Michelle cooks the goose

Posted by: yoyo52

Michelle cooks the goose - 06/26/08 06:49 PM

Obama's wife says he'll fight for gay equality<br><br>It was nice thinking he stood a chance <br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/26/08 07:09 PM

I really don't see Sen. McCain politicking on fear of homosexuals like the Bush campaign did. The alliance between evangelicals and the Republican party that the previous campaigns were based on is pretty much shattered and Sen. McCain needs to temper whatever crazy base land maneuvering he does with his appeal to independents. Sen. Obama is also in favor of tremendously popular policy in these regards. I wouldn't worry.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/26/08 07:23 PM

Hope you're right.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/26/08 07:27 PM

Everyone should be treated equally not just gays - where's the campaign for everyone else? Ugly people should be treated the same as handsome; distraught the same as debonair; ignorant the same as clued-up; married the same as single; old the same as young; amiable the same as objectionable; and squirts the same as Charles Atlas. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/26/08 07:30 PM

this is and has been Obama's position . . . and he won the primaries with this position and he's gained a huge lead on McCain with this position. he's going to push same sex benefits. <br><br><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080303b.html">here's a link about Obama's position</a><br><br><a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html">if you look up McCain and Obama's position on this at CNN, you find the same thing</a><br><br><a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm">on the issues (ontheissues.org)</a>:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Obama has strongly supported civil unions, arguing that it is a way to protect equal rights without taking the politically risky approach of gay marriage. <p><hr></blockquote><p>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 05:30 AM

Passive aggressive much?<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 07:16 AM

noope - just pointing out that there are equally corrosive forms of discrimination in play as the ones everyone keeps going on about. Twerp discrimination, positive discrimination and nepotism for example are just as prevalent as those based on gender or sexual orientation. It doesn't solve the problem of discrimination to work a gay person into a vacancy if other applicants are rejected just because they belonged to a majority grouping or were seen as some sort of twerp or considered too ugly. <br><br>When I was responsible on a committee for example for admission of barristers into our chambers there were others on the committee who openly asserted a bias for members of minorities, such as women and ehnic minorities. I was in the minority in wanting selections to be based on merit which is how I proceeded later on when running my business. If some sort of twerp or a squirt of some description came along whom I thought could do the job better than anyone else, she got the job.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 07:46 AM

[censored][censored].<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 08:03 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Am I wrong to say that bringing up "other kinds of discrimination" is a means to minimize homophobia<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, you're wrong. Bringing up other forms of discrimination doesn't minimise anything. Homophobia is no more important than other forms of discrimination because that would discriminate against persons passed over on the grounds of some other bias.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 08:06 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Bringing up other forms of discrimination doesn't minimise anything.<p><hr></blockquote><p> VS. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Homophobia is no more important than other forms of discrimination...<p><hr></blockquote><p>Amazing.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 08:26 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Amazing.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Why?<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 08:31 AM

The difference is that descrimination on grounds of sex, race or homosexuality is illegal - in many countries. But descrimination against ugly, fat, short, dumb people isn't. Though they're all wrong, some have legal protections and others do not.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 08:37 AM

nobody is telling short, fat, or ugly people they cannot marry. we have laws here, in Michigan at least, telling gay people they cannot marry, nor can they have civil unions.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 08:57 AM

[censored][censored] endlessly just to suit someone else's ego.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 09:34 AM

&[censored][censored] endlessly just to suit someone else's ego. <p><hr></blockquote><p> Ego? Where's the implicit disrespect? I've made the point that other forms of discrimination deserve equal recognition and others have endorsed the point in their replies - how is that disrespectful to others? <br><br><br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 09:48 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The difference is that descrimination on grounds of sex, race or homosexuality is illegal - in many countries. But descrimination against ugly, fat, short, dumb people isn't.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Yeah although I didn't understand Michelle's stance to be that the law needs to be better upheld so much as strengthened by new legislation - although I could be wrong.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 10:57 AM

Michelle didn't give her stance -- she was stating what her husband would do . . . and it's what he's been saying that he supports all along. he supports civil unions for same sex partners. Michelle said, "Barack believes that we must fight for the world as it should be, a world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws," with "discriminatory laws" being key here. 4 years ago, my state outlawed same sex marriage and anything similar, which courts have now ruled includes legal unions. this is in our constitution. the only way to override it is for the federal gov't to pass legislation allowing same sex unions (or for citizens to amend the constitution -- very unlikely as it passed easily the first time 4 years ago). <br><br>we have no law against ugly people or weirdos or fat people of opposite sexes so i am not sure i see how you are tying your argument into the civil union argument that Obama supports.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 11:00 AM

I've made my points clear and other people have done a fine job disputing your points. I'm fine leaving it at that.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 11:39 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>...other people have done a fine job disputing your points.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well as it happens what they've done is agreed with my points - the only one who disagrees is you. <br><br>As to homophobia most patrons know from my posts over the years that your accusation is ill-founded because of the gay icons and figureheads, past and present, that I'm known to admire including Brian Epstein, David Bowie, Stephen Fry, Dusty Springfied, Ian McKellen, Sandi Toksvig, to name only a few, and now, for your entertainment... Tab Hunter...<br><br><embed width="448" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" src="http://i270.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid270.photobucket.com/albums/jj119/aubu47/YoungLove.flv"><br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 01:09 PM

i guess i have no clue what your point is. i thought i was telling you that there is a difference between what Michelle is claiming about Obama and what you are arguing for with regard to twerps or squirts. if i am agreeing with you then you have a really odd way of making your points because i thought i was disagreeing with you.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 01:23 PM

While we are derailing posts, one thing that always bugged me when I lived in the US: I have always been on the skinny side. I was a rail until I was 28 or so, and now I am mostly a rail with a little (not so little anymore?) pot belly to raise my center of gravity. When I was in the US, people would often comment on how they couldn't believe how skinny I was, and how they thought I would just waste away one day... And that was okay, but calling somebody fat, unless your raring for a fight, was un-PC. Over here in Japan, skinny is more of the norm and I don't get those comments anymore, and I don't miss them.<br><br>Of course, there are a lot more homosexuals in the closet here, cuz it just makes things easier....<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 01:24 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> i thought i was telling you that there is a difference between what Michelle is claiming about Obama and what you are arguing for with regard to twerps or squirts. if i am agreeing with you then you have a really odd way of making your points because i thought i was disagreeing with you.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Ah no, you're agreeing with me because at the moment Michelle, you and I are all talking about forms of discrimination that are not currently prohibited by law. if you go back to my original post you'll see that I was questioning a campaign for measures against one form of discrimination without any reference to other forms that are equally pervasive, if not more so.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 01:48 PM

There are laws against homosexuals. There are, as of yet, no laws against fat folks or ugly folks or any of the other categories you've mentioned.<br><br>To say that one should not discriminate against the fat, therefore, is to make a statement about personal, not legal bias. A parallel would be to say that one should not take the name of the Lord one's God in vain--a matter of personal, not legal behavior.<br><br>To mix up the two categories is dangerous. Maybe you don't recognize the danger because, as you've said elsewhere, your legal system does not recognize a division between church and state.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 02:06 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>There are laws against homosexuals.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Which ones? Not in England there aren't. Don't say marriage because I've explained in another thread why homosexuals can't get married. Discrimination is not in the word but in the treatment of married as against single persons.<br><br>The division of Church and State in England was established by Henry II [1154-1189] but the Church is represented because the Queen is Head of the Church of England and Parliament includes representation of the Church by the Archbishop of Canterbury.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 02:37 PM

Falling back on the "definition of marriage" thing is claptrap and you know it. The word gay didn't used to mean homosexual either (have we had this conversation?). I remember, when I was a prepubescent boy, sneaking a look at the "sex" article in my family's encyclopedia and reading (for the umpteenth time): "Sex is when a man and a woman lay side by side and he..." Little did my untried imagination realize at the time that this was a pretty narrow definition. Not only is lying side by side a cumbersome way to have sex (at least facing one another) it also meant that two "gays" (by gay I mean homosexual by the way) don't have sex. That's what my 1977 World Book encyclopedia (still sitting in my mother's basement in Iowa) says. So I ask you, km: Can two men have "sex"?<br><br><br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:06 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So I ask you, km: Can two men have "sex"?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Depends on what you mean by "sex". Let's say that on a broad definition they can have sex but they still can't get married. Bill had sex with Monica but he didn't marry her. The only ones who are married are Bill and Hillary.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:23 PM

"Let's say that on a broad definition they can have sex but they still can't get married"<br><br>Herm, let's play this little word dance again after the next edition of the Oxford dictionary goes to press, shall we?<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:31 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Herm, let's play this little word dance again after the next edition of the Oxford dictionary goes to press, shall we?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Do whatever you like but the Oxford dicionary is never going to change the definition of 'man' compared to 'woman' <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:38 PM

"Do whatever you like but the Oxford dicionary is never going to change the definition of 'man' compared to 'woman' "<br><br>Oh ye of little imagination. <br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:42 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Oh ye of little imagination. <p><hr></blockquote><p> I wouldn't say that - I imagine God to be the unification of man and woman or at any rate - male and female...<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:45 PM

My husband has the same complaint. And one of his sisters, W., is . . . a very, very big girl. Every family get together ~ "Jim, you need to gain some weight." What?!? LIke, they just met him last week? But nobody, NObody says "W., too bad about those knee replacements, but ya think that extra 200 pounds you're carrying might have had anything to do with it?" <br><br>Serious about the knee replacements and derailing threads. Oh, and Jim being "wiry." Not skinny, wiry. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:49 PM

He's probably surprised by your lack of imagination.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:53 PM

I don't know, the Judeo-Christian Bible clearly states, "He" in a number of places I think. And do what you like, I don't think Bible editors are ever going to change that. Good thing I don't let dusty old books (or online databases for that matter) define what is or isn't, or can or can't be done. <br><br>addendum<br>One could argue that the J-C bible has no monopoly on interpretation, but neither does the Oxford English dictionary, or the English language itself for that matter.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:56 PM

Exactly, and if I may be so bold, it was from "big" people that I seemed to hear comments about my weight the most (of course, time embellishes).<br><br>I would like to be described as "wiry" but it is misleading. I'm skinny and there is nothing wiry about what little flesh I do have on my arms (and the little extra I have around the waist, erm...)<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 03:59 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>He's probably surprised by your lack of imagination.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Last time we checked - I think it was Blair who had the hotline - He was in favour of invading Iraq but opposed to homosexual 'marriages'. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 04:19 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Good thing I don't let dusty old books... define what is or isn't, or can or can't be done... the J-C bible has no monopoly on interpretation, but neither does the Oxford English dictionary, or the English language itself for that matter.<p><hr></blockquote><p> No, I quite agree anything can be done... one could easily marry a dog for example if only the law permitted it - as a matter of fact I did propose a "Marriage and Bestiality Bill" recently but no one seemed interested. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 04:22 PM

Who's talking about Blair? Jesus, the way you argue . . . ah, I get it. Barrister, master of convulation and herder of cats.<br><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> . . . or at any rate - male and female...<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>And never above the quick, unmarked edit to clarify after the fact. Nobody would ever underrate your abilities to multimask. But don't mind me. I only bait, as I'm out the door for a hot dinner date with my deliciously skinny husband. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 04:30 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>... never above the quick, unmarked edit to clarify after the fact. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Quite right there was a gap of a minute or so - I suddenly realised that man didn't rule the world but was only one of many species... Oh, Blair was relevant btw because he takes his orders from direct from God.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 04:57 PM

"as a matter of fact I did propose a "Marriage and Bestiality Bill" recently but no one seemed interested."<br><br>I take back the "ye of little imagination" quip.<br><br>Well, even though I respect other cultures, I have a problem with arranged marriages (at least the type where one or both participants isn't given any choice), and I think it would be very hard to determine consent in inter-species marriage (though not hard at all to determine said animal's sexuality, as homosexuality is not conveniently confined to the human race).<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 05:03 PM

What he doesn't remind us of is that the proposal was intended to suggest that changing marriage to admit homosexual pairings would lead to human-animal marriages. It was also in that thread that he indicated that, because Parliament includes in the House of Lords the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal, and because the monarch is the titular Head of the Church, the UK's separation of church and state is at best notional, something that he now seems to want to modify so significantly that it becomes a null issue.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 05:58 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I wouldn't say that - I imagine God to be the unification of man and woman or at any rate - male and female...<p><hr></blockquote><p> I think you may have created a god for a religion with no congregation.<br><br>An old dude up in the sky: that covers most of the religions.<br>An old woman in the sky: that covers a tiny minority, Amazonians, etc.<br>An old being in the sky called Hermaphrodite who has a penis and a vagina: um, you got anyone else in your congregation?<br><br>I think all three are nuts, or nutless, as the case may be but your religion is a Venn diagram wherein the titties are not pushed together but quite splayed apart.<br><br>Living in the cleavage. I guess it could be worse.<br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 06:02 PM

Multimasking.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 06:42 PM

Though I risk seriously derailing this thread further, Poly. I must say I have been, ahem, reading up on science recently, a little bit of my own autodidactism, and it has certainly shaken my fervent need to see an "intelligent design" in things. One chapter I read was about a researcher who created a number of randomly assembled circuits (real ones, not computer generated) and allowed the less effective circuits to "die off"and allowed the more effective ones to live on. Seeing this method, and his results, well, I guess I must acknowledge that life, among other things can certainly go on perfectly well unfettered by an intelligent hand. But, still, that same part of me that loves sci-fi and fantasy wants that extra something. So I have still chosen to stick to the notion that all life in some, as yet and maybe never understood way, creates something larger than ourselves that is, erm, good. And I still think Jesus and Buddha and a few other had a lot of good things to say (though most ignore or pervert those gems of wisdom). OK, km, back to, what was it? Oh right, bestiality. You were saying?<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 09:56 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>But, still, that same part of me that loves sci-fi and fantasy wants that extra something. <p><hr></blockquote><p>I love Sci-Fi and fantasy. One of my favorite movies, Sixth Sense, total fantasy, life or souls living after death.<br><br>But what has sci-fi and fantasy have to do with the real world? There is a line there. Not even a very grey or faded line. Fantasy on the one side and reality based life on the other. Science needs no help from across that line to explain anything. Science only gets harder to explain, not easier, if you throw in magic, fantasy, or intelligent design.<br><br>Sure there are unexplained gaps of knowledge. Are they unexplained because of some mystical fantasy old man in the sky guiding force? Do we have to stick a god in anywhere we find one of these gaps?<br><br>Completely absurd to me to do that. The gaps grow smaller, the earth is no longer flat, so dragons never were at the edge of the map. Never will be either.<br><br>I applaud any reading of science. Keep going. kick that last gap and that last dude in the sky in the as[i][/i]s.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 10:26 PM

Did you ever read Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End? One of my favorites.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 11:19 PM

Ah no, you're thinking in anatomical terms - I was thinking metaphysical. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 11:29 PM

Yeah, I read that one. I do like Arthur C. Clarke. Right up there in the type of category I was thinking of when I wrote that last little missive to Poly. Clarke, as well as Vonnegut and Bradbury, were more ones for the story driving things forward than any real character development, but I still liked them all.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 11:33 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Michelle didn't give her stance<p><hr></blockquote><p> I've checked out what she said and she did give her stance... she aligned herself with her husband's message when she said:<br><br>“Nothing we have to do over the next four or eight years is going to be easy. There will be powerful forces who believe that things should stay just as they are, that everything is fine, and that’s where you all come in... your voices of truth and hope and of possibility have got to drown out the sceptics and the cynics."<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/27/08 11:54 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>OK, km, back to, what was it? Oh right, bestiality. You were saying?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah thanks, I was about to say that if one changed the definition of marriage to include unnatural unions like same sex ones or inter-species ones then the law on bestiality would have to be changed in the same way that in England the law on buggery was changed to accommodate same sex unions. Now what I've noticed is a certain confusion among patrons who want to endorse same sex unions as marriages but condemn inter-species ones in that they can't make up their minds on what basis they're objectionable. If you apply a religious yardstick they're both wrong but if you apply a secular democratic yardstick they're also both wrong at the moment but could both become right by legislative action. My position doesn't depend on either yardstick but on the laws of nature. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 12:25 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>My position doesn't depend on either yardstick but on the laws of nature.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Interestingly enough, "marriage" doesn't exist in nature, while homosexuality and same-sex unions surely do. If your position depends on the "laws of nature" then it is pretty much indefensible.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 12:31 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What he doesn't remind us of is that the proposal was intended to suggest that changing marriage to admit homosexual pairings would lead to human-animal marriages<p><hr></blockquote><p>No that wasn't my point. I'm saying that neither same sex unions nor inter-species ones can be marriage within the accepted definition of the term. If the only thing that counts is what the legislature says then they can change the law on inter-species unions just the same as same sex ones but I seem to recall that for some unspecified reason some people found that idea abhorant.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 12:43 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Interestingly enough, "marriage" doesn't exist in nature<p><hr></blockquote><p>No but it's defined by terms that depend on nature like the 'union of one man and one woman' for example. If you want to remove what is natural from the requirements of matrimony then we're back to the aardvark. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>... while homosexuality and same-sex unions surely do..<p><hr></blockquote><p> Well personally I would have said "surely don't". Copulation with a same sex minor for example or with an aadvark might be natural in the sense that it's physically possible but I would argue that such activities are unnatural because quite apart from being exploitative they have nothing to do with procreation and survival of the species. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 12:47 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>but I seem to recall that for some unspecified reason some people found that idea abhorant.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I think conceptually the difference there is the desire of two consenting adult human beings to share a legal, committed relationship with each other vs. an inter-species relationship where consent by one of the parties cannot be determined.<br><br>That, and in most legal systems, the standing of human beings is superior to that of other species; those legal systems having been developed by and for human beings and not, say, tree frogs (not that tree frogs have no legal standing -- just not as much as humans do ;-)<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 01:01 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>No but it's defined by terms that depend on nature like the 'union of one man and one woman' for example.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Where in nature is a relationship defined as "one man and one woman"? It certainly isn't an empirical, scientifically-backed definition to be sure. Marriage itself is a legal and/or religious construct and is therefore a creation of human beings, depending not one whit upon the workings of nature.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you want to remove what is natural from the requirements of matrimony then we're back to the aardvark.<p><hr></blockquote><p>"Natural"? What's "natural" in a legalistic and societal sense changes constantly. To claim that humans' relationships with each other are locked into a static definition of what is "natural' for the species is to deny the evolutionary nature of human existence itself. At best such statements serve only to reflect the personal opinions of the issuer as to how those relationships should be conducted; certainly not as some timeless, inviolate and universal standard.<br><br>And what do aardvarks have to do with human relationships and the legality of them? Aside from a rhetorical distraction, that is ;-)<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 01:25 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Where in nature is a relationship defined as "one man and one woman"?<p><hr></blockquote><p> You've misconstrued the post - the definition is man-made but in nature 'man' and 'woman' represent the species.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>To claim that humans' relationships with each other are locked into a static definition of what is "natural' for the species is to deny the evolutionary nature of human existence itself.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's what I keep trying to say... the Zoophobes are arguing that relationships are locked into a static definition of 'human relationships with each other' which denies the evolutionary possibility of inter-species relationshiips. I admit they would not promote procreation but then again nor do same sex unions. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 01:48 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I think conceptually the difference there is the desire of two consenting adult human beings to share a legal, committed relationship with each other vs. an inter-species relationship where consent by one of the parties cannot be determined.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Now you're arguing like Arthur C Clarke did to explain what most would take to be his sexuall corruption of underage boys that the only thing that counts is consent. If consent to a sexual act can be divined by conduct on the part of a minor or animal I still say it's morally wrong.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 05:59 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Now you're arguing like Arthur C Clarke did to explain what most would take to be his sexuall corruption of underage boys that the only thing that counts is consent.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's not my argument at all. Concept A = Two consenting adult humans desiring to enter into a legal relationship with each other, cognizant of the roles and responsibilities inherent in such a relationship. Concept B = that of an adult (one assumes) human being desiring to enter into a relationship with a member of another species, where the desires and consent of that member cannot be known, or even if it has the cognitive capability of understanding or even conceiving of such a relationship.<br><br>Concept A =/= Concept B. As a matter of fact, Concept B isn't even remotely derivative from Concept A, contrary to what many who are against homosexual marriage would have us believe.<br><br>Until such a time when it has been determined that there exists another species on this planet capable of conceptualizing, comprehending and assenting to such relationships as human beings have today, Concept B is pretty much a moot issue anyways; useful only as a tool to sidetrack discussions such as this one ;-)<br><br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 06:11 AM

s-t-r-e-t-c-h!<br><br>i don't agree with 100% of what Obama says, but that quote could easily be said and meant by me. that's just a general statement. if you're trying to literally say she gave a stance then i suppose you're correct in that she's saying she wants people to support Obama, but you know perfectly well that i was referring to the context of this discussion.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 08:24 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Now what I've noticed is a certain confusion among patrons who want to endorse same sex unions as marriages but condemn inter-species ones in that they can't make up their minds on what basis they're objectionable.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Only in your limited imagination is there a failure to explain the difference between same-sex and interspecies sexual relations. As people have pointed out in other threads, the point comes down to volition. And let me be the first here to assert that when we encounter interplanetary aliens capable of voluntary associations, I would argue for the legality of interspecies marriage between such aliens and humans. Your narrow notion of marriage as the legally sanctioned sexual union of same-species, different-sex people for the purpose of procreation is where the problem lies. You insist that such is the legal definition, and seem incapable of conceiving that legal definitions can change to accommodate changes in social practice.<br><br>The argument from nature is simply silly in that regard. After all, in nature corporations are not persons, and yet the law recognizes corporations as persons--indeed, Hobbes conceives of Leviathan as precisely such an incorporated person, so that the position of the sovereign, your monarch for instance, as sovereign is for Hobbes specifically the consequence of the highly unnatural conception of a corporate person. (The sovereign in America is "the people," presumably, but the voice of the people is expressed by that corporate person, "the federal government," itself a Cerberus-like three-headed monster.) At the opposite extreme, the legal principle of femme couverte, under which ladies in marriage disappear as individuals behind the majesty of their husbands' phallic authority, is equally a violation of "nature" for the purposes of legal definition.<br><br>To repeat: the argument from nature is simply silly.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 08:42 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Concept A = Two consenting adult humans desiring to enter into a legal relationship<p><hr></blockquote><p>okay you did specify consenting adults so I apologise for overlooking that. Even so you can't pass off a consenting adult sexual relationship as natural when it has nothing to do with pro-creation. All you're really doing there is expressing a minority personal viewpoint that marriage should be re-defined to include unnatural unions between same-sex couples. What would make more sense is to re-define marriage to an Hawaiian style consensual union between those who are able to procreate which might include persons currrently classified elsewhere as minors. That would enable young couples to bring children up in a loving marriage whilst at the same time outlawing Arthur C Clarke type exploitation of same-sex minors.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Concept B = that of an adult (one assumes) human being desiring to enter into a relationship with a member of another species<p><hr></blockquote><p>right, now this one has the same objection as same sex unions in that they don't promote perpetuation of the species. Animals have their own forms of marriage which as humans we're not well equipped to conceptualise but are no less important than our own, involving courtship, mating, loyalty, nurturing of young and so on that are closer to conventional human marriages than same sex ones. You only have to look as Swan unions for example as a form of marriage that are generally even more successful than human marriages, with the possible exception of arranged marriages which tend to last much longer. Some people have tried to cross the species barrier with sex acts that are in some sense consensual but when they do so they commit an offence and that will remain the case along as lawmakers don't give into to weird minority viewpionts.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 08:54 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Only in your limited imagination is there a failure to explain the difference between same-sex and interspecies sexual relations. As people have pointed out in other threads, the point comes down to volition.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's what Arthur C Clarke said but since he came into the debate I've noticed everyone else backing off the volition argument because what he admitted to was consensual sex acts with same sex minors as young an an Hawaiian child bride, or even younger I believe. Call it silly to bring nature into it if you like but had we known about it at the time he would have been prosecuted for heinous crimes.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 10:03 AM

Finally nuked the fridge, have you?<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 10:13 AM

<br><br><br>Working too hard, need a break, lookin' for comic relief? Well, I sure was, so thanks. I needed that.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 09:22 PM

Not entirely... to send one's wife out on a mission to get more votes in that way was quite shameful I thought. So Obama wants to be the first African American president of the United States but he doesn't want to listen to what the people think about gay unions, no - he just wants to mangle the Constitution to promote that change no matter what they think. That's completely irresponsible in my opinion - what does he know about suicide rates, drug dependency and health issues among the affected groups? Nothing by the look of it. When the Obamas talk about overcoming resistence by 'powerful forces' that's public opinion they're talking about that is. What Obama should be doing is promising to review the entire question of equality for minority groups and leaving it at that. Even that would do nothing about twerp and squirt discrimination but that area is way over his head and there's obviously going to be no action on that whatsoever.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 09:40 PM

All you have done during this entire discussion is to ignore all of the counterpoints from everyone else and bring up your old sophist logic over and over again. Why don't you just tell everyone you aren't going to listen beforehand. It would save everyone an awful lot of trouble.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 10:25 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>All you have done during this entire discussion is to ignore all of the counterpoints... <p><hr></blockquote><p>No, it's quite apparent from the thread that I've discussed the counterpoints and made appropriate concessions when it's been right to do so objectively. You accused me of homophobia for example and I demonstrated with evidence to the contrary that you were mistaken. When you didn't respond that was you ignoring a counterpoint, not me. Instead of trying to characterise the thread as if people can't make up their own minds about it why don't you deal with the suggestion in my last post that Obama is riding roughshod over public opinion by adopting a dogmatic stance on gay unions for a perception of electoral gain?<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/28/08 11:02 PM

Multimasking = you wear out what audience you believe you have left.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 02:57 AM

Yeah, this has gone from:<br>Michelle says Obama will support gay rights, to<br>Everyone should have rights why just gays, to<br>Gay marriages shouldn't be allowed, because they are "unnatural", to<br>Sex with aardvarks, to<br>Arthur C. Clarke, of all people -- Arthur C. Clarke??!!, to<br>Obama running roughshod over public opinion and the Constitution<br><br>That nuclear anti-refrigeration device is, ironically, a dish best served cold ...<br><br>No wonder people just give up, go outside and enjoy the day ;-)<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 03:29 AM

You forgot homophobia, Tab Hunter, Blair's hotline to God, and suicide rates. Arthur C Clarke? Yeah I thought that was a bit odd as well. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 08:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Instead of trying to characterise the thread as if people can't make up their own minds about it why don't you deal with the suggestion in my last post that Obama is riding roughshod over public opinion by adopting a dogmatic stance on gay unions for a perception of electoral gain?<p><hr></blockquote><p>You are not even making sense. But if 37% represents a majority for you...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. June 18-19, 2008. N=896 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all registered voters).<br><br>"There has been much talk recently about whether states should give gay and lesbian couples the legal right to marry. Which of the following comes CLOSEST to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL marriage rights for same-sex couples, OR support civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples, BUT NOT full marriage rights, OR do you oppose ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples?"<br><br> Full Marriage Rights Civil Unions/Partnerships No Legal Recognition Unsure <br> % % % % <br>ALL reg. voters 30 27 37 6<br>Republicans 12 28 55 5<br>Democrats 42 23 28 7<br>Independents 30 33 32 5<br>(source)<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 09:04 AM

Proves my point - he's gone for the position that has the least support. There's...<br><br>1. Full marriage rights: 30 per cent<br><br>2. Civil unions/Partnerships: 27 per cent<br><br>3. No legal recognition 37 per cent<br><br>and what does Obama go with - that's right, 27 per cent civil unions. Could have been worse I s'pose - 64 per cent against full marriage rights that you support and at least he didn't go down that road. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 12:58 PM

you really deal in absolutes, don't you. let me show you the middle ground here. i'll use me as an example. full marriage rights would come closest to my beliefs of how this issue should be handled (since the question says to choose only 1), but i'd be perfectly supportive of civil unions over no legal recognition. i imagine the vast majority of the folks who wanted marriage rights for same sex couples would settle for civil unions at this juncture knowing it's the only possible option that could happen. i bet it has over 50% support even if the current percentage is 27%. <br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 01:29 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>64 per cent against full marriage rights that you support and at least he didn't go down that road.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And 57 percent against no rights at all, which you support. Obama's position is in the middle, and you're calling him dogmatic? Amazing.<br><br>Also worthy of note is that among Democrats and Independents, the concept of some legal recognition for gay unions soundly trounces your position. Amongst Republicans, the results are skewed the other way, but by a smaller margin.<br><br>In any case, it does take some seriously tinted glasses to call Obama's position on this as "running roughshod" over majority public opinion, when that majority supports at least legalized unions if not full marriage rights ,,,<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 01:33 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i imagine the vast majority of the folks who wanted marriage rights for same sex couples would settle for civil unions<p><hr></blockquote><p>Quite possibly but the vast majority who voted for civil unions who couldn't go so far as to endorse same sex marriage could be supposed to prefer the status quo as second preference. That would be a larger number than those you're combining. Personally I wasn't objecting to same sex unions but to use of the term 'marriage'.<br><br>On any fair basis Obama should be going with the largest number of the three options because everything else is speculative. What he's doing in fact assuming he's aware of the poll is going for what he calculates to be the largest number of second preferences because both extremes would prefer civil unions to the other extreme. That's a cop out of his responsibilities similar to awarding a gold medal in the Olympics to the team that comes second.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 01:49 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That's a cop out of his responsibilities similar to awarding a gold medal in the Olympics to the team that comes second.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, it's a position of compromise between two opposite positions. Your sports analogy is flawed because the purpose of government isn't to declare an absolute "winner" on an issue; it's purpose is to generate a solution to the issue that most everybody can accept. Given that the U.S. system of government is based on compromise, it's difficult to see how adopting a position that might bring the other two opposing positions into agreement is anything *but* responsible on Obama's part.<br><br>I realize it may have gotten lost over the past eight years, but it's not the responsibility of the President to adopt one extreme end of an issue and ram it down the throats of others who think differently.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 02:14 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>On any fair basis Obama should be going with the largest number of the three options because everything else is speculative.<p><hr></blockquote><p>that's just goofy. no candidate is going to be on the majority side of every issue. he's taking a fairly mundane and safe position on an issue that is probably not even at the forefront for most Americans given the war in Iraq and the struggling economy. <br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 02:31 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And 57 percent against no rights at all, which you support...<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, that's not what I support. if you read my posts again more carefully you'll see that I'm in favour of equal rights for homosexuals but opposed to use of the term 'marriage'. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Obama's position is in the middle, and you're calling him dogmatic? Amazing.<p><hr></blockquote><p>My position is in the middle. I'm calling him dogmatic because he completely ignored the health and suicide issue for electoral expediency and doesn't have a democratic mandate for his position.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>the concept of some legal recognition for gay unions soundly trounces your position.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Not really because that is my position. The thread was about that use of the term 'marriage' not 'some legal recognition for gay unions' you've completely lost sight of what the whole discussion was about.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 02:36 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>he's taking a fairly mundane and safe position on an issue that is probably not even at the forefront for most Americans given the war in Iraq and the struggling economy. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Safer and more mundane still, and more responsible, would have been what I recommended in the thread - to promise a complete review of all forms of discrimination. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 02:48 PM

suggesting bestiality is neither safe nor mundane. <br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 02:59 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>suggesting bestiality is neither safe nor mundane. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Ah, now you're confusing irony with the literal word. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 03:05 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>if you read my posts again more carefully you'll see that I'm in favour of equal rights for homosexuals but opposed to use of the term 'marriage'.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Fair play, I apologize for misrepresenting your position in this -- although in my defense at times it is easy to misunderstand what you are saying ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>My position is in the middle. I'm calling him dogmatic because he doesn't have a democratic mandate for his position.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Given that -- in the poll -- outside of those describing themselves as Republicans, the concept of at least recognition of gay unions under law (if not outrightly of gay marriage itself) is overwhelmingly supported in polls, I'm still missing where Obama's position is contrary to broad public opinion in the U.S.<br><br>Regardless, I'm also still not getting where his position (and yours, apparently, as you have clarified) is dogmatic -- is not a compromise position between two extremes the very anthesis of dogmatism? Also, considering your support for legal gay unions, which is what Obama supports, would you consider yourself dogmatic as well?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you've completely lost sight of what the whole discussion was about.<p><hr></blockquote><p>At this point, I think just about everybody participating has lost track of that ;-)<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 04:06 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Given that -- in the poll -- outside of those describing themselves as Republicans, the concept of at least recognition of gay unions under law (if not outrightly of gay marriage itself) is overwhelmingly supported in polls, I'm still missing where Obama's position is contrary to broad public opinion in the U.S.<p><hr></blockquote><p>On the strength of the poll alone there is some basis, not an overwhelming one in my opinion, for supposing that a majority might favour civil unions. Some gay activists and their constituents who want same-sex marriages don't want civil unions at all because they see it as a sell-out. On that basis one can't simply add up the two numbers and suppose a majority when the margin of error is only 7 per cent. <br><br>My main complaint against Obama is that he's rushing into a position on just one issue of discrimination, ignoring health and suicide aspects of the question for electoral expediency, and ignoring other forms of discrimination altogether.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Also, considering your support for legal gay unions, which is what Obama supports, would you consider yourself dogmatic as well?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, I'm not running for President and threatening to change the Constitution of the US which should be done very cautiously when the effects are uncertain. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I support civil unions so much as having an open mind about it. At the moment the argument is neither won nor lost as to whether it's a good idea with regard to the dimension of mental health and suicide and we need to know more about why that factor is prevalent in the affected groups. If it's a consequence of the lifestyle rather than of discrimination itself it can't easily be equated with heterosexuality as a good foundation for society.<br><br>km<br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 04:13 PM

yes, but again this is one form of discrimination that has laws being made to support it. there are no laws being made saying that two fat people or that two quirky people (or whatever terms you used) cannot marry here; however, and i noted this, two gay people in Michigan cannot marry, nor can they have a legal civil union. this has been my point for some time in this thread. Obama is overriding discriminatory laws with this effort, such as the one we put into the Michigan constitution 4 years ago. <br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 04:39 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Even so you can't pass off a consenting adult sexual relationship as natural when it has nothing to do with pro-creation.<p><hr></blockquote><p>So a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who can't conceive is unnatural?<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 04:42 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>there are no laws being made saying that two fat people or that two quirky people (or whatever terms you used) cannot marry<p><hr></blockquote><p> Discrimination is not just about marriage, of course. And this distinction that keeps cropping up about whether a particular form of discrimination is already prohibited by law is slightly bogus in my opinion. Just because a particular form of discrimination is not prohibited doesn't mean it should be tolerated. In the UK we've had racial discrimination in my lifetime not by law but by behaviour and it was addressed by Parliament in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Similarly no one said that women can't be paid the same as men for doing a particular job but inequality in that regard was standard practice until the Equal Pay Act 1970 .<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 04:44 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who can't conceive is unnatural?<p><hr></blockquote><p>noope - that's what's called an accident of nature. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 04:51 PM

So what if the man and woman CAN conceive, but choose not to, is that unnatural? I'm trying to respond to your remarks in a serious fashion and I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor.<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 06:25 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>On that basis one can't simply add up the two numbers and suppose a majority when the margin of error is only 7 per cent.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, that swings both ways, and certainly does nothing to support the notion that Obama's position flies in the face of public opinion here.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>My main complaint against Obama is that he's rushing into a position on just one issue of discrimination<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, next to racial and gender discrimination, the situation with the way the gay community is treated is probably the most visible and discussed discrimination issue these days. I can't really fault Obama for having a position on that particular form and not one on, say, discrimination against pimply-faced geeks ... there's only so many ways to split up a candidates energy and attention ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well, I'm not running for President and threatening to change the Constitution of the US<p><hr></blockquote><p>Two things:<br><br>1) What part of the US Constitution id Obama threatening to change? All I've read, he's opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and he thinks that issue should left to the individual states to decide ...<br><br>2) Just because you're not running for the Presidency doesn't mean you can't still be dogmatic ;-)<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: MrB

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 08:44 PM

not going to read this whole thread because it just tires me.<br><br>but depending on the definition of sex I suppose anything is possible. Bill Clinton brought up the definition of "sex" and the word "is" as I recall. But if to have "sex" means to make children then, no, two men can't have sex. If to have 'sex" means to play with each others genitals and then, yes, men can have sex.<br><br>In any case passing a law or ammendment will have not effect on men have sex with each other. And all citizens should have the same civil rights no matter what their situation. <br><br>dave<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 10:54 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So what if the man and woman CAN conceive, but choose not to, is that unnatural?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Contraception? Yeah, that's unnatural.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 11:12 PM

How about cutting toe nails? Cooking food? Building houses? Putting nappies on babies? Writing laws? Writing books? Writing?<br><br>Waiting for the quibble . . .<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 11:16 PM

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. If you are, remember you're the one linking "natural" sexual relations to procreation, not me. If not, are you against contraception?<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 11:34 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>the situation with the way the gay community is treated is probably the most visible and discussed discrimination issue these days. I can't really fault Obama for having a position on that particular form and not one on, say, discrimination against pimply-faced geeks<p><hr></blockquote><p>TBH I don't see any discrimination against gays and lesbians over here in that everyone in my walk of life is quite enlightened and tolerant of diversity. I'm prepared to believe that it exists but I wouldn't say that it's the biggest problem.<br><br>You appreciate I hope that I used twerp and squirts as a metaphor for all forms of insidious discrimination for which there is often no redress including positive discrimination and nepotism. Fist take twerp discrimination itself. This occurs when you don't like the look of someone or have some other irrational prejudice about them. Quite often it works in reverse and it's the twerp who's making the decisions and doesn't want to give anyone an even break who might be a bit too smart and threaten his own vested interests - I've even suffered that kind of discrimination myself. Next rake positive discrimination. A white man is passed over for a job because there is positive discrimination if favour of a black man with similar qualifications. Obama seems to be fine with that because no one's gay but he shouldn't be because it's unfair. Then take nepotism. Everyone in England is settling down to watch an evening TV programme called 'The One Show' when all of s sudden someone called Dan Snow appears on the set and starts rabbiting on about some rubbish or another leaving the whole nation in dismay. Dan Snow? Who the f!@kc is he? Oh I get it Dan Snow, son of Jon Snow the well-known Channel 4 newscaster. <br><br>We've been through all this before - we've had to put up with David Dimbleby on TV for the last 40 years just because his father Richard Dimbleby happened to be a great broadcasting pioneer, phhhhh... I don't know, maybe you don''t have these problems in America... <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/29/08 11:43 PM

What, you mean grooming? Preparing food? Making a habitat? Cleaning babies' arses? Communicating? Yeah, they're all natural. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/30/08 12:26 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you're the one linking "natural" sexual relations to procreation, not me. If not, are you against contraception?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Ah now there I don't really have any strong views about it. Given the problem of overpopulation it might on balance be a good thing when it happens but not all inhibitors of population growth are justifiable by the fact alone. Bestiality for example is a population inhibitor but it can corrupt the human spirit and lead to misery and despair and so should be discouraged. .<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/30/08 05:40 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Ah now there I don't really have any strong views about it. <p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't think you have any strong views about any of this. You're just being a sh!it disturber. I don't know why any of us wasted our time on this. I know I'm done.<br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/30/08 05:53 AM

Maybe next time, Michelle should cook macaroni and cheese ~ you know, comfort food. Nobody doesn't like comfort food. In fact, I've read where it's simply impossible to argue about comfort food unless you're the type to argue just for the sake of argument, but then you'd just be arguing with yourself because everybody else would be enjoying the macaroni and cheese and discussing the value, or lack of value, of conversations that are intentionally driven to hump the shark, or the varying merits and differing annoyance levels of intentional run-on sentences.<br><br>I'm just saying.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/30/08 06:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I don't think you have any strong views about any of this. You're just being a sh!it disturber.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Oh, I wouldn't say that... needlessly changing the meaning of a word by legislation is one of the more ridiculous propositions I've had to argue against on these forums. The whole of England and 64 per cent of America is currently opposed and yet some patrons are hell-bent on putting up endless specious arguments in favour instead of bowing to the will of the people. <br><br>km <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/30/08 07:16 AM

Oh I don't know, Lea. The very idea of cheese seems problematic to me. I mean, eating cheese is like deliberately eating mold. Ever think of that? And then there's the making of the macaroni and the cooking of the mac and cheese . . . all of it quite unnatural. As far as I can see, "food" means only things that can be eaten raw, and everything cooked is just an unnatural concoction ( . . . look at the etymology) that demonstrates just how far removed from nature we've become. Furthermore, the very idea of "comfort food" is a sophistication of the natural purpose of food. Food is not supposed to comfort you; it's supposed to sustain you physically so you can go out and hunt and gather and then have sex (by definition, procreate) so you can produce the next generation. Anything else, like eating to get "comfort," is just plain unnatural.<br><br>So remember . . . eat it raw!<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: bird

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/30/08 09:03 AM

<br><br>People hate as they love, unreasonably. [nuff said] <br><br>William M. Thackeray<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/30/08 10:08 AM

[color:blue]specious argument...</font color=blue><br><br>[img]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/...otobucket[/img]<br><br>Yeah, good example, thanks...<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 06/30/08 01:32 PM

Kudos, bird. I don't think about it in that way much, but I am a member of an inter-racial marriage. I am glad I married darker than myself. There is no way I would wish my whiter than white, burns red when your guard is down skin on anyone. My son doesn't burn nearly as easily as me, but certainly more easily than my wife. Natural. I sometimes comment that I should have married even darker to further compensate for the ozone layer. My wife is not very appreciative of these comments however.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 07/03/08 02:12 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And all citizens should have the same civil rights no matter what their situation. <p><hr></blockquote><p>That's not what the objectophobes think - they're dead set against any recognition of unions with inanimate objects. Where's Obama's proposals to give those people equal rights?<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 07/03/08 04:48 PM

"Where's Obama's proposals to give those people equal rights?"<br><br>Good question. And what do Obama's proposals have to do with future rampant bestiality?<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 07/03/08 08:46 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> And what do Obama's proposals have to do with future rampant bestiality?<p><hr></blockquote><p> Well, its blatant discrimination to all of a sudden single out one particular group for civil unions and conveniently ignore other groups such as those who want to marry their pets or objects such as the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty for example.<br><br>km<br><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 07/04/08 05:30 AM

I'm sure that's not what your post said when I first replied to it, but I could be wrong.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 07/04/08 08:15 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm sure that's not what your post said when I first replied to it, but I could be wrong.<p><hr></blockquote><p> My posts are always compatible and logically coherent but of course they don't all say the same thing in exactly the same way. I believe the one you first replied to suggested that objectophobes have a problem with object unions and the last one said that Obama had a problem extending civil union righrs to all interested groups - which is discriminatory. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Michelle cooks the goose - 07/04/08 02:42 PM

Thanks.<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle