As of this writing, MarvinBoomerDiamond has posted 41 times to this conversation as StarvinMarvin. Of those, 1 was positive, 6 contributed something useful to the conversation, 28 were insulting or attacking someone in a vitriolic, profane, personal nature, and 6 were not classifiable in any of these categories.
I leave it to the Teeming Millions to decide.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Sounds just a bit holier than thou to me. Isn’t pride a sin?
(I really don’t want to get into this with you, Snark, considering your own homosexual leanings - I think we discussed that enough in your MPSIMS thread, don’t you?)
Your religious beliefs are just that - beliefs, no better or worse than my own. I do not believe western civilization will fall or God’s wrath will come upon us or that anyone will go to Hell if we legalize SSM’s. Since neither of us can prove we are right about what will or will not come to pass, religious arguments are not applicable to an argument of law (never mind the separation of church and state to begin with).
So I’ll pose Otto’s question again: Someone please explain, without using religious arguments, how legalized same-sex marriage is harmful to individuals, communities or the nation.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Snark:
Aw fer cry-yi…please someone spare me from the willfully literal-minded. And no, something doesn’t have to be new to be true. It does, however, have to be true to be true, and the other end of your link is not at truth.
Oh. I guess that explains that Mormon who is I believe on trial for bigamy right now for trying to marry a 14 year old. The Mormons may have reputiated it as doctrine 100 years ago, but you know as well as I do it still goes on. The point still stands; as a sect which was all but forced to alter its core doctrine on marriage and family by the State, Mormons ought to be the last people trying to dictate what the state should recognize as a family. Go ahead and believe for all you’re worth, as you lie in your future wife’s arms one day knowing that in your heart you’re lusting after men, that God says families are man and woman, one each. Fine by me. Just stop trying to impose your religious beliefs on me and on society.
Esprix wrote:
Sounds just a bit holier than thou to me. Isn’t pride a sin?
[/quote]
Only when the person accused of it happens to be religious. Otherwise, it’s an accepted virtue.
SSM’s thwart God’s plan of happiness for us, IMHO. Note that I said IMHO. No, I can’t really prove to you what will happen to us if we legalize SSM’s, but the prophets have warned us against it. Whether we heed that warning is up to us, of course.
Otto wrote:
Anyone who practices polygamy right now is excommunicated from the LDS church.
The core doctrine wasn’t altered at all. The practice of it was.
Geez, I provide one prophetic quote and I’m accused of imposing my beliefs on society! I’m glad I didn’t express my personal opinion on the subject–I might have caused all gays to change into straights by my almighty words! I apologize for providing a threatening hyperlink, your highnesses.
Fair enough, Marv. When I read last night it just seemed like you were getting a little too militant, and you were losing your head. Your post last night at 7:23 EST was the one that did it for me. You seem to be better today (for the most part), and I humbly retract my earlier statement.
Polycarp, Esprix: Now we are in total agreement (I think) about the function of the Supreme Court. What I was getting at was that the SC alone cannot make the legislation–that someone else has to take the first step.
And hey, 'Sprix, if you go back and READ the Boomer post I was referring to, instead of just writing it off because of your feelings about the author, you’ll find that he makes some interesting points, including:
He also makes some intruiging points about the tactics of homosexual activists. Reading it again, I can see how it may not sit well with you, but whatever.
I must say, I’m beginning to doubt your understanding of the neurological concepts involved here.
Until one of us goes a-hunting on the Internet to find some kind of actual research. Perhaps I will tomorrow, if the weather is kind to me tonight.
First off, churches are (technically) non-profit orginazations. Not paying taxes is not a “special privelage.” And, due to that whole separation of church & state thing, they don’t recieve too much from the government either.
Certainly, as soon as I see some research to begin with. I don’t want to see book reviews. I want to see reports that tell me the conditions and the specific results of the research.
Oh, Esprix. You were doing so well. Don’t resort to such sophmoric levels, please. Cause then I’m going to ask you why you’re for discrimination, and you’re going to say you’re not, that you think that everybody should be friends and get along, and I’m going to say that I’d like that too, but I’m a realist, and you’re going to say "right, but are things the way they should be, and I’m going to say no, but the problems we have can’t be changed by legislation, and you will take this to mean that I oppose legislation that would give people equal rights, and you’re going to ask me why I am for discrimination, and we’re right back where we started.
I feel that it is. Of course, there’s probably no mathematical way to determine whether or not it is precisely time, but I think that we, as a nation, (and especially the white-collar, educated class [to make a broad generalization]) have matured enough in our attitudes about minorities, and especially about women, to take the training wheels off. While we’re on the subject, I also think that it should be done very, very soon (this is impossible, I know). In fact, it should be done already. For us to make a smooth transition, the economic climate has to be right. Most importantly, the job market must be expanding. This is crucial. And it has been expanding. But it won’t be for long. Also, I think that America right now has a bottom-line, money-hungry attitude that would promote hirings based on creds rather than creeds. But enough about that.
The question was, assuming that SSM’s remain unrecognized, should companies make it easier for unwed gay couples to get benefits?
Sorry, I misread you on that one. I read it around midnight last night, since I was compelled to post after watching L&O. Yeah, I don’t doubt that married couples have hundreds of “rights” that unwed couples don’t. Also bear in mind that roughly half of all marriages end in disaster. One thing, though:
???Indians???
That’s a rather cold view of marriage, 'Sprix. You’re not your usual compassionate self today.
No.
Them’s fightin’ words, brother.
Polycarp: another great post.
I acknowledge this. I referred to it, and shall continue to refer to it, as a “predisposition.”
If you don’t mind (Esprix, you could do this too), I’d like to see some professional opinion about the causes of homosexuality, one that points to it being completely inborn. Medline has nothing on it (surprisingly).
That’s quite an undertaking, and I don’t know if it’s completely possible. It would be the same as trying to identify the causative factors of any other complex psychological phenomenon, for
And here we have a case where a couple who was together for close to three decades have fewer rights than str8 couples who refuse to marry. But same-sex marriage protections are “special rights,” right?
[quote]
TACOMA, Wash. (AP) - A man who shared the house, business and financial assets with his gay lover for 28 years cannot inherit his partner’s estate, a state appeals court ruled in reversing a judge’s decision.
Frank Vasquez was denied any of Robert Schwerzler’s $230,000 estate, including the home they shared in suburban Puyallup, because the state’s community property law only applies to heterosexuals, the Washington State Court of Appeals Division II ruled.
``We find no precedent for applying the marital concepts, either rights or protections, to same-sex relationships,’’ Appeals Court Judge C.J. Bridgewater wrote in the 3-0 decision issued last Friday.
Extending the law that governs unmarried, long-term couples to gays ``is for the Legislature to decide, not the courts,’’ Bridgewater wrote.
The ruling reversed a decision by a Pierce County superior court judge to award virtually all of Schwerzler’s property to Vasquez, who is in his mid-60s. The appellate panel sent the case back to the trial court, where the judge had rejected claims by two of Schwerzler’s four siblings.
Schwerzler died at age 78 in 1995 without leaving a will.
Vasquez’s lawyer, Terry Barnett, said he expects to appeal the ruling. Barnett said that until the case is resolved, Vasquez would be allowed to remain in the house, where he ran a burlap-bag business with Schwerzler.
Ross Taylor, the attorney who represented Schwerzler’s two sisters, said the judge drew a clear boundary by correctly ruling that Vasquez had no automatic right to share the property.
Under Washington state law, the spouse (or common-law spouse in cases where there was no marriage) would be first in line to inherit the property of someone who dies without a will, followed by the children, parents and siblings.
A national gay-rights group said the ruling was ironic because it contends that gay couples, who cannot marry, lack the legal protections of unmarried heterosexual couples who can marry but don’t.
``The court’s decision is one more argument for the proposition that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry,’’ said Jennifer Pizer, managing attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
AP-NY-02-17-00 1745EST.
<font size=7>>< DARWIN ></font>
<font size=7>_L__L</font>
Now that I’ve had my fun, let me refresh Rousseau’s memory:
In Great Debates:
On the “Legalizing Street Drugs” thread that I started, you said certain drugs (I think it was marijuana) should remain illegal so as to give teen-agers a “safe” way to violate the law and learn the consequences of breaking the law. In other words, selling a relatively harmless substance should remain as illegal as selling a gun to a minor. You also said the Columbian drug lords would make a fuss if drugs were legalized, as if we should let a bunch of foreign criminals dictate to us what our laws should or should not be.
On the thread you started about prayer in school, you made the astounding claim that Christianity had a strong influence in Japan, even after other posters gave statistics (from the CIA, no less!) that showed that no more than 2.3% of the population claimed to go to a Christian church. You also claimed to know about life in Japan because you took ONE college course about it and stuck to that claim even when another poster said he’d lived in Japan for TEN YEARS, IIRC, and said he saw very little Christian influence there all that time. (And I was the one who pointed out that Japan has a much lower crime rate than we do even though they don’t post any of the Commandments on their classroom walls. As far as teaching people to learn to live in peace, it seems to me that Buddhism and Shintoism do a far better job than Christianity.)
Keeping in character, you now claim to know more about genetic influences on people’s sexual orientation than scientists who have conducted studies on the matter. To top that, you then claim you don’t care what facts others may have discovered that dispute your position.
You did not piss me off, dear boy, you ASTONISHED me with your inability to think logically and stubborness to ever admit that you are wrong. You have admitted to errors, occasionally, but you are very reluctant to do so.
I challenge others to search for the threads I mentioned and show me where, if at all, I am wrong about Rousseau’s statements. If you can do so, I’ll apologize to him. (BTW, Rousseau, someone else has started a NEW “Legalize Drugs” thread. See if you can convince THEM you’re right.)
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
And here is why we think you are Phaedrus: “Thou Shalt Not Hire Gays.” The Faded One claimed to be a businessman and said he would never hire a homosexual.
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
Looking down your nose at someone is an accepted virtue?
… which has nothing to do with the legal issues of SSM’s. Of course, you’re still going to try to prevent them, and I’m still going to try to allow them, based on our beliefs.
Fair enough - I’ll accept that polygamy is no longer practiced. But the LDS were the ones that fought so hard for polygamy way back when. Would they ever want polygamy back, given the opportunity? Or is polygamy now “bad for the family,” just like SSM’s? If so, why did their doctrine change?
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Looking down your nose at someone is an accepted virtue?
… which has nothing to do with the legal issues of SSM’s. Of course, you’re still going to try to prevent them, and I’m still going to try to allow them, based on our beliefs.
Fair enough - I’ll accept that polygamy is no longer practiced. But the LDS were the ones that fought so hard for polygamy way back when. Would they ever want polygamy back, given the opportunity? Or is polygamy now “bad for the family,” just like SSM’s? If so, why did their doctrine change?
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Looking down your nose at someone is an accepted virtue?
… which has nothing to do with the legal issues of SSM’s. Of course, you’re still going to try to prevent them, and I’m still going to try to allow them, based on our beliefs.
Fair enough - I’ll accept that polygamy is no longer practiced. But the LDS were the ones that fought so hard for polygamy way back when. Would they ever want polygamy back, given the opportunity? Or is polygamy now “bad for the family,” just like SSM’s? If so, why did their doctrine change?
Esprix
There was a similar thread over at LB about a week ago, too.
Looking down your nose at someone is an accepted virtue?
… which has nothing to do with the legal issues of SSM’s. Of course, you’re still going to try to prevent them, and I’m still going to try to allow them, based on our beliefs.
Fair enough - I’ll accept that polygamy is no longer practiced. But the LDS were the ones that fought so hard for polygamy way back when. Would they ever want polygamy back, given the opportunity? Or is polygamy now “bad for the family,” just like SSM’s? If so, why did their doctrine change?
Esprix
Looking down your nose at someone is an accepted virtue?
… which has nothing to do with the legal issues of SSM’s. Of course, you’re still going to try to prevent them, and I’m still going to try to allow them, based on our beliefs.
Fair enough - I’ll accept that polygamy is no longer practiced. But the LDS were the ones that fought so hard for polygamy way back when. Would they ever want polygamy back, given the opportunity? Or is polygamy now “bad for the family,” just like SSM’s? If so, why did their doctrine change?
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Esprix, you’ve really gotta do something about that stuttering problem! 
Snark, not to agitate, but I was a bit mystified by what you meant about the “core doctrine.” I did read the next-to-last Section of the D&C where President Woodruff declared against polygamy, but was not clear on how it fits with Mormon doctrine on the family. Would you be willing to resummarize that?
And, while I can certainly respect your belief in what a contemporary prophet (per your faith) says, I do not see the connection between God’s judgment and just allowing others to do as they see proper, regardless of whether it fits your church’s idea of what is right. It seems to me that if God were to bring down his wrath on sinfulness, there have been plenty of things far worse, by your own church’s standards, than gay marriage to provoke him. (My opinion; I’m asking for yours, and for your understanding of your church’s beliefs on why this particular “abomination” is so particularly noxious in his eyes.) And, despite this being the pit, don’t hear that as a flame – I’m sincerely interested in learning the answers to something that does not make sense to me at present.
QUOTE]StarvinMarvin: If there is anyone one poster around here that is Phaedrus, its Esprix.
jab1: And here is why we think you are Phaedrus: The Faded One claimed to be a businessman and said he would never hire a homosexual.
[/QUOTE]
Damn, my secret’s out - I’m an anti-gay Christian after all. How on earth am I going to tell my parents? 
Esprix
DAMMIT!
Sorry about the multiple posts. I hate my server at work… {grrr}
(Note: It’s probably not your fault, I’m pretty sure it’s a bug in the UBBS. But please, PLEASE post only once. Especially on these long threads, removing posts is a royal pain. Lynn)
Agreed, and there is little doubt in my mind that this issue will come to the Supreme Court soon. I personally feel they will legalize SSM’s and find DOMA to be unconstitutional. Only time will tell, though.
I don’t disagree with him - as you’ve said, lawmakers are elected to vote their constituency, so changing society’s attitudes is important. I don’t think any “homosexual activist” would disagree with that or that that is exactly what they’re trying to do. I, personally, would love to see society change its attitudes towards the gay and lesbian community, and I think that in general it is starting to.
I think the difference between us, Rousseau, is that you see things the way they are and decide they cannot change (or at least that it is futile to try to change it), so you accept it, shrug your shoulders and move on. (I don’t doubt that at least part of this is simply from the fact that you, as a straight white male, have probably never faced the discrimination that I, as a gay male, have.) I, on the other hand, am also aware of the way things are, but I believe that things can and will change, and will do everything I can to facilitate that change.
So let’s cut to it - if the ballot were placed in front of you today, would you vote to legalize SSM’s, or vote not to?
I’m sorry, are you a neurologist? I don’t claim to be - I’m only going by the factual data I’ve seen, the same data which contradicts your choice theory. And, if you recall, your response to that data was, “I don’t care.” Please don’t point fingers that I don’t understand the concepts involved when you dismiss them out of hand.
Oh, wait, now you do care about the research? Fine - to wit, from the American Psychological Association July 1998 (www.apa.com):
Are you prepared to argue with a premiere psychological authority like the APA? I would hope that 35 years of research would count for something…
Another relevant question: What difference does it make if it’s a choice or not? If it being a choice means we can discriminate, then I don’t have to hire Christians if I’m the boss, because I don’t like their lifestyle choice.
Well, I do pay my taxes, and am denied equality by that same government. How come their choice gets them protected status, but mine gets me discrimination?
Oh, so now you’re an anthropologist, too? You can determine from raw data the state of mind of the observer? You’re quite a guy, there, Rous - if the research says homosexuality was observed in wild animals, then obviously the researcher was either biased or specifically looking for it; if not, then obviously it proves your point. Homosexuality among higher primates in the wild is an accepted fact. If you like, go read “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity,” by Bruce Bagemihl, who spent 10 years scouring biological literature for data on alternative sexuality in animals. Oh, but because that was the nature of the book he was writing, obviously he was biased towards finding it where it didn’t exist, right?
Denying the same benefits to same-sex couples that
In case you weren’t paying attention, Marvin, it’s YOU whom we believe to be Phaedrus, not Esprix. In the above post, Esprix is joking. Since you are apparently as dense as a lead cannonball and only one-tenth as sharp, Marvin, I thought I’d spell it out for you.
Marvin also once referred to himself as once being the kind of kid who wouldn’t have me as a friend.
It was the other way around, buddy. Yeah, it stung at the time, but I got over it. Upon reflection, I realized I was better off with a far better class of friends than the bullies, macho pricks and misogynists who rejected me. (Yeah, I’m also a man who hates men that hate women. Wrap your miniscule mind around that one.) (BTW, ever notice how misogynists and homophobes go hand-in-hand?)
Being rejected by guys like you is a thing to be proud of, a badge of honor whose meaning you are incapable of grasping. It’s like being rejected by the KKK or the Nazis or Communists. You SHOULD be rejected by them, you should NOT want to join.
One more thing, Marvin, assuiming you haven’t turned tail and run off: You can insult me all you like and it won’t hurt. You can use the most vile language you like and it will have no effect. You can accuse my mother and my late father of all the perversions you care to and it will have no effect. Why?
Because none of it is true. But it’s true that you are a homophobic idiotic bigot and that’s why you get so pissed when I point it out for all to see.
Now go forth and have a REAL nice day!
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
"Gay Activist Dan Savage Tries to Give Gary Bauer the Flu."
I think I’ve made it clear that I’m for gay rights. I’m glad there are others who feel the same. But what Dan Savage tried to do to Gary Bauer, former Republican candidate for President, CROSSED THE LINE. Savage hurt the cause, he didn’t help it.
And the editors of www.salon.com agree.
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
Sorry guys, got one of the links wrong again. This should get you to the Dan Savage article: www.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/01/25/bauer/index.html
The other links work.
>< DARWIN >
__L___L