future ones) I’ll not contribute if I think I may become that way.
0
0
-
44.1.1
The Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 1st, 2009 @ 21:25sounds good to me
0
0
-
45
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in May 1st, 2009 @ 22:28Book Thief- So I am trying really hard not to get too emotional, because, like Piggy, I said some things on old MuseBlog a while ago where I got out of control and didn’t mean them. Sorry. I should have clarified what I meant by gay lifestyle. What I mean is- and PLEASE don’t take this the wrong way- I like gay people. What I meant by lifestyle was not necessarily the way they live. I couldn’t think of the word at the time, but now I can: orientation. I like gay people, except for the “gay” part. DON’T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY. I like all people. Sometimes I disagree with their views, or orientation, or something, but that does not mean I don’t like them.
Also, I really don’t want to get into a debate about whether or not gays have a choice to be gay.
Third of all- and this is kinda a vent, but it can be a hot topic- I was watching The Office today, and on one part this guys says: “I think your dress is inappropriate” and it is REALLY short, so she pulls it down. Of course, this uncovers one of her breasts and the camera pixelates it. This is meant to be humorous. My 12-year-old bro (I am 14) is watching this with me, and we have the common sense to know that we should fast forward through this part because it is inappropriate.
My parents are really conservative with what me and my siblings watch. My dad has a habit of coming in on TV shows or movies when they get to an awkward or inappropriate part. Of course, we would fast forward. We are not stupid. But now, I cannot watch “The Office” because of that one part.
This also irks me because that is the most inappropriate thing I have seen on that show since I have been watching it and so my dad is judging the whole show off of that one extreme.
To end this, I’d also like to say that my bro is in the 7th grade. We both have been through Sex Ed. We know how it works. They show diagrams in that class. It’s nothing new from what we hear at school or see (diagrams) at school.
So, what about parental control? I love my parents, but I think they are being unfair now. When is there too much control? I pose that question to anyone who wants to answer.
0
0
-
45.1
/gradster(1)/
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 13:26Well, you can’t really say that they don’t have a choice to be gay or not. Sure, you could maybe say that you oppose their right to marry – as much as I disagree with that, it’s your opinion – but you can’t say they just can’t be gay. There’s no doubt in this situation, that would definitely be restricting beliefs/choice.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
46
shadowfire
in May 1st, 2009 @ 22:36Ugh. This is getting complicated.
If I’m bringing up a nasty subject again, forgive me, but really. “Sinner”? “Sin”? I cannot get around that wording. Being gay is not sinning, whatever that means. It’s just… the way it works. Me, for example. Anyone remember the post ages ago in which I said I had a crush on a girl? Probably not. But since then, I have decided that I am lesbian. And I repeat(it’s already been said),
We are not sinners! We are perfectly good people who have not done anything wrong!!!Uh oh. I see potential flame wars brewing.
*tries to regain control*
0
0
-
46.1
/gradster(1)/
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 13:28No no no, perhaps Vendaval shouldn’t have mentioned that… Once again, it’s just an expression; it’s not actually saying that being gay is sinning. Look for the meaning of the statement as a whole, not the meaning of the words he used to say it.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
46.2
Cliff Eagle
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 15:40Dude, everyone’s a sinner in the Christian faith because of the extreme contradictory nature of the new testament.
0
0
-
47
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in May 1st, 2009 @ 22:46OK, people. I don’t want a flame war anymore than anyone else does. I tried to change the topic- see post 45- the last 3 paragraphs.
46- Thank you for helping control this. Also, I just want to point out that I am a sinner. Yes, I am confessing. I SIN. But we all do. I probably sin a lot more than others do, but perhaps a lot less that some. I am not trying to make out that gay people are worse sinners. I don’t mean that. Frankly, I sin a lot. We all lie. We all cheat or steal or think mean thoughts.
This is sounding like a Christian rant to me because I am using “sin” a lot. In fact, reread that paragraph and substitute “sin” for “do wrong things.” I am not trying to make enemies here.
SEE POST 45 LAST 2 PARAGRAPHS. I want to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
0
0
-
47.1
shadowfire
in May 1st, 2009 @ 22:57So do I. I just needed to get it out of my system.
So… If sinning is anything wrong, then I suppose I do too.(Not being Christian, I’m not the expert) It was the suggesting that an entire way of life was “sinful” that bothered me. I’m sorry, but we’re never going to agree on this. We have different views and that’s not going to change.
Let’s just move on to another subject and maybe we can all be friends here.(shadowfire is worried that this will not happen)(Let’s hope it does)
0
0
-
48
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in May 1st, 2009 @ 23:1147- I could not agree more. I never meant to portray that I am better than you because I am straight because I am NOT better than you in any way. Now, if you will see the last 2 paragraphs of post 45, I have attempted to change the subject if someone else would like to talk about this.
0
0
-
49
Luna the Lovely
in May 1st, 2009 @ 23:25Honestly, I’ve never really had an issue. I’ve seen sex/nudity/whatever in movies/tv, and my parents have never been particularly concerned. I’m not saying they promoted me seeing that sort of stuff, but they weren’t like, omg, this is not appropritae, there’s a scene with nudity, turn it off, turn it off!
Anyway, I think I’m rambling, I don’t ahve anything intelligent to add to anything right now, as I am completely fried and brain dead, and still have a bunch of stuff I’ve got to do before I go to bed…..Perhaps I will have time/brain cells tomorrow, but no guarantees. My brain is, I think, permanently fried.
And time is very limited, what with finals approaching.
0
0
-
49.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 13:04good luck on your finals!
0
0
-
49.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 13:13Thanks!!!!!!!!
0
0
-
50
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 15:22OK- I don’t know how to reply to the military thing and do the linked part where it stays up there so:
18- I know a very strong Christian in the military who is able to do his duties fully well and keep his Christian beliefs and morals. It is possible, but hard to do, he says.
0
0
-
51
Piggy
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:07Cliff Eagle, don’t insult other people’s religions. Continue doing so and you may place yourself into a position Fridgey occupied.
0
0
-
51.1
Vendaval
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:31You can’t really argue that the bible isn’t contradictory though. That was more of a critique than an insult.
0
0
-
51.1.1
Piggy
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:40I can, but I won’t. It’s my belief–I don’t think any of it is contradictory. But I’m leaving again.
0
0
-
51.2
Cliff Eagle
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 19:21i didn’t, it was a critique of the christian bible
i’m perfectly sure that i’m safe from a ban here, but thanks for inquiring
0
0
-
52
Vendaval
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:30Thanks Gradster,some people took that quote and blew it way out of context. I was just trying to clarify Donaldo’s position on things, and while I do think that love the sinner hate the sin is a good rule, I’m astounded that sexual orientation can be considered sin. As The Book Thief has said, “lifestyle” isn’t about gay or straight, a lifestyle is like exercising regularly or reducing carbon footprint. While I know that Donaldo doesn’t want to continue the talk, I’m just going to say that I think he should speak to his gay friends about choice in sexual orientation. As they’ll confirm, there really is none. ‘Liking’ gay people but thinking that they’re sinning by being gay is just like thinking people with blue eyes or dark skin sin by having those characteristics.
On the issue of sex/nudity/whatever in movies/tv, I think Donaldo’s parents go too far. My parents were never too concerned, I myself have more of a problem with violence and consumerism.
0
0
-
52.1
shadowfire
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:55Sorry, Vendaval. My thoughts needed to be heard, and I apologize if any of the “sinning” thing got blown out of porportion. I was just bothered by the suggestion.
On the other subject, that’s very true. Nudity and such do bother me a bit, but my parents have never gone too far with the censoring. I do have issues with the weight loss/makeup/stuff to make people feel like dirt though.
0
0
-
53
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:51Enceladus, concerning the discussion in comment 19: How do you define failure? Or success? (Don’t worry, I won’t even try to ask what would make a perfect human.)
0
0
-
53.1
Vendaval
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:52Hi Rebecca, I’m not quite sure why you’re asking that question. Does it correspond with a previous discussion?
I’m not sure what context failure and success are in then, but I’d say that failure is a set of results that are not positive or planned. Success then, would be results that do have a intended effect, or a comparable alternative. Those definitions are more for determining the status of goals though.
0
0
-
53.1.1
Zallie
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 17:20The conversation starts in comment #18, if you’re curious. We’re discussing the criteria for failure/success as a nation/civilization.
0
0
-
53.1.2
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 17:28Vendaval, my reply was outside the limit of threaded comments so it bounced to the bottom of the page taking with it the comments that followed. From the dashboard, a moderator can “reply” to any comment — regardless of whether nesting is activated or not . I try to be aware of how long a conversation has been going on, but I missed this one.
0
0
-
53.2
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 16:54Failiure: A dictatorship/ monarchy w/out democracy, or forgotten, or taken over, or destroys self
Success: Avoiding that forever
0
0
-
53.2.1
Axa
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 17:44?? but since the majority of countries have had some form of monarchical government, doesn’t that mean all of them have already failed? Can failure be “reversed”? Those standards seem to assume that the presence of democracy negates all possibilities for failure, which I have a problem with.
Do you consider constitutional monarchies like those in Japan and Great Britain to be failures? Both maintain the monarchy as a predominantly cultural institution with “figurehead” status–do you contend that the presence of these boiled down monarchies automatically qualify said countries as failures? Would the failure status be removed if the monarchies were?
I am very confused by this. Are dealings with monarchical countries failures?
0
0
-
53.2.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 17:48Yes, failure can be reversed. No, Japan and Great Britian aren’t failures. There monarchies don’t do anything.
0
0
-
53.2.1.1.1
fireandhemlock1996
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 10:20Of COURSE Japan isn’t a failure! Although, I must admit to being touchy on that area because my mum is Japanese. I even follow the domestic Japanese religion, Shinto, not that any one here would care.
0
0
-
53.2.1.1.1.1
Vendaval
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 16:11Some of us care! If you want to discuss religion though, there is a religion thread open.
0
0
-
53.2.1.1.2
Zallie
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 11:13Above, you stated that you think the British Empire is a failure. I don’t think you can separate the country from its empire so easily. And, the ‘failure’ certainly wasn’t based on discrimination.
0
0
-
53.2.1.1.2.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 11:27It did dicrimenate, and it lost it’s empire, except for where it was at the beginning. Loosing those was caused by discrimanation. The discrimanted people rose up, in anger, and kicked the British out. Haven’t you heard of Mahtma Gahndi? Or with the French Enpire, Ho Chi Minh? They got rid of the British from their country.
0
0
-
53.2.1.1.2.1.1
Zallie
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 17:09These are all examples of the loss of empires, not necessarily the failure of countries. France and England are still some of the most powerful countries in the world, empire or no.
0
0
-
53.2.2
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 17:45Does that mean any failure wipes out all positive achievements?
Can any government be successful by that definition? It sounds much like saying if somebody dies, en is a failure.
0
0
-
53.2.2.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 17:47No, I’m not saying ANY failure wipes out all possible achievments, only ones that last do. Also, that is not a good analogy. People can’t live forever, but groups/organizations can.
0
0
-
53.2.2.1.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 17:48Can they?
0
0
-
53.2.2.1.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 17:52Almost certainly yes. Look how long some religions have lasted!
0
0
-
53.2.2.1.1.1.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 18:07Not all that long, really. Hinduism is considered to be the oldest living religion at roughly six thousand years old, the others are much younger than that.
0
0
-
53.2.2.1.1.1.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 18:25Zoroastrianism, the world’s oldest religion, is still practiced by some.
0
0
-
53.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zallie
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 09:46Yeah, but how old is that religion? All civilizations/religions fall eventually, at least from what history has happened this far.
But, back to the original topic of this discussion. Prove to me that discrimination is the thing that causes failure in civilizations.
0
0
-
53.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 11:31People who are discrimenated against aren’t happy. They revolt, and try to go to the top. This usually results in civil war/ revolution. If they get to the top, then the people wh WERE at the top are on the bottom, and it repeats, until the country is sent into oblivion. Take the US. We had the civil war, which led to Obama being president. Now, racist white groups are trying to glorify themselves, to get the country back where THEY want it, with them on the top. The blackswill go to the bottom, and it’ll repeat over and over and over and over until the bunnies takeo over the world.
0
0
-
54
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd and ET (8*8)
in May 2nd, 2009 @ 23:44I think it is an interesting topic about whether an organization/group can last forever. Anyone read 1984 by George Orwell? The Party could easily last forever. And the scary thing is- it is totally plausible. By torturing people into submission and brainwashing all future generations, the Party will last forever.
0
0
-
54.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 05:46Yes, I’ve read 1984, but that is not my definition of success. But yes, it coul last forever.
0
0
-
54.2
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 10:03The Party, by whatever name, always wants you to believe it will last forever. None of them have managed to pull it off.
Personally, I never found 1984 all that plausible on the whole — parts of it, yes, and some of it was certainly creepy — but not convincing as a practical matter.
0
0
-
55
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 09:35this is my deffinition of success:
No one suffers economically
the country is economically stable
it’s laws are fair to all parties envolved
it is a fair democracy
there is limited violence
limited illness
suberb medical care avalible to everyone
no parties are discriminated against in law or by the general populace
it has a relitivly unbiased representation of it’s own historygiven that, I don’t think any present-day countries are successful (certinly not the US) but I’m not sure it is humanly pausable to become that, I think success in terms of countries should be seem as a goal, always on the horizen, but always changeing, adapting, and unreachable. Success is a goal, but not an outcome
0
0
-
55.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 09:48That sounds perfect. Except, the last bit. Let me quote a song from ‘Wicked’
“A man’s called a traitor
Or libreator.
A rich man’s a theif
Or philanthropist.
Is one a crusader?
Or ruthless invader?
It’s all in which label
Is able to persist.
There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don’t exist…”
Everyone is biased, and history books reflect that.
0
0
-
55.1.1
Silver Lining
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 10:32Well, someody’s obsessed with Wicked.
And I agree with you.
0
0
-
55.1.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 11:19I’m not obsessed with ‘Wicked’ alone, just with all broadway muscials. Ragtime, Mary Poppins, Seussical…
0
0
-
55.1.2
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 13:05there is a pausibility for multiple history books
as for the song… I know, it’s one of my favorites.
As I mentioned.. Success is not actually atainable… as soon as it is achived, someone will need or want something else
0
0
-
55.2
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 16:23BTW, I say
No violence
No illness
0
0
-
56
Zallie
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 11:44People who are discrimenated against aren’t happy. They revolt, and try to go to the top. This usually results in civil war/ revolution. If they get to the top, then the people wh WERE at the top are on the bottom, and it repeats, until the country is sent into oblivion. Take the US. We had the civil war, which led to Obama being president. Now, racist white groups are trying to glorify themselves, to get the country back where THEY want it, with them on the top. The blackswill go to the bottom, and it’ll repeat over and over and over and over until the bunnies takeo over the world.
Yes, discrimination can cause fluctuations in society, but you still haven’t provided any evidence that discrimination is what has historically caused downfalls of civilizations/empires. You can’t attribute the failure of an empire or country to a single cause, especially not one for which you haven’t provided any solid evidence.
0
0
-
56.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 11:48Let me repeat. THE BRITISH EMPIRE WAS BROKEN UP BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THER WERE DISCRIMANTED AGAINST. THIS CAUSED THEM TO REVOLT AND KICK THE BRITISH OUT. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I’m leaving this discusion.
0
0
-
56.1.1
Zallie
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 17:05The rise and fall of empires is a natural process, not necessarily defined by oppression. Yes, perhaps the oppression of native peoples had something to do with the fall of the British Empire, HOWEVER, there were many other factors involved. England had spread itself dangerously thin, and couldn’t keep up with all of their colonies or the economic competition that other countries were bringing.
As I stated in comments above, the Roma people, or Gypsies, have been oppressed since the Middle Ages by almost all European nations. However, these nations have not failed. If your theory were correct, all of these countries would have fallen into ruins.
People are being oppressed all over the world, but we haven’t seen the complete collapse/failure of a society in recent history.
The US has oppressed many people, yet we certainly haven’t failed as a society.
0
0
-
57
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 12:01(56.1) Enceladus: Why are you so angry? Because somebody else disagreed with you? People have different opinions, and on the Hot Topics thread we specifically ask MBers to make an effort not to explode when they hear opinions different from their own.
0
0
-
57.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 12:04No, because Zallie keeps saying the same thing over and over again. She keeps asking for examples, and I give her examples, and then she asks for examples, acting like I haven’t give her any.
0
0
-
57.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 12:10But Enceladus, not to be mean, but you keep saying the same thing over and over as well. Also, your examples aren’t very concrete. Your argument, as near as I can tell, is people were discriminated against and the empire failed, so therefore the discrimination must have caused the empire to fail. Although this may be true, from this, that causation can not be proven. (As Vendaval said, “correlation does not prove causation”).
I think what Zallie is looking for are concrete examples of what it is that makes you so convinced that it is the discrimination that led to the failure of the empire. To build a good, strong argument, you need good, solid evidence, which in my opinion you really haven’t provided yet.
Again, please don’t take this wrong: I’m not trying to be mean or anything, just trying to explain why I think Zallie keeps repeating the “same thing over and over again.”
0
0
-
58
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 12:31To be fair, Enceladus is no longer just observing a correlation between discrimination (I would say “oppression”) and the downfall of empires. He has now also proposed a mechanism: that oppressed people eventually rise up and overthrow the empire. That’s an important step in moving the discussion forward, and I think it raises four questions:
- Is that actually what happened in the case of the British Empire?
- If so, is a popular uprising the only factor at work that could explain what happened?
- Can the British experience be generalized to other empires in history? (Even if it is a good example of Enceladus’s theory — and I’m not saying that it is or isn’t — it is just one example.)
- Might it be that things happen the other way around? That is, could it be that a strong empire suppresses rebellion, and that revolts succeed when an empire is already weak for other reasons?
Oh, and 5. How does all of this relate to Zallie’s statement (in 19.4.1.2.1.1) that a discriminatory society can nevertheless be successful, and Enceladus’s reply that no, it can’t.
Quite a tall order, isn’t it, if you want to do it right?
0
0
-
58.1
Zallie
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 17:07Might it be that things happen the other way around? That is, could it be that a strong empire suppresses rebellion, and that revolts succeed when an empire is already weak for other reasons?
This is much more sensible, and has many examples in history.
0
0
-
59
Beavo
in May 3rd, 2009 @ 16:31Sorry, I never had time to reply to all the posts replying to mine.
What I was saying was that yes, it’s disgusting and terrible that women, especially women risking their lives for our country (whether I dissagree with violence as an answer or not) are degraded and whatever other atrocities while serving. But I’m sure there’s some nice guys there. The article made it seem like all men in the military are terrible and sexist, which is simply not true.
0
0
-
59.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*) (10 wung points)
in May 5th, 2009 @ 16:49Yes, there are nice guys, but the fact that some do this is just awful. All sexism, racism, and oppression/ discrimanation is bad, and should be stopped.
0
0
-
60
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 4th, 2009 @ 22:09Hey, um, I just realized that we were so wraped up in our same-sex mariage debate that no one actually explained prop 8 to me *pouts*
now, can someone PLEASE tell me exactly what prop 8 entails as well as what they believe the practical benefits are?
please?
0
0
-
61
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd and ET (8*8)
in May 4th, 2009 @ 22:47prop 8 adds the phrase that marriage is between a man and a woman, NOT a man and a man or a woman and a woman to the california state constitution. This ends all possibilities of same-sex marriage because it would be declared unconstitutional. Whether or not this ends already existing homosexual marriages is unclear.
That’s the basics. If someone wants to get more detailed they can.
0
0
-
62
/gradster(1)/
in May 5th, 2009 @ 15:06It’s very hard to remain neutral and be fair when the nature of everything someone from the opposing side of your argument says is to offend you. And not only that, but that is its nature simply because it is opposing your viewpoint…
There are religious zealots who believe so strongly in what they believe in that they would do anything to convince other people that they are correct. I see myself as sort of the polar opposite – completely non-religious, but driven by the same principles stemming from my beliefs, though they are not based in a higher power.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
63
Beavo
in May 5th, 2009 @ 17:00I don’t get the people who voted yes on Prop 8. I have yet to see an argument against same sex marriage that makes any sense to me at all. Especially the religious arguments. A, this isn’t a theocracy so imposing your individual beleifs on everone else denies the seperation of church and state. B, these are passages written gillions of years ago, so whose to say God is going to still be pissed? Everyone forgot all about the rest of Leviticus. So if you’re a Twilight fan opposing gay marriage, you need to read up. Also if you like shrimp.
0
0
-
63.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 6th, 2009 @ 09:05yeah… not to mention separation of church and state
0
0
-
64
shadowfire
in May 5th, 2009 @ 19:33Umnmm, Beavo? Twilight? Shrimp? Clarify, please.(Strongly disliking both, I may see your point if you clarify)
But yes, I opposed prop. 8, wondering how someone thought that exercising one’s rights is “unconstitutional”.
And indeed, we(USA) are not a theocracy. Church and state are supposed to be separate, but on our currency, it still says, “In God We Trust.”
*hopes controversial views will be respected*
0
0
-
64.1
Beavo
in May 5th, 2009 @ 23:17According to Leviticus, as well as homosexuality, consuming foods including shrimp and drinking the blood of humans is an abomanation. I’ll find the exact exerpt online later.
0
0
-
64.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 6th, 2009 @ 00:30Not to support twilighters or anything, as I despise it, but…..technically the main characters don’t drink human blood–just animal.
*is nauseated from defending twilight in any manner*
0
0
-
64.2
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*) (10 wung points)
in May 6th, 2009 @ 05:53In the pledge, there’s a line where it goes
One nation
Under god
I do not believe in god. I don’t say it. I don’t give a [expelitive deleted] about what our stupid principal wants. I’m not glorifynig god in any way. I will not spread a religion I don’t believe in.
0
0
-
65
Cliff Eagle
in May 5th, 2009 @ 19:52guys this topic is seriously getting us nowhere, nobody’s views are ever going to be changed on gay marriage. we seriously need to pick a new topic that we can actually DEBATE about
0
0
-
65.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 5th, 2009 @ 19:54Is changing someone’s mind the only reason for debate?
0
0
-
65.1.1
Cliff Eagle
in May 5th, 2009 @ 20:15well, i was just commenting that everyone is so versed in their own views that we’re basically hitting a standstill where the same 4 arguments keep being brought up, so the time for a new topic is now
0
0
-
66
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd and ET (8*8)
in May 5th, 2009 @ 20:02OK, I tried to change the subject first of all.
Second of all, Beavo- for a good NON-RELIGIOUS yes on prop 8 marriage, google Neil Mammen. He is an amazing guy who cowrote some papers on why homosexual marriages should not be legal. In fact, a former gay man and a current gay man helped him write it!You don’t have to agree with me, but these papers may help you understand the viewpoint of Yes on 8 people better.
0
0
-
66.1
Vendaval
in May 5th, 2009 @ 23:08I can’t find them. Can you give us a title, or delinkified link?
0
0
-
66.1.1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 5th, 2009 @ 23:17Donaldo summarized some of the arguments in comment 33. Maybe he could supply a general overview of what Mammen says?
0
0
-
66.1.2
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 5th, 2009 @ 23:23Vendaval: I’ve found a link to some of Mammen’s sermons: www . neilmammen . com/ and www . acns . com/~nmammen/ . Maybe you can find what Donaldo is talking about.
Bedtime for me, now. Good night, Musers!
0
0
-
66.1.2.1
Vendaval
in May 6th, 2009 @ 05:06Yes, I tried there first. I could’ve missed it though.
Donaldo, can you summarize the (non-religious) arguments he presents?
0
0
-
66.1.2.1.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 6th, 2009 @ 07:20It took some digging, but I found this: http: //www. vac.org/pdf/SixPointstoCommunicateAboutSameSexMarriage.pdf
0
0
-
67
Ã߀ƒ
in May 6th, 2009 @ 00:02Condensed Hot topics Thread
Controversial material.
Oh, my.
World Issues.
Someone’s going to flame. Runaway!
Soon–
It’s all because of Christians.
No, it’s not.
I’ve found a loophole in your argument.
Well, I’ll make your argument look stupid.
You’re stupid.
Waah!
Hey, has anyone noticed that George Bush is a mentally challenged primate?
Primates??? Now you’re getting into evolution.
Evolution’s real.
No, it’s not.
You’re stupid.
God’s on my side.
God’s on my side.
God’s not real, morons.
You’re going to burn in the underworld.
You’re a poor, misguided, dogmatic, and delusional fool.
Your mom goes to college.
Israel! *thread blows up*
0
0
-
67.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 6th, 2009 @ 00:38What’s with the ”
Israel!” part???????
0
0
-
68
Ã߀ƒ
in May 6th, 2009 @ 02:3667.1- Israel is always the most controversial topic. Heh, case in point.
0
0
-
68.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 6th, 2009 @ 07:08No, not case in point, not really. I was merely confused, not debating/arguing/whatever.
0
0
-
69
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 6th, 2009 @ 08:31(66 et seq.) I much prefer MBers to summarize other people’s arguments instead of referring people to some authoritative-sounding Web page. Even if somebody else has made your points better than you can, restating them in your own words is a good way to make sure you really understand them. (That’s why you write papers in school.) And flashy writers can blind you with words.
By the way, when I say “arguments,” I hope you all know that I don’t mean “disagreements.” I mean it in the legal, logical, and rhetorical sense: statements supported by evidence and reasoning, which start from premises and end in a conclusion.
0
0
-
70
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*) (10 wung points)
in May 6th, 2009 @ 14:15Voice your opinions/arguments here about evolution!
I thouoghly believe in evolution, and it disappoints me that less than 1/2 of Americans agree with me.
0
0
-
71
Vendaval
in May 6th, 2009 @ 15:3266.1.2.1.1- I guess that’s it. Not really an argument though, just some counterpoints.
68- More so than abortion or religion?
69- I agree.
0
0
-
72
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd and ET (8*8)
in May 6th, 2009 @ 23:47OK. I am a terrible summarizer, but here is the website where you can find a ton of stuff:
[link snipped. but you can find it by googling “no blind faith” and finding the rationalfreethinker Web site — Rosanne]It also has a pro-life argument that does not use religion.
But I will try to summarize anyway. It is at least thirty pages of stuff, so I really don’t want to do it all.
He basically says (along with the co-authors, a gay and a former gay):
This is an argument, not an opinion or bias.Don’t you agree that laws are created for the good of the people? If this is so, then the government should be involved in this. Religion, too, because churches, you would assume, are set up because people want to find a fulfilling correct way of life that is good for them. Therefore, this is a religious and political argument. Another point: Studies of marriages and out of wedlock births in countries that have some sort of Same Sex Marriages have shown that shortly after legalizing SSM, heterosexual marriages reduced and out of wedlock births increased. In the Netherlands, out of wedlock birth rates rose double after legalizing SSM, heterosexual marriages have dropped by 50% and cohabitation and single parent families have largely increased.
Also, gays say that you should not stop marriages of love. However, if marriages are ONLY about love, what value does a ten dollar marriage certificate give you? It’s only paper. Once you move in together, plan a family and all that jazz, why do you need to get married? You’re pretty close to marriage right there. There are more reasons for marriage than love. I came from a country where arranged marriages were common, so I know. If you want to love each other, go right ahead. If you already love each other all you want, why do you need marriage if it is ONLY about love?
Also, SSM may change the entire society’s view of marriage. If marriage is viewed as something not sacred and special and open to anyone, people will be more likely to divorce than to attempt to make it work. This is also proven by statistics that show that in countries with some sort of SSM, divorce rates are higher.
Why is the part about society relevant? Statistical evidence shows that children born or brought up out of wedlock with a single parent in a divorced home are the greatest source of crime (70%), rapists (60%), sucides (65%) and welfare recipients (more than 80%).
Statistics show that children need a female mother and a male father. (statistics on this from www . physorg.com/news122039148 .html
and
www . fathermag . com/news/3772-fatherneed. shtml)Now, right here I’d like to note that I have not mentioned anything about gay parenting or gay adoption. This is simply on marriage.
Also, the wording on Prop 8 is the same as on Prop 22, which over 61% of voters passed a few years ago.
How to answer objections to these arguments:
1. I have family/friends who are gay.
This is gonna sting. That DOES NOT MATTER. If a member of your family told you of his plans to kill someone, would you be OK with it just to be loving? I don’t think so. Don’t let emotions override logic. If you want emotion to override logic, then why did the emotions of 5 million California voters on Prop 22 get overridden by the emotions of 4 judges?2. Marriage is about love.
This is almost offensive to me because I come from a country where arranged marriages are common. Love is not an issue because my society knew that marriage is the most important part in continuing to pass down traditions and culture. Also, if marriage is about love, why limit it to two people? Can’t three or four love each other? Can adults love each other in incest? Why can’t a man marry his dog if he loves it?3. You can’t control who you love.
Actually, you can (we’ll get to that in a moment.). But for right now, I’ll just say, you CAN control who you marry. The writers of this paper include a straight man, (me Neil), a gay man, and a formerly gay man. I was madly in love with a woman before my wife, but she did not like the city and I did, so, although we loved each other, we realized it was better to marry other people so as to guard against future arguments. Looking back on it, we both believe it was a great decision. Now, we are happily married. Also, you can choose to love the wrong person also. Some women claim to be in love with Scott Peterson (who murdered his wife and unborn child). One of the authors of this paper was gay but made a conscious active decision not love men anymore. Marriage is not about love. It is about making a commitment to someone you are compatible with. If you can’t control who you fall in love with, then you can’t control who you fall out of love with. This is why 50-year-old men divorce their 45-year-old wives and marry a 20-year-old woman. Because they don’t love them anymore. Marriage is not about love.
We’re going to take this one step further and destroy the argument about not being able to control who you love. Pretty much every couple in existence has a first act: one of the two asked if the other would start a relationship with them. The other would then make a conscious decision as to whether this would blossom into a relationship or just a friendship. Both had a choice about whether or not they loved the other person. Neither was swooped up by a mystical force, unable to stop it. Here’s a real-life example. Imagine someone says to me at a college campus, “You can’t control love.” To which I reply, “OK, so you are saying that if I see a really cute male/female today, I should abandon my wife, kids, and commitments because I can’t control this love?? Do you really want to promote that kind of society?”Oh, but you say that that means in the case of gays they can never fulfill that desire of love and marriage? OK, but neither can the celibate, the polygamist, the incestuous, etc. It’s not wrong to have a desire you can’t fulfill. Just because you desire something doesn’t mean you automatically get to have it. If I feel angry and desire to hurt someone, that doesn’t mean I should.
4. But statistics may be biased and skewed.
OK, but that is why you study the actual data, not just the conclusion. Until you can totally completely prove that there are no harmful effects from SSM, why should we change the system?5. Adoption by gay married couples will increase the number of homes orphans could go into
This is irrelevant, because married or single gays can adopt already. How would marriage change this?6. No evidence show that adoption by gays is bad for kids.
Many studies show that kids need a female mother and a male father. Also, if SSM is legalized, the amount of kids adopted by them is inconsequential compared to the number of people affected by the crime, rapes, etc…7. Are you saying that if SSM is legalized, then millions of people will go and get a divorce?
No stupid! We think divorces will decrease actually, because less people will get married.8. I know a kid who did better raised by gays or after a divorce.
That’s like saying, “My grandpa is 95 and smokes two packs a day. How can you say smoking causes people to die by 57?” You must look at the overall data. This argument would only work if you knew of 1000 kids that did better and maybe 10 kids that did poorly. Also, doing something that has potentially bad outcomes to it, is like saying, well it didn’t hurt these 1000 people is like a guy going on a shooting rampage in a crowded mall and killing only 10 out of 1000 and then saying, “Why are you so concerned? These 990 people survived. Are you trying to claim that the people who died are of lesser importance? And that shooting into a crowd is OK?”9. I grew up in a single parent home and I’m not a murderer.
We aren’t saying you are! But statistics show most are!
And we aren’t trying to say divorce is unacceptable ever. Certain cases, like abuse and violence, make divorce fine because it is for safety reasons.10. Scandinavian countries, where SSM was first legalized in Europe, are great places to live. Low crime rate, etc…What makes you think it’ll be bad in the US?
Well, except for Sweden, all Scandinavian countries have less than 5 million people in them, so it is safe to say that crime is more easily contained than in the USA. Most of our individual states have more people than them. Also, what’s funny is that crime is HIGH not low in Scandinavian countries. Check the UN crime per capita ratings if you don’t believe me.11. Marriage gives you more rights than domestic partnerships.
Check the California law FAMILY CODE SECTION 297-297.5 which states: Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits, etc….as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. Also, the Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law and states that the feds may not treat any same-sex relationships as marriage for any purpose, even if recognized by one of the states.” So at a federal level, SSM wouldn’t grant gays anything.12. Divorce rates are already high in the US! How can you say that it is bad in Scandinavian countries when it is worse here?
I have never said divorce rates would increase. I said they would decrease to the fact that there would be less marriages.13. Divorce rates are high among Christians, conservatives and republicans, so don’t preach to us.
Well, if a Nazi starts preaching peace, would you revoke him by talking about who he once was? If a white racist changes his ways and starts preaching equality, would you not listen to him because he once was racist?14. But SSM is good for gays.
Actually, studies have shown it may be worse because they have more sex and are at a higher risk for STDs.15. So what if gay marriages are bad? They said the same thing about interracial marriages.
But no one could argue this well that interracial marriages were bad.16. We can’t violate someone’s civil rights because we think it’ll be bad for society.
Well, if a civil right is being allowed to marry who you want, then we violate that all the time. We don’t allow Muslims to have four wives, or Indians to marry at 13, like they still do in my home country, or allow uncles to marry their neices.17. What about Equal Rights?
No one is stopping gays from living together. What we are saying is that the state should not be endorsing it, which is what gays are looking for. They want special rights. We don’t give rights out willy-nilly. If they are allowed to marry, soon uncles will be demanding the right to marry their neices, Muslims will demand the right for four wives, etc. This would be disastrous.18. You can’t legislate morality.
REALLY? If we can’t legislate that, then what do we legislate? Are you claiming that it is moral to steal, to murder, to adulterate?19. Do’t impose your morals on me.
That’s even more hilarious. You are arguing with me- you are trying to impose YOUR morals on ME.20. People are born gay, so let them do what is natural to them.
In several studies, this has not yet been proven. But furthermore, just because something is genetic or natural does not mean it is moral. If someone cuts you off on the freeway, isn’t it natural to get angry at them and cuss at them? Does that mean it is moral? Two wrongs don’t make a right. If a two year old wants a toy someone has, isn’t it natural for them to try and steal it? That doesn’t mean its moral.21. The government shouldn’t legislate marriage.
Then how can you argue that the SAME government should legalize gay marriage?
————-
70-NO! I refuse to talk about evolution, abortion, or religion. In the past, that has caused several flame wars. Just those three topics. I will leave this thread if we talk about those. All of those are moral conflicts, and they end to stupid insults like, “I HATE ALL PEOPLE!” or “STUPID POOP!” That’s dumb. I will NOT argue about those topics.OK, that took me about an hour and forty-five minutes. I am pooped. I told you it would be a lot.
0
0
-
72.1
Zallie
in May 7th, 2009 @ 20:16A few things:
1. I understand that children who grew up in single-parent homes are more likely to become ‘problem’ children. I also understand that children need both male and female influence in their lives. It’s good for children to have role-models of both genders. However, neither of these facts prove that a family with two mothers or two fathers is putting a child at risk for anything.
– A child with two mothers will not be growing up in a single-parent household at all. We have no data for how children with homosexual parents fare in society because this is a recent tred, nor is the population of homosexuals with children large enough to give statistically accurate data. Therefore, it’s illogical to conclude that a child growing up with homosexual parents will fall into the same category as a child from a single-parent home.
– Even if a child has two mothers, he can still have male influences in his life. There’s nothing proving that a child needs a mother and a father to become a socially well-adjusted, capable human being, just that children who have role-models of both genders usually turn out better. As long as the child has positive influences of both genders in his/her life, I don’t really see what the problem is. Plenty of children have stepfathers or stepmothers who aren’t biologically their parents, yet act as such. In the situation of the boy with two mothers, how is that any different from one of the mother’s brothers acting as a male figure in her son’s life? Both children have male figures acting as their fathers, although that is not the case biologically.2. If you think divorces will decrease due to gay marriage, why do you still oppose it?
Also, why do you think divorces will decrease due to gay marriage? That’s not generally the argument I hear.
3. “Do’t impose your morals on me.
That’s even more hilarious. You are arguing with me- you are trying to impose YOUR morals on ME.”Arguing =/= imposing morals on someone else.
4. The divorce rate aside (please see 2) what harm can Chris and Edward’s gay marriage possibly do you? You think it’s an immoral action, perhaps, but while other immoral actions (killing, theft) can negatively affect you, Chris and Edward’s marriage does not concern or affect you in the slightest. Their marriage may be immoral to you, but it’s none of your business anyway, so why are you trying to impose your morality on them?
I think that eating meat is a bit immoral sometimes, but I’m not trying to impose my morality on others because their meat consumption has absolutely nothing to do with me.
5. “But SSM is good for gays.
Actually, studies have shown it may be worse because they have more sex and are at a higher risk for STDs.”This is a ridiculous (but hilarious) argument. I would like to see these studies you speak of. Homosexuals are not known for their desire to wait until marriage before having sex, so I sincerely doubt that if more homosexuals were allowed to get married, there would suddenly be an increase in STDs.
Actually, if homosexual couples (gay men in particular, who are at high risk for HIV/AIDS) were allowed to get married, I would argue that the STD rate would be more likely to decrease due to the fact that more homosexuals would be in (assumably) monogamous relationships and not passing on/catching any STDs.
0
0
-
72.1.1
Cliff Eagle
in May 7th, 2009 @ 20:43First off, I find this lecture, and Neil Mammen in general, ignorant, hateful, and against every law .
Don’t get me wrong, i also have a moral opposition to homosexuality. However, the ability to deny certain people basic rights such as marriage is completely against any legal document that constitutes US Law. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is specifically unconstitutional, and even though he claims Biblical sources, the bible should not be referenced as a legal document because it contradicts itself numerous times. I also think we should look at Mammen. What exactly are his qualifications. He’s a religious official. Boom, one strike. According to Donaldo, his qualifications are that “he wrote this paper with an ex-gay guy”. So? I could find one gay guy, and cite him, and then write an equally offensive, ignorant, and stupid article. Of course, it’s all masked with more eloquent language, but to me, this paper is the same quality and makes the same argument as a paper by Fred Phelps.
And yeah. what Zallie said. show me those “studies”.
0
0
-
72.2
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 10th, 2009 @ 13:55I have been avoiding replying to this comment for some time now, mainly to make sure I don’t blow up. But I have some important rebutals to many of your points.
5. when people get married, they are more likely to adopt children because they will not have sole legal responsibility for the child.
6. can you de-linkify a link for those studies, please?
8. there just isn’t enough statistical evidence to prove that, and many could have been troubled for other reasons. Yeah, I bet growing up with gay parents is hard, but that doesn’t make it bad.
9. once more- show me the studies, and SSM isn’t single parenting
10. are you implying that SSM will raise crime rates? evidence, please.
11. in california, maybe that’s the case. But it isn’t everywhere.
13. that’s not a problem if someone actually changes- but many times these people are just being hypocritical
15. no offense, but I don’t find this a convincing argument
16. how would it be disastorus if both parties were actually consenting? (I’m not advocating this, I’m just pointing it out) And how is giving someone thier rights endorsing anything?
18. all of those examples are bad for at least one party envolved. SSM is great for both parties getting married
20 *is a bit pissed, so doesn’t say anything*
21. I’m a little confused, what do you mean?
0
0
-
73
Beavo
in May 7th, 2009 @ 18:29I wrote this essay today, I’m not entirely sure why. I might send it to Qr or something. This issue was just running around in my head. Comments?
Young and Gay: How Young is Too Young?
I can put the reactions I get when I tell people that I’m bisexual into four categories. Category one: General acceptance. Category too: Weird looks. Category three: Nasty looks. And Category Four: “Aren’t you too young to know that?â€
For the record, I’m fourteen years old, and I live in one of those places too big to be a town and two small to be a city in northern Virginia. Although there isn’t usually any outright, active hatred of LGBT and it’s movement, it’s not just the Fundies who overuse the word “fag†and “that’s gay†is synonym to “that’s stupidâ€. There was a gay-straight alliance at the high school which I plan to revive, but as of now it’s disbanded. We’re right in the middle. Not much hate, but not much love, either.
My mother believes any attraction to the same sex is a product of today’s society and not one’s natural, personal preference. Dad’s just disappointed that I don’t play football. I’m what you might call a stereotypical fag. I don’t swim anymore because it curls my chemically straightened hair, I wear girls’ jeans and I paint my nails. I’m the only guy in my school comfortable with wearing eyeliner. Although I’ve been rumored to be gay since second grade, my sudden change into what I saw as natural and what everyone else saw as “gay†(the synonym for stupid) skyrocketed these rumors. I’ve just become comfortable with the idea that I may not be heterosexual, given that I made every effort to seem straight when I was younger.
But am I too young to identify as bisexual? I don’t think so. I’ve been attracted to boys before I was attracted to girls, back in elementary school. I hung out with girls, which was extremely uncommon. I’m sure most people in the gay community know how that goes. I walked with my wrist limp, talked in a feminine voice, and jumped at the opportunity to dress up like a girl. I’ve heard people say that as a child, the thought of homosexuality is weird, and therefore it is unnatural. I know this to be untrue because first, most of the reason it seems weird is because their parents and society teaches them it is, and second, the only fantasies I had about love when I was seven or eight were with men. I was extremely attracted to one of the only guy friends of mine, and I remember wanting to get married to him. Although I didn’t realize it then (I didn’t know that homosexuality was possible, it had never been discussed in my house), I flirted with him as well as the other boys I deemed attractive in my class. I wasn’t attracted to girls until seventh grade when they started developing more of a figure.
I see sexual orientation as more of a preference then a decision made out of love. Just because I like guys doesn’t mean I’m in love with one. I have a girlfriend; we’ve been together for more than a year, which is a lot more then a lot of the rest of my peers can say. As to the question of whether one is born with a sexual orientation, I think about it like music preference. Was I born liking what I have on my iPod? Was I born liking both men and women? I don’t have the answer. But people forget that children aren’t as asexual as society views them. If you’ve ever seen a schoolyard infested by cooties, you’ll agree with me. They don’t know what love is, but they know what they want. I know what I want. Why should I be wrong because of my age? Why am I “too young†to have a sexual orientation?
0
0
-
73.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 7th, 2009 @ 18:52*hugs* That was very moving, Beavo. One of those “stories” straight from the heart that just tug at peoples’ emotions. If you do send it/post it somewhere, you might want to screen it for typos, though. Namely too/two mixups.
0
0
-
73.2
Zallie
in May 7th, 2009 @ 19:49This is really sensible, Beavo. Thanks for sharing it.
0
0
-
74
shadowfire
in May 7th, 2009 @ 18:39I am feeling rather depressed. Not because of Donaldo’s post specifically, but because my brain is coming up with several arguments that could explain my side of things clearly. So what’s the issue? They would all likely start a flame war.
I shall explain one that is hopefully not too controversial.
Giving gay people the right to marry would not be a “special” right. It is a right that everyone else in the US currently has!
*growls* *shuts up*
Let’s end this discussion before something bad happens.
0
0
-
74.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 7th, 2009 @ 19:03Explaining your arguments clearly but politely is not fuel for a flame war. As I’ve said before, MuseBlog is the perfect place to practice handling differences of opinion . We know the people here mean well and like each other; the conversation is written, which means you have time to think about what you say and edit or delete as necessary; the GAPAs are here to help or to blow the whistle if thunderclouds get too heavy. Practice here and it will be easier to manage your thinking in situations that are less friendly or when there is no option to change the subject.
Flaming results from name-calling, belittlement, screaming with the CAPS LOCK on, or other forms of discourtesy. Disagreement in itself is not disrespectful. In fact, it can be a form of showing respect, a sign that you believe others have enough poise to accept that their views are not the only possible perspective.
0
0
-
75
Cliff Eagle
in May 7th, 2009 @ 20:35Also, people here treat a flame war like swine flu. Seriously, nothing here is even close to a flame war. Its just a bunch of people arguing over a topic. As Rebecca put it, we are not at a flame war, and the GAPAs would start to delete and snip as necessary should one start up.
0
0
-
75.1
Zallie
in May 7th, 2009 @ 20:48Actually, as swine flu is turning out to be not-so-serious after all, people are treating ‘flame wars’ like actual wars.
0
0
-
76
Randomosity 101
in May 7th, 2009 @ 21:0873- Bravo.
Look, I’m sorry for anyone who disagrees, but I see nothing wrong with being gay. I myself am not gay, but I have never been attracted to anyone and probably never will be. I do tend to not be a “feminine” girl, but that is because I am more comfortable doing things in a way that uptight people see as “boyish”. I’ve actually been acused of flirting when all I’m doing is talking to someone who just happens to have an IQ. I support my gay friends, and I think that they deserve it just like anyone else. I don’t love, but I know people who do, and don’t they deserve happiness too?
0
0
-
77
Kokopelli52
in May 8th, 2009 @ 04:5976- I completely agree. Everyone at my school calls each other ‘gay’ when wishing to wound. And when I point out that a) ‘gay’ means happy, b) the person they are insulting is not being homosexual- just stupid, and c) that if people want to be gay it’s their business everyone immediately assumes that I’m gay and I have to endure about a month of weird comments. These two girls in 7th grade are always called lesbian just because they hugged one another before saying goodbye before vacation last year. It’s just not fair. I’m not homosexual but I certainly think that if someone wants to marry another of their gender, why the big fuss?
0
0
-
78
Beavo
in May 8th, 2009 @ 15:39Re: “that’s gay”- Good XKCD comic on that. As long as “gay” is used to describe stupidity or as an insult, homophobia will continue, which is sad because I don’t see it going away any time soon. It’s a habit for people, like using “retarded”.
News: Me and a couple of friends might start a Gay-Straight Alliance, or at least a LGBT support group for our school. It’s late, yeah, but it’s never too late to start helping out. It’s a big issue in our school and I know tons of kids in the younger grades who get terrible crap for being femine if they’re a guy. We need some support, I could have done with some, but since I didn’t, I might as well give some to someone else. I got the idea from the Matthew Sheppard movie (I CRIED at that, everyone should go watch it).
Also: Isn’t the Matthew Sheppard act being passed by Obama? I’m so happy! It’s a big step forward.
0
0
-
79
shadowfire
in May 8th, 2009 @ 21:02Matthew Shepard act? Do you mind explaining?
About that comic, can you summarize it? It sounds interesting.
73-Bravo. Well said.Anyway, I have been offended highly by some of the things that have been said on this thread. Indeed, some of it could be considered homophobic and ignorant. However, (yes, I know it wasn’t really going to be starting a flame war, but sometimes it felt like it) I am not in a position to voice my opinions comfortably. I worry about people’s reactions, and I just don’t feel like I will get a good one from some people on this thread.
0
0
-
79.1
Beavo
in May 9th, 2009 @ 17:54Cans’t thou not Google? Just type in Matthew Sheppard act and you’ll get the organization website. Either that or the Wikipedia page on it.
The XKCD comic had this guy going “In what scientists call ‘pretty gay’, I can’t find my shoes” and then when you scroll over it it goes “Experts classified this situation as ‘retarded'”.
0
0
-
80
Randomosity 101
in May 9th, 2009 @ 01:5879- True
0
0
-
81
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd and ET (8*8)
in May 9th, 2009 @ 21:0872.1- OK. To respond, let me clarify. I’m sorry, I am a really bad summarizer.
First question: However, it also does not prove that children raised by gays are NOT being put at risk for something. So why change?
Second part: The divorces will go down because less people will get married. However, they will still have kids. They will see marriage as something less powerful and bonding, and this will lead to worse parenting.
Three: Have you seen some of the people on here? Of course it does mean that!
Four: YOU TOTALLY IGNORED MY WHOLE ARGUMENT! THIS SICKENS ME! DID YOU EVEN TRY TO READ THE SUMMARY? THE BASIS OF THE WHOLE ARGUMENT IS ON HOW GAY MARRIAGE WILL AFFECT ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE!
Five:1994 Omega Journal of Death and Dying, Comparing 6,737 death notices from gay publications. As quoted in Legislating Morality by Geisler and Turek pg
131-132. This showed that gay men with a long term sexual partner (LTSP) actually had a mean age of death that was 1 year less than gay men without a LTSP. Note a lot of gays claimed this was an inaccurate study and that it did not calculate a valid mean age of death. But even if we reject the overall age of death of the study, what we do note is that all gays with LTSPs who died in the study did have a 1 year mean reduced lifespan compared to gays without a LTSP. This means that all else being equal, the study group experienced an earlier death rate if they had a LTSP.
72.1.1 Cliff Eagle- HE NEVER CITED THE BIBLE IN THERE EVER!!!!!!!!!!! HOW CAN YOU CALL A GUY YOU HAVEN’T EVEN MET SUCH A MEAN THING? MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. THAT IS WHY OVER 80% OF BLACKS WERE YES ON 8. BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THE GAYS ARE LYING ABOUT IT BEING A CIVIL RIGHT CASE. THEIR DISCRIMINATION WAS ONE. BUT NOT THIS!
74- But gays also want their orientation not just to be allowed, but to be taught as correct. As better than being straight.That’s IT! I am leaving the entire MuseBlog. No one here respects my beliefs. I at least read the ENTIRETY OF YOUR POSTS. You guys didn’t even bother to understand my ideas or think about it or read all of it. All you did was call me and Neil Mammen anti-American, unlawful, ignorant and hateful. I think you are ignorant and hateful. You just insult me and ignore my arguments. No one listens to me when I try to make a point. They just call me a homophobe. I tried to stay civil when I was getting insulted, and all I asked was that you would read my arguments and not resort to calling me unlawful, hateful and ignorant and other insults. I tried to change the subject, but no one is going to. Prop 8 PASSED! Deal with it.
I’m done with MuseBlog. GAPAs- I will sorely miss you.
0
0
-
81.1
Beavo
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:01The United States supposedly guarentees me the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I can’t get married to the man or woman of my choice, I don’t see how any of those three are fufilled. In my opinion and I see you disagree, gay marriage is most definitly a civil right. I think the 80% of black might have had to do with the fact that many African-Americans are very religious, and by religious I mean Christian. I could totally be wrong, though. I’m not trying to be racist.
I don’t think you’re hateful or homophobic. I think you’re wrong, but that dosn’t give me a right to attack your beleifs. Dicuss them, not attack them. Outright insults defeat the idea of having an intelligent discussion. I’m sorry you see MuseBlog stooping to that level, and I’ll miss you.
And I’m not going to just “deal” with Prop 8 (or any other legeslation restricting my rights) passing. Yes, the CA court was wrong in upturning a vote of the people, but since that’s obviously not the subject here, I’ll let that go. My point is that Prop 8 did take away rights. I won’t be satisfied with a category such as “domestic partnership” not only because in many cases rights such as adoption and inheritance are different, but the word “marriage” is used in the United States to put two people, in love, together. “Domestic partnership” and any other names implies that the love of two same-sex partners are not the same as oppisite-sex. And this makes homosexual couple second-class citizans, which increases homophobia and the degradation of gays. If gay marriage isn’t legally seen as equal to straight marriage, homosexuals will always be viewed as inferior.
0
0
-
81.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:20Hear, hear! I completely agree. And you seem to say things so much more eloquently than I, and more politely, too……i should work on that.
0
0
-
81.1.2
small but fierce (1 blue ice bear point, ten wung points
in May 9th, 2009 @ 23:57You are so much more articulate than I, Beavo. *bows down before Beavo and such*
Listen, Donaldo. People have politely but firmly disagreed with you. I think you have a right to your opinions, but no one has been outright disrespectful (except Cliff Eagle, and he likes semi-flaming posts). You’re overreacting. Sorry.
0
0
-
81.1.2.1
Cliff Eagle
in May 10th, 2009 @ 10:08I was not disrespectful, nor was i “semi-flaming”. If Donaldo, and anyone else, has a right to what they believe, so do I.
I don’t understand why people think i always flame at people. I have as much as a right to voice my opinions as anyone else.
0
0
-
81.2
Luna the Lovely
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:17Leave if you want, that’s your right. HOWEVER, from what I’ve seen, most people have, at the very least, tried to respect your beliefs. The one individual, with perhaps the most reason to not have any respect for them whatsoever (Book Thief, given her sexual orientation), in fact seems to be one of the most respectful of your beliefs.
Can you prove that we didn’t read the entirety of your posts? I, for one, rarely don’t read the entirety of posts. The only reason I, personally, did not read the entirety of your summary post, and also did not respond, was because I feel very strongly on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and all arguments against it that I have heard thus far in my life, tend to sicken me. Am I saying people who believe them are bad people? No, not necessarily. I would have to think my sister a bad person, and despite numerous disagreements we ahve, I can’t do that. I chose to not read the whole post, and not respond with what would have been a very emotional and impolite post, instead of going off an a rant.
Thus far, I only see one person who actually called Mammen “anti-American, unlawful, ignorant, and hateful.” That was Cliff Eagle. He has a fondness for posting borderline-flamey posts, as he is an opinionated person. Could he have phrased it better? Sure. But it is his right to hold an opinion about a person, just as it is your right to hold a differing opinion about the same person. I do not believe he, or anyone else, called you ignorant or hateful.
Calling us ignorant and hateful is not going to engender a desire to listen to your views. Any of us who were listening, and responding with a reasoned, logical argument, or who were listening, but refraining from commenting, due to their questioning of their own self-control, are going to have absolutely no inclination to do any such thing once debate turns to insult flinging. Your comment there almost makes me regret not having launched into a passionate, rude, and belittling post in response to what little of your summary I read. It makes me want to rethink my decision to respect your right to a differing opinion.
People have been listening to your points. Disagreeing, sure, but THAT IS OUR RIGHT. I do not believe you have been called a homophobe.
As far as I can tell, you are the one currently flinging the insults. The rest of us have been respecting your opinions, and disagreeing, perhaps with a few exceptions, in a civil manner. Well within our rights, and not even close to insult flinging.
“Prop 8 PASSED! Deal with it.” Ok, people disagreed with you, perhaps didn’t respect everything you had to say, and maybe tossed in a few perceived insults. DEAL WITH IT.
If everyone threw up their hands in disgust when someone voiced a differing opinion, lacked some respect, and tossed a few insults around, we’d still be living back in the Dark Ages. If you are man enough to hold an opinion and voice it, you need to be man enough to accept that not everyone disagrees, and that that disagreement may come in various levels of civility. Stating an opinion and then running away when people disagree does absolutely nothing to get people to understand your opinion, but rather creates doubt about rather you even have any logical reason.
I’m not trying to be mean here, honestly, I’m not, although I can understand how it might come across that way. Leave the thread, if you don’t feel your views are welcomed (although without differing opinions/viewpoints, it’s awfully hard to have a debate), but don’t leave the entire blog. You’ll find that differences on this thread rarely carry over onto other threads, and any perceived lack of disrespect here, does not follow in the slightest to other threads.
0
0
-
81.3
Kokopelli52
in May 10th, 2009 @ 01:45Look- we are just disagreeing. That’s all. I think you’re overreacting, because we all are entitled to our own opinions. We aren’t disrespecting you or ignoring your arguments. And we haven’t called you any of those things. You- no offense- are now flaming us by calling the rest of us “ignorant and hateful.” We- or at least I- have read your arguments. And I respect them. I just have a different view.
It is possible- and I really don’t mean to offend further- that you are angry mainly because most of us support homosexual right, whereas you do not? If you’ve quite the MB, you won’t be reading this, but I hope you change your mind. It’s good to have people with other opinions on here, or we would all just be stuck agreeing with ourselves. Debate is just voicing opposing views, not insulting them.
0
0
-
81.4
Agrrrfishi
in May 10th, 2009 @ 11:27Donaldo, my gosh. Cool it. I have exactly the same beliefs as you do, and let me say I’ve been offended and had my beliefs challenged a billion times on the blog. I mean, I’ve gotten mad, and taken a break from this sort of thing. This is why you don’t see me around the hot topics any more. However, if you have a problem with people questioning you politely about your frame of mind, then you should just avoid these threads! Just because things here are a bit heated (thus the title Hot Topics) does not mean that you need to leave the rest of the blog. I can’t decide for you, but this is too quick of a decision to make based on one little disagreement.
0
0
-
81.5
Vendaval
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:36Ooff, let me begin by saying that I’m very sorry Donaldo has left. I don’t get many opportunities to speak to people whose views differ so from my own, and I think we’ve all learned at least a little, even if our own views have not changed (not that anyone was expecting them to). I haven’t responded sooner because I’ve been without internet access (I have, incidentally, been alone in a house while it is struck by lightning), and I wish I had because now a tipping point has been reached. There is still much more to be discussed, it’s too bad many of us overreact to many things.
0
0
-
81.6
Zallie
in May 10th, 2009 @ 16:22Nowhere has it been stated that homosexuals want their orientation to be taught as “better than being straight.” Just saying.
1. There is no substantial evidence to prove that children raised by same-sex parents are at risk of anything. So why change? There’s no reason not to allow gay parents the right to raise children. The children aren’t being harmed in any way, so it’s rather discriminatory to only allow straight couples this right.
2. No, the number of marriages will not go down. If homosexuals are allowed to get married, the number of marriages will increase. I don’t understand how any of this will lead to “worse parenting.”
3. Incorrect. People are just expressing their opinions. If you can’t take that, I don’t know what to tell you.
4. No, I read the whole thing, believe me. You didn’t provide any (non flawed) evidence for how gay marriage will negatively affect everyone else’s way of life. Maybe you find it immoral, but there are a lot more immoral things in the world which actually have negative consequences.
5. The sample size of that study is too small, and I’m not convinced by one study. One year is hardly a significant amount, anyway. If daily flossing can add over six years to one’s lifespan, that makes this supposed 1 year look rather insignificant. Flossing has more effect on your health than having a same-sex LTSP.
0
0
-
82
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 9th, 2009 @ 21:56We’ll miss you, too, Donaldo, but I think you’re overreacting. Nobody on this thread has flamed you. People have politely disagreed with you. If Hot Topics is the only part of MuseBlog that upsets you like this, why not avoid it and stick to threads that you enjoy? There are plenty of options here.
Looking back at the whole marriage discussion, it seems to me that the anti-gay-marriage side has a much harder job to do. Advocates of gay marriage have a simple argument from principle. Why permit them to get married? Because (1) they want to and (2) it’s nobody else’s business. To counter the argument, opponents of gay marriage have to demonstrate that it is other people’s business — in other words, that gay marriage will harm society. That’s very hard to prove, because facts are scarce and slippery and studies can be challenged. So they cite what might be called a “precautionary principle”: (1) we’ve never tried anything like this before; (2) bad things might happen; (3) traditional male-female marriage works well, so (4) let’s hold on to what’s tried and true rather than risk disaster. It’s similar to what many environmental activists say about nuclear power.
Have I fairly summarized the arguments on both sides?
0
0
-
82.1
Beavo
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:06And because nuclear power used as a main power source in most of the world, many countries remain undeveloped, poor and ridden with sickness, to continue the metaphor (please don’t reply to that, it’s continuing the metaphor, not insighting discussion). Without change, how can the human race move forward?
0
0
-
82.1.1
Beavo
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:07*And because nuclear power is NOT used as a main power source…
Sorry, I’m a bit tired.
0
0
-
82.2
Vendaval
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:18I think that’s a good synopsis.
0
0
-
83
Rainbowstar
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:06I’d like to apologize for starting the gay marriage conversation, and indirectly causing Donaldo to quit MuseBlog. Please forgive me!
Would a new topic help? What about the presence of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance?
0
0
-
83.1
Beavo
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:22Don’t apologize, it’s a good discussion when it’s a discussion, not an unintelligent argument. I love discussing things with people I don’t share beleifs with, but only when it’s useful.
Re: Under God- Makes me so mad. I don’t say the pledge anymore. That is SO a religious statement, how is it not? Some people I just don’t get.
0
0
-
83.1.1
Agrrrfishi
in May 10th, 2009 @ 11:49Well, you have to understand that in the days when our country was founded, the majority of the government and its’ citizens were either Christian or believed in God. So “one nation under God” was really what would have been expected in the pledge. Nowadays, the culture of America and its’ religions are more widely spread, thus the consternation over this part of the Pledge. I suppose it’s kind of like a tradition now, one that nobody has really bothered to change.
0
0
-
83.1.1.1
Vendaval
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:21But it originally read, in 1892, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
“…under God” was only added in 1954 in response to Communism.
0
0
-
83.2
Luna the Lovely
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:24We could sum that up in “separation of church and state.” Remove religion from all aspects of the government. Whatever shall we do when we finally get an atheist president who does not govern based upon religious belief, and has no desire to swear upon a bible, as it holds no especial value?
0
0
-
83.2.1
Beavo
in May 9th, 2009 @ 22:46I can understand swearing on a Bible. You’re swearing under YOUR God to guide your country, not to let religious aspects infulence you. If you swear to your God, it means you can’t break that commitment, which is why it’s meaningful.
Didn’t somebody swear on a stack of law books or something?
0
0
-
83.2.1.1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 13th, 2009 @ 20:23Right you are! It was John Quincy Adams.
0
0
-
83.3
Cat's Meow
in May 9th, 2009 @ 23:06Ever since my school started saying the Pledge every morning, I say all of it except for that line. “And to the republic for which it stands. One nation (pause) with liberty and justice for all.”
0
0
-
84
crazyquotescollector
in May 9th, 2009 @ 23:10Excuse me, but Luna, there is no legal reason to swear on a bible, it only actually means anything if the one swearing believes in whatever s/he is swearing on. If I, an Orthodox Jew, were to be sworn in, it would likely be on a Chumash (the Old Testament? That is what it’s called in English, yes?) Who knows? I’m not planning on being president.
I will not say ANYTHING about SSM, because I can’t say anything that a) has not already been said or b) will have any effect unless I’m actually talking to you. Type just doesn’t have the same effect. However I am in no way in favor of SSM.
Be that as it may, this country was founded as One Nation Under God. Remember that. Separation of church and state? I hate to break it to you, but we don’t have the Church, any church, dictating to our government. We also are not ordered to be atheists. The government stays out of religion. However, I don’t see how it is OFFENSIVE to say God. What, you don’t say it on a regular basis? So saying it once more, in a context other than random conversation, is so awful you’ll stop saying our pledge? We, apparently, are the only ones to do that. Ever heard of “God Save the Queen”? I’m sure you have arguments for that, I’ve probably already thought up answers for them, but I am uninterested in writing them down at this late (or early) hour of midnight. The word God is practically the only bit of religion in our government. Except for the morals. Maybe we should get rid of morals. Wait, murder and thievery are illegal because of those morals! Oh, but those are logical for the running of an orderly society. Let me tell you, were it not for those morals, we would just have an unorderly society.
My point? Please, say the Pledge, stop being offended, and learn to appreciate the good things about our country. People were a lot happier before they started looking for ways to be offended.
0
0
-
84.1
Cat's Meow
in May 9th, 2009 @ 23:35When I say the Pledge of Allegiance I am pledging my allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, with liberty and justice for all. I choose not to say that our country is under God, because I personally don’t believe it is. I don’t see why I should have to say something that I don’t believe in, so I don’t.
One of my friends has made up her own Pledge of Allegiance that she says while everybody else is saying the normal one, which includes “under Buddha” instead of “under God”. (she really is thinking of herself as a Buddhist, by the way, she doesn’t say it just to say it) And, to be honest, I don’t have a problem with that either, just as I don’t have a problem with people that say “under God”. I would just sort of prefer if God wasn’t the default for something that is said every morning in schools across the country, because some people do believe differently.
Sorry if this offends anybody. It’s just my opinion.
0
0
-
84.2
Beavo
in May 9th, 2009 @ 23:36I question my belief in God, and at one point altogether denied His existance, so I don’t beleive that this nation is “under God” and so I don’t say it. It’s not saying the word “God” that offends me, but the idea that this nation is under God, which implies that this nation is (or should be) actually run by God, or the church. You’re right, we don’t have a church dictating our government, so why should a a religious statement be embedded in a pledge we say every day?
Please don’t confuse morals with religion. They’re not the same thing. Athiests have morals. Some religious people pretend to.
0
0
-
84.3
Luna the Lovely
in May 10th, 2009 @ 00:35I didn’t mean to imply there was a legal reason to swear on a bible, because there really oughtn’t be. Because if a person doesn’t believe, swearing on a bible doesn’t do a whole lot of good, as it doesn’t have any particular meaning……Honestly, I dont’ care that much. People want to use the bible to swear into office? Sure, whatever.
Oh, I say “god” on a regular basis, but not in the sense of how it is used in the pledge. Not that I intentionally use it to be disrespectful, it’s just, I’ve picked up using it from people I know, the same way one uses “hell”, or “damn”, or any other curse word of varying degree. I’m not sure that usage of the word necessarily indicates that it should be used in the pledge, because if anything, that could imply disrespect.
I just think it’s a bit illogical for people to be expected to swear allegiance under god, if they don’t even believe in the existence of such an entity.
I say the pledge, when I’m at a venue that says it, typically get the words all out of order (hey, I was homeschooled, my sister and I gave up on saying the pledge as tradition within a year of dropping public school. We were gradeschool, if you were wondering), but I do say it, and it doesn’t offend me per se, it just seems a bit illogical to expect peole to swear allegiance under something they don’t believe exists. (For those of us who are agnostic/atheist)
0
0
-
84.3.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 10th, 2009 @ 07:43So they should swear under nothing at all? Not that that’s a serious problem for me, but what is the difference, exactly? And if one does not believe in God, can one really despise Him enough to not say the Pledge? I know you never said anything about despising God, I’m just saying. You know, I don’t use curse words at all, so I see no reason why you should say God just because everyone around you does. And it is disrespectful to other religions if you use the name of their “deity”as a curse word, don’t you think? If someone doesn’t believe in anything, what do they propose as a rewrite of that line?
0
0
-
85
Randomosity 101
in May 9th, 2009 @ 23:57I’m a Jew, and the line referring to a deity is one of many reasons I stopped saying the pledge in Elementary school. I’m not offended by it exactly, I just think it’s stupid to try to make us pledge to the deity of the religion our country was formed under originally (which was undeniably Christianity) yet no longer has anything to do with America as a whole. I go so far as to only refer to religous figures iun other religions as “deities” so that not only do I not insult them, I don’t insult my own religion. I use my own catchphrases instead of those which are publicly accepted but may insult. An example of this would be “Oh my chicken chili cheeze puff”. And my friend was atheist, then converted to polytheism, what is she supposed to say? I do not, and never will, swear by a bible, and you can’t make me!!!
0
0
-
85.1
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 10th, 2009 @ 13:17I agree on not swearing on the bible- and not saying the pledge,but…
you are aware that the three main monothietic religons all have similar first testamonts and, technically, the same god, right?
0
0
-
86
Rainbowstar
in May 10th, 2009 @ 01:10I don’t say the pledge at all. I think it’s like brainwashing, how they teach you it when you’re little without explaining the meaning. It’s pledging your allegiance to your country every morning, without knowing it.
But if they insist on making us say it, they should take out “under God”. Not everyone believes in God, and they shouldn’t have to pledge allegiance to en if they don’t believe en even exists. (For the record, I’m an atheist.)
0
0
-
86.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 10th, 2009 @ 07:48It is not pledging allegiance to God, it is pledging allegiance to your country, which happens to be “One nation under God.”
I hope you are happy in your atheism, and that you still do well on math tests!
0
0
-
86.1.1
Vendaval
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:57But is our nation under one god?
0
0
-
87
Kokopelli52
in May 10th, 2009 @ 01:35That line was made because the Government wanted to show that they were different from Communists. I lived in America for some time, and I used to say (I got this from a Calvin and Hobbes strip), “I pledge allegiance to Queen Fragg, and her mighty state of hysteria…” Then the teacher heard me. She was really angry. But when I got to fifth grade our Jewish teacher said that we didn’t actually have to say the pledge at all- if we didn’t want to pledge our allegiance to something that we didn’t believe existed, or if we were simply angry at the feds (which everyone was at that point) or the Governator (Schwarzenegger) we could just stare blankly at the flag. Our school used to have this custom of everyone assemble on the blacktop on Fridays, and then two random people would be picked- one to hold up the flag in the middle of the playground and the other to say the Pledge into the microphone. I got picked once and refused to say it. The principle made me repeat my reasons into the microphone for the whole school to see. Then he told me to go to the office. When he got there I thought he was going to be REALLY angry but he was actually pleased- he said I had a talent for debate (which I don’t think I do) and he was glad that I could express my opinions in a reasoned way and he wanted me to type an essay on it which he could put into the school newsletter.
0
0
-
87.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 10th, 2009 @ 07:54I’m glad you can present your opinions in a reasonable way. It’s nice to argue/discuss things with someone who won’t yell at me. It would be so nice if I was talking to you people, though.
Anyway. What you did, though I don’t agree with it because I don’t believe that the presence of the word “God” is in any way a bad thing, I do appreciate the way you handled the matter. Just please remember, though you may disagree with aspects this country still has a lot going for it. Treat it with respect. Like Cat’s Meow said, come up with something else to say, something respectful, and you may even be able to change it!
0
0
-
87.2
Cyndi and Maple (*-*)
in May 15th, 2009 @ 18:26Both my third and fourth grade teachers said that if someone didn’t want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, they didn’t have to.
But now that I’m in fifth grade at the middle school, and one of the office workers broadcasts the first two lines of the Pledge every morning over the intercom. The whole school says it at the same time. I don’t like to say it, but most of the time I’m in the library behind a bookshelf in the morning, because I don’t have time to go check out a book during X-block.
But some mornings I’m in homeroom and the intercom crackles on. As I say the Pledge, I’m thinking “To me, it almost seems like the school’s tell me, “Do the Pledge of Allegiance.” by broadcasting it.” I don’t really like that, but I don’t really want to say something. Usually, I just say it really quietly.
I also think that “under God” now, does mean any god. Maybe when the Pledge was invented it didn’t, but now, I think it stands for something else.
0
0
-
87.2.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in June 8th, 2009 @ 13:17In our school, the whole pledge is broadcast over the school. Fortunately, the awesomes teacher ever said we didn’t have to stand OR say the pledge. One of the girls in my class is really anti american, and she did that right away. It’s also just like pledging allegience to a pice of cloth. Yes, cloth. I will obey, cloth.
0
0
-
88
shadowfire
in May 10th, 2009 @ 08:56I think I brought this topic up before. My opinion goes something like this: No, we are not a theocracy. So why should we be pledging allegiance to “one nation, under God”?
This is rather unrelated, but I read a book once, but i can’t remember what it’s called, about a boy who gets in major trouble for humming the Pledge of Allegiance when he hears it over the announcer in his school. Most of the country hears about it.
0
0
-
88.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 10th, 2009 @ 10:22Called Nothing but the Truth, by Avi. I hated it. We had a mock trial, and my class argued for the protagonist. We couldn’t find anything to say. We lost.
0
0
-
88.1.1
shadowfire
in May 13th, 2009 @ 20:19I agree, it was rather stupid. But it was funny to think about. What if it really happened?
0
0
-
89
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 10th, 2009 @ 10:39(83 et seq. – Pledge of Allegiance):
This topic has come up before on the blog. People have objected to it because
- they think allegiance to a physical object, a flag, is silly;
- they don’t like the words “under God”;
- they don’t think America has achieved liberty and justice for all.
Suppose the pledge were shortened to “I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.” Would you say it then?
0
0
-
89.1
Beavo
in May 10th, 2009 @ 11:07I might say it, but I still think it’s stupid to have it required, every day in the morning at school. Like somebody said, it seems like brainwashing, making kindergardeners say a pledge they don’t even understand. Isn’t that sort of cheating by not letting them form their own opinions about whether they want to be loyal to our country?
What if somebody’s from another country? What do they do at your school? I’ve never had an exchange student in my morning class, but I’m sure some of you do…
0
0
-
89.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:50Loyalty to a country is important, in my opinion, and should be taught from an early age. Note that I said “taught”, not “brainwashed.” we should actually tell them what they are saying.
Second, in my school, we don’t say it every day (party because we’re kinda disorganized and our PA system doesn’t work). It may seem funny, because I have been defending it and everything, but, well, what can I do?
Again, thank you Cat’s Meow, say something respectful, something that means something to you.
0
0
-
89.1.2
Cyndi and Maple (*-*)
in May 15th, 2009 @ 18:29My fourth grade teacher started saying that people didn’t have to say the Pledge of Allegiance when there was a student from another country in her class. I think it’s a good idea to give people a choice.
0
0
-
89.2
Cat's Meow
in May 10th, 2009 @ 14:07To be totally honest, I would rather pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, then to the United States of America or to the president or anything like that. The United States could always become corrupt and stray from its original ideals, but the flag is less a physical object then a representation of its original meaning – to me, anyways.
0
0
-
90
Beavo
in May 10th, 2009 @ 11:36Anyway, I’ve formulated some arguments against the summary posted against SSM.
How to answer objections to these arguments:
1. Again I have stated that I disagree with the Judges descision to overturn the vote, but this dosn’t take away from the fact that yes, I have fam/friends who are gay and I myself am bisexual. I can put myself into the shoes of the people who cannot marry even though they’re in love, and it’s extremely sad how damaging these restrictions are to their minds. How would you feel if how you are were treated as inferior?2. Marriage is about love.
Please don’t pull the incest argument on me. Sexual relations can be harmful between two adults who are related, inbreading can produce deformed babies (I think, correct me if I’m wrong). And PLEASE don’t pull the bestiality argument on me. Dogs aren’t humans. Dogs cannot love as humans can. A man and a man are still human, no matter their sex.3. You can’t control who you love.
No, you can’t control who you love. You can pull yourself away from who you love, and if you have any idea how hurtful that can be you wouldn’t be using this argument. There’s no reason two people should seperate themselves just because the government says they should.Desire and love are VERY, VERY different. I find it disgusting that these definitions are confused in order to support “traditional marriage”.
4. But statistics may be biased and skewed.
Yup. 99% of statistics can be manipulated. You cant use statistics to define love anyway.5. Adoption by gay married couples will increase the number of homes orphans could go into
The idea is that legally married gays would both be legal guardians of the child. If they’re not married, only one would be the legal guardian and if the died or ran off or something, the child would be put back into an adoption agency. If they ran off they could run off with the child and the other parent couldn’t do anything about it.6. No evidence show that adoption by gays is bad for kids.
Bah. I love my “traditional” parents, but I’d have no problem with two gay ones. I think I’d be more of an open minded household.7. Are you saying that if SSM is legalized, then millions of people will go and get a divorce?
Why in the what would less people marry?8. I know a kid who did better raised by gays or after a divorce.
I agree. This agrument is stupid, but it dosn’t prove your point. How do you know he “did better” anyway?9. I grew up in a single parent home and I’m not a murderer.
Statistics. This argument is thrown out now.10. Scandinavian countries, where SSM was first legalized in Europe, are great places to live. Low crime rate, etc…What makes you think it’ll be bad in the US?
Oh, no, the gays are all coming with shotguns, aren’t they, to murder your children. SSM dosn’t = crime. Lawd.11. Marriage gives you more rights than domestic partnerships.
Where I live, gay couples have no rights at all. And as I explained in one of my last posts, seperating the two implies that same sex relationships are inferior, continuing homophobia and hate crimes.12. Divorce rates are already high in the US! How can you say that it is bad in Scandinavian countries when it is worse here?
We’re not agruing divorce. Don’t change the subject.13. Divorce rates are high among Christians, conservatives and republicans, so don’t preach to us.
This argument dosn’t make any sense. Icky Godwin’s law. But yes, divorce rates are already high, so don’t say that marriage is “holy” or whatever. Who cares if two gays get divorced?14. But SSM is good for gays.
Bull. Bull bull bull. Nobody’s not going to get STDs because they’re not married. You could use this argument to say that black people, or any other people shouldn’t marry. Use condoms.15. So what if gay marriages are bad? They said the same thing about interracial marriages.
In fact, most of the arguments are the same.16. We can’t violate someone’s civil rights because we think it’ll be bad for society.
Age of consent is a different issue, and so is polygamy. Don’t pull those.17. What about Equal Rights?
Same argument. I already explained why SSM was an equal right.18. You can’t legislate morality.
Yes, you can, but not based on one religion. Murder isn’t moral to many, I agree.19. Do’t impose your morals on me.
Bad argument. Still dosn’t prove your point, though.20. People are born gay, so let them do what is natural to them.
Nobody knows if people are born gay, but if you’re gay you don’t just go out and marry someone the second you come out. Gay and love are DIFFERENT.21. The government shouldn’t legislate marriage.
It has more important things to worry about, but it has to legislate marriage. But as of now, it’s legislation is WRONG, which we are changing. Four down, forty-six to go.
0
0
-
91
Jadestone
in May 10th, 2009 @ 11:3985- Actually, the first people coming to the country were Protestants and other religions looking to escape religious prosecution in England. The “under God” part was added in during the Cold War as an attempt to separate the US from Communism, somehow.
I’ve also heard people say things like “Our founding fathers” ect when referring to the pledge, which I really do not understand. Wasn’t Jefferson or someone an atheist? Or maybe a Deist, I’m not 100% sure.
Apparently someone at my school, when reading the pledge (usually people from speech class read the announcements every morning for extra credit) and said “With liberty and justice for some.” There was a huge mess around it I guess, he got suspended and stuff. I wasn’t in high school at the time (or probably even middle school) but I think that is an overreaction…
0
0
-
91.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 13th, 2009 @ 20:35Jefferson was a Deist, yes. And one of the earliest proponents of separation of church and state. Or so I learned when cramming for my history final the other day…..
0
0
-
91.2
the Book Thief (awesome book, by the way)
in May 13th, 2009 @ 22:33Oh, Beavo…. THANKYOU SO SO MUCH!!!! you said what I was trying to say earlier and then some…… Thanks.
I would like to point out once more with 18 that everything we deem as “unlawful” is so because it harms at least one “party” – Murder, someone ends up dead, rape- someone gets raped…. With SSM it would be different- Just because there’s a law saying you can doesn’t mean you HAVE to get married. THe law would just say that if a couple wants to get married, they can. The same applys to the originalily mentioned aranged marriages and such…(16) also often harm people.
I would also like to point out with 16 that, unlike Jews, Christians, Muslims, and any other varios races and many groups, We LGBT don’t have a “homeland” a country where, if we had the means, we could go and not be discriminated against or a minority. I don’t think we actually should- I think that would just promote homophobia even more, not to mention that, statistically, 90% of people identify as straight, so we have to get used to being a minority, we are everywhere.
0
0
-
92
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:01Factual question inspired by 83.1.1: When, and by whom, do you think the Pledge of Allegiance was written? (Don’t look it up yet. I’m curious about people’s assumptions.)
0
0
-
92.1
Vendaval
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:24The salute that went with it was interesting too. Fascists ruin everything!
0
0
-
92.2
Luna the Lovely
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:34I seem to recall you mentioning on a previous HT thread that it was written in the mid 1900s, or some such thing…..And my a preacher/lawyer/teacher, something like that. (And yes, I know all three of those are very different……)
Gah, I shouldn’t ahve taken nyquill. Sure, I slept soundly through the night, but drugs that make you sleep don’t put you into the restful, rejuvanating sleep (whichever that is, REM, I think), and so you’re actually worse off sleep wise than if you’d forgone the drugs…..When will I learn. My head is very fogged.
0
0
-
93
Vendaval
in May 10th, 2009 @ 12:51Beavo- This is completely unrelated to flags or gay marriage, but it’s come up before. Nuclear power- you feel that it is the solution to undeveloped nations, poverty, and sickness?
0
0
-
93.1
Beavo
in May 10th, 2009 @ 17:44Not the “solution”, but it’ll help develop nations, which will in turn prevent sickness and poverty, as well as advance us scientifically. Now that we can recycle nuclear waste (I think, I’ll look that up if I’m wrong) it’s a “renewable” resource, and a lot more useful then Solar, Wind and almost anything else we have.
0
0
-
93.1.1
Zallie
in May 10th, 2009 @ 21:04The idea of it still feels unsafe to me, though. Maybe it can be safely recycled now, but it still has that connotation of toxicity. It may be renewable, but I don’t think it counts as ‘green’ energy so to speak.
0
0
-
93.1.2
Vendaval
in May 10th, 2009 @ 22:59Ah, that’s clearer. Recycling of high level nuclear waste is possible on some level, but not as safe as, and only as feasible as solar, wind, geothermal, etc. The storage of such wastes once they have been used until they are not economically useful is the problem (plants are very safe), there may not be a place safe enough on Earth.
And there’s thermal pollution, but that isn’t a huge issue.
0
0
-
93.1.3
Jadestone
in May 11th, 2009 @ 22:01Re: Wind power
I heard recently that around wind farms they are finding a lot fo dead bats, effectively killed by the wind farms — I think from changing the air/air pressure or something? Besides making it really hard for them to hunt.
But I did not like this news, as I’d had hopes for wind power as a good solution. But I love bats. : /
I should look more into nuclear power…
0
0
-
93.1.3.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 11th, 2009 @ 23:50Oooh, you love bats? Would you like to come live in my house for the summer? You will get such an overdose of bats that you will not be quite so keen on ’em. Don’t get me wrong, I like bats, but when almost every night during the summer I get woken up by a minimum of one bat that has escaped the attic/walls and is loose in the house (often my bedroom), and I then have to chase it around the house for about an hour with a net, they get rather tiring…….And last summer was especially bad, since it was our first summer with a cat. A cat who, unlike me, is very, very skilled at bat catching. But whom I do not want catching the bats, because I don’t want him hurt–or the bat. And of course, he has this nasty habit of letting them loose as soon as he sees you coming, so then it’s an hour or more of chasing bat, while dodging cat trying to eat bat…….
If anyone has any good ideas on how to get the bats out of the walls/attic, I for one would love to hear it. As cute as the bats are, I dislike being awoken multiple times a night, nearly every night, during the summer to catch & release……
0
0
-
94
Randomosity 101
in May 10th, 2009 @ 13:5385.1- I make the distinction. Also, most of what I said is about me not being religously offensive to anyone.
90- I’m confuzzled. Are you for or against SSM?
0
0
-
94.1
Beavo
in May 10th, 2009 @ 21:15I was replying to the arguments summarized by Donaldo. I didn’t have enough post space so I just deleted the arguments, sorry for the confusement.
0
0
-
95
crazyquotescollector
in May 10th, 2009 @ 16:22Yeah, Beavo, i got the impression that you were for it, but I wasn’t sure if that was what the words actually said.
0
0
-
95.1
/gradster(1)/
in May 10th, 2009 @ 21:45It’s misleading because of the way he pulled the arguments from the other post. You have to compare them side-by-side to get the real gist.
I say this because I doubt you actually have: Good riddance to you leaving, Donaldo, I say. Good riddance indeed. Not because of your views – certainly not. Because you are giving up. Every idea deserves fair expression. Voltaire, my friend, Voltaire. Be opinionated. Argue some more. Try to convince us.
… Well, okay, it’s not going to work, but then likely neither will us trying to convince you. So try anyway.
A good argument is fun.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
96
Kokopelli52
in May 11th, 2009 @ 03:28crazyquotescollector: I’m not disrespecting the country. Just the flag and Bush.
Here in Singapore, elementary kids had to do a poster on liberty and justice around the world. And almost all of them said the same thing: America doesn’t have liberty and justice for everyone. I’m not saying that’s true- I’m just commenting. And their source was an American teacher.
Personally, I wouldn’t say that I pledged allegiance to the US. Or a piece of cloth. Or anything, really. I think I would want to have the liberty of changing my mind. And I think that nobody should have to promise anything until they can understand what they’re saying. I didn’t realize fully what the Pledge meant until I was in second grade.
0
0
-
96.1
Zallie
in May 11th, 2009 @ 18:45Why would you disrespect the flag, though? It’s a symbol of our country, and what America stands for. Why are you against that?
*sorry, if you’re not American, this probably won’t apply to you.
0
0
-
96.2
crazyquotescollector
in May 11th, 2009 @ 21:10You shouldn’t disrespect the flag, it is the symbol of our country. Or Bush. He did a lot for our country, he tried, and we should respect him, even if we didn’t agree with all that he did. I mean, I don’t currently agree with you, yet I believe I am being respectful.
American teachers are biased, like everyone else. Whatever individuals say should be taken with a grain of salt. And before you say not everyone is biased, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it just is. Bias: A prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person or group compared with another.
Like I said, we should teach kids what they’re saying. It’s important that everyone understand at least minimally, so that there is no “brainwashing”.
And for the record, I just said that you shouldn’t, not that you were disrespecting the country. It was a general statement.
0
0
-
96.3
Loreena Chatheng (AP)
in May 26th, 2009 @ 17:37I agree with you, about the thing with understanding what the Pledge means. Before middle school, I only had to say the Pledge in first grade, and I didn’t understand a word of it. I just memorized kind of the sounds, so I guess me saying the Pledge in first grade would sound kind of like the thing on the first page of the May/June 2006 MUSE.
0
0
-
97
Zallie
in May 11th, 2009 @ 18:46Suggestions for new topics: drug legislation or affirmative action.
0
0
-
98
Kokopelli52
in May 12th, 2009 @ 03:2196.2: Sorry. I didn’t mean to be so outspoken. But I don’t really respect Bush at all. He put the US in a lot of situations that caused loss of life or political tension. And the flag- I’m sorry, I just don’t think people should be told to respect a piece of cloth- it’s the same material we put on out feet every day but nobody pledges their allegiance to socks.
My friend, during the 2008 presidential campaign, actually was against Clinton. She said that Clinton would withdraw all the troops from Iraq/ Afghanistan and that troops from Iraq would then bomb us…?
0
0
-
98.1
Zallie
in May 12th, 2009 @ 09:49The flag symbolically is our country, though. They cannot be separated. Whether or not you feel comfortable saying the Pledge of Allegiance, it’s in bad taste to disrespect the flag in any way.
0
0
-
98.1.1
/gradster(1)/
in May 12th, 2009 @ 11:40Perhaps symbolically, but it’s only just that – a symbol.
If we are to be intelligent humans, we should know that just because something represents us, destroying or disrespecting that object does not destroy or disrespect us. We mustn’t delude ourselves in thinking that we are the flag. It’s nothing more than a sign indicating America. They most certainly can, and indeed, should, be separated.
If we’re so pitiful that we are upset by someone saying a few bad words about a piece of cloth, I don’t know where the world’s headed.
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
98.1.1.1
Beavo
in May 12th, 2009 @ 15:30And because it’s a symobl of our country, when you disrepect it, (i.e. stomp on it, burn it, etc) you’re symbolically disrespecting the whole country.
0
0
-
98.1.1.1.1
/gradster(1)/
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:29But what’s wrong with symbolically disrespecting them/us? Who cares?
/gradster(1)/ – Secretary of Bureaucracy of the ASAP
0
0
-
98.1.1.1.1.1
Beavo
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:55Because our country, no matter what stupid situation it’s in now, was built to be free and was the first country to actually make a government of “equal” citizans, not a class system. Even though we haven’t reached equality, the world would be in a lot worse a state if the United States hadn’t formed. It’s a great thing, when you think about it. We’re extremely priveleged.
0
0
-
98.1.2
bookgirl_me
in May 12th, 2009 @ 11:44But still… I mean guys, it’s just a flag. A piece of cloth. I understand that it symbolizes America, but is there really a need to make such a fuss about it ?
Bush)
My only comment here is that in many places (Caribbean), you get a better reception flying an Austria flag than an American one. Even though most people don’t know where Austria is. Bush ruined Americas reputation, at least in Europe and the Caribbean. When he came to Vienna, half the city was closed down in security zones and the other half in demonstrations à la “Lynch bush !”. Our school was in a security zone, and my whole class was giving me cake about how my president was closing down all the public transportation. Bush stepped on a lot of toes here, and Obama still has a lot of work to do.As an Austrian-American, I’m kinda biased here, but I think that kids should know what they’re pledging alliance to & that honoring a flag is sort of over-the-top.
Here there is an acute lack of patriotism, probably because any measure to think of a pledge would be “brown” and well… it would end badly. I’ve lived here over half my life, and I’ve never even heard the national anthem. But I know what the flag looks like *is proud of self*
Change pledge to defending liberty and justice ? But I guess it should have the word America in it somewhere.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not against patriotism. I just think it should respect the rules of logic/common sense.
0
0
-
98.1.2.1
Zallie
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:01Think of it this way: if someone burned an American flag, what would they be doing? Not just burning a piece of cloth, but showing their disrespect and disapproval to our country. Maybe the scale of the disrespect is different, but it’s present in both situations.
0
0
-
99
crazyquotescollector
in May 12th, 2009 @ 21:26A symbol is very important. When you respect the flag, it does symbolically mean you are respecting the country, and vice versa.
98) “He put the US in a lot of situations that caused loss of life or political tension.” Eating strange things for breakfast can cause political tension. So can wearing wearing mismatched socks. Also, war does cause loss of life, but so does ignoring potential terror attacks. No there haven’t been many here, but there is a good reason for that: Bush’s security measures. And please, I don’t CARE how much you disagree with ANYONE, it is pointless to be disrespectful. It’s like saying, “Well, you’re a STINKYHEAD,” when someone has a good argument. It doesn’t make you look any better. Think about it. “He who throws mud loses ground.’
0
0
-
100
Randomosity 101
in May 12th, 2009 @ 22:16I don’t mean to offend anybody, but I hate Bush and what he’s done to our country. And that has nothing to do with political parties, I promise you.
0
0
-
101
Kokopelli52
in May 13th, 2009 @ 01:2599- I’m sorry, but I think there are some situations in which one can be disrespectful. And in my opinion eating strange things for breakfast and wearing mismatched socks causes political tension on a much smaller scale than Bush’s actions. Wars definitely cause loss of life, whereas potential terrorist attacks- well, they’re POTENTIAL. I’m not saying we should ignore threats, but I am saying that we perhaps shouldn’t be quite so hasty about jumping into a war. Bush’s security measures also caused tension. And I disagree that being disrespectful is pointless. If you can’t bring yourself to respect something you shouldn’t be forced to. I didn’t go and screech my disrespect to the entire world- I was commenting on it. And, yes, symbols are important, but when respecting something I prefer to do it directly.
100- I agree with you. My disagreement, though, does in part have something to do with political parties.
0
0
-
102
crazyquotescollector
in May 13th, 2009 @ 16:57I’m not saying that you should respect them in the sense that you THINK only good things about them, just don’t say it, and don’t act it. And I’m talking about disrespect, not disagreement.
0
0
-
102.1
Kokopelli52
in May 13th, 2009 @ 22:39If people can voice their respect, why should we not be allowed to voice our disrespect?
0
0
-
103
nolagirl7
in May 13th, 2009 @ 18:37It’s alright to say and act it. as long as you don’t force your opinions on someone else, there is ansolutely nothing wrong with stating an opinion.
0
0
-
104
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 13th, 2009 @ 20:49(91) Not exactly, Jadestone. The Spanish, who were in North America 100 years before English settlers showed up, weren’t looking for religious freedom. Nor were the settlers at Roanoke and Jamestown, or the Dutch in New Amsterdam. Some of the Plymouth settlers were seeking freedom from the Church of England (and from the wanton ways of Holland, their original place of exile), but the Pilgrims made up only about a third of the people on board the Mayflower. History is complicated.
0
0
-
105
Jadestone
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:09104- Haha, yeah, I think I knew all that at the beginning of the year but now that APUSH is over it is all leaking away… my mistake, and it was late XD
In other news, I asked my teacher permission to borrow is copy of “Jefferson’s Bible” (Not sure if that’s the actual name or just what my teacher calls it, Jeff himself wrote it I guess), which I will read just as soon as I finish my current book.
0
0
-
106
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:16(105) Jefferson didn’t write his “Bible” — he took things out. He started with the four gospels in the New Testament, took a razor blade to everything he considered unreliable (miracles, mostly), and pasted together what was left in what seemed to him a logical order. It’s interesting to read.
(He didn’t do anything with the Old Testament or with the New Testament’s Book of Acts, letters, or Revelation.)
0
0
-
107
The Man For Aeiou
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:30The reason we love our flag so much comes from a combo of Cold war stuff and the national anthem.
0
0
-
108
Randomosity 101
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:36I think that deciding anything purely for the sake of political party is insultingly prejudiced. I am not accusing anyone, I am just making a statement.
0
0
-
109
crazyquotescollector
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:44103) In my experience, disagreeing with something verbally doesn’t “force opinions” on others, it’s fine. Verbal DISRESPECT, on the other hand, causes others to lose respect, just by hearing it, and that IS forcing opinions.
108) I have to agree.
0
0
-
109.1
Kokopelli52
in May 13th, 2009 @ 22:44I don’t think it causes others to lose respect. I mean, not about the thing you are discussing. Voicing one’s respect for something might cause others to gain respect, and that might not be a good thing.
0
0
-
109.1.1
bookgirl_me
in May 15th, 2009 @ 08:41I believe in the freedom of speech, which means I can be disrespectful if I want to. And Bush started it by being disrespectful to Europe. I think that if people can be influenced just by verbal disrespect, then they weren’t very convinced in the first place. There are always to sides to a story, and if there was one thing everyone agreed on, I would run screaming in the other direction, scared witless. And I don’t see why I should respect someone who {self-snip, Bush flaming}.
Does anyone remember the fairy tale “The emperors new clothes” by Hans Christian Anderson ? The emperor has been fooled and the people won’t say anything because it would be disrespectful. But a little child dares to point out that the emperor isn’t wearing anything at all. Without ens disrespect, where would everyone have been ? Humoring the king and feeling stupider by the minute.
108) I beg to differ. I don’t think that you should just go about hating republicans if you´re a democrat, or the other way around, but part of the reason there are political parties is that they represent certain views, which are shared by the politicians in them, and if you don’t agree with those views, you can dislike those politicians for representing them.
0
0
-
110
Jadestone
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:49106- I guess what I meant more than he wrote it was it was *him* editing/rephrasing/cutting and pasting different parts rather than someone else coming in later and doing so based on what they *thought* Jefferson believed. But thanks for the information! Glad to know it’s interesting.
0
0
-
110.1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 13th, 2009 @ 21:59Yes, it’s Jefferson’s own handiwork. He didn’t do any rephrasing, though. Every word is from the King James translation of the gospels. He just cut things out and rearranged what was left.
0
0
-
111
Kokopelli52
in May 15th, 2009 @ 20:48I got this disgustingly awful chain mail informing me that a) Muslims were about to take over Europe and b) if I didn’t forward the warning I would die. I hate that kind. Well, if I was going to die, I think I would have done it by now.
0
0
-
112
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd and ET (8*8)
in May 17th, 2009 @ 00:38OK. This is not a return. I don’t even know why I am on here. I hate this. But here are a couple things to think about on SSM. Of course, you will all probably call me a homophobe as you have in the past, so I guess you might just want to ignore this.
Quote from Sacramento Bee from a black preacher about gay marriage being a civil right:
“I have known many former gay men, but not a single former black man.”
And secondly, if gay people are born gay, then does that make it right? I know an autistic kid who, because of his condition, randomly starts screaming and cussing. But just because he is born with it does not make it right.
*scurries away to avoid slanders and insults*
0
0
-
112.1
Cliff Eagle
in May 17th, 2009 @ 07:27Wow. Seriously, who’s going to provide the least biased source about SSM? Obviously, it’s a member of the Christian clergy.
0
0
-
112.2
Zallie
in May 17th, 2009 @ 21:01If the autistic kid can’t control his behavior, I would say that his behavior is ‘right.’ If you hate Hot Topic so much, you should probably just stay out of the thread.
0
0
-
112.2.1
Zallie
in May 17th, 2009 @ 21:01*Hot Topics
0
0
-
112.3
Beavo
in May 18th, 2009 @ 15:38I haven’t seen any slanders or insults, just dissagreeing arguments. You’re confusing being gay with SSM. They’re not the same. I’m technically a former gay man, if you read my little essay thing. Now I’m attracted to both sexes. Anyone can change their sexual orientation IMHO, but it’s natural to change, not forced. The ex-gay ministries don’t work. Maybe people who aren’t really gay realize that and are convinced, but the rest are embarrased and have their self-esteem shot at until they’re brainwashed into thinking they’re different. Ex-gay ministries are disgusting, an insult to christianity.
With the austistic kid: Again, confusing homosexuality with a homosexual marriage. There’s no law forbidding being autistic or gay. There’s no law forbidding an autistic person from getting married. There is laws forbidding two gay men or gay women to marry.
0
0
-
113
bookgirl_me
in May 17th, 2009 @ 02:03112) But being gay isn’t some sort of disease/defect ! And I don’t think it’s true that they want to be “better” than hetero people. Gay people are also people, and I think it’s rubbish that they aren’t allowed to marry. I see it as a discrimination because of their sexual orientation. And straight marriages aren’t that perfect either: people often stay together because they fear the consequences/impact of the divorce on friends & family. In those cases, the divorce would actually be better.
I don’t recall anyone here calling you a homophobe, and I definitely won’t and didn’t.
0
0
-
114
Kokopelli52
in May 17th, 2009 @ 04:56112- Since when has anyone called you a homophobe? We’re not going to slander and insult you. About the autistic kid: I think that if he can’t control it it isn’t wrong. I have a severely autistic cousin who throws tantrums if someone messes up the buttons she likes to stack up and arrange, and we all love her- it isn’t wrong. It’s just something that happens. Nobody can control it. It isn’t anyone’s fault, least of all my cousin’s. “I have known many former gay men…” I have known many former Christians, and is it wrong that they became atheists? Or vice-versa? In my opinion not allowing homosexual people to marry is just as bad as not allowing people of a certain religion to marry. It’s just a state of mind, a belief. I think that being homosexual is the same as worshipping a deity that most people don’t.
0
0
-
115
Cromwell
in May 17th, 2009 @ 07:23The worst thing is calling someone gay. Have you heard of Spread the Word to Stop to the Word? That’s the R-word, but the same thing could be said.
0
0
-
115.1
Beavo
in May 18th, 2009 @ 15:33I love how when I hear the “r” word the first thing that comes into my mind (since this is MB) is “religion” because that thread was shut down for so long…
There’s some pretty good commercials, with Hilary Duff and Wanda Sykes about not saying “that’s so gay”. “That’s so sixteen year old boy with a cheesy mustache. Just sayin’!”
We’ve been over saying “that’s so gay” about a hundred times now. It happens everywhere. It’s nothing new.
0
0
-
116
shadowfire
in May 17th, 2009 @ 08:38*enters, not feeling good about self*
I have left this thread, and now I’m returning to it.
Oh dear. We have returned to the SSM discussion. Again. Regardless of everyone’s efforts ro change the subject. Ah well.
115-R-word?
Honestly, I think it funny when someone says something about a “former gay person”. It’s as if people think homosexuality is a disease that needs to be “cured”. And that people can actually do so. It sounds kind of ridiculous.
0
0
-
117
Kokopelli52
in May 18th, 2009 @ 06:19115- What’s the ‘R’ word? The unfortunate thing is, if you abbreviated chances are you can’t say it here on the MB. Dilemma. Ouch.
116- I know it’s controversial, sometimes annoyingly repetitive, etc. but in my opinion it’s an important thing, since the government is passing legislature on it… *is angry at The Governator*
115 (again)- Exactly! People say ‘gay’ when the person they are accusing is just being stupid- it wholly infamizes homosexuality if they do that. I mean, since ‘gay’ doesn’t mean ‘homosexual’ to begin with, why give it yet another connotation of evil?? It used to mean happy!
0
0
-
118
Cliff Eagle
in May 18th, 2009 @ 13:52The R word that i’m thinking of is “retarded” (please don’t snip that, GAPAs, its not a swear anyways and i’m not using it in the pejorative sense)
0
0
-
118.1
Kiga__827
in May 18th, 2009 @ 18:14Um, that is actually a little offensive.
0
0
-
118.1.1
Cliff Eagle
in May 18th, 2009 @ 19:19why? i was giving the word as an example, not using it to demean or belittle anyone?
0
0
-
118.2
Loreena Chatheng (AP)
in May 26th, 2009 @ 17:29People use the word “lame” in a different sense than it’s actual definition like that too, and that’s kind of…lame. No offense to anybody.
0
0
-
118.3
Rainbowstar
in May 26th, 2009 @ 18:14I think it’s okay to say “retarded” when you’re talking about people who are actually retarded. Otherwise … it’s just retarded.
0
0
-
119
cromwell
in May 18th, 2009 @ 14:36Yeah, that’s it.
0
0
-
120
shadowfire
in May 18th, 2009 @ 18:17119-Ah. I see.
117-I know it’s important. It’s just that, one, the same arguments keep cropping up and not making a bit of difference, two, it gets a bit flamey at times, and three, we are convincing someone to abandon MuseBlog because of a difference in opinion.
Donaldo, don’t leave the blog just because you don’t like what’s happening on this particular thread. Those arguments don’t (usually) carry over into the rest of the blog. We don’t want you to leave. If you don’t like what’s being said, just don’t look at this thread or post on it. If you do decide to go, you’ll be missed. Trust me.
0
0
-
121
Kokopelli52
in May 19th, 2009 @ 03:06118- Yeah! People use ‘retarded’ as an abusive term. I think actually you couldn’t snip that, GAPAs- it’s a mental condition. But there actually is a mentally retarded kid at my school, and nobody calls him retarded.
0
0
-
121.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 26th, 2009 @ 18:53((Somebody was joking with me and said,”You can call your friends retarded, but you can’t call the people who are retarded, retarded” It’s wrong, but kind of funny, because that’s how some people use it!))
0
0
-
122
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 19th, 2009 @ 09:03People will always find a word. If a group is considered fair game for abuse or ridicule, then its name will be broadened into a general-purpose synonym for “bad,” to the extent that some people using the word will forget its original meaning. If you try to ban a word or change the name of the group, people will switch to another one. I’ve seen it happen so many times that it seems almost a law of nature.
0
0
-
122.1
cromwell
in May 19th, 2009 @ 11:15Simply said, i completely agree.
0
0
-
123
Kokopelli52
in May 20th, 2009 @ 03:33122- true. But judging by the apparent IQ of the people at my school, I don’t think any of them know the original meaning. The name of our Drama and French teacher has actually become something of a mild expletive.
0
0
-
124
crazyquotescollector
in May 23rd, 2009 @ 22:25123- Hee hee. I had a teacher like that once.
On the subject of SSM, I am very opinionated. I am not accusing anyone of calling anyone a homophobe, but the word connotes disgust and fear. Some people think it wrong, but only because they believe in a God who has said it is so. For example, I, as an Orthodox Jew, say it is wrong because in Leviticus, 20:13, it says “A man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have both done an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” I am not trying to convert anyone, though I believe very strongly that it is true (otherwise I wouldn’t be saying it), I’m just pointing out that religious people have reasons behind their “bigotry.”I absolutely detest the use of any word that doesn’t mean what you are using it for. Retarded, gay, even some swear words. Not only are they horrible, they make the user look ridiculous. If that one word is ridiculous (say, if I’m not retarded) then the rest of what en is saying must also be ridiculous. It’s a subconscious thing, usually.
0
0
-
124.1
Vendaval
in May 26th, 2009 @ 09:15Actually, homophobe does mean fear of same [-sex marriage]. I think we had a discussion a while ago about how it’s not a very well built word.
0
0
-
124.1.1
Beavo
in May 26th, 2009 @ 15:47But its very easy to hate what you’re afraid of, which is why gay-bashers are homophobes. They’re afraid of what’s different which is what leads them to violence.
0
0
-
125
Kokopelli52
in May 24th, 2009 @ 05:17124- I’m just not very religious so I choose fragments of beliefs. In my opinion, while not very stable, it’s a very easy religion to follow. Does Leviticus 20:13 state why homosexuality is an abomination? I’m not trying to disabuse you of your religion or anything, just wondering. Actually, I agree with you about “homophobe”- it’s a label as much as “gay” or “lesbian” is. From now on, I think I shall say, “homodisagreer.”
0
0
-
125.1
Beavo
in May 24th, 2009 @ 12:45There’s a good documentary about that, “For the Bible Tells Me So”. It’s about what the bible says about homosexuality and WHY it would say that.
0
0
-
126
crazyquotescollector
in May 24th, 2009 @ 08:41125- Religion’s purpose is not to be ‘easy’. It is “a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; an institution to express belief in a divine power.” Not saying you’re “wrong” just that I disagree with you. Surprise. (Wait. That does mean I’m saying you’re wrong. Not in a bad way, then, just disagreement.)
No. Leviticus does not state why homosexuality is an abomination. Nor are we given a reason for the Red Heifer. That verse (about homosexuality) is placed among a whole bunch of other immoral relationships, ones that are still considered disgusting. Incest, marrying a mother and her daughter, etc.
Please remember, I am only a teenager, who is not trying to convert anyone, and who also does not have all the answers. I am presenting my argument as best as 10 years of religious and secular education will let me. Not to mention my lack of sleep.
Something that I meant to say before, but I didn’t: I am not saying that gay feelings are horrible or immoral, but they should be controlled. It isn’t a crime to feel things, just to act on them. I often feel like strangling my schoolmates, but I can’t do that, can I? And I shouldn’t be considered evil for wanting to remove irritations from my life, can I, assuming I don’t actually do it.
0
0
-
127
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 pp and 3 b-dp and 42 KAGp!)
in May 24th, 2009 @ 08:46Yes, I’m going to agree with Kokopelli the 52nd over here. Why? Why do people listen to the bible? Because God wrote it. Wouldn’t it seem sensible that God would make some edits over the years? Add some more books, change some rules. Move with the times. Frankly, while a lot of the bible might’ve been plausible 5000/2000 (Old/New) years ago, isn’t it time for an edit? That part of mormonism seems very plausible to me.
I don’t choose to follow everything the bible says. Why?
a) It doesn’t make sense. Eat some stuff, but don’t eat other stuff? What could be worse about eating shrimp than fish? And what’s wrong with SSM? Nothing, except that God doesn’t like it. God seems like a big bully.
b) It was written a long time ago, and it doesn’t remain valid, in my opinion.
c) I don’t think God wrote the bible. I see no evidence that the bible wasn’t written by a bunch of old man pretending they were God’s servants. And than Bible II: Return of the Word of God was written later, by another group of men, John, Paul, and Co.
I don’t think that this book should regulate the world’s governments, in minor ways or major ways. Theocracy is wrong. Governments, like Israel’s, shouldn’t be allowed to sort people by religion. Likewise, our country’s separation of church and state has fallen. In God we trust? No way! And there being no SSM. We all know that the main reasoning against SSM is “Because God/the Bible said so.” I’l save some more thoughts for my next post, I think that’s enough for now.
0
0
-
128
crazyquotescollector
in May 24th, 2009 @ 14:14The whole point of religion is BELIEF. I believe that God did write the bible (though I do not believe in the New Testament), and if He did so, and He knows everything and every time, He must have written it in such a way that it applies to every time and everyone. God doesn’t need “edits,” the way He wrote it the first time is just fine, thank you very much.
We (that is, Jews) were given rules to live by. Whether we understand them or not is beside the point. We cannot possibly understand God, if only because we have a very limited view of the world.
(One of the best books I ever read on this subject, by the way, was “I’m Not the Boss, I Just Work Here.” The author, an Orthodox Jew, gives his reasons for believing in God and His Torah. Look it up.)
I am against SSM because God said so. I do trust in God, very much. I see plenty of evidence that the Bible was not written by a group of people. The laws in there are good for all people, not just one group.
What part of the Bible is no longer plausible, exactly? (Only Old Testament, please, I’m Jewish)
0
0
-
128.1
Agrrrfishi
in May 29th, 2009 @ 15:04You make some good points, however, I do not believe that God HIMSELF wrote the Bible, but instead the stories of his works on earth were collected and recorded by man and witness which then was put together to become the Bible.
The former statement does not really make any sense, because God’s only human form that could give us an entire Bible from heaven was Jesus, who is not seen as a deity or acknowledged in most Jewish societies.
0
0
-
129
Kokopelli52
in May 26th, 2009 @ 08:21But- if God exists and knows everything, why do we have nuclear weapons and the Holocaust? I know about what you said on the Religions thread, but if God is so compassionate why would he punish people so horribly for not separating themselves form society? Also, Hitler didn’t just murder Jews- Gypsies too.
128- How is forbidding homosexuality good for people who are homosexual? And what evidence? I’m really not trying to offend, just to question. But some might argue that the whole point of homosexuality is BELIEF too.
0
0
-
129.1
Beavo
in May 26th, 2009 @ 15:51Your response to 128 could just as easily be argued “how is forbidding murder good for murderers?” They see it as a sin. That’s their point. According to many Christians and Jews, homosexuality is a choice, just as murder is.
Of course, it’s NOT, but we’ve already argued that.
0
0
-
130
Kokonilly
in May 26th, 2009 @ 16:28Hey – quick question:
If God loves everybody (or God is love, whichever – I don’t actually know), then why doesn’t He love homosexuals?
Is there even a solid reason to dislike homosexuals?
Just saying.
0
0
-
130.1
Beavo
in May 26th, 2009 @ 16:38I agree, there’s no soilid reason to dislike teh gays,
why would you dislike Mark from the Mac counter at Nordstroms? He has such a nice…face…but your question fits into what I just said, God loves the sinner, not the sin. Why its a sin is beyond me.Again, watch For The Bible Tells Me So. It put things into perspective nicely. Also good for referencing when debating conservatives.
0
0
-
130.2
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 26th, 2009 @ 17:58Why does god have to hate homosexuals? I don’t believe that he does. He of course knows that it isn’t a choice, so why should something that is thrust upon you be a sin? It’s not.
Because of the fact that gay people do not have much of a choice, there really isn’t a reason to hate homosexual people. I think that a person may be against a man acting like a girl, which may make en uncomfortable. I still don’t think that is a reason to simply dislike them.
0
0
-
130.2.1
Beavo
in May 26th, 2009 @ 18:28Why should somebody be against a man acting like a girl? (I’m not talking transsexual here, that’s different, I’m more along the lines of androgynous or drag queens). I’m extremely feminine, more so then most of my female friends. That doesn’t make me less of a man, or a person for that matter. I can see why me hitting on another man would make him uncomfortable if he was straight, but he’d still be uncomfortable if it was a girl he wasn’t attracted to. But simply acting feminine shouldn’t make anyone uncomfortable. Plus, it’s just a stereotype that homosexuals mess with gender identity. Lots do, sure, but not all of them.
I don’t think its right to be “against” a person for not conforming to their gender identity. It’s who they are. It’s who I am. I’m not any meaner for wearing makeup and nail polish. Lets put it this way: You’ve never seen me, or heard me speak, or seen the clothes I wear. I’d be surprised if you had a good mental image of me, despite the discriptions. You’ve just seen what I say on this blog in little letters. But do I make you uncomfortable? I hope not. If someone’s uncomfortable with someone because of what they are on the outside, they can’t get to know who’s on the inside.
0
0
-
130.2.1.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 26th, 2009 @ 19:01I’m just saying that it makes some people uncomfortable. Wearing nail polish and make-up most certainly does not make you girly. I will admit to not being comfortable around a boy who talks and acts like a girl. It’s not that I have much reasoning, I just do. I’m sure that there is a psychological reason for this… It’s not a stereotype, it is simply who a person is, and another person is allowed to feel uncomfortable around someone for what they are. This does not been that they should be excluded, or not respected, because they are just different. Everyone is different in many ways. ((Except identical twins))((*giggles*))
0
0
-
130.2.1.1.1
Beavo
in May 26th, 2009 @ 20:33I was using nail polish and makeup as an example. You’d probably be extremely uncomfortable next to me on a bus. I was saying that that’s unfortunate, because what if I’m a nice person? You’d never get to know me because you’d be too uncomfortable. Which is what I like about MuseBlog, nobody’s actually staring at you when you send comments into cyperspace.
0
0
-
130.2.1.1.1.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 27th, 2009 @ 17:37But that’s not necessarily true. I have a friend who (sort of) wears “girly” clothing, but I like his company. If I truly like someone’s personality, that will overpower any discomforts I have, so maybe before I got to know you I would, but I most certainly come through.
Hope that explains it!
0
0
-
130.3
crazyquotescollector
in May 26th, 2009 @ 18:23I do not dislike homosexuals, it is homosexual actions I don’t agree with.
Kokopelli52 – From a Jewish perspective, God runs the world according to Nature – a set of rules that He laid down from the beginning. Humans invent things, stupid and otherwise, and God lets them. It is when you look at the big picture that you see God’s hand, not necessarily during your day to day activities. The “reason” I gave for the Holocaust was only a part of God’s plan, I’m certain. If I knew the whole thing, I could take over as God, and that ain’t happening anytime soon.God loves His creations, all of them, He just doesn’t like everything they do. A [normal] parent always loves their children, but that doesn’t mean they like everything a child does.
Kokopelli52 (again) – Maybe God knows that in the long run it is better to have a male-female relationship, and so forbidding homosexuality is good for “homosexuals”. It is a widely held (in the Jewish world) belief that the commandments are there to make us better people, because the way we slaughter animals for food wouldn’t matter otherwise.
Beavo – Fear and disagreement are two different things. I do not, I repeat, do NOT “fear” gays. I disagree with a choice they have made, the same way I would disagree with a Jew who desecrated the Sabbath. I wouldn’t fear such a person, unless their desecration involved coming after me with a knife. THAT person I would fear. (side note: In Jewish law, it is forbidden to kill on the Sabbath. Of course, murder is forbidden all the time, but on the Sabbath you would get two sins for one action. And on the Sabbath you can’t kill bugs, either.)
What your instincts tell you to do is not always right, and when you look closer, you may find that isn’t what they’ve been telling you after all.
0
0
-
130.3.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 26th, 2009 @ 19:03((I’m guessing that you are Jewish… But I could be very very wrong…))
0
0
-
130.3.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 26th, 2009 @ 21:07I am an Orthodox Jew. A very loud Orthodox Jew. Though I don’t yell, I just speak up. Pointless snippet of info, that last bit was.
0
0
-
130.3.2
Vendaval
in May 26th, 2009 @ 20:11“homosexuals†?
0
0
-
130.3.2.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 26th, 2009 @ 21:05That’s because I don’t believe that they are irrevocably homosexual. The quote marks made sense in my head.
0
0
-
130.3.2.1.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 27th, 2009 @ 17:39That is a very strong comment…. I don’t know that if someone just “wants” to be straight, then they can be. I think a lot of homosexuals would be straight if they could, but I guess I wouldn’t know…
0
0
-
130.3.2.1.2
Beavo
in May 27th, 2009 @ 18:09How do you suggest going about reversing homosexuality? Surely not the depression, shame and self-loathing forced upon homosexuals by ex-gay ministries?
Can being heterosexual be reversed? Can I turn someone gay? Is being gay just an attraction to you, or do homosexuals have to be in love? What if they’re not attracted to each other but they’re in love anyway?
0
0
-
130.3.2.1.2.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 27th, 2009 @ 18:44I don’t think you can really try and change someone’s sexual orientation. If it happens, then it happens, but I think its even harder if you try and force yourself.
I’ve heard of gay people “turning” straight people. I don’t know if that means that that person was always gay though. I guess if a gay person can turn straight, it can happen the other way. I don’t think that institutions should try and turn other people either way. Maybe people that would like to be straight should go to a therapist? In the end, I think whatever you are, you are. There is a belief that you are on a scale from zero to ten, zero being exclusively straight, 5 being bi, and 10 being exclusively gay. (I scored a .8)
I think being gay/bisexual is feeling a strong attraction, or having sexual fantasies about the same sex frequently. I’ve read that sometimes it may just be just one gay crush, and that they are more common then you think. I would hope that if you are attracted to the same sex, you would try and fall in love with that gender.
I don’t know how you can be not attracted, but in love. Elaborate please.
0
0
-
130.3.2.1.2.1.1
Beavo
in May 29th, 2009 @ 16:01I don’t get how you would “try” to fall in love with the same gender. (BTW, Gender and Sex are different. Sex is what you’re biologically born with. Gender is what is perceived by socioty as how a certain sex should act, hence gender nonconformity being a different thing from a transsexual).
What I meant in my last question: Homosexuals are attracted sexually to the same sex, the opposite for heterosexuals. Could a heterosexual man who would never be attracted to another man fall in love with another man? Like, not want to have sex or even think his partner is hot, but still be in love with him? In your opinion. In my opinion, yes. Anyone can fall in love with anyone. Sexual orientation is just that, sexual.
Also, you can totally be gay and not have a lot of “frequent”, as you put it, sexual fantasies. Or bi. Or whatever. I’m attracted to men and women, but I don’t “frequently” sit there and “have fantasies” about having sex with them. You’re making it seem like homosexuals are a lot more, for lack of better word, horny then heterosexuals.
0
0
-
130.3.3
Loreena Chatheng (AP)
in May 26th, 2009 @ 20:29What exactly do you classify as “homosexual actions”?
0
0
-
130.3.3.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 26th, 2009 @ 21:06Actually acting on feelings of attraction. The feelings might be hard to get rid of, but there is no need to act on them.
0
0
-
130.3.3.1.1
Beavo
in May 29th, 2009 @ 16:04But why shouldn’t they?
Steve: “Oh, I’d like to, but I can’t have sex with you.”
Rick: “Why not? We’re in love, we’re consenting adults, and we’re using protection!”
Steve: “Yes, but I don’t NEED to.”Yes, I agree heterosexuals have more of a technical reason to have sex, reproduction, but there’s no reason homosexuals shouldn’t “act on” their feelings.
0
0
-
130.3.3.1.2
Loreena Chatheng (AP)
in June 4th, 2009 @ 18:53Okay, I’m sorry if the “s-word” bothers people, but over the years I have had my fill of misunderstanding people because they tried to put things delicately so…
You’re saying you’re okay with people wanting to have sex/physically approach someone of the opposite gender, but you’re not okay with them actually doing it? I don’t know, that sounds kind of…harsh, because that means you’re okay with endless unfulfilled wishes. I’m not sure exactly what my point is, but…agh. GAh. Never mind.
0
0
-
130.3.3.1.2.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 4th, 2009 @ 19:19You know what? Life is harsh sometimes. I have an unfulfilled dream to work magic. It will never happen. Sometimes dreams are like that.
0
0
-
130.3.4
♥ shriya siolashrwa jeffica ♥
in May 28th, 2009 @ 20:19“I disagree with a choice they have made,”
yeah that’s not a choice, that’s how they are born….
0
0
-
130.3.4.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 4th, 2009 @ 19:20That may not actually be true… Just saying.
0
0
-
131
Kokopelli52
in May 26th, 2009 @ 20:08130.3- Out of curiosity, what happens if you kill a bug on the Sabbath?
But I maintain that if there is a God and it loves people as much as it is said, then it would not have let innocent people die and all the bad things in the world happen, since I assume that if God needed to stop the Holocaust it could easily just erase Hitler. If God knows everything, why would he rule by a set of rules that he knew would eventually lead to the Holocaust?
0
0
-
131.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 26th, 2009 @ 21:12It desecrates the Sabbath. I don’t know the exact punishment, I have no memories of Heaven, I’m sorry. And punishment only comes if you knew it was wrong, did it on purpose anyway, and did not repent.
It was people’s choices that led to the Holocaust. And maybe the world needed a wake-up call for something.
“If full knowledge was necessary for belief, we would have no believers in this world.”
0
0
-
131.1.1
Armada
in May 27th, 2009 @ 18:37*is not going to get involved with this thread* *is not going to get involved with this thread* *is not going to get involved with this thread*
*gets involved with this thread*Okay, CQC, so what you’re saying is you can sin as much as you want, basically do anything you want, and it’s all okay and you don’t get punished if you ‘repent’ in the end? I cannot identify with this. I personally don’t believe in any kind of afterlife–maybe reincarnation, but not an afterlife–but I do believe that people should be good people for the sake of their life in this world, not the next one. It feels very wrong to me that you seem to think people can sin and then say ‘Oh, I’m sorry,’ and get away with anything. This is not the way our world operates.
As for homosexuality, why should gay people suppress their feelings? They have a right to feel what they feel, just like anyone. Gay people should have the right to get married just like anyone else–you don’t have to like homosexuality, but you’re not the one who’s marrying someone of the same sex. They can mind their own business, and you can mind yours.
0
0
-
131.1.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 4th, 2009 @ 19:28The repentance has to be real… and God knows if it’s real or not. And I agree that people should be good for the sake of this life as well as the next. As well.
And I’m not saying don’t feel. We’re human, we feel. It’s not always the right thing to act on your feelings, that’s all I’m saying.
0
0
-
132
Loreena Chatheng (AP)
in May 26th, 2009 @ 20:32A reason I think homosexual people should be allowed to get married, aside from the completely obvious, is this:
When two people who love each other are not allowed to get married, and are in a “domestic relationship”, many people who are unwilling to look any deeper will assume that people who live together but don’t get married are only together for the sex. At least, from what I’ve heard the insensitive perverted guys at my school say, this is what seems to be happening.
0
0
-
132.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 26th, 2009 @ 21:13And what would be the “completely obvious”?
0
0
-
132.2
Vendaval
in May 27th, 2009 @ 21:22i What is “the completely obvious”?
ii That is completely ridiculous. I know couples who live together but are not married, simply because marriage does not make sense. Letting gays marry or enter into legal domestic relationships doesn’t change any of that. But mainly because acting on something that may be another (narrow-minded) person’s opinion is ridiculous.
0
0
-
132.2.1
Beavo
in May 29th, 2009 @ 16:07If homosexuals are forced into a “seperate but equal” position (domestic parnership) or not allowed to marry at all, they will always be veiwed as inferior and never accepted. My life as an elementary school child would have been a lot less depressing and confusing if I’d have been accepted. LGBT teens are a lot more likely to self-injure or commit suicide, simply because they aren’t accepted and told they are wrong, weird, terrible, and going to hell. This would change a lot with the allowance of SSM.
0
0
-
132.3
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in June 17th, 2009 @ 06:01So, this is a story about something that happened at my school. I was in the class at that time.
Our teacher, who was lesbian, but we didn’t know, is the most awesome teacher in the world. She is fabulous, called us the 7th graders of wonder and greatness, and is wonderful and great. Anyway, one of the jerky-est, dumbest, and “funny”*-est kids made a (stupid) ‘Family Guy’ joke. Our teacher (who I’ll just Ms. Kokopelli) exploded at him, because Family Guy (I haven’t seen it, so I can’t uphold it) is really anti-gay and anti-bi, and contributes to the country’s homophobic-ness. Then Ms. Kokopelli also said that if you make jokes from Family Guy, you are upholding that. She
askedTOLD us not to make Family Guy jokes. the kid was being disruptive. What he does in class is like what Tiffany and Laney did on Muse Mail.
0
0
-
133
Groundhog
in May 26th, 2009 @ 22:15On homosexual marriage: While I am personally against it, due to my being an Orthodox Jew, I do not think that the US can ban it if it wishes to keep providing freedom and equality under the law to all of its citizens. Furthermore, I don’t think that stoning homosexuals (which is what the Bible says to do) is a good idea, nor do I have anything against homosexuals as people. I just don’t like what they’re doing sexually. There’s a difference.
0
0
-
133.1
Beavo
in May 27th, 2009 @ 18:06THANK YOU. Thank you so much. You are my new best friend.
I see that although you’re “against” homosexuality, you’re open enough realize this isn’t a theocracy. This is freedom we’re talking about, not religion.
0
0
-
134
Kokopelli52
in May 27th, 2009 @ 00:46132.1- That it’s their choice, not any of our business, and won’t hurt anyone.
0
0
-
134.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 27th, 2009 @ 18:49((Sorry for the replies/posts everywhere…))
I don’t know if I agree with gay marriages, but I guess it is a subject that should be left up to the People, unlike abortion, in which I used to not believe in, but think that people should have their own opinion; now I don’t believe in it at all.
But lets please not go into that, I was just using it as an example. Well, I guess we might as well; I think we are done with this topic…
0
0
-
135
crazyquotescollector
in May 27th, 2009 @ 17:18OK, I’m not sure if the US can ban it according to the Constitution, but it still has to pass. and (for those who know what I’m talking about) homosexuality is one of the arayos that applies to non-Jews as well. Most people agree that the death penalty for Torah law isn’t given anymore, because we can’t, not if we want to survive in this world. People don’t like it when you randomly stone their neighbor. We leave that punishment up to God. And I have no problem with the people, it is their choice sexually I disagree with/dislike.
Yo, Groundhog, I’m guessing you’re an out-of-NY-er, like me?
0
0
-
135.1
Vendaval
in May 27th, 2009 @ 21:24Congress could not pass a law banning gay marriage, it would need to be an amendment, which won’t ever go anywhere. So it’s up to the states to decide.
What does NY change?
0
0
-
135.2
Groundhog
in May 31st, 2009 @ 21:59I am indeed.
0
0
-
136
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 27th, 2009 @ 18:45((I’m an NY-er))
0
0
-
137
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 27th, 2009 @ 19:12SFTDP
But beavo I replied to your post up around 33, and I want you to see it….
0
0
-
138
crazyquotescollector
in May 27th, 2009 @ 21:15Thanks For All The Fish42- Are you Jewish? When I say NY-er, I’m referring to the Orthodox Jewish section of NY, and the stereotypes that are associated with the area. NY is “in town” and anywhere else is “out of town”. Even when the NY-ers go to Israel, they’re still “in town”. So, yeah, I don’t think you’re exactly what I was referring to. Unless you are an Orthodox Jew from, say, Boro Park. Which I highly doubt you are.
0
0
-
138.1
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 28th, 2009 @ 17:25((Oops sorry…I’m Roman Catholic…. *is embarrassed*
))
0
0
-
138.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 4th, 2009 @ 19:38Oh, phoo. *smacks forehead* I wasn’t trying to be insulting, but it sure sounded that way, didn’t it? The “Boro Park” stereotype is the ultra-religious one. And I just meant that I didn’t think you were Jewish, so even if you did live in New York, you wouldn’t fit the stereotype. (Which is a good thing, in my own humble opinion.)
SFTNP
0
0
-
139
crazyquotescollector
in May 27th, 2009 @ 21:28SFTDP (possibly)
Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up. -Robert FrostI believe someone asked why the Bible forbids homosexuality. We don’t know, yet we are trying to remove that restriction. See above quote.
0
0
-
140
crazyquotescollector
in May 27th, 2009 @ 22:01Looks like a triple post! My apologies.
I know this is not a theocracy, but my religion is my way of life, it influences my opinions, and when I think something is wrong, I think it’s wrong. I don’t know if the US can ban it, or if they should if we want to keep democracy, but I know that I personally would vote against it. (Not that I have a say, but still.)
0
0
-
140.1
cromwell
in May 28th, 2009 @ 11:20About this being a theocracy…To some extent this is necessarily an anti-theocracy. For example, The Establishment clause is often more legally persuasive than the free exercise clause. Fundamentalist theists who believe in extralegal punishment for acts against their religion, such as suicide bombers, are breaking the law even though they are simply exercising their religion.
0
0
-
140.1.1
Beavo
in May 28th, 2009 @ 17:07You have the right to BELIEVE whatever you want, but you can’t act on it all of the time. You can WORSHIP the God of child-eating blood-sucking sadistic murder, but you can’t kill children and suck their blood.
Homosexuality isn’t the point of the Bible. You’re legally allowed to eat shrimp, which is just about as important. Maybe your religoin influences your vote, but you must question whether your religion should be imposed on everyone else. Allowing SSM would impose nothing on heterosexuals.
0
0
-
140.1.1.1
cromwell
in May 28th, 2009 @ 17:30Um…Have you heard of the free exercise clause? If it weren’t for the establishment clause, people could do whatever they wanted. The only reason you can’t suck children’s blood is because if we allowed it, that would be establishing that religion.
0
0
-
140.1.2
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 28th, 2009 @ 17:23ummm, “SIMPLY!?”
0
0
-
140.1.2.1
cromwell
in May 28th, 2009 @ 17:40Any law that interferes with someone’s religion is violating the free exercise clause. However, abolishing that law might not be allowed because that would be establishing the religion. Therefore, suicide bombers are doing illegal things. Even though they’re just doing what their religion tells them. Eventually you have to make some kind of a judgment call. Which is why the Supreme Court decides.
0
0
-
141
cromwell
in May 28th, 2009 @ 11:15Who here is Jewish? Also, who here is Bar/Bat Mitzvah? Just wondering,,,
I am Jewish and Bar Mitzvah.
0
0
-
142
crazyquotescollector
in May 28th, 2009 @ 11:37Jewish, Bas Mitzvah, thank you very much. (Ashkenazi, too, in case it wasn’t obvious)
cromwell, are you staying up all night tonight? To learn, I mean?
0
0
-
142.1
cromwell
in May 28th, 2009 @ 16:57I’m half Ashkenaz, half Sfarad
0
0
-
142.2
cromwell
in May 28th, 2009 @ 17:02No, probably not. I’m not in my own house, now, so I can’t, not really.
0
0
-
142.3
Thanks For All The Fish42
in May 29th, 2009 @ 17:40I’m not Jewish so I must ask what the -s- is for…?
0
0
-
143
Kiga__827
in May 28th, 2009 @ 11:51141 – I am Jewish and my Bat Mitzvah is October 16, 2010! My sister’s was last week, May 23 2009. Happy Shavout!
0
0
-
144
JJjetplane - girlw/cats (at school)
in May 28th, 2009 @ 13:01I’m Jewish and my Bat Mitzvah was May 9th. Yay!
On the topic, I’m not personally gay, but I think it’s OK. I am a reform Jew, so we don’t take everything that literally. I think that they deserve the chance to get “married”, even if its not in the religious sense. Just to get their rights as a couple.
Happy Shavuot to you too!
I never knew so many bloggers were Jewish too! Especially Orthodox!
0
0
-
145
JJjetplane-girlw/cats (not a school)
in May 28th, 2009 @ 19:23STDP
A friend of mine had hers on May 23, too!
I have a little song here for you:
Wherever you go,
there’s always somone Jewish.
You’re never alone
If you say you’re a Jew.
So when you’re not home,
And somewhere kinda new-ish,
The odds are –
Don’t look far –
‘Cause they’re Jewish too.
la-la la, la-la la, la-la la-la la.
0
0
-
146
♥ shriya siolashrwa jeffica ♥
in May 28th, 2009 @ 20:22okay response to everybody:
nobody CHOOSES to be gay, lesbian, or a transvestite
if you think that you are CRAZY!!! that makes NO sense!
0
0
-
146.1
Rainbow*Star
in May 28th, 2009 @ 21:33So you’re saying that gay/lesbian people can’t help being attracted to others of the same gender, they just are? That makes sense.
0
0
-
146.1.1
Beavo
in May 31st, 2009 @ 00:59I’ve said this a couple of times before: I see sexual orientation as like a music preference. Who knows if you’re born liking the music you do, but you just do. And it can change as you get older, or depending on certain circumstances. You can make yourself stop listening to the music you like, but you can’t change your preference for it, at least not on purpose.
0
0
-
146.1.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 31st, 2009 @ 09:44I absolutely love that analogy, thank you! (Gold star! I agree with you!)
I think our major difference of opinion is whether one should stop “listening to the music” they like. (I must have missed it when you said it before) Also, we differ on how the government should react.JJjetplane-girlw/cats – Mazal Tov on your Bat Mitzvah. And the fact that you don’t take the Bible literally will probably be the major cause of our disagreement. (Hop along to the Religions thread? I could write for hours there) And I know that song! From years ago!
Thanks For All The Fish42 – The ‘s’ was because of a difference in pronunciation of the Hebrew letter taf/saf. In Old Hebrew, sometimes it was pronounced ‘s’, and with a dot in it it was pronounced ‘t’. Ashkenazi Jews, or the majority of them, still do it that way, but Sefardi Jews generally use the modern Israeli pronunciation, with no saf, everything is taf. And Ashkenazi Israelis use the modern way for speaking and the old way for praying and learning. It’s confusing, and a minor (very minor) controversy. I use the old way. Drives my Ivrit teacher nuts.
0
0
-
146.1.1.1.1
cromwell
in May 31st, 2009 @ 10:36Well, even we don’t take everything literally. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, leg for leg, bruise for bruise, burn for burn. Also, evolution is against the literal Bible, but…
0
0
-
146.1.1.1.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 31st, 2009 @ 10:57Yes, this is true, but when we don’t take it literally, it means that we pay the value of the injury, rather than the actual injury. That’s different than saying that it doesn’t apply. And Bereishis (Genesis) is supposedly as literal as God could make it, if He wanted us to understand at all. Have you read The Science of Torah ? I just read the section on evolution, and the author shows how it might not be against the ‘simple’ explanation of creation in the Bible. It was really interesting. It’s by Nosson Slifkin, if you’re interested.
0
0
-
146.1.1.1.1.1.1
cromwell
in May 31st, 2009 @ 16:02It is against the literal translation, but even Rashi says it isn’t meant to be literal.
0
0
-
146.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 4th, 2009 @ 19:43Hmm, Beraishis was a bad example. How’s about that one bit in Devarim where it says to cut her palm off? Everyone I’ve heard of says that she just has to pay.
0
0
-
146.1.1.2
cromwell
in May 31st, 2009 @ 09:52I feel that it is something decide during the turmoils of preadolescence. Gays are more likely to be rebels against the repressive society. At least, that’s my theory. Maybe they are born into their own sexual orientation.
0
0
-
146.1.1.2.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 31st, 2009 @ 11:39Hm. Maybe the rebels are merely more noticeable? Or maybe that seems more the case in today’s climate? The vast majority of gay people I’ve known have not been rebellious at all. They didn’t even want to draw attention to themselves.
0
0
-
146.1.1.2.1.1
cromwell
in May 31st, 2009 @ 16:03I’m not meaning wanting to draw attention, but just being disgusted with society. I’m probably wrong, though.
0
0
-
146.2
Agrrrfishi
in May 29th, 2009 @ 15:00Hi shriya! Welcome back!
And, yes, to contradict you, I have several friends who are bisexual and gay, who have told me, in words, that they themselves were once straight and chose to become bi or gay because they came to an understanding that they wished to be gay because they liked somebody. It can happen.
0
0
-
146.2.1
Tesseract
in May 29th, 2009 @ 19:45If they liked somebody of the same gender, their “becoming gay” was probably more like coming out as gay to themselves and accepting a different sexual orientation. It’s not really a choice unless they chose to like that person.
0
0
-
146.3
Beavo
in May 29th, 2009 @ 16:57Transvestite and transsexual are different. Transvestites dress in the clothes of the opposite sex. Transsexuals are born as the opposite sex.
0
0
-
146.3.1
Rainbow*Star (on a school computer)
in May 29th, 2009 @ 17:25Born as the opposite sex from what they want to be?
I once tried to write a story about a person who is born as neither male nor female, and en has to decide which gender to be. But I never finished it.
0
0
-
146.3.1.1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 29th, 2009 @ 17:33Ursula LeGuin’s science-fiction book The Left Hand of Darkness has a similar theme.
0
0
-
146.3.2
oxlin
in May 29th, 2009 @ 20:57One starts out as transgendered and once one biologically changes one’s sex the term is transsexual. The usual term is transgendered. On the other hand, people who are not born the opposite gender are cisgendered. Gender refers to non-biological characteristics. Sex refers to biological characteristics.
0
0
-
146.3.2.1
Beavo
in May 31st, 2009 @ 00:57Really? I thought transgendered and transsexual were interchangable, despite the fact that gender and sex are different. I should have known that… sorry. My bad.
0
0
-
147
☼Zinc the sorceress☼
in May 28th, 2009 @ 23:18This really picked on kid (I don’t really like him either, but I’m not cruel like some) in my math class gets teased all the time. Today it got out he’s Jewish, and some nubs were making fun of him and yelling at him about Christ. It was painful to listen to. He ended up crying, and some people were talking about the Holocaust and made a slur about Germans. I’m sorry, I’m just real sensitive about that stuff and corrected them through cletched teeth. He just said that all Germans are Nazis and I didn’t get a chance to slap him before the teacher came back. Grrghrrr.
0
0
-
147.1
bookgirl_me
in May 29th, 2009 @ 00:25147)
Slap him for me, p*ese!There I go, advocating violence again. But that German/nazi thing- not funny. There are some thing that are just off limits. *is still shell-shocked from Mauthausen field trip*
0
0
-
147.2
Beavo
in May 29th, 2009 @ 16:59Ask him about the German Jews. That’ll confuse him.
Give the kid a hug for me.
0
0
-
147.3
Tesseract
in May 29th, 2009 @ 19:46Tell him that my German Jewish family members that died in the Holocaust are going to come kill him in his sleep.
0
0
-
147.3.1
Tesseract
in May 29th, 2009 @ 19:47SFTDP. Not the taunted kid (poor guy) but the one who made the German comment, that is.
0
0
-
147.4
cromwell
in May 30th, 2009 @ 20:51My great-aunts and -uncles died in the Holocaust in Italy, and someone called me a Jewish Nazi. I made him stop telling people that, but the damage was done.
0
0
-
148
JJjetplane - girlw/cats (at school)
in May 29th, 2009 @ 12:35It’s so annoying when people are so ignorant about those things!
In 6th grade, in computers we had to do an “about me project”. I said I was Jewish. A kid came up to me and said I can’t be Jewish, because I didn’t have a big enough nose and I’m too white.
It makes no sense, but I think it was a complement.
In a way.
0
0
-
148.1
cromwell
in May 31st, 2009 @ 09:21Most American Jews are white…I used to be, but now I’m Hispanic. And I don’t have a particularly big nose.
0
0
-
148.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 31st, 2009 @ 11:23How did you change from being white? Did you tan? *is confuzzled*
I have a large-ish nose, but it isn’t hooked, or anything.
0
0
-
148.1.1.1
cromwell
in May 31st, 2009 @ 16:00Oh. My mom was Sfarad, and my dad was Ashkenaz. Thus, I can be either Hispanic or Caucasian. There are more Hispanic scholarships,,,
0
0
-
148.1.1.1.1
Luna the Lovely
in May 31st, 2009 @ 18:19cheater.
Just kidding…….
0
0
-
148.1.1.1.2
crazyquotescollector
in May 31st, 2009 @ 20:30I see! I understand! I win! Sorry, that was random. But I do get it.
0
0
-
149
nolagirl7
in May 29th, 2009 @ 19:23This city is about ninety percent catholic, but things like that don’t often happen. Although I’m homeschooled, so I might not be aware of it. It was wierd though- the people on my soccer team last year seriously thought that the reason for having a bat mitzvah was to get money and get a party. Well, maybe not the money. But that’s really what they thought.
0
0
-
149.1
cromwell
in May 30th, 2009 @ 20:52Yeah, I got $5000 dollars at my Bar Mitzvah. Maybe that is the reason. You never know.
0
0
-
150
cromwell
in May 30th, 2009 @ 20:54You know, we should call all marriages civil unions. At least the legal part.
0
0
-
151
crazyquotescollector
in May 30th, 2009 @ 22:56I, for the record, got maybe $700 for my Bas Mitzvah. Plus some books and jewelry, but not much. And I didn’t have a huge party, just a small thing Friday night, and a Kiddush on Saturday.
Re: Jewish Stereotypes (and their ilk): The Holocaust is the reason I have so few relatives. The only ones in my family who survived were the few to escape at the beginning. And I know somebody who was asked where their horns were. The questioner was completely serious. And the majority of Jews do not have the “Jewish nose” and plenty of us have annoyingly white skin (c’mon, tan already, it’s MAY, for cryin’ out loud!).
Fortunately, I am surrounded by Jews, therefore taunting (for that reason) is nonexistent. I do, however, walk around in a long skirt and long sleeves, so if anyone were to feel like it, I’ve opened myself up to insults, I suppose. Eh. If a class full of vindictive girls couldn’t break me, neither can they. I shall now shut up on this topic, because I am making no sense.150- Why should we do that?
0
0
-
151.1
cromwell
in May 31st, 2009 @ 09:20You go to a Jewish school then?
That separates religious marriage from the legal part, i.e. economic benefits, dependant status, Social Security, etc.
Of course, it will still be associated with living together, etc. That’s the intention.
Plus, it makes people stop talking about the ‘Sacrament of Marriage’
0
0
-
151.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in May 31st, 2009 @ 11:01I do. Not a ‘Bais Yakov,’ or anything, we’re slightly more ‘modern’ than that, but it is religious, girls only, learning Chumash (Bible) and Navi (Prophets) and Halacha (laws) etc. And we can dress up the entire month of Adar.
Hmm, that makes sense. Even if I disagree with gays, it would settle all this dispute. And then people would still have their ‘Sacrament of Marriage’.
0
0
-
151.1.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 17th, 2009 @ 15:52No, I take that back. Theoretically, it makes sense, but when you lose that definition of marriage, something else goes away, too. Politically correct terms have the effect of changing the way we think of something, making bad things seem okay, etc.
0
0
-
152
cromwell
in May 31st, 2009 @ 10:02What do people here think about North Korea? You know what I mean.
0
0
-
153
Rainbow*Star
in May 31st, 2009 @ 23:03What about North Korea?
If some religions are against homosexuality, then what would happen if a member of one of those religions found that they were attracted to people of the same gender?
0
0
-
153.1
Axa
in May 31st, 2009 @ 23:43They would be denounced, ridiculed, told they were a sinner, likely encouraged to find a way to purge themselves of such feelings, ostracized, given lesser rights, considered filthy, threatened with violence and hate.
Unfortunately it’s not a “what if” situation…
0
0
-
153.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 1st, 2009 @ 21:42Actually, it depends on the religion.
It’s possible that they would be “denounced, ridiculed, told they were a sinner, likely encouraged to find a way to purge themselves of such feelings, ostracized, given lesser rights, considered filthy, threatened with violence and hate,” or they could talk to a trusted, responsible person, and work through the feelings of attraction. They might be told that while the feelings are not a sin in and of themselves, acting on them would be as wrong as committing adultery or the like.
0
0
-
153.1.1.1
Axa
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 17:20dude, you can’t hide what’s inside. that’s all I have to say.
0
0
-
153.1.1.1.1
cromwell
in June 4th, 2009 @ 12:48Do you think nuns and priests never feel sexual attraction? Do you think it’s okay to show your affection for someone who’s already married? The answer to both should be NO. No one can be punished for a feeling ever or, in this case, for showing it. The thing that you’re not allowed to do is have sex with someone of the same gender or of a different species. We have laws in the US that say you can’t marry someone closely related. Do you think those should be abolished?
Also, they would not be “told they are a sinner” as long as they didn’t actually do it. The Torah does not say that you should be killed if you are gay. It says you should be killed only if you actually have sex.
0
0
-
153.1.1.1.1.1
Axa
in June 4th, 2009 @ 21:19The things you reference are unrelated. Adultery is bad because it violates trust between two committed people (and for a lot of other reasons; I think we’re in agreement with this, don’t need to elaborate)
None of the other things you mention are like homosexuality, because they are not based on mutual love and respect. Celibacy is part of the calling and I am unsure how it relates. “You can’t hide what’s inside” is my lame attempt at saying that homosexuality is part of a person and that the idea that it can be talked away is flabbergasting and repulsive. There’s nothing bad about it, there’s not need to counsel it away. I’ve never felt more nauseous than when I heard a friend was being put through “counseling” because her parents found out she had a girlfriend. Many of my friends are gay, they will tell you they were born with it, they are lovely and beautiful humans and do not need to be talked through it. How condescending, this assumption that there’s something wrong with them.Would you then say that celibate homosexuals are not sinners? If two men are living together in total love and happiness but do not have sex would you still scorn them as sinners? I take issue with the idea that homosexuality (and “Acting on it”) is a sin.
0
0
-
153.1.1.1.1.1.1
cromwell
in June 7th, 2009 @ 20:47To your question-Not at all. Homosexuality is not a sin.
0
0
-
154
Kokopelli52
in June 1st, 2009 @ 00:03I CAN’T BELIEVE they set off more missiles! They’re just BEGIING for war. But until we know a) the amount of nuclear power they have and b) whether it’s worth the destruction to do anything, we can’t! And, um, about changing the Bible to allow homosexuality: so, if it changed, you would suddenly change your beliefs? Hypothetically, CQC, if I gave you a legitimate and altered Bible saying that you should steal other peoples’ things, would you? Not accusing, just asking.
0
0
-
154.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*) (10 wung points) in
in June 1st, 2009 @ 05:30Neither can I. I can’t believe how even someone so devoted to their leader could do something that would make everyone else come an kill them!
0
0
-
154.2
cromwell
in June 4th, 2009 @ 12:32Akham would say yes, Aquinas would say no.
0
0
-
155
crazyquotescollector
in June 1st, 2009 @ 21:46154- No, I would not. A “legitimate and altered Bible” is an oxymoron. We know that what God gave to us before is the final word, and nothing can change it. We know a false Messiah is one who says that laws have changed. (cromwell, do you know if there’s an exact phrasing?)
Who said anything about changing the Bible, anyway? I didn’t, or I didn’t mean it, at any rate.
0
0
-
155.1
cromwell
in June 4th, 2009 @ 12:31Yep, I do. It’s one of Rambam’s articles of faith that “this Torah shall not be exchanged, nor will another be given by the Haborei Yitbarach Shemo.”
Also, in Deuteronomy it says “you shall not add nor subtract from the Torah that Hashem your God has given you.”
0
0
-
155.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 4th, 2009 @ 19:50Thanks. I was being lazy, and do you know how many seforim my father has on our living room shelves?!?! We have FIVE bookshelves, and most of them are filled with Torah books. It would have taken me forever!
Where in Deuteronomy does it say that, exactly? (Man, using the English is hard!) It would be good to know in the future.
0
0
-
155.1.1.1
cromwell
in June 5th, 2009 @ 11:40Ch. 4
0
0
-
155.1.1.1.1
crazyquotescollector
in June 7th, 2009 @ 00:05Thanks. Hey, random, but I went over the whole of Ch. 30 today for my final (P’shat and Rashi!). I win at life!
5 more chapters to go… Ick. I hate studying. Chumash would have to be my first final. It’s one of the hardest subjects for me. I’m sure someone’s heard of Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky? Yeah, his daughter-in-law is my Chumash teacher. Amazing teacher, but I find people who are smarter than I am very irritating. One of my many faults, I know. And to marry into a family like Kamenetsky, or Svei (Reb Elya Svei’s wife was my teacher last year), I’m sure intelligence is a must. Feh. Then they make us take their tests.
SFTNP (VERY nonsensical)
0
0
-
155.1.1.1.1.1
cromwell
in June 7th, 2009 @ 20:45I wasn’t supposed to actually look up those quotes, was I? There’s another verse to the same effect in Ch. 13
Why didn’t you use Onkelos?
0
0
-
156
crazyquotescollector
in June 1st, 2009 @ 21:51SFTDP, but I hope I didn’t offend anybody with anything I’ve said. I mean it and don’t take it back, but I didn’t say it to hurt anyone.
0
0
-
157
bookgirl_me
in June 2nd, 2009 @ 04:21About North Korea: maybe they think that it’s safe to set of the missiles because the rest of the world is busy fighting the economic crisis? They want to show power. They might think that they’re ready for war. I think I’ll read up on it-think looks interesting.
0
0
-
158
I-Man ((William II, OSW's Secretary))
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 12:41I am annoyed about America because we always claim we don’t discriminate any more. That’s true in the sense that we don’t discriminate against women or based on race. But it’s not like reverse discrimination is any better.
0
0
-
158.1
cromwell
in June 4th, 2009 @ 12:32You mean affirmative action?
0
0
-
159
bookgirl_me
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 13:15158- Reverse discrimination is good sometimes. For instance, I got on the chess team at my school because I was the best chess-playing girl in the school by a wide margin, though I’m the worst in the advanced class (all boys, except me).
0
0
-
159.1
Loreena Chatheng (AP)
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 23:15No offense, but while it’s good for you, if, as you said, you’re the worst in the advanced class, it may not be specifically good for the team. Not that I’m any judge of chess, seeing how I can’t play to save my life.
0
0
-
159.1.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 23:23Hmm. But what if her presence on the team inspires other girls to believe they might have a chance, so they become good enough to beat some of the boys? Maybe a future team will be stronger than it would have been.
0
0
-
159.1.1.1
Loreena Chatheng (AP)
in June 4th, 2009 @ 00:55Possible, yes.
0
0
-
159.1.2
bookgirl_me
in June 4th, 2009 @ 07:36159.1) But I work hard- and I care about chess. Besides, it’s sort of to show that girls can play chess too- chess is still to much of a “guys game” here, and few girls even sign up for it (only 3 girls are in the club at my school. 3!!!).
To my defense, I must say that the average player in the advanced groups has been playing for 3 1/2 years. I’ve been playing for 1 1/2 years with a 1/2 year break in between. The second worst has been playing for 3 years and I can almost beat him. I won twice (at the tournament) anyway. *is proud of self* We’re one of the top 3 chess teams in Vienna. *is really, really proud of self*
0
0
-
159.1.2.1
Loreena Chatheng (AP)
in June 4th, 2009 @ 09:09Ok.
0
0
-
160
I-Man ((William II, OSW's Secretary))
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 13:33159 – I’ll admit, it is good sometimes. But, as a country in general, it just seems like we always overshoot/undershoot the mark when it comes to discrimination.
Like, I’m a white boy. Say I was better at the skills required for a job than an African-American girl, yet she gets the job. I mean, doesn’t that seem just as unfair as segregation was in the early to mid-1900s?
0
0
-
161
Beavo
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 15:42I have mixed opinions on Affirmative Action. On one side, it seems fair to the minorities and it prevents descrimination against them again, but on the other side now a white, middle class male like me might not be able to get a job I want. Also, a black woman might have a different point of view then me so in some ways “reverse discrmination” (I don’t really see it that way) is good. Like on a jury or something. But I don’t see how that would be more important in, like, a hamburger flipping job or a chess team.
0
0
-
162
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 17:01Who else here is depressed about the AirFrance plane crash? I keep asking myself why did it have to happen? Those people never did anyting to deserve this.
0
0
-
163
crazyquotescollector
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 17:41Re: Affirmative action: I believe it is reverse discrimination. Too much either way is a bad thing. I have a great deal of respect for the original civil rights movement, but now I think things are going overboard. I wish we could just ignore skin color, not do special things because of the past. We have advanced enough to not need special measures. Sure, there will always be a few racists, a few anti-Semites, but our culture as a whole doesn’t require the affirmative action. Besides, why should a dark skinned third-generation, or even fifth-generation American get a scholarship for African Americans, when the white skinned kid who was born in Africa gets nothing?
162- It’s sad, and you probably will hate me for this, but sometimes these things happen, and we don’t know why. Maybe we’ll find out, maybe we won’t, but I believe, and you should too, that it happened for a reason.
0
0
-
164
SudoRandom
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 17:56Reverse-discrimination is pretty annoying. That and the way that people go out of their way to avoid mentioning skin color. As in:
“See that guy?”
“What guy?”
“The guy with the white shirt, umm… the jeans…”
“The one who’s black?”And what’s worse is when you do that and people call you racist. I mean, hello, somebody’s skin color is a perfectly reasonable personality trait to describe!
Or if you say that you don’t like someone, or you insult someone, or you do something slightly unfair to someone, and that someone just happens to have dark skin, that ISN”T racist! In fact, calling it racist is probably more racist!
0
0
-
164.1
Armada
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 19:18Yeah, I know. The thing is, people rarely say ‘Oh, look, see that white guy?’ unless they’re not white, but then, how is that racist if it works as a fill-in-the-blank for all races? And about the last thing–exactly! Anyone who preaches about not being racist is automatically racist, since they think that everyone is racist. And people who treat nonwhites differently and then claim they’re doing it because they’re not prejudiced are prejudiced, by definition. I once heard of a school which had a motto that went, “Race equality is our first concern.” AARGH! How can we ever hope to be unprejudiced if everyone acts like we are already?
*looks around*
What the cake am I doing here? I made a vow to myself that I would avoid the Hot Topics thread at all costs! Oh well, apparently there are no flame wars happening now, so at least I’m not in too much danger….
0
0
-
164.1.1
SudoRandom
in June 4th, 2009 @ 05:39I agree with you completely, although I more meant that if someone automatically assume that the reason you did something unfair is because of someone’s skin color, then they’re being pretty racist, another reason being the most important thing they find about someone is their skin color.
Also, I think another reason people don’t say, “Look at that white guy,” is because, at least where I live, white people are slightly more common. Not hugely, but enough. I don’t think that people should only refer to people by their skin color (obviously) when they posses other perfectly discerning qualities, but I also don’t think it’s racist to do so.
0
0
-
164.1.1.1
Armada
in June 4th, 2009 @ 15:37Yeah, true. But it’s just as racist to say ‘You can’t hit me, I’m black and it would be racism’ as it is to say ‘Hit that person, they’re black.’ And if you were in a black neighborhood, and were pointing a white person out to someone, you would probably use skin color as an identifying factor. So it’s really kind of stupid to go to all lengths to avoid describing people by their skin color. It shouldn’t be the most important thing about them, but it is something about them.
Another thing I want to bring up: We don’t call Asian people ‘yellow’ because that’s racist. We don’t call Native American people ‘red’ because that’s racist. But calling a black person ‘African’ seems to be considered more racist than calling them ‘black.’ Does anyone have any ideas why this is?
0
0
-
164.2
crazyquotescollector
in June 3rd, 2009 @ 19:43Very true. I think that yeah, you should be able to describe someone using their skin color, without worrying, and that skin color should have nothing else to do with anything.
0
0
-
165
cromwell
in June 4th, 2009 @ 12:37The basis of affirmative action is that the black person would be more qualified than the white person if they were given the same opportunities. The problem, of course, is not only moral but also legal-does affirmative action violate the Civil Rights Act or the 14th Amendment? Also, does it perpetuate racism by assuming blacks are worse than whites?
By the way, someone will probably pipe up and say it’s not just blacks and whites, it’s also Hispanics, etc. Let me tell you now, I already know.
How come I always type into the search bar Hot Topica?
0
0
-
165.1
Vendaval
in June 4th, 2009 @ 15:23The basis of affirmative action is that black people are at a disadvantage (and do not get the same opportunities) simply because they are black, living in today’s society.
0
0
-
166
SudoRandom
in June 4th, 2009 @ 20:18164.1.1.1) That’s exactly what I meant, I guess it just came out wrong.
It might seem more racist to refer to black people as African American because not all black people are African American, and even if you know for a fact that they are, it seems as if you’re making an unfair assumption.
0
0
-
166.1
Armada
in June 5th, 2009 @ 17:34Yeah, well, all black people are African some generations back, and not all Asian people are actually Asian–why don’t we call them Asian American? I understand your logic, I’m just puzzling over why this is. (I’m in an argumentative mood today. I thought I had disproved a math operation while doing my homework today, but I was wrong.
)
0
0
-
167
Insane MLDM+Ferelda(^&^) (104 coolpointz)(1 b-day point)(*sighs*)
in June 4th, 2009 @ 20:20163(crazyquotescollector)- Yeah, it’s annoying. Especially (WARNING: I am going a bit off-topic here) when your history teacher is going on about how her third-generation-Australian husband had people being racist to him when he was a kid. She said “he has dark hair– well, not now, he doesn’t have any– and olive skin…”, so I am now convinced she is really old. (Yes, I know, the age of my history teacher is hardly a Hot Topic). Sigh…
What I find really annoying is that at every assembly or mass or something we’ve ever had at school, they say “We acknowledge the traditional owners of the land, the (whatever their name is) people” or something to that effect.
That, or I don’t like it because it introduces something boring like one of Mrs Joe’s lectures about makeup.
0
0
-
168
crazyquotescollector
in June 4th, 2009 @ 20:53167- Makeup? Ick! I also dislike references to sins of the past, considering we can’t rectify them now, and the situation is different anyway. I’m too tired to think and/or write sensibly, so I shall go to bed and do this in the morning.
(My history teacher has grandchildren. And she’s a good cook. Oh, and a good teacher!)
166- This is true. “Black” is a good descriptive term, especially if there aren’t so many black people in the room. It’s just like saying “the fat one”, or “the tall one”. (“Fat” wouldn’t work at, say, Weight Watchers, though)
SFTNP
0
0
-
169
SudoRandom
in June 4th, 2009 @ 21:27Where did the “Jewish nose” stereotype come from? I know the Nazi’s published drawings of Jews with big noses, but how did it start?
0
0
-
169.1
cromwell
in June 5th, 2009 @ 11:39Where did the stereotype for black people having darker skin come from?
0
0
-
169.1.1
SudoRandom
in June 5th, 2009 @ 14:35I had to think about that for a while, but I think I get what you mean, although none of my Jewish friends have big noses.
0
0
-
169.1.2
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in June 5th, 2009 @ 16:43Duh, black people have darker skin. Why else would they be called ‘black’?
0
0
-
169.1.3
Armada
in June 5th, 2009 @ 17:39Yeah, but not all Jews have big noses. (I don’t.) And some percentage of any group is going to have big noses. So it’s kind of stupid. But it’s true that there is a ‘Jewish nose,’ even though not all Jews have it.
0
0
-
169.1.4
crazyquotescollector
in June 6th, 2009 @ 23:54I think it was just a ‘bad thing’ that people decided would be a good way to make people they didn’t like look ridiculous. It’s possible that many of the more well-known Jews at the time had large/hooked noses, and the rest would be history.
0
0
-
170
Beavo
in June 5th, 2009 @ 16:30Just wondering… are there any black people on MB? For some reason (maybe a discussion topic) I picture most people here as white.
That’s the nice thing about the internet, outside looks don’t really make a difference.
0
0
-
170.1
Rainbow*Star (on a school computer)
in June 5th, 2009 @ 17:17I picture everyone as white too. Does that make me racist? (I’m white. Technically, Australian-Canadian, but … white.
0
0
-
170.1.1
Sequoia (formerly Syllabub)
in June 5th, 2009 @ 17:57I don’t think it would, but I know what you mean. I picture most people as white too, just because I live in a very white community.
0
0
-
170.1.1.1
soccer starr
in June 8th, 2009 @ 13:35Same here-but there probably are some black people on here. I live in a white dominant community, so, like you, I think that’s why I picture everyone on here that way. I hope that doesn’t make me sound prejudiced!!! But actually I’ve never really given it that much thought…I kind of just picture people in my head by their avatars.
0
0
-
170.2
Armada
in June 5th, 2009 @ 17:36This is true (your last paragraph). I think Cromwell is (half) Hispanic, but I don’t know of any other people….
0
0
-
170.3
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*)
in June 5th, 2009 @ 18:24I’m not black, but I’m not white. Sorta what you get when you mix:
Lightish African (border of black)
White (caucasian
and very chinese.Mix in about equal amounts, and that’s about what my skin color is.
0
0
-
170.4
cromwell
in June 8th, 2009 @ 13:09I’m Hispanic…Heh, heh…
0
0
-
171
Tesseract
in June 5th, 2009 @ 18:22I picture most people as white, but some as Asian. I suppose that’s somewhat reflective of who I hang out with (probably at least half of my friends are Chinese or Indian). I don’t think I picture any MBers as black, though. That’s disconcerting.
0
0
-
172
Beavo
in June 6th, 2009 @ 20:49I can picture some people as Asian, but I don’t think I see a single MBer as black.
I’m a mix of lotsa stuff, but I ended up white. Like, really, really white.
I know this kid who’s skin color is white, but the rest of him has typically black traits. His mother was white and his mother was black. He got all his father’s physical features (hair, eyes, face, body type) but his mother’s skin color.
0
0
-
172.1
soccer starr
in June 9th, 2009 @ 09:14I’m half Asian and half Irish-just letting you know! But it’s weird, because I don’t picture anyone else on here as Asian even though I am Asian.
0
0
-
173
Insane MLDM+Ferelda(^&^) (114 coolpointz)(1 b-day point)(*sighs*)
in June 6th, 2009 @ 23:08170.1(Rainbowstar)- Au-au-australian? Eek. You don’t live here, right? I would probably die of shock if there was another Australian on MuseBlog…
171and172-So do I. It’s weird, really, because many of my real-life friends or friends-of-friends are black or Asian or somthing. In fact, most of the black/Asian people in my year ARE friends or friends-of-friends. I guess it’s because I’m white myself. (ponders over whether this is a coincedence, blacks and Asians grouping together, or some of both) I guess it’s because I’m white myself.
56(Zallie)- “Until the bunnies take over the world”? Maybe I should come to this thread more often.
Of course, 
and 
might then mount a revolt of their own, and the cycle will still continue…
0
0
-
173.1
Rainbow*Star
in June 6th, 2009 @ 23:40Nope. My mom’s Australian, but I live in America. We go on vacation to Australia occasionally, though.
0
0
-
174
Insane MLDM+Ferelda(^&^) (114 coolpointz)(1 b-day point)(*sighs*)
in June 6th, 2009 @ 23:09oops, should be “most of the black/Asian people in my year ARe my friends of friends-of-friends”
0
0
-
175
bookgirl_me
in June 7th, 2009 @ 06:25Skin color) I usually think of Mbers as “white”, unless they tell me otherwise. On the other hand, I live in Austria, where the population is mostly white. But I also admit that my “mental image” of MBers is never very detailed.
0
0
-
176
Thanks For All The Fish42
in June 7th, 2009 @ 09:10*gasps* THAT’S SO COOL! I didn’t know that you lived in Australia.
*is excited*
0
0
-
176.1
bookgirl_me
in June 7th, 2009 @ 12:01Noooooo! Austria, not Australia. Search it in Wikipedia, Google or google earth. I need to change my avatar…
0
0
-
176.1.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in June 7th, 2009 @ 12:16There may be an added bit of confusion here since Insane MLDM does live in Australia and was just talking about it.
0
0
-
176.1.1.1
bookgirl_me
in June 7th, 2009 @ 12:42Oops, sorry!
0
0
-
176.1.1.1.1
SudoRandom
in June 8th, 2009 @ 14:48Whoops. I was just wondering why your avatar is about Australia if you get so exasperated when people mistake that as your country, when I realized your avatar says “Austria”.
This clears up some earlier confusion I had too. *TeeHee*!
0
0
-
176.1.1.1.1.1
bookgirl_me
in June 9th, 2009 @ 11:23The print is small because of the kangaroo, but it just wouldn’t be the same without it. Well, now you know.
0
0
-
177
crazyquotescollector
in June 9th, 2009 @ 20:47bookgirl_me- I love your avatar! Austria- NO KANGAROOS! Hee hee.
0
0
-
178
ibcf
in June 15th, 2009 @ 10:02Anyone remember the Los Angeles riots of 1992? I’ve been doing research into it lately. My parents witnessed it; they were living in LA with my sisters at the time. It was quite a nightmare, according to them.
0
0
-
179
Kokopelli52
in June 15th, 2009 @ 17:06178- There’s a picture book about it, I can’t remember what it was called.
North Korea: They got money from the US government for promising to stop all production/use of nuclear weapons. It’s possible they’re trying for more, although if that’s the case it’s a pretty poor job.
0
0
-
180
Axa
in June 15th, 2009 @ 19:02I hope some of you have been following the Iranian election and aftermath. If not, I have copypasta’d this from another site to inform the uninformed.
I can’t post the accompanying pictures unfortunately. If you search for some, do so with discretion,as there are some graphic depictions of violence.
My comments at the end
On Friday, millions of people waited for hours in line to vote in Iran’s Presidential election. Later that night, as votes came in, Mousavi was alerted that he was winning by a two-thirds margin. Then there was a change. Suddenly, it was Ahmedinejad who had 68% of the vote – in areas which have been firmly against his political party, he overwhelmingly won. Within three hours, millions of votes were supposedly counted – the victor was Ahmedinejad. Immediately fraud was suspected – there was no way he could have won by this great a margin with such opposition. Since then, reports have been coming in of burned ballots, or in some cases numbers being given without any being counted at all……The people of Iran took the streets and rooftops. They shout “Death to the dictator” and “Allah o akbar.” They join together to protest. Peacefully. The police attack some, but they stay strong. Riots happen, and the shouting continues all night. Text messaging was disabled, as was satellite, websites which can spread information such as twitter, facebook, youtube, and the BBC are blocked in the country. At five in the morning, Arabic speaking soldiers (the people of Iran speak Farsi) stormed a university in the capital city of Tehran. While sleeping in their dormitories, five students were killed. Others were wounded. These soldiers are thought to have been brought in by Ahmedinejad from Lebanon. Today, 192 of the university’s faculty have resigned in protest.
Mousavi requested that they government allow a peaceful rally to occur this morning – the request was denied. Many thought that it would not happen. Nevertheless, first a few thousand people showed up in the streets of Tehran. At this point, it is estimated that 1 to 2 million people were there. Mousavi spoke on the top of a car. The police stood by. For a few hours, everything was peaceful. Right now, the same cannot be said. Reports of injuries, shootings, and killings are flooding the internet. Twitter has been an invaluable source – those in Iran who still know how to access it are updating regularly with picture evidence.Mousavi is the progressive candidate. I do not find him particularly appealing,especially given his past. What is necessary for a real democracy though, which is not what Iran has today as you can see, is a legitimate election, and not an engineered process to keep Ahmedinejad in power.
0
0
-
181
Beavo
in June 15th, 2009 @ 19:22Oh. Wow. I didn’t know about that. How did I miss that?
That is such bull. It’s also really sad. WTF about that shooting, why did they even do that? To shock people and get them to shut up?
0
0
-
182
POSOC
in June 15th, 2009 @ 19:56That’s awful. I haven’t been following politics much, but… geez…
0
0
-
183
Axa
in June 15th, 2009 @ 20:05Beavo, you probably missed it because the major news stations completely dropped the ball on covering it. If anyone ever wants to know why the internet is replacing “old media”, they need look no further.
There’s a lot of “plainclothes” people (basically people who can beat you up without you knowing that’s what they’re there for!) and reports of secret police etc…more deaths are being reported
I have extreme dislike for twitter but it is invaluable in situations such as these. I have no tolerance fr the “LOL I’M IN THE BATHROOM!!! THIS IS SO COOL” posts but when basically the only link out of Iran is twitter then that is pretty amazing.
If anyone is wondering, the official US position is concern for reports of irregularities but otherwise non-intervention. I think that is very important. As has been said on many of the sites I am looking at, foreign intervention would undermine the protest.
0
0
-
184
cromwell
in June 15th, 2009 @ 21:08Did you guys hear about how Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) said that smoking-get this-lettuce was just like tobacco? You may see longer lines at salad bars…
0
0
-
184.1
Axa
in June 15th, 2009 @ 21:13lol yes I did see that. That’s some awesome logic going on there.
0
0
-
185
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in June 15th, 2009 @ 21:23(183) I have no special information about this, but I’d be surprised if the story about Arabic-speaking militiamen killing Tehran university students in their beds turned out to be true.
The situation in Iran is certainly exciting and important and well worth watching closely. It reminds me of Russia in the early 1990s. I’ve thought about learning Farsi; Iran is one of the most interesting places in the world, as far as I’m concerned.
0
0
-
186
Axa
in June 16th, 2009 @ 02:36Yes I think that was exaggerated. From what I have gathered while following it as it develops, students woke up to it but were not literally killed in their sleep. I can definitely confirm from pictures and other sources (actual news website not just twitter) that there was significant conflict at Tehran University. I can’t find a solid number of casualties, that seems to be one thing that is up in the air, which makes sense given the situation.
There is no filter to the reports coming out of Iran (once again mainly through Twitter! ) so there are without a doubt misconstrued, exaggerated or plainly false statements that get mixed in with the truth.
anyone interested in finding out more can refer the the wiki article, lots of information. yes I did just direct you to wikipedia for serious information (am I ever tired!)
0
0
-
187
bookgirl_me
in June 16th, 2009 @ 05:52Iran) Poll-like Question; Is anyone surprised? I wasn’t. This sounds fatalistic, but I think that elections are pointless if they aren’t carried out properly.
0
0
-
187.1
Axa
in June 16th, 2009 @ 13:00that’s the point
0
0
-
188
Vendaval
in June 16th, 2009 @ 08:18180, etc- As it’s been pointed out, I think that account is greatly exaggerated in many places.
It’s amazing that twitter is the only really active news source.
And is Ahmadinejad really in Russia? What’s with that?
0
0
-
188.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in June 16th, 2009 @ 08:36According to the Financial Times: “Despite the ongoing unrest, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad arrived in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg on Tuesday morning to attend a summit of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, a dialogue of eastern and central Asian nations, where Iran has observer status.”
0
0
-
189
Axa
in June 16th, 2009 @ 13:11state department has asked twitter to postpone its maintenance (I’m getting this from anderson cooper’s website if anyone is interested)
reading reports of iranian gov posting false info on twitter, but people are still putting up proxies…reading reports of removal of satellite dishes etc from homes in tehran
I’m still unsure of the causality count, some news sites are reporting seven but I feel it must be higher.
0
0
-
189.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in June 16th, 2009 @ 13:23Casualty counts tend to be unreliable in early days of almost any chaotic event.
0
0
-
190
crazyquotescollector
in June 16th, 2009 @ 14:55Unfortunately (or possibly fortunately), I don’t know enough about this incident to comment. *runs off to actually learn*
0
0
-
191
Axa
in June 16th, 2009 @ 21:04MORE UPDATES
from huffington post
8:38 PM ET — One of the day’s most important developments — that Iran’s most senior cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri had denounced the election results — wasn’t given nearly enough attention.“No one in their right mind can believe” the official results from Friday’s contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi’s charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers “in the worst way possible.”
“A government not respecting people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy,” he declared in comments on his official Web site. “I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to ‘sell their religion,’ and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God.”
gov is wising up about twitter…
note sent to huffpost by female medical student, translate from farsi
Hello,
It’s painful to watch what’s happening.
I don’t want anything to do with what has been said this far, as I neither have the strength nor the resilience to face all these unfathomable events.
I only want to speak about what I have witnessed. I am a medical student. There was chaos last night at the trauma section in one of our main hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28 had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were even able to get their names or other information. What can you even say to the people who don’t even respect the dead. No one was allowed to speak to the wounded or get any information from them. This morning the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff. The extent of injuries are so grave, that despite being one of the most staffed emergency rooms, they’ve asked everyone to stay and help–I’m sure it will even be worst tonight.
What can anyone say in face of all these atrocities? What can you say to the family of the 13 year old boy who died from gunshots and whose dead body then disappeared?
This issue is not about cheating(election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people. They’ve put a baton in the hand of every 13-14 year old to smash the faces of “the bunches who are less than dirt” (government is calling the people who are uprising dried-up torn and weeds) .
This is what sickens me from dealing with these issues. And from those who shut their eyes and close their ears and claim the riots are in opposition of the government and presidency!! No! The people’s complaint is against the egregious injustices committed against the people.
I’m sorry it is so long gapas…I can’t do anything except post this..feel so useless…
0
0
-
191.1
POSOC
in June 16th, 2009 @ 21:20Thank you for keeping us informed, Axa. This is absolutely sickening.
0
0
-
191.2
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in June 16th, 2009 @ 21:45Axa: This won’t be the last time you feel that way, I’m afraid.
0
0
-
191.2.1
Axa
in June 16th, 2009 @ 22:10Truer words have never been spoken…this has changed my perception of many things…
0
0
-
192
Jadestone
in June 16th, 2009 @ 21:51I… god. All of this. I hardly know what to think…
I’m looking at the Huffington Post site, trying to read more as well now…
0
0
-
192.1
Axa
in June 16th, 2009 @ 22:15I want to warn you about pictures and videos, some are very gruesome. I’ve been following this since Saturday so my brain is pretty fried…but while I slogged through endless twitter posts and other site I have come upon things I was not prepared for…I can’t bring myself to watch any of the videos except for the ones of the crowds chanting and so on
andrew sullivan’s blog is also a good source
I’m feeling confused about what’s going on now …my mind is disordered
0
0
-
193
Piggy
in June 16th, 2009 @ 22:28Ugh. Obama doesn’t want to be seen as “meddling” in Iran. Violence is only “of concern to [him] and it is of concern to the American people.”
From the BBC: “A witness told the BBC that Tuesday’s rally in northern Tehran was even bigger than Monday’s – though this cannot be independently confirmed – and the state Press TV also described it as large.
“Witnesses described demonstrators walking in near silence towards state TV headquarters – apparently anxious not to be depicted as hooligans by authorities.
“Thousands of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s supporters staged a counter-rally in Vali Asr Square in central Tehran – some bussed in from the provinces, correspondents say.
“A BBC correspondent in Tehran said that protesters also blocked roads with their cars and police set up roadblocks to control gatherings of demonstrators.
“As night fell, residents took to the roof-tops of their houses to shout protest messages across the city, a scene not witnessed since the final days of the Shah, our correspondent says.”
0
0
-
193.1
Axa
in June 17th, 2009 @ 00:04American intervention is unwise…foreign support would undermine the protests, would give the opposition material…he also said:
“The second thing that I think is important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers.”
“So what I’ve said is, `Look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.’ And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you’ve got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they’re having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it’s important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we have–nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism. That’s not going to go away, and I think it’s important for us to make sure that we’ve reached out.”
I share your frustration though
BBC is infinitely better at covering this than CNN! ugh! publicizing twitter usernames is so awful, it’s life and death for them, they don’t need that kind of attention from the gov which is obviously watching
0
0
-
194
Anonymous
in June 16th, 2009 @ 22:46So Ahmadinejad cheated to win the election, then killed those who opposed him? That’s terrible.
((I’m posting anonymously because I don’t care to be killed by the Iranian government. *is coward*))
0
0
-
194.1
Axa
in June 17th, 2009 @ 00:06It’s not over yet, this is an ongoing thing. But violence is definitely being used.
aww don’t worry, they can’t get you here. Believe me people are doing things much more “dangerous” (setting up proxies, crashing websites etc) and they in all likelihood won’t face any repercussion for it.
0
0
-
195
cromwell
in June 17th, 2009 @ 19:29What do you expect? The real tragedy is that like the terrible deaths in the Reign of Terror, this will not create democracy. This will lead to more tyranny. The best thing, I’m afraid, is to watch and wish, but not act. We cannot run the risk of looking like we are doing what we did in Iran once before. The shah is the reason they hate us.
0
0
-
195.1
Axa
in June 17th, 2009 @ 20:23I can’t share your cynicism! I agree that we are not in the position to do anything (I would be extremely displeased if any country intervened) as you can see in my reply to Piggy above
The scale of death is not the point here.
0
0
-
195.1.1
cromwell
in June 17th, 2009 @ 20:32Exactly my point. The terrible thing is that this will not make Iran democratic.
0
0
-
196
shadowfire
in June 19th, 2009 @ 23:23NOT talking about SSM anymore. Good.
To clear stuff up, (I know we aren’t talking about this anymore)
Ashkenazi:Jew from Eastern Europe
Sfarad: Jew from Mediterranean
I believe the stereotype is pale, dark hair, long nose.‘Obama doesn’t want to be seen as meddling in Iran.’
Ugh. Obama doesn’t want to be seen as meddling in ANYTHING. Therefore, we make no progress. It seems that on some issues,the world just waits for someone else to come and deal with them. So, nothing happens.
0
0
-
196.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*) (10 wung points)
in June 20th, 2009 @ 05:00We ARE still talking about SSM, just not at the bottom of the page.
But I agree. That is annoying. YOU have to do it. People aren’t gonna do it for you.
0
0
-
197
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in June 20th, 2009 @ 06:44(196) Let’s review the situation in Iran. A country holds an election. The losing side claims that the election was rigged. The claim might be true, or might not be. Riots ensue. The country’s government ruthlessly suppresses them, citing the need to preserve law, order, and public safety.
The losing side in the election is not necessarily friendlier or more “democratic” in the American sense the winners are. The government of the country sees the United States and other Western democracies as its enemies and will use any outside support for the opposition as an excuse to crack down even harder.
In that situation, what is the right thing for the United States to do?
0
0
-
197.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*) (10 wung points)
in June 20th, 2009 @ 07:32I’d say stay away. If it turns out the side we supported is the losing side, then we have some major enemies.
0
0
-
197.2
Piggy
in June 20th, 2009 @ 08:50At first, this was indeed the situation, but the protests are becoming about much more than just the election. Great unrest is apparent in the country, and if the protesters are successful, I can see the Shah being overthrown. However, I don’t think that they have much of a chance of achieving this without help; the regime’s just too powerful.
0
0
-
197.2.1
Zallie
in June 20th, 2009 @ 10:40But is it our place to be that help? In the past, the US’s interventions have not been looked kindly upon by the rest of the world.
0
0
-
197.2.1.1
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*) (10 wung points)
in June 20th, 2009 @ 12:14Like Vietnam and North Korea. We had epic FAILS those places.
0
0
-
197.3
Zallie
in June 20th, 2009 @ 10:40Honestly? We should voice our support for fair democratic practices and human rights, but other intervention is just asking for trouble, both for ourselves and for the protesters.
What I’m really worried about is all of the protesters faces/identities that have been recorded by the government. I worry that we’ll see (or rather, not see) a lot more secret police action in the months to come.
0
0
-
198
Enceladus and Nimly (*.*) (10 wung points)
in June 20th, 2009 @ 12:15Gosh, this thread is up to more than 600 comments!
[So it is! New one to the rescue. –Admin.]
0
0
-
199
Kokopelli52
in June 20th, 2009 @ 12:23196- Do I sense a non-Obama-supporter?? Eep!
Look, it’s not that Obama doesn’t wan to get involved in anything. But this is a really sensitive issue, especially because -forgive me for saying this- the Iranian government is unstable. By intervening we could (theoretically) start another war.
197.2.1- Yes, exactly.
0
0
