Liberal Fairness to Gays

from JoeUser Forums

Since liberals try to resist to a degree the temptation to be judgmental concerning lifestyles that minimally affect the common good or the nation's well-being, they should be apolitical concerning gay marriage; but  be no less   political in the area of gay's civil and constitutional rights. However, gays are encouraged to be discreet and not look foolishly defiant publicly, inasmuch as it is --and there is no other way of putting it--an aberration that is potentially inflammatory. I say this because I do believe that were there a corrective procedure to be "normal," most gays would opt for it.  Nevertheless, there is no reason to deny them the same equal rights all of us are privileged to have. There is also the nagging probability that at least some are gay owing to social and psychological events and experiences in which engaged, perhaps wilfully or unwittingly developed. Also troubling is that children or very young adults have convinced themselves of being gay before their formative years.

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 28, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
8,744 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd like to define "purchasing" as picking up something and walking out of the store without paying. Unfortunately, for practically all of civilized history, the definition has been giving something in return.

So, when people start talking about gay people demanding the marriages they're due, I wonder when the concept of "marriage" was redefined. Then I remember this is about benefits, insurance, and estates, not love and marriage. Then I start wondering again if I can fight for the redefinition of "purchase"...

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I say this because I do believe that were there a corrective procedure to be "normal," most gays would opt for it.'
On what basis do you believe this?
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder when the concept of "marriage" was redefined. Then I remember this is about benefits, insurance, and estates, not love and marriage.


for much of human history and even today in most places on earth, marriage and love intersected accidentally, if at all, and then after the fact.

marriage has always been about benefits and estates.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
marriage has always been about benefits and estates.


NOT!


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler, you ignorant putz...

do you really & truly believe marriage only came into being in 12th century europe? because that's pretty much the point you're making.

pretty dumb.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
NOT!


Never before have three little letters made such a reasonable, yet firm argument.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
for much of human history and even today in most places on earth, marriage and love intersected accidentally, if at all, and then after the fact.

marriage has always been about benefits and estates.


That is a fascinating aspect. I wonder if it would transfer to ancient times, before such things as benefits and estates came into being.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is a fascinating aspect. I wonder if it would transfer to ancient times, before such things as benefits and estates came into being.
When fire was invented the ignoble savage needed a woman--or an effeminate male--to cook the prize of the hunt. Marriage at first was always a question of convenience. As possessions mounted the joining of loot became desirable.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

When fire was invented the ignoble savage needed a woman--or an effeminate male--to cook the prize of the hunt. Marriage at first was always a question of convenience.

Let me guess. Your wife does not read this!

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Never before have three little letters made such a reasonable, yet firm argument.
I wonder if drmiler unwittingly or deliberately included the second meaning.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder if it would transfer to ancient times, before such things as benefits and estates came into being.


if i didn't feel it would, it woulda been pretty much a waste of time to have suggested otherwise. benefits and estates have always existed. not perhaps in the very narrow sense to which you're alluding, but having more hands and minds to help fend off the world and make work lighter, being able to acquire extra cattle, land or even brass rings as well as conglomerating stuff as an extended family to elevate your station of that of your immediate family are definitely benefits and estates.

as wikipedia puts it:

Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures: modern understanding emphasizes the legitimacy of sexual relations in marriage, yet the universal and unique attribute of marriage is the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). Traditionally, societies encourage one to marry "out" far enough to strengthen the ties, but "close" enough so that the in-laws are "one of us" or "our kind".

Link
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder if drmiler unwittingly or deliberately included the second meaning.


of course he did. if that dadgum rino santorum's agin it, drmiler's for it. and vice-versa.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
of course he did. if that dadgum rino santorum's agin it, drmiler's for it. and vice-versa.
"Chop logic" or "night logic" James Joyce would call it. Perhaps he's affected by the weather.

Let me guess. Your wife does not read this!
Were she alive she would, and I'd suffer.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

if i didn't feel it would, it woulda been pretty much a waste of time to have suggested otherwise. benefits and estates have always existed. not perhaps in the very narrow sense to which you're alluding, but having more hands and minds to help fend off the world and make work lighter, being able to acquire extra cattle, land or even brass rings as well as conglomerating stuff as an extended family to elevate your station of that of your immediate family are definitely benefits and estates.

But then there are those cultures that do not adhere to our western mentality.  And yet they had marriage.  In particular I draw your attention to the Plains Indians.  I dont necessarily disagree with you, but think the concept deserves a much more indepth analysis.  I would be very fascinated to read one if you want to put forth your concepts and ideas on this.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

I would be very fascinated to read one if you want to put forth your concepts and ideas on this.
Satire? Now JU participants are to be encyclopedic.

On what basis do you believe this?
Strictly baseless, personal perception. 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Satire? Now JU participants are to be encyclopedic.

No, just curious.  I said his concepts, not some ultimate truth. I think he has scratched an interesting idea, and I would like to see if more fully explored.  Wouldn't you?

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
It seems pretty clear to me. Diversity to be sure, but make damn sure you marry rich within the culture and continually enhance the dynasty.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Diversity to be sure, but make damn sure you marry rich within the culture and continually enhance the dynasty.

Is this John Kerry?

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's funny how people who are so concerned with governmental imposition and "big brother" don't see how through things like Roe v. Wade, and now the imposition of gay marriage, etc., that we are no longer allowed to decide things, and that it is less and less a Democracy. It really doesn't matter that the majority of Americans want to be able to define marriage, they aren't going to be allowed. Not going to be allowed to decide what is law... in a supposed Democracy.

In the end, we're a culture whose high preists are lawyers, and whose God Emporer is the Supreme Court.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
marriage has always been about benefits and estates


+LOL+ Maybe for cold, shallow cynics like you, king. Not for all of us. I married my wife because I loved her, and she me. We hadn't much to offer each other, beyond that, and yet we've made a marriage. Amazing!

When fire was invented the ignoble savage needed a woman--or an effeminate male--to cook the prize of the hunt. Marriage at first was always a question of convenience. As possessions mounted the joining of loot became desirable.
--stevend

Notice how all of the cold, shallow cynicism seems to be coming from the left, here, children?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Never before have three little letters made such a reasonable, yet firm argument.
I wonder if drmiler unwittingly or deliberately included the second meaning.


Did you also bother to read the high-lighted portion of the 2nd definition?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is this John Kerry?
Absolutely! Only in America--and the Swiss Alps!

whose God Emporer is the Supreme Court.


That will reverse itself with Alito.

Did you also bother to read the high-lighted portion of the 2nd definition?
Of course, marriage predates homosexual partnership, which now has become like traditional marriage. That's how usage becomes acceptable--copy catting.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Notice how all of the cold, shallow cynicism seems to be coming from the left, here, children?
You take things too literally. Please allow for poetic license. I have some faith that even Kerry conceivably loves Theresa, regardless of her money.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
But then there are those cultures that do not adhere to our western mentality. And yet they had marriage.


????

for the second time, that's exactly my point.

until very recently (like from the stone age until about the middle ages for us) and in most other cultures (other = not ours) marriage hasn't/isn't intentionally a matter of love or romance, but rather an stylized form of bartering, one primary object of which is mutual improvement of circumstances and chances of survival.

consequently, if anyone has recently redefined marriage, it would be us.

as far as customs of the plains' nations, lemme know which of them you're curious about and i'll be happy to provide the dubious benefit of whatever i've picked up along the way.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
+LOL+ Maybe for cold, shallow cynics like you, king. Not for all of us.


not a bad attempt, but you're gonna have to be a bit more clueless if you wanna undercut drmiler.

I married my wife because I loved her, and she me. We hadn't much to offer each other, beyond that, and yet we've made a marriage.


how enlightened of you to have chosen to be born in a time and culture in which you didn't have to come up with cattle or sheep or somethin similar with which to pay for the bride your parents selected for you. you know...like all them people in the old testament as well as almost the entire populations of pre-20th century china, india, africa, etc.