Val
Is this you? Claim Profile »
10 hours ago
in My 2 Cents on Prop 8 and Gay Marriage . . . A Call for Strategic Activism on Jack and Jill Politics
Michelle -- virtual hugs.
What can we do to level the playing field? That is what I want to do. I want equality for all. I will stand with you and fight the same as I did for Obama.
Equal rights for couples under civil unions. No discrimination for anyone under any circumstances and repeal DOMA.
What can I/we do? Where do we begin because I don't know. Educate me. A new JJP post regarding actionable steps on this matter would be appreciated.
show all 3 replies
What can we do to level the playing field? That is what I want to do. I want equality for all. I will stand with you and fight the same as I did for Obama.
Equal rights for couples under civil unions. No discrimination for anyone under any circumstances and repeal DOMA.
What can I/we do? Where do we begin because I don't know. Educate me. A new JJP post regarding actionable steps on this matter would be appreciated.
3 replies
Michelle
Hi Val:
<a href="
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/11/my-2... another reply with actual idea/info -- I put it at the top of the thread
<a href="
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/11/my-2... another reply with actual idea/info -- I put it at the top of the thread
1 day ago
in My 2 Cents on Prop 8 and Gay Marriage . . . A Call for Strategic Activism on Jack and Jill Politics
Whiterosebuddy. I get what you are saying and you are on point. You are getting slammed when you don't deserve to be. You have written on this topic several times on several posts and not once did I read anything where you said you condemned homosexuality. You did provide the counter arguments to many points and if most would step back and look at it objectively would see it is very insightful.
We are fighting the wrong battle people. I understand that this is an emotional issue but you are missing the point. That is why this thing has gone on for so long. Just like the majority of Americans, Whiterosebuddy has repeatedly said she supports civil unions.
This is something we ALL/or most of us can support and isn't that the goal? Can't we all work to push through an agenda that ensures that couples in same sex relationships/civil unions get equal rights under the law? Can't we agree that DOMA is WRONG and it needs to be repealed or is it more important for everyone to say that they no longer believe marriage is between a man and a woman?
That is why this issue is at a stand still. We should be more focused on everyone using their energies, money and time into making sure equality is a moral imperative for gays and lesbians and that NONE of our laws discriminate in any way against any group.
Instead, the focus is on Whiterosebuddy and the fact that she pointed out that sexual conduct is a behavior (choice) and not who you are (genetic). You lost sight of the fact that she has consistently said she is willing to stand with you to support civil unions and that EVERYBODY deserves the same equal rights . . . . . this is one of the main reasons why this issue is still in stalemate . . . . . we are fighting the wrong battle.
Ya'll can bash me too but that is alright. I am grown and i'll take it for a little while. Because I have nothing but love for everyone here on JJP. Now when we decide to put our heads together and figure out a way to take this thing to another level (completely repeal DOMA, get the states behind Civil Unions and making sure it includes equal rights for all) let me know.
show all 3 replies
We are fighting the wrong battle people. I understand that this is an emotional issue but you are missing the point. That is why this thing has gone on for so long. Just like the majority of Americans, Whiterosebuddy has repeatedly said she supports civil unions.
This is something we ALL/or most of us can support and isn't that the goal? Can't we all work to push through an agenda that ensures that couples in same sex relationships/civil unions get equal rights under the law? Can't we agree that DOMA is WRONG and it needs to be repealed or is it more important for everyone to say that they no longer believe marriage is between a man and a woman?
That is why this issue is at a stand still. We should be more focused on everyone using their energies, money and time into making sure equality is a moral imperative for gays and lesbians and that NONE of our laws discriminate in any way against any group.
Instead, the focus is on Whiterosebuddy and the fact that she pointed out that sexual conduct is a behavior (choice) and not who you are (genetic). You lost sight of the fact that she has consistently said she is willing to stand with you to support civil unions and that EVERYBODY deserves the same equal rights . . . . . this is one of the main reasons why this issue is still in stalemate . . . . . we are fighting the wrong battle.
Ya'll can bash me too but that is alright. I am grown and i'll take it for a little while. Because I have nothing but love for everyone here on JJP. Now when we decide to put our heads together and figure out a way to take this thing to another level (completely repeal DOMA, get the states behind Civil Unions and making sure it includes equal rights for all) let me know.
3 replies
Michelle
This is a continuation of this thread of discussion starting here, below (moved up because it was at the point where comments start to be so skinny the squash words together):
Whiterosebuddy, you are writing as if everything I see is my imagination. Again you can try to frame it that way, since rhetoric is what you do and is not reality-grounded.
But it is true and not my imagination that you yourself publicly made an analogy that I quoted and will quote again:
Your first sexual encounter is no different from the first time you are offered drugs or liquor. You get to decide to engage in that conduct no matter what the gender of the individual is. The probability of that chance being equal is not the issue, the probability of what you choose to do is the issue. Everyone decides with equal chance whether to imbibe, inhale or fornicate. Conduct is always a choice.
and it is also true that your reply to me now included this statement:
It could have been your first taste of ice cream or your first slice of apple pie. The point was simply that when you try it you like it. It is PLEASURABLE not that as you choose to misconstrue it as some 'addictive/compulsive' behavior.
You may not understand how deeply horrific this experience and understanding of sex actually is in my eyes. You may not understand it because you feel it as normal and natural to comprehend and experience sex in this way.
To me, such a comprehension of sex is ... an abomination. Apparently I am very judgemental about this particular thing, which I didn't know before I got into this discussion.
And to me the abomination has two layers to it. The addiction one that you are currently backing off of is one of the layers. I think you are backing off of it because I shed light on how ugly it was and publicly embarrassed you to the point where you are backing off of it. I think that the most accurate comparison for you is in truth drugs and alcohol and along those lines.
This is not the first time you have used that analogy, to my memory -- and I continue to feel that as relevant even if you back off of it now that I have gotten into the implications.
BUT. Aside from that. I see another layer of this abomination that is -- I realize -- almost worse to me. In both your alcohol/drugs and your ice cream/pie/ metaphor, you are describing sex as an inanimate object, that an individual consumes for her or his pleasure. This is about what category sex is in in your eyes.
In your metaphor, there are two things: an individual, and some substance that the individual(s) are consuming for his/her pleasure. Those are the things that are in both your metaphors.
For me, sex is an a different category altogether. It is a form of interaction and communication between real beings. And this is true whether it is a one-time thing or part of a relationship over time, and whether it is negative or positive interaction/communication.
To me it is a form of interaction and communication between beings -- NOT individual ego consuming a THING for its own pleasure as if there is no one else who is really involved, or as if the other being involved is only another disconnected individual consuming for him/her self.
WRB, I can't adequately express to you the horror I feel to think about people treating sex with other beings as if it is something for them to consume for their own individual selves.
I recognize that this is in fact the dominant culture approach to things. I recognize that the fundamentalist hard-core anti-gay whack-jobs are just basically promoting an understanding of sex that is part and parcel of the larger European/Christian cultural system.
I just .. I haven't really come in personal contact with someone who so clearly promotes this view before now. You can engage in wordplay all you want, but I now have a sense of how you understand (and experience?) sex and it is to me a horrifically bleak and ugly and outright horrifically damaging way to understand it.
(I have clearly been sheltered in my life so far in terms of personal interactions and in-depth discussions about these things.)
Good, bad or somewhere in between, I have always understood and experienced sex as one form of interaction/communication between beings and not some consumable object for the individual egos involved.
I still think you backed off the addictive substances metaphor because you saw the implications from my comment and realized that you had revealed something that made you look bad.
But only you know that for sure. The truth is that whatever you do or don't say about that here or elsewhere, reality is reality and somewhere inside yourself you will have that sinking feeling of covering up secrets if that is what you are doing. Words on a blog don't make reality go away.
But in addition to the addiction issues, the underlying foundational category of your metaphor -- sex as consumable object for an individual -- is itself incredibly horrifying to me.
It amazes me that here we are in this discussion and I am supposed to be one of the ones who is "deviant" in a bad way because I have sex with a woman, and yet I find your category for sex to be such an abomination that it feels to me like the stuff of nightmares.
I look around and realize with deep gut-clarity now: oh no, THIS is the society I live in? Where people are treating sex like a consumable object? Where the Christian fundamentalists who are all freaky-repressed about sex and the capitalists who openly advocate for the individual consumption of the sex-object (in ads for example) are all united in their understanding of what this actually is even if they diverge on what do do about or with it?
And you know what, I see now how all this obsession with what gender the people are is in a marriage or union or whatever, all this angst over the suppose "gay agenda" functions to cover up this deeper festering sore in this society: the dominant cultural sickness related to sex, sex as object for the individual's consumption.
Some would advocate restraint in the consumption, others do not, but you're all in the same horrific disconnected consumption framework nonetheless.
To me, THAT is sick in itself, and I see -- finally I am getting this part of it -- I see how all this other stuff about the gender of who you have sex with serves to keep that actual festering sore from real critical scrutiny.
Whiterosebuddy, you are writing as if everything I see is my imagination. Again you can try to frame it that way, since rhetoric is what you do and is not reality-grounded.
But it is true and not my imagination that you yourself publicly made an analogy that I quoted and will quote again:
Your first sexual encounter is no different from the first time you are offered drugs or liquor. You get to decide to engage in that conduct no matter what the gender of the individual is. The probability of that chance being equal is not the issue, the probability of what you choose to do is the issue. Everyone decides with equal chance whether to imbibe, inhale or fornicate. Conduct is always a choice.
and it is also true that your reply to me now included this statement:
It could have been your first taste of ice cream or your first slice of apple pie. The point was simply that when you try it you like it. It is PLEASURABLE not that as you choose to misconstrue it as some 'addictive/compulsive' behavior.
You may not understand how deeply horrific this experience and understanding of sex actually is in my eyes. You may not understand it because you feel it as normal and natural to comprehend and experience sex in this way.
To me, such a comprehension of sex is ... an abomination. Apparently I am very judgemental about this particular thing, which I didn't know before I got into this discussion.
And to me the abomination has two layers to it. The addiction one that you are currently backing off of is one of the layers. I think you are backing off of it because I shed light on how ugly it was and publicly embarrassed you to the point where you are backing off of it. I think that the most accurate comparison for you is in truth drugs and alcohol and along those lines.
This is not the first time you have used that analogy, to my memory -- and I continue to feel that as relevant even if you back off of it now that I have gotten into the implications.
BUT. Aside from that. I see another layer of this abomination that is -- I realize -- almost worse to me. In both your alcohol/drugs and your ice cream/pie/ metaphor, you are describing sex as an inanimate object, that an individual consumes for her or his pleasure. This is about what category sex is in in your eyes.
In your metaphor, there are two things: an individual, and some substance that the individual(s) are consuming for his/her pleasure. Those are the things that are in both your metaphors.
For me, sex is an a different category altogether. It is a form of interaction and communication between real beings. And this is true whether it is a one-time thing or part of a relationship over time, and whether it is negative or positive interaction/communication.
To me it is a form of interaction and communication between beings -- NOT individual ego consuming a THING for its own pleasure as if there is no one else who is really involved, or as if the other being involved is only another disconnected individual consuming for him/her self.
WRB, I can't adequately express to you the horror I feel to think about people treating sex with other beings as if it is something for them to consume for their own individual selves.
I recognize that this is in fact the dominant culture approach to things. I recognize that the fundamentalist hard-core anti-gay whack-jobs are just basically promoting an understanding of sex that is part and parcel of the larger European/Christian cultural system.
I just .. I haven't really come in personal contact with someone who so clearly promotes this view before now. You can engage in wordplay all you want, but I now have a sense of how you understand (and experience?) sex and it is to me a horrifically bleak and ugly and outright horrifically damaging way to understand it.
(I have clearly been sheltered in my life so far in terms of personal interactions and in-depth discussions about these things.)
Good, bad or somewhere in between, I have always understood and experienced sex as one form of interaction/communication between beings and not some consumable object for the individual egos involved.
I still think you backed off the addictive substances metaphor because you saw the implications from my comment and realized that you had revealed something that made you look bad.
But only you know that for sure. The truth is that whatever you do or don't say about that here or elsewhere, reality is reality and somewhere inside yourself you will have that sinking feeling of covering up secrets if that is what you are doing. Words on a blog don't make reality go away.
But in addition to the addiction issues, the underlying foundational category of your metaphor -- sex as consumable object for an individual -- is itself incredibly horrifying to me.
It amazes me that here we are in this discussion and I am supposed to be one of the ones who is "deviant" in a bad way because I have sex with a woman, and yet I find your category for sex to be such an abomination that it feels to me like the stuff of nightmares.
I look around and realize with deep gut-clarity now: oh no, THIS is the society I live in? Where people are treating sex like a consumable object? Where the Christian fundamentalists who are all freaky-repressed about sex and the capitalists who openly advocate for the individual consumption of the sex-object (in ads for example) are all united in their understanding of what this actually is even if they diverge on what do do about or with it?
And you know what, I see now how all this obsession with what gender the people are is in a marriage or union or whatever, all this angst over the suppose "gay agenda" functions to cover up this deeper festering sore in this society: the dominant cultural sickness related to sex, sex as object for the individual's consumption.
Some would advocate restraint in the consumption, others do not, but you're all in the same horrific disconnected consumption framework nonetheless.
To me, THAT is sick in itself, and I see -- finally I am getting this part of it -- I see how all this other stuff about the gender of who you have sex with serves to keep that actual festering sore from real critical scrutiny.
Michelle
Val,
I was initially very interested in the possibility of working together on areas of shared agreement when this topic first came up including civil unions, which to me would be just fine and in fact preferable.
I engaged in deliberately calm discussion with whiterosebuddy when this topic first came up and was very glad to see this and other areas of shared agreement.
But something has shifted for me along the way. I can pinpoint right when it happened. It was when I decided to look into the initiative that passed in Arkansas (AP article here), which I find deeply and profoundly cruel.
I read the website of the group that promoted the initiative and tried to understand where they were coming from. I was sickened, actually.
I don't have or want children, myself. But to my surprise, the energy of such an initiative and the group promoting it affected me profoundly. To my eyes, they are cruel, Val. In a deep and serious and needless way -- cruel. Which to me raised the question: why? Why this ugly energy?
And during my previous discussion with whiterosebuddy, our place of disagreement was that whiterosebuddy believes that same-gender couples should not be allowed to raise children together. I didn't really understand what that meant at the time. I just didn't take in the actual bizarre cruelty of this stance until I started reading and thinking about and taking in some of the energy of the proponents of that initiative in Arkansas.
And in trying to understand the real source of the truly horrific energy coming from the Arkansas proponents whose website I read, I was particularly struck by one part of their website's FAQ.
2. Will this measure prevent single parent adoptions?
No. This law will not prevent single homosexuals or single heterosexuals from adopting children as long as they refrain from cohabiting. It will have no effect on adoptions that have already occurred.
3. Will this measure prevent single parent foster care?
This act will not prohibit single individuals from serving as foster parents as long as they refrain from cohabiting. It does prevent single cohabiting persons from serving as a foster parent. If a single person begins cohabiting after becoming a foster parent, they could be disqualified.
I would encourage everyone reading this to stop right there and think about this stance very carefully.
The proponents of this initiative would rather have single people raising adoptive or foster children than couples who are "co-habitating."
This was when I started to get that there was some pathology, deep pathology, here. Deep and serious pathology about sex that in my opinion is not going to be amenable to coalition "where can we agree" kind of dialogue and work together.
And then I have been and am watching the discussions here at JJP and seeing that the person who I initially sought areas of agreement with ... talks about sex in what I experience as a very creepy way. I know wrb probably does not have the same stance as that Arkansas group re: single parenting/foster parenting. But there are some patterns that connect for me nonetheless.
A comment very recently in this discussion here from whiterosebuddy states extremely clearly what I was seeing in somewhat less clear statements all along:
Your first sexual encounter is no different from the first time you are offered drugs or liquor. You get to decide to engage in that conduct no matter what the gender of the individual is. The probability of that chance being equal is not the issue, the probability of what you choose to do is the issue. Everyone decides with equal chance whether to imbibe, inhale or fornicate. Conduct is always a choice.
As far as I'm concerned, this statement comes from an individual who either experiences sex as compulsive and pathological, or has not actually had sex and is parroting other people/groups who have a pathological relationship with it.
To compare sex to addictive substances in such a way suggests to me that we are dealing with people/groups who have some sort of sex addiction, whether they are acting on it or not.
Now, I do understand that people struggle with compulsions and addictions, and that this is no reason to not try to work with them. But here's the problem, Val: my analysis of the situation at this point is that the hard-core anti-gay "politics" are coming largely from proponents' own irresponsible orientation to their own pathology.
My analysis at this point is that they have projected their own compulsive pathological relationship with sex onto other people -- they are falsely universalizing their own sickness -- and are using the power of an already sex-pathological, heterosexist/homophobic society to play out their own psychological issues in what I see as an abusive way.
What I see is that they are selfishly trying to deal with their own sick relationship with sex covering it under other things and by hurting other people.
Over and over in my life, I have learned that I have almost no tolerance for people and groups that run their own self-referential psychological dramas to the detriment of whatever might be productively accomplished.
I have seen a lot of this on the left (including white progressive and white feminist contexts) and I have seen it in personal situations as well. I have learned I don't have tolerance for this. It is self-referential, it is incredibly harmful and it is deeply deceptive because it hides the real situation under political-sounding rhetoric.
This psycho-drama-focus offends me very very strongly, on levels I would call spiritual and political, that go beyond any words I could use to express. On a more practical level, I have found that it is pretty much impossible for me to have any actual communication with people in this space. I just don't experience them as "sane" and for me communication becomes like trying to have a dialogue in a eerie distorted funhouse type thing, with all the crazy distorted mirrors.
And I also recognize -- very clearly -- that the gay marriage proponents are running their own version of ego-drama. I knew going into the discussions here at JJP that their approach offends me deeply as well.
But initially, I had not had enough exposure to the hard-core people on the other side to have any sense at all about the deep pathology they are carrying and seeking to deal with by projecting on others. I had no idea about their sick relationship to sex itself.
One layer of my unwillingness to work on areas of (seeming) shared agreement comes from the gut-level revulsion I have for those who would seek to cope with their own diseased relationship to sex by projecting it on others. If someone has such a sickness and is struggling honestly with it, that's ok with me. I might find it somewhat creepy on shallow levels, but if they take clear, honest and real responsibility for it, I think I could handle it.
But this denial of the illness and this related harm to other people out of the denial is ... I experience it as something approaching actual evil, Val. That is how deeply repulsed I am. What I find most repulsive is the deep dishonesty of this approach, and the cruelty of it as well.
So I myself personally -- and please know that I am speaking only for myself personally -- have come to the conclusion that I myself cannot have dialogue or work with with the hard-core people who to my eyes display this pathological relationship to sex and try to foist off the responsibility for their own illness onto others through inflicting harm under the guse of supposedly calm political stances.
I find the energy of this to be actually repulsive, and in actual practice I cannot remain open enough to truly be useful in dialogue and collaboration.
I am open to dialogue and collaboration with those who do not have this pathological relationship to sex underneath their claimed political or related stances.
And there may well be plenty of people who don't have an unhealthy relationship to sex but who, for various possible other reasons, are not in favor of same-gender marriage but are ok with civil unions or civil marriage.
(Although in full disclosure, it's also the case that this issue is not my top priority in terms of change for this country.)
I only speak for myself. It may be that others have more tolerance for the energy underneath this than I do and that they will be able to engage in useful collective efforts that I couldn't bear to be part of.
I was initially very interested in the possibility of working together on areas of shared agreement when this topic first came up including civil unions, which to me would be just fine and in fact preferable.
I engaged in deliberately calm discussion with whiterosebuddy when this topic first came up and was very glad to see this and other areas of shared agreement.
But something has shifted for me along the way. I can pinpoint right when it happened. It was when I decided to look into the initiative that passed in Arkansas (AP article here), which I find deeply and profoundly cruel.
I read the website of the group that promoted the initiative and tried to understand where they were coming from. I was sickened, actually.
I don't have or want children, myself. But to my surprise, the energy of such an initiative and the group promoting it affected me profoundly. To my eyes, they are cruel, Val. In a deep and serious and needless way -- cruel. Which to me raised the question: why? Why this ugly energy?
And during my previous discussion with whiterosebuddy, our place of disagreement was that whiterosebuddy believes that same-gender couples should not be allowed to raise children together. I didn't really understand what that meant at the time. I just didn't take in the actual bizarre cruelty of this stance until I started reading and thinking about and taking in some of the energy of the proponents of that initiative in Arkansas.
And in trying to understand the real source of the truly horrific energy coming from the Arkansas proponents whose website I read, I was particularly struck by one part of their website's FAQ.
2. Will this measure prevent single parent adoptions?
No. This law will not prevent single homosexuals or single heterosexuals from adopting children as long as they refrain from cohabiting. It will have no effect on adoptions that have already occurred.
3. Will this measure prevent single parent foster care?
This act will not prohibit single individuals from serving as foster parents as long as they refrain from cohabiting. It does prevent single cohabiting persons from serving as a foster parent. If a single person begins cohabiting after becoming a foster parent, they could be disqualified.
I would encourage everyone reading this to stop right there and think about this stance very carefully.
The proponents of this initiative would rather have single people raising adoptive or foster children than couples who are "co-habitating."
This was when I started to get that there was some pathology, deep pathology, here. Deep and serious pathology about sex that in my opinion is not going to be amenable to coalition "where can we agree" kind of dialogue and work together.
And then I have been and am watching the discussions here at JJP and seeing that the person who I initially sought areas of agreement with ... talks about sex in what I experience as a very creepy way. I know wrb probably does not have the same stance as that Arkansas group re: single parenting/foster parenting. But there are some patterns that connect for me nonetheless.
A comment very recently in this discussion here from whiterosebuddy states extremely clearly what I was seeing in somewhat less clear statements all along:
Your first sexual encounter is no different from the first time you are offered drugs or liquor. You get to decide to engage in that conduct no matter what the gender of the individual is. The probability of that chance being equal is not the issue, the probability of what you choose to do is the issue. Everyone decides with equal chance whether to imbibe, inhale or fornicate. Conduct is always a choice.
As far as I'm concerned, this statement comes from an individual who either experiences sex as compulsive and pathological, or has not actually had sex and is parroting other people/groups who have a pathological relationship with it.
To compare sex to addictive substances in such a way suggests to me that we are dealing with people/groups who have some sort of sex addiction, whether they are acting on it or not.
Now, I do understand that people struggle with compulsions and addictions, and that this is no reason to not try to work with them. But here's the problem, Val: my analysis of the situation at this point is that the hard-core anti-gay "politics" are coming largely from proponents' own irresponsible orientation to their own pathology.
My analysis at this point is that they have projected their own compulsive pathological relationship with sex onto other people -- they are falsely universalizing their own sickness -- and are using the power of an already sex-pathological, heterosexist/homophobic society to play out their own psychological issues in what I see as an abusive way.
What I see is that they are selfishly trying to deal with their own sick relationship with sex covering it under other things and by hurting other people.
Over and over in my life, I have learned that I have almost no tolerance for people and groups that run their own self-referential psychological dramas to the detriment of whatever might be productively accomplished.
I have seen a lot of this on the left (including white progressive and white feminist contexts) and I have seen it in personal situations as well. I have learned I don't have tolerance for this. It is self-referential, it is incredibly harmful and it is deeply deceptive because it hides the real situation under political-sounding rhetoric.
This psycho-drama-focus offends me very very strongly, on levels I would call spiritual and political, that go beyond any words I could use to express. On a more practical level, I have found that it is pretty much impossible for me to have any actual communication with people in this space. I just don't experience them as "sane" and for me communication becomes like trying to have a dialogue in a eerie distorted funhouse type thing, with all the crazy distorted mirrors.
And I also recognize -- very clearly -- that the gay marriage proponents are running their own version of ego-drama. I knew going into the discussions here at JJP that their approach offends me deeply as well.
But initially, I had not had enough exposure to the hard-core people on the other side to have any sense at all about the deep pathology they are carrying and seeking to deal with by projecting on others. I had no idea about their sick relationship to sex itself.
One layer of my unwillingness to work on areas of (seeming) shared agreement comes from the gut-level revulsion I have for those who would seek to cope with their own diseased relationship to sex by projecting it on others. If someone has such a sickness and is struggling honestly with it, that's ok with me. I might find it somewhat creepy on shallow levels, but if they take clear, honest and real responsibility for it, I think I could handle it.
But this denial of the illness and this related harm to other people out of the denial is ... I experience it as something approaching actual evil, Val. That is how deeply repulsed I am. What I find most repulsive is the deep dishonesty of this approach, and the cruelty of it as well.
So I myself personally -- and please know that I am speaking only for myself personally -- have come to the conclusion that I myself cannot have dialogue or work with with the hard-core people who to my eyes display this pathological relationship to sex and try to foist off the responsibility for their own illness onto others through inflicting harm under the guse of supposedly calm political stances.
I find the energy of this to be actually repulsive, and in actual practice I cannot remain open enough to truly be useful in dialogue and collaboration.
I am open to dialogue and collaboration with those who do not have this pathological relationship to sex underneath their claimed political or related stances.
And there may well be plenty of people who don't have an unhealthy relationship to sex but who, for various possible other reasons, are not in favor of same-gender marriage but are ok with civil unions or civil marriage.
(Although in full disclosure, it's also the case that this issue is not my top priority in terms of change for this country.)
I only speak for myself. It may be that others have more tolerance for the energy underneath this than I do and that they will be able to engage in useful collective efforts that I couldn't bear to be part of.
3 days ago
in I Have Questions About Gay Marriage on Jack and Jill Politics
You are so wrong about me Truthseeker. :-)
Truth - this is why I LOVE JJP and I appreciate our conversations.
Here's a personal story. I was raised in a religious household and I was raised knowing that sex before marriage was a sin. Period. It was in the scriptures, I read it , understood it and accepted it as truth (there are other sins but let me focus on this one as an example).
At 19 years old I chose to have sex knowing if I died that same day I would probably burn in hell or worse (not be accepted into the kingdom) because it was against the laws of Christ. But I made my choice, relished the experiences and I was fully aware of the cost of my decision. I enjoyed the physical acts and nothing and no one was out of bounds. I selected who I wanted to be involved with and when.
Did I expect my parents or anyone in the Church to approve of my choices? No, absolutely not but it wasn't their business it was my own. The responsibility was mine.
Did I expect for someone to pass laws to enforce the acceptance of those decisions by any religious group? No absolutely not. It was against everything in the scripture and against the teachings of God and the Christian faith. Besides, I didn't need their approval. Ultimately I was accountable to only one person and I was willing to accept the cost. Long story short, finally I made a personal choice to go back to my religion and stop what I was doing because I wanted to be in line with my faith.
So the moral of this story is what? If this decision is left up to the religious community Prop 8 will NEVER pass because it is against the laws. They are not allowed to be complicit and allow these things to happen otherwise they are held equally responsible and accountable for those actions.
So what do we do about Prop 8 -- Remove the word "marriage" from the equation as it is based on religious beliefs. Leave civil unions to the courts of each state and provide recipients of civil unions the same rights as those applied to ALL people under the laws of "marriage".
********************************************************************
You had some other great conversation starters. "I would like to see Christian women be silent and perfectly submissive to their husbands. I would like to see Christians not judge, lest they be judged. I would like to see you model your life according to 6th century beliefs, be one of many wives and put your child to death if he disobeys. I would like Christian men never to spill their seed...ever. I would like Christian women to forsake contraception and bring to term every pregnancy, included those that result from incest and rape. You know, ....a little consistency."
I think you are misinterpreting those scriptures :-) but we can save those for another time. Great points though and I appreciate the conversation.
Truth - this is why I LOVE JJP and I appreciate our conversations.
Here's a personal story. I was raised in a religious household and I was raised knowing that sex before marriage was a sin. Period. It was in the scriptures, I read it , understood it and accepted it as truth (there are other sins but let me focus on this one as an example).
At 19 years old I chose to have sex knowing if I died that same day I would probably burn in hell or worse (not be accepted into the kingdom) because it was against the laws of Christ. But I made my choice, relished the experiences and I was fully aware of the cost of my decision. I enjoyed the physical acts and nothing and no one was out of bounds. I selected who I wanted to be involved with and when.
Did I expect my parents or anyone in the Church to approve of my choices? No, absolutely not but it wasn't their business it was my own. The responsibility was mine.
Did I expect for someone to pass laws to enforce the acceptance of those decisions by any religious group? No absolutely not. It was against everything in the scripture and against the teachings of God and the Christian faith. Besides, I didn't need their approval. Ultimately I was accountable to only one person and I was willing to accept the cost. Long story short, finally I made a personal choice to go back to my religion and stop what I was doing because I wanted to be in line with my faith.
So the moral of this story is what? If this decision is left up to the religious community Prop 8 will NEVER pass because it is against the laws. They are not allowed to be complicit and allow these things to happen otherwise they are held equally responsible and accountable for those actions.
So what do we do about Prop 8 -- Remove the word "marriage" from the equation as it is based on religious beliefs. Leave civil unions to the courts of each state and provide recipients of civil unions the same rights as those applied to ALL people under the laws of "marriage".
********************************************************************
You had some other great conversation starters. "I would like to see Christian women be silent and perfectly submissive to their husbands. I would like to see Christians not judge, lest they be judged. I would like to see you model your life according to 6th century beliefs, be one of many wives and put your child to death if he disobeys. I would like Christian men never to spill their seed...ever. I would like Christian women to forsake contraception and bring to term every pregnancy, included those that result from incest and rape. You know, ....a little consistency."
I think you are misinterpreting those scriptures :-) but we can save those for another time. Great points though and I appreciate the conversation.
1 reply
CraigHickman
Where and in what words do the" laws of Christ" forbid premarital sex?
4 days ago
in Fighting Prop 8 Discrimination in CA on Jack and Jill Politics
All this religion bashing lately I have to step out and say let us put this in perspective. I am all for freedom of choice but as it relates to bashing religion in order to legitimize why homosexuality should be accepted by all to include the Church -- that is wrong.
Truth - you said "Religion is the racists last laugh." Why would you say that? Let us use Christianity as an example because there are many types of religion. Not everyone who proclaims that they are servants of God are of God. You can't change God to suit the situation because God does not change and He never will. He is the same God of yesterday, today and forever.
"Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets - Who in their preaching describe a broad way to heaven: it is their prophesying, their teaching the broad way, rather than their walking in it themselves, that is here chiefly spoken of. All those are false prophets, who teach any other way than that our Lord hath here marked out. In sheep's clothing - With outside religion and fair professions of love: Wolves - Not feeding, but destroying souls.
7:15-20 Nothing so much prevents men from entering the strait gate, and becoming true followers of Christ, as the carnal, soothing, flattering doctrines of those who oppose the truth. They may be known by the drift and effects of their doctrines. Some part of their temper and conduct is contrary to the mind of Christ. Those opinions come not from God that lead to sin.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
*********************************************************************************
We all come from God and are spiritual beings. Everyone has a right to make their own choices on how to live their lives and no one should stand in judgement except Christ himself but, you cannot expect someone to go against their religious beliefs and stigmatize them because of their faith because it is contrary to the decisions you have made.
Truth - you said "Religion is the racists last laugh." Why would you say that? Let us use Christianity as an example because there are many types of religion. Not everyone who proclaims that they are servants of God are of God. You can't change God to suit the situation because God does not change and He never will. He is the same God of yesterday, today and forever.
"Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets - Who in their preaching describe a broad way to heaven: it is their prophesying, their teaching the broad way, rather than their walking in it themselves, that is here chiefly spoken of. All those are false prophets, who teach any other way than that our Lord hath here marked out. In sheep's clothing - With outside religion and fair professions of love: Wolves - Not feeding, but destroying souls.
7:15-20 Nothing so much prevents men from entering the strait gate, and becoming true followers of Christ, as the carnal, soothing, flattering doctrines of those who oppose the truth. They may be known by the drift and effects of their doctrines. Some part of their temper and conduct is contrary to the mind of Christ. Those opinions come not from God that lead to sin.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
*********************************************************************************
We all come from God and are spiritual beings. Everyone has a right to make their own choices on how to live their lives and no one should stand in judgement except Christ himself but, you cannot expect someone to go against their religious beliefs and stigmatize them because of their faith because it is contrary to the decisions you have made.
- 2 points
- Jump to »
TruthSeeker
What was it you said?....your god gives the right that anyone can choose what they want, but take responsibility for the result...and not expect others who don't believe to "approve".
"Bashing" = disapproval.
It only feels like bashing because it's uncomfortable. Perhaps gays feel this same discomfort from your "disapproval".
All this religion bashing lately..That's like the Klan calling Jeremiah Wright a racist. One would think they wouldn't be so sensitive.
What was it you said?....your god gives the right that anyone can choose what they want, but take responsibility for the result...and not expect others who don't believe to "approve".
"Bashing" = disapproval.
It only feels like bashing because it's uncomfortable. Perhaps gays feel this same discomfort from your "disapproval".
TruthSeeker
Ironies abound with regard to African Americans and religion. We accepted the white man's god when we had nothing.
It was ironic that the white man used words from that god to justify our enslavement; but nevertheless, we found a way to make it sustain us through hard times. We really didn't have a choice...as our traditional religions were thought evil. We found inspiration in the pages of the bible - ideas that had been used by the Hebrew people to wage war on, enslave and oppress other tribes were used to help fuel the Civil rights movement, and win our rights...(promised land) another irony.
Then, it is ironic to see black preachers use the mechanisms of that same religion to control and re-enslave the sons and daughters of slaves. Reverend Wright - an educated man trained in the medical field - telling his flock that the government created aids, when he of all people should have known better. Wright instilled fear in a child-like congregation that trusted him to tell them the truth - the master and slave relationship...which is what Christianity is modeled after.
Another irony is black preachers counseling their flock to support conservative candidates, who were fundamentally racist, and who eventually were responsible for the economic decimation of the black community.
Tonight I watch Larry King...and there's another black reverend, pushing the story that gays are using the "N" word. Surely he knows this will create hatred between two very vulnerable groups that really ought to stand together. But, that doesn't stop him...he believes he has righteousness on his side, and he is drunk with power. He foolishly fights on the side of the Mormons...of all people - who hate us. He piously states there is "intolerance" in the gay rights movement...yet fails to see his own intolerance.
This is what I mean about the racist's last laugh. At a time when we are joyful over the election of Barack Obama. We have assisted in the taking away of rights from another vulnerable group. While all those whites were overcoming their fears enough to vote for a black man, we were not able to overcome our own prejudices. For the racist, religious whites who opposed Barack Obama, and told their flock not to vote for him.....this is a gift from heaven. They know that the seeds have been planted to help defeat any future black candidate. They know that when we next need other groups to stand with us...they might not. And the racists laugh.
Truth - you said "Religion is the racists last laugh." Why would you say that?
Ironies abound with regard to African Americans and religion. We accepted the white man's god when we had nothing.
It was ironic that the white man used words from that god to justify our enslavement; but nevertheless, we found a way to make it sustain us through hard times. We really didn't have a choice...as our traditional religions were thought evil. We found inspiration in the pages of the bible - ideas that had been used by the Hebrew people to wage war on, enslave and oppress other tribes were used to help fuel the Civil rights movement, and win our rights...(promised land) another irony.
Then, it is ironic to see black preachers use the mechanisms of that same religion to control and re-enslave the sons and daughters of slaves. Reverend Wright - an educated man trained in the medical field - telling his flock that the government created aids, when he of all people should have known better. Wright instilled fear in a child-like congregation that trusted him to tell them the truth - the master and slave relationship...which is what Christianity is modeled after.
Another irony is black preachers counseling their flock to support conservative candidates, who were fundamentally racist, and who eventually were responsible for the economic decimation of the black community.
Tonight I watch Larry King...and there's another black reverend, pushing the story that gays are using the "N" word. Surely he knows this will create hatred between two very vulnerable groups that really ought to stand together. But, that doesn't stop him...he believes he has righteousness on his side, and he is drunk with power. He foolishly fights on the side of the Mormons...of all people - who hate us. He piously states there is "intolerance" in the gay rights movement...yet fails to see his own intolerance.
This is what I mean about the racist's last laugh. At a time when we are joyful over the election of Barack Obama. We have assisted in the taking away of rights from another vulnerable group. While all those whites were overcoming their fears enough to vote for a black man, we were not able to overcome our own prejudices. For the racist, religious whites who opposed Barack Obama, and told their flock not to vote for him.....this is a gift from heaven. They know that the seeds have been planted to help defeat any future black candidate. They know that when we next need other groups to stand with us...they might not. And the racists laugh.
4 days ago
in I Have Questions About Gay Marriage on Jack and Jill Politics
"Now, the funny thing about religion, is that if anyone made Christians live according to the letter of their biblical law....their lives would quickly become unbearable. Yet, they want to make others who do not believe conform to that law."
I have been deliberately silent on this matter because I believe everyone has the right to make choices on how to live their lives and that God gives everyone freedom to choose. You can either choose to abide by His laws or not to. But you can't expect to go against His teachings and expect everyone who are believers in those teachings to approve of anything that is against those biblical teachings. It just doesn't work that way.
We all have choices. The bible says – “judge not lest thee be judged.”
We can decide to live however we want with whomever we want but with those decisions we should acknowledge that ultimately we have to accept responsibility for those personal choices and that is between the individual and God. So, it is not a matter of conformity. You can't expect a religion to ignore its teachings and approve of what they believe is against the laws of Christ.
I have been deliberately silent on this matter because I believe everyone has the right to make choices on how to live their lives and that God gives everyone freedom to choose. You can either choose to abide by His laws or not to. But you can't expect to go against His teachings and expect everyone who are believers in those teachings to approve of anything that is against those biblical teachings. It just doesn't work that way.
We all have choices. The bible says – “judge not lest thee be judged.”
We can decide to live however we want with whomever we want but with those decisions we should acknowledge that ultimately we have to accept responsibility for those personal choices and that is between the individual and God. So, it is not a matter of conformity. You can't expect a religion to ignore its teachings and approve of what they believe is against the laws of Christ.
- 2 points
- Jump to »
TruthSeeker
What I expect of believers is at minimum, to be consistent. I can't expect rationality, because fundamentally, the belief system is irrational.
For example, you say that your god "gives everyone freedom to choose", and "..we have to accept responsibility for those personal choices and that is between the individual and God." Here, you seem to suggest that your approval is irrelevant...it is only the approval of your god that matters. Logic would dictate, that if you truly believe what you say, you would not intervene in the making of those choices by proselytizing or by ballot. You would indeed allow your god to deal with, or approve of those choices as it felt fit.
However, you go on to say that I can't expect that believers will approve of things that go against biblical teachings. Somewhere along the line, you switched your belief from only your god's approval counts to your approval counts and should be acted upon. So I ask, who is the god here? And, do you really believe what you say you do, and if so - how strongly do you believe on a scale from one to ten?
Then you say "judge not lest thee be judged." - switching back to only your god's approval counts.
You go on to say that I can't expect religion to ignore it's teachings; however, it seems you have ignored your own teaching between paragraphs one and three. I am looking for consistency, at minimum.
I would like to see Christians live out their own teachings in their own lives. In fact, I would love to see a ballot initiative that supports this, to see how many Christians voted yea or nay.
I would like to see Christian women be silent and perfectly submissive to their husbands. I would like to see Christians not judge, lest they be judged. I would like to see you model your life according to 6th century beliefs, be one of many wives and put your child to death if he disobeys. I would like Christian men never to spill their seed...ever. I would like Christian women to forsake contraception and bring to term every pregnancy, included those that result from incest and rape. You know, ....a little consistency.
The secular world can observe you...and if you succeed and not utterly destroy yourselves - then and only then will we be in awe, and allow you to make decisions for the rest of us, based on your beliefs.
For example, you say that your god "gives everyone freedom to choose", and "..we have to accept responsibility for those personal choices and that is between the individual and God." Here, you seem to suggest that your approval is irrelevant...it is only the approval of your god that matters. Logic would dictate, that if you truly believe what you say, you would not intervene in the making of those choices by proselytizing or by ballot. You would indeed allow your god to deal with, or approve of those choices as it felt fit.
However, you go on to say that I can't expect that believers will approve of things that go against biblical teachings. Somewhere along the line, you switched your belief from only your god's approval counts to your approval counts and should be acted upon. So I ask, who is the god here? And, do you really believe what you say you do, and if so - how strongly do you believe on a scale from one to ten?
Then you say "judge not lest thee be judged." - switching back to only your god's approval counts.
You go on to say that I can't expect religion to ignore it's teachings; however, it seems you have ignored your own teaching between paragraphs one and three. I am looking for consistency, at minimum.
I would like to see Christians live out their own teachings in their own lives. In fact, I would love to see a ballot initiative that supports this, to see how many Christians voted yea or nay.
I would like to see Christian women be silent and perfectly submissive to their husbands. I would like to see Christians not judge, lest they be judged. I would like to see you model your life according to 6th century beliefs, be one of many wives and put your child to death if he disobeys. I would like Christian men never to spill their seed...ever. I would like Christian women to forsake contraception and bring to term every pregnancy, included those that result from incest and rape. You know, ....a little consistency.
The secular world can observe you...and if you succeed and not utterly destroy yourselves - then and only then will we be in awe, and allow you to make decisions for the rest of us, based on your beliefs.
4 days ago
in I Have Questions About Gay Marriage on Jack and Jill Politics
"Most folks skip a ceremony at church because it doesn't mean much, even for those who are religious."
Not true. There is a spiritual component associated with a ceremony at a church. It connects you to the religious aspect of the sanctity of marriage and all it stands for as it relates to the teachings in the bible.
Not true. There is a spiritual component associated with a ceremony at a church. It connects you to the religious aspect of the sanctity of marriage and all it stands for as it relates to the teachings in the bible.
2 replies
jamie d
I believe he was specifically talking about the way things are done in the Netherlands. People there who want that connection to biblical sanctity and community traditions are allowed to have it , but that's not what legally defines marriage.
CraigHickman
Val, what I said about Christians in the Netherlands is true.
4 days ago
in Friday Open Thread on Jack and Jill Politics
msmartin - I don't think that will happen. Too many qualified people are able to fit the bill. I say she should get a position that deals with Education or Health.
1 reply
Rhondacoca
Exactly!
4 days ago
in Friday Open Thread on Jack and Jill Politics
it is because of the millions of people who will be out of a job D. Can't afford to do nothing for the Auto industry. Tag on some stipulations before helping. I am for that.
1 reply
D.
But what would bailing them out do? Put them on life support until their all-but-inevitable collapse? The American auto industry hasn't been competitive in years.
Besides, wouldn't we pay just as much-if not less-in dealing with the unemployed workers than we would trying to save an industry that's well on it's way to death?
I feel for the workers who would lose their jobs, but that can't (shouldn't?) be a criteria as to who the government steps in to help.
Besides, wouldn't we pay just as much-if not less-in dealing with the unemployed workers than we would trying to save an industry that's well on it's way to death?
I feel for the workers who would lose their jobs, but that can't (shouldn't?) be a criteria as to who the government steps in to help.
6 days ago
in Kick Lieberman to the Curb on Jack and Jill Politics
or " I would like Lieberman to stay" could mean Obama wants him to stay.
lol
lol
1 reply
whiterosebuddy
Naw, not after Obama backed in up against the wall in the well of the Senate during the primaries after Lieberman told those lies about Obama's position on the war.
Obama knows how to say the right thing and then he sends Rahm to finish the mess and wrap it up all nice and neat Chicago style.
Obama knows how to say the right thing and then he sends Rahm to finish the mess and wrap it up all nice and neat Chicago style.
6 days ago
in Wednesday Open Thread on Jack and Jill Politics
"The only thing that has ever come out of SnoHo's mouth is a sentence to nowhere"
lol
lol
1 reply
spirit_55z
Check out the video of First Dude in Minnesota last month.
MINNESOTA INDEPENDENT
‘First dude’ and absent Sarah upstage Norm at Duluth Sportsmen for Coleman rally
By Paul Demko 10/16/08 7:27 PM
Then came Todd Palin, who spoke for all of two minutes or so and lived up to his growing stump reputation as a man of few words and even fewer memorable ones. Here are a few I remember because I wrote them down: “I feel right at home here in Minnesota.”
Sounding a little like a utility infielder on a World Series team, Palin added, “I’m just glad to be a part of the McCain/Palin ticket and help out wherever I can.” (”Part of the ticket.” Just imagine the furor if Michelle Obama pronounced herself “part of the ticket.”)
Duh?!!!
For more:
http://minnesotaindependent.com/13461/first-dud...
MINNESOTA INDEPENDENT
‘First dude’ and absent Sarah upstage Norm at Duluth Sportsmen for Coleman rally
By Paul Demko 10/16/08 7:27 PM
Then came Todd Palin, who spoke for all of two minutes or so and lived up to his growing stump reputation as a man of few words and even fewer memorable ones. Here are a few I remember because I wrote them down: “I feel right at home here in Minnesota.”
Sounding a little like a utility infielder on a World Series team, Palin added, “I’m just glad to be a part of the McCain/Palin ticket and help out wherever I can.” (”Part of the ticket.” Just imagine the furor if Michelle Obama pronounced herself “part of the ticket.”)
Duh?!!!
For more:
http://minnesotaindependent.com/13461/first-dud...
Here
is another reply with actual idea/info -- I put it at the top of the thread.
(posting it again bc the first attempt didn't quite work)