So...

[DeeBye]

Whaaat? Kelsey Grammer is gay???

That's Kelsey Grammar, muttonhead.

And yeah, I heard somewhere he's as gay as a Care Bear sliding down a rainbow into a swimming pool filled with leather pants and champagne coolies.

(I made all of that up.)

[Freepaperclips]

If you now mix in some study of Chinese, Indian, and Tibetan philosophies you may end up somewhere around me.

I understand. Bible, Torah, and Koran later.... <_<

[Vandiablo]

That's Kelsey Grammar, muttonhead.

I guess you need to tell that to TheseYahoos

[DeeBye]

I guess you need to tell that to TheseYahoos

That guy can't even spell his own name correctly. Grammer <> Grammar.

Sheesh, how'd he ever win an Emmy with spelling like that?

(btw, you're not really a muttonhead. 'Twas in jest :) You're more of a muttonbabylefttoe or muttonuvula)

[kandrathe]

I was thinking philosophy on the order of Nietzche, Kant, Aristotle, or Socrates.

The Koran? I think of it as 9th century Arab literature, which reflects the culture at that time. I haven't found much profound or memorable about it. Most disturbing to me are the arguments for the the inferiority of women and the exhortations to violence. In many ways it reminds me of El Cid.

But, as for gems of wisdom... ?

How about Sura 5:33

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

or Sura 5:38

And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

And, beyond the book, here is a story from the life of "The Prophet".

The first blood shed at Medina under devotion to Muhammad was a woman's.&nbsp; Asma, daughter of Merwan, belonged to a family which still clung to the ancestral faith.&nbsp; She made no secret that she disliked Islam, and she composed verses on the folly of putting faith in a stranger who had slain so many of his own people in battle.
These verses quickly spread from mouth to mouth.&nbsp; The Muslims were offended, and 'Umair, a blind man of Asma's tribe, vowed that he would kill her.&nbsp; In the dead of night, he crept to the apartment where Asma lay asleep with her children.&nbsp; Stealthily, he removed her suckling baby and plunged his sword into her breast, pinning her to the couch.&nbsp; The next morning, in the mosque at prayer, 'Umair acquainted Muhammad ( who was aware of the scheme ) with what he had done.&nbsp; Muhammad turned to the bystanders and said, "Behold a man that hath assisted the Lord and His prophet.&nbsp; Call him not blind, call him rather 'Umair,' the seeing."&nbsp;&nbsp; On his way home 'Umair encountered members of Asma's family who criticized him for the murder.&nbsp; He defended it openly and threatened the whole clan with the same fate.&nbsp; They were so alarmed that they pledged loyalty to the Muslim party to avoid a blood-feud.

[Haider]

I believe that the sanctity of marriage should be protected from straight couples as well. To many things happen now to cheapen the whole experience. And it makes me angry.

When was there any "sancity of marriage"? For thousands of years people married of two reasons: Money and Politics. Most of the time they couldn't even choose for themselves whom to marry. Only in the last hundred of years this changed in our Western world. For most of the world it hasn't. If there is love developing in a marriage it was a added benefit for the couple, but it was/is the last reason on the list.

[Occhidiangela]

My parents are a living example of everything counter to your assertion.

51 years this September.

How about this. Find, court, and marry a good woman, then report out to us in about 10 years about marriage. Being married sure change my understanding of marriage, that is for sure. :)

In your defense, yes, arranged marriages and marriage for political advantage were not uncommon, nor are they all that uncommon now. India seems to be a popular test case these days.

Funny thing, though, that the contemporary Christian teachings on marriage are all about two people making one team, sacrificing for each other and their families. I'd say that is a step in the right direction.

[Occhidiangela]

The "sin" of co-habitation can be forgiven through Confession (the sacrament, not little confession").

*Ding* Light goes on. Makes sense.

OTOH, if a couple marries in the Catholic Church, then that marriage can only be dissolved through death or annulment. Annulment, in effect, is a claim that the marriage never took place.

My cousin's marriage was annulled, I am familiar with the process. Yech. Hers began with his not acknowledging their child (well, it woulda been absent the miscariage ~4 months into it) and went on to his infidelities. Rough year for her.

In the past, a part of the requirement for a non-Catholic to marry a Catholic was that the Catholic be free to practice his/her religion and that any children be raised in the Catholic faith. I don't know if this is still the case.

Still holds, at least as recently as when I got married and more recently one of the guys in my office. I agreed to my kids being raised in the Catholic faith, though there is a bit of a hole when both parents are not Catholic. When I attend services, I don't take Communion, since that is technically a foul. (Me being unbaptized and all the other fine bits of doctrine.) I hold to the promise that I made to the Monseigneur, yet I also feel it non hypocritical and within my right to explain the answers to many questions that my kids have about "all that" that are not particularly well covered by Doctrine. I aint raising sheep.

Might want to take some asbestos shorts with me when my time comes, though, if the Pope is indeed right. :o

[Nystul]

That's interesting. Perhaps the two should be separated. Allowing gays to be "legally married" but not "religiously and legally married" might be a decent compromise.

Obviously, the legal distinction between the two would need to be defined. That would require someone smarter than me to work out.

It would have to be done state by state as well as at the federal level, and it would be necessary not to call it marriage, and it would be necessary to give serious thought as to what restrictions, if any, could then be placed on people seeking those legal implications.

To really get government out of the marriage business, I think you would need to do it legal issue by legal issue. For example, if you think that it is important for gay couples to get the same health benefits and married couples, you could create a law setting up the ability for any 2 unmarried adults to form a healthcare cooperative, and require any company that gives benefits to married couples to provide the same benefits to such a cooperative. If children get benefits, those could be given to anyone who has primary or joint custody. Income tax would be tricky to reform... the idea would be to eliminate joint filing but I don't know how that would work.

If you took these issues and reformed them all, then legal marriage would be exactly equal to a sequence of legal contracts that anyone could get, and at that point you could simply eliminate legal marriage and allow people to choose which contracts applied to their situation. But to take legal marriage as it currently exists and make no changes other than to allow same-sex marriages would be a strong social statement (I would say a moral statement) by the government. Basically by performing legal marriages, the state governments act almost like churches endorsing the concept of family, and this is why they have such restrictions (can't marry a minor, can't marry your sister, ect.), because the legal marriage has a strong social connotation to it. The legal contracts have to be forcefully separated from that social connotation before they can be opened up to all people without other ramifications.

What I have described above will not happen. It's too intricate. The government will stay in the marriage business, either by reinforcing the idea that marriage requires a husband and wife or by effectively abolishing the idea.

[Occhidiangela]

There are so many built in assumptions, so many fallacies, and so many half truths and untruths in that statement that I am almost at a loss to find a place to start. Perhaps we should examine some terms first.

I suppose I started in the middle. To start in the beginning, you have to choose whether or not "government" is the preferred model of enforcing a set of norms that social groups of increasing complexity and size use to guide their varied and myriad of interactions. My semi humorous comment that Italians in Italy use government for entertainment rests on a "truth" that I observed: they don't need to be told how to "be Italian." :) It appears that perhaps Americans, or some Americans, "need" to be told how to be American, most often by some of their fellow citizens. More on that under "social conflict." :o Reason why? Mismatched sets of norms. Some modes of social behaviour are incompatible. (Recently saw two of my neighbors get into a heated exchange at a BBQ on, of all things, circumcision!) To answer one of your later comments, the agreed level to which we leave each other alone to get on with our lives differs greatly, a habit that seems not to have changed since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. I'd suggest that is due to much of politics "being local."

Back to models of government. By taking the position that rich families (ancien regime model) is a broken model for a system of government, a different idea was adopted. I assume that, when you get past the Village level, or the parish level in a theocratic structure, the need for something bigger, or rather, something to handle things as they and the group get bigger, is a given. The evolution into a global commune where people intuitively act out or are moved to pure equality and "fairness" in their dealings with one another seems a Utopia unachievable by imperfect human beings. Like a helicopter, it, human society, has too many moving parts. So, they rub on one another and create friction.

Anarchy, the absence of government seems a poor choice, since once in contact people or groups of people, absent identical moral principles and patterns of behaviour, will come into confict. They may do so even with identical sets of norms. Some form of government or framework seems necessary to reduce, or ritualize, the methods of conflict resolution and prevention.

Democracy has been called "the ultimate tyranny". In many ways that is true. A true democracy with no rule but majority rule is indeed "the tyranny of the mob". Unlike a government where an individual wields total power, there is no hope of replacing the leader through death, through revolution, through any means. Unpopular opinions become illegal actions. In a complete democracy, there is little room for any but the sheep. While there never has been a complete democracy, that of some of the city states of ancient Greece comes closest, with Athens probably leading the way. And even in that state, one could be executed for being unpopular -- just ask Socrates.

Until we start turning out identical clones and raising them to all think identically, I see the tension of differeing individual preferences as being an eternal source of social conflict. The question is, what forms of "norming" meet the "good enough" test? None will meet the "it is perfect" test. Democracy approaches "good enough" to a certain level, even though it leaves some folks dissatisfied per your observation above. As the groups get larger, the chaotic nature of pure democracy could be easily assumed to make it an impractical form simply due to the geometrically expanding number of conflicting opinions or preferences. More moving parts.

A republic likewise can meet a "good enough" standard, but like a democracy will always leave someone unhappy, at least in the short term: whichever party or faction's preferences are least supported. Seeking the perfect through theoretical absolutes is chasing a chimera.

That journey toward 'the perfect' now and again bears fruit, to include the final abolition of slavery, and the changes to suffrage. Our republic's framework presented an agreed on mechanism for improvement, the ammendment process. Your comment on voting ends with the agreed amendments on suffrage, first "universal for male' and then the inclusion of women. I suggest that the change in that direction is consistent with the Founders' intent, and we appear to agree on that element of the framework as being a strength.

But that still leaves us with a condition of continual social conflict, unless universally agreed upon mores are enacted as law and bought into by the vast majority, or even a unanimity, of the population. So far, murder is a universally condemned behaviour. I can't say the same for theft, and most definitely not for adultery or infidelity.

As the founding fathers of the USA learned, one way to avoid those pitfalls is to establish the government on a constitution. In many ways, the concept of a constitution and what it says is more important than that of democracy per se. While the parts of the constitution that define the structure of the government is important, more important than that are the limitations on what government can do. In many constitutions (both of the states in the USA and of other countries) the limitations of the government, the rights of the individuals, is contained in a bill of rights. In the case of the US Constitution, it required a separate Bill of Rights.

We are in accord.

The underlying, important assumption is that the we have the freedom of individual choice in matters that do not impinge on the security of the nation.

I would lower the threshold there to say "the security of the community" by extending your comment to the State Constitutions, the various city charters, and all of the lesser articles and acts that codify the agreed boundaries of individual liberty vis a vis "everyone else." The security of each State, I would argue, was just as important to the Founders as the security of the Nation. To some, perhaps moreso. Which brings us back to part of this topic's present discussion about "what law and which state and full faith." Bone's and other comments are germane.

I agree with what I think you are saying, which is that individual sovereignty needs to be stretched as far as it can practically go, the limit being where it infringes on either "the security of the community at large" (toxic dumping into the local water supply, for example, should be taboo) or on the similar sovereignty of "everyone else." Absent groupthink, the disagreement on where that limit lies is and will be continuous. The between consenting adults proviso is not, for all the press it gets, yet universaly agreed. (Hef, bless his heart, did what he could to promote that theme.) I'd say it's more agreed now, though, than when I was a teen.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers considered the right not to be forced to shelter soldiers in our homes (except to in times of war) worthy of specific mention (while religion, assembly, the press, speech, and petition are all crammed into one Amendment, indeed, in one sentence) more important than the right to freedom for anyone other than white Anglo-Saxon non-Catholic (except in Maryland) christian land owning heterosexual males. Anything else was either directly discriminated against or ignored as being too insignificant (e.g, women) to mention.

Closest wolf at the door syndrome. Lack of unanimity left slavery to be resolved later via social and then armed conflict.

The greatness of our nation is based on the ability we have shown over the generations to extend the freedoms to those who were overlooked or intentionally denied by the founding fathers.

The ability to go beyond their limitations, their biases and prejudices so fundamental that they didn't even recognize them. The ability to find a place of legal equality (and, sometimes even actual equality) for many. Hopefully, eventually for all. And each time someone said, "I'm human, too" there were those who replied "Not in my eyes". Fortunately, those with the greater vision prevailed till now.[/quote]

I can't say I agree that now is any different from any other time, in paticular as I have seen, in my lifetime, an extension of the 18th -20th century overt, ideological attacks on Christianity cross the pond from Europe to America. The assault on the family farm continues. (I have watched the same social attacks on the white male materialize during my generation, as well as the attempts here and there to substitute The State for The Father. Whether all or some of it is deserved, or even a matter of self-inflicted wounds, is a topic for another time.) The greater vision you refer to is heavily driven by individual point of view and perceptions of how best to "share" power. De Tocqueville's commentary on how religious Americans were in a general seems as apt now as it did then, but of course in a different sense. (I wonder at how he would have commented on the proliferation of ever smaller splinter sects, for example.) Gandalf's comment to Saruman about how hard it is to "share power" strike me as entirely apropos. Social power. Power to have the world ordered to fit one's idea of "what is best." The present topic cannot, it seems, extricate itself from religion . . . at least not yet. Why? I suggest the answer to that lies on how religious norms impact the base of common cultural assumptions.

Here I arrive again at common cultural assumptions. (I know I use that term alot. It was driven home very forcefully to me when I lived in Japan.) While America could grow without significant interference across a continent, which it did for a century and a half, a lot of conflict could be resolved via "flight" rather than "fight." Joseph Smith, anyont? (Slavery was not, of course, one of them.) Those who "got along well enough" under the predominant agreed norms could do so, but that is not to say that all "got along perfectly." An ancestor of mine was the target of such witty signs outside of pubs in New York as "no dogs or Irishmen allowed." Rather than rely on draconian social changes, some folks adapted, perservered, and overcame. They also assimilated because, I think, the predominant cultural assumptions were "close enough" to their own. Good enough, not perfect. Others could run but not hide, the Chinese or blacks for example, simply due to standing out visually. It seems that the past few decades of emergence from "the closet" has put some in the gay community in a similar position. Tired of "flight," they are taking up "fight."

Our present state of play strikes me as more akin to the problems addressed by Boyle's and Charles' law, with our social body feeling a pressure build up. The "flight" option is decreasing, so people are turning more frequently to the "fight" option, whether the means are behavioural, financial, via use of a deadly social weapon (lawyers) or via armed force. (Young McVeigh and some of his militia peers.)

And that takes us full circle back on topic.

Yes and no. The measurement of "just" and "fair" is subjective. The matter of laws that do not require unanimity to pass and be sustained will always leave some parties unsatisfied, as will the matter of sloppy or unequal enforcement, or non enforcement, of various "agreed norms" in the form of statutes.

The strength and a weakness of our republican form is that not a single law on our books is "written in stone." They are all subject to change via referendum or amendment. The challenge to crap enforcement of some laws, Dr King's efforts, built a foundation for change. It strikes me that the overt challenge to the California statute may have a similar outcome, or, it may not. Dr King's work was built on "common moral principles." I am not sure that the current challenge has as strong a foundation. Crystal ball is murky.

Spooky thought, now that I think of the opener to that last paragraph. Conceivably, though I'll resort to arms against it in my lifetime, slavery could again be made legal and Prohibition could be re enacted. Come to think of it, I'd resort to arms on that second score as well, just with considerably less fervor than the former.

Fight or flight. A battle has been joined, and is so far close to compliance with Marquis de Queensbury rules.

I can't see how or where to bet this one, so I will place my bets on a different table.

[Freepaperclips]

If all you seek is passages that you find disturbing, then I suggest you open any book extant and you will find them.



You might also look at Thomas Aquinas and Spinoza if looking for

philosophy on the order of...

By the way, great way to insult most of a continent, man. There are things in all religions and dogmas that I protest to, but I find that if you try to find common ground it is there too. Simple humanity if all else fails.

Please try to be slightly less insulting please, it harms nothing but your own argument.

[kandrathe]

I could quote you some boring passages, but that wouldn't make any sort of point would it. Get serious. If my finding little of value in reading the Qur'an is disturbing to the continent of Asia Minor (note: I think Indonesia has the largest Islamic population), then bring on the fatwah. I don't disagree with everything in the Qur'an, and I only mentioned the portions that exhorted violence in its followers to support my point. And, unlike other books, there seems to be quite a few people who take a very literal reading.

I also reject your claim that all books have disturbing passages. Ever heard of Mo-Tzu? I found nothing disturbing in his philosophy. I disagree with some of his philosophy, but I understand them.

There are things in all religions and dogmas that I protest to, but I find that if you try to find common ground it is there too.

Where is the common ground? No non-islamic nation trying to live in that region has been able to find it for 1400 years. How do you find common ground with a thing that says if you object to it, it is punishable by death. Have you studied the Qur'an? Do you know the life story of Mohammed? Go ahead and defend him if you like. To me at best, he was a warlord opportunist who used religion and visions from God to further his own ambitions and expel the infidels from Arabia. Most of what has been written about him is nationalistic and religious legend, rather than history. Hmmm, kind of like El Cid and his divine inspiration for expelling the Moors and Jews from Spain. Divine booty.

Hey, now that the fatwah is out on me I might as well out some other westerners who question the reality of "The Prophet". Insulted, bah.
Jack Wheeler -- The Myth of Mecca

An excerpt quoted from Islamic history scholar, Mohammed Ibn al-Warraq:

"Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive backreading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer - a Prophet - whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation. Hence (Ubu'l Kassim was selected to be the Prophet), the Koran, the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet), and the Sira were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Moslem monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab... an inner Arabian biography of Mecca, Medina, the Quraysh, the Prophet and his Hegira (flight from Mecca to Medina alleged in 622, Year One in the Islamic calendar) was created as a purely literary artifact. An artifact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries."

Edit: If you are Islamic and I just yanked away a crutch, sorry. You asked.

Edit2: Saw this news bit today and I thought -- How ironic! A full circle. Saudis quiz 'gay wedding' guests

[Haider]

My parents are a living example of everything counter to your assertion.

51 years this September.

How about this. Find, court, and marry a good woman, then report out to us in about 10 years about marriage. Being married sure change my understanding of marriage, that is for sure.

This might be the reason why I said:

Only in the last hundred of years this changed in our Western world.

We now have the privilege - mostly because of our relative wealth and independance (meaning women rights and leaving behind the "villiage community") - to choose for ourselves. This also doesn't mean that there weren't marraiges for love only in the past, but it was only a arguably small faction.

Arranged marriages are still common throughout Asia, Africa, East-Europe (dwindling in cities, common in rual areas), China and of course the Middle East (and virtually all Muslim countries), not only India. I would (without having any statistics) say that most of the marriages today are still made for reasons other than love.

So honestly I don't see a tradition of the "sacred marriage". Mostly the reasons to marry were earthly ones and seldom ones of spirit (so to speak).

[Occhidiangela]

On how you approach life.

Some folks see marriage as a powerful, spiritual bond.

[Lady Vashj]

Don't y'all just hate cans of worms?

[ShadowHM]

Some folks see marriage as a powerful, spiritual bond.

Isn't 'some' a lovely word? "Some like oysters. Others prefer snails." :P

It is not like you to make fatuous comments, Occhi. So when I read that, I got an immediate mental image of my Great-Aunt Harriet saying "Some people have standards!" with that lovely edge that meant "And the ones I’m looking at clearly don't!"

Were you really suggesting that if it is not a spiritual bond it is not a powerful one?

My carping at you aside:

It struck me that the places cited as ones where arranged (and presumably thus at least initially loveless) marriages are common are also some of the places where the extended family is much stronger as a societal influence than some others where the nuclear family is the basic building block. I then began to wonder about where and how that 'powerful spiritual bond' notion began to be fostered. Is there a relationship between the need for emphasising that bond and the breakdown of the extended family as the foundation of society? Is there a relationship between the desire of the church to be a powerful influence on people’s lives and the emphasis placed on the spiritual nature of a marriage as opposed to the more secular bonding that arranged marriages create between families?

[Count Duckula]

I considered it myself, but this whole thread makes me sick.&nbsp; Some people I respect in here are acting like ignorant bigots and it really angers me.&nbsp; I just didn't want to get into it.&nbsp; I will support you, however, for saying pretty much exactly what I wanted to say.

I'm just wondering about everybody else afraid to speak up about this. I've also noticed that my post made few waves, if any. Should I be relieved that y'all are sniping at each other and not me?

Well, except for that bit about cold Chef Boyardee.&nbsp; That is just morally wrong, and it cheapens my enjoyment of my own Chef Boyardee, which is defined as canned Italian food products that you heat up.&nbsp; I am writing my congressman, and if there is any justice, your abominous acts of food consumption will be banned, so that I can finally eat my hot Chef Boyardee in peace.

Meh. I'm writing the ACLU and demanding Beefaroni equality. :P It's like the folks who put cloves and pineapple on Spam. They're not hurting anyone. So what if they want to dress up their fake potted meat product? :lol:

Also, here is a link you might enjoy as much as I did:

http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display...3/4039aff78e385

And it was much appreciated, and heavily forwarded.

No, I don't like being the poster child Jew on this campus.

No, I don't like Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson blaming 9/11 on freedom of choice, both sexual and abortional.

No, I don't like having bumper stickers removed from my car because they're too controversial, and Campus Security not doing a damned thing about destruction of my property.

I don't like a lot of things. Especially the fact that I have to write up two response papers for classes I despise. >_< Will continue this later.

[Archon_Wing]

Nah, just when they're opened

[Occhidiangela]

Something that was not there.

Were you really suggesting that if it is not a spiritual bond it is not a powerful one?

No, but you just did. :P

Haider took a stand for a materialistic and non spiritual model of marriage as the baseline. I find that at odds with fact, but can only support it so far: Some do not agree with that. If I could have been specific with a percentage, I'd have provided one, but as I don't, "some"{ is as specific as I could get.

Nuff Said.

"The only evil in Lothlaurien is that which folk bring with them."

[Occhidiangela]

Recently married her one true love . . .


.

.

.
.


A box of donuts. :P