Hard Onions

Postby Wanderwolf on Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:21 pm

Deckard Canine wrote:
Wanderwolf wrote:(not to mention that long ago man, burned as a werewolf, whose main "sin" was believing the Earth had started out liquid and become solid gradually; keep in mind that werewolves, unlike witches, were burned alive).


...
You might be right, but I heard a couple snaps in my head after reading that. :o


:-? Huh? What was the concern?

The man actually phrased it differently, as he knew nothing of magma hardening into stone. He compared the Earth to a great cheese, which begins as liquid and slowly solidifies into curd. He based his hypothesis on the patterns of stone he'd seen in caves and caverns, which resembled the holes in Swiss cheese.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby MikeVanPelt on Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:36 pm

Wanderwolf wrote:The man actually phrased it differently, as he knew nothing of magma hardening into stone. He compared the Earth to a great cheese, which begins as liquid and slowly solidifies into curd. He based his hypothesis on the patterns of stone he'd seen in caves and caverns, which resembled the holes in Swiss cheese.


Who was the man? I don't recall this incident.
User avatar
MikeVanPelt
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:07 pm

Postby Wanderwolf on Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:09 pm

MikeVanPelt wrote:
Wanderwolf wrote:The man actually phrased it differently, as he knew nothing of magma hardening into stone. He compared the Earth to a great cheese, which begins as liquid and slowly solidifies into curd. He based his hypothesis on the patterns of stone he'd seen in caves and caverns, which resembled the holes in Swiss cheese.


Who was the man? I don't recall this incident.


<sigh> A name wasn't given, I'm afraid. It was your typical recounting of the Witch Hunt days, with a focus on werewolves. I believe the citation was either Book of Werewolves (Baring-Gould) or Werewolf Delusion, but I could very well be wrong. I suppose it could be Hamel's book, but I really don't think so.

And now, I must to bed. I'm about to fall over.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Deckard Canine on Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:30 am

Wanderwolf wrote:
Deckard Canine wrote:
Wanderwolf wrote:(not to mention that long ago man, burned as a werewolf, whose main "sin" was believing the Earth had started out liquid and become solid gradually; keep in mind that werewolves, unlike witches, were burned alive).


...
You might be right, but I heard a couple snaps in my head after reading that. :o


:-? Huh? What was the concern?


First, that men were believed werewolves for what they proclaimed. I thought the signs of lycanthropy were strictly corporeal.

Second, that witches were not burned alive. I thought I'd've heard that by now, but it must be an extremely pervasive myth. Either that or the culture to which you refer had different rules from Salem's.
Deckard Canine
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:21 am
Location: DC

Postby Celidah the Bardess on Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:07 am

Deckard Canine wrote:First, that men were believed werewolves for what they proclaimed. I thought the signs of lycanthropy were strictly corporeal.

Second, that witches were not burned alive. I thought I'd've heard that by now, but it must be an extremely pervasive myth. Either that or the culture to which you refer had different rules from Salem's.


Actually, <i>nobody</i> was burned in Salem, contrary to contemporary mythology. There was one man suffocated by heavy rocks placed on him, and thirteen women were hanged, all for supposedly being witches.
Celidah the Bardess
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:01 pm

Postby Wallaroo_Blacke on Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:29 am

Well, they did burn folks... but as heretics for
solely owning a Bible in England. Why? Because the
church liked their position in power, and felt noone
else needed to own the Bible. They wanted to be like
the kings described in Revelations, which made for the
people hopping the Mayflower to what
would be America later on.

But this is a entirely different subject.
User avatar
Wallaroo_Blacke
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: -Location Withheld- in Texas

Postby Deckard Canine on Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:24 am

I seem to recall that people used to be tested for witch status by burning -- that they were considered witches if they healed. Naturally, the drowning test was more popular.

And so much for silver bullets being the only antidote for werewolves.
Deckard Canine
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:21 am
Location: DC

Postby Wanderwolf on Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:02 am

Deckard Canine wrote:First, that men were believed werewolves for what they proclaimed. I thought the signs of lycanthropy were strictly corporeal.

Second, that witches were not burned alive. I thought I'd've heard that by now, but it must be an extremely pervasive myth. Either that or the culture to which you refer had different rules from Salem's.


Well, keep in mind that nobody was technically burned for "being a witch" or "being a werewolf". The charge, under law, was Heresy, not Witchcraft or Lycanthropy.

Also, the whole "eyebrows meeting in the middle", "hairy palms", and so on is rather generic, and subject to modification by the locals. Different areas had different "werewolf types". Throw in the ability of "questioning" to force the "right" answers, and you could condemn someone for sleeping with Satan in under a day. Deprive someone of sleep long enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear.

As for witches being burned alive, it is indeed a pervasive myth. The typical sentence of a convicted witch was to be hung by the neck until dead, the body then to be burnt. Standard heresy punishment.

Werewolves, on the other paw, were standing trial not just for heresy, but also for bestiality and murder. Thus, their punishments were more severe.

An example case: Peter Stubbe, of Germany. In 1589, he stood trial for, in the shape of a werewolf, killing and eating two pregnant women and thirteen children in the space of twenty-five years.

Stubbe repented, confessed, and threw himself on the mercy of the court.

He was then placed on a St. Catherine's Wheel (the torturer's Lazy Susan), and flesh was pulled from his bones with red-hot iron tongs. His arms and legs were then broken. Because he'd repented and confessed, he was mercifully beheaded before the burning. Those who maintained their innocence or recanted their confession were instead burnt alive.

The sole known exception to the rule of witches not burning alive was an accident. According to oral history, a long-ago executioner decided to save time. He constructed the stake, tied the woman to it, then tied a noose around her neck. The pyre was then constructed around her. The plan: Light the fire, pull hard enough on the rope to snap her neck, and the dead body burns. Simple, right?

Anyone who knows physics, as well as anyone who's ever heard of Murphy, know otherwise. The noose rope snapped, leaving the witch to burn to death, screaming in agony, in full view of the local noble's court. (They did try to put out the fire, yes; since the wood was soaked in pitch, however, it wasn't going to happen.)

The executioner was next to be executed, for wanton cruelty.

Post-script to the nuns of Loudun, btw: After the local abbot was hung and his body burned, the witch-finder went to the next town... and was caught. Seems when he sprinkled blood on the altar, he wasn't counting on the presence of a butcher among the deacons; the butcher promptly identified the substance as chicken blood by its familiar smell. The witch-finder was then hung and his body burnt for his heretic actions in condemning innocent men and women.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Calbeck on Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:53 pm

Mutant for Hire wrote:Here's a small hint: not being allowed to color in a nativity scene at school doesn't qualify as persecution.


Prohibitions on bringing material to school merely because it is religious in nature NOT persecution? No difference here exists between banning the Nativity scene and banning the Koran, save for degree.

Being beaten up almost every day at school for being homosexual qualifies as persecution.


And being beaten up at school for being Christian DOESN'T? Happened to me like clockwork, and that was during the '70s. The social climate towards Christians hasn't exactly improved since then.

Having laws passed banning you from activities such as getting married qualifies as persecution.


There's no such law on the books, nor is anyone proposing one. You can go get married to whoever you want, even have a church ceremony if you like. What you CAN'T get, if you're gay, is a state stamp of approval that allows you access to programs and benefits intended to promote the creation and maintenance of the nuclear family.

Gay couples who take advantage of these programs are taking money and resources away from the people for whom it was intended, to the material detriment of CHILDREN.

"But lots of straight couples don't have kids" isn't a rebuttal. We mandate automobile insurance not because everyone is required to have an accident, but because it is highly likely that at some point in the average American's life they will have an accident. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority of straight couples do in fact have children; pointing at the tiny minority who don't has no effect on that. Even couples who enter marriage with the distinct declaration not to have children run the risk of having them anyways, whether through a change of mind or simply because the rubber broke.

So I DO support gay marriage for couples who first adopt --- because they have children, and preventing access to needed programs at that point is harmful to the child. But I'm completely against the leeching of government and private social-welfare programs, which are already overburdened, by people who cannot fulfill the goal those programs are meant to support.
User avatar
Calbeck
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: The Land of AZ

Postby Wanderwolf on Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:37 am

Heya, Calbeck.

To start with, the ban is universal in nature; no religious material may be brought to school. It's been that way since I went through private school back in the 70's.

That said, coloring is not a tenet of any known religion. (Though magic tricks were part of the Simonite practice.) Therefore, restricting someone's coloring-book choice is not religious persecution; it is based not on religion, but on content. Censorship, not religious persecution.

Beaten up for being a Christian? Not in my neck of the woods, nor any place I ever heard of. Tell me where you went to school and I'll gather information to form an opinion from. Me, I just got beaten up for being a weirdo geek.

You're wrong about the gay marriage law, though: Bush has been trying to get it banned since 2004. It's been a constant state-by-state battle on the subject; have you been out of the country for a few years, or is there just more talk about it down here in Texas?

Ah, the benefits argument. You do realize that there's little material difference between welfare for two individuals and welfare for one couple, right? Sure, WIC's allowance for children is restricted to couples with actual children, but then, what would a childless couple need formula and diapers for? Black market baby supplies? "This bottle fell off the back of a lorry... really!"

The biggest benefit, as far as most gay couples are concerned, is threefold:

1. Being allowed in your lifemate's hospital room when they're sick and/or dying. As a non-family-member and official non-spouse, the average gay lover is required to stand helplessly outside the hospital ward, while the partner's family, regardless of how they feel about the partner, are allowed full access. Not a treat when your family likes to open things by calling you an abomination before the Lord and spitting in your face... and I wish I was exaggerating...

2. Fewer adoption restrictions. Currently, a gay couple has no legal standing as "married" in adoption hearings; they receive the same consideration as two unconnected strangers sharing a house or apartment, assuming the adoption agency has no blatant prejudice against gays (which is darned rare).

3. Income tax. Yes, there's a break for married couples that you don't get otherwise. It's irrespective of children, however (they're dependents, listed separately), so has nothing to do with promoting a childbearing environment.

At least in my state, that's all you get. Moreover, the biggest concern of the average gay man or lesbian woman is the first: Being allowed to visit your sick and/or dying partner in their hospital room like any "straight" spouse. Not having to stand outside in pain and confusion while the person you love is lying helpless within.

If you have a problem with caring that much about someone... well, forgive me, Calbeck, but if that were true, you'd likely have bigger problems.

As a side note, allow me to state that I'm in favor of gay adoption rights. I know a wonderful gay couple; caring, loving, faithful, with a high income level and good local schools. But because they're gay, they have to be ten times the parent of a straight couple.

That's all. Just because they're two men who love each other.

You tell me, Calbeck; is that fair?

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby BoKiana on Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:29 am

Wanderwolf wrote:1. Being allowed in your lifemate's hospital room when they're sick and/or dying. As a non-family-member and official non-spouse, the average gay lover is required to stand helplessly outside the hospital ward, while the partner's family, regardless of how they feel about the partner, are allowed full access. Not a treat when your family likes to open things by calling you an abomination before the Lord and spitting in your face... and I wish I was exaggerating...


Can you site any references of this happening? I've searched for stuff myself, but all I've found are those saying that in theory it'll happen, but it hasn't happened to anyone. From all accounts I've found, a hospital will let the man's life partner in after explaining who they are without further problems.
Allow me to introduce myself--Corporal "Bo" Kiana, Ex-Army, "Warmongering Psychopath Tool!"
User avatar
BoKiana
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:28 pm

Postby Wanderwolf on Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:41 am

BoKiana wrote:
Wanderwolf wrote:1. Being allowed in your lifemate's hospital room when they're sick and/or dying. As a non-family-member and official non-spouse, the average gay lover is required to stand helplessly outside the hospital ward, while the partner's family, regardless of how they feel about the partner, are allowed full access. Not a treat when your family likes to open things by calling you an abomination before the Lord and spitting in your face... and I wish I was exaggerating...


Can you site any references of this happening? I've searched for stuff myself, but all I've found are those saying that in theory it'll happen, but it hasn't happened to anyone. From all accounts I've found, a hospital will let the man's life partner in after explaining who they are without further problems.


Can I name names? No. But down here in Texas, in those cases which restrict access to family members only, life partners are not allowed in.

I was slightly shocked to find an allegation that a gay man was denied CPR, mind you.

It's the South, dear heart. Where gas is "the vapors", women are supposed to be peaches (sweet with a heart of stone), and gay people are treated like something you scraped off the bottom of your shoe. Pity the poor idiot who scheduled Six Flags' "Gay Day" on the same day as a Christian Youth Group...

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Calbeck on Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:44 am

Wanderwolf wrote:To start with, the ban is universal in nature; no religious material may be brought to school. It's been that way since I went through private school back in the 70's.


So oppression isn't oppression if it's done equally to all? Is my coloring book fine so long as it concerns the philosophy of Ayn Rand instead of religion?

That said, coloring is not a tenet of any known religion.


Hair-splitting. The observance of any given religion isn't limited to that religion's official "tenets". And barring material on basis of its religious content --- especially something as innocuous as a coloring book --- is a political decision. There's a dozen similar things you could ban with religious significance on this basis, such as T-shirts and music CDs.

Censorship, not religious persecution.


Censorship has often been defined as persecution. It is the function of the act that determines the definition. Squelching a person's desire to engage in an activity that relates to their religion, so long as that activity is not inherently disruptive to school functions, is persecution. Unless the school is prepared to declare ALL coloring books, regardless of content, disruptive, then it is the religious content that is being targeted.

Beaten up for being a Christian? Not in my neck of the woods, nor any place I ever heard of. Tell me where you went to school


All over Southern California, in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. I grew up in the group home system, so I moved around a lot. Many of these were run by fundamentalist Protestants, so I often wore a cross on my neck and was readily identifiable as a Christian. I was commonly derided with the nickname "Preacher" and repeatedly attacked. A common taunt was "why doesn't GOD save you, Preacher?!". It wasn't until I turned violent and began hammering my assailants with anything from garbage cans to bicycles and school desks that the beatings stopped...and then restarted when I was shuffled to a new home with a new bunch of ignorant thugs to bully me all over again.

I had about sixteen different schools that I attended at one time or another from age six to sixteen.

You're wrong about the gay marriage law, though: Bush has been trying to get it banned since 2004.


1) Where did I say otherwise?

2) So what? None of this began before the Mayor of San Francisco began abusing his authority to unilaterally make changes in state law without the input of the Legislature. Several judges followed suit, forcing several State Legislatures to clarify their positions to eliminate the "wiggle room" the judges had abused. Bush didn't create the controversy, as much as I disagree with his proposed solution.

It's been a constant state-by-state battle on the subject; have you been out of the country for a few years, or is there just more talk about it down here in Texas?


Hardly. I recall quite well, thank you, that in the space of a bare three months, I went from being considered "forward-thinking and considerate" by those gays I know to being "a Bible-thumping jerk" without once having changed my support for civil unions and opposition to gay marriage. They, not I, became more radical.

You do realize that there's little material difference between welfare for two individuals and welfare for one couple, right?


So if two Mexican individuals jump the border and apply for food stamps of a category intended for married American couples, we just go ahead and give them the stamps, right?

Sure, WIC's allowance for children is restricted to couples with actual children


Which means it's not one of the programs I'm referring to, since it obviously isn't going to be exploited by a non-childrearing couple, so that whole argument's a red herring.

A real issue, and one that's repeatedly brought up by gays, is the ability to have their SO sign a mortgage as a "spouse", which increases the likelihood of approval and lowers the interest rates. What they ignore, because they don't even think in these terms, is why the mortgage company gives those terms to married couples.

It's because the actuarial tables they spend so much time and effort compiling show that married heterosexual couples are far more likely than single individuals living together to stay together in the same residence for an extended period. Married couples with children, or the intent to have same, are increasingly tied to their house and thus can be considered more dependable than singles to pay their mortgage on time and regularly.

Gay couplings, however, have a long track record as being fractious and tenuous. For every "front page" gay couple that's been together twenty years, there's a thousand that haven't been together twenty days. And getting married has only a slight effect on that issue, insofar as divorce proceedings force a couple to remain together for a few extra months until the paperwork is complete.

With gay couples, there is no "bonding" that hasn't already taken place. There will be no children to create ties to the neighborhood and house beyond those created by the couple itself. Long-term commitment becomes a serious issue when you're dealing with loan terms of twenty and thirty years.

All of which means gay marriage will force a shakeup in how credit is issued nationwide, and sexual preference WILL become a standard credit form issue. People who got married just to get a few extra points on their house deal will find they have the same door being slammed in their face as when they weren't married at all.

And the you-can-call-this-one-a-mile-away reaction? they're going to scream "oppression" and we're going to be right back to Square One.

3. Income tax. Yes, there's a break for married couples that you don't get otherwise. It's irrespective of children, however (they're dependents, listed separately), so has nothing to do with promoting a childbearing environment.


Sorry, wrong. Tax breaks for married couples are on record as being there to promote the establishment and maintenance of the nuclear family. Read just about any Congressional debate on record on the subject and you can't avoid that fact. Even if they have no children at the time taxes are filed, that can change during the fiscal year. And as you've already pointed out, actual children do indeed net a tax break on an individual basis. Plus, giving the couple itself an extra break acts as an incentive for a single parent to remarry.

Moreover, the biggest concern of the average gay man or lesbian woman is the first: Being allowed to visit your sick and/or dying partner in their hospital room like any "straight" spouse.


Then why is the single most common reason I hear bandied about is that they want access to benefit programs? I've heard of hospital access as an issue, but not THE issue. And even if it were, friends AREN'T prohibited from seeing friends in hospital; the only regulation I know of is that family takes precedence. So unless the family is mounting a 24/7 bedside vigil...mind you, I wouldn't put it past some families, just to keep the "gay friend" away...

If you have a problem with caring that much about someone...


Sorry, but I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hospital access is clearly a minority issue, not THE driving force behind gay marriage. And it's one that can be corrected by directly addressing it on its own merits, rather than trying to tack it on to larger concerns.

As a side note, allow me to state that I'm in favor of gay adoption rights.


So am I.

But because they're gay, they have to be ten times the parent of a straight couple.


When my mom and dad got divorced, mom won custody of all four children even though she had no job, no income, and no real means of raising us. Why? Because she was a woman, and California state policy of the time said that mothers were the best option for rearing children in single-parent homes. Also, my father had had occasional issues with drinking, so he was effectively blackballed from any consideration.

That's why I went into the group homes and got savaged by dozens of group home parents over the course of ten years...because my father wasn't considered "fit" to be a parent by the state. Don't tell me gays have it any harder: my mom ultimately had to sign a document surrendering custody to the state just to give my dad a chance to pull me out of what we all knew to be an abusive system. If anything, gays have to jump through the same hoops as any straight single man trying to adopt, for the same reason: they can't provide a mother for the child.
User avatar
Calbeck
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: The Land of AZ

Postby Mayihelpyou on Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:51 am

Thank you, Calbeck, for responding to Mutant For Hire so eloquently.

Also, I want to reiterate that it was not the censorship of the coloring book nativity scene that bothered me, but that Christianty precepts were specifically excluded when other religious beliefs/rituals/trappings were offered (example: playing with a dradle, with religious context, was given as a reward to the children in her class for doing well that day).

I grew up in Eastern Tennessee, small school. I went to school with the same 26 kids my entire elementary grade, and then high school with a graduating class of approximately 70 kids. I was beaten up for being that "religious" kid in elementary school, and ostracized in high school for being all "moral".

As to marriage for homosexual individuals, that's between you and God. I'm all for marriage, and I don't believe the state should have any say as to whether or not you get married. Therefore, the state should have no say as to whether or not you gain benefits from said marriage. Civil Unions, on the other hand, is a state issue. That is still a highly debateable subject mainly because of the same reasons that Calbeck pointed out..

Also, with the new HIPAA laws in effect (Health Information Portability Accountability Act), as long as the partner is documented in medical records as being a contact to release information to or documented in a living will, family members cannot shut the partner out. That's why is a very minor issue.. A little preparation and it's a non-issue.
Image
"My secret to happiness is that I have the heart of a 12 year old child.. I keep it in a jar over there..wanna see it?" -Old Vaudeville.. really old vaudeville..
User avatar
Mayihelpyou
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:34 pm
Location: USA

Postby Wanderwolf on Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:54 pm

Starting from quote level one, to keep things from getting snarled:

1. Correct, Calbeck. Oppression is defined as "the systematic exploitation of one social group by another". Therefore, if nobody is targeted, it is not oppression. If the policy extends equally to all, it fair. Just, of course, is another matter entirely.

As for the Ayn Rand coloring book? That's correct again. As Objectivism is a philosophy, and not a religion, it is not off-limits.

2. If you're not restricted from the practice of your religion and its observances, it is not religious oppression.

3. Censorship may be defined as a small Yorkie dog if you wish; the correct meaning is still, "the systematic use of group power to broadly control freedom of speech and expression". That covers everything from, "you can't print bad things about the President" to "no profanity in Highlights Magazine for Kids". Editors are by definition censors; therefore, censorship is not equivalent to oppression.

4. I'm sorry California was anti-Christian. I, here in Texas, had no such experiences, either in private or in public school.

5. Where did you say otherwise? That would be the post just before mine. In response to the observation regarding a law prohibiting gay marriage, you stated that there was no law on the books and no such law was being proposed. Since George W. Bush has proposed that very law, your statement was in error. And since the request for an amendment was brought up in the Texas legislature last year, you're even farther off.

6. WHEEP! Referee flag on the "illegal immigrant" connection you've made to welfare. Unless you actually meant to state that homosexuals are (or should be) banned by law from seeking welfare benefits, your rhetoric was inaccurate in content. [silly]Or if you meant only foreigners are gay...[/silly]

7. I really hope you didn't mean to make it sound like the only reason gays want to marry is to get money. That just sounds way too "they are the enemy of the state" for me.

In any event, I stand by my statement: In Texas, mortgages and loans are not the primary reason given. If Califormia gay people are different, I'm terribly sorry you have to put up with them in Your State.

As for duration: In 2003 (latest census data), most marriages lasted from 5 to 9 years. Median duration overall: 11 years.

According to a study of survey data (PDF), that means married straight couples are running about the same duration as "unmarried" gay couples; "married" gay couples last more than thirteen years median.

Sorry, Calbeck; looks like you bought into the "gay men are slutboys" stereotype, rather than the scientific facts.

("Don't even think in those terms"? De-personalize much, Calbeck? Unless you're either gay or some recognized authority on homosexual psychology, neither of us should be making blanket statements about what "they" do or do not think; "they" have names, and "they" are a bunch of individuals. Remember furries and what "they" are said to do...)

Check your assumptions, Calbeck. Preferably at the door.

8. They couldn't possibly have it worse? Tough call; three states have specifically banned gay adoption. (Florida, Utah and Mississippi.) The Anglican and Catholic churches have an official stance against gay adoption. Catholic Charities decided it would rather abolish its involvement in adoption proceedings than accept gay adoptions. Some caseworkers have even refused outright to consider gay applicants, and one judge resigned his post over the matter.

Yep. Really tough call, there.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Calbeck on Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:43 am

Wanderwolf wrote:If you're not restricted from the practice of your religion and its observances, it is not religious oppression.


Being restricted from observing one's religion on grounds that a coloring book "does not count" is most certainly religious oppression, especially since it is the content of the book that is targeted and not the act of coloring or reading it.

In response to the observation regarding a law prohibiting gay marriage, you stated that there was no law on the books and no such law was being proposed. Since George W. Bush has proposed that very law, your statement was in error.


No, Bush has CALLED for such a law. A proposal requires that a version of the law be presented as a bill before committee in Congress. There is no such bill in the works. Bush called for Congress to propose and pass such an Amendment; he himself is doing no such thing.

Nonetheless, I WAS in error: Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which DID prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allowed individual states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages which had been approved in other states. So there is in fact a law already on the books. After some further research, I find there have also been a number of states which have chosen, in the aftermath of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, to clarify their positions as being opposed to gay marriage. As a result, those states now have laws barring the act.

WHEEP! Referee flag on the "illegal immigrant" connection you've made to welfare. Unless you actually meant to state that homosexuals are (or should be) banned by law from seeking welfare benefits


And I am: they cannot seek welfare benefits pertinent to married couples. Your point was that we should allow gay couples to access programs meant for married couples on the argument that two individuals are just the same as any given couple. My point was that your definition ignored the purpose and intent of the programs in question in an attempt to redefine "fairness".

I really hope you didn't mean to make it sound like the only reason gays want to marry is to get money.


I really hope you don't mean to suggest the only reason gays want to marry is to see each other in the hospital. Both are reasons given by the gay community for having the state rubber-stamp their marriage, and from what I hear out of the gay community, it's the cash that is the major issue.

As for duration: In 2003 (latest census data), most marriages lasted from 5 to 9 years. Median duration overall: 11 years.


Actually, according to a 2005 report issued by the U.S. Census (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf), over 72% of marriages make it to the 10-year mark with over 55% reaching 20, and that's using the worst figures available.

Meanwhile, the 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census found that only 15% of gay couples last 12 years or longer, with a mere 5% getting as far as 20.

To a mortgage lender, stamping a gay relationship with the term "marriage" is going to mean little or nothing in this context, considering that a gay couple is eleven times less likely than a hetero couple to remain together throughout the term of a standard mortgage. The simple fact is that a hetero married couple is a far better money risk than a homosexual married couple.

As for your Carpenter/Gates data, didn't you notice that the entirety of the data it cites comes from a single California tobacco study which does not involve a single other US state?

"Don't even think in those terms"? De-personalize much, Calbeck?


Hardly; this is a matter of basic human psychology. It is the rare person who, when seeking to get what they want from someone, considers the other person's legitimate points of view. I sincerely doubt you can name a single person who, when rejected for a mortgage, began thinking in terms of the needs and concerns of the company that rejected them. I doubt that the homosexual community is the least bit concerned with considering the reasons for rejection, either, beyond yelling "discrimination".

They couldn't possibly have it worse? Tough call; three states have specifically banned gay adoption.


Which puts them on equal footing with my dad, who was straight. Hence the reason I said they couldn't have it worse, because all they can manage is equality in this case.

The Anglican and Catholic churches have an official stance against gay adoption.


Also against using birth control or abortion, which affects millions of straights negatively. Sounds like they meet your definition of "equally oppressive".
User avatar
Calbeck
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: The Land of AZ

Postby Wanderwolf on Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:38 am

Calbeck wrote:Being restricted from observing one's religion on grounds that a coloring book "does not count" is most certainly religious oppression, especially since it is the content of the book that is targeted and not the act of coloring or reading it.


And I point out, yet again, that coloring is not one of the accepted tenets of any known religion. It isn't part of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, NAR, Wicca, Asatru, or even Tantric practices. Unless a coloring book actually plays a part in the religious practice, it is not a religious practice itself.

No, Bush has CALLED for such a law. A proposal requires that a version of the law be presented as a bill before committee in Congress. There is no such bill in the works. Bush called for Congress to propose and pass such an Amendment; he himself is doing no such thing.

Nonetheless, I WAS in error: Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which DID prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allowed individual states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages which had been approved in other states. So there is in fact a law already on the books. After some further research, I find there have also been a number of states which have chosen, in the aftermath of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, to clarify their positions as being opposed to gay marriage. As a result, those states now have laws barring the act.


Thank you for accepting that I'm occasionally right. It happens rarely enough that I hate to have it ignored...

And I am: they cannot seek welfare benefits pertinent to married couples. Your point was that we should allow gay couples to access programs meant for married couples on the argument that two individuals are just the same as any given couple. My point was that your definition ignored the purpose and intent of the programs in question in an attempt to redefine "fairness".


My statement was that the benefits are equivalent; a couple gets no more welfare benefits after marriage than before, at least down here. Therefore, no difference is intended or implied by our welfare program.

And you're one to talk about "redefining", after you thematically linked homosexuality to illegal immigration back there...

I really hope you don't mean to suggest the only reason gays want to marry is to see each other in the hospital. Both are reasons given by the gay community for having the state rubber-stamp their marriage, and from what I hear out of the gay community, it's the cash that is the major issue.


Then you know some money queens, apparently. Either that, or I'm suddenly very glad I live in Texas, where money isn't more important than relationships...

Actually, according to a 2005 report issued by the U.S. Census (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf), over 72% of marriages make it to the 10-year mark with over 55% reaching 20, and that's using the worst figures available.

Meanwhile, the 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census found that only 15% of gay couples last 12 years or longer, with a mere 5% getting as far as 20.

To a mortgage lender, stamping a gay relationship with the term "marriage" is going to mean little or nothing in this context, considering that a gay couple is eleven times less likely than a hetero couple to remain together throughout the term of a standard mortgage. The simple fact is that a hetero married couple is a far better money risk than a homosexual married couple.

As for your Carpenter/Gates data, didn't you notice that the entirety of the data it cites comes from a single California tobacco study which does not involve a single other US state?


To begin: I'm glad one of us has the money to throw away on purchasing GLcensus data. Since I just paid $800 to have two cars fixed (one of them mine), you'll forgive me for being limited to free data. Well, you won't, but I'll pretend you did, because I can't afford to buy a copy of the data.

The Census data, btw, is 2001 Census, not 2005. While you're correct in giving the date of the synthesis, leaving out the date of the data is slightly fatuous; the 2005 data won't be ready for some time yet.

Finally, you're on the wrong table; you need table 6, "Median Duration of Marriages for People 15 Years and Over by Sex, Race and Ethnicity". No, not instead of; in addition to. The table you're using, Table 2, applies to both first and second marriages, so Table 6 modifies the data. (The second marriages, further down the table, lasted a much shorter time; while roughly seventy percent made it to ten years, less than half made it to fifteen. Table 6 shows that the first marriages for those people lasted only 8-9 years.)

Hardly; this is a matter of basic human psychology. It is the rare person who, when seeking to get what they want from someone, considers the other person's legitimate points of view. I sincerely doubt you can name a single person who, when rejected for a mortgage, began thinking in terms of the needs and concerns of the company that rejected them. I doubt that the homosexual community is the least bit concerned with considering the reasons for rejection, either, beyond yelling "discrimination".


Hark! Now it's the "homosexual community" filling out the forms! My, my, what a list of dependents...

Calbeck, you're exhibiting a little something called "prejudice", after the Latin "pre" (before) + "judice" (judging). Assuming all gay people are just in it to yell "discrimination" is lazy thinking, and you ought to know better than to cut your own mental hamstrings like that. Pardon a half-joking observation, but you've probably said, at least once in your life, "Some of my best friends are fags!".

And yes, to return to the point you attempted to make, I can: My sister, who looked at her credit history and that of her spouse, then took steps to make loans and mortgages more accessible to her. Contrary to your apparent belief, Calbeck, not everyone who gets turned down assumes the other person/institiution is "out to get them".

Which puts them on equal footing with my dad, who was straight. Hence the reason I said they couldn't have it worse, because all they can manage is equality in this case.


Oh? There was an actual law on the books stating, in so many words, "Calbeck's father is not allowed to adopt anyone, ever"? And here I thought you said the issue was a drinking problem combined with the absurd tendency of custody hearings to favor the mother.

Calbeck wrote:
The Anglican and Catholic churches have an official stance against gay adoption.


Also against using birth control or abortion, which affects millions of straights negatively. Sounds like they meet your definition of "equally oppressive".


And I say again, it's not oppression if it applies to everyone equally. In that case, it becomes Society. Oppression must be targeted, or it is not oppression.

An example, in the vain hope that you care what the word means:

If I make a law saying you can't make more money than I do, that's oppression. You have been targeted for a restrictive law.

If I make a law saying that neither of us can make more money, that's not oppression. It's a restrictive law, but it is equal in application, and is therefore not oppression.

Yours truly,

The thinking-you-need-a-dictionary-for-Christmas,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Frigidmagi on Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:41 pm

The thinking-you-need-a-dictionary-for-Christmas,


Well if you're offering I could use a theasaur...
Frigidmagi
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:23 am

Re: back to original topic of Hard Onions

Postby Nikas_Zekeval on Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:31 pm

mayihelpyou wrote:I completely agree with this last Hard Onions. Mr. RH is right on the money here. My daughter can't bring a picture of a stable to color to school at Christmas time, but they can be taught the signifigance of a dradle. Could someone PLEASE explain that to me??


It's the ABCs of 'tolerence' for Mutliculturalists.

Anything
But
Christianity

is to be tolerated. :roll:
"Come on Sam, it can't be as hard as blowing up a star."
"I tell you, blow up one star and suddenly everyone thinks you can walk on water."
*Beepboop* [connection established]
"Okay. Up next, parting the Red Sea."
Gen. Jacob Carter and Lt. Col. Samatha Carter, Stargate SG-1, "Reckoning"
Nikas_Zekeval
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:56 pm

Postby TMLutas on Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:07 am

Wanderwolf wrote:Heya, Calbeck.

To start with, the ban is universal in nature; no religious material may be brought to school. It's been that way since I went through private school back in the 70's.

That said, coloring is not a tenet of any known religion. (Though magic tricks were part of the Simonite practice.) Therefore, restricting someone's coloring-book choice is not religious persecution; it is based not on religion, but on content. Censorship, not religious persecution.


I would suggest that you find a good page or read a good book on iconography as well as reading up on the iconoclast movement. What you say is simply not true and people have made quite a big deal over it in the past. Drawing and coloring religious figures is a criminal offense in some countries (Saudi Arabia is probably a good example) and on strictly religious grounds.

As for no religious material allowed in school, my son got an icon in for a school display for a week this month. No troubles in this district.

Wanderwolf wrote:You're wrong about the gay marriage law, though: Bush has been trying to get it banned since 2004. It's been a constant state-by-state battle on the subject; have you been out of the country for a few years, or is there just more talk about it down here in Texas?


Bush was quite in favor of letting the process evolve through the legislatures but that wasn't what was happening, was it? A creeping judicial coup on this issue is not acceptable and opposition to "judicial activism" is a long-held belief on the center-right. That the gays are willing to end-run the american people as much as other parts of the liberal coalition does not mean that they're being slapped down for their sexual preferences. They're being slapped down for their anti-democratic attempts to shove their policy preferences down the throats of the american public.
TMLutas
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:19 pm

PreviousNext

 

Return to Under the Lemon Tree



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest