Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^^^^So then we should get rid of Western Civilization courses? Which is by definition the study of the European ethnicity/race, is it not? But we don't call it Caucasian Ethnicity 101, do we?
If you think Obama is a Marxist, then you should read what Bush did. He administration saw the largest enlargement of government since the 1930s.
So gay couple should be denied the 2000 or so rights that are guaranteed to married couples. Marriage is a matter of state first and religion second, btw.
I think you'll have trouble finding proof for that. Marriage customs exist in societies that predate the existence of states. I don't know of any human society that is "pre-religion." Granted some of these stateless societies had methods of union for same-sex couples but when I've looked it up these are pretty much always one of two things.
Mentoring relationships - A widowed male takes in a young adult male. The relationship is sexual/romantic, but it's not expected to be permanent and it being permanent would be generally disapproved of. Instead the younger male is to eventually "move on" and get himself a woman so he can have an heir. (The older male already had a wife with the intention of heir so it's possible the younger male in this scenario will eventually become a widower getting himself a young guy)
Transgendered relationships - A female is considered to be "Spiritually a Man" or a male is considered to be "Spiritually a Woman" or a person is considered to be of some third-gender. They can then marry someone of their own sex, but not of their own gender. Our society tends not to separate sex and gender so this hasn't been done amongst us until recent times.
The idea of two men or two women having a permanent union as Two Men or as Two Women is something I've not found any solid evidence of. In addition gays up to the 1970s didn't really consider the idea and when people like Andrew Sullivan first argued for it they were often seen as assimilationists trying to undermine gay culture.
Still there's a part of me that traditionally sees secular/state marriage as basically meaningless so I wasn't traditionally that opposed to a state trying SSM if it wants. Although personally the idea that same-sex relations are the same as opposite-sex ones is something I decided really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. It's kind of driven by sentimentality rather than logic. Which maybe okay, sometimes sentimentality is more pleasant/humane than logic, but it's debatable anyway.
I think you'll have trouble finding proof for that. Marriage customs exist in societies that predate the existence of states. I don't know of any human society that is "pre-religion." Granted some of these stateless societies had methods of union for same-sex couples but when I've looked it up these are pretty much always one of two things.
Mentoring relationships - A widowed male takes in a young adult male. The relationship is sexual/romantic, but it's not expected to be permanent and it being permanent would be generally disapproved of. Instead the younger male is to eventually "move on" and get himself a woman so he can have an heir. (The older male already had a wife with the intention of heir so it's possible the younger male in this scenario will eventually become a widower getting himself a young guy)
Transgendered relationships - A female is considered to be "Spiritually a Man" or a male is considered to be "Spiritually a Woman" or a person is considered to be of some third-gender. They can then marry someone of their own sex, but not of their own gender. Our society tends not to separate sex and gender so this hasn't been done amongst us until recent times.
The idea of two men or two women having a permanent union as Two Men or as Two Women is something I've not found any solid evidence of. In addition gays up to the 1970s didn't really consider the idea and when people like Andrew Sullivan first argued for it they were often seen as assimilationists trying to undermine gay culture.
Still there's a part of me that traditionally sees secular/state marriage as basically meaningless so I wasn't traditionally that opposed to a state trying SSM if it wants. Although personally the idea that same-sex relations are the same as opposite-sex ones is something I decided really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. It's kind of driven by sentimentality rather than logic. Which maybe okay, sometimes sentimentality is more pleasant/humane than logic, but it's debatable anyway.
No offense but I think you live in a Red state and why Red states are so often the butt of jokes by comedians.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,034,220 times
Reputation: 4047
Humiliating = Texas board of education taking a swing to rewrite history themselves... such a brainless government. Bill White will get things going back to the way it was. I can't believe that law even passed...
No offense but I think you live in a Red state and why Red states are so often the butt of jokes by comedians.
I have only ever lived in Red States, but that's not really a response to anything I said.
The opinions I mentioned were largely formed in college when I was taking things like anthropology and history. Also if it helps part of why I think the two things are different is because when I'm attracted to a man it's not the same as when I'm attracted to woman. I'm a bit uncertain how to proceed on that, but men have certain qualities that are different than women and if I was in a relationship with a man I have no doubt it'd be different than if I was in a relationship with a woman. My religion forbids me having a romantic relationship with a man, or at least from having a sexual one, but I don't really have them with women either. I decided that romance would be too much work for me and I'm much too self-involved to make it work.
If a celibate bisexual working on his Master's degree still sounds like "such a Red State thing" than I guess there's not much more I can say except that that is so not what I was thinking was the stereotype. The image of a Red-Stater as a tiny man who never drinks alcohol, is doing a study of H. G. Wells, and was attracted to both Helo and Athena on Battlestar Galactica is so not the stereotype I thought Maher was suggesting.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 06-07-2010 at 05:20 AM..
Maher's point is that the "stupid" states tend to swing way to the right with super-antiquated and often uneducated legislation. Mostly it is a criticism of evangelical\ bible-belt influences on state laws. Those outraged by Maher should instead be outraged by what is happening in conservative states [ie. tea party\ racism\ anti-intellectual\ anti-gay prejudice]. It should be embarrassing. Maher goes for the juggler, no doubt. He has always been very outspoken and progressive.
Says the guy whose state has no clue how to balance a check book. Funny how the folks who agree with Maher simply rehash the same old stereotypes they've been fed by left-leaning media sources. The tea party, while imperfect, is the most importnat movement this country has seen in a long while. As I've told many friends, we are going to get away from Democrats vs. Republicans and move toward Libertarians vs. Socialists.
Says the guy whose state has no clue how to balance a check book. Funny how the folks who agree with Maher simply rehash the same old stereotypes they've been fed by left-leaning media sources. The tea party, while imperfect, is the most importnat movement this country has seen in a long while. As I've told many friends, we are going to get away from Democrats vs. Republicans and move toward Libertarians vs. Socialists.
Hear, hear. Maher loves to employ the old liberal hat trick of labeling anyone that does not share his values or POV "stupid" or "ignorant".
It made me laugh a bit. It took it for what it was, a joke.
I can see why Texas made the list. The board of education and Rick Perry suck. Of course someone should educate Bill Maher that Texas has the 3rd highest Asian population after California and New York (which was one of his reasons why Texas is stupid).
As has been already pointed out, his list would appeal to about half or less of the population. If you agree with any conservative policy or law, it's null and void.
Why was Arizona nominated?
I strongly, in every sense of the word, support Arizona's enforcement of the law against illegal immigration.
If only states had the power to enforce federal immigration law. Shucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater
I strongly support its laws to preserve and extend gun rights.
So you think it's a good idea for people to be allowed to carry guns into bars? Guns and alcohol, what could possibly go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater
I strongly support doing away with ethnic studies in this country.
God forbid some brown person might develop a sense of pride for their native culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater
I don't care much about the birth certificate issue either way, but I can't stomach Obama and it's nice to see any state flip the bird to that Marxist hack.
LOL. This comment just shows how out-of-touch conservatives are with reality. Name something liberal or socialist that Obama has done since taking office. I wouldn't call a huge handout to the private health insurance industry "socialism."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater
The only law he mentioned that I'm against is the banning of stem cell research.
Well I guess you and Nancy Reagan can agree on that one.
I see it like this, I can live in a state with the most conservative laws of any other state in the country, thats still not going to affect how I live. This is a free country afterall right? I really don't care about politics at all, I live my own life.
Unless you're gay and want to get married.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
