News Briefs 06-06-2006

Back from the hell of a dial-up account to bring you the 6/6/6 news...

Thanks Kat and Pam.

Quote of the Day:

Only by holding on to your rationality can you – um...hold on to your rationality...

James Randi

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
thrustbucket's picture
Member since:
30 May 2005
Last activity:
2 years 1 week
Greg wrote:

Dubya rallies gay marriage opponents. The dinner is a formal affair, white robes only (pointy hat optional).

"It's always fascinated me - How the left has somehow assigned the labels of fascism to anyone who takes issue with homosexual marriage. It should be ironically obvious to any logically thinking person - that an even more clear definition of fascism would be an effort to completely obliterate and redefine, for ones own agenda, an institution held sacred by billions of people throughout human history. The imposing of the few upon the many is the very essence of fascism"

-Paraphrased from a wise man I heard yesterday whose name I do not know.

I am far from a Bush supporter, Greg, but I'm sorry; that statement was pretty ignorant. (imo of course) What does a racist organization have to do with gay mariage anyway? Are you actually insinuating that only people with the mentality of racism could possibly be against gay mariage?

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
20 min 56 sec
thrustbucket wrote:
Greg wrote:

Dubya rallies gay marriage opponents. The dinner is a formal affair, white robes only (pointy hat optional).

"It's always fascinated me - How the left has somehow assigned the labels of fascism to anyone who takes issue with homosexual marriage. It should be ironically obvious to any logically thinking person - that an even more clear definition of fascism would be an effort to completely obliterate and redefine, for ones own agenda, an institution held sacred by billions of people throughout human history. The imposing of the few upon the many is the very essence of fascism"

-Paraphrased from a wise man I heard yesterday whose name I do not know.

Hi TB,

Your 'wise man' is the ignorant one. Please inform us of the 'billions of people' who have held heterosexual marriage as sacred 'throughout human history'? Or does he just start 'human history' in the Western Christian era (actually, I think the modern Western view of marriage only came into law from the 5th or 6th century...I'd have to check though). Does he include a couple of billion Moslems in there, who for most of their history allowed polygamy - is that part of his 'sacred' institution? Perhaps the Chinese too, who also allowed polygamy up until 50 years ago. Would he include all those who married in order to enhance societal ties, family status etc, as many marriages were about in earlier times. Perhaps the arranged marriages found in so many cultures?

Gay marriage does not "completely obliterate and redefine" marriage - that's just scaremongering. It just allows a certain group of people who love each other to express that love and be officially recognized by society. The same sort of bullsh*t was no doubt sprayed around when the Supreme Court overturned laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage (when was that, 1967?) Perhaps by tradition your friend meant that men should still be allowed to rape their wives within marriage? Would you like other examples of the 'sacred' tradition of marriage, which have fortunately been changed for the better?

Marriage is not some distinct set of laws, it is something in flux determined by an evolving society.

thrustbucket wrote:

I am far from a Bush supporter, Greg, but I'm sorry; that statement was pretty ignorant. (imo of course) What does a racist organization have to do with gay mariage anyway? Are you actually insinuating that only people with the mentality of racism could possibly be against gay mariage?

They share a common bond in bigotry, ignorance and fear-mongering. Please do tell me how gay marriage is "an effort to completely obliterate and redefine, for ones own agenda, an institution held sacred by billions of people throughout human history?" I'm dying to hear this answer.

Kind regards,
Greg

Xibalba's picture
Member since:
13 May 2004
Last activity:
2 years 10 weeks

Well done Greg. You managed to say in a far more eloquent manner what I was thinking, but would have been unable to express as you have without resorting to rants and raves.

Fair dinkum to you mucker, as you lot would say down there.

yer ol' pal,

Xibalba
(This post was brought to you by "Realm of the Dead")

the shadow's picture
Member since:
24 June 2004
Last activity:
7 years 7 weeks

when he gets going.
And no we do not say "fair dinkum to you".
We say he or she is fair dinkum when they are not bullshitting.

shadows

Xibalba's picture
Member since:
13 May 2004
Last activity:
2 years 10 weeks

...then Greg is fair dinkum!

yer ol' pal,

Xibalba
(This post was brought to you by "Realm of the Dead")

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
20 min 56 sec

Jon Stewart interviewing Bill Bennett on the subject:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07...

(broadband probably required, unfortunately).

Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things

thrustbucket's picture
Member since:
30 May 2005
Last activity:
2 years 1 week

I just realized I may not have clearly answered your question:

Greg wrote:

Please do tell me how gay marriage is "an effort to completely obliterate and redefine, for ones own agenda, an institution held sacred by billions of people throughout human history?" I'm dying to hear this answer.

You actually answered this best:

Greg wrote:

Marriage is not some distinct set of laws, it is something in flux determined by an evolving society.

Very well stated. Todays society, whether you like it or not, vastly feels that marriage = nuclear family. We can argue all day whether that is why marriage was originally created, but it's a stalemate argument. I believe it is, and I've read hundreds of pages of why people believe it isn't.
But the gay agenda is fighting an impossible battle to change the majority of peoples deep beliefs about what marriage really means to them.

The point is - If homosexuals really want equal so-called "rights" as Married people, they will do themselves a huge favor by dropping the attempt to be labled "married". They will garner much more support by sticking with a crusade for equal marital incentives for their civil unions they already have.

I argue that even if Gay Marriage legislation were passed, it would be worse for them. People will still generally feel it's a farce. Everyone will wink behind their backs. I don't want that, and my gay friends don't want it.

Oh and

Greg wrote:

It just allows a certain group of people who love each other to express that love and be officially recognized by society.

Does this mean that a pre-requsite for world peace is that everyone will eventually need to be "officially" married to each other?
;)

Hayls me Lad's picture
Member since:
8 May 2006
Last activity:
6 years 43 weeks

Is it legal to marry hermaphrodites?
A potential moral and legal minefield in the future would be
whether we could marry aliens. Suppose I met a ''chick'' from
the Pleiades and I could look past the tentacles and slime or whatever and see the ''inner beauty'' and we wanted to show our
commitment by signing a piece of paper would I then be accused
of forcing my alternative lifestyle views on the moral majority?
Actually, would that be considered bestiality?

Xibalba's picture
Member since:
13 May 2004
Last activity:
2 years 10 weeks

I can see it now - groups of builders will look out from their building site, spy an alien passing by, and shout:

"Phwoaar!! Look at the tentacles on that!"

Seriously though, marrying an alien would be a great thing. I mean, she'd have her tentacles all over you!

That reminds me of a joke:
A young lady of questionable intelligence got herself a job as a quality inspector at the factory that manufactures the "Tickle-Me-Elmo" doll.

On her first day she was taken down to the production line by the factory manager and told what to do to fulfil her quality inspection role. When he was quite happy that she knew what she needed to do, he left her to get on with it.

Later that afternoon klaxons sounded and lights flashed in the production control room and the production supervisor rushes in gasping that he's had to shut down the whole production line due to the new quality inspector.

The production supervisor and the factory manager rush down to see what the problem was.

They found their new quality inspector with a needle and thread in one hand and a small fabric pouch with a couple of marbles in it in the other hand, and she was sewing them between the legs of all the 'Tickle-Me-Elmo' dolls.

The factory manager was fuming and shouted at her, "No no no! I asked you to give each doll a couple of test TICKLES!"

yer ol' pal,

Xibalba
(This post was brought to you by "Realm of the Dead")

the shadow's picture
Member since:
24 June 2004
Last activity:
7 years 7 weeks

Or was it edited for you?
Because I saw it first time round.
Hehehe.
Love the joke.

shadows

Xibalba's picture
Member since:
13 May 2004
Last activity:
2 years 10 weeks

...I think you must have seen this post which is a cunning variation on a theme!!

What about marriage between a person and a plant, or an inanimate object even? No one has brought that one up!

If I were to choose something from the above categories to marry I think I'd choose a magnolia tree and an ordinary carbon rod.

yer ol' pal,

Xibalba
(This post was brought to you by "Realm of the Dead")

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
6 hours 10 min

What about people who form a partnership not based on sexual relations?

The original reason that married couples got financial advantages from the state was that the state wanted more children. So they paid for them, by giving support to married couples.

Now, this is being interpreted differently, as a right to such things as inheritance, decisions on health care, and other stuff.

It is now supposed to be based on just love and affection, but still in a sexual way.

So I ask, why can I not adopt a brother, or a sister? Why do I have to say that I am having sexual relations with them, in order to make them family? Perhaps I should be allowed to adopt a parent as well, in case I am a rich young person, wanting to take care of poor disadvantaged old people.

There should be reasons other than sex to form family unions.

Xibalba's picture
Member since:
13 May 2004
Last activity:
2 years 10 weeks

Why not adopt a donkey?

I'm not sure if you're allowed to have sex with them, however.

Didn't Bill Clinton once say, "I did not have sexual relations with that donkey."

yer ol' pal,

Xibalba
(This post was brought to you by "Realm of the Dead")

the shadow's picture
Member since:
24 June 2004
Last activity:
7 years 7 weeks

...and his face was red.

Thanks for posting the donkey link.That's the lovely thing about Poms, they do this sort of thing, saving poor animals from humans.
Donkeys have been the most put-upon beast of burden for thousands of years and in poor countries there is not much care for their welfare.
It is a very worthwhile cause, adopting a donkey.

Of course, to take that a step further, you already have Blair.

shadows

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
20 min 56 sec
thrustbucket wrote:

I just realized I may not have clearly answered your question:

Greg wrote:

Please do tell me how gay marriage is "an effort to completely obliterate and redefine, for ones own agenda, an institution held sacred by billions of people throughout human history?" I'm dying to hear this answer.

You actually answered this best:

Ummm, no I didn't. Please point out to me -

a) The billions of people who have held your version of marriage sacred
b) How this version of marriage has been throughout human history
c) How gay marriage will "completely obliterate and redefine" for said billions of people throughout history their sacred version of marriage.

A and B are flat-out fabrications, and C is just ignorance mixed with some idiotic belief that a gay marriage can redefine your own personal view of what marriage is. This 1 out of the billions who is married would not be redefining his belief one little bit; on the flipside neither would I redefine my own personal belief if Dubya decided to let goats marry humans. Nothing to do with my marriage.

thrustbucket wrote:

But the gay agenda is fighting an impossible battle to change the majority of peoples deep beliefs about what marriage really means to them.

So, can you clarify your stance? Is marriage a natural right, a religious right (no pun intended), or just people's deep beliefs? If marriage is defined by procreation, should we be banning sterile couples from wedding? What about that growing proportion of insidious DINK (Double-income no kids) professionals who are marrying but dedicating their lives towards building a prosperous life only for two?

Your comments regarding gay marriage being a 'slippery slope' towards marrying animals etc are just plain dumb, and not worthy of someone who obviously has intelligence. It sounds like the same sort of bigoted ignorance that was bandied about when those freaks wanted to allow inter-racial marriages.

Kind regards,
Greg

thrustbucket's picture
Member since:
30 May 2005
Last activity:
2 years 1 week

On a brigher note, I really enjoyed the Wired article about Bob Lazar. I think that's the first story I've ever read about him that never mentioned why his name is recognized by millions.

the shadow's picture
Member since:
24 June 2004
Last activity:
7 years 7 weeks

I cannot believe that Washington wants to implant tiny identification chips in immigrants.
There goes your freedom folks.
I suppose Little Johnny will be proposing it here next, the bastard.
They'll start with immigrants and move on to the general population.
Unless they are stopped.

I enjoyed the link about Genghis Khan's descendent.I suppose if we all knew who was in our ancestor bank we would get a shock.

About gay marriage Thrustbucket...what do you care?
The sanctity of marriage is a joke these days with all the divorces.
I'm thinking about marrying my parrot actually but he's not a good earner.
I thought about marrying my little dog Pepe but he whinges in bed at night if I roll over and disturb him.I would rather the relationship we have where I don't feel the binds of matrimony..But for companionship he is the best.

All I can say is Thank God for James Randi for keeping me on the straight and narrow all these years.Without his guidance every month I'm sure I would have thrown caution to the wind and gone off and believed in the paranormal or something bizarre like that.
I wish a ghost would get him or a UFO abduct him and do some necessary surgery on him.
Yes, amputate his typing finger.

shadows

Kat's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 1 day

I suspect a few other skeptics would benefit from a good probe as well.

hehe
Kat

the shadow's picture
Member since:
24 June 2004
Last activity:
7 years 7 weeks

shadows

thrustbucket's picture
Member since:
30 May 2005
Last activity:
2 years 1 week

Shadow and Greg,

First of all, it's funny how this debate always brings up polygamy. One glarring difference is that it can easily be argued that polygamy is many mariages between MAN and WOMAN. And no, given a historical context, it is far from an alternative lifestyle that homosexuality has always been (except for them romans and a brief stint with the greeks, of course). That being said, if homosexual marriage recognition is passed, you bet your bottom dollar polygamy rights will be too. (as well they should be)The flood gates will be open.

I have absolutely no problem with Gays being recognized and decriminalized. Where I disagree with you Greg, is that Marriage is not a Civil right. It's a right of nature. It's interesting to note that 85% of Blacks vehemently oppose gay marriage. There is a growing movement of Blacks that are horrified and upset that the gay agenda uses their plight as some type of comparison with theirs.

Marriage, to me, is a right of nature. It's the foundation of a family. Period. It was created in order to reproduce in the first place, as the glue that launched civilization. This is not right-wing propaganda, it's sociology 101. It's not the government holding the homosexuals back from real marriage, it's biology. Even if they are legally married, most people will view it as a farce, which nullifies their whole plan of recognition. It's better for children to be raised by a gay couple than an orphanage of course, but even then... it will still never be a marriage.

Analogy#1: Let's say 50 years from now we have the technology to communicate with Apes and Dolphins. Suddenly we have a movement of people who say they can scientifically prove that their Dolphin mate is consensual to be a life-long partner. Should they be allowed to be married too? Should the government recognize that as well? Every argument the homosexuals now use, would be just as valid. You can think this analogy is insane and silly but it's actually very valid. And there are a growing number of people out there coming out of the woodwork as part of this movement. It's coming, don't think it isn't. And if you side with Gay marriage, and not this when it comes, you'll be a hypocrite.

Analogy #2: (ok this one is even weirder, sorry)Let's say a growing number of women just feel they must pee standing up. They feel nature made them that way. They must pee standing up. So they get organized and demand the government recognize that their nature is they must pee standing up, so they want a mandate that they have equal urinals installed in womens restrooms, to be fair. However, no matter how hard they want to be recognized for their need to pee standing up, they will never convince the majority that it's necessary to legislate urinal fairness law. Why? Because they can still pee standing up if they choose to do so, having a urinal is not that necessary. Just like having a marriage license, today, is not necessary to do what your going to anyway.

Shadows, I agree with you. The original reasons society created an institution of marriage now are all but gone anyway. Let's all be honest here, the gay marriage agenda really has nothing to do with their desire to be married, it's all about fairness and recognition. If the gay rights movement simply dropped the word "Marriage" from their demands, they would get far more support. They would get their "Unions" to be recognized for tax breaks and insurance incentives etc. But as long as they demand a nation call them "married", it will never happen in this country.

What this is really about, to me, is should government have ANYTHING to do with marriage at all? Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe government should stay out. Maybe marriage is more of a religious institution to begin with. Maybe people should be allowed to say they are married to anyone and anything without the governments stamp of approval, or incentives for that matter.

the shadow's picture
Member since:
24 June 2004
Last activity:
7 years 7 weeks

you've said that marriage is a right of nature, and then you said that marriage is really a religious thing.
It is actually neither.
It is a man-made institution and yes religious rule,that has forced itself upon society whether we want it or not.
I would like to see your stats on 85% of black people opposing gay marriage.
Why do you need marriage to make a family?I don't get the connection.As far as I can see it is only tradition.
The idea of family has nothing to do with marriage.I have a family in my house, 2 dogs and a parrot and me, and yet none of us are married to each other.
And what does it matter if people want to marry dolphins? It ain't no skin off my nose.Society will not crumble because of it.They're hardly going to threaten to have a family anyway if they cannot get married.

If everyone dropped "marriage" and instituted "union" then it would be fairer for everyone.I would be free to marry Pepe if he behaves better,and people can marry their dolphins.
A family group is made from more than a piece of paper.It is people who care for each other and want to be together.

I've seen families that consist of 3 or 4 retarded people and a loonie, all getting on well and loving each other.Can you deny this is a family? I can't.

Oh thrust, life is so short, and families are so precious no matter what they consist of.
Enjoy what you have and let others have what they want as a family and allow them to be what they want.
Society will change and in 100 years this little discussion we are having will seem so trite.

Not sure what women who want to pee standing up have to do with it.

shadows

Xibalba's picture
Member since:
13 May 2004
Last activity:
2 years 10 weeks

I can see it now - groups of builders working on the docks will look out to sea, spy a dolphin or a whale passing by, and shout:

"Phwoaar!! Look at the blow hole on that!

Seriously though, marrying a dolphin would be a great thing. Who else would be able to say that their wife/husband spends ALL their time smiling!

yer ol' pal,

Xibalba
(This post was brought to you by "Realm of the Dead")

Lee's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
4 years 37 weeks

Cursing parrot's life spared:

http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/06/post_...

the shadow's picture
Member since:
24 June 2004
Last activity:
7 years 7 weeks

You don't seem to have been around lately.

Thanks for the link, I loved it.I read it to the Captain,(my parrot) and he said,"You naughty naughty boy!"
Don't know where he gets that from.

The story of that parrot proves that parrots are VIPs.They are the thinkers of the animal world,and very clever.
The other morning it was quite cold for here, and the Captain flew from his cage around the house and into my bedroom, and got under the cover with me and went to sleep.
That was 4 in the bed.
He was very well behaved and slept all the time I slept.Because parrots are flock birds they do as the flock does and he considers me and the dogs his flock.

The minute the dogs go off somewhere he calls them back inside and they obey him more than they do me.

Great story.

shadows

Xibalba's picture
Member since:
13 May 2004
Last activity:
2 years 10 weeks

A vatican source was heard to say:

That new Omen film is a pile of poo. We much preferred the one with Gregory Peck

...allegedly.

yer ol' pal,

Xibalba
(This post was brought to you by "Realm of the Dead")