Prop 8?

@spendius,

Quote:

I have asked what the population of the 4 states is which have and there has been no response.

Quote:

In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, same-sex marriage is legal and currently performed.
In Vermont, same-sex marriages will begin on September 1, 2009.
In Maine, same-sex marriages will begin on or around September 14, 2009, pending a possible people's veto.
In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010.

Populations (as of the 2008 census):
Massachusettes: 6,497,967
Iowa: 2,926,326
Connecticut: 3,405,565
Maine: 1,321,574
New Hampshire:1,315,828
Vermont: 612,394
__________
16,079,654

I didn't use a calculator - so check my math. Anyway - very interesting homework assignment. But I'm not surprised. I'd live in any of those states (except Iowa- too landlocked) precisely because the people for the most part, are interesting and enlightened. They all give off a good vibe- you don't feel like you're driving into constriction and judgment when you cross the state line (and there are states in the US where that is so - you can feel the vibe change palpably when you walk into Denny's for a hamburger).

So - the only big surprise here (to me anyway) is Iowa, and New Hampshire, to a degree. I'm surprised they went for same sex marriage when they were one of the holdouts on a national holiday for Martin Luther King's birthday. If you know anything about the geography of the US and how the culture breaks down - you know that the northeast tends to be a little more progressive generally.

Quote:

if I were to come upon people coupling like a couple of apes

Why not react as if you had come across a couple of people chatting in a bus queue.

If you knew me, you'd know that'd be impossible. I'd say, 'Oh, excuse me, sorry, sorry... and I'd be walking away, shaking with laughter- I'm laughing right now thinking about it.

Quote:

Oh no. Princess Anne is my choice.

Very dignified and tasteful choice.

Quote:

Why haven't 46 states bought into this if it is as straightforward as you suggest?

I think it may be happening as we speak. You know it takes a while for changing attitudes to make their way to the voting booth.

2 Replies

@aidan,

It's odd how you use terms such as "more progressive" and "changing attitudes" to denote approval, by unconscious association, in the manner "gay" and "pro-choice" are used, of the position you favour in this debate.

It is generally assumed by those with a literary cast of mind that such slipperiness in the use of language denotes something not quite right and that the user may well be up to no good. (See George Orwell).

I feel sure that there are pilots in the USAF and in NASA who oppose official approval of homosexual marriages and I hardly think that they are not progressive or reluctant to change attitudes. (bigots don't you see). Likewise with many cutting edge scientists.

Of course I recognise that "generally" was slipperied into the former phrase to allow for such an objection but I'm inclined to think Becksie that you had assumed no-one would notice and we would be led by your skilful deployments into thinking that "progressive" (glowing beams of golden light) ) people, and those with the breadth of tolerance you have are willing to change their attitudes (more glowing beams of golden light), are in favour of reversing the democratic decision on Prop 8.

It could just as easily be argued that it is progressive to seek to change attitudes in the states you listed.

It has to be admitted I think that variations on Francis Bacon's artistic depiction of male on male intercourse has not appeared in advertising anywhere near the number of times a bloke having his neck wrung by some scantily clad broad has.

It's as if you want to see less chaps having their necks wrung. Once it becomes acceptable for two chaps to live in the same property and it being no longer commented upon I think you might find a lot of chaps trying it out if only to save from nagging, having to do all the DIY and spending their income surpluses on junk. Think of how many drinks they could buy for all those ladies who would be then on the loose and shifting for themselves.

This is an international forum and not everyone visiting here has majored in Bullshit.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

This is an international forum and not everyone visiting here has majored in Bullshit.

Well that's sort of harsh and you didn't even say thank you for the statistics.

Quote:

It's odd how you use terms such as "more progressive" and "changing attitudes" to denote approval, by unconscious association, in the manner "gay" and "pro-choice" are used, of the position you favour in this debate.

Progressive just means in favor of change and/or reform as the people in these states have shown themselves to be, quite obviously, by the way they voted.
Everything moves a little faster in that area of the US Spendius...the traffic, speech patterns, you name it. That's why I'm not surprised they're moving faster on this issue.

Quote:

It is generally assumed by those with a literary cast of mind that such slipperiness in the use of language denotes something not quite right and that the user may well be up to no good. (See George Orwell).

I'm not up to anything - just giving my opinion.

Quote:

Of course I recognise that "generally" was slipperied into the former phrase to allow for such an objection but I'm inclined to think Becksie that you had assumed no-one would notice and we would be led by your skilful deployments into thinking that "progressive" (glowing beams of golden light) ) people, and those with the breadth of tolerance you have are willing to change their attitudes (more glowing beams of golden light), are in favour of reversing the democratic decision on Prop 8.

Nope- the democratic process is the democratic process. The people have spoken - that's the way I see it anyway. But different people have spoken in Connecticut, Massachusettes, Iowa, Maine (pending), New Hampshire and Vermont.
I don't think the people who are against this are necessarily bigots. I'm sure the majority of my family are against same sex marriage - and I wouldn't classify any of them as bigots.
I'm just speaking to the issue as I see it, and trying to ascertain how others come to a different conclusion. My brother-in-law (whose brother was gay- he died of AIDS) and my dad are against it -and I know why but I was interested in hearing why you are. I've never had you pegged as a bigot - actually quite the contrary.
I'm sure there are issues on which you are far more tolerant than I am.

Quote:

It could just as easily be argued that it is progressive to seek to change attitudes in the states you listed.

That's true. See my definition of 'progressive' above.

Quote:

It has to be admitted I think that variations on Francis Bacon's artistic depiction of male on male intercourse has not appeared in advertising anywhere near the number of times a bloke having his neck wrung by some scantily clad broad has.

Yes, as would be expected in a world where ninety percent of the population is (or claims to be) heterosexual.

Quote:

It's as if you want to see less chaps having their necks wrung. Once it becomes acceptable for two chaps to live in the same property and it being no longer commented upon I think you might find a lot of chaps trying it out if only to save from nagging, having to do all the DIY and spending their income surpluses on junk.

But one of them would have to be the wife and get screwed on the bed and used to do the housework.

Quote:

Think of how many drinks they could buy for all those ladies who would be then on the loose and shifting for themselves.

And that wouldn't fall under the category of 'income surpluses being spent on junk'?

1 Reply

@aidan,

Thank you for the statistics. It was remiss of me to have forgotten.

I think most people would think of progressive as improving. And changing attitudes as being intellectual in some unspecified way. As such one might vote for official sanction for homosexual unions on the basis that one might think oneself to be an intellectual bent on improving society by doing so and without much consideration of other issues.

But I was only engaged in a sort of elementary reading lesson on behalf of those who might be in need of one.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I think most people would think of progressive as improving. And changing attitudes as being intellectual in some unspecified way. As such one might vote for official sanction for homosexual unions on the basis that one might think oneself to be an intellectual bent on improving society by doing so and without much consideration of other issues

Don't worry- I know myself too well to ever consider myself an intellectual- I'm way too emotional. I sort of like the way a good friend of mine described it - he said,' I've noticed that all your feelings and nerve endings are very close to the surface. That makes it hard for you to intellectualize anything.'
I'd never thought about it before he said that, but I think he's right.
And anyway, I don't think this is an issue that can be intellectualized (and shouldn't be) because it has to do with real people and their lives.
And I've certainly never thought that those who don't agree with me were any less bright than I am- many times I figure I should listen to them because maybe they've thought it through more thoroughly than I have. I can be very impetuous.
I'm also not in the camp that believes that all people who have conservative viewpoints are stupid- or cruel. To me, that's stupid- and just as judgmental and stereotypical as anyone else they're accusing of being judgmental and stereotypical.

1 Reply

@aidan,

So now you're pulling that "I'm just a dizzy broad" trick eh?

It rarely fails I must admit. But imagine being in a "marriage" and being unable to use that as a bolthole.

1 Reply

Aidan wrote:

Yes, as would be expected in a world where ninety percent of the population is (or claims to be) heterosexual.

Oh, come on. Don't give us that tired old Kinsey Bullshit again. We know how he completed his studies.

Try 1.51%, Aidan-

I know I know there are Millions who are still in the closet.....and I say there are also millions who hare too timid to give their strong opposition to gay marriage.

1.51%---There are more followers of Wiccan than homosexuals!!!!

Note:

Introduction
This table lists some major demographic groupings in the United States. Race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and other factors are factors in personal and group identity. This table is unusual in that it presents a merged list of these factors. This more accurately reflects actual American society, in which most people belong to more than one group. All individuals can be classified into multiple groupings below. This list is not comprehensive. Please write to suggest additional groups.

Group Number Percent of
U.S. population
Total 1 284,800,000 100.0 %
English-at-home speakers 6 245,497,600 86.2 %
Christian 2 217,872,000 76.5 %
White 1 211,460,626 75.1 %
Protestant 18 150,944,000 53 %
Female 1 145,532,800 51.1 %
Male 1 139,267,200 48.9 %
"born-again" or "evangelical" 9 125,312,000 44 %
Republican 8 90,950,000 33 %
Democrat 8 85,440,000 31 %
Catholic 2 69,776,000 24.5 %
Non-English speakers 6 38,087,127 13.8 %
Nonreligious 2 37,593,600 13.2 %
Hispanic/Latino 1 35,305,818 12.5 %
Black 1 34,658,190 12.3 %
Baptist 18 34,176,000 12 %
Evangelical (theologically) 16 22,049,360 8.0 %
Methodist 2 19,366,400 6.8 %
Spanish speakers 6 20,744,986 7.5 %
Southern Baptist 3 15,800,000 5.6 %
Lutheran 2 13,100,800 4.6 %
vegetarian 19 12,000,000 4.2 %
Asian 1 10,242,998 3.6 %
United Methodist Church 20 8,251,042 2.9 %
Presbyterian 2 7,689,600 2.7 %
Multiracial 1 6,826,228 2.4 %
Pentecostal 2 5,980,800 2.1 %
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 15 5,503,192 1.93 %
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 3, 20 5,038,066 1.8 %
Episcopalian 2 4,841,600 1.7 %
GLBT (gay, lesbian or bisexual)5 4,300,000 1.51 %
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 3, 20 3,595,259 1.3 %
Judaism 2, 21 3,702,400 1.3 %
Eastern Orthodox 9 2,756,170 1 %
Assemblies of God 11 2,575,000 0.93 %
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod 3, 20 2,512,714 0.9 %
Native American 1 2,475,956 0.9 %
Buddhist 13 2,400,000 0.87 %
Episcopal Church 20 2,333,628 0.82 %
French speakers 6 2,308,795 0.8 %
gay men5 2,000,000 0.70 %
Non-denominational 11 2,000,000 0.7 %
prison population 2,000,000 0.7 %
German speakers 6 1,851,418 0.7 %
Megachurch attendance 14 1,800,000 0.64 %
Jehovah's Witnesses 2 1,708,800 0.6 %
Chinese speakers 6 1,578,099 0.6 %
Italian speakers 6 1,565,165 0.6 %
Churches of Christ (non-instrumental / Corsicana, TX) 20 1,500,000 0.53 %
American Baptist Church in the U.S.A. 20 1,484,291 0.52 %
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 20 1,430,795 0.50 %
Muslim 2 1,424,000 0.5 %
agnostic 2 1,424,000 0.5 %
bisexual5 1,400,000 0.49 %
United Church of Christ 20 1,330,985 0.47 %
Baptist Bible Fellowship International 20 1,200,000 0.42 %
atheists 2, 10 1,139,200 0.4 %
Tagolog speakers 6 1,008,542 0.4 %
Independent Christian Church, Churches of Christ
(instrumental / Joplin, MO) 20 1,071,616 0.39 %
Hindu 13 1,000,000 0.36 %
Church of God (Cleveland, TN) 20 944,857 0.33 %
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 11 910,000 0.33 %
lesbians5 900,000 0.32 %
Polish speakers 6 865,298 0.3 %
Unitarian Universalist 2 854,400 0.3 %
Seventh-day Adventists 11 809,000 0.29 %
Neo-pagan (incl. Wiccans) 12 768,400 0.28 %
Korean speakers 6 749,278 0.3 %
Church of the Nazarene 11 608,000 0.2 %
Vietnamese speakers 6 606,463 0.2 %
vegans 22 591,468 0.2 %
Portuguese speakers 6 515,017 0.2 %
Japanese speakers 6 511,485 0.2 %
Pacific Islander 1 398,835 0.1 %
Reformed Church in America (RCA) 11 304,000 0.11 %
Libertarian party members 7 200,000 0.07 %
Baha'i 11 142,000 0.05 %
Native American Religionist 2 120,735 0.04 %
Mennonite Church USA 23 110,000 .036 %

Sources
1. U.S. Census Bureau. Year 2000 Census. URL: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf

Population of the United States by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2000 Census Results
Current total U.S. population (284,800,000) is from the U.S. Census Bureau, and is based on current growth rates applied to the 2000 Census figures.

0 Replies

You really don't know how to use the English Language, Aidan. You fall into the same trap as other left wing liberals. You think that if you label something PROGRESSIVE, that automatically makes the other side of the argument, Retrogressive, But, if you have read any History, you will find that Stalin thought his movement was PROGRESSIVE. Hitler labelled his Nazi thrusts as PROGRESSIVE.

The fact of the matter, despite your statistics, is that the majority of states in the USA do not accept the idea of gay marriage--they have either encapsulated this concept in their state constitutions or have passed legislation in that regard.

If you really want a suggestion as to how to get more backing from the American populace, Aidan, I would suggest fewer street parades where the Queens are thrusting their uncovered genitals at the populace. Some people are really turned off by such tactics. It is even more insulting to general mores than the parades held by the scumbag Black Panthers.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

So now you're pulling that "I'm just a dizzy broad" trick eh?

It rarely fails I must admit. But imagine being in a "marriage" and being unable to use that as a bolthole

You know what I've said whenever I've been scolded about something I've done that another person didn't think I should have done?
I say, 'I did it because I wanted to - what is this - a prison?'
I've never needed any bolthole in my relationships Spendius. Have you?
And I'm not just a dizzy broad! Where did I say that?!
Actually, the same person who talked about my inability to intellectualize said that I have an 'active and imaginative intelligence that is interesting because it does in fact seem to be so emotionally based while also showing signs of being syncretic and based firmly in logic'.
I liked it so much I made him repeat it so I could write it down.
I told him if I'm ever applying for another job, I'm gonna get him to write my reference.
So ha, ha, ha spendius!

You guys are bastardizing the language now. To say 'I don't approach most issues intellectually' is not the same thing as saying,' I'm a dizzy broad.'
I'm smart enough to know that I'm GLAD I don't approach most issues intellectually. You miss a lot of really important input when you approach everything intellectually.
To say that something is not progressive does not imply that that same thing is retrogressive. There's this really interesting state of being Genovese that is called 'maintaining'...

And I DON'T automatically think progressives are good and their agendas are improvements. For instance, when I see music or a musician labeled as 'progressive'= I run away. If someone bought me tickets to see a progressive musician - I'd PAY someone else to take those tickets and sit through that concert.

I was just trying to explain Spendius - that when you live in the northeast, especially in urban areas, you see a lot of diversity. After a while - NOTHING's shocking. You said you didn't have one male homosexual friend or acquaintance that you were aware of in your whole life (I don't know how long that is). Well, I can name three friends of mine that I knew were gay by the time I was sixteen. And they didn't care who knew it- teacher, parents, anyone. When I was sixteen, I worked in a dress shop and there was a young man who'd come in with his mother to shop for clothes for himself...we had to clear the back dressing room (and he was gay as well, some transvestites aren't). I wrote a story about it and posted it on a2k- it's here somewhere.
So what seems so out of the ordinary, and as if the acceptance of it will 'change society' in such a negative way - isn't really all that new or dangerous to some people.

And again, homosexuals are asking for permission to attain the means to live in such a way as to lessen and de-emphasize all the negative and more lurid stereotypes of their promiscuous 'lifestyle' that everyone goes on and on about.
And you guys don't want that to happen - WHY?
That seems illogical and indicates more emotional or somewhat 'dizzy' thinking to me.

Answer this one question:
Do you believe that people who happen to be homosexual are your equals as human beings?

1 Reply

@aidan,

Also in the works is the District of Columbia. I'm not sure how many people live here though (just in the district).

T
K
O

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

You know what I've said whenever I've been scolded about something I've done that another person didn't think I should have done?
I say, 'I did it because I wanted to - what is this - a prison?'

Which is, of course, a recipe for anarchy.

Quote:

I've never needed any bolthole in my relationships Spendius. Have you?

Oh yes. Feral is the only alternative.

Quote:

And I'm not just a dizzy broad! Where did I say that?!

You didn't. I'll admit resorting to poetic licence to suggest you implied it. I like dizzy broads. Like Nancy Cunard say. She did Aldous Huxley's head in.

Quote:

Actually, the same person who talked about my inability to intellectualize said that I have an 'active and imaginative intelligence that is interesting because it does in fact seem to be so emotionally based while also showing signs of being syncretic and based firmly in logic'.

Proof enough.

Quote:

I told him if I'm ever applying for another job, I'm gonna get him to write my reference.
So ha, ha, ha spendius!

Telling him that doesn't necessarily mean that it makes any sense.

Quote:

You miss a lot of really important input when you approach everything intellectually.

And you miss plenty when you don't.

Quote:

After a while - NOTHING's shocking.

Wanna bet?

Quote:

And again, homosexuals are asking for permission to attain the means to live in such a way as to lessen and de-emphasize all the negative and more lurid stereotypes of their promiscuous 'lifestyle' that everyone goes on and on about.
And you guys don't want that to happen - WHY?

I suppose it's because we don't believe in de-emphasizing the truth. Has "everyone" got it wrong?

Quote:
Do you believe that people who happen to be homosexual are your equals as human beings?

Absurd oversimplification.

You might try to get genoves name right. And mine. I remember you pulled me up for " Aiden" once.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I suppose it's because we don't believe in de-emphasizing the truth. Has "everyone" got it wrong?

That's a valid point. But if it is the truth, why might that be so?
And would the truth be different if circumstances were different?
I was actually talking about this issue with a friend today. And he said he thought, men being men, that if two men were married, it wouldn't necessarily encourage or result in less promiscuity in the gay community.
I guess I just assumed that if someone was so enamored of the idea of marriage they'd also want to incorporate monogamy. He didn't think that'd necessarily be so.

So I don't know what to think really. Of course he's not gay- he's just a man - maybe I need to ask a gay man why he might want to be married and if it would influence or have anything to do with his desire for a monogamous and committed relationship.

Quote:

Do you believe that people who happen to be homosexual are your equals as human beings?

Absurd oversimplification.

It's a simple question. Can you answer it?

Quote:

You might try to get genoves name right. And mine. I remember you pulled me up for " Aiden" once.

fair enough- sorry genoves.
I thought your name was Spendius. Have you changed it? In what way am I getting your name wrong? (And if I am, it's not on purpose but sorry all the same).

2 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:
You might try to get genoves name right. . . .

fair enough- sorry genoves. . . .

Genoves is Massagatto, Mortbat, BernardR, et al., collectively known as Possum R FartBubble.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

That's a valid point. But if it is the truth, why might that be so?

Because it raises issues we don't discuss in polite company and so vague abstractions suffice and it becomes a word game and a power play.

Suppose we asked American women to go veiled to protect against the severe emotional distress of women with severe facial disfigurement? Most of the people you are defending have $50,000 a year jobs, wear fashionable clothes and fragrances and walk about thrumming with indignation.

It would have the additional benefit of saving the billions of dollars involved in the competition between females in the physical beauty stakes. It might even pay off the national debt in a year or two.

Quote:

It's a simple question. Can you answer it?

No I can't. What do you mean by equal. How about the people of Darfur? Are they your equals as human beings.

My username is spendius and not Spendius. Like your's is aidan and not Aidan. I prefer Becksie though. And I prefer spendi.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Because it raises issues we don't discuss in polite company and so vague abstractions suffice and it becomes a word game and a power play.

Like what? You can say what you think as far as I'm concerned. I get impatient with vague abstractions and word games, and besides the thoughts that I have as to what may have contributed to the behavior don't include anything that'd I be uncomfortable discussing in polite company, so your thoughts must be different. I'd be interested as to how, or in what way.

Quote:

No I can't. What do you mean by equal. How about the people of Darfur? Are they your equals as human beings.

spendius - in this instance I would define equal to mean possessing the same intrinsic value.
I know that you're going to say that no one is equal to anyone else. Some people actually do bring much more of value to the world than others. But that determination, I believe anyway, can only be made after a careful study of what exactly they do bring to the world= and should only be made on an individual basis.

When you're talking about large groups of people, in other words, making assumptions or assertions about inherent value - I only feel comfortable speaking from the default position that human beings are equally valuable.
I guess I believe we're all equal until proven otherwise.
So yes, at this point, I feel that a random person in Darfur- is very likely my equal-and could likely bring superior gifts t the world. At this point I consider his or her life to be as valuable as my own - and will until I've seen that they've squandered their talents, resources and opportunities.
So given that definition of 'equal' to you think that simply because someone is homosexual - they may be less deserving of the same rights you are?

I'll try to call you spendi from now on - but if I forget - it's not intentional.

*I told my friend your wife joke and he told me this one: What do men and floor tiles have in common?
If you lay 'em right the first time, you can walk all over 'em for the rest of your life.
Laughing

(I thought that was funny).

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

Like what?

This is polite company on here.

Quote:

spendius - in this instance I would define equal to mean possessing the same intrinsic value.
I know that you're going to say that no one is equal to anyone else. Some people actually do bring much more of value to the world than others. But that determination, I believe anyway, can only be made after a careful study of what exactly they do bring to the world= and should only be made on an individual basis.

What does value have to do with it? "Careful studious determination" is a thorny issue I should think.
It's just been announced here, and about time too, that motorists are damaging the health of kids. Fine particles in the lungs. What's your valuation on that.

Quote:

When you're talking about large groups of people, in other words, making assumptions or assertions about inherent value - I only feel comfortable speaking from the default position that human beings are equally valuable.

Talk's cheap.

Quote:

So yes, at this point, I feel that a random person in Darfur- is very likely my equal-and could likely bring superior gifts t' the world. At this point I consider his or her life to be as valuable as my own - and will until I've seen that they've squandered their talents, resources and opportunities.

Again--what have superior gifts got to do with it? What's up with squandering talent and opportunities? I suppose squandering resources is somewhat inferior from a pragmatic point of view. You'll get in a tangle with that Becksie. If there's no "in the sight of God" to be considered you're going to get a controversial hierarchy varying with conditions. And--who knows?--in the sight of God a foetus might be equal. As would homosexuals.

Quote:

*I told my friend your wife joke and he told me this one: What do men and floor tiles have in common?
If you lay 'em right the first time, you can walk all over 'em for the rest of your life.
(I thought that was funny).

I thought all Englishmen had heard my wisecrack. Actually both are philosophically interesting. I don't think your's is true. Mine is true because it's circular. A woman who resists might not be classified strictly as a wife.

A good performance first time up falls into the "once eaten-soon forgeeten" category. A milkman I know used to say that about his calling on Friday for the week's milk money.

Do you have milk delivered to your door every day or do you lug it back from the supermarket?

2 Replies

@spendius,

" Blessed are the poor in spirit".

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

What does value have to do with it?

I don't know how to define equality without assessing or at least using the word value.

Quote:

"Careful studious determination" is a thorny issue I should think.
It's just been announced here, and about time too, that motorists are damaging the health of kids. Fine particles in the lungs. What's your valuation on that.

What do you mean? How do I assess that information? I think it's of value for motorists to know that - although I don't belive anyone could have been blind enough to be surprised by the news.

Quote:

Talk's cheap.

Yes it is.

Quote:

Again--what have superior gifts got to do with it? What's up with squandering talent and opportunities? I suppose squandering resources is somewhat inferior from a pragmatic point of view. You'll get in a tangle with that Becksie. If there's no "in the sight of God" to be considered you're going to get a controversial hierarchy varying with conditions

From my observation that's what we already have.

Quote:

And--who knows?--in the sight of God a foetus might be equal. As would homosexuals.

I think they are (in the sight of God) and in reality.

Quote:

I thought all Englishmen had heard my wisecrack.

He had heard it. I told him the joke, he said he'd heard that one and he said, 'You know there's a corresponding one concerning males and he told me his.

Quote:

I don't think your's is true.

It was his joke - but I don't think it's as true as yours is either. I just like the wording.

Quote:

A good performance first time up falls into the "once eaten-soon forgeeten" category.

I don't know spendi - I think that can vary.

Quote:

Do you have milk delivered to your door every day or do you lug it back from the supermarket?

I lug it - and I walk to get it. Down to the village store - it's about a fifteen minute walk one way. You should see my biceps-they were getting a little flabby - now they're nice and defined.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

I don't know how to define equality without assessing or at least using the word value.

That is the point of the "in the eyes of God" idea. Once value comes into it the high road of fascism appears. Or so it seems to me. Once God is abolished what do you think the scientific profession and its lickspittals, lackeys and hangers-on will place most value on? It does hold all the best cards except the Ace of Hearts. You might check on the ID and evolution threads just what these pleaders for emotional equality have said, many times, about those who believe in God and, by extension, the sanctity of marriage, the right to life of the unborn and the degradation of artificial scientific birth control.

Quote:

What do you mean? How do I assess that information? I think it's of value for motorists to know that - although I don't belive anyone could have been blind enough to be surprised by the news.

Their selfishness blinds them. Of course it has been obvious for years. It has been officially recognised in regard to lead content. As if lead was the only thing that gets pumped into playgrounds and front gardens.

What I meant was that does undertaking a journey which produces those particles in people's lungs not give you pause for thought relating to the importance of the journey. But it is more complex than that of course. There is an economic system to consider. I don't suppose Chinese news broadcasts give out that sort of information. Not yet anyway.

Quote:

From my observation that's what we already have.

That's what some people mean by "Godforsaken" maybe.

Quote:

I think they are (in the sight of God) and in reality.

Who? The foetuses or the homosexuals or both. Or criminals.

Quote:

I don't know spendi - I think that can vary.

Yes--on an escalator going up to the Mahatmamsphere. That's why young lads are hopeless. It starts them off far back enough so it takes them until they are done for to get there. "Her pleasure knows no limits/Her voice is like a meadow lark./ Her heart is like an ocean,/Mysterious and dark. (You'll know that I suppose. )

Unless, like Shakespeare, they go in the deep end first. Like Benjamin in that movie which Doris Day turned down the lead role in. She said it was too naive and Ben ends up, if I remember rightly, it is a long time ago, simulating crucifixtion. The American way natch. Like baseball is the American way of cricket. Painless heroics.

But you never commented on veiling American women for which I gave two very good reasons: one of which you are using, with a less good reason I think, in relation to official approval of homosexual unions and putting them on a equal footing with marriage. I might have also added that it is sexier and allows women to deploy more subtle skills than those I see in the pub on Sat night. And the flesh, by being very rarely seen and only then by a few, takes on an aura of beauty which Western man has little capacity now to appreciate. Or so I have been told.

It might even be that there is a dimming of the eyes from lack of practice in darting flashing glances from behind a veil into the soul of some poor helpless male.

Quote:

now they're nice and defined.

Don't start pumping iron. We don't want you looking like Iris Kyle.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Or so it seems to me. Once God is abolished what do you think the scientific profession and its lickspittals, lackeys and hangers-on will place most value on?

I don't know. I've been thinking and thinking about this. Intuitively, I think that it's good to have some sort of a belief in something outside of and bigger than one's self. Otherwise, the center of each individual's universe becomes him or her self (or the people who are important to them whom they selfishly automatically assign more value to).
And though I think this is the human tendency anyway , and that even people who profess a belief in something outside of themselves also have to struggle to remember to be conscious of the limits of their own importance in the scheme of things- that self-centered tendency is intensified and exacerbated when there is nothing else to focus on and/or believe in.
Can you explain how you'd define the 'degradation of artificial, scientific birth control'?

Quote:

That's what some people mean by "Godforsaken" maybe.

Interesting word. But it implies that he's forsaken us -that we have been forsaken by him- would things have been different if we hadn't forsaken him?
Because don't you think that this goes right back to what you asked in the first question? Isn't all the crap in the world directly linked back to man's selfish belief in his own importance?
And I'm talking about the twisted perversion of Christian principles by Christians too.

Quote:

Who? The foetuses or the homosexuals or both. Or criminals.

F(o)etuses and homosexuals- because what you're talking about is what's possible. In terms of criminals I have to admit that I do place value based on what I've learned and know.
A criminal mind is very different - I've observed this. It's a view into what's possible at the other end of the spectrum.
Many criminals mock the concept of equality in their fellow human beings.
Their whole agenda is to prove that they're superior.
It's very, very interesting, and unsettling to me to have to admit that this is what I believe.
I'd never have been willing to believe this if I hadn't seen it laid out before me.

Quote:

Yes--on an escalator going up to the Mahatmamsphere. That's why young lads are hopeless. It starts them off far back enough so it takes them until they are done for to get there. "Her pleasure knows no limits/Her voice is like a meadow lark./ Her heart is like an ocean,/Mysterious and dark. (You'll know that I suppose. )

Bob/Bobby/Robert....he doesn't seem like a Robert does he?
What a poet he is.

Quote:

But you never commented on veiling American women for which I gave two very good reasons: one of which you are using, with a less good reason I think, in relation to official approval of homosexual unions and putting them on a equal footing with marriage.

No, I don't think it's the same thing. In your scenario, you'd have the majority change to adapt to the minority. In the case of homosexual marriage - the minority are asking to be able to adopt the practices of the majority.

Quote:

Don't start pumping iron. We don't want you looking like Iris Kyle.

No chance of that! I just carry my six liter jug of milk and switch it from hand to hand and do little bicep curls as I walk.
But it is nice to know that I can still develop muscle.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know