Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

**shokhead** · 01-06-2005, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

TtT: "...maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person...Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone?..."

RL: I didn't decide...Did God decide?...From a secular viewpoint, nature did...it's called biology.

TtT: "...they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!..."

RL: Bah! indeed...There is no legitimate precedent to support any equality under law...you are free to do as you will...just don't expect validation of your behavior...As far a clergy is concerned, I doubt that it's any thing new...however, the issues you point to are a smokescreen and have nothing to do with my statement...

TtT: "...Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born..."

RL: And they didn't choose you...but they did choose to produce something that turned out to be you...you can choose to have a close relationship with them or distance yourself from them...Ask Michael Jackson about skin color...You can lie about your place of birth or even move to a place more suited to your tastes...give it a rest, could your motives be any more transparent?

TtT: "...or my sexual orientation..."

RL: I wonder what percentage of homosexuals are genetically "hardwired" and what percentage engage in that behavior just because it gets 'em off?

TtT: "... Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance."

RL: Oh yeah that's an evenhanded presentation...Homophobia? It's an asinine word...an asinine concept...well considering said presentation...No. they engage in homosexual behavior because of the physical aspects...whatever else may develop and for whatever reason, the physicality seems to be of paramount interest(as it is in hetero relationships)...it's embeded deep in our lizard brain; surely the biological "urge- to-merge" cannot be denied...however, it can be controlled...one makes a conscious choice in the matter.

TtT: "...Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong...."

RL: I think I covered this somewhere along the line...biology...lizard brain...hardwired vs. preference...

TtT: For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.

RL: This country...what about the world? Subjugation via discrimination is not unique to a time or place. Ignoring my earlier history lesson doesn't mean it doesn't exist...People are definitely "hardwired" to exert control to some extent...it's not just in the past...it happens today, all over the world...you just don't hear about it because the media doesn't focus on it...the non-whites who engage in it don't focus on it...it's just white America and a bunch of old dead white guys fault...yeah, right...

TtT: "...Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right..."

RL: Just so much Dr. Feelgood inclusionary claptrap...Some time ago Wm. A. Henry wrote a book entitled "In Defense Of Elitism" which was reviewed int the NYTimes Book Review. The more salient parts of said review follow...

"Henry notes that the 'worst aspect' of P.C. follies is 'the erosion of the intellectual confidence to sort out, and rank, competing values.' Every effort to do so courts the charge of 'insensitivity'. But every failure to do so encourages mediocrity and a sentimentalizing dishonesty about life."

Continuing, "Henry's book offers a splendid anatomy of these problems, but his forthrightness is certain to raise howls of indignation. Item: 'Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean all contributions are equal... is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as it is to put a bone in your nose.' Again: ' The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the caveman era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture'."

And finally, "It is painful to admit, I know, but Henry is right. The only real question is what to do about it. There are two main responses. One is to deny reality and pretend there are no important individuals or cultures, that all have achieved the same level of distinction. That is the P.C. alternative, now in ascendance. The other is the response of Henry's elites, those 'who ruthlessly seek out and encourage intelligence and who believe that competiton--and, inevitably, some measure of failure--will do more for character than coddling ever can."

TtT: "I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ."

RL: Are you same biblical/religious scholar? Out of MY element? Do you subscribe to the theory of the "end days"? Sorta looks that way to me..."end days" that is...The "loving God" certainly seems to be gettin' p!$$ed...and I can't blame Him...

As to your next statement, there isn't enough time to address the how's, why's and wherefore's involved...suffice it to say it's the endless circle, the needle-in-a-haystack...as to the latter part, in a nutshell, biologically-based, non-Platonic, physical attraction, however one is natural, the other is not, regardless of how "natural" it may seem...

TtT: "....And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words...."

RL: Ignore history and indulge in your blinkered 21st cenury mindset at your peril...and I earlier forgot to mention feudalism and vassals and then there's indentured servitude and were you aware that some free blacks owned slaves? Or that some skilled black craftsman were allowed to hire themselves out, earning the money to buy their freedom...just another commodity to Masa...

jimHJJ(...as Yogi Berra said "you could look it up"...)

Never said its how it has to be or written in stone,only mo which i have a right to. I said it had NOTHING to do with god,it just mo. It is alright that i belive this way isnt it or do i have to go by how you think it should be because its starting to sound that way.

**Resident Loser** · 01-06-2005, 11:18 AM

...to the head?...what ARE you talking about?...too bad we passed Christmas...maybe this year Santa will bring you a clue...tell ya' what I'm gonna' do, here it is 350 or so days ahead of time: switch to one of the other display modes so you can keep track of who is talkin' to who...

jimHJJ(...perhaps it will become clearer...although I do have significant doubts...)

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 01-06-2005, 02:13 PM

Never said its how it has to be or written in stone,only mo which i have a right to. I said it had NOTHING to do with god,it just mo. It is alright that i belive this way isnt it or do i have to go by how you think it should be because its starting to sound that way.

I got the same impression, and it's not the first time either. That is why I am choosing to not respond to anything coming from this individual.

Yes there is. Girls depend on their mother (female gender) to teach them about their body, desires and way they should behave. Having a male gender as their mother deny them that right.

Girls do depend on their mother to teach them about their bodies, but aunts and grandmothers can do that as well. I guess I prefer to think of solution to tackle some of these issues rather than having minor stumbling block stop me. If the will to make these kinds of arraingments is there, the way can certainly be made.

Now the question becomes why do we have to "force" kids to adapt to their same sex parents if they don't have to? As I said, this is a good example of denying somebody right in order to protect somebody's else right.

Smoke if we use this logic of force, then we are forcing them to adapt to being raised by a single parent in the case of divorce. We are forcing them to choose which parent they want to live with. We are forcing on them a custody verdict, something they have absolutely have no say so in. They are forced to listen to parental arguments and disagreements, and Kids are constantly adapting to everything. Kids have no problem adapting to being loved and nutured, something a gay or straight couple, or single parent can do.

May be you should take a look at our prison. Most of them are not gay, but choose to do it.

And many do not. You cannot really compare a choice of nature, with a choice of expediency. Men in prison have absolutely no access to women. In this case they make do with what they have. But you will find there are more things they will not do, than they will. The don't reciprecate, and you better not call them gay! LOL

Smoke, I live in a neighborhood that has both straight and gay couples with children. I watched the children of the gay couple next door grow up. They are now in college. I have had many chances to talk to them, and they are no different than the children that belong to the straight couples in my neighborhood. They have the same peer pressures as the children of straight couples, same puberty issues, and not one mention that their gay parents presents a problem to them, or to others.

**shokhead** · 01-06-2005, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...to the head?...what ARE you talking about?...too bad we passed Christmas...maybe this year Santa will bring you a clue...tell ya' what I'm gonna' do, here it is 350 or so days ahead of time: switch to one of the other display modes so you can keep track of who is talkin' to who...

jimHJJ(...perhaps it will become clearer...although I do have significant doubts...)

Slow down and take a big suck of air. There now. Are you ok. Gee,i made a mistake. Its ok,its just a forum,not surgery. I'd hate to see you if you got your undies up your crack.

**Smokey** · 01-06-2005, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by gonefishin

This differs from the blacks during slavery in America because the blacks were deprived of nearly all of the "privileges of humanity"- family, homeland, language, religion, mores, or even to be of him/her self. They were not...of themselves. They were slaves of another. The gay person above does "own" many of these "privileges" and even if they won't move forward themselves, they have the capability of moving forward if they give themselves the ability to do so.

Very well said Fisherman. Two issues of their right and their union rights to be called marriage are different. It is the same reason polygamy or living together shouldn't be called marriage.

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

I wonder what percentage of homosexuals are genetically "hardwired" and what percentage engage in that behavior just because it gets 'em off?

I believe most are former than latter. Some may do it because it might get them of, but they are in very tiny minority.

That remind me of a joke from Sanford (Redd Foxx) show. He called a guy "Trisexual" because he tried sex, and liked it LOL

Originally Posted by shokhead

I said it had NOTHING to do with god. It is just mo.

It have nothing to do with God. This issue is complicated, and created enough controversy enough without God being involve

Sir Terrence

Forgetting about the kids for now, my question is why gay couples are so set for their union to be called marriage? Why it can't be called civil union with all of marriage's benefits?

**Resident Loser** · 01-07-2005, 05:35 AM

...that you are in agreement with someone who hasn't a clue...only adds to your legendary abilities...

TtT: "That is why I am choosing to not respond to anything coming from this individual."

RL: Gee, and I thought it was because you have nothing concrete to counter my argument.

jimHJJ(...as the bar sinks slowly in the sunset...)

**Resident Loser** · 01-07-2005, 05:44 AM

...laid-back Lakewood, not paying attention to minor details is no biggie. Here in NYC...well let's just say, knowin' where yer goin' can help avoid a trip to the ER...

jimHJJ(...of course you probably don't get THAT either...)

**Resident Loser** · 01-07-2005, 06:10 AM

...how many relationships(hetero or homo) don't start with some physical attraction? If they don't ultimately "get off", then what IS the attraction? There's that pesky "biological urge" again...There is a male/female or dominant/submissive factor in every relationship(which is an oversimplification, so let's not jump on insignificant items)...some folks do it missionary style, others are into whips and chains. When someone who has engaged in the former discovers the latter and decides that is where it's really at, do they choose to go back to the former? Will their libido and lizard brain allow them to? It all has to do with self-indulgence and/or lack of self-control IMO.

It's like drugs and drinking or even eating hot and spicy foods...once you get to that "level" it's hard(no pun intended) to settle for less...everyone is driven by somethig, it's human nature.

I'm hardly sayin' it's the be all and end all, but every issue goes much deeper than it may seem to be on the face of it...it just requires analyzing ALL the possibilities...

And for anyone who is interested, I don't expect ANYONE to think as I do, but simply to think...

jimHJJ(...TTFN...)

**shokhead** · 01-07-2005, 06:18 AM

Yet when we have a different take other then yours,your blowing up. What is laid back lakewood? You've been to sports town have you?

**Resident Loser** · 01-07-2005, 07:05 AM

..."...one man's ceiling is another man's floor" so too, one man's "blowing up" is another man's frank and compelling argument...ahhh, so be it.

Sorry, Lakewood sounds like a lake by the woods...where folks laze about the day drinking iced teas...where they ignore things like, punctuation, capitalization and spelling, generally not sweating the details...

A sport's town you say? Wouldn't know. Sorry, establishment sports/entertainment isn't my cuppa'...I see it mostly an excuse for lard@$$, beer-swillin', sugary/salty snack food consuming dolts to scream at the teevee and avoid "sport" or any form of physical activity completely. Is that a "blow-up"?

jimHJJ(...enjoy...)

**shokhead** · 01-07-2005, 09:26 AM

Wow,i didnt see that your such an a$$hole. $uck you and where you live. Now thats blowing right up your a$$. Enjoy.

**Resident Loser** · 01-07-2005, 09:52 AM

...such an erudite and clever response...was it USC or Cal State that can claim you as one of it's own.

BTW, a$$hole is acceptable, although I prefer @$$hole...and as for $uck you, you probably want to use the more understandable f*ck you...the other one may be considered a flirty come-on by some...

jimHJJ(...p!$$ off...)

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 01-07-2005, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Smokey

Sir Terrence

Forgetting about the kids for now, my question is why gay couples are so set for their union to be called marriage? Why it can't be called civil union with all of marriage's benefits?

Smoke, I asked this same question of my neighbor, and his response was this; Since federal law gives "married" people certain benefits, and civil unions get none, the only way for equality to exist between hetero and homosexual committed relationships is the use of the word marriage. If the feds give the same benefits to civil unions(recognition is a start)as they do to marriage, then most gays would have no problem with having their committed relationships called civil unions. So, you have two ways to approach this, either get the feds to recognized civil unions, and give them the same benefits as married couples, or pursue the right to get married. Since the feds aren't budging, then only recourse that gays see is to challenge the right to equality in the court system.

This all makes perfect sense to me, and why I support their cause. Being a person of color is know first hand what it feels like to be discriminated against. It's demeaning, and if you are not strong in character, it will sift you away. I don't think anyone should have to experience this, I don't care what color you are, your handicap, or your sexual orientation.

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 01-07-2005, 10:24 AM

Gentlemen, can we keep this on topic and not personal please.

**shokhead** · 01-07-2005, 10:30 AM

LOL alot. That was funny. We all have a right to think the way we do. I have a problem with gays being married and you dont,thats fine. Yep,i am lazy at my punctuation but because we disagree you have to bring that up? If it makes you feel better about yourself then go ahead,i can take it but why dont you answer this. 2805 running 603's with less then 10ft to each speakers,what gauge should i use. Be helpful now.

**Resident Loser** · 01-07-2005, 11:01 AM

...where in the world did you get this idea?

SH: "I have a problem with gays being married and you dont,thats fine..."

RL: If it doesn't sound too snotty...here's another clue...I have that same problem...we actually agree...

SH: "Yep,i am lazy at my punctuation but because we disagree you have to bring that up?"

RL: As stated, we don't disagree, so that's not the reason...but, let's leave well enough alone...

In answer to your question, I'd use the heaviest gauge zip that would fit into the assorted binding posts of the gear involved...IMHO heavier copper facilitates signal transfer, although others will talk about inductance and impedance and "inner details" and whatever...personally, I don't buy into the whole wiring thing...

jimHJJ(...there is some rule of thumb, but, like many other things I ignore it...)

**piece-it pete** · 01-11-2005, 10:17 AM

Smokey,

Thanks for stating the best, most lucid reason anyone has posted.

This is why public decency is so important, why Janet should keep her breasts to herself, and Howard, well, should just shut up

. This has been understood for many many centuries, various cultures' misdeeds/missteps notwithstanding.

Kids DO model their parents, not a shred of doubt. And whatever they grow up in is normal. This is why the Supreme Court has always allowed various words to be censored, even today, and has not accepted the recent challenge to Floridas' ban on adoption by gay couples, allowing it to stand.

There's other secular reasons. Diluting the definition of marriage makes it meaningless, ie if it means everything it means nothing. If denying gays the benifits of marriage is immoral and wrong then denying those benifits to singles, polygamists, and yes even the animal and kid crowd is by logical extension immoral and wrong too.

If one wants to refute this here I'd sure like to hear a better reason than "that's not true" or "don't be rediculous". The extension is valid, as proven by the pro-gay "marriage" Mass. legislators who argued the very thing during their debate ("I could not in good conscience tell my neighbor he was wrong").

GF, I agree with you, however the gay lobby is forcing the issue into Federal territory by arguing that the sancticty of contract clause of the US Constitution covers this and they may be right. They are sueing the various States to FORCE them to accept marriage contracts legitimized by other States, regardless of their own State constitution. This is happening as we speak, and is serious. The only way to stop this is to amend the US Constitution. There is no other way.

I have to add to the "dead white men" thing. Not only did they create the most sucessful nation the world has ever known, what will soon be the first (and only) multiracial democracy in existence, but also died by the hundreds of thousands to right that particular wrong. If the Founders had forced abolition to be a requirement in the Constitution, the US would not be, and some of the southern colonies undoubtably would have suceeded in creating the empires (built on slavery) that they invisioned ringing the Gulf of Mexico.

Please forgive my spelling, I'm at work and NOT contributing to the GNP!!

Pete

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 01-11-2005, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by piece-it pete

Smokey,

Thanks for stating the best, most lucid reason anyone has posted.

While not dismissing Smokes concern, I do not think his reasoning is particularly sound. There is absolutely not one body of evidence that proves that children raised by gay parents are less nutured, less protected, or less cared for. In the absense of any study, it is hard to support the notion that gay parents are not good for children.

This is why public decency is so important, why Janet should keep her breasts to herself, and Howard, well, should just shut up

. This has been understood for many many centuries, various cultures' misdeeds/missteps notwithstanding.

A bare breast in and of itself is not indecent. In Europe you see breasts all the time on television, no big deal. The problem is that Americans have turned the nude body into something filty,dirty, and sexual, something Europeans find hilarious about us. Public decency based on American standards means that this kind of narrow minded thought process will continue.

Kids DO model their parents, not a shred of doubt. And whatever they grow up in is normal. This is why the Supreme Court has always allowed various words to be censored, even today, and has not accepted the recent challenge to Floridas' ban on adoption by gay couples, allowing it to stand.

Kids DO NOT model their parent sexuality, and there is plenty of evidence to support that view. The supreme court decision not to hear this case further acerbates Florida's foster care system, a system that has seen hundreds of children die, and thousands totally neglected. Florida has so many children they are unable to place, that the system is literally falling apart under its own pressure. Children are left to languish in a system that shuts out a particular group of people because of their sexuality, not because they are unqualified to raise a child. And let's face it, more than 35-40% of the children in foster care in up in the court system while in their late teens or early adulthood(PBS stats). And all this from a people that supposidly concerned about a child well being.

There's other secular reasons. Diluting the definition of marriage makes it meaningless, ie if it means everything it means nothing. If denying gays the benifits of marriage is immoral and wrong then denying those benifits to singles, polygamists, and yes even the animal and kid crowd is by logical extension immoral and wrong too.

The logic in the latter half of this response is totally rediculous. Marriage is already meaningless. Right now you can get married, and in less than 24 hours get that marriage annulled. If it were so meaningful, that would not be possible. 50% of all marriages fail within the first 3-5 years, so where is the meanfulness of this institution? Denying COMMITTED gay relationships the same benefits as committed heterosexual relationships is totally immoral, wrong, and ultimately damaging to a segment of our population, a segment that contributes as much to our society as all of you do. Single gays and straights don't get marriage benefits, they are single. Polygamists are not to be compared to COMMITTED gay COUPLES, and they shouldn't be compared to anyone that has made a committment to one person(not three). Gay COMMITTED relationships are no different than straight ones. They love their partners just like a man loves his wife. They are as devoted to their partners as a man is to his wife. They are as committed to creating a nuturing environment as a straight couple. The only difference is their names are Adam and Steve, and not Adam and Eve. Betty and Barbara, and not Betty and Bob. Any moral judgement on their lifestyle is born out of ignorance, and bias, two things that never make for a logical thought process.

If one wants to refute this here I'd sure like to hear a better reason than "that's not true" or "don't be rediculous". The extension is valid, as proven by the pro-gay "marriage" Mass. legislators who argued the very thing during their debate ("I could not in good conscience tell my neighbor he was wrong").

I do not think allowing COMMITTED gay couples to marry delutes anything. I think if anything else it gives it continueity. It would emphasize the COMMITTMENT as the standard for marriage, not the sexuality. We are so hung up on the male/female part, that the committment of the two has been lost in the fray. Marriage should be a COMMITTMENT to one another regardless of your sexuality. If this is just too much for many to handle, then give COMMITTED gay relationships a name that is recognized by the feds, and all the benefits the word marriage has. That should not be a problem if you are not biased against committed gay couples. If you do have a bias, then committed gay couples should not have to pay for your narrow minded ignorance.

GF, I agree with you, however the gay lobby is forcing the issue into Federal territory by arguing that the sancticty of contract clause of the US Constitution covers this and they may be right. They are sueing the various States to FORCE them to accept marriage contracts legitimized by other States, regardless of their own State constitution. This is happening as we speak, and is serious. The only way to stop this is to amend the US Constitution. There is no other way.

The gay lobby is forcing the issue because too many people here is this country do not want to honor what is written in its constitution. Guaranteed rights for all Americans, and the right to equality. In the current climate, equality is only extended if you are straight, and what is consider to others as the "norm". If straights can get married in California, and be recognized in Nevada, why can't committed gay couples get the same treatment?

I have to add to the "dead white men" thing. Not only did they create the most sucessful nation the world has ever known, what will soon be the first (and only) multiracial democracy in existence, but also died by the hundreds of thousands to right that particular wrong.

What good is calling this the first multiracial democracy when blacks, latino's and gays are still discrimnated against. What good is it to the black guy who goes off to war for this country, and still cannot rent an apartment in certain areas, or is subject to the corporate glass ceiling when looking for a promotion. Only a white person could glorify this kind of hypocrasy, after all they were the ones that benefited from this kind of arraingment.

If the Founders had forced abolition to be a requirement in the Constitution, the US would not be, and some of the southern colonies undoubtably would have suceeded in creating the empires (built on slavery) that they invisioned ringing the Gulf of Mexico.

So let me get this straight, it is was okay to demorilize, hang and kill black people just so the southern colonies couldn't create and empire based on more slaves? It was okay to maim, rape, and destroy the lives of a certain racial group just so this country could exist? This kind of sick thought process makes me friggin want to vomit! Pete, I cannot believe you wrote this. I guess the blacks in this country should have thank their slave masters for saving America to the detriment of their own race. What a huge sacrifice to make just so the whites in this country are more comfortable.

**Resident Loser** · 01-12-2005, 10:18 AM

...or so goes the saying...Oh yeah, kids don't pick up on things...I suppose that's why there are so many wannabe pimps, hos and gangstas? Or those who aspire to emulate those overpaid "athletes" who are pretty much of the same mindset of those earlier mentioned groups...nope not a chance, right? Or like my atheist co-worker who will not allow his kids to decide for themselves whether or not there is a god by forbiding them contact with people or books who might put contrary notions (contrary to his) into their heads?

As for your defense of the European mindset, another "oh, yeah!"...the same folks who brought us countless wars and persecution and were responsible for bringing slavery into the new world...these are the ones that you tell us laugh at out puritanical mindset? Sex...sex sells...sex is everywhere in the good old USA...even under the desk...in the Oral...whoops, sorry...Oval office(or at least adjacent to it)...You are right, a bare breast is not indecent...however there is a time and a place for everything...half-time at the Superbowel ain't neither of them! But I(and countless others) are the problem, not the ones who done the deed...I see it so clearly now!

And, at the risk of repeating...21st century mindset applied to the 18th and 19th...

Slavery existed at least in biblical times and probably prior to that...It was a world where the indifferece to lives and near slave labor conditions existed for nearly all people...Atlantic trade slave ships were manned by abductees who died in numbers as great as the slaves they helped transport...the sailors subjected to flogging and starvation, practices of the same sort in the British Navy.

It was commomplace that slaves were worked to death, particularly on the sugar plantations of the Caribbean. Between 1660 and 1807, ships brought over three times as many slaves as they did Europeans. It wasn't just British colonies that slaves were sent...they were an equal opportunity provider: Haiti, Cuba, Brazil...it was simply business as usual...filling the coffers of the Imperial economy and that of the Church of England, itself a great slaveholder in Jamaica.

Haiti may have been owned by France(one of those laughing Europeans), but Britain supplied it with slaves...who were worked to death because it was cheaper to replace them as they died, than to sustain them...the market for slaves was lucrative. It is said that Haiti produced more foreign trade than all of the thirteen colonies of North America; uprisings and insurrections could not be tolerated...not good for the bottom line. The French AND the British sent forces to Haiti...in fact the Brits sent a larger army against Haiti than it had sent to fight in the American Revolution...

The industrial revolution was fed in part by paupers children, 6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds who worked 13 hours a day through seven-year "apprenticeships"...they to died from overwork and and were simply replaced by others...not "slaves" in the strictest sense of the word but, merely indicative with the prevailing indifference to life in general...but I digress...

The role England played in sustaining slavery in the colonies is underscored by the fact that abolition became law in Vermont in 1777 and in Massachusetts in 1780...and eventually became the "peculiar institution" peculiar to the South. As a part of the compromising that eventually gave birth to the US Constitution...importation of slaves was to be prohibited as of 1808...so whatever your opinion, it only stands to reason that working-to-death became untenable...unfortunately, slaves were property(like it or not) and contributed to the good old bottom line...and not just for the slaveholders, but for the country and government as well...the North was entering the industrial revolution and most of that part of the country was unsuited for slave labor-based enterprise such as farming...none of this should be considered an excuse, merely a presentation of socio-economic facts.

Christ was crucified...as a child it scared the He!! outta' me...killed in such a horrible way...how could they do this to my Savior...later on you find out it was SOP for the Romans...nothing special...a product of it's time.

Until the ACW, those compromises held this nation together, and a part of the grand vision of Southern independence was in fact to annex Mexico, Central America and as much of South America as could be managed...and it would be a slave-based economy as Pete correctly points out...and BTW, years after British emancipation, they came quite close to intervening in our Civil War...on the side of the slave states...

As for the rest, there are many who are sick and tired of hearing the same ol' same ol'...discrimination is illegal by law, if not in practice and THAT has more to do with human nature than anything else and that can't be legislated...I can't live where I might like to, there will always be someone somewhere who has the ability to legally say no, just because of my age or religion or amount of kiddies or what I earn or my job, get used to it...Ceilings? I don't think that holds too much water...at least in what I have seen transpire...more like "reverse discrimintaion" bein' a blue-collar white boy ain't opnin' many doors for me...not PC dontcha' know ...

Additionally, squandering the inroads afforded by the civil-rights legislation doesn't really add too much credibilty to those who can't pass muster and just b!tch about it...

"...So let me get this straight, it is was okay to demorilize, hang and kill black people just so the southern colonies couldn't create and empire based on more slaves? It was okay to maim, rape, and destroy the lives of a certain racial group just so this country could exist?..."

You really should try to get all your ducks in a row...who said these things? Your POV really tends to screw things up don't it?

"...What a huge sacrifice to make just so the whites in this country are more comfortable..."

Discounting of course the 640,000 who died in what ostensibly became a war for emancipation...

And I know you don't care, don't read or care to respond...this is posted for those who might.

jimHJJ(...a bien tot...)

**piece-it pete** · 01-12-2005, 01:09 PM

Sir TT,

I want to leave the basic gay "marriage" thing alone with you for the most part, we've prolly spent numerous hours debating it and, however much we enjoy it, are at an impass. I do want to say this, though: The Constitution would only apply in this case if marriage meant a committed relationship between anyone, which it does not. We are not required to change the meaning of words because a special interest group wants us to. If we as a society decide to change it, because we are a Republic it will happen. As of right now, we do not, and it's up to us. Judicial activism always leads to no good. Heck anything that waters down self rule is bad for all of us.

European ridicule would bother me more if they were an example of leadership and decency in the world. Then there would be a reason to emulate them.

If and when multiracial democracy comes to pass here, currently projected to happen in the 2020s', whites will be a minority. No one race will have a controlling interest.

No TT, I do not agree that it was OK to "demorilize, hang and kill black people just so the southern colonies couldn't create and empire based on more slaves? It was okay to maim, rape, and destroy the lives of a certain racial group just so this country could exist?".

What I was and am saying is that it is better for the entire world that we DO exist. War, slavery, and prejudice are all normal human conditions, right or wrong. A cursory review of history proves this.

Although slavery in the US was bad, and I believe worse than most historical slavery overall because it was based on skin color (it made it hard for slaves to assimilate), there are many worse, much worse, alternatives to our current society, look to Africa, SE Asia and China, the Middle East, the former USSR and Central America for some examples. Most decency in current world society owes much to those dead white guys, along with many European dead white guys who worked with us following vicious wars.

The proof is in the pudding: members of all races, colors, and societies are clamoring to get IN.

RL, you are right, slavery has been shown to exist back to the beginning of recorded history. And Haitian conditions were awful and used to scare the slaves - being "sold down the river" - the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico to Haiti. And more slaves died during shipping across the Altantic than Jews in the holocaust. And, and, and. The depravity of Man knows no bounds.

Doesn't the white blue collar worker already have a lobby - the Democratic Party? lol

(Dems - that's a JOKE!

- I am in no way inferring that your party is NOT run by extremely weathy white guys)

Peace be unto you all

.

Pete (in a while, crocodile)

**piece-it pete** · 01-14-2005, 12:17 PM

Quiet. Did I cross a line with my joke?

Pete

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 01-14-2005, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by piece-it pete

Sir TT,

I want to leave the basic gay "marriage" thing alone with you for the most part, we've prolly spent numerous hours debating it and, however much we enjoy it, are at an impass. I do want to say this, though: The Constitution would only apply in this case if marriage meant a committed relationship between anyone, which it does not.

It does however address equal rights for all americans. Equal does mean the same, so committed gays should have the SAME rights as committed straights. Our constitution doesn't address marriage specifically, or marriage rights, but it does address individuals rights to equality. We cannot pick and choose who we give equality to

We are not required to change the meaning of words because a special interest group wants us to. If we as a society decide to change it, because we are a Republic it will happen.

Since when is being gay part of a special interest group? Are straights a special interest group? As that definition is applied in this sentence they are, and they are enjoying benefits that other special interest groups are not. I think it is funny that when we want to demonize a cause or a group of people, we call them special interest groups. That way when we want to deny them of something, it is made easier by a title with very negative connotations. Sometimes a republic has to be forced to do the right things(abolition of slaves, rights to disabled people) because they are too selfish and self serving to do the right thing without some force or pressure.

As of right now, we do not, and it's up to us. Judicial activism always leads to no good. Heck anything that waters down self rule is bad for all of us.

More inflammatory language. When a judge recognizes that a group of american citizen are not getting the same benefits as other american citizens, and does something about it, it's called Judicial activism. When a large group of people decide it's okay to discriminate against people with a different sexual orientation, that is called american justice. Self rule doesn't exist in america, its really called group rule. That is reality. Self rule makes room for an individual to choose whatever human he or she wants to be with. European ridicule would bother me more if they were an example of leadership and decency in the world. Then there would be a reason to emulate them. What we have is majority rules, not self rules.

If and when multiracial democracy comes to pass here, currently projected to happen in the 2020s', whites will be a minority. No one race will have a controlling interest.

What latins don't exist in this country? We happen to be the fastest growing race here in America, and threatening to overtake whites as the majority. It is my hope that we will treat white americans much better than they have treated us.

No TT, I do not agree that it was OK to "demorilize, hang and kill black people just so the southern colonies couldn't create and empire based on more slaves? It was okay to maim, rape, and destroy the lives of a certain racial group just so this country could exist?".

What I was and am saying is that it is better for the entire world that we DO exist. War, slavery, and prejudice are all normal human conditions, right or wrong. A cursory review of history proves this.

Predjudice is not normal, and neither is slavery. Predjudice is a learned behavior, slavery is for the comfort and commerce of the oppressor. Owning black people dragged from their country and sold like cattle is a American norm, not a world wide one. Choosing to destroy a race, and handicap them for more than a century is a American thing, not a world wide thing. Just because slavery, war, and predjudice has been around throughout history only proves that scared, ignorant and stupid people have existed throughout history. It is the ABNORMAL human condition that allows any of this to exist.
We are the most hated country in this world. We are hypocritical in that we go to China and tell them how to deal with their people, while we deny black people decent health care, punish them in a court system riddled with double standards, and design processes, and systems designed to benefit a special interested group called white america.

Although slavery in the US was bad, and I believe worse than most historical slavery overall because it was based on skin color (it made it hard for slaves to assimilate), there are many worse, much worse, alternatives to our current society, look to Africa, SE Asia and China, the Middle East, the former USSR and Central America for some examples. Most decency in current world society owes much to those dead white guys, along with many European dead white guys who worked with us following vicious wars.

To compare other disfunctional countries with ours as a justification for the ills the majority put on minorities, is a loaded, and lame arguement. The africans do not have a problem living in Africa, Amercians just wouldn't want to live there. Arabs don't have a problem living in the middle east if the Europeans and Americans would quit middling in their business. Russians apparently want to live in their own country, as I do not see a tidal wave of people leaving their to come here. People in Central and South America apparently want to live where they live, as I don't see any country down there closing shop because of a northerly migration. Maybe we Americans don't want to live in these places, but the citizens in those country do.

Yes, those dead white guys spread their wonderful decency standard all over the world. What did we learn from these dead white guys? How to destroy a race, how to preserve white supremacy, how to justify cruelity to another humans by just reducing them to the status of "animals"., or saying it was done in biblical days(like that makes it right), and we learned how to write a constitution, and how to subvert it by interpretation. The world learned how to escape oppression, discover an already discovered country, kill off its inhabitans, use other races as slave labor to build the country, then wholesalely lock those individuals out of the prosperity they help to build. Thank you America!

The proof is in the pudding: members of all races, colors, and societies are clamoring to get IN.

That fact is purely financial, not because we are so moral and upstanding.

RL, you are right, slavery has been shown to exist back to the beginning of recorded history. And Haitian conditions were awful and used to scare the slaves - being "sold down the river" - the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico to Haiti. And more slaves died during shipping across the Altantic than Jews in the holocaust. And, and, and. The depravity of Man knows no bounds.

And just because it existed since the beginning of time makes it right? Slavery of old was much different than American slavery. Slaves worked to pay back debt, and they were people from all races. These were not slaves brutally snatched from the homes, and used to make another races more comfortable. So to compare slavery of old, to American slavery, is definately an apples and oranges comparison.

Doesn't the white blue collar worker already have a lobby - the Democratic Party? lol

(Dems - that's a JOKE!

- I am in no way inferring that your party is NOT run by extremely weathy white guys)

Peace be unto you all

.

Pete (in a while, crocodile)

Doesn't matter if it is republican or democrate, it is run by rich white men. Thats called preserving the power base, and maintaining the status quo.

**piece-it pete** · 01-16-2005, 09:13 PM