Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Happy Ninth Anniversary!
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Dänk 42Ø
May 19, 2013, 11:34:11 PM5/19/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:45:50 +0000, quack:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:04:45 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "BeeSting Alergy" <bees...@harvard.edu> wrote in
>>> news:xn0ii7rfl4s3lhc006 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> >> Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S. 05/17/2013
>>> >
>>> > "Happy", sometimes, yes - other times, no. "9th Anni" - sure.
>>> >
>>> > Marriage is a day to day struggle for straight couples. The pressure
>>> > on homosexuals has to be a little more.
>>> >
>>> > Just a little, wouldn't you say?
>>> >
>>> >> Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage
>>> >> nine years ago on Friday, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
>>> >> Court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits
>>> >> and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of
>>> >> the same sex who wish to marry."
>>> >
>>> > Is it such a strech that Massachusetts was the first?
>>> >
>>> > I mean, isn't this the same state that housed Ted "Mary Jo" Kennedy
>>> > (circa 1960's) & Dhokar/Tamerlan Tsarnaev (circa NOW)?
>>>
>>> Also the state that elected Scott Brown
>>> and Mitt Romney. How very liberal of them.
>>
>> OK, OK -- mine was a cheap shot. Fact is, the genie is already out of
>> the bottle when it comes to gay marriage. But the fear is -- that NYU
>> professor chatting up polygamy.
>>
>> Two questions (one repeat) -- why are you so hung up on gay marriage,
>> Mitch? Is legalized polygamy ok with you?
>>
>> Just asking.
>
> I have no problem with polygamy as long as they're all consenting
> adults.
>
> Why do you?
Same-sex marriage advocates insulted polygamy during the Proposition 8
campaign, calling it "offensive" that gay marriage should be compared to
it, and poo-poohing suggestions that legalization of one would lead to
legalization of the other. (Rather like the "medical" marijuana debate,
with proponents dismissing suggestions that legalization of pot for
terminal cancer patients would lead to half the people in California
getting prescriptions for it for "back pain," baldness, etc.)
During the Prop. 8 protest rally I attended in San Francisco on 15 Nov
2008, I saw many placards insulting the Mormon cult for its practice of
polygamy in the past (e.g. "You have TWO wives, why can't I have ONE
husband?).*
Of course, the "mainstream" LDS Mormon faction officially renounced
polygamy in 1890, as a condition for Congress granting statehood to Ut*h.
This led to a theological schism, with the "heretical" polygamous FLDS
sect splitting off, and which still continues to practice polygamy today.
Due to the collapse of the California economy, I currently occupy space
in Southern Ut*h, and regularly encounter polygamists while shopping.
(The men and boys always wear button-down long-sleeved shirts and jeans
-- even when performing manual labor in sweltering heat -- and the women
and girls always wear 19th-century style prairie dresses.)
The heretical FLDS sect is viciously persecuted by the mainstream LDS
sect, though attempts to enforce the state "bigamy" law ended after a
bloody confrontation in the 1950s. Members of the FLDS are suing to have
the anti-polygamy law overturned by the courts, cleverly using "Lawrence
v. Texas" (the SCOTUS ruling that said that anti-sodomy laws were
unconstitutional) in their legal argument. If this approach fails, they
will certainly be able to use the inevitable SCOTUS ruling against
heterosexual-only marriage laws.
Gay marriage advocates COULD have found a useful ally in Mormon FLDS
polygamists, but they chose to insult them instead. And the reason the
"mainstream" LDS sect is so hellbent on stopping same-sex marriage is
because they know that it will set a precedent for legalization of
polygamy!
The LDS' moral authority over the FLDS stems from the fact that polygamy
is ILLEGAL. Legalize polygamy, and the moral authority vanishes, with
FLDS followers permitted to participate in "mainstream" Ut*h society and
politics. The LDS is less concerned about homosexuality and much more
concerned with preventing a heretical rival sect from gaining influence
in Ut*h -- and this is why it spent so much money supporting Proposition
8 in California.
*
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/20081115190709.jpg/
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:04:45 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "BeeSting Alergy" <bees...@harvard.edu> wrote in
>>> news:xn0ii7rfl4s3lhc006 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> >> Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S. 05/17/2013
>>> >
>>> > "Happy", sometimes, yes - other times, no. "9th Anni" - sure.
>>> >
>>> > Marriage is a day to day struggle for straight couples. The pressure
>>> > on homosexuals has to be a little more.
>>> >
>>> > Just a little, wouldn't you say?
>>> >
>>> >> Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage
>>> >> nine years ago on Friday, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
>>> >> Court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits
>>> >> and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of
>>> >> the same sex who wish to marry."
>>> >
>>> > Is it such a strech that Massachusetts was the first?
>>> >
>>> > I mean, isn't this the same state that housed Ted "Mary Jo" Kennedy
>>> > (circa 1960's) & Dhokar/Tamerlan Tsarnaev (circa NOW)?
>>>
>>> Also the state that elected Scott Brown
>>> and Mitt Romney. How very liberal of them.
>>
>> OK, OK -- mine was a cheap shot. Fact is, the genie is already out of
>> the bottle when it comes to gay marriage. But the fear is -- that NYU
>> professor chatting up polygamy.
>>
>> Two questions (one repeat) -- why are you so hung up on gay marriage,
>> Mitch? Is legalized polygamy ok with you?
>>
>> Just asking.
>
> I have no problem with polygamy as long as they're all consenting
> adults.
>
> Why do you?
Same-sex marriage advocates insulted polygamy during the Proposition 8
campaign, calling it "offensive" that gay marriage should be compared to
it, and poo-poohing suggestions that legalization of one would lead to
legalization of the other. (Rather like the "medical" marijuana debate,
with proponents dismissing suggestions that legalization of pot for
terminal cancer patients would lead to half the people in California
getting prescriptions for it for "back pain," baldness, etc.)
During the Prop. 8 protest rally I attended in San Francisco on 15 Nov
2008, I saw many placards insulting the Mormon cult for its practice of
polygamy in the past (e.g. "You have TWO wives, why can't I have ONE
husband?).*
Of course, the "mainstream" LDS Mormon faction officially renounced
polygamy in 1890, as a condition for Congress granting statehood to Ut*h.
This led to a theological schism, with the "heretical" polygamous FLDS
sect splitting off, and which still continues to practice polygamy today.
Due to the collapse of the California economy, I currently occupy space
in Southern Ut*h, and regularly encounter polygamists while shopping.
(The men and boys always wear button-down long-sleeved shirts and jeans
-- even when performing manual labor in sweltering heat -- and the women
and girls always wear 19th-century style prairie dresses.)
The heretical FLDS sect is viciously persecuted by the mainstream LDS
sect, though attempts to enforce the state "bigamy" law ended after a
bloody confrontation in the 1950s. Members of the FLDS are suing to have
the anti-polygamy law overturned by the courts, cleverly using "Lawrence
v. Texas" (the SCOTUS ruling that said that anti-sodomy laws were
unconstitutional) in their legal argument. If this approach fails, they
will certainly be able to use the inevitable SCOTUS ruling against
heterosexual-only marriage laws.
Gay marriage advocates COULD have found a useful ally in Mormon FLDS
polygamists, but they chose to insult them instead. And the reason the
"mainstream" LDS sect is so hellbent on stopping same-sex marriage is
because they know that it will set a precedent for legalization of
polygamy!
The LDS' moral authority over the FLDS stems from the fact that polygamy
is ILLEGAL. Legalize polygamy, and the moral authority vanishes, with
FLDS followers permitted to participate in "mainstream" Ut*h society and
politics. The LDS is less concerned about homosexuality and much more
concerned with preventing a heretical rival sect from gaining influence
in Ut*h -- and this is why it spent so much money supporting Proposition
8 in California.
*
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/20081115190709.jpg/
Dänk 42Ø
May 21, 2013, 2:33:22 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:30:06 +0000, quack:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:21:20 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>>> You do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages,
>>> right?
>>
>> Nobody noticed my previous response to this thread, where I described
>> how same-sex marriage advocates alienated a potential ally in
>> polygamous Mormons by insulting their lifestyle, calling it "offensive"
>> to compare same-sex marriage (an idea that has been around for ten
>> years) to polygamy (a custom that has existed since the dawn of time).
>
> I'm a bit picky about my allies. The LDS Church does not respect
> separation of church and state, justified in part by past history, but
> hypocritical nonetheless.
If by separation of church and state you mean the Mormon church's
promotion of Proposition 8, it seems no more egregious than the Methodist
church's promotion of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, or the United
Church of Christ's (Obama's own denomination) vocal support for or
opposition to a long list of secular political issues.*
>> The "mainstream" Mormon (LDS) sect officially renounced polygamy in
>> 1890,
>> as a condition for Utah statehood. The rival FLDS sect continues to
>> practice polygamy, and is harshly persecuted by the LDS.
>>
>> The moral authority of the LDS over its heretical rival stems from the
>> fact that polygamy is ILLEGAL. The LDS fears that legalization of
>> same- sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy, which is why
>> it was so active in the Proposition 8 campaign.
>>
>> After Prop. 8 passed, gay activists lashed out at the LDS, insulting
>> its abolished practice of polygamy. This, along with having alienated
>> potential FLDS allies, played right into the hands of the LDS. This is
>> why even though I am gay myself, I have nothing but contempt for the
>> stupidity and bleating leftardation of other American gays.
>>
>> In fact, I voted *FOR* Prop. 8, since they insisted on linking it so
>> strongly with the Obama campaign, again shooting themselves in the foot
>> by alienating a potential ally. Ironically, the African-Americans that
>> white liberals encouraged to register and vote wound up voting for
>> Prop. 8, their numbers exceeding the total number of Mormon voters.
>
> Sheer nonsense.
Is that statement Gospel Truth bleated by Rachel Bladdow, or just a
personal anecdote?**
*
http://archive.wfn.org/2007/08/msg00330.html
"Two agencies of The United Methodist Church have joined 24 other
religious groups urging Congress to authorize the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to regulate tobacco products. The Commission on United
Methodist Men and the United Methodist Board of Church and Society are
urging a congressional subcommittee to back the Family Smoking Prevention
and Tobacco Control Act."
http://www.ucc.org/justice/jpanet.html
"As people of faith and hope, we are called to take care of God's
Creation and to cry out against environmental injustice. Tell President
Obama: 'Say No to the Keystone XL Pipeline.'"
**
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
"Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn
the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage,
according to exit polls for The Associated Press."
***
[My own "anecdote" of a photo I took at the Prop. 8 protest rally in San
Francisco on 15 Nov 2008]:
http://imageshack.us/f/822/20081115190709.jpg/
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:21:20 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>
>>> You do know that many old Testament prophets had polygamous marriages,
>>> right?
>>
>> Nobody noticed my previous response to this thread, where I described
>> how same-sex marriage advocates alienated a potential ally in
>> polygamous Mormons by insulting their lifestyle, calling it "offensive"
>> to compare same-sex marriage (an idea that has been around for ten
>> years) to polygamy (a custom that has existed since the dawn of time).
>
> I'm a bit picky about my allies. The LDS Church does not respect
> separation of church and state, justified in part by past history, but
> hypocritical nonetheless.
If by separation of church and state you mean the Mormon church's
promotion of Proposition 8, it seems no more egregious than the Methodist
church's promotion of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, or the United
Church of Christ's (Obama's own denomination) vocal support for or
opposition to a long list of secular political issues.*
>> The "mainstream" Mormon (LDS) sect officially renounced polygamy in
>> 1890,
>> as a condition for Utah statehood. The rival FLDS sect continues to
>> practice polygamy, and is harshly persecuted by the LDS.
>>
>> The moral authority of the LDS over its heretical rival stems from the
>> fact that polygamy is ILLEGAL. The LDS fears that legalization of
>> same- sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy, which is why
>> it was so active in the Proposition 8 campaign.
>>
>> After Prop. 8 passed, gay activists lashed out at the LDS, insulting
>> its abolished practice of polygamy. This, along with having alienated
>> potential FLDS allies, played right into the hands of the LDS. This is
>> why even though I am gay myself, I have nothing but contempt for the
>> stupidity and bleating leftardation of other American gays.
>>
>> In fact, I voted *FOR* Prop. 8, since they insisted on linking it so
>> strongly with the Obama campaign, again shooting themselves in the foot
>> by alienating a potential ally. Ironically, the African-Americans that
>> white liberals encouraged to register and vote wound up voting for
>> Prop. 8, their numbers exceeding the total number of Mormon voters.
>
> Sheer nonsense.
Is that statement Gospel Truth bleated by Rachel Bladdow, or just a
personal anecdote?**
*
http://archive.wfn.org/2007/08/msg00330.html
"Two agencies of The United Methodist Church have joined 24 other
religious groups urging Congress to authorize the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to regulate tobacco products. The Commission on United
Methodist Men and the United Methodist Board of Church and Society are
urging a congressional subcommittee to back the Family Smoking Prevention
and Tobacco Control Act."
http://www.ucc.org/justice/jpanet.html
"As people of faith and hope, we are called to take care of God's
Creation and to cry out against environmental injustice. Tell President
Obama: 'Say No to the Keystone XL Pipeline.'"
**
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
"Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn
the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage,
according to exit polls for The Associated Press."
***
[My own "anecdote" of a photo I took at the Prop. 8 protest rally in San
Francisco on 15 Nov 2008]:
http://imageshack.us/f/822/20081115190709.jpg/
Zepp
May 21, 2013, 3:12:27 PM5/21/13
to
Dänk 42Ø
May 22, 2013, 1:24:27 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 02:54:39 +0000, quack:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:31:29 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
>> quack:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:57:49 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>>>
>>> > quack:
>>> >
>>> > DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT "alt.dev.null" WOULD SAVE YOU? YOU ARE SO
>>> > STUPID.
>>> >
>>> > LOL
>>>
>>> I see you still try to redirect everything to alt.fan.***-********
>>> I'm just returning the favour.
>>
>> Dumbass, don't you know that one of the three newsgroups you post to IS
>> alt.fan.***-********
>>
>> Are you really that stupid?
>
> 'Course I know, bubbles. It's the third most important of the ones I
> post to.
>>
>> <*snips with benefits*>
>>
>> Since I know you're too much of a coward to reply to what was snipped,
>> why not grow a spine and reply to the below, David?
>>
>> LOL
>
> I snipped nothing, bubbles. Perhaps you did.
>>
>> ======================
>> What is your problem with it (polygamy? You do know that many old
>> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
>> and run/hide.
>>
> I offered examples of situations where polygamy was commonplace.
I've noticed that you avoid my question of why you are defending polygamy
when leftists denounce as "offensive" suggestions that legalization of
same-sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy. Your position
is not only contradictory, but counter-revolutionary. Off to the re-
education camp, comrade!
I do realize that they were simply trying to allay public fears regarding
the issue, but the fact is that they INSULTED polygamists, alienating a
group which would have been a natural ally. Even The Oprah has been
waging a crusade against Mormon polygamists (possibly upset that some men
have ten wives while she can't find a single man to marry her despite her
fabulous wealth).
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/A-giant-step-backward-for-
women-2543506.php
"Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign, which supports same-sex
marriage, finds any linkage of polygamy to same-sex marriage 'offensive.'"
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:31:29 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
>> quack:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:57:49 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>>>
>>> > quack:
>>> >
>>> > DID YOU REALLY THINK THAT "alt.dev.null" WOULD SAVE YOU? YOU ARE SO
>>> > STUPID.
>>> >
>>> > LOL
>>>
>>> I see you still try to redirect everything to alt.fan.***-********
>>> I'm just returning the favour.
>>
>> Dumbass, don't you know that one of the three newsgroups you post to IS
>> alt.fan.***-********
>>
>> Are you really that stupid?
>
> 'Course I know, bubbles. It's the third most important of the ones I
> post to.
>>
>> <*snips with benefits*>
>>
>> Since I know you're too much of a coward to reply to what was snipped,
>> why not grow a spine and reply to the below, David?
>>
>> LOL
>
> I snipped nothing, bubbles. Perhaps you did.
>>
>> ======================
>> What is your problem with it (polygamy? You do know that many old
>> Testament prophets had polygamous marriages, right?
>>
>> "Hawaii BEFORE the "Christians" and now, "The Old Testament". You're
>>
>> getting killed in this thread, dimwit -- time to do what you always do
>> and run/hide.
>>
> I offered examples of situations where polygamy was commonplace.
I've noticed that you avoid my question of why you are defending polygamy
when leftists denounce as "offensive" suggestions that legalization of
same-sex marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy. Your position
is not only contradictory, but counter-revolutionary. Off to the re-
education camp, comrade!
I do realize that they were simply trying to allay public fears regarding
the issue, but the fact is that they INSULTED polygamists, alienating a
group which would have been a natural ally. Even The Oprah has been
waging a crusade against Mormon polygamists (possibly upset that some men
have ten wives while she can't find a single man to marry her despite her
fabulous wealth).
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/A-giant-step-backward-for-
women-2543506.php
"Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign, which supports same-sex
marriage, finds any linkage of polygamy to same-sex marriage 'offensive.'"
Dänk 42Ø
May 23, 2013, 1:32:10 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:44:51 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell quack to
> "go back to Africa"? lol
I've heard stories about whites from South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. who
immigrated to the USA and became citizens, and when they applied for jobs
or university their attempt to mark their "race" as "African-American"
was rejected and denounced as "offensive" and "racist."
Like the United States of America, a significant percentage of South
Africa's population is descended from immigrants, including Europeans,
Indians, and Asians -- who live alongside with the "Natives" whose land
their ancestors allegedly stole. The difference is that it is taboo to
describe a South African citizen of Chinese descent as "African," while
describing an American citizen of Chinese descent as "American" is not
just acceptable but mandatory.
Taking this idea a step further, consider that Arab countries like Egypt
and Libya are technically part of the African continent, but describing
their citizens as "African" is taboo among lily-white Western liberals.
In the eyes of lily-white liberals (who claim to never see color or
race), "African" means one of those smelly dark-skinned Ethernopians
covered with flies they see on teevee. A persun of European, Asian or
Arab descent born and raised on the continent of Africa can NEVER be
"African." This idea is inherently racist in itself.
> Would it be "racist" for me to tell quack to
> "go back to Africa"? lol
I've heard stories about whites from South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. who
immigrated to the USA and became citizens, and when they applied for jobs
or university their attempt to mark their "race" as "African-American"
was rejected and denounced as "offensive" and "racist."
Like the United States of America, a significant percentage of South
Africa's population is descended from immigrants, including Europeans,
Indians, and Asians -- who live alongside with the "Natives" whose land
their ancestors allegedly stole. The difference is that it is taboo to
describe a South African citizen of Chinese descent as "African," while
describing an American citizen of Chinese descent as "American" is not
just acceptable but mandatory.
Taking this idea a step further, consider that Arab countries like Egypt
and Libya are technically part of the African continent, but describing
their citizens as "African" is taboo among lily-white Western liberals.
In the eyes of lily-white liberals (who claim to never see color or
race), "African" means one of those smelly dark-skinned Ethernopians
covered with flies they see on teevee. A persun of European, Asian or
Arab descent born and raised on the continent of Africa can NEVER be
"African." This idea is inherently racist in itself.
0 new messages