Reading Current Events

I was just curious to hear others views on the new act passed by parliment allowing gay marriages. I am a canadian but i'm in Mississippi for the summer so i haven't really been there to hear what's really going on but i've definetly gotten some rednecks points and would like to hear some more both pro and con.

~*~Samz~*~

It is one of the best things that Canada has ever done. It is a breath of fresh air and makes me personally believe in the Liberals once again. I will give them my vote because they have changed my life.

Of all the things that I have lost in my life, it's my mind that I miss the most.

I was just curious to hear others views on the new act passed by parliment allowing gay marriages.

While there are some couples under a normal marriage that cannot procreate, these are an exception and not the rule. Same-sex couples are never capable of procreatingw aside from grabbing DNA and doing in-vetero fertilization (which is independant from marriage.)

I'm all for giving the same privilages to same-sex partners that "normal" married couples have. However, this will ultimatly degrade the value of marrige to something that's either insignificant or a liability.

Here's something I wrote a little while ago, part of a play. A satire, obviously.

---

Radio: (the end of a commercial, then a brief pause) ... John Hunter here, back to wrap up today’s edition of The Huntin Season. It’s been a great show today folks, and to finish up, I want to dialogue about a par-tic-u-lar subject, and that is the phenomenon of homosexuality. Perhaps good people if you have your children listening to this right now you ought to usher them off to elsewhere, for this is quite an uh-dult topic of discussion. Now, never mind the fact that the holy bahble, the words of God hisself commands us not to respect and tolerate homosexuality; forget for a moment the horrible pressure that it puts on us all, for men are no longer allowed to be manly, and women must now act like whores just to keep all of us from going queer. (Building up intensity) Forget for just a moment the unholy spreading of body parts and furthermore the spreading diseases and plagues as a result of those previous spreadings!! (toned back down after a brief pause) And consider their latest assault onto one of our righteous institutions. Recently a judge in Canada granted a pair of lesbians a divorce from the bonds of holy matrimony with which they were bonded a short time earlier. My fellow decent citizens, just how far are we going to let this go!? A divorce is defined by our laws and by our holy lord god as the dissolution of the bonds of holy matrimony that are held between a man and a woman! I ask you, as a man who has been divorced from altogether three women, how can we allow this sacred separation be applied to couplings of the same sex?! Well, our far-left Liberal government might start whibbling and whining about “rights” and “freedoms”. But what about our right to bear judgement on others? What about our right to decide what kind of people will make for a better society for our children? What about our right to live in a simpler, happier way that does not include having to compromise with the needs of those who’s choices are different than ours? These are the questions that the good people of this nation must begin to ask once again of their leaders and mayors and ministers. We can do it my friends, together we can make a country that is just and holy and good, but we must act swiftly, and without compromise. (Brief pause) That’s all for today folks, join me next time when I will have William D. Loncort, Phd, a professor of philosophy down at the university as a guest. Until then, happy hunting, and God bless North America.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 22, 2005.

Shshsht... I think you forgot to set the type of your post to Sarcastic. People might get the impression that you're serious.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Dude, are you smoking crack? I see rainbows.

*sings*This little freak flag of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine... :-)

Er. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, being a bi-sexual. You must have not pressed the 'sarcasm' icon, just as null suggested. Otherwise...very funny.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 22, 2005.

... ouch. Head on collision of idea trains. If I may make a suggestion, don't let this get out of hand. Debates on this subject always seem to get heated beyond recognition, and I can't truly understand why. It affects no-one except a small (albeit vocal) minority. I don't buy the whole moral degredation bit. The stability of your beliefs should not depend on the freedom to shun others.

And hey, if what they're saying is right and homosexuality is genetic, allowing people to marry out of the closet (as opposed to forcing them to be straight and have kids) means that eventually the homo gene will be eliminated via natural selection.

(That IS sarcasm... sort of. Technically, it could happen.)

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

This post was edited by Bunk on Jul 22, 2005.

If marriage is solely for the purpose of reproduction, then, what would you say to heterosexual married couples who use birth control? Should they not allowed to be married?

I'll give you a reason why it's right: because it's ethical. Allowing marriage between heterosexual couples, but not homosexual ones is simply an outrage and should make everyone rethink the traditional dogma and beliefs that society upholds.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

I have many guy friends who admitt to thiking it is absolutly repulsive to see two gay men together. Yet these same friends love it when two girls perform sexual favors for eachother. Is that not homosexuality?? I think if someone is going to be against one gender being homosexual, they should be against the other as well. Im not accusing anyone here of doing that, i was just throwing that out there.

~Ashley~

:Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle:

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

It simply is not normal. When sex becomes nothing but a pleasure boat it has lost it's genetic purpose. And you know what, if it is genetic, they are just as impaired as those mentally handicapped.

You're right, and 99.9% of people would agree with you. But, human beings are more than baby-making machines (most of us, anyway) :-D. There is room for genetic error, considering there are 6 billion of us to help out with the ongoing of the species in case a fraction of the population is sexually attracted to the same sex.

When sex becomes nothing but a pleasure boat it has lost it's genetic purpose.

So what you're saying is that when I and my heterosexual female honeybunny have normal (vaginal) intercourse, it's just as

sinful

and

perverse

because she takes the pill and so we can't fulfill our destiny of producing offspring?

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Here are agreeably straight men. they want to see two women (or more) together. They want to see lesbians, not homosexuals. By calling it something different, you can have your cake and eat it too.

But I agree with what you're saying. The two are identical.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Give me one reason why it's RIGHT.

I don't have to give you a reason. Because I don't feel like justifying my bisexuality to you or anyone else. Conversely, I don't have to like your opinion, but it is yours. I will, however, eventually explain why I think Gay Marriage is a good idea... which, I think, was the original purpose of this post.

What I think I have a problem with now is the vitriol, the vehemence with which you write of an entire segment of the population that you apparently know nothing about. I think previously, you and I have had discussions about how cruel I could be with my words...so, then not only do you know that I care about you alot not to light into you and rip you a new asshole <pun intended>, the way I feel that you have done to mine with your opinionated diatribe, but I also have tried to take your previous suggestions to heart. Please try to take mine to heart as well.

Stating your opinion is one thing. But adding into it speculative assumptions about the nature of reality -and assuming that Gay Marriage is one of the things that has slowly deteriorated the world's morals and values IS speculative at best-; and calling homosexuals and bisexuals 'sinners' is, if I am following the rigid, dogmatic, Fundamentalist Christian attitude that you seem to be taking, correctly...is really not your place... but then, me telling you it isn't your place, isn't my place.

You see the paradox? You see my dilemma? I don't know how to deal with your hate except through moderate self-defense, and wry humor. I neither want to be a hypocrite, nor do I want you to be a hypocrite, nor do I want to preach to you, or tell you how to live your life. I am trying very hard not to. No, don't give me a pat on the back...cause I'm not succeeding very well either. It's very hard in the face of so much causticity from you. So I would appreciate it if you would take some of the vitriol out of your opinions. Of course, you don't have to, cause lord knows I've dished out enough bitterness myself recently to piss off any and all financiers, financial counselors, and the like...but my point is: If I had realized that I had inadvertently offended someone I care about very much, I would attempt to try to tone down my tone, without simultaneously retracting my opinion.

The only way I can deal with this kind of uninformed opinion, is to point out that you might want to get to know some gays and bisexuals a little better; and find out how much love a same-sex couple can give to their children. Marriage and children being beside the point, at this point.

And just so you don't feel driven to attack me because I seem to be taking the moral high-ground, as you, I might add, have done...let me just inject a little more humor.. which is what null and I originally tried to do. Neither null nor I were oblivous to the sincerity of your post. I think we both knew damn well you were serious, and were warning you that you might receive some heave artillery in your direction if you continued in that vein of thinking, and conveying your thoughts. Apparently you want this 'heavy artillery', as, instead of just simply stating that you had not meant to be funny, you proceeded to insult gays and bisexuals further.

Man, all I can say is, I respect your opinion, though it is not my own; but just because you say it is so, don't make it so...

Excuse me while I go have anal sex, drink a mimosa, and lip sync to Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" simultaneously. I hope that doesn't bother you, since you seem to think that the anal orifice is not for fucking; but if it does, at least try to laugh. Picture how awkward it is to manuever oneself, and the preparation that goes into having a decent interlude of such. Picture the wildly erotic orgasms that anal sex can give, beyond your wildest dreams, and how mind-meldingly wonderful they can be. :-)

I have to stop here for a minute, and point out how if we are using pure logic, that saying that the anal orifice wasn't meant for sex, only for shitting; sounds a lot like saying: the pussy wasn't meant for pleasure, only plopping out babies. Man, try to laugh please. And just think.

I am making a concerted attempt at being funny, when I feel attacked by you inadervently, because of my proclivities. And I very much feel the need to stand up for those who aren't currently standing up for themselves, in the face of intolerance and misunderstanding. I don't judge you because of your history of crimes against the system...please try not to judge me for my currently legal activities. I love people regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. I have a problem with rapists and...and murderers, currently, but hey; I am willing to listen. People have different value systems, and right now, I may not agree with yours, nor do I think I ever will, but I still love you, dammit. Dude.

And for the record, I support Gay Marriage, for several reasons: the necessity of having a commitment to another person that you pledge your heart to, the ability to have visitation rights in the hospital without having to resort to such things as Durable Power of Attorney when someone is ill and hospitalized, and the ability to have the same tax breaks married couples do, when you, in fact, are behaving like a married couple...i.e., sharing expenses, responsibilities, goals, etc. It just makes sense to me.

But then, that's just me. I guess, it remains to be seen how the majority rules in our country.

Oh, and marriage, let's be honest, was originally a way to unite kingdoms for financial benefit, to amass more land, and to amass more cattle or beasts of burden. Which brings the cows back into the picture. How they got there... but in the same spirit I would like to add that I have a 'gay cow'...he's from that series of "Cows on Parade" - with pink hair and a mermaid costume. I think he is very cute! But he looks lonely...

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 23, 2005.

Excuse me while I go have anal sex, drink a mimosa, and lip sync to Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" simultaneously.

Hahaha! Quite an imagination :-D

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Actually... only the portion about "anal sex" was mine. A little birdy on the pager was agreeing with the objective of conveying how gays just wanna have fun, and said something to the effect that maybe people who don't understand them don't realize that their agenda really only includes:

10:30 AM "Mimosas and brunch"
4:00 PM Rehearse "I Will Survive" for karaoke night at 'The Pumping Station'

not an exact quote, the way I wrote it, but nonetheless, borrowed anyway. I added it, after having written the original post. Partial credit for the active imagination should be given to ...a little birdy. However, the idea of simultaneously trying to do all three at once was mine.

I can just see it now.... ~~~~~drifts off dreamily~~~~~

Dialogue: "Slow down! Your making my martini glass jiggle...Oh, oh, oh, wait, that hurts a little... back off just a little bit... *breaks into song* 'At first I was afraid, I was petrifiiiied....!'"

*stops to choke on ginger snaps*

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 23, 2005.

Please. Homosexuality is wrong on every level.

Clicky

Homosexuality is wrong on every level. Sure gay people are nice, but it's not natural. That's what I beleive.

Looks like there are lots of unnatural animals around. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jul 23, 2005.

Heh. 'Sqwauk' and 'Milou' the male homosexual chinstrap penguins have my vote as cutest deviant animal couple. Yay!

And I've decided that I am waiting for menopause before copulating with a male again... I soooo hate taking birth control pills. It makes me so bitchy.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

I soooo hate taking birth control pills.

Coil? Foam? All kinds of rubber things?

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Well, no. I like rubbers, but that isn't enough. Years ago there was slippage...need I say more. I am a fertile Myrtle for whom pregnancy can be life-threatening. One would think I'd get my tubes tied, but I somehow can't bring myself to do it.

The Depo shot made me get hives, and my moods were all over the place, ditto every one of the 10 different pills I have tried, and I am soooo not doing a diaphragm, the Today sponge got stuck in me, and that other little thing whose name I can't quite remember now, they said they couldn't do unless I had had a child. Now what was it?

And meanwhile, even with an 'appropriately-sized' condom, I have trouble with the lubricants and the spermicide. Very allergic. In fact, apparently, I am even allergic to some formulations of sperm. I kept getting all kinds of wierd vaginal manifestations for several months once, and finally had the full battery of STD tests run...everything. They said I was clean as a whistle, and so the only reasonable explanation was that I was allergic to his sperm. I said: "No way!" They told me we'd have try a different antihistamine than the one I was using for my allergies, and when I did, it worked.

I came home, and said: "Hey honey! I'm allergic to ya!" I switched to Allegra. Problem solved. But so much work.

Much easier just to cut a condom in half and use it as a dental dam for pussy. I can relax more, knowing I'm not going to nurture little zygotes.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 23, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, I was rather harsh. But, no, I don't hate gay people. I rather enjoyed talking to a few I know. For example, I message with a member's roommate all the time, because he's not an asshat. :\. Anywho, sorry, again. I still don't think it's natural, but hey, that's my opinion, eh?

Man, see that's what I like about you, when you cool off, you think. And you cool off way faster than I ever did. So I've learned a lot from you...can I let you in on a little secret? <besides the fact that I am way too verbose> :/...years and years ago, I too felt that the gay act was unnatural. I told my mom as much, and I didn't mince words. She looked at me, threw up her hands, and said: "Heather!?", with this pained look on her face. Needless to say, I don't feel that way anymore, and it was through taking a walk on the wild side and meeting so many, many people with gay lifestyles. For me, I even found out that I like women too. Though, I'm not saying that everyone will feel that way...your opinion is your opinion, and you have a right to it.

I love everybody, even asshats, or I try too. Sometimes it's very hard. But you, Aynjell, are not an asshat. You are my friend, and I think you're pretty damn cool dude.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

To you, aynjell:

I would love to shake your hand! You saw and took into concideration what other peoples views were. It takes a really strong person to be able to do that. You said what you though, considered others' views, and then apologized for any hurt feeling. Kudos man! Kudos!

And to you, roxxy:

I would also love to shake your hand! You were being attacked, you and still kept your cool and laughed it off. You stayed grounded, stated your opinion, and didnt hurt anyones feeling in the proccess. I solute you!

~Ashley~

:Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle:

Well, no. I like rubbers, but that isn't enough.

Me not. I actually hate these plastic bags. Especially thanks to the reason normal-sized ones doesnt fit me well - ie. I could also wear a cockring instead (but that probably wouldnt hurt so much). So that sonkies are quite expensive, last time I bought some I had to pay 15,95 EUR (10 ones inside, but hey: normal-sized do cast half the price, if not even less!). Next on, me and my beloved one tried to have sex. What a good laugh }:-> I only did recognize I'm inside something; such an unnatural feeling, such un-lifely-ness - I could have fucked a rubber doll .. AAAAH! 8-o

Oh, and back to topic: just wanted to note I absolutely hate racists, fascists and fanatics (which IMOSVHO are all the same }:->).

cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

They deserve to be cast aside, thrown out, and scorned. (The rectum was designed to expel waste, not accept a phallys)They are not normal and in any other society would have died out or have been murdered. Gay rights activists piss me off and should be happy we don't imprison them.

You should be ashamed for yourself. Saying that in any other society we would have been murdered is like saying that you actually wish that upon us. Then you talk about homosexuals being "unnatural", I would say that murder is pretty damn unnatural and extreme, don't you think?

Listen, I know that you apologized further down the line for this verbally abusive post, but Im sorry Aynjell, there are more mature and less hurtful ways to express ones opinion (umm, 78%?? I personally think Aynjell's post is way past the spam rating).

What you said is beyond unacceptable. This disgusting post is the equivilant of a racist saying that blacks should be imprisoned or scorned because they are black. Don't you see how ridiculously red-neck you sound?

I was born gay, I didn't just choose to be gay. You, yourself can't say that you just chose to be straight, you have felt straight for your whole life, no? It is ridiculous to assume that at some point in childhood you actually ask yourself: "Hmm... Should I be gay or straight? Lets see..."
Why should gay's be punished for something that they are born with and have absolutely no control over?

It is unnatural for me to be with a man. I don't like it and I definitely won't pretend to like it just because people like you think its "unnatural" and can't handle things that you don't understand nor attempt to understand.

The whole "unnatural" argument is out of this world. It is like saying that a person born handicapped, or a person with no limbs etc, etc... Should be murdered because they're not "natural". Common....Doesn't that seem abit... Stupid????

Let me put this into simple terms for all of you who actually agree with this discriminatory attitude:

Sexuality is like food, not everyone likes the same things. PERIOD.

Gay marriage is our right and it is about time that our society accepts it. We are here to stay. Sorry Aynjell, but it looks like your eventually going to have to atleast TRY to get over this... Meet some gay people, I am sure your attitude will change eventually, because according to some people your a pretty cool person.

Think about this:

Imagine if you were in a relationship for 40 years and your loved one became ill and was on their death bed, wouldn't you want to be there beside them? Would you stand to have someone tell you that you don't have a right to be there, or that you don't have the right to choose what is best for them when you have been by their side, through thick and thin, for 40 years? I don't fucking think so, now that is unnatural...

On a humerous note: Not all gay couples want kids. Most of us take advantage of the fact that we can't have children. We can have as much SEX as we want and we don't have to worry about getting "knocked up". Also, we will have WAY more disposable income to play with...

On that note, I am taking my FIANCE out for dinner, a movie, and maybe abit of dancing... Wow... that is just too sinful.

Of all the things that I have lost in my life, it's my mind that I miss the most.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 25, 2005.

To hamper a proper growth under a duality would be wrong. Marriage, as I said before, was designed to bind two people a MAN and a WOMAN, long enough to rear a child within the confines of a duality. Gay people simply can't do this. You can't have the duality that I speak of in a gay relationship. It's not there. A man contains certain things a woman doesn't, and a child needs BOTH.

I assume by duality you mean the traditional gender roles. In which case, I'd like to point out to you that a lot of gay men emulate female characteristics.

To make this short and simple: One has no idea what homosexuality is until he is a homosexual, just as mentally healthy people have no idea what schizophrenia is truly like until they have been afflicted with it.

I can't tell you why I'm not attracted to the opposite sex, but I can tell you that my sexuality is just as natural as yours is. I'll spare you the details, but to be quite honest I feel the same way about straight men sometimes. How could they be sexually attracted to a woman?

I understand I'm not going to change your opinions, but please bear in my mind that it is very easy to be on the giving end of ridicule and judgement, but it's not so easy receiving it.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 26, 2005.

One of the most irritating arguments I've ever heard regarding homosexuality is that it is "unnatural." You could argue the same thing about almost all of our civilisation. It's natural for man to live to 50, maybe 60 given good diet and a few strokes of luck. Your beloved computer is unnatural, as are all the video games and MP3s and so forth on it. Your clothes are unnatural; feel like tearing 'em all off and running into the forest to pick fleas off the back of a chimp now? Of course not. The only reason you aren't being called a bastion of satan and a sinner is because a long time ago, a bunch of stodgy, uncomfortable old men decided that their God was down with clothing, cooking food, living in cities, and generally enjoying the benefits of society as we know it, but that two (wo)men can't develop a physical and emotional bond to which one could attach the word love (or Liebe or amour or agape or grá or. . .). Marriage may have originally been intended as the bond necessary to raise a child, but that doesn't mean that we should exclude a group because some of us find it distasteful.

There are two logical arguments against the legalization of gay marriage that I have heard (if you've got another one, please fill me in):

Religious reasons- Jesus done told me that the queers ought'n't get hitched. Good and well, I'll accept that when the government makes the benefits for marriage EQUAL to those of civil unions, so as to stop discriminating against one belief. That, or if we're going to maintain marriage as a religious institution, then maybe it's time the government stopped paying people to do it in the first place.

The child-rearing theory- I know perfectly reasonable, kind, caring individuals who were raised by two parents of the same sex. As a matter of fact, I've had more run-ins with the ignorant, the incompassionate, the spiteful, and the assholes coming from the hetero camp. I think saying that a child needs the duality of a male-female relationship is rather absurd; a child needs somebody to care for them, to love them and teach them. The only problem I've ever seen a child of a gay couple experience in dealing with any matters of social behaviour is when a narrow-minded, preachy hetero starts tearing into them for what their parents do.

Is it natural? Who fucking cares? Was I born bisexual? I don't know. Maybe it's just my preference. You have yours, I have mine. Whether or not I think Cameron Mizell is the sexiest motherfucker to ever grace the stage is unrelated to my ability (really, lack thereof) to raise a child or be a contributing member of society. You've got your opinion, and that's all good and well, but the right of one person to hold his opinion isn't the same as maintaining the bias against the homosexual community (such that it is) by barring us from the same rights as straight couples. When I grow up, I want my biggest concern to be what the gay mafia will do to me for letting the world know about our coveted agenda (note to self: keep practicing "I Will Survive"), not how to deal with the millions of worst-case scenarios that a married couple has more legal ability to deal with in a timely and less painful manner.

Thbbbbt

This post was edited by Magnifico on Jul 26, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

In my opinion, divorces ought to be illegal

There are so many things I find wrong in that statement I don't even know where to begin.

Marriage is not for homosexuals, and it's not for asshats either. It's for people who want to raise children.

What about the homosexuals who want to raise children?

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 26, 2005.

Marriage is for kids and homosexuals can't have them.

Wha...? Your saying that marriage is only for the purpose of reproduction??

Haha!

Ok Aynjell, please let me know when you get married. At that point you should ask your wife if she is truely happy with you or if she feels like she just made a big mistake...
(hopefully she would find out right away that you married her because she can pump out babies for you...Since that is the entire purpose of marriage and all).

Wife: "What! All I am to you is a fucking baby machine?!?! I thought you married me because you love me!"

Aynjell: "Love...Whats Love?"

:)

Of all the things that I have lost in my life, it's my mind that I miss the most.

So fuck open mindedness. Homosexuals are sinners.

Yeah, like all your stiff-cocked - uhm, sorry - stiff-necked puritan christian padres. Those who fuck their male acolytes up the ass. Oh sorry, right, there are no female acolytes, as it's not natural for women standing on the altar before god.

Marriage is not for homosexuals, and it's not for asshats either. It's for people who want to raise children. If you can't wrap your minds around that, marriage is lost. Fuck... all this is about is money. Who cares about saving a few dollars? Give them something else. Homosexuals are not fit for marriage, and never were. Marriage is for kids and homosexuals can't have them.

Of course religion should tell us what to do, not the government. So we dont need a government at all, right? Let's switch over to some despotic rule scheme, were women have to do what men tell them to do, go back to Stone Age (but then, they probably were NOT that biased).

There is a perfectly good and functional system here...

... which I cant see anywhere. Maybe in your dream, kid.
Another reason to NOT marry christian. I gonna marry in the paganistic ways of my ancestors.

[PLONK]

cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Jul 28, 2005.

The penis is an implantation device, not a buttplug. You may enjoy it, and I'm sure jack the ripper loved tearing women up, but was it any better?

Heh, quite a comparison.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Oh my god...faggots are like ravenous, murdering, conniving, sociopaths.

But on the good side, there was only one of him.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Marriage, as I said before, was designed to bind two people a MAN and a WOMAN

Not anymore its not...;)

It was nice having this discussion with you all. Aynjell, I appreciate your apology and hope that someday you might consider the fact that homosexual couples can raise "normal" children. Do you know any homosexual couples with children? Many homosexual couples realize that it is important to include both sexes in the raising of a child, and I do agree with this.

Me on the other hand, still take advantage of the fact that I can't have biological children with my partner (nor do I want to adopt). It would hurt way too much, I could potentially loose my figure, and I am way too greedy... :P

I was born a lesbian. I gave the "straight" life a valliant effort; however, it just didn't work for me. I could have chosen to live that life, but I wouldn't be happy. Why would I want to jeopardize my happiness just so that I can be "accepted" by a certain group of people?

I don't need you to feel sorry for me, Aynjell, Im very content with my "choice" of lifestyle, and won't change for any one. :)

Take care :)

Of all the things that I have lost in my life, it's my mind that I miss the most.

This post was edited by NiQuE on Jul 26, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 26, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 25, 2005.

I like the way Chris Rock says it: "In the land of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire..." (and the no-fault divorce--let's not forget Las Vegas' Chapel Alley,) what degrades marriage?

Personally, I find it a straw man, when put against the backdrop of reality, the polemic that fags somehow are able to degrade marriage any further than it is already.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

I find it a straw man, when put against the backdrop of reality, the polemic that fags somehow are able to degrade marriage any further than it is already.

*nods* If the heterosexuals can't keep families together, how can they tell the homosexuals what do to?

Please contiune to vote AND post.

I'm all for giving the same privilages to same-sex partners that "normal" married couples have. However, this will ultimatly degrade the value of marrige to something that's either insignificant or a liability.

I don't understand that statement. I've never understood that little bit of "folk wisdom"--perhaps you could explaing wghy fags, and fags alone, will "degrade" marriage?

Ah, but you say 'degarade the VALUE of marriage'; that must mean that its value is already at question.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

I don't have anything against homosexuals besides that I don't want to see them together. But to be honest: I also don't wanna see heterosexuals grabbing each other on the street, so...
But I think I couldn't live in a world where homosexuals can marry or even adopt a child and start a family. I don't know why I am against it. Maybe it's because I grew up in a world that didn't know homosexuality till my teenage years and because I'm still young or because I'm not tolerant. I'm sure I would feel attacked by a law that lets those people marry. And while I could probably accept homo-marriages, I could never in the world accept homo-families. It's just not right in my mind. Maybe in 50 years it's okay, but now it is not.
On the other hand I understand that homosexual people also want to found a family. And I would cry and die if someone would hinder me founding a family. So, it's difficult. Maybe it's the romantic image of a family with husband and wife I carry with me sinth my birth day, so... Does that make sense? I don't wanna sound like a conservative, high-necked catholic girl but I think homos should respect that world isn't ready (yet).

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Maybe it's the romantic image of a family with husband and wife I carry with me sinth my birth day, so... Does that make sense? I don't wanna sound like a conservative, high-necked catholic girl but I think homos should respect that world isn't ready (yet).

No one can change the way they were raised or the images that were put into our heads... So yes, it does make sense that you see these romantic images of a husband and wife. However, you are a conservative, high-neck catholic girl if you choose to use negative words like homo, fag, or lesbo. You are also a conservative, high-neck catholic girl if you choose not to accept that the world is, infact, changing and that the only people who aren't ready for it are the people that are scared of it.

Also, studies have shown that people who are extreme homophobics are actually closet homosexuals who don't understand how to come to terms with their sexuality.

Of all the things that I have lost in my life, it's my mind that I miss the most.

I'm not homophobic. I mean I talk to them like to other people, too. And sorry for using the word homo, I didn't think it's got a negative image. I just thought it's shorter to write.

Anyway: Sure, the world is changing, but slowly. I mean, in 1971 women in Switzerland were finally allowed to vote. That's not so far behind us. And there are still countries with laws that are beyond imagination, so... Maybe it depends from which point you see it.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

Are you done with this subject?

What has been totally twisted up and fucked with? Maybe you should clarify, or be more specific...

I have already stated that the difference between love and a loving marriage is that the two that love each other are interested in raising children together. And any woman that'd object to that is not my type.

Maybe your idea of the difference between love and loving marrigage is that. But it isn't, mine, nor is it that of a large percentage of the population that wants to make their commitment to each other legal in the eyes of the state and of the church. What about those of us who love someone else, and would like that kind of commitment, but can't live up to your standards, Aynjell of being able to procreate? Some of us can't fucking have kids, Aynjell. Does that mean, apparently, by your rigid standards that we are shit out of luck? I guess...that it does. And I guess I ain't your type. But then, I don't think I ever was...

That's what marriage is for, and any girl that's not a harlot or a whore or a lesbian would understand it.

I guess, since I don't comply with your definition of what marriage is for, then I must be a harlot, a whore and a lesbian!!! Technically speaking, I am not a lesbian, I am bisexual. And I suppose now, your REAL feelings come out Aynjell. You don't like strippers and you consider them harlots and whores...Why don't you confirm that for me, and then MAYBE I'll get back to you. Or more likely, I'll tell you just exactly where you can go. If that's they way you feel, then I'm done.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 27, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

...much like christ said, I can approve of you and not your actions. It's forgiveness, it's love.

...Approve of my actions? You are going to 'forgive' me for being a stripper and a bisexual woman? I don't need your forgiveness for that any more than you need my forgiveness for you supposedly being a sociopath, who doesn't understand why manipulating other people is wrong. And saying that about you isn't saying anymore than you have admitted to online yourself. Why don't you understand that running around calling people, directly or indirectly, harlots and whores is fucked up?

You tap me on the pager, and tell me I misinterpreted what you said? I think this response of yours is obvious that I DIDN'T misunderstand at all... not at all. I understood all too well, apparently. :-(

I will not sacrifice my moral and spiritual convictions for you.

My response: Sure, fine have them. I didn't ask you too. I asked you not unleash a bunch of vitriol. Excuse me for trying to be the kind of person I am. Older and wiser. As you so KINDLY pointed out about the HUGE gap in our ages. You seem to have misunderstood me here. I said you never WERE my type. I wasn't interested in anyone here from the get-go. I flirt, like everybody else. YOU are the one who brought up, in that previous post, how any woman who couldn't understand that marriage was for people who wanted to have children, was not the woman for you. YOU are the one who brought up, in the previous post, how any woman that couldn't understand where you were coming from was a harlot, a whore, and a lesbian.

I just responded to those statements. I was never interested in you in that way. Especially not after you told me what you did, for which you said you felt no remorse. Especially not after that. I was only frightened of you when you said you had no remorse. And yet, I find it hard to believe that you feel no remorse on that subject. I think it more likely that you do, but you are martyring yourself to some erroneous diagnosis someone gave you, because you want to punish yourself. And I honestly think having this conversation here is a way for you to try to screw yourself out of some friends. Yeah, I forgave you too, if we want to be all self-righteous about this, but I don't trust you. I don't trust you to be honest with yourself. That doesn't mean you aren't my friend.

This gets me all the way around though:

The penis is an implantation device, not a buttplug. You may enjoy it, and I'm sure jack the ripper loved tearing women up, but was it any better? We are not in a black and white world and just because I enjoy it, does not make it right.

Who is really talking here? Is someone else putting words in your mouth? You seem to have some kind of spell cast over you. What do you enjoy, Aynjell? And if you are referring to what I think you are... I think you are wrong. Dead wrong. You DON'T enjoy it. Someone else told you that you did. You are so sweet down inside of all that crap someone loaded on you. You got hurt, and you dished out the same crap. Everyone who has been abused has...just about. And you aren't at risk for being gay because you've been abused, anymore than you are at risk for liking asparagus. You don't have to attack people because you are afraid of that, Aynjell.

Your logic is so screwed up. On a lighter note...

It's a beautiful thing, and was barred to the married for one logical reason: Married parents tend to be more loving, logical, supportive parents.

First of all, lets break this down. 'It' being sex, I assume. So what you are saying is that 'sex' was barred to the married? I don't think you mean 'barred' at all. I think the correct word would be: 'connected'. Poor choice of words, and not a very strong way of conveying your point. It only reeks of anger and impulsiveness. Something that I can truly relate to... And how does it logically follow that married parents tend to be more logical? Explain that one to ALL of us please...it doesn't logically follow. There is something, I guess, about the bonds of marriage that makes you more logical? I think there are a lot of confused married couples out there who would beg to differ on that one. What flawed logic you have my dear...if that one's true, then maybe you should get married.

I'll buy, MAYBE, more loving and supportive, just because when you know someone is probably committed to you, that knowledge is one less stress, and can allow the heart to open wider to other people, including children, because you have it within to give...because someone is there to support you. So no, I am not interested in you in that way either, no, I don't want to get married. But I do want to patch this fence. Primarily because I see what it is doing to both of us. The two of us have been hurt badly, and here we are hurting each other.

You ARE hurting people if you call them 'whores' and 'harlots'... and it is just plain shitty to create a subgrouping called: harlots, whores and lesbians. Maybe you just hate who hurt you.

I don't need to be told I'm wrong, when I KNOW I'm right.

Go on. With...your God complex. If you truly have one. But I'm betting you don't. You are just scared and lashing out. Exactly what I did when I first wrote this post. And yeah, I edited it. Because the light dawned on me. And I am kinda scared for both of us, to tell the truth.

I never said you were wrong, I said you didn't need to go around cutting people down the way you were, especially, I might add, when you aren't even that good at it. I basically said if you wanted to go around hash slinging, I'd MEET YOU FAIR AND SQUARE ON THAT ONE, BUDDY. So here I am. I told you...that you were entitled to your opinion. But you don't need to go around calling people 'harlots', 'whores', and the like. I think it is pretty fairly obvious to whom that passive-aggressive behaviour of yours was directed at. You didn't like me trying to be nice and asking you to stop cutting people down. That's clear. Your last post makes that pretty clear. Especially with you calling my job as a stripper, lowly.

Man, take the forgiveness stuff, and stick it where the sun don't shine. I don't need to be forgiven. And neither do you. Except by yourself. I can't convince you of my truth, nor can you convince me of my yours. But my truth is mine, and yours is yours. I may be a hothead, and say things I don't mean to, but that doesn't mean we can't both coexist.

I might add that I think we had agreed to disagree until some people stirred the flames again. And I really don't think it was either ginsterbusch or Orchid who did that. I'm not naming names, but something stinks here. It stinks to high Heaven. I smell a rat. Garrison Keillor my ass. You are still my friend, Aynjell, but word to the wise: Both of us seem to be like caged and tortured animals, fighting for the right to be heard. I am still dealing with my issues. Let's give each other some space and then talk. Otherwise...we'll loose the friendship for sure.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 27, 2005.

Let me add, for the record here...since I can no longer edit the above post, and really, really wish that it's original form had not been read by anyone: I've fixed it as much as I can. Aynjell, is just being vulnerable. You guys do the math.

This drama doesn't need to happen. I realized what was happening; even if everyone else doesn't, at least I know. I don't need a 'pat on the back' from anybody here except the people I have come to trust. It takes a while for me to trust anyone. I'm kinda like the fox in The Little Prince, and I think Aynjell is too. I may not trust you if I don't know you, and I will watch you to see if I can. But I fully trust ginsterbusch, Magnifico, Bunk, Orchid and null. I've left some out, but they aren't relevant to this discussion. Aynjell, I love even when he pisses me off, and I'm sure he thinks I'm difficult too.

People, can we stop this bickering please?! If you want to pat someone on the back, do it elswhere, and don't stir up more shit. This thread needs to end. We are spinning our wheels. Let's stop.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 27, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 27, 2005.

First of all, I have to say that I am really hating what I see happening here once again. We have two of our inner members, the ones who are among those who are the most contributive as far as posts are concerned, fighting one against the other, and I find all of this very disgusting.

I read harsh words on both parts, and I won't even comment on that. You guys are both wrong, and I don't care if you are going to rate me down for this post, but I think that there is really the need to pour down some cold, icy water on your boiling heads in order to have you back to reason again.

I don't even want to remind you that there are ways and ways to express your feelings or your beliefs without hurting each other, because at this point it would be totally useless since the damage has been done already.

What I believe is that human beings are all the same under God: they have the same rights, and they are looked upon in the same way. If you don't believe in God, and you're an atheist, well then I'd tell you that I also believe that all the human beings are all the same under the State, or this is what it should be.

I might not like gays, I might think that it is disgusting to go with one of my own sex, and I might find horrible the idea of two men having sex together. I am straight, I am a woman who likes men, and I have never even considered the idea of switching to the other side, because I am totally satisfied with my life the way it is, and I know I am not born lesbian.

However, I respect other people, and I respect gays (or lesbians). I believe that they have rights, the same rights I have. And when I get married, me and my husband will be recognized by the State or the Church as a family, and as a family we'll gain certain rights that we wouldn't have as singles. One of them might be the visits at the hospital: if you have a surgery done, your husband or wife can stay with you the whole time, especially if it is a risky thing. A gay/lesbian partner though wouldn't have that right, since the couple is not actually a couple according to the law. I am sure that there are many more examples you can think of.

Now, I don't know about a gay couple adopting a child. I have to say that I am totally against in vitro procreation, therefore in the case of two lesbians, I would be totally against them using the sperm of someone else in order to have a baby. I would be against that even if the two wanting-to-be-parents were an heterosexual couple though! I think that a baby needs a healthy environment to grow up into, especially an adopted one, since I imagine that there would be several issues with him that wouldn't be there in the case of a biological child.

It is not my job to prove that an heterosexual couple is better than a gay couple to raise a child, or that a gay couple is not made to raise a child. I think that there are plenty of psychologists or what not to establish that. And I can understand the view of those who feel it innatural and wrong, but at the same time I understand also the opposite.

The truth is that this was a bad topic to start with, and doomed to create a conflict within Nao. I just hope that this post of mine can somehow put an end to it, and that nobody else decides to open the Pandora's box ever again.

Un bacio è un'apostrofo rosa scritto tra le parole "ti amo".

This post was edited by andromacha on Jul 27, 2005.

No, I wouldn't rate that down... andromacha....as a matter of fact, if I was going to rate, which I haven't been on this topic for quite some time now, even while being hurt and angry... I would rate it excellent. Because it is. Thank you. I think we reached a place where we agree to disagree, which was where we were at before, until people started stirring shit up.

Now, it's my fault and Aynjell's fault for responding... but, oh well. I did, however, have to write another post in defense of myself, because there were yet more attacks. Attacks about information that I wasn't divulging out of confidence to say, because Aynjell mentions such elsewhere here online. I can't stand there and watch someone try to paint me as a 'nut', especially after all I've been through; but, I don't have to be mean about it. I slipped. I fell. I picked myself up again. I'm human. So is Aynjell.

I don't think either of us realized what we were doing to each other. Now, with that said, I have GOT to go to bed before this bacterial throat infection gets the better of me.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 27, 2005.

I'm not schizophrenic. And you shouldn't lie. It's not nice. People can look up some of your past posts from way back, and see that you had a history of at least some kind of abuse. Someone hurt you. Please don't deny this and try to crucify me by leaving me out to dry on this one. You even told me about it yourself. That's not nice, trying to make me look crazy. That's not what a friend does. Please stop this stuff, Aynjell. Stop it. Please.

I may have been diagnosed as Bipolar at one time, but you and I both know that we each share a history of being abused. I haven't come this far, getting past having one of my former adult abusers stalk me online here, and trying to make me feel crazy...to have you try to discredit me. Especially, when all I am trying to do at this point is care.

You aren't sociopathic, no matter what some idiot doctor may or may not have told you, or what you read, or wherever you got that idea. You've never actually called yourself one to me, but you've definitely hinted at it. You don't have it in you, though. You aren't that coldly calculated and sinister. Your emotions are just blocked and you are hurting inside.

And what you said to me on the pager about thinking that people here are nothing more than a fleck of dirt under your nails... and how you don't care about anybody, you'll just use them as a stepping stone, is neither true of you...NOR did you not say it. You said it about yourself, but it isn't true of you. You have been trying to characterize yourself as a sociopath for some time. You AREN'T one. You have a good heart down under all that mess, and you don't have to hate on people the way you have been.

I take offense to name-calling like 'harlot', 'whore', and those being lumped in with 'lesbian', which technically, I'm not, either; because it's just mean...and I have to hear that stuff from jerks at work every once in a while. But I don't have sex for money. I don't suck cock for money, and I like both men and women. I take offense also, because I have to work with women who DO do those things, when I refuse to. Now, please will you stop attacking people? Stop trying to make me out as crazy? Don't lie about what you know is readily available information about yourself online here at the NAO, and other people know who care about you.

And talking about 'spells', well, James, you used to be a Wiccan, did you not? I'm pretty sure you've mentioned that here...I can try digging for it, but I'd rather not. I chant Sanskrit mantras, but that is not spellwork. It fits into both the Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions. Stop the cheap shots, James. It isn't becoming, and it isn't nice. You don't do that to a friend. I shouldn't have done it to you. I made a mistake. And so have you.

Why are you making this so hard, James? Stop. Do you want help? Then take it from someone who has been in your shoes...who has been hurt by others, and has beat herself up over it. You aren't responsible. And neither is the gay world. But most of all, you aren't responsible for what happened to you, or how you handled it. You 'acted out' in your own way, and so did I. I hurt many people. We each had our own ways, and those are nobody's business but ours. That part of it that you told me in confidence I will not reveal. It's not my place.

I just want to give you a big fat hug, and let you cry and scream and rage. It's what I did. It's way harder doing it alone, James. Please just take my hand, man. You can scratch it, you can squeeze it, but it's still here for you.

I won't make the mistake of attacking you in return now. I really am done. With attacking you. I want you to heal. This is hard for me James. I am healing too. I am learning to not attack the ones I love. That hatred just eats you up inside. I'm pretty sure it's why I am sick again. That, and leaving Dow Scrubbing Bubbles foam on my feet for 24 hours. Mr. Potato Head would surely say that it's partly due to feeling hate inside, and I'd have to agree with him on that one. Even though he nurtures it himself in secret. I hope you won't keep pushing buttons just to see if I care, cause I really do. But if you do, for you, I WILL turn the other cheek. I'll only refute what I know isn't true, and not respond by attacking. Can't you tell some people do love you?

You've been such a good, good friend in the past...so kind to me. Always lent an ear, and a humorous website link. I'm not better than you, I just realized that this has to stop. If you'd realized it first, you'd be saying the same thing, probably.

Please. James. Please. I am begging. Please.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 27, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 27, 2005.

Enough, Aynjell.

First of all, if you read just 'even' the first paragraph of what I said before, you'd realize that I actually said: supposedly sociopathic. I never called you a sociopath to my knowledge. I basically stated that you seemed to think yourself to be one, and I stated that I disagreed. A careful read of that will prove that.

Further, the characteristics that you have maligned yourself with when speaking to me on the pager and on threads like this, are characteristic of that type of behaviour. And yes you did, verbatim, pretty much...tell me on the pager that you considered people here "like a speck of dirt under your nails", and that you would "use people as a human shield, or like a stepping stone if they got in your way". Actually, I think Saqqara would verify that for me, too. I hope. Because she quoted just as much to me as well. Pretty much verbatim, too. And she cares a whole lot about what is going on as well, and cares about you.

Now. What I was saying was, that I didn't and don't believe that those statements you made about yourself were true. I think you said them to be mean, and because you were hurt. I don't see you as the kind of person to step on people at all.

You never said you didn't have any abuse in your past? I think in the post before this one, you specifically said that you 'had no ghosts in your closet'. And you were saying it in referrence to you 'thinking' I actually called you a sociopath, I assume...while you were calling me a schizophrenic. I'm pretty sure.

As far as being sick, I was sick long before this blip on the screen happened. And actually, I seem to be much better. I attribute that to only for a second stooping to sling hash the way you have been. Slinging hash like that is acting out. We've all done it, I've done it. I did it for one post, and tried to fix it. Please stop attacking me.

In summary, let me reiterate and encapsulate: I did not call you a sociopath, I railed against your supposedly being a sociopath. Big difference. You may not have directly called yourself one, but the characteristics even, that you gave yourself on the pager yesterday, fit the description, and [i]as I said[i/], I don't think that description fits you, at all. Also, you did seem to be denying any abusive past, and seemed to be doing that to paint me as delusional, and I believe, what you called me was schizophrenic. Directly. *shakes head* Further, I am not nearly as sick as I was, which refutes your premise that I care too much about this. I DO care. Immensely. But not enough to make myself sick. I already was sick. With a cold and bacterial infection. Not with a chemical imbalance, as you suggested.

Does this help? Do you understand why I said that it wasn't a problem for you to state your opinion, just simply to go around calling people names, and suggesting some of the things you did, which I won't repeat. People who want to dig into this mess can read them for themselves. But I hope, that they too, will drop this. Can we drop this, Aynjell?

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 27, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 27, 2005.

I knew I wasn't _THAT_ tired last night. Wow, everony sucks. The whole lot of ya'. Saqqara is lying and backstabbing, rosyxxx is freaking insane, and I'm the bad guy.

This is the only statement I'm going to concern myself with publicly, because it's painting a picture of me which I don't like. Lying and backstabbing, Aynjell? No. When you asked me if I had spoken to rosyxxx on MSN, before you had gone to bed, I hadn't. That's the honest truth. As I've told you before, I have no need to lie, nor do I about such petty things.

After you left from our convo, I decided to talk to rosyxxx about you, because I don't want to see this huge fight that is still raging. Even she can verify that I didn't speak to her until you left. If speaking to her makes me a lying backstabbing person, then, I suppose I am. But understand this. When you asked if I had spoken to her, I had not. Please don't assume things, it puts you in a world of hurt.

Also understand this about me: anything you have told me that you've asked not to be told to anyone else, I carry to my grave. It hurts to know that you think of me like I'm some little child, running to tattle the first thing I hear, as if I was some gossipy bitch that runs around, telling the whole town everyone else's business other than her own. I said nothing rosyxxx did not know and will continue to remain that way.

I think you need reflect back on this in the third person, Aynjell. You had a good many friends before this outburst, whether it's how you truly feel or not. Some of the things you said I don't agree with, but as I told you, opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one, and they usually stink. I don't consider you not a friend, even though we disagree on this issue. Whatever personal demon you are railing against here, that has given you such rage, take a moment and look at it. Think about it. You haven't been yourself for about a month now. I've noticed it, rosyxxx has noticed it, and I'm quite certain if you ask the others around you everyday, they will have noticed it as well. Take a moment to reflect, that's all I'm asking.

"It is much more comfortable to be mad and know it, than to be sane and have one's doubts."

This post was edited by Saqqara on Jul 27, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

Fine. Apparently, I indirectly called you a sociopath without meaning to, and I regret that. I came to the conclusion that you were NOT a sociopath. I even repeatedly said that you weren't after the conflicting statement I made, which could be construed as calling you one if you wanted to stretch it. Apparently, I also made a stretch with thinking you were calling me a whore, a harlot, and a lesbian...but you were calling somebody those things, weren't you? Weren't we both doing the same thing? So, it seems that we both have made stretches in what we believe the other has said about us. Everything I said directly, or indirectly I have apologized for...repeatedly...no less. While you continue to call me "schizophrenic", "crazy", "confused", and "psychotic".

Apparently you have no intention of apologizing for any of that, ever. You apparently believe it...and who am I to dissuade you, Aynjell? Though, I'm not the person you met last fall. I'm just someone who has been fucked with alot in the very recent past, and I am scared. But I don't have to have an apology from you to say unconditionally that I am very sorry that I hurt you.

Aynjell, James I never mentioned anything that you didn't say publicly, I don't think. I was very careful not to mention the details of your past. I tried very hard, while at the same time trying both to reach you with what I was saying; as well as defending your accusations against me, and your name-calling. You've told me a lot, more than you probably remember. And yet you seem to want me to cover up what you did say here online. And your way of trying to make me do just that seems to be to call me "crazy" just to protect yourself. That's using me as a 'shield', which you said that you would do, but why do you want to do that?

I was hurt too, deeply, and intended to post everything that I said and much, much more...but had a change of heart. I tried to rewrite the post, and ran out of time. I saw how my anger was just all over the page. I was very disappointed in myself. I saw through some of the ego stuff I had going on right away...forgive me if I didn't see it all. As far as Saqqara, she only confirmed that you had said those things to more than just me. She didn't forsake you...but you seem to be holding such impossibly high standards for your friends.

But me apologizing to you, doesn't fix the real issue. The real issue is getting obscured by this brouhaha between you and me. The real issue is that you were using an awful lot of vitriol, rage, bile, and nastiness to express your opinion before I even happened on the scene. Like I said on the pager, stating your opinion is fine, but not attacking people. I don't have to be a saint to have good advice. And just because I too slipped, doesn't mean that you weren't being really negative to people. Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you've come to terms with the past, I congratulate you! I didn't know that. The last time I talked to you about that stuff you were still hurting over it. Your poem and your words that follow it express that, as well as everything you said to me. And I think I've done my best to maintain your confidence, though it is a huge burden to shoulder. I can be your friend, Aynjell, but I can't take any more of this. Not unless I go back to being the person I was, which I did for a second...and I won't do it again. This toxicity is awful. I've spent too much time trying to explain things. I'm both sad that this has happened and worried that it might not ever end. I don't have anymore to give right now, maybe later.

I care about you, but I can't be your punching bag anymore. If I keep letting you do that to me, while I am learning new habits...I might go back to the old ones. And I don't want to, so I'm not forsaking you, but I can't do THIS anymore. I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, with you. If I try to be kind, I appear to be taking the 'moral high-ground' and inciting your ire. If I fight fire with fire, then I become a "schizophrenic", "crazy", "confused", and "psychotic". What else is left to say? Your words are like Ice. Your hatred is apparent. If I take up the weapons I need to fight them, I will be doing everyone a disservice. I abdicate. I am sorry for my part in this, and I wish that it had never happened.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 28, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Jul 28, 2005.

As I stated before, you are all so open, you are closed to closed mindedness, and trust me, that's not a good thing. You missed my opinions (which were hard and fast, not attacking), and immediately beleived I was attacking rosyxxx, or whomever else got offended. I really do belive all of you missed the point.

Hm hm. I actually wanted to write some post that would've tried to effect kind of a compromise. But then the waves went higher and higher, so I just followed this thread, hoping someone else would do that or at least see the same I saw. Obviously that wasnt see, else it wouldnt have ended all in tears.

.. and i guess someone with a christian view on life is bad. That's what I've learned from this thread. Oh well...

There are christians and christians. The first half is believing in God, the other half is forcing God upon others. Choose your half. I prefer folks of the first half. They're not fanatic. Improper treatment in the past can lead to fanatism.

Hey, maybe we're too European for you? ;)

just my .02 cents about this.
cu, w0lf.

NP: Torment - Chainsaw Massacre

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

I do see your point about 'compromise', and I believe I would have been willing to do so...in fact, I did so, sort of...right here. And I meant it. I heard Aynjell's opinion, and I stated mine as well...without attacking or calling people names, or saying they should be killed, or whatever else he said. At least...that's what I set out to do, at first. I specifically said that he was entitled to his own opinion, and that wasn't lip service from me. It was the name-calling of anyone that got me...and so what did I do, eventually? Stoop to the level, just after someone congratulated me for not doing it. Ironic, huh?

I kept pointing out, I'm pretty sure, that he was entitled to his opinion, but that it wasn't WHAT, he was saying, it was HOW he was saying it. And then, basically, I was stupid enough to show by example. *laughs*

But, I'm not crying over this. I just said I can't take that kind of verbal abuse anymore, and that if I continued to communicate with him, for now, I would be in danger of being abusive to him, again, as well. Once, I did that, he stopped directing his ire at me, and directed it back at the entire NAO.

And by the way, there were plenty of other people adding their two cents, besides us.

Aynjell is still my friend, as far as I am concerned. I don't think anything I said could be construed as me saying that he wasn't. I just said I don't have anymore to give him right now. And I have a right to say 'no more', and to say that I will be here, still, when things cool off. That's not tears. That's being smart about it. And it is respecting my own limits.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 29, 2005.

I'm not schizophrenic. And you shouldn't lie. It's not nice. People can look up some of your past posts from way back, and see that you had a history of at least some kind of abuse.

Yeah, ain't that the truth. Google my name and you'll find all kinds of stupid shit. I can't take it back, I really am that lame. Wish I could change but I can't get on the servers and delete the old shit, it's there for everyone to look at. I am that shallow, I really have nothing to say and I wish I did but I don't. I will never be what I wish to be, I will never have much to say, never be that *cool* blogger and never have that *status* as it were...

Oh well...

I might add that I think we had agreed to disagree until some people stirred the flames again. And I really don't think it was either ginsterbusch or Orchid who did that. I'm not naming names, but something stinks here. It stinks to high Heaven. I smell a rat.

If the person you are referring to is me then I apologize for stirring the flames. What I am not sorry for; however, is standing up for what I believe in without succumbing to words filled with complete hatred for any other human being regardless of their beliefs, and/or sexual orientation.

I might not understand why Aynjell feels so compelled to convey such excessive, abusive emotions about this subject and I probably never will, but at this point I don't even care. That might be the only way inwhich he knows how to express his true feelings... With this in mind, next time I won't take his words so close to heart.

I said in a past post that I would never involve myself in any type of controversial conversations again. I failed. I am sorry too if I offended anyone. I cannot change the opinion of others, I already know this, so I won't try to.

When you think about it, this conversation turned out to be completely pointless and didn't cause any kind of closure or understanding. Everyone's beliefs are still set in their minds, only now some friendships might be at stake.

I truely hope that Aynjell and Rosyxxx can reconcile their differences.

In closing, I will continue to live my life based on what I think is right, what I think is natural for myself and myself only, and what makes me happy.

This has truely been an experience that I wish to end.

Take care everyone.

Of all the things that I have lost in my life, it's my mind that I miss the most.

NiQue, I feel that I owe you an apology for the vitriolic way that I pointed out how Aynjell had done his best to contains his harsh words after I first spoke to him, and that further incendiary comments didn't need to be added.

You were dealing with a number of incendiary people, not the least of which was me...I tried to do the right thing first, and then found that my old habits of being bitchy came out again. I tried to fix that as best I could. I wished that Aynjell would not have responded to your comments or anyone else's with all that hate, and had illusions that I could somehow stop that. I was wrong to be upset with you for adding your opinion, when you didn't know that the flames had just recently cooled. And even so, you had every right to say what you did.

I just knew it was shaky territory for him, and I wanted it to end. I wasn't sure why it wasn't ending. I saw the further posts on the subject as if people weren't able to see what had transpired and just wanted to incite riots. I know that isn't true, now. You just spoke up and voiced your objections. And you had every right to do so. And you did so assertively.

I, however, was trying to provide 'damage control', and in the process...ended up being controlling, AND causing more damage myself. *laughs painfully*

I slipped into the very oily pile of vitriol I was trying to avoid. I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies for what they are worth, and I guess maybe both of us probably won't be joining any more such conversations anytime soon. :\

Take care.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 28, 2005.

Hmm... let's take a minute and quote Bunk, shall we? Always fun to do...

... ouch. Head on collision of idea trains. If I may make a suggestion, don't let this get out of hand. Debates on this subject always seem to get heated beyond recognition

Well, would you look at that. My oh my. Excuse me folks, I'm going to run off and join the circus now, I'll be their new psychic. :/

Kudos to w0lf for being the only person to use the word 'compromise' in this entire topic. I guess there's just some kind of natural draw to extremism. I've felt it. There's a certain romance to total conviction and exclusion, and it's very powerful.

And I guess that's the way life works sometimes. In order to be connected with some people you must be disconnected from others. But in the end, it will seem pointless to have fought.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

If you go join the circus as a 'psychic'... can I be the resident contortionist? I am so working on being able to do a backbend, and then stick my head between my legs.

Yes, you called it...Phil. For sure. Sorry we didn't notice it.

I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

*snorts* Wait. I've never tried that. You're too funny.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 29, 2005.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I should be ashamed of myself.

Ah, fuck it. Since I'm the bad guy, I'll leave. Seeya'.

We were ALL being bad guys, not the least of which was myself. Here...read this for shits and grins, and this for another apology from me to you. Merry Christmas. Early. From one pain in the butt to another... I like you alot James!!!!

I am so working on being able to do a backbend, and then stick my head between my legs.

That's code for saying I've been trying to stick my head up my ass, with only relative success. Which is a good thing.

Be my friend again please? If you act now, you can join the circus with me, and we can swing on the flying trapeze or I'll stick my head in the lion's mouth while you dance in a tutu. It's a joke, James...please laugh. Pretty please? With sugar on top? And a cherry? Chocolate syrup? And one of those little Italian cookies... what are they: Piroullines? Can't remember...but anyway...Pretty please? No more talking about the past until at least a month or two has gone by...'kay?

At the risk of sounding like a 'complete and utter nut', may I say that, astrologically speaking, Mercury went into retrograde last Friday...for three weeks. Notoriously a bad time for communication. I knew this. The cops know it, just like they know to be leery on Full Moons cause most drive-by shootings, and domestic disputes occur on or around Full Moons. Too much energy causes confusion.

Boy, aren't we supposed to eat the 'crab cakes' instead of, mash ourselves in the mix? You and I are like crabs boiling in the pot. We keep pulling each other in. I don't wanta be crabby anymore...so grab my claw, and I'll pull you out with me! I think it's time for you to bring home some crab cakes from dining out with your Dad, null to go get some kebabs from the kebab stand (just cause he saved me from being even more of a royal asshat to you...), and me to order pizza... and all get on here... smoke a joint, and kick back and watch the world go by...

Sound like a plan? (please check box for yes.)

Or if you don't want to be friends for now, let's just agree not to be enemies...or something like that.

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Jul 29, 2005.

I'll be rational boy, capable of great feats of rationalism in times of great chaos. *proves his logical thinking by showing no facial expressions whatsoever*

My thoughts on the subject of gays are this. Just like any argument, there has to be a solid hypothesis based on solid facts. For example, All brown-haired men are ill-tempered. John has brown hair. John is ill-tempered. Whether the facts are true or not is the debate, not the claim.

Now, as I see it, the claim for gays being evil and ugly and stupid is there, but it lacks the necessary facts.

The only facts I've heard are that the body parts don't match and that it isn't "normal" (which can be proven false, if by normal, you mean that all other animals do not show homosexual behavior).

If you want to hear my opinion, I think it is purely centered around hatred that you feel this way. Sometimes, the feelings come before the facts. In other words, you try to find the facts to fit your feelings, which implies there doesn't have to be reason to feel that way. The reasons come second to feelings. I think this is only human, and unfortunately, I feel that most people on this planet argue with their feelings before the facts.

However, I respect you Aynjell. I know you understand where I'm coming from, and I hope you'll see where I'm getting at. Either you find a perfectly legitimate reason why you hate a percentage of the population discriminated by birth alone, or you reconsider your views. I've spent many years of my life doing just this for my point of views. I've found many of the things I believed in were centered around feelings, not facts. Once you understand the facts, then you begin to question why you feel that way and if perhaps you are on the wrong side of the fence afterall. It is the difficult path to take, Aynjell, but I believe it will make all the difference.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

I just found this and read my way through it...
I have a couple of things to say:
First, I want to join the circus. I really really do.
Compared to how weird real life can get the circus would be a normal change of pace.

Second, opinions are like belly buttons, and unless a person has theirs removed, we all got one.
I'm of a mind that each decision we make we make. No one else but us has the final say.
And that goes for how we feel about anything.
As I read what was written it reminded me a bit of the butter battle book, by Dr. Seuss.
Wars go on, and are started by people who don't agree, but who can never get to the point where they agree to disagree.
I'm glad to see that at least Rosy got to that point of lets put this away and be friends again part.
I don't know if Anjell did or not, he deleted his posts.

You guys have been friends for a long time. That's something that dosn't happen every day.
In this world of diametricly opposed groups of people who can't seem to understand that underneath it all we're all pretty much the same, bones, brain, heart, blood, that kind of thing,
it's hard to read long threads where it seems more like a war is going on in a place that is safe to say how and what you feel about things.

I really really hope that you guys got things worked out, and can go on to enjoy a life long friendship.
Anything less would be a loss from my perspective.

Back to the circus thing...I want to be the wandering minstral playing badly on a harmonica ok?

It only looks that way because your standing on your head.

This post was edited by harold_maude on Sep 02, 2005.

:) *smiles* waves*
Hi Orchid. I gave your post a great rating, and I'm happy to admit it.
It's not cause I personally agree with your view point, cause i'm gay, and I'd like to have the option to have a family with another man if I choose.
I think that you spoke from your heart. That's exactly the way I write about The Church...I think that anyone that knows me will remember that. So I have to respect you for saying your feelings.

But I have to think, in the political climate of today, where all of us citizens are losing our rights and freedoms, it's important for all people, whatever your personal beliefs, or proclivities to speak up for our rights.
I don't know if there's any kind of "gay agenda" other than, hey I'm human, and I deserve to have dignity, and a "regular" life, like other humans.
Take my case, I work at a shitty job, but my partner has a good job. His insurance doesn't recognise domestic partners, mine does.
I think if all insurance companies recognized domestic partners, I personally wouldn't care about the marriage issue. It's simply about staying healthy, and happy the best I can. Maybe I'd like a permanent relationship with a man, or maybe a woman. I don't know; I do know that at this point in my relationship with the person I live with, I think it's definitely time to live without one.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

I support gay marriage 100%. But I think gay marriage acts are among the stupidest contrivances humanity has managed to create.

Can someone please inform me what two consenting adults choose to do in their bedroom is anybody else's business? Can someone explain to me why it should be the government's business? Can someone explain to me why if I decide to enter into a bond with another through whatever my religious institution may be, it should be the government's business?

Government regulation of marriage and registering of marriage with the state seems downright stupid to me. The government has no vested interest in keeping track of it. The only possible justification I can think of is tax breaks. Just give them to people raising children instead, whether the guardians are their biological parents, homosexuals that adopted them, or the tooth fairy. Giving a tax break to somebody trying to raise a child makes sense; giving one to two people because they decide they like each other is stupid.

And to Aynjell if he is still listening: your gentoo box would not exist without Alan Turing, a homosexual. He created the concept of a general computing machine, a turing machine, and was by all accounts a genius. It would've been interesting to see what else he could have contributed in his lifetime, but under British law at the time it was illegal to be homosexual, so they injected him with Estrogen to make him permanently impotent. His favorite childhood story was Sleeping Beauty. The estrogen caused him to grow breasts. He ate a poisoned apple to finally kill himself. How natural is that?

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts, for you will never go any higher than you think."

This post was edited by Tetrazome on Aug 06, 2005.

The questions are excellent. I read an op ed piece in our local paper that was written by a lawyer, or counsellor.
In it he states that marriages and civil unions are two separate animals. The civil union is a legal contract that states that these two individuals are legally married under state law. A "marriage" that is performed at the town hall is in fact a civil union.

A marriage is a different proposition. It is the church sanctioned ceremony. One still has to go to the court and get the certificate; that act, in essence is the legally binding document. The wedding still requires the civil union ceremony to validate it.

So, in essence, while one form of union is legal, the other isn't. It still requires the commission of the legal act of the "piece of paper."

Fertility rites and such things have long been the provance of Whatever Church the tribe, or group, or society believed in. As such, the marriage has always been about "fertility" and fecundity, and, well, economics. King A married his daughter to King B's son. We share our lands, and may the Gods bless us.
Other societies, many the world over still have dowries; gifts the bridge gives the groom's family. Or else there is the arranged marriage.
Other cultures also have polygamy, or harems. To me, that nearly seems "god-inspired" in an effort to cause his childrens to "be fruitful and multiply."

For good, bad or otherwise, marriage the world over, traditionally has been for the purpose of procreation, or for economic means. Traditionally, marriage is a utilitarian affair.

But let's also check the balance sheet. In said other cultures, where things are pre-determined, or pre-defined, and "romance", or "love", or, heck, choice, is taken from the equation, the husbands, and of course wives, are frequently allowed to have mistresses. There's stories of wives and mistresses getting together, and meeting.
Additionally, alongside the mistress, we find in these societies other types of clubs, or gymnasiums in the interests of conducting sexual business with other men. And that's the way it should be.

I truly have a problem with the concept of "marriage" as it is applied in the United States. It should be abolished. Among other reasons, it's turned into an industry. Frankly, that is offensive, and disgusting. Women buy into this whole concept of the propaganda set forth by the Industrio-Marriage Complex.
There is no legitimate reason why the governemtn should step in to our personal lives...other than to further prove the fact that we are becoming increasingly suppressed by a totalitarian dictatorship, led by King Fucking Gearge Bush.

Traditionally, in these other, more enlightened cultures, the government has a "eyes off" policy regarding the bedroom. It's the domain of the clergy, as it should be. As it should be here.
Marriage is an institution that's been around for a long time. We newcomers have adopted it to fit our "free" capitalistic society, but we find that that paradigm is no longer sustainable. The marriage myth is crumbling around us, due to the weight of reality.

If the breeders want to keep their decayed, decrepit, relic of vassalship when women were treated as cattle and little better than slaves; I say let the breeders have there marriage ceremony. I prefer to have actual rights, and be recognized by The State. And in the end, isn't that what we're all looking for, recognition?

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Have to say again though -- why are civil unions, marriages, whatever, any of the governments business? If two individuals bond together whether out of love or to procreate or both I don't see why the whitehouse or whatever your local government entity happens to be should get involved. Except maybe, tax breaks, and I already stated a viable alternative to that.

If you're gay, and you want to be married, go find some witnesses and someone willing to give you a ceremony. You don't need the state for validation of your love so you certainly shouldn't wait for the state to validate it. But do keep fighting bonehead prejudice laws.

And a word of warning -- stating that marriage 'should be abolished' is just the sort of thing that will get someone who was about to agree with you to turn away. Just because marriage has become an industry and because some women have bought into an image of what it is, doesn't mean that EVERYONE is so fooled, and there are I think many meaningful, loving, two person, one male one female relationships out there. There are also many that aren't, and that's why we have a 50% divorce rate in the US. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts, for you will never go any higher than you think."

This post was edited by Tetrazome on Aug 07, 2005.

I didn't say everyone who wants to marry is [a] fool[ish].
What I said is that as it's applied in this society, it should be abolished. And if you're taking what I'm saying out of context, and drawing the wrong conclusion from it, than you aren't in agreement with me anyhow.

What am I talking about? I say that not only the fact of it becoming an industry. However, like Christmas, or Thanksgiving, or The Forth, the commodization of the event manifests itself in this culture that way. That is how things become accepted here, is that they're marketed, and one tells you what to think, or do. Is this evil, yes. Is that the only reason for abolishing it, no.

You put you finger on the biggest reason for it to be abolished. Too much government interference. I think that I'm actually sympatico with alot of your ideas. Perhaps the better way to phrase it is: destroy the dominant paradigm. Why stop at marriage?
But deeper still, is the fact that marriage in this society is based on "romance": the ability to choose. We as a society have a 50-50 chance of staying permanent. That's called built-in obsolescence.
What does "I Do" mean? Untill you stop touching me? Until the sex is no longer good? Untill I get fat, or we stop caring, or just get too tired to try anymore? When that happens we can just get it annulled--no fault divorce, quick and painless.

Oh, and the next one signs a pre-nup.

What I'm saying is that The Western, North American Wedding Structure is an unworkable experiment. This is not to say that the concept, or actuation of the marriage ceremony does not hold a valid social, cultural, and religious ceremony. It plays an utterly vital role in the continuation of the tribe (much as I talked about in the previous post.)
As such, who could be against marriage? An idiot I'm sure.

Other cultures, with their "pre-designed" and other marriage structures, these cultures that came up with such wonderful texts as the Ananga Ranga, and the Kama Sutra, existing back millenia, have much lower divorce rates.
But the give part to the equation is those "side clubs", as stated before. These extra-marrital diversions considered so important in other cultures aren't morally, ethically, legally allowed in the one-man, one-woman, ball-and-chain, dog and pony system that we have. It's not any wonder to me why they divorce rate is so high in our society.

If one wants to argue in support of the decrepid institution of marriage, as it (dys)functions here, then I welcome the eventual defeat of that polemic. But I don't think that's what you're actually argueing for, or against. I read that you're none to happy with the state of marriage, albeit for different reasons.

I absolutely agree that the government has no business in the bedroom, much less a marriage. Again, I chirp that this is just the citizens going along with the government's lead to take complete control away from us citizens, where "God" put it.

I'll close with this thought. I do advocate the abolishment of Western marriage. It's a ridiculous sham. If, by its definition, it's choice-based but it doesn't recognize any choices, then it is illogical, and it must be destroyed.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Aug 07, 2005.

What I said is that as it's applied in this society, it should be abolished. And if you're taking what I'm saying out of context, and drawing the wrong conclusion from it, than you aren't in agreement with me anyhow.

I think the issue may be with your ambiguous wording. Define 'abolished'. Outlawed? Spoken out against until it's no longer the cultural norm?

But deeper still, is the fact that marriage in this society is based on "romance": the ability to choose. We as a society have a 50-50 chance of staying permanent. That's called built-in obsolescence. What does "I Do" mean? Untill you stop touching me? Until the sex is no longer good? Untill I get fat, or we stop caring, or just get too tired to try anymore? When that happens we can just get it annulled--no fault divorce, quick and painless.

It's supposed to be about two people loving each other. Those concerns are supposed to be grouped in the traditional Christian vows, through sickness and health, through good and bad times, etc.

Other cultures, with their "pre-designed" and other marriage structures, these cultures that came up with such wonderful texts as the Ananga Ranga, and the Kama Sutra, existing back millenia, have much lower divorce rates.
But the give part to the equation is those "side clubs", as stated before. These extra-marrital diversions considered so important in other cultures aren't morally, ethically, legally allowed in the one-man, one-woman, ball-and-chain, dog and pony system that we have. It's not any wonder to me why they divorce rate is so high in our society.

But our society has had marriage in this form for quite some time without so high a divorce rate. The reason is primarily the same reason you see lower divorce rates in other cultures -- social damnation. It has less to do with 'side clubs' than it has to do with everyone you know avoiding you like you have some plague. Go to India and see how well divorce flies compared to the US.

If, by its definition, it's choice-based but it doesn't recognize any choices,

"It's choice-based but it doesn't recognize any choices." What are you talking about? First you propose that cultures that force people to marry someone they don't love have higher divorce rates as some sort of positive, and now you're concerned with recognition of choices? You lost me somewhere.

then it is illogical, and it must be destroyed.

Who are you, the borg? ;)

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts, for you will never go any higher than you think."

This post was edited by Tetrazome on Aug 08, 2005.

Abolished=done away with. It's simple, really.
The difficulty is defining what exactly I'm saying to abolish.

Marriage is, I feel, an agreement in their hearts where two people want to make a public committment, but it's the one sanctioned by "The Church". If "The Church", doesn't recognize it, screw them. Abolish the practice of needing the church's approval, in order for the state to recognize the union.
In order to have the same legal rights among people (remember the constitution stopped giving preferential treatment to citizens based on gender, or nationality.) All people are equal legally speaking. Therefore any two consenting adults should get married, legally speaking.

But this isn't true. Practically speaking, The State is stepping in to take its part in defining what the churches (what I call "The Church"--but that's another discussion), should and shouldn't recognize. This is wrong, and its bad and it should be abolished.

But our society has had marriage in this form for quite some time without so high a divorce rate. The reason is primarily the same reason you see lower divorce rates in other cultures -- social damnation. It has less to do with 'side clubs' than it has to do with everyone you know avoiding you like you have some plague. Go to India and see how well divorce flies compared to the US.

I disagree completely. More with the premises you're using.

First, I have to apologize myself for treating marriage, the ceremonies, as if they're a static, "thing" that can be defined. I think that like the people holding them, they're alive, and constantly changing. I know that in this country, the ceremonies and conventions--the whole thing, from dating and courtship up untill marriage, and beyond, is what I consider marriage.
An analogy: the act of sex isn't intercourse, it's everything from how you get ready for it, all the way up to the next morning when she (or he) makes you breakfast in the morning--THAT is how "your night" went.

So where are we now, in relation to how marriage actually was up until recently?
My archetype of The American Wedding is that which is born from the so-called "American Dream:" the myth that you go to college after graduation and meet a girl (preferably from your church), and you get married in a church, with a priest/pastor saying the vows, and the bride's family is on one side, where everyone throws rice at the end, and the couple make their get away in a classic car, or maybe something sporty, and then there's a honeymoon, and then there are 2.5 children in every household; and your company cares about you...the end.

But that's too simplistic a view, even in the interests of keeping my arguements concise, as to what the modern state of the institution. There's lost more details to it, there always is. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Years ago, up until the 40s or 50s, there were things known as dowry chests. We still have a form of that in the way that the bride's family will typically pay for most of it. But then that's not always true. It's flexible these days.

That's not how it was up untill (very) recently, the 1960s. That changed, like the rest of society, all kinds of shit. Now, noone's ever heard of a dowry chest, but it was an EXTREMELY important part of the wedding "deal." that stems from even older customs based in the fact that women weren't worth as much as men. That's still held true* in most, if not all, the cultures where they still use a dowry, or some equivalent.
(*Of course times change, gotta say, and this is becoming less true.)

One always needs to remember that the roots of this custom stem from property. Daughters have historically been treated as the fathers' chattle. So, in order to make her more salable, or rather "attractive" to the proposed groom's family--very important distinction--the dowry was what the family could afford to give with her. Again, my dad, the antiques dealer, has found dowry chests from the 1940's.

It's supposed to be about two people loving each other. Those concerns are supposed to be grouped in the traditional Christian vows, through sickness and health, through good and bad times, etc.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What does "I Do" mean --as in today, not say, the 1940's?
But you answered the question better. What you're talking about, and I'm talking about are those "traditional values" of a different time, when the company took care of its workers, and your retirement from the Davis Standard Company was guarenteed.
And just like those vows (or values) don't apply to today's world, so too it applies that the marriage that we now have, is quite different. We now have 50% divorce, and the no-fault divorce, and now 4, or 5 sets of parents that the kids have to get to know, and and we have family courts that are bulging full over custody battles.
On the good side, we now have marriage counselling, there's even the Dept. of Children and Youth Service-type organizations to protect kids, as well as hundreds of other social service programs that help keep us safe, warm, and productive. All things, to be sure, that I would keep

The point is that the institution of marriage has changed. It reflects the enlightenment of the people. Now we don't have dowries, because we realize that's a demeaning, insulting tradition; or I would hope we do.
It must further change to reflect the mindset and beliefs of the people, or else it becomes irrelevant. We can see already, that the model of the Traditional Christian wedding is giving way to the reality of our culture becoming homogenized. That form that this institution takes in this country is being eroded away. That form, that model, that archetype of marriage is, of it's own doing, is morphing into something different still.

As for India, we remember that they have a caste system. They feature pre-arranged martriages. A country providing an example of where daughters are chattle. People sell their children. You're right, India has a far lower divorce rate, but not for the reasons you think. In these countries do have a lower rate because when the woman is thrown out on the streets after "divorcing" her husband, sh'e destitute. She has nothing, there's no Divorce Court. Yes, in the process of everything else, her having to move back in with her parents, yes it is humiliating, and socially unacceptable, but becoming homeless after a "divorce"--which amounts to nothing more than the man saying "get out." Try to let that fly over here.

If the traditional marriage is the Christian example, then it is time that this tradition be banished. Not among Christians. If that's what you want, then have the Christian service. But our laws should not be based on that archetype.
Sadly though, it's not just that archetype. Many traditions the world over don't recognize same sex marriages. But they also have many customs that perhaps we wouldn't want to emulate either.

The institution of Marriage is historically based on property laws, and for that alone it should be abolished.

Marriage, especially in this country, is choice-based. It is not, as in other cultures, pre-arranged. It is entirely who I want to marry--another recent invention. But if it doesn't recognize my choice, then what good is it? It's like Dyanetics. It's good for alot of people, but not everyone. We shouldn't all be held to that system.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Aug 09, 2005.

Abolished=done away with. It's simple, really.
The difficulty is defining what exactly I'm saying to abolish.

I disagree. You can abolish something by passing a law doing so, or you can try to change people's minds so that they don't think of it the same way anymore. One is a legislative act, the other is a cultural one.

If "The Church", doesn't recognize it, screw them. Abolish the practice of needing the church's approval, in order for the state to recognize the union. In order to have the same legal rights among people (remember the constitution stopped giving preferential treatment to citizens based on gender, or nationality.) All people are equal legally speaking. Therefore any two consenting adults should get married, legally speaking.

I think ultimately you'll want just the opposite. Government regulation and monitoring of something also means government control. Beyond registration as two individuals as guardians of a child, I don't see why the government should be involved.

If a church doesn't want to sanction your marriage, it shouldn't mean anything more than that -- that specific church won't sanction your marriage. Tough. Stupid church, but tough. They're a private organization and it's their right to decide how their own rituals should work. If those rituals are prejudiced, the church is prejudiced, and I'd recommend avoiding them.

But this isn't true. Practically speaking, The State is stepping in to take its part in defining what the churches (what I call "The Church"--but that's another discussion), should and shouldn't recognize. This is wrong, and its bad and it should be abolished.

Legally speaking, you're wrong. The State is stepping in in defining what The State will accept as marriage. Because that is all they have power over. The State stepping in to say that Catholic churches must except Jewish marriages would be just as ridiculous an incursion as it would be for them to mandate any Church accept gay marriages. Practically speaking, this is also the lions share of the issue. Assholes in the legislature, not your neighborhood priest, are the ones who decide that if you die your partner can't inherit your property.

I disagree completely. More with the premises you're using.

Are you sure? Because you don't actually clash with any of it. I say divorce rates are because of social damnation, you say marriage has historically been about property. I don't see the contradiction.

In these countries do have a lower rate because when the woman is thrown out on the streets after "divorcing" her husband, sh'e destitute. She has nothing, there's no Divorce Court.

That's exactly what I was saying. It's considered a gigantic mark of shame.

Yes, in the process of everything else, her having to move back in with her parents, yes it is humiliating, and socially unacceptable, but becoming homeless after a "divorce"--which amounts to nothing more than the man saying "get out." Try to let that fly over here.

Which is part of why we have higher divorce rates, like I said.

You say you disagree with me a lot, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of actual disagreement in your statements.

"Nurture your mind with great thoughts, for you will never go any higher than you think."

I didn't mean that abolishing things--marriage, or any other social convention-- is simple.
I was saying that the confusion over what abolish means isn't complicated. But as far as how to go about it, actually, in theory, it is simple. Just get people to stop going "along with the flow"; giving into the inertia of tradition, and thinking "that's how it is, so that's how it should be."

For the record I'm against government interference in our lives; especially marriage. However, my personal views or beliefs don't change the fact that I would need to have an official marriage certificate to have it recognized by The State, which ever you prefer.
And, generally speaking, when we say "The State" we can just as easily mean The State as a whole. For example, Secretary of The State is a national post, not localized to any particular state.

This duplicity in terms brings up the issue of States' rights vs. Federal rights, or recognition, when it comes to marriage.
I personally agree that it should be up to the individual, and their "clergy", and a witness as to the validity of the wedding, or marriage, and the state, or states should accept it.
The federal government shouldn't define what marriage for the country, and every person as in "one man, one woman." Basically, that's the Christian/Catholic paradigm. As a citizen of a free country, where there is supposed to be a separation of the Church and The State, where the marriage system is based on choice, and "romance", then I should have the right to marry any adult that I choose. And? so?
The reality of the situation is much different. The
State is trying to impose it's version of religious ceremony on me. At least here, in America. I'll try to keep in mind that this post was about the Canadian system of marriage.

I think ultimately you'll want just the opposite. Government regulation and monitoring of something also means government control. Beyond registration as two individuals as guardians of a child, I don't see why the government should be involved.

I agree too. Lots of people do. So why are they?
As to governmental control, they already have that in the marriage process. Two married people have to get their "civil union" certificates at the town hall. I call it "civil union" certificates because it's the legal aspect to getting married.

Because lots of things legally change, the government gets involved. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, as they are counted as one person under the law. The problem I have is when I can't have my choice recognized, even though the system is based in choice.

But there's a contradiction inherent in that, I know. I see it. You can't have governmental sanction with out there being control.
So, if inherently embedded within the marriage system is the FACT that the govt. IS sanctions only certain types of marriage at this moment, then, I'm sure you too will agree that marriage should, this moment, be abolished.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Aug 28, 2005.

Have to say again though -- why are civil unions, marriages, whatever, any of the governments business? If two individuals bond together whether out of love or to procreate or both I don't see why the whitehouse or whatever your local government entity happens to be should get involved. Except maybe, tax breaks, and I already stated a viable alternative to that.

Amen to that. A union and that's exactly what it is, is between the parties involved and no other person. The Gov't can kiss their ass.

Gay, Lesbian, Hetero it doesn't matter!

If I wanna enter a union with another individual that is my fucking personal business and no other piece of shit human on this earth.

This is a great post. I think you deserve a good rating. You got the ball rolling. I love those little post that have long winding, unforseen consequences.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second