Virginia is for Nazi Lovers

Warskull · Post by **Warskull** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:16 am

You know a long long time ago you could be called a witch or something similar and be killed for being left-handed.

Less than 300 years ago if your skin wasn't white you were considered a lesser race.

Both of these were conservative beliefs of the time and both were dead wrong. Someone is not less of a person because they choose to have sex with gender X instead of gender Y. Seeing a marriage and civil unions provide significant legal benefits (some of which are quite necessary, for example you cannot be made to testify against your spouse in court) denying homosexuals marriage isn't any better than deny non-christians marriage, or deny specific races marriage. Unfortunately since the Neo-cons took office the entire country has been going to hell as they take away the rights of the people bit by bit.

It should be mandatory for a judge to grant a civil union to a same sex couple. The state doesn't get to pick and choose who get rights. Churches deserve their freedom though and if they don't condone same sex marriage they should have the right to deny the couple marriage. However nothing should stop the church down the street from marrying that couple if they so choose.

As for Polygamy being illegal, this is because our country was founded by Christians who believed it to be immoral to marry multiple partners. However now that the country has evolved we are filled with religons that condone polygamy. Islam and Mormonism allow polygamy. Polygamy is has been successful in other parts of the world where it is accepted. It is just not seen often in the US. Really laws against polygamy are outdated.

Steel Roses · Post by **Steel Roses** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:38 am

I'd be willing to bet that same sex marriages will be old news and very legal in 10 years.

[edited out likely offensive joke]

Oh the prices we pay for freedom... honestly though I'd be willing to bet in 10 years, this issue will be as old of news as racially segrigated restrooms. I guess in some places it'll still be a heated topic, but largely the struggle for civil rights of our time will be summarized in a few bullet points on a page in a highschool government class text book, and will be remembered little more than that by the next generation.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:40 am

Warskull wrote:Islam and Mormonism allow polygamy.

Negative Ghostrider. Neither religion allows polygamy. Islam provides for men keeping a harem of wives, but not the other way around. Nor can women in the harem marry other men. Not true polygamy.
Mormonism does not allow polygamy at all. Origianlly, John Smith, when setting down the laws for the Mormon society in Utah stated that women could marry more than once, meaning that widows could re-marry without fear or guilt. It was NEVER stated that a man could have more than one wife. The mormons who currently practice that are an off-shoot, who aren't recognized by the mormon church. Ever notice how they all seem to get arrested? It's cause it's illegal in Utah, just like everywhere else.

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:41 am

I still have to take issue with the phrase "choose to have sex with" vis-a-vis a persons pre-programmed affection 'preference'... And I'm torn as to why I feel I have to take issue.

On the one hand, it seems painfully simple to me that a person should be legally able to choose from any of the twenty or so available sexes or genders, as the mood strikes them at any given moment. It's just not something the people or government of a nation that pretends to seperate religious and secular values should be concerned with.

Consensual sex between two or more human beings with or without machinery or trade consideration involved should be perfectly legal.

On the other hand, I know for a fact that for most human beings, it's really not much of a choice. We are hard wired in one direction or another, primarily... Males much moreso than females, but still, a simple mathematical majority of human beings only have the "choice" of having sex with the sort of person they are internally programmed to be attracted to, or having sex against thier most deeply seated instincts, or not at all.

Straight guys... Try this simple experiment. Know the difference between the feeling "Yeah... He's good looking." (even though you would only ever admit it to yourselves...) and "Yeah... She's good looking."?

In one case, your brain is noticing a certain confluence of characteristics in someone... No specific urges follow, with the possible exception of taking steps to keep your girlfriend away from him. In the other, your body tells you, in no uncertain terms, you must do whatever is needed to get some part of your body inside some part of hers... Even if you're allready attached and your brain overrides the underlying urges, they're still there.

Believe it or not, understand it or not, accept it or not... I'm not a lesbian because I think it's edgy or trendy or exciting or fun, or because girls are prettier or more emotionally available or smell better. (well... technically... if you consider 'smell' and pheremones to be the same topic...)
I'm a lesbian because when I see a certain type of pretty (to me) girl, my body fairly screams, with chemical support, "you must mate with her!!" and when I see a nice looking, rugged guy, the only reaction is "I bet he get's laid a lot." (pretty, feminine boys, on the other hand, confuse my hormonal system beatifully, and I can be quite taken with them until they take thier clothes off and the illusion is broken. it's very interesting to experience, and I hope to study it in depth some day.)

Steel Roses

I bet you're right, although I could see it going to twenty or even thirty... The thing that scares me so badly is that if the fundies get the government and it's guns behind them squarely enough, it could be another century or more, and things could get very, very bad in the interim. I don't think that's wholly likely, but no one ever lived long, governmentally speaking, who thought a radical change in governmental system was impossible.

Squiddy

It's Joseph Smith, sweetling (Real, live escaped Utah Mormon here.) And Yes, the leadership of the church did in fact interpret those rules to allow polygyny for some time, formally making it against church law later on. Brigham Young, one of the most famous leaders of the church, had quite a harem. The bit of propaganda you quoted is modern obfuscation.

You're right about the radicals, though... Taking names like "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Reformed." there are off-shoot religions that still support polygyny (none, of course, support the idea of polyandry... that would just be wrong.)

In actuality, they don't get arrested very often... And the ACLU has more than once considered taking up the fight to get them legal recognition for thier marriages and stop them getting arrested at all. So far, a desire to choose thier battles has prevented them doing so...

The real radicals, in whos communities the plural marriages really amount to little more than communally organised brainwashing and slavery, keep to themselves, far away from other, more "normal" towns. Like the most radical Amish or Hutterite communities, thier beliefs are so different that they are willing and able to very effectively seperate themselves... They are easy to spot when they come to town because thier women dress differently and behave differently. In the technical matters of living arrangements, they've learned to cover thier tracks in case of raids... So it's just not worth the effort to raid. They aren't married to all those women by secular law, only by thier "higher", religious laws... So in effect, they're really not doing anything illegal.

The more mainstreamable offshoots, very often, live on the outskirts and fringes of more 'normal' communities... Those women are a little more informed and a little more gently indoctrinated. They dress and behave much more "normally"... They simply believe differently where a few key issues are concerned. Again, since they don't file for and record secular marriage licenses for each 'spouse', they're not technically doing much of anything illegal... Especially since the ripples of Lawrence v Texas have started to chase government agencies the rest of the way out of private bedrooms.

In the end, while I think polygymy is still a ways away from being widely socially acceptable in the face of a thousand years (puls) of very effective social brainwashing, there's no intelligent argument against it... Eventually it'll be legal, and it should be now.

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:58 am

There are only two cultures currently existing in the world that support polyandry. One is a small sect of hinduism in north-west India whose name I can't remember and the other is the Dobe !Kung.

There are actually more cultures around the world that support polygyny than there are cultures that support monogamy but the number of members in those cultures put their numbers in the minority.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:15 am

well said Honor, well said indeed.

I don't think I could agree with you more. My ex-wife is a former mormon herself, so my info re: them is still a bit biased. I do seem to remember something about Young having a harem, but when you've got things like the salamander letters floating around, it's hard to know what to believe about the Mormons.

Delthir · Post by **Delthir** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:20 am

Ghastly wrote:There are only two cultures currently existing in the world that support polyandry. One is a small sect of hinduism in north-west India whose name I can't remember and the other is the Dobe !Kung.

There are actually more cultures around the world that support polygyny than there are cultures that support monogamy but the number of members in those cultures put their numbers in the minority.

Spank me for not knowing, but what is polyandry and polygyny?

As to the whole sexual hardwiring issue, yes, it is true. There is a lot of it being done out there. I myself am not attracted to other men, but at least I'm free from some of my programming, in that I don't have a problem hugging other men, or admitting that one does or does not look good. On the hugging part, I feel a little uncomfortable if I cause the other guy discomfort though . . .

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:25 am

Polygyny means multiple wive.
Polyandry means multiple husbands.

Warskull · Post by **Warskull** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:12 am

You always have such interesting little tid-bits of information. You should start a "Ghastly's Interesting Fact" box. Something that just spews out a random fact you put in a little database.

Steel Roses · Post by **Steel Roses** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:42 am

Remember watching stuff about reprogramming camps, for lack of a better description.

Pretty much parents with suspected homosexual children or homosexual people who actually wanted to change that aspect of thier behaviour would go to these places and they'd pretty much be subjected to standard issue brainwashing methods. Everything from controlled living quaters to electroshock-theropy, had a very military feel to it, and spawned a pretty funny movie in thier wake[but i'm a cheerleader]. They arn't anything like the movie, from what i've heard in other places, much much more serious.
Anyways, the result has always been the same, ether sort of re-inning a person [being the opposite of outing them] and reverting all the social angst and pain that came with the original struggle, or flat out doing nothing except for causing a whole lot of discomfort and pain, emotionally and physically.

Sounds like a pretty good arguement for it being hardwired, considering with similar methods they've been able to make innocent people believe they were murderers, and train civilian assassins in war time, two changes that are much more drastic.

Its a chemical reaction triggered by a very primal part of the brain, one that lacks the ability to simply change itself in the same manner inwhich we change our opinions. Oh and I'm rather happy for the recognition of a huge gray area between 'man' and 'woman' [honor said something about 20+ definable groups]. man and woman were always too cut and dry.

this thread has made for good reading

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 6:13 am

That reminds me about stories from certain so-called "reform schools," where "troubled teens" would be sent by their parents. They generally involved strict but inconsistent discipline, unrealistic rules, often religious overtones (especially amoung the girls' schools), generally unsafe living conditions, and were often on foreign soil, or at least US protectorate soil (to avoid those pesky laws we have to protect people). Occasionally, to add to the insult and injury, the parents of the teen would arrange to have them "kidnapped" by professionals, and taken to these places. There's several websites about them, including one central-hub like one, but I can't for the life of me remember it.

As for 20+ definable groups... Just to top that

I've come up with a system with 512 (2^9) groups, not including any paraphilias or power arguments. Throw power arguments in and you have 2^36 groups. And they're mutable.

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:19 am

Steel Roses: Have you ever watched "but I'm A cheerleader?" It's about the "don't be Gay" boot camps. It's funny too. I suggest anyone to watch it. Not only is it hillarious and show how those camps really don't work, but it also has RuPual playing a Straight Man (Well not really straight, but a gay man who has reformed to think he's a straight man)... out of drag he kind of looks like Charles Barkley.

and another note about so called reform schools for gays, Last winter, members of the Senate were trying to get government funding for these kinds of places, but it failed horribly. The NPA (National Psychriatics (Sp?) Assosiation) Actaully sent reps to Washinton to let them know that the NPA has banned any psychrisit from teaching at these places because they cause more damage to the people sent to them. (Such as a person who is sent to a gay reform school is something like 80% more likely to commit suicide) One of my friends who is a Phycology major had this artical on it, but I'm not sure if she still does. But anyway I guess some senitors do have brains if they can figure out that if they fund a theropy method, but anyone who has a licence to teach that kind of theropy would get their licence revoked if they did such a theropy, so the only people who would be getting the funding are people not quailifed to do it, that it's not a good idea to fund them. So I have to applaud them for figureing that one out.

Meteo · Post by **Meteo** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:38 am

I have seen But I'm a Cheerleader. It caught my attention while I was channel surfing during a bout of insomnia. From what I remember it was a pretty good movie, even though what initially caught my attention was lesbian love.

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:47 am

yeah, that was my original reason for buy it too, but it's one of my favorite movies. Great comedy.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:09 am

The National Thing for Psychologists, whatever it's called, has had homosexuality removed from their Big Book of Mental Problems for a while now.

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:46 pm

oh and I had an opinion on multipul people in a marriage, but I forgot to post it.

I think it's an ok concept, as long as every person involved is emotionally alright with it. I mean, I have a friend who says she loves two people. Her boyfriend says, he loves both her and the other woman and the other girlfriend also says she loves both my friend and the boyfriend. Now I don't know the other two all that well, but I know my friend to be a pretty level headed thinker and I trust her when she says she's in love with both. I think it's very possible.

it kind of reminds me of that one episode of Star Trek Enterprise when Trip (or the brittish guy, I get those two mixed up all the time) falls in love with the sexless gender person in a three person relationship they encounter and he tries to save it. Which really didn't have much to do with what we're talking about, it just suddenly reminded me of it. I've only seen a select few episodes of Enterprise. The Vulcan and the Japanese woman are hot, but I can't watch it without laughing and I totally blame it on Al from Quantam Leap... why did they choose him as a guest star? why!? Now I keep waiting for Captian Archer to leap out of his body and wake up as Elvis or captian Kirk.

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:00 pm

Hoshi looks much hotter with the shorter hair I think. I wouldn't mind if Enterprise was nothing but an hour of T'Pol and Hoshi gelling each other up in the decon-room.

I remember the rumour going around the internet at the time Enterprise was still in the preliminary stages that the teaser (short segment of the show shown before the credits) was going to end with Archer saying "Oh boy". I was kind of disappointed that it didn't.

Quantum Leap was a hell of a good series up until the end when they turned it into God and Satan play chess with time travellers. That's when it "jumped the shark".

And speaking of jumping the shark. I'm still pissed off that "The Lone Gunmen" was not only cancelled but the characters were killed off in the end of X-Files. Frohickey and Biars were my favorites.

I guess they could always create a new Lone Gunmen series with Jimmy Bond, Hot-Chick, and Former Man-In-Black Guy as the new Lone Gunmen, but that would probably suck on too many levels not the least of which none of those characters are hard-core Geeks which is what made the original Lone Gunmen so endearing to their audience and gave them that "Wow, we could be heros too" vibe.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:36 pm

cjburgandy wrote:oh and I had an opinion on multipul people in a marriage, but I forgot to post it.

I think it's an ok concept, as long as every person involved is emotionally alright with it.

Therein lies the rub. There is a great book called "The Quiet Pools" by Michael P. Kube-McDowell and he's got three characters in a Trine, or trinary relationship. Everything is working out well until the guy comes home to find the two women going after it, and they exclude him.
This of course pisses him off, and tensions around the house come to a head. The ultimate resolution is that each partner was working on relationships with eachother, but not as a trine. They need to realize that they are trying to form a three person partnership, not two two person partnerships.. but then the guys hops a shuttle for space, and it gets all complex after that. Thumping good read though.

Anyway, the point is, if people can make relationships like that work so that everyone is happy, I say more power to 'em.
Personally, I want a harem, but I'm off to a pretty lousey start.

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:38 pm

I'd watch it all day if it were just T'pol and Hoshi doing things, like exercising, giving each other massages, and puting suntan oil on each other's bodies...

I think I actaully have a "Star Trek Woman" fetish. My first Crush was Tasha Yar and I find most of the women on Star Trek to be hot indeed.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:41 pm

cjburgandy wrote:I'd watch it all day if it were just T'pol and Hoshi doing things, like exercising, giving each other massages, and puting suntan oil on each other's bodies...

Me too, but I would stop watching the moment the phrases "Inverse Tachyon Pulse" or "Space-Time Continuium" (sp?) were used.

Enterprise was GREAT till the first fucking time travel episode..
Talk about jumping the fucking shark.