You are not logged in.

Gougai! Gougai!

Anime News Network asked Gio & Yasha to write an article about Utena, Empty Movement, and they totally called us superfans, omg. Think of it as a belated Valentine's to Utena, its fandom, and the excellent friendships we've made along the way. 20 Years of Utena Fandom with the Ultimate Superfans!!!

#51 | Back to Top10-31-2008 02:42:38 PM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

As far as we can tell, Jefferson WAS an atheist. It's almost 100% certain he wasn't a Christian in any way that we recognize it today anyway. I can't say for sure, because Jefferson never told anyone. He found the question indecent. The guy had his faults, like selling his own flesh and blood, but he did have his high points too.

As for the campaign ad...I have a friend who is a belligerent atheist. He's sort of the atheist equivalent of a black panther or something. I think he's a little paranoid, but he does have something...atheism is by its very existence an objection and a threat to all religion. So it stands to reason that atheists are going to be thought poorly of by very religious people. I do know some very religious people that are more open-minded (my roommate comes to mind), but even there...he has a hard time understanding how atheists might feel a little put down by our overwhelmingly theistic society.

And then you see bullshit like this. Oh well, maybe it will help him understand better?


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#52 | Back to Top10-31-2008 03:51:51 PM

purplepolecat
Atlantean Singer
From: Vancouver, B.C.
Registered: 03-26-2007
Posts: 570

Re: Politics

This Gallup poll shows what Americans think of atheists:
Chu...
Yep, we're worse than fags ! emot-dance

A lot of people still seriously think that atheists have no morals, and that some atheists became so specifically to avoid the constraint of morals. Of course if this were true, we'd see prisons overflowing with atheists, when in fact the reverse is true. Or maybe we are, like M.C. Ren, "sneaky as f**k when it comes to crime".

Whatever. I don't think religious conviction really makes any difference as to whether a person is good or bad. Since I don't get any supernatural brownie points for saving non-existent souls, I tend to keep my opinions to myself. The last think I want is to offend a religious but otherwise decent person, or have someone taking it upon themselves to convert me.


We're here, we're queer, we don't want any more bears!
Honorary Hat Mafia Member
Now Playing: Bear Supply - "I Maul Out Of Love"

Offline

 

#53 | Back to Top10-31-2008 05:30:37 PM

Anthiena
Egghead
From: ...the space between your ears
Registered: 10-21-2006
Posts: 1096

Re: Politics

Me and my husband think Atheists are awesome, as do a lot of Pagans and Satanists, which some of my web friends are. Then again, being of minority religions that really embrace inclusiveness and really off the wall ideas do tend to have a unique veiwpoint on life and politics.

It's common for one social group to have low opinions of others or even false perceptions. It's what makes us human. It could be both negative (Pagans are all worshiping Satan, Atheists are immoral) or positive (All Italians are romantic, all Irish are poets) or waay off base (all Naturalists/Nudists are horny all the time, all Mormons are brainwashed).

As for me, I have noticed that in the State I lived in, it was very hard to find out what it would take to become able to conduct weddings with legal authority. The only ones who seemed to have any idea were all Christians, which I am not. I know there is always the internet, but it is very hard when you don't want to get a certificate not worth the paper it's printed on from a firm in say, California.

It's not just Atheists. Any minority religion/philosophy/wtf gets the short end of the stick, no matter where you go.


I stopped seeking to be sought after. That wasn't being true to myself.
I want to become someone who can exercise power. I want to become a prince. - Ikuni

Offline

 

#54 | Back to Top11-01-2008 05:16:44 PM

Lightice
Azure Paleontologist
From: Finland
Registered: 10-21-2006
Posts: 1255

Re: Politics

Anthiena wrote:

It's not just Atheists. Any minority religion/philosophy/wtf gets the short end of the stick, no matter where you go.

I'm pretty sure that even the Christians need to get a marriage certificate from the secular officials in the US, before the marriage is legal. The same process goes for everybody else, except that you don't need to go to the church afterwards. I suspect that the courthouse is the place to go to get one.

Incidentally, it's not necessary to write atheist with a capital 'A'. It sounds like we're a religion or something. emot-rolleyes

Sadly, percentagewise I think that it's just about as easy to find jerkass atheists, Pagans and Satanists as there are to find similar Christians. Thankfully it does tend to be easier to find people of above average intellect, if for no other reason than that there are fewer people to go through.


Hei! Aa-Shanta 'Nygh!

Offline

 

#55 | Back to Top11-04-2008 08:51:01 PM

BioKraze
Faceless Master
From: Yuma, Arizona (USA)
Registered: 11-26-2006
Posts: 8277

Re: Politics

I find that my roots as a Marine brat haunt my political views. If we're going to have a President, he better goddamn well be a pro-military President. I'm not talking about one who starts wars at the drop of a hat. I'm talking a President who recognises the sacrifices the Armed Forces make for the sake of keeping our country safe and free for generations to come. He had better have the better interests of the military dependents -- for you civilians, that means homemakers and minors. Obviously, any President who throws away our nation's lives like so many pawns in a game of Chess doesn't deserve my vote. Neither will one who slashes defence spending. I may not be a military dependent these days, but the old feelings are still bottled up inside.

It's predictable, too. Whenever a Republican enters office, the first thing they do is turn to the military and life gets better for the dependents. Unfortunately, I've noticed that recent Republican Presidents like to start fucking with the Third World, so there's a tradeoff for everything. Whenever a Democrat enters office, things get peaceful, but the dependents suffer greatly. Just look at the Clinton and Bush II dynasties (if you will excuse my use of such a term) as examples of how the two major parties in our nation's sociopolitical framework act. I suppose there's no middle ground.

And then you have the lunatics that think the military should be abolished. (I went to high school with a bozo who thought this way. He also wanted the police to be abolished. You'll always have your psychos, I guess.) Are you fucking batshit insane? Cut off our sword arm to save the shield arm? Especially when we haven't annihilated Osama bin Laden and neutralised the other rogue nations? (This is something I don't expect happening, even two generations from now, by the way. And by neutralise, I don't mean bomb them back into the Stone Age. Read The Onion's Our Dumb Century if you want more about that.) People may diss the military and hate it for what it does, and we are stretched awfully thin, but goddammit, we do it for the sake of keeping this country and its allies safe!

There's an old adage known as the Mercenaries' Creed. It goes something like this:
We, the willing, led by the unknowing,
are doing the impossible, for the ungrateful.
We have done so much, for so long, with so little,
that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.


I wouldn't elect Obama because he strikes me as too much of a pacifist. And people wouldn't take him seriously, due to his heritage. Damned if I'll vote a President who wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, unless he's going to restation them in Afghanistan. Then I might reconsider

I wouldn't elect McCain because his old record of being a maverick seems to have flipflopped toward traditional Republican values, and damned if I'll be voting another President in who bases his decisions on his faith.

I think I'd elect Howard the Duck on the All-Night Party ticket. Yes, that sounds good.

(Fun fact: Howard the Duck is an underground comic character. In the 1980 election, he got more write-in votes than Mickey Mouse. Trufax.)


Roses have thorns to stop those who would dare deny their right to live.
Chu...: For every lover of lesbians out there, there is an equal and opposite attraction to Dippin' Dots.

Offline

 

#56 | Back to Top11-04-2008 08:56:05 PM

Mylene
Fighting Evil By Moonlight
From: Next to Paradox
Registered: 10-19-2006
Posts: 3704

Re: Politics

BioKraze wrote:

I wouldn't elect Obama because he strikes me as too much of a pacifist. And people wouldn't take him seriously, due to his heritage. Damned if I'll vote a President who wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, unless he's going to restation them in Afghanistan. Then I might reconsider

Actually, that's his plan in a nutshell.

Offline

 

#57 | Back to Top11-04-2008 09:01:29 PM

Valeli
Thorn of Death
Registered: 12-05-2006
Posts: 481
Website

Re: Politics

Neither will one who slashes defence spending.

I don't recall the exact number, although I probably should. If you come from a military family, you might. In a conventional war though, the US Navy's fleet is the equivalent of most other modern countries combined. It's something entirely absurd - especially given the remote likelyhood of a war featuring the US v. most of the EU combined (and if that war ever happens, something's gone horribly wrong... no one could possibly end up a winner).

I'm not anti-military by any means. One of my most desired legal careers is in the JAG Corps, actually. And I'm not for getting rid of the US navy or anything silly like that. We have a /ton/ of military spending though, both in terms of maintanance and additional cost from our more recent "interventions". I think there's a tiny bit of money, at least, that could be slashed.

We need an army. We need to be able to protect our nation, and defend our interests abroad. We also need to get with the times though. No one wants a nuclear holocaust, and it's pretty unlikely we'll end up with one (between major powers, at least.... a terrorist getting off a small bomb somewhere is much more likely and problematic).

Europe has gotten away with very small military upkeep because the US has had such an obscenely high one. I believe that if we were to cut our military spending by a modest ammount, theirs would go up slightly to offset it, and the overall order of the world wouldn't overly suffer.

Offline

 

#58 | Back to Top11-04-2008 09:04:31 PM

BioKraze
Faceless Master
From: Yuma, Arizona (USA)
Registered: 11-26-2006
Posts: 8277

Re: Politics

Mylene and Valeli wrote:

Good points regarding my cynicism

Hm, never thought of it that way. But I don't watch news, I don't read newspapers. I am effectively politically locked in a clean room. So take my words with a whole barrelful of salt, because generally I don't know shit.

Maybe this is the reason I should have studied harder in high school. Ah, sweet apathy...


Roses have thorns to stop those who would dare deny their right to live.
Chu...: For every lover of lesbians out there, there is an equal and opposite attraction to Dippin' Dots.

Offline

 

#59 | Back to Top11-04-2008 11:20:03 PM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

The state of the military is something I've been thinking of a lot lately. And I'm sorry to have to say...I think it has to go. I don't mean the military itself. I suppose there's a need for some kind of army for national defense... though our army hasn't been used for that purpose since the civil war. And valeli is correct that our defense spending has in recent years exceeded THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. This assumes that we plan to win a war with THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Does this make any sense at all?

But it's more than the money. Having this gigantic obscenely powerful army presents us with a great temptation. And indeed, why WOULD we maintain the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen and let it sit around gathering dust? It would be stupid, wouldn't it? And so we must have our Iraqs, and our Panamas, and our Kosovos and Bosnias... But I reject the notion that the rest of the world is a bunch of idiots and children that can't survive without our largesse.

And what about Osama Bin Laden? We don't need aircraft carriers and armored divisions to fight him. What we need are special forces. Small units of soldiers to hunt him in the hills, not nation-smashing armies.

I would also point out that BUSH has done a very poor job of taking care of our soldiers. I agree with Bio that our soldiers do a great thing for us, even though it might be better if they did not. And they fully deserve to be compensated highly, much more highly than they are now. The current state of mental health care in the armed services is a disgrace, and needs urgent correction.

By the same token...I have to remind you that a mercenary is a soldier with no loyalty. Nothing like our troops.


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#60 | Back to Top11-04-2008 11:33:21 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10326
Website

Re: Politics

Stormy, I agree that we don't need an occupation force to catch bin Laden.  We might need missiles, though.  Air reconnaissance and/or power might help too.  And missiles and planes need to be come from somewhere.  Namely aircraft carriers.  Carriers are big.  Running them basically takes a small town's worth of soldiers and civilian personnel... do you see where this is going?

To take a different tack, suppose we catch bin Laden tomorrow, and the next day North Korea announces it's thirty days away from having a nuclear missile that can reach Los Angeles.  Assuming they're not bluffing, what do we do?  The special forces, at best, might manage to assassinate Kim Jong Il, but by themselves they cannot take control of a nation's nuclear arsenal.  At this point it might be nice to have an armored division or ten...

So my point is that the world is a dangerous place, and maybe it does make sense for a country with the resources (and enemies) of the United States to maintain such a strong military that other nations dare not challenge us.

Offline

 

#61 | Back to Top11-05-2008 06:13:53 AM

Paradox
Winning Love By Daylight
From: Indianapolis, IN
Registered: 07-13-2007
Posts: 343

Re: Politics

What bothers me the most about military spending is how industry-driven it is, rather than need-driven.

Why are we spending a quarter-billion dollars per plane for fighter jets when we could already declare half the planet a no-fly zone if we felt like it while our soldiers on the ground in Iraq have been having body armor and silly string sent to them by family to help keep them alive?

There's no body armor industry in America, however there is one for fighters, so by God, need them or not, we're going to get new planes.

It's an awkward system that reacts poorly when the nature of war changes, such as it has at the start of the 21st century.

Offline

 

#62 | Back to Top11-05-2008 08:33:48 AM

Paradox
Winning Love By Daylight
From: Indianapolis, IN
Registered: 07-13-2007
Posts: 343

Re: Politics

And now we enter (at least) two years of the Long Dark Night of the Republican Party.

Blame it on the economy if you want, but face it, they took one serious beating last night.

Where do they go from here?  This election has revealed them to be more than just a bit fractured, from the fiscally conservative but socially moderate McCain to the hyper-conservative Palin.  The Bush years are going to leave enduring scars.  Gone are the days when we automatically looked to the Republicans when foreign policy was a key issue.  Gone are the days that we would turn toward them when the deficit seemed to be getting out of hand.  Even their supposed moral high ground has been sullied with years of speculation about Dick Cheney's abuses of power and dirty Karl Rove-style politics.

We've watched Bush lead us into a fiasco in Iraq and run up a ridiculous bill doing it.  When McCain complained about Obama's spending plans, my personal thought was "Well, maybe, but at least we'd end up with something more than blood and sand to show for it."  We've also watched the electorate lash out against a Senator with a very well known name (Elizabeth Dole) for fear-mongering ads in North Carolina.

It'll be very interesting to see what path the party takes in the next year or two.  The type of leaders who take over are going to have a lot of say in the future, and even the survival of the party.  If they keep being led around by the right wing talk-radio types, they're in real danger of becoming the party of gay-bashing evangelicals and gun-toting Nascar fans while the rest of the nation leaves them behind.

To be clear, though, whatever the map looks like, there is no grand mandate for the Democrats.  The electoral college often magnifies victories, but 46% of the voting population supported John McCain.  So far, the Democrats I've seen interviewed seem to understand this.  They got burned overreaching when Clinton was first elected, and it seems that they may have learned their lessons.

Last edited by Paradox (11-05-2008 08:36:19 AM)

Offline

 

#63 | Back to Top11-05-2008 10:40:59 AM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10326
Website

Re: Politics

Paradox wrote:

It'll be very interesting to see what path the party takes in the next year or two.

I agree, but I'd caution against looking for that kind of rapid transformation.  I'm guessing this won't be settled till 2012 or possibly 2016.  The Party will immediately fracture into at least two factions.  You have the religious faction (Palin, Huckabee), the neocon faction (Romney, Karl Rove), and the paleoconservative faction (Ron Paul, arguably Giuliani).  I'm not sure the Republicans will figure out which of these factions is going to lead the way forward without at least one more divisive nominating contest.  Personally, I'm rooting for a total transformation and realignment of old coalitions.

Paradox wrote:

To be clear, though, whatever the map looks like, there is no grand mandate for the Democrats.  The electoral college often magnifies victories, but 46% of the voting population supported John McCain.  So far, the Democrats I've seen interviewed seem to understand this.  They got burned overreaching when Clinton was first elected, and it seems that they may have learned their lessons.

Yeah.  It looks like Obama won by six or seven points in the popular vote.  That's pretty good.  He's the first Democrat to win a majority since Jimmy Carter got 50.1% of the vote in 1976.  But it's not a mandate.  To Obama's credit, I think he acknowledges that.  In his victory speech last night he made a big point that he will be the president of all Americans, not just the Americans that voted for him.  As long as he maintains that consciousness he will be a good president.

Last edited by satyreyes (11-05-2008 10:41:57 AM)

Offline

 

#64 | Back to Top11-05-2008 12:58:39 PM

Katzenklavier
Wondrous Sexual Eggplant.
From: Back of your thoughts.
Registered: 09-13-2008
Posts: 1120

Re: Politics

On a darker note, gay marriage was just banned in California. The marriages that have occurred recently will not be nulled, according to the attorney general, but they were definitely face legal challenges. The ban on gay marriage was passed soundly in 2000, and now it was shot down again with 52% in favor of against.

I'm very disappointed in this. However, great progress has been made since the last election, and in good time perhaps it will be allowed. I'm eager for it to pass. Not just as a supporter for gay and lesbian rights, but also as someone who wants it fully cemented that there is a separation between church and state.


We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

Offline

 

#65 | Back to Top11-05-2008 01:32:58 PM

lex
Master Dominus of SRS BZN
From: in absolute splendor
Registered: 11-27-2007
Posts: 1784

Re: Politics

I rallied for No on Prop 8 so to see it shot down does trouble me. I understand that some people believe in the "sanctity" of marriage (whatever that really means) but this is America, shouldn't people be able to have the choice to marry who they want to marry? A lot of people who voted yes, in our neighborhood stand behind the argument "they're going to teach about gay marriages in our schools."
Really?
I don't remember any teacher ever teaching me about marriage. It's not their place to do so, it's not their place to tell students marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I also agree that the passing of the prop does little to help the seperation of church and state.


http://i47.tinypic.com/x6cz5y.jpg

Offline

 

#66 | Back to Top11-05-2008 03:02:55 PM

Lightice
Azure Paleontologist
From: Finland
Registered: 10-21-2006
Posts: 1255

Re: Politics

lex wrote:

I rallied for No on Prop 8 so to see it shot down does trouble me. I understand that some people believe in the "sanctity" of marriage (whatever that really means) but this is America, shouldn't people be able to have the choice to marry who they want to marry?

Well, with Obama in charge, you'll have some chances of national civil unions. That might be the best anyway; it's probably due to my lack of experience about federal system, but it feels wierd that individual states are allowed to set limitations like this.


Hei! Aa-Shanta 'Nygh!

Offline

 

#67 | Back to Top11-05-2008 05:50:29 PM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

lex wrote:

I understand that some people believe in the "sanctity" of marriage (whatever that really means) but this is America

Those against it are under the impression that if two women or two men get married, it will lessen the value of their man-woman union. In other words, they feel "threatened" by it. emot-rolleyes


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#68 | Back to Top11-05-2008 09:36:17 PM

End of the Tour
Ballgoer
From: The Nowhere Islands
Registered: 09-11-2008
Posts: 143

Re: Politics

Paradox wrote:

What bothers me the most about military spending is how industry-driven it is, rather than need-driven.

That is, alas, why they call it a military-industrial complex.  Or a military-industrial-educational complex; I'm never too happy when I think of what most of the research that goes on in our engineering school is ultimately for.  I'm a bit happier thinking of the  Chu... complex, though.

Where do they go from here?  This election has revealed them to be more than just a bit fractured, from the fiscally conservative but socially moderate McCain to the hyper-conservative Palin.  The Bush years are going to leave enduring scars.  Gone are the days when we automatically looked to the Republicans when foreign policy was a key issue.  Gone are the days that we would turn toward them when the deficit seemed to be getting out of hand.  Even their supposed moral high ground has been sullied with years of speculation about Dick Cheney's abuses of power and dirty Karl Rove-style politics.

Wait, weren't the Republicans responsible for most of our deficit spending?

More to the point, I think there will definitely be a lot of "McCain lost because he wasn't a Real Conservative" fingerpointing,  I don't know who will really believe this, though, because I think the primaries showed pretty clearly that he was the sort of Republican people could actually get behind.  As for what they'll do in the future... talk about lowering taxes, I guess?  Appeal to their "base"?  I think they've spent all the credit they've accumulated outside of that base, though.  In the end, I'm sure it will depend a lot on how things go for the next few years, because that will tell them where they can pick up people dissatisfied with how things are.


As for Prop. 8 and its analogs elsewhere... ugh.  Anyone who votes for something like that needs an Ohtori Academy style face-slap, in my opinion, and the people who organized campaigns for them... you know, I'll just not finish this sentence.  (And that is why I'm never running for public office.)


Sometimes life is about making difficult sandwiches.

Offline

 

#69 | Back to Top11-06-2008 12:28:50 AM

OnionPrince
Covert Diarist
From: Nagoya
Registered: 10-28-2007
Posts: 876

Re: Politics

As far as we've come, we still have a long way to go. Sodomy laws in over a dozen US states were still in effect up until a 2003 Supreme Court decision. And even then, the military is considered a special case and its own sodomy laws are in full effect. It's amazing how deep such pointless prejudices run, but I think it's actually just one symptom of the true disease of our culture.

As for the current state of the military as (mis)managed by the Bush administration, ugh, don't get me started.

Offline

 

#70 | Back to Top11-06-2008 04:04:12 PM

Valeli
Thorn of Death
Registered: 12-05-2006
Posts: 481
Website

Re: Politics

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and hope you all don't hate me for it. I'm not really for the government allowing for gay marriage though. (I don't think they should have any say in marriage, actually... although there are a few "arguable" reasons why they would want to have some small input on it... i never realized that until somewhat recently, actually. In large part, it's the same sort of reasoning that might underlie statutory rape laws). This is a bit odd maybe, since I didn't end up going for McCain.

That's why he lost, I think. There's probably a fairly decent amount of people "kind of" like me. I don't like to think of myself as a bigot or anything. I sincerely hope I'm not, and hope none of you think of me that way. And I'm not on board with the "religious right". They scare me. Lots. Because I have my values. They have theirs. You have yours. Etc, etc. But they think theirs deserve to be legislated into binding law on everyone.

I think if McCain had run on a platform more consistant with his old image, and hadn't picked someone like Mrs. Palin, he might very well have done better. Which makes me question the fractioning/implosion of that party. A lot of people hate the republicans now. I hate how Bush handled things. I think at least one of the wars he got us into was illegal, and not morally justifiable. And I think the methods of intterogation etc his administration embraced were equally immoral and unjustifiable. And I'm what... just about twenty six. These last eight years have been a very large chunk of my life (of my "politically aware" life, at least). Being raised under eight years of that really goes a long way in shaping opinions.

So... I think the "destruction" of this party talk is very premature. They could do fine, in my opinion, if they manage to ratchet down the partisanship and bitterness a bit, rather than electing to ratchet it up instead. (If they do that though, I think, they'll have real problems).

Offline

 

#71 | Back to Top11-06-2008 06:17:24 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10326
Website

Re: Politics

Valeli wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and hope you all don't hate me for it. I'm not really for the government allowing for gay marriage though. (I don't think they should have any say in marriage, actually... although there are a few "arguable" reasons why they would want to have some small input on it... i never realized that until somewhat recently, actually. In large part, it's the same sort of reasoning that might underlie statutory rape laws).

That's a little different, though.  It sounds like you're not against gay marriage; you're against the government being involved in marriage at all.  I actually agree.  I think marriage should be a religious institution, not a civil one, and I think churches should be able to marry who they please.  Unfortunately, no one is talking about getting the government out of marriage altogether, so the second best thing is making sure that prejudice against homosexual relationships is not written into our laws and constitutions.  (I do think that there is a good argument to be made for legally recognizing a committed relationship, though; I'd rather call that a civil union, which can exist in addition to or instead of a church marriage.  Naturally, since civil union would be a government institution, it would be open to people of all orientations.)

I think if McCain had run on a platform more consistant with his old image, and hadn't picked someone like Mrs. Palin, he might very well have done better. Which makes me question the fractioning/implosion of that party. . . . They could do fine, in my opinion, if they manage to ratchet down the partisanship and bitterness a bit, rather than electing to ratchet it up instead.

Well said.  I don't attach much importance to party labels.  I tend to see Democratic and Republican politicians as about equally corrupt, ineffective, divisive, and/or clinically retarded until proven otherwise.  I would be happy to vote for a Republican if he campaigned in accordance with the best principles of conservatism -- humility, common sense, and honor -- instead of the worst -- fundamentalism, exceptionalism, and prejudice.  McCain lost my vote when he abandoned the former three principles.

Last edited by satyreyes (11-06-2008 06:21:13 PM)

Offline

 

#72 | Back to Top11-06-2008 11:28:45 PM

Yasha
Bitch Queen
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registered: 10-15-2006
Posts: 5929
Website

Re: Politics

satyreyes wrote:

Valeli wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and hope you all don't hate me for it. I'm not really for the government allowing for gay marriage though. (I don't think they should have any say in marriage, actually... although there are a few "arguable" reasons why they would want to have some small input on it... i never realized that until somewhat recently, actually. In large part, it's the same sort of reasoning that might underlie statutory rape laws).

That's a little different, though.  It sounds like you're not against gay marriage; you're against the government being involved in marriage at all.  I actually agree.  I think marriage should be a religious institution, not a civil one, and I think churches should be able to marry who they please.  Unfortunately, no one is talking about getting the government out of marriage altogether, so the second best thing is making sure that prejudice against homosexual relationships is not written into our laws and constitutions.  (I do think that there is a good argument to be made for legally recognizing a committed relationship, though; I'd rather call that a civil union, which can exist in addition to or instead of a church marriage.  Naturally, since civil union would be a government institution, it would be open to people of all orientations.)

Your bracket there saved you, lovey. You know I don't chime in on things like this very often, but the gay marriage issue is one that I feel strongly about.

I would like to remind all that there are two sides to marriage-- one is the religious one, which has spiritual meaning and moral obligations, and the other is the civil one, which is the combining of wealth, the raising of children, and sexual relations. As far as I'm concerned, never the twain should meet. Keep in mind that the first marriages ever made were between men-- men who wanted their households joined in order to conserve capital and provide for their heirs. Marriage the way people see it now is bullshit. They get mixed up between the spiritual meaning and the captial-conserving ends. We should have two separate issues here-- one being the church's domain and the other being the government's domain, but people insist that they are the same thing. As we can all see, it creates a problem that should not exist in a country where church and state are supposedly separate.


Hat Mafia Member: Ratchedface
Smaugvoice: MY POSTS     ARE WARSHIPS

Internet Atrocity Tourist

Offline

 

#73 | Back to Top11-07-2008 12:08:11 AM

Katzenklavier
Wondrous Sexual Eggplant.
From: Back of your thoughts.
Registered: 09-13-2008
Posts: 1120

Re: Politics

Keep in mind that the first marriages ever made were between men-- men who wanted their households joined in order to conserve capital and provide for their heirs.

I would have to disagree there. It really comes down to defining marriage, however. Evidence shows that the concept of a union meant to legitimize heirs and grant exclusive sexual rights is probably as old as humanity itself. Additionally, that's very difficult to prove given the multitudes of societes and cultures. Are you thinking of a specific location and institution? I believe the Catholic Church performed male marriages at one point for exactly the reasons you specified. Or am I mistaken in this?

However, this "traditional" concept of marriage is indeed very flawed. Marriage has not been universally defined as between a man and a woman. A perfect example of this is many Native American cultures in which medicine men are stressed to take aspects of both genders. Thus, they transform into a third gender and enter the union perceived as something akin to a spirit. Additionally, in these cultures and others, people could transition from one gender to the next. This shows that gender is not necessarily equivalent to sex. It would perhaps be more accurate to say marriages worldwide favor a "feminine and masculine" merger than one necessarily dictated by the scientific terms of male and female.

This isn't limited to cultures other than American, either. Colonial America encountered the case of T. Hall - someone who was raised as a woman, but dressed frequently as a man. Eventually Hall confused people so much that he (I'm just using the male pronoun to save time) was brought to the courts so that his gender might be determined. Physical inspection seemed to point towards him being male, but men in his presence swore he was female. Eventually the courts dictated that he did possess both genders and had to dress in a mixture of clothes. The ruling on Hall's capability to marry is a bit unclear, but it is made evident that societal conceptions of gender are created, not implicit.

The point here being that gender has always been perceived with a certain amount fluidity, and our modern perceptions of it are a fairly recent occurrence. Therefore, what many consider a tradtional of form of marriage is a romanticized and historically inaccurate institution. In addition to differing conceptualizations of gender, I fully agree that marriages were intended primarily as political and economic mergers. Hence both the popularity of polygamy in various countries and the predominance of male/female unions in order to make heirs.

My argument for gay marriage is this: Firstly, claiming that marriage defined as between one man and one woman as a universally accepted timeless institution is a gross generalization. Secondly, with a new legal system and means for individuals to support themselves (historically people depended on marriage for protective familial ties), the intent of marriage has shifted and can now accommodate gay marriages far more easily. And finally, defining marriage from the viewpoint of a SINGLE RELIGION is a violation on the separation of church vs. state.

Basically, a lot of the stuff everyone has heard of before, but with an added emphasis on history. Because I'm a nerd.


We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

Offline

 

#74 | Back to Top11-07-2008 12:13:48 AM

Yasha
Bitch Queen
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registered: 10-15-2006
Posts: 5929
Website

Re: Politics

Katzenklavier wrote:

Keep in mind that the first marriages ever made were between men-- men who wanted their households joined in order to conserve capital and provide for their heirs.

I would have to disagree there. It really comes down to defining marriage, however. Evidence shows that the concept of a union meant to legitimize heirs and grant exclusive sexual rights is probably as old as humanity itself. Additionally, that's very difficult to prove given the multitudes of societes and cultures. Are you thinking of a specific location and institution? I believe the Catholic Church performed male marriages at one point for exactly the reasons you specified. Or am I mistaken in this?

Nope, that's what I was referring to. To be honest, I see it much the same way you do-- it's just that it's a little-known fact that people often overlook, because to them, marriage is defined as a joining between woman and man, not an alliance made for the sake of capital conservation. In truth, we treat it as one when it acts like the other. Gender itself makes no difference to me, whether physical or psychological.


Hat Mafia Member: Ratchedface
Smaugvoice: MY POSTS     ARE WARSHIPS

Internet Atrocity Tourist

Offline

 

#75 | Back to Top11-07-2008 01:28:57 AM

Valeli
Thorn of Death
Registered: 12-05-2006
Posts: 481
Website

Re: Politics

I have no objection to any of this. You're all quite right, about the shifting roles of gender and marriage. And I think a very good argument can be / is being made for the state to provide all these people with equal rights. Call it whatever you want. Civil Unions for all governmental sanctionted "partnerships" seems as good a term as any to me.

I still don't like the state getting involved in defining marriage though, in any particular sense. Maybe the traditional notion has been romanticized, etc, but if Sarah Palin and Pals want to have their little club/church where marriage is between a man and a woman, I think that should be their right. If other people have another little club where it's deffined differently, more power to them as well. They can do whatever they want, without forcing anyone to subscribe to those beliefs. Repeat this ad nauseum, until you run across some sort of pairing that raises legitimate issues worth being worried over (marriage to minors, i would argue, is something worth being worried over, that should not be permited because a little club is in favor).

Anyhow, just my two cents. Not trying to upset anyone, but i wanted to toss my view out there. I love you all.

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB 1.2.23
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB
Forum styled and maintained by Giovanna and Yasha
Return to Empty Movement