A Fuzzy Thread

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by computerworks

As the keeper of the Icon Treasure Chest, I can settle this part of the discussion.

There is no need for us "geek-types" to spend an ounce of time creating a "badge of dishonor" for those that are repeat offenders.

You see, a repeat offender will be shown the door for good, thus no profile will remain to display any padlocks or other garnish.

aaar-aaar.



(oh.... and "oooooo-gah") (note - check spelling)

What about at least a LIBERAL badge when it's deserving as a warning to other members and society in general? Think of the time allocated to it as a community service. Afterall, this is a Cobra site and true liberals don't own Cobra's so they are just here to pull our chain. Those that do own Cobra's must be really confused, even that is deserving of a warning.

Actually, I wish that there was a Cobra Club vest with lots of badges, something like the Hell's Angels have.

[computerworks]

....no....

[VRM]

Originally Posted by bomelia

OK, this particular thought line has gone on long enough. When I said Fuzzy, I wasn't talking about some dude's butt. Steve, Jamo, youse guys are on the front lines dealing with gay marriage. One thing true about Alabama, it ain't coming here anytime soon. I am glad you (MA) legalized it. Kind of like Bush's war on terror in Iraq. They "bad guys" are all heading your way. Down here, sex is still something that happens between males and females (and the occasional farm animal). I want all US humans (under the current def of "human") to have the same "access" to every thing I have "access" to. I do not think "marriage" is the only way to achieve it.

In just a couple of months I will be heading out for my second attempt to run across the state of Tenn, 314 miles (500 KM). There are many places Out There where folks just ain't right... and I have met some of them. I will be "tweeting" it and you can, if you like, "follow" along, username is mikeomelia.

Mike

Mike,
Yep a lot of them are headed here. No problem. My wife designs wedding invitations as a bit of a side business. She mentioned some stats a week or so ago from one of her magazines (I get Forza - she gets Bride and Gloom): There are about 40K marriages in MA every year. The annual number of gay marriages is about 1.5k. The total number of gay marriages in the state so far is around 9k. I hope I remember the numbers accurately. Anyway - the MA economy gets a little extra boost from a few extra weddings.

Good luck on the run. It would take less time to drive, though.

And for your information we have beagle skin thongs in MA as well. They are just mass produced. And they are really made of vinyl.

Cheers!
Steve

[Ron61]

Mike,

In just a couple of months I will be heading out for my second attempt to run across the state of Tenn, 314 miles (500 KM). There are many places Out There where folks just ain't right... and I have met some of them. I will be "tweeting" it and you can, if you like, "follow" along, username is mikeomelia.

Good luck on the run and I hope that you make it all the way. Maybe you should train with Forrest Grump.

Ron

[computerworks]

Fred ...it's not real clear what your point is... but the best I can say to you is:

We are not going to put up with the crap of recent past any more.

If that is what you come here for, perhaps this won't be your favorite place.

So it goes.

thanks
ron
ClubCobra Moderator

[Jamo]

He's getting some time to think about it.

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by VRM

Razor,
Morals change.

I am curious, though. What exactly is being forced on you? Nobody is making you marry a guy. I'm very curious about this one (Mike and others - feel free to jump in as well). How exactly does gay marriage affect you personally? I have two gay friends who will be tying the knot in a couple of months - how does that negatively affect you?

Steve

Steve, good question,
First: You introduced the moral issue saying that it was being forced by right wingers, I was trying to make the point that the change is happening from the left not the right. Traditional marriage has been accepted by society, hundreds of years in this country, and thousands of years by the rest of the world. Now their are those who want to redefine the basic building block of our society, the family,It is more than just a convenience thing for insurance purposes, and the like, it is taking our society in a totally different direction, that many of us believe is dangerous, in the fact that your wanting to change the foundation of our society. Their are certainly other laws that can be changed to give benefits, other than marriage laws.

Second:Making this change, of same sex marriage is going from structure, and order to nothing, that is no structure and order. We have accepted for quite some time that government was involved in the acquiring of marriage license. Now this would be totally taken away.
Their are groups that believe that brothers and sisters should be able to get married, (hold the southern jokes please), why not, what is the authority saying two men or women but may but others may not. A question like this is usually dismissed by the left, as nonsense, by rarely ever answered.

Third: This is a moral question, but as many moral questions it effects society. Just as the guy who thinks he can go around getting different women pregnant, leaving a trail of fatherless children,and saying his sexual behavior is his own business and not anyone else's. That type man is weakening the foundation, and we see the result in our headlines every day, with crime and poverty, this is a moral issue should we stay silent.

Fourth: You say morals change, I say they do not. That is the traditional Judeo-Christian view. Styles, music and taste may change, but behavioral morals do not. The great thing about our country is that we don't kill men for being homosexual, like Iran does, nor beat a women for talking to a man as they do in Afghanistan. We allow these differences, we might not like them, but their is more freedom here then is in much of the world. The Christian ethic wants to influence government the Muslim ethic wants to dominate.The Christian ethic wants to influence morality for a healthy society, not legislate theology. This is why the 10 commandments are prominently shown in the U.S. Supreme Court, held in the hand of Moses, its the influence of behavior that the commandments represent that is the morality we seek to defend.

[bomelia]

I dunno what the stats for marriages in Alabama are (some are shotgun, but heh, we are in the South). But I do unequivocaly know the number of gay marriages in Alabama: zero.

Just like Miss California, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman (no matter how horrific she may be).

I do think that the privilege to be married should be revokable (as well as having kids). The crap I see in the local and national news proves me correct everyday. But the lawyers would appose that.

Here is a test for you. If you are 40 and up, what was your view of gays back in 1980-1985? Thats when AIDS became an issue and is why I picked that time frame. I remember well the general attitude (though it was wrong). Back then, I would dare say (if you were even thinking about it) that the idea of Gay Marriage (we would have called it something else) would have been shot down universally across the country. What has changed? Have we become more enlightened? No. All that has happened is related to indoctrination in schools and the the byproducts of political correctness. Its called the Liberal Agenda. Pelosi and Clinton could care less about gays and more about the Big Tent theory of voters. It works. But in the process, you sell your soul to the devil. Gay Marriage does not derive from any useful principle (for human kind). It is a luxury afforded to rich societies.

I am not opposed to civil unions. They make sense. If they grant participants the same privileges as heteros. If not, then they need to be fixed. If that does not satisfy gay people, then you know it is more about FORCING acceptance than anything else. And I simply will not do that.

Mike

[bomelia]

BTW, I am not anti-gay. I could care less. Two of my extended family members are gay. Maybe its genetic and one day I will wake up thinking Brad Pitt looks better than my GF Angelina Jolie. I doubt it, but who knows. Fine with me. But what angers me the most is completely embodied in Perez Hilton's question to Miss California. The friggin nerve of that guy. And the unbelieveable courage of that young woman. She could have cow-toed to that idiot and prolly won the whole thing. But her principles were more important to her. Its people like her who will lead us into a new time of reason.

Perez Hilton represents EVERYTHING I despise about the liberalization of the gay issue. He is an a$$hole.

Mike

[bomelia]

Do I have ANY control oever my Fuzzy thread? I don't want to talk about gay people anymore.

I wanna talk about Obama "releasing" "torture" memos, and NOW, photos of detainees. And Obama says that he is "not interested in persuing war crimes investigations". Bunk! He is a political hack like all the rest of thim. This is about consolidation of power. This is about insuring that Democrats maintain power for as long as possible. This is about destroying the two party system. He is about to set a prescedent unlike any other president in this country. Use your power to put you opponents in jail. This crap goes on here in Alabama. I hate it. Every sitting Governor eventually gets prosecuted. It sucks.

The Walls are being errected again. Divisions in our security apparatus are happening. The military is getting chopped. And Bin Laden and others are watching on the side lines. It won't happen now, but it will happen again. We will get attacked again because our POTUS is more concerend with power consolidation than the lives of his fellow Americans. He should be impeached for his selective release of documents.

Gotta go, thought I heard the sounds of a helicopter in my back yard....

Mike

[Jamo]

We can't guarantee that a thread will stay on track...much of that has to do with the thread-starter's involvement and powers of persuasion.

However...you did just ask the following question: Here is a test for you. If you are 40 and up, what was your view of gays back in 1980-1985?

As it turns out, during that time period I was working for a multi-state agricultural association, basically doing what I do now except for "members" rather than "clients." Obviously, the organization was (and is) ultra-conservative...to the right of the Farm Bureau. My legal secretary was a gay man who had served in Vietnam and had wounds and honors signifying his extraordinary service to this country. Fastest damn typist I've ever had (IBM typewriters in those days).

It was during that period that my current position regarding gays was formulated...again, for me it has little to do with our own individual morals and value judgements, and everything to do with folks...all folks...being able to secure the same benefits and security. See, this guy and his partner (another Viet Vet) had adopted several orphans during the sunset of our time in Southeast Asia, and had brought them back to give them a shot at life. They had more than a few problems with insurance coverage and retirement beneficiary designations back then, and always were asked a few extra questions when applying for day care, etc.

So, for every perception based on fornicating rabid sodomizers, you have folks whose perceptions are based on something else...like mine.

As to HIV and AIDS, I've obviously had to deal with the legal ramifications of it at the workplace for the past 30 years, and most certainly under the ADA when it came to be. Yup...pissed me off then that whole groups of folks were just plain stupid and brought this hell upon society...gays, Haitians, monkey-phukers, IV drug users and swingers from the 70s.

[Jamo]

Now, as to the issue of demonizing the previous administration...

Unfortunately, it seems that every leader of a state either bases his or her standing by praising the predecessor, or trashing the high holy hell out of him or her. The ancient folks would go so far as to scratch their names off temple pillars, so it ain't nuthin new. But you're right...pulling a Carter-style witch hunt against the intelligence community is about as assinine a move as can be contemplated. It left us naked during the 80s, again in the 90s and it'll result in loss of intelligencel going forward.

I'm not sure if Obama is being pulled by Pelosi et al or whether he's playing us by trying to make it look like he isn't in favor of it. He may very well see his own future in seeing what the morons are going to be doing against the Bush Administration. Bush's folks (and the Congress at that time) barely scratched the surface of Clinton's sticky wicket, so the present power-holders can't really argue an eye-for-an-eye as they move forward.

It was (and is) a war...

[VRM]

Originally Posted by RAZOR

Steve, good question,
First: You introduced the moral issue saying that it was being forced by right wingers, I was trying to make the point that the change is happening from the left not the right. Traditional marriage has been accepted by society, hundreds of years in this country, and thousands of years by the rest of the world. Now their are those who want to redefine the basic building block of our society, the family,It is more than just a convenience thing for insurance purposes, and the like, it is taking our society in a totally different direction, that many of us believe is dangerous, in the fact that your wanting to change the foundation of our society. Their are certainly other laws that can be changed to give benefits, other than marriage laws.

Second:Making this change, of same sex marriage is going from structure, and order to nothing, that is no structure and order. We have accepted for quite some time that government was involved in the acquiring of marriage license. Now this would be totally taken away.
Their are groups that believe that brothers and sisters should be able to get married, (hold the southern jokes please), why not, what is the authority saying two men or women but may but others may not. A question like this is usually dismissed by the left, as nonsense, by rarely ever answered.

Third: This is a moral question, but as many moral questions it effects society. Just as the guy who thinks he can go around getting different women pregnant, leaving a trail of fatherless children,and saying his sexual behavior is his own business and not anyone else's. That type man is weakening the foundation, and we see the result in our headlines every day, with crime and poverty, this is a moral issue should we stay silent.

Fourth: You say morals change, I say they do not. That is the traditional Judeo-Christian view. Styles, music and taste may change, but behavioral morals do not. The great thing about our country is that we don't kill men for being homosexual, like Iran does, nor beat a women for talking to a man as they do in Afghanistan. We allow these differences, we might not like them, but their is more freedom here then is in much of the world. The Christian ethic wants to influence government the Muslim ethic wants to dominate.The Christian ethic wants to influence morality for a healthy society, not legislate theology. This is why the 10 commandments are prominently shown in the U.S. Supreme Court, held in the hand of Moses, its the influence of behavior that the commandments represent that is the morality we seek to defend.

Razor,
Well, you didn't really answer my question about what it does to you specifically, but I see how your concern for society as a whole affects how you view this issue. But you do bring up some other interesting points.

With regard to structure - there were no laws changed in MA to allow gay marriage. Some people tried (and still try) to change laws to eradicate it in MA.

I agree about the deadbeat dad types. I also don't like spousal abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, street gangs, and a lot of other things like that. I think the bulk of gays who want to get married are honest and decent people who are looking for stability. And I also suspect that many of them would be better parents than those deadbeat dad/abusive types. And since they cannot reproduce on their own they might make a perfect place to put kids who might otherwise have ended up as abortions.

It would seem that you are OK with allowing laws to give gay couples certain legal rights that are the equivalent of the legal rights associated with marriage. Calling those legal rights by the term 'marriage' only then becomes a religious or emotional need. I could care less about the religious need - religions are private entities and I do not want to legislate them. The emotional need is identical to straight couples, therefore I have no problem calling a set of legal rights 'marriage' as far as the legal aspects are concerned. Calling it the same thing for legal purposes will eliminate any possible advantage or disadvantage for one group or another.

I understand the argument regarding other types of marriages. Many people who are in favour of gay marriage do ignore potential problems with other types of marriage. I think it is because they do not understand the issues. The reasons are scientific; it is a proven fact that humans have all kinds of offspring problems when close relatives breed. It is 'morally' wrong because humans noticed thousands of years ago that kids of brothers and sisters usually came out sorta screwed up.
As for polygamy - Having 1 wife keeps me plenty busy - having more would probably kill me (though death by multiple girlfriend might be something fun to try). However, there are financial and legal reasons to not allow this. Group marriages would not qualify for the same legal benefits because trying to split spousal rights and benefits between multiple people is just not the same as with a single partner.

Morals do change.
The Bible says that gays can be killed simply for being gay. So 2 thousand years ago 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is gay'.

350 or so years ago people were killing 'witches' right here in the good ol' USA. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is a witch'.

150 years ago people were killing black people simply because they were black. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is black'.

60 years ago people were killing Jews, Gypsies, gays and a whole bunch of other people. That was viewed as morally acceptable by a lot of people.

Today, we shalt not kill, unless you happen to be Palestinian, Communist, Muslim, or whatever - then it is not so much a big deal because they belong to a different group than we do, and everybody knows that they are not quite as human as we are. I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but we do tend to get a bit cavalier about wiping out a bunch of people we have never met.

'Traditional' marriage has changed through the years as well. A few decades ago it was against the law in the US for a white person to marry a black person. Mormons were allowed to have multiple wives until the late 1800s. Less than 100 years ago half of a married couple could not even vote. India has a different set of marriage laws for a variety of religions. Humanity is constantly evolving (well most of humanity), and even those morals that seem set in stone get tweaked every so often. I would rather we make those tweaks based on the founding principles of this country rather than one group or anothers religious beliefs.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Jamo

We can't guarantee that a thread will stay on track...much of that has to do with the thread-starter's involvement and powers of persuasion.

However...you did just ask the following question: Here is a test for you. If you are 40 and up, what was your view of gays back in 1980-1985?

As it turns out, during that time period I was working for a multi-state agricultural association, basically doing what I do now except for "members" rather than "clients." Obviously, the organization was (and is) ultra-conservative...to the right of the Farm Bureau. My legal secretary was a gay man who had served in Vietnam and had wounds and honors signifying his extraordinary service to this country. Fastest damn typist I've ever had (IBM typewriters in those days).

It was during that period that my current position regarding gays was formulated...again, for me it has little to do with our own individual morals and value judgements, and everything to do with folks...all folks...being able to secure the same benefits and security. See, this guy and his partner (another Viet Vet) had adopted several orphans during the sunset of our time in Southeast Asia, and had brought them back to give them a shot at life. They had more than a few problems with insurance coverage and retirement beneficiary designations back then, and always were asked a few extra questions when applying for day care, etc.

So, for every perception based on fornicating rabid sodomizers, you have folks whose perceptions are based on something else...like mine.

As to HIV and AIDS, I've obviously had to deal with the legal ramifications of it at the workplace for the past 30 years, and most certainly under the ADA when it came to be. Yup...pissed me off then that whole groups of folks were just plain stupid and brought this hell upon society...gays, Haitians, monkey-phukers, IV drug users and swingers from the 70s.

I only brought the 80' s era because of the radically different way gays were percieved then. I still do not consider marriage a "right". It is certainly an institution that is for the most part denied to gay people. But it was my sincere hope that "civil unions" would be the key. There is such angst on this issue that it would not suprize me if the very institution itself would be dismantled in favor of civil unions for all. Gay people want to be accepted as normal "units" of society. With regards to "minorities", the one way to become a group not classified as a minority is to increase one's population fraction. Blacks could easily do this over time by having children at an astonishing rate. But gays cannot do this. Not on a national level. They will always be a minority. Thus, they are not normal, or normalizable. But that is not what we hear in the news. To me, the gay cry for normalcy and acceptance is silly. But it is dangerous too. The only way for them to achieve this is through abnormal political power. More power than heteros will ever have. And with each concession we grant, they indeed are gaining political power not commensurate with their popluation fraction.

Granting marriage to gays is getting us closer to a situation where aour political system will become a true Democracy... something our fore-fathers never intended. Next, they will be competing with hetero partners that want to adopt children! Why not? They are married! Where does this lunacy stop? It does not stop. Not until the inmates are running the asylum.

Mike

[Jamo]

Certainly valid points. Tough issue for a lot of reasons.

[VRM]

Mike, what exactly is 'normal' and who decides? That whole definition really sounds very socialist to me. Does everybody have to fit into someones definition of 'normal'? Blacks are a minority - and they did not have the same rights as whites did for a long time. 100 years ago Women were not a minority and they still didn't have the same rights.

If it was a true democracy then a majority would be able to oppress any minority they wanted to whatever degree they wanted. That sorta sounds like what the GOP is trying to do to gays...

And the 80s were a good choice. I was working in hospitals doing electronics and such,and had to go in a bunch of wards in various hospitals where people with AIDS were kept. I had to go through a lot of medical training in order to be working on the equipment, and one of the things I had to learn was infectious disease transmission types. The paranoia involving gays/AIDS was vastly overblown by the type of people who thought that even being in the same building as a gay person would get you infected.

Steve

[Ron61]

Normal pertains more to the standards of an area than any one persons deciding what he thinks is normal. Webster:

Normal: A rule conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, or development and etc.

So what is normal for one place may not be for another. And no one person can make that determination it would seem.

Ron

[trularin]

This thread has gone from Fuzzy to Furry.

What a great read.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by trularin

This thread has gone from Fuzzy to Furry.

What a great read.

You're talking about Jamo right? Blond-haired grey eyed North European mongrel types like myself are not known for being furry.
How many bags of popcorn have you gone through on this one?

Steve