Homosexual marriage II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Brownjenkins, all due respect, but that's completely a-historical. The Vatican state has lasted longer than any other medieval country of more flexibility. China was shooting protesters in the square in 1989, and people have been fleeing Hong Kong in droves. You can hardly claim them as a victory for 'openness.' The Ottoman Empire ran from 1299-1922...show me one of your "open societies" with similar longevity.

If that's your criteria, Lief's point wins.

Democracy and openess are very recent history compared to your examples, and China was doing a lot worse than shooting a few protestors 100 years ago. The key is the bad things that don't happen anywhere near as much as they use to anymore, not the bad things that still do.

The Vatican also use to have the power to start wars, as did the King or Queen of England. Do either, while they still exist, still have anywhere near that kind power any more? Can you imagine a scenario where they would ever regain that power?

Dinosaurs dominated the earth for 160 million years. Humans have a few thousand years of domination under our belts. Does this mean that we are destined to eventually lose our dominance to a resurgence of what was obviously a much more successful species than we are?

If all of the western world crashes and burns, and tyranny becomes the norm again, I'll admit I was wrong. But I don't see us taking that many steps backward, though we will certainly take some from time to time, now that the democracy cat is out of the bag.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rome? Although I actually disagree with BJ's idea.

Rome was not an open society, or a democracy, at all. It was mearly a tyranny run by a select few nobles, as opposed to the more common tyrannies of the time run by one individual.

[Insidious Rex]

Lief,

What garbage. Theres ALWAYS been STD's as long as there have been humans. Theres always been drug (alcohol) abuse and family break up. ALWAYS. You can play numbers games all you like but the idea that lessening these things is justification for living under a Taliban like religious dictatorship is just lunacy. That kind of oppressive leadership results in much much more damaging conditions for people then simply getting crabs or getting drunk or getting a divorce does. Ask Germany or South Africa or Afghanistan...

Humans have an innate instinct to engage in what you like to define as "immoral" behavior simply because they are human. Irrelevant of whatever oppressive society they live under. So deal with and accept that fact rather then making such draconian cutting off your nose despite your face proposals. There are MUCH better ways of handling things...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Democracy and openess are very recent history compared to your examples, and China was doing a lot worse than shooting a few protestors 100 years ago. The key is the bad things that don't happen anywhere near as much as they use to anymore, not the bad things that still do.

The Vatican also use to have the power to start wars, as did the King or Queen of England. Do either, while they still exist, still have anywhere near that kind power any more? Can you imagine a scenario where they would ever regain that power?

Dinosaurs dominated the earth for 160 million years. Humans have a few thousand years of domination under our belts. Does this mean that we are destined to eventually lose our dominance to a resurgence of what was obviously a much more successful species than we are?

If all of the western world crashes and burns, and tyranny becomes the norm again, I'll admit I was wrong. But I don't see us taking that many steps backward, though we will certainly take some from time to time, now that the democracy cat is out of the bag.

BJ, I just do not know. Maybe from where you sit the world is a much better place. Maybe it actually is. But I have world-wide news of rape as policy, and starving children, and kids conscripted into armies of all kinds, from gangs to suicide bombing. Is that the fruit of democratic ideals, or rejection of them? Is the solution the iron hand of religious fundamentalism, or a broadening tolerance of religious dissent?

I know what my preference is, but I don't base it on any kind of social Darwinism that assumes my way is inherently "more successful." I just think it's "right." I don't know what day of the week "tyranny was the rule' in a way that applies to all the planet...we've hardly taken any interest in most people's version of themselves, preferring to enshrine the victor's version. For the average person on the street in Africa, the Golden Age might have been 200 BCE, or 50 AD, or any time before or since, EXCEPT today. And the same goes for almost everywhere else, outside of mostly white enclaves in NA, Western Europe, and the British Isles.

I like democracy. I think it's a swell idea. But even in the US, which fetishizes the term so much, it's distributed highly unevenly.

[brownjenkins]

I didn't say democracy is perfect, just better. And, once entrenched, is very hard (if not impossible), to remove.

The bad things you mention are simply what IR pointed out: the way it has always been. The difference between today and a few thousand years ago is that there are some refuges for the poor and oppressed, and I think they will continue to grow.

The numbers game is a difficult thing, because there are so many more humans on the globe than there even were 500 years ago, but my guess is that the percentage of those who are oppressed has diminished over those 500 years tremendously.

And, while 200 BCE may have been a great time for a few elites among the classic civilizations, my guess is that the average person was just as desperate, if not more so, then they are today.

[brownjenkins]

I should add that, even if I'm wrong, optimistic is a much more pleasant way to go through life.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I didn't say democracy is perfect, just better. And, once entrenched, is very hard (if not impossible), to remove.

The bad things you mention are simply what IR pointed out: the way it has always been. The difference between today and a few thousand years ago is that there are some refuges for the poor and oppressed, and I think they will continue to grow.

The numbers game is a difficult thing, because there are so many more humans on the globe than there even were 500 years ago, but my guess is that the percentage of those who are oppressed has diminished over those 500 years tremendously.

And, while 200 BCE may have been a great time for a few elites among the classic civilizations, my guess is that the average person was just as desperate, if not more so, then they are today.

But here's part of the problem. I'm not looking at "a few elites among the classic civilizations." That whole premise is skewed. I'm trying for a random sample of people whose history isn't even written down. And I say that you haven't yet proven to me that "now (as opposed to somewhere, sometime) there are some refuges for the poor and oppressed" and that democracy is responsible for them.

If democracy was so hard to remove, there would be no "Patriot Act".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

For the average person on the street in Africa, the Golden Age might have been 200 BCE, or 50 AD, or any time before or since, EXCEPT today.

Hooray!!! A person without time snobbery! A person who realizes that modern plumbing doesn't necessarily mean that life is better!!!

(sorry for the outburst - I just get tired of all the "with all of our modern advances, life is so much better now than before!" lines that I've seen before. I applaud your viewpoint, sis! )

[Lief Erikson]

Me too .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I didn't say democracy is perfect, just better. And, once entrenched, is very hard (if not impossible), to remove.

Rome and Greece dropped it, and in its recent, strong state, it is only very new, in the sweep of world history. Just to say you can't know how strong it is yet. We haven't had anywhere near as much time to observe it as we have dictatorships, and dictatorships, monarchies and the like have been the dominant form of government for thousands of years.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lief,

What garbage. Theres ALWAYS been STD's as long as there have been humans. Theres always been drug (alcohol) abuse and family break up. ALWAYS.

Show me where I denied that, in my post.

But does the fact that something harmful has always existed mean that it should be legal? Torture has always existed too. Cannibalism has always existed, though generally in remote corners of society. Does the fact that they have always existed mean that they should be allowed, under law?

Laws should protect society. That's one of their primary functions. Do you advocate legalizing all drugs and allowing drug dealers free reign in society?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You can play numbers games all you like but the idea that lessening these things is justification for living under a Taliban like religious dictatorship is just lunacy.

I note the loaded language, in your pointing to the Taliban. I believe that most Christian governments from the past were not like the Taliban.

And numbers are very important. If they weren't, we wouldn't bother with police.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That kind of oppressive leadership results in much much more damaging conditions for people then simply getting crabs or getting drunk or getting a divorce does. Ask Germany or South Africa or Afghanistan...

I don't understand what exactly you mean when you say that what I'm advocating would be extremely "oppressive." What do you mean by "oppressive"? What do you think I'm advocating?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Humans have an innate instinct to engage in what you like to define as "immoral" behavior simply because they are human. Irrelevant of whatever oppressive society they live under. So deal with and accept that fact rather then making such draconian cutting off your nose despite your face proposals. There are MUCH better ways of handling things...

We are both agreed that humans have certain natural impulses that they need to repress. For instance, if I have a severe anger management problem and want to beat on people, or if I have a particularly callous and greedy streak and think to myself, "ah, money is to be found in dealing drugs, money !" . . . I'd better repress it. So saying that the impulses we're discussing are natural is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they should be legal. Some natural impulses are destructive, and we can see from the available evidence that the practices you're saying should be legal are among these.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Show me where I denied that, in my post.

I never said you denied it Lief. Stop playing base polemics and missing the point. Your post implied that religious authoritarianism is the answer to all the problems with society today (including the issues on that list). My post was meant to point out that even if ruling with a theocratic iron fist reduced the spread of STD’s and vandalism and divorce etc. that it introduces a huge host of OTHER atrocities upon the people of the society. So it’s a stupid suggestion in light of that fact. I don’t wish to live under a Taliban like system be it Islamic or Christian or any religion. Id rather have democratic freedoms, free speech and reasonable rule of law instead of a forced nanny/Puritan state where you cant do anything because its bad for you. And really do you want to impose religion on people as mandatory? Is that really how you want to foster belief?

But does the fact that something harmful has always existed mean that it should be legal? Torture has always existed too. Cannibalism has always existed, though generally in remote corners of society. Does the fact that they have always existed mean that they should be allowed, under law?

Who said anything about legalizing everything? What you want is a radical shift in what is ILLEGAL as in your Oman example. So why are you trying to get me to defend legalization? All I said was theres much better ways of dealing with things then draconian theocratic decree by force.

Laws should protect society. That's one of their primary functions.

Yeah tell that to the women and the homosexuals and the musicians and the countless decent people in theocratic dictatorships who are persecuted and sometimes murdered in the name of whats good for them and society…

I note the loaded language, in your pointing to the Taliban. I believe that most Christian governments from the past were not like the Taliban.

So then your agenda is strictly a CHRISTIAN dictatorship? Why bring up the Oman example then exactly? If you bring up an Islamic country as an ideal then Ill sure as heck bring up Afghanistan as a counter example thanks… And Christian theocratic rule has had a pretty pockmarked history on its own so I would hardly raise it up as an example of the perfect society either. The inquisition anyone?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

IR, maybe you know, because I'm not following Lief's argument. He's saying that you "advocate the legalization" of STD's, drunkenness and divorce? And he suggests a firm Christian theocracy is the only real alternative to a complete bacchanal?

I really don't understand US citizens with this point of view. Isn't it clear that if those systems were all that, we wouldn't have an independent country at all?

My ancestors came here for religious plurality and freedom of expression. That's just who they were. Europe was full of people killing minority faiths, and the lucky ones got out. Why would anyone born here want to reinstate a version of the older idea?

[brownjenkins]

Bah!

I can see why Pilate washed his hands.

It would be nice if we had time machines so we could go back and take a look at some of these "golden ages" you all idolize.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm going to respond to the above posts on the Theology Thread. Otherwise, we'll get too far off track from the topic of this thread.

[GrayMouser]

Congratulations, California.

One of the people planning to take advantage is George Takei, 71, who is planning to marry his partner of 21 years. Takei is of course better known to Star Trek fans as LT. Sulu, helmsman of the starship Enterprise.

Apparently he was sent to an interment camp for Japanese-Americans as a boy, so he's no stranger to discrimination.

Referring there to his boyhood experience as one of thousands of Japanese-Americans sent to U.S. internment camps during World War II, Takei said he was "keenly mindful of the subtle and not so subtle discrimination that the law can impose."

http://ca.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/

[Mari]

Your link doesn't work. >_<

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a state in which gay-marriages were allowed and then that decision got reversed?

[Insidious Rex]

Massachusetts also allows gay marriages currently. And 4 other states allow Civil Unions. But most states have actively sought to ban gay marriage by statuate or constitutional amendment.

[Mari]

Ah, thanks.
Here it's legal. Yesterday there was a kiss-in on the Dam-square in Amsterdam to protest against discrimination of homosexual people.
I wondered in what sense they felt discriminated against and if it happens a lot.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Mari

Ah, thanks.
Here it's legal. Yesterday there was a kiss-in on the Dam-square in Amsterdam to protest against discrimination of homosexual people.
I wondered in what sense they felt discriminated against and if it happens a lot.

Can't answer for Amsterdam. But here, the short list is:
Your family isn't recognised for custody or inheritance, and only occasionally for big deal stuff like health insurance.

If you're in the hospital, your partner isn't recognised as 'next of kin" and can't even visit, much less make health-care decisions for you, without specialized private paperwork.

You pay higher taxes.

You have trouble establishing joint credit.

You have trouble adopting.

You aren't protected by divorce laws, and aren't entitled to retirement or survivors' benefits.

You're routinely discrimanated against in the workplace, and with housing.

Your consentual intimate activity is illegal.

You are effectively banned from certain categories of employment, including the military.

You're at risk for "hate crimes" which target you as a member of your "class".

As a young person you're denied access to accurate information about your sexuality, and to good role models.

As a parent, you're at risk of having your parenting threatened for no other reason.

There's a lot of work to do.

[Mari]

I was wondering about the Dutch homosexuals actually, because I thought the laws here were pretty much trying to help them. I know there are still people who aren't very nice towards gay people (I still don't understand the difference between "homosexual" and "gay" >_<) but here they can get married, you can tell people you are gay and most people will accept it (I think), they can have children through adoption, IVF, whatever and your preference isn't supposed to be allowed to make a difference when having a jobinterview.
But since there's apparently still something wrong (otherwise they wouldn't have to protest), I am interested to find out what exactly is.

[inked]

Civil unions giving all those abilities and connections and rights exist in many places. But some uber-gays insist on the word marriage since it validates them in ways that civil union does not. But that is really absurd since marriage is a union of opposite sexes.

So which is this? A valid legal complaint or whining about not being able to be married? - as though the law could change Nature?