California Proposition 8

[Chip]

LOL classic! It's true because I say it is and I am the foremost authority on the matter!

If that's your projection ...

... Though you do your heart a disservice by denying what it's ringing true, Segep.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Marriage is a concept invented by mankind.

It can and should evolve or it will die.

Chip's views on gay marriage are as repugnant as Muslim views about women.

But then religion doesn't like women does it?

I mean, it is Eve's fault that we are all sinners cos she listened to the talking snake.

I reckon god is a homosexual.

He is definitely a misoginist

 

[Segep]

They are examples of aberration, definitively inappropriate aberrations.

Gee, thanks for being the moral authority on all things appropriate. How have any of us managed to survive so long without your guidance? Your vast knowledge of world cultures and their relative correctness is truly astounding.

You seem like an intelligent person, Segep.

Intelligent enough to know when engaging a particular poster is a waste of my time. I'll leave you to Mare, who has more patience with fools than I do.

 

[Segep]

If that's your projection ...

... Though you do your heart a disservice by denying what it's ringing true, Segep.

Please. You wouldn't understand or even recognize the human heart if it bit you in the ass.

 

[Chip]

It wasn't the the word "marriage" to which I refered. I was thinking about the other words that you use with cavalier disregard for their time-honored meanings, words like: equality and equal protection under the law.

Again, you continue to show your inability to grasp the foundational first-test of definitive propriety.

There's really not much more you have substantively until you show that you get definitive propriety and its accurate application here, and that "equality" and "equal protection under the law" are simply not relevant because definitive propriety overrules.

Your facts are incomplete:

In Japan (THE GREAT MIRROR OF MALE LOVE by Paul Schalow, Stanford, 1990), Chinese men and women under the Yuan and Ming Dynasties (PASSIONS OF THE CUT SLEEVE by Bret Hinsch, Berkeley 1990),

Native Americans tribes (THE SPIRIT AND THE FLESH: Sexaul Diversity in American Indian Cultures, Boston, 1986) and THE ZUNI MAN-WOMAN by Will Roscoe, Albuquerque, 1991),

Many African tribes (THE AZANDE: HISTORY AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS by Edward Evans-Pritchard, Oxford, 1971, THE LIFE OF A SOUTH AFRICAN TRIBE by Henri Junod, London, 1927),

In the Middle East (THE ARAB OF THE DESERT: A Glimpse Into Badawin Life in Kuwait and Sau'di Arabia by Harold Dickson, London, 1951 and SIWAN CUSTOMS by Mahmud Mohammad 'Abd Allah, Harvard African Studies 1, 1917),

South East Asia (STONE MEN OF MALEKULA by John W. Layard, London, 1942) and (MARQUESAN CULTURE by Ralph Linton) and (THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS SOCIETY: The Psychodynamics of Primitive Social Organization by Abram Kardiner, New York, 1839)

Russia (MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY IN CAUCASIA: A Contribution to the Study of North Caucasian Ethnology and Customary Law by Louis Luzbetak, Vienna, 1951)

Other parts of Asia (THE KORYAK by Waldemar Jochelson, Leiden, 1905-8)

South America (HISTORIA DA PROVINCIA SANTA CRUZ by Pero de Magalhaes de Gandavo, Sao Paolo, 1964)

Obviously you don't read enough history.

Obviously you read into history what egotistically suits you.

Your examples, I reiterate, are not examples of "differing definitions", they are examples of aberration with respect to the correct definition of marriage being "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE", and this localized aberration does not in any way, shape or form revise this long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage to which the overwhelming vast majority of people rationally appeal.

Your exceptions are meaningless aberration.

They are not definition revision.

Not only do you not know enough world history, you don't know enough Chrisian history. An appeal to simple tradition, no different that female circumcision or slavery.

Meaningless rhetoric that doesn't address the definitive propriety foundational issue.

Anyone can see from my sources above that this was very widespread even though you don't like it.

Anyone can see that your allusions are merely a handful of local aberrations.

That's the reality of it.

Because of the billions who disagree with you, one would think you'd see the error of your ways.

Not anecdotal, but researched sources by scientists and Universities.

Something can be both anecdotal and authority reported at the same time.

You have nothing that shows a revision to the definition of marriage.

Just as if a cat sneaks into a dog show that doesn't revise the definition of "dog", neither does a handful of localized aberrations not revise the definition of marriage accepted by the overwhleming vast majority of billions as being "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

You have nothing.

You have denied, but so far there is no evidence of your accuracy.

False.

An obvious reality needs no "evidence".

It's simply obvious, and, you know it.

Next thing I know you're going to want me to provide "evidence" that a dog is a dog and not a cat!

Perhaps, but the difference is that mine are supported by research citations and yours are not. It's the difference between "prejudice" and "bias", prejudice has no basis, bias is based on something.

Again, not only is appeal to "A"uthority a fallacy of logic, you misrepresent what you've presented, mistaking aberration for definition.

Your prejudice and bias that causes your error is, however, obvious from your own admission in past posts.

No sources, no proof, nothing but you telling us about world history? I think the "ring of truth" is actually just a ding-a-ling in your head.

Wow -- you make an obvious misrepresentation of an obvious reality, and then you attack my character!

You must really distrust yourself if you have to slay me to feel good about your mistake.

So you are going to deny scientific research

I'm going to deny your misapplication of alleged "scientific research", absolutely.

Wow -- your erroneous appeal to "A"uthority is laughable, and if that's the best you've got, you've lost.

and rely on 6 year olds?

Oh, again, absolutely.

Six year-olds tell the truth of this matter.

They know what marriage is.

They haven't been damaged by bias and codependent liaisons to deny what is true in their heart.

Their purity allows them to tell the truth, the truth that marriage is "Between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

Yes, poll every six year-old, and you'll see the truth in the matter is as I present it.

I think this says volumes about your attitudes and agenda.

Yes, it does -- it attests to the fact that I respect the truth in the matter regardless of how the truth affects me.

It appears I can't say the same for you, as your apparent oppositional defiant disorder agenda could utilitarianly care less about the the truth of reality.

I deleted the rest of you post because it was just a personal attack--again without basis.

Your allusion to being personally attacked was merely a reflection of your own initiated attacks.

I simply let you taste your own medicine.

I don't initiate ad hominems ... but if you continue to initiate them, I will simply reflect your own stuff back at you.

I suggest you stay on topic sans initiation of personal attacks.

Then you won't have anything to worry about from me ... other than the truth I present.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

As if anyone worries about being mauled by a dinosaur

 

[Chip]

Thanks for playing, Chip, but I think your last sentence here says all that needs to be said about your position.

Yes, it does.

Six year-olds can still reflect the truth in their heart.

Far too many adults, damaged by years of outrageous misfortune, codependent alliances, and utilitarian coping agendas ... no longer can.

Six year-olds are a great sampling populous in this topic matter to get to the truth ...

... Much more so than so-called "knowledgeable" adults.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Do you spend a lot of time with 6 year olds?

 

[Chip]

Were you born knowing how to talk and what every word in the English language means? We are not born knowing everything. Anything a six year old says is learned.

Yes ... but a six year-old is still sufficiently in touch with their heart to tell the truth of what they've learned.

Many adults, damaged by outrageous misfortune, codependent alliances, and utilitarian coping mechanisms ... no longer can tell that truth.

They are out of touch with their heart, living at best in the conflict nexus in their mind between ego and superego, simply trying to survive the "onslaught".

To them, the truth, an honest presentation of reality, is negotiable, and their thereby sometimes frequent misrepresentation of obvious realities is, though laughable, also sadly obvious.

Absolutely relevant. You advocate for the status quo because it benefits you and to hell with everyone else.

Erroneous and therefore meaningless ... as well as irrelevant.

 

[Chip]

Gee, thanks for being the moral authority on all things appropriate. How have any of us managed to survive so long without your guidance? Your vast knowledge of world cultures and their relative correctness is truly astounding. Intelligent enough to know when engaging a particular poster is a waste of my time. I'll leave you to Mare, who has more patience with fools than I do.

Your projections, initiated ad hominems, and lack of substantive relevant material has indeed grown old.

Please try to present topical content.

Thanks.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

C.H.I.P

Closet Homsosexual In Purgatory

 

[top gun]

Sihouette;79983]You guys still cannot, or rather will not, wrap your heads around the fact that it isn't about punishment and is instead about setting precidents and moral "oks" to subsequent generations.

No seriously Siho I'm trying to be nice here... think about what you're saying. The main or at least the underlying precedent and moral we're arguing over here has ALREADY been "okayed" hasn't it?

Gay people are allowed to love each other, live together openly, have sex with each other. These are all 100% legal and socially excepted things. Why make such a big deal out of a contract that assigns them rights & responsibilities? It really is just a punitive attempt to make a couple who are hurting no one to suffer by being held back from equal rights and access to an important legally binding contract.

Wait, let me guess...because I and others astutely observe this fact, we're homophobes right? Wrong. There is the clarity of truth and it can withstand all assaults, even cowardly name-calling to divert the subject it exposes.

Well because your "fact" is not really a fact then it does sorta make you homophobic. I think it's probably hard for those being oppressed to not have a harsh word here and there.

There was a time when even I would have probably went along with what you're saying just because I hadn't really looked into the subject and didn't really know any gay people. I think it's a natural first reaction to fear what is different or what we don't totally understand.

But after years of having friends male & female that are gay and still really good, upstanding, kind people... I can't throw them under the bus just because they find a different adult attractive than I do.

I guess I'm just very secure in my own sexuality and not petty.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Didn't Jesus love all men?

And does that mean he was a homosexual.

Not "eros" but "agape".

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You're missing the point, Mare.I'm not attempting to analogize humans with animals.I'm presenting easy-to-grasp unrelated examples of obvious definitive propriety, where proposed violation of definitive propriety is equally obvious, and because these obvious unrelated examples are thereby not emotionally charged, it makes it easier for us to all see and agree and thus more likely make the relevant application to the topic matter.Surely you get that it's definitively inappropriate for cats to be in a dog show, don't you?Surely you get that it's definitively inappropriate for a man to shower and dress in the women's dressing room at the gym, don't you?I'm presenting examples of long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definitive propriety, and how definitive propriety must first be test-passed before screams of "discrimination!" could ever be applied.It is obviously not "discrimination!" to exclude cats from a dog show.It is obviously not "discrimination!" to exclude men from showering and dressing in the women's locker room at the gym.And, with respect to definitive propriety, it is not "discrimination!" to exclude men from marrying men and women from marrying men, as the long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".It really is that simple, Mare.Wrong.
My sexual orientation is irrelevant.Until you can argue against the winning definitive propriety point that I've made, your irrelevant divertive digressions remain ... irrelevant.And just because you may have suffered from self-hate in the past, doesn't mean others you disagree with suffer similarly.You may want to keep your projection in check ... and stick to the subject matter.So far, you have no rational answer to the reality of the definition of marriage and its definitive propriety application that I present.
I'm waiting.Very revealing about you ... but, topically irrelevant ... though it does speak to your historic inability to distinguish personal reality from fear-based fantasy and thus can render your arguments suspect on those grounds alone.Again, you would do well to return to the topic matter and a more rational, conventional argument.All which is topically irrelvant to the reality of the time-honored, long-standing, cross-cultural, traditional definition held by the overwhelming vast majority that the accurate definition of marriage participation is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".
Certainly you aren't calling nearly every six year-old child a "sexually insecure hate bigot", are you???Again, projection and transference and displacement from your past are topically irrelevant to the present subject matter, and they don't serve you well in presenting your case.So, unless you want to continue to receive back the ad hominems you initiate, you'd do well to drop the inferred character assassination, Mare, as not only does it not apply to me ... you're doing battle with an empty gun.

Some us know better than to argue adult subjects with a 6 year old, but thanks for playing.

It surprises me how many counselors and therapists have an inadequate education around subjects like homosexaulity and transsexuality. Of course I suppose a 6 year old counselor could not be expected to learn about or grasp such complex concepts.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again, you can pull reference litany out of your hat all day, but you apparently aren't going to get the fact that, whether your allusions are true or false, they don't in any way shape or form change the time-honored, long-standing, cross-cultural, traditional and thereby overwhelming-vast-majority definition of marriage as appropriately being "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

And the truth doesn't matter, Segep. I'm just glad that this 6 year old was not counseling people during women's sufferage--women would be still be trying to get equality.

I'm just guessing here, but the only counselors I've know who were so intractably ignorant were "Christian counselors" who worked from a religious basis. Only someone like that would continue to speak with such vehemence about subjects on which they have no information. Often wrong, but never uncertain. Sounds like a 6 year old to me.