(no subject)
P.S. (added to the beginning... yeah, I'm weird like that)
Todd just got home and handed me a postcard from my Auntie Gorgeous! YAY! She got over her fear of flying and is vacationing in ITALY! I'm so jealous.... and so happy I got a postcard from her that it made me tear up. She's got 23 other nieces and nephews and she sent me a postcard. That makes me feel super-duper special. YAY! :-)
Then again, she's always been one of my favoritest relatives, along with her daughter Crystal... I guess because we're the spiritual (rather than religious) black sheep of the family.
Just my Prop. 8 rant.
No need to read further.
Yeah, ok, so I fell prey to the curiosity again and read some of the updated stuff on DC. It's actually been really, really amusing just lurking and seeing the fucktards continuously talking themselves in circles. I have to say that they have some serious balls talking to Sugar the way they do sometimes. Not only is she a moderator so a smart person would at least be polite, but she's just one of those people that *usually* has the respect of others instantly since she's definitely earned it, and as you learn more about her, you know why she's earned it. She just has that kind of aura. But then she knows she's awesome and totally fawking rocks, so I don't need to inflate her ego any further. ;-)~
Anywho, the new argument within the gay marriage thing is bi-racial marriages, pedophilia/lowering the age of consent/adulthood (?) and bestiality (or however the fuck you spell it.) How the argument turned from 2 consenting adults wanting to legalize their union to fucking kids and dogs I have no clue, but it did. You'd think with my brain going from track A to track H to track Y back to track B, C, D, then track M and N.... that I would be able to understand the progression of the argument, but I really don't get it this time.
The only thing I can think of is because most Christians see homosexuals as nothing more than perverts that want to fuck everything but members of the opposite sex.
Ironically enough, the most perverted people I know, are SO not gay... and I know some questionable people. :-/
Since the "age of consent" issue was brought up, I got curious and decided to look up the definitions of a few words. Words like adult, marriage, age of consent, etc. I read wikipedia, Webster's online dictionary, dictionary.reference.com, and a few others' definitions, and I was quite surprised to read wikipedia's definition of an adult. The Jews say adulthood starts at 13 with their bar/bat mitzvah's, but I already knew that. Even so, they are still not legal (US) adults until the age of 18. Physical adulthood isn't even achieved until age 19-21 when the body stops growing and developing. But I knew that too.
What really surprised me was this:
"The Christian Bible and Jewish scripture has no age requirement for adulthood or marrying, which includes engaging in sexual activity. According toThe Disappearance of Childhood by Neil Postman, the Christian Church of the Middle Ages considered the age of accountability, when a person could be tried and even executed as an adult, to be age 7."
If we were to go by that, my son would be considered an adult.
He's in 2nd grade. He barely has an idea of what marriage is yet. Hell! He hasn't even learned how to write in cursive yet!
Obviously, we as the human race have come quite a looooooong way since then (thankfully! I'd be hung just for being a female with an opinion!)
Here's the thing tho...
Having been raised very very Christian (up until the age of 8 anyway and then getting kicked out of Sunday School and Youth Group for asking too many questions up to the age of 14ish) I can completely understand the religious perspective.
Marriage, matrimony, to be united in wedlock is between one man and one woman. Period. Marriage itself was created to unite a man and a woman, under whichever god they worshiped, in order for them to fuck with God's ok and establish a family. I've heard that the original meaning of the word "fuck" was "Fornication Under Consent of the King." Basically a sign on one's door announcing that they were getting busy doing the nasty, and they were allowed because they had the king's consent as well as God's consent.
I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever.
HOWEVER, the US government is not supposed to be ruled by any religion. If it were, it would totally and completely defeat the purpose of freedom of religion; the very 1st amendment to the US Constitution. Granted the US was founded based on Christian principals, and regardless if Christianity is the most popular religion right now, not all US citizens are Christian (and not all Christians are US citizens.) But if a law is applied and is based solely on a Christian religion, how does that allow for equality? Isn't equality of its citizens one of the basic principals of the US anyhow?
Therefore, why can't gays have their legal civil union?
Here's the thing... I know quite a few people that have gotten "married" outside the church. Their union is pretty much automatically recognized by both the state and "everybody" because they're heterosexual couples.
I know one couple that had a "wedding ceremony" without ever having a legal union. Thing is, nobody really considered them actually "married" because neither of them ever signed any papers legalizing their union. The most they did was sign both their names on the lease to their apartment, and you can do that with just about anyone. When they broke up, it wasn't any messier than it would have been had they never had their "ceremony."
The irony... as far as the "church" is concerned, they were married because they had their ceremony and were a heterosexual couple. As far as the government was concerned, they were 2 people playing house, never married, and only had their personals and an apartment lease to deal with. Thank the gods they didn't have kids. It's just too bad P.B.Dave did father a son later on with yet another psychohosebeast... then again he's not exactly playing with a full deck either.
In the end it's all about fucking tax breaks, next of kin and legal issues (many concerning equality.) Seriously! That's all it is. Take the religious part completely out of it and legally that's ALL "marriage" is.
The biggest issue I see with all this shit is that people are generally unable to take the emotion out of things and look at it from a purely legal and logical perspective... because... well... religion isn't exactly "logical." It's faith, and faith isn't exactly logical. It's emotionally based.
Unfortunately, my brain simply cannot comprehend having faith in a religion that is based on a book that was written by men thousands of years ago, translated and re-translated hundreds of times over as many years. I've read parts of the Bible. I know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pretty much repeats of each other, but from different perspectives. I get that. What I don't get is the contradictions, and I know I don't get them because 1, I was 12 when I read most of it originally, and 2 I know too that much of the original text of the Bible is not only left to interpretation of us, but was interpreted many times before by those that have translated it. You can't tell me that there aren't hundreds of scriptures that were left out of the King James Version of the Bible. I refuse to believe that there isn't more locked and hidden away in the vaults of the Vatican. Yes, I question too much, and some would call me a conspiracy theorist, but despite a lack of training, I know people in general. People are selfish and greedy as a rule... all animals are; otherwise none would survive past infancy. It's just that some are much more selfish and greedier than others.
Thing is, 50 years ago blacks and whites could not legally marry. How fucked up is that? There are still issues with Catholics marrying Prodestants, but that's religious; let them fight that shit out amongst themselves. There's no law stating that they can't have their legal union despite their religious differences, but back in the 1950s, they could only get married if they were a white heterosexual couple or a black heterosexual couple... no "oreo marriages."
We realize now how utterly ridiculous the banning of bi-racial marriages was, even tho people voted against it for many, many years. Sadly, some still do. Oddly, some of the arguments against gay couples raising children are nearly word-for-word as the arguments were against bi-racial families. It's unnatural. The children will be ridiculed. Some KKK fucks go so far as to say that it would be equal to breeding with monkeys. But do we listen to the radical groups? Obviously not, or the Grand Dragon would be the president-elect and not Barak Obama.
So my reasoning is that marriage will soon be redefined to be religious only and civil unions will be the government's version of "marriage" which itself will be redefined to be between 2 consenting adults. None of that polygamy crap... that's a religious thing anyway. You want a polyamorous relationship? Sure, fine, ok, but you can't be legally united with more than one.
Then again, I don't quite understand the ban against that either... definitely NOT my thing, but if they're all consenting adults, why the hell not? I'm guessing it would be too much paperwork.
As for the age of adulthood being lowered, I don't see that happening any time soon, if ever.
An interesting read:seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrylarge/2008413378_jdl20.html
Todd just got home and handed me a postcard from my Auntie Gorgeous! YAY! She got over her fear of flying and is vacationing in ITALY! I'm so jealous.... and so happy I got a postcard from her that it made me tear up. She's got 23 other nieces and nephews and she sent me a postcard. That makes me feel super-duper special. YAY! :-)
Then again, she's always been one of my favoritest relatives, along with her daughter Crystal... I guess because we're the spiritual (rather than religious) black sheep of the family.
Just my Prop. 8 rant.
No need to read further.
Yeah, ok, so I fell prey to the curiosity again and read some of the updated stuff on DC. It's actually been really, really amusing just lurking and seeing the fucktards continuously talking themselves in circles. I have to say that they have some serious balls talking to Sugar the way they do sometimes. Not only is she a moderator so a smart person would at least be polite, but she's just one of those people that *usually* has the respect of others instantly since she's definitely earned it, and as you learn more about her, you know why she's earned it. She just has that kind of aura. But then she knows she's awesome and totally fawking rocks, so I don't need to inflate her ego any further. ;-)~
Anywho, the new argument within the gay marriage thing is bi-racial marriages, pedophilia/lowering the age of consent/adulthood (?) and bestiality (or however the fuck you spell it.) How the argument turned from 2 consenting adults wanting to legalize their union to fucking kids and dogs I have no clue, but it did. You'd think with my brain going from track A to track H to track Y back to track B, C, D, then track M and N.... that I would be able to understand the progression of the argument, but I really don't get it this time.
The only thing I can think of is because most Christians see homosexuals as nothing more than perverts that want to fuck everything but members of the opposite sex.
Ironically enough, the most perverted people I know, are SO not gay... and I know some questionable people. :-/
Since the "age of consent" issue was brought up, I got curious and decided to look up the definitions of a few words. Words like adult, marriage, age of consent, etc. I read wikipedia, Webster's online dictionary, dictionary.reference.com, and a few others' definitions, and I was quite surprised to read wikipedia's definition of an adult. The Jews say adulthood starts at 13 with their bar/bat mitzvah's, but I already knew that. Even so, they are still not legal (US) adults until the age of 18. Physical adulthood isn't even achieved until age 19-21 when the body stops growing and developing. But I knew that too.
What really surprised me was this:
"The Christian Bible and Jewish scripture has no age requirement for adulthood or marrying, which includes engaging in sexual activity. According toThe Disappearance of Childhood by Neil Postman, the Christian Church of the Middle Ages considered the age of accountability, when a person could be tried and even executed as an adult, to be age 7."
If we were to go by that, my son would be considered an adult.
He's in 2nd grade. He barely has an idea of what marriage is yet. Hell! He hasn't even learned how to write in cursive yet!
Obviously, we as the human race have come quite a looooooong way since then (thankfully! I'd be hung just for being a female with an opinion!)
Here's the thing tho...
Having been raised very very Christian (up until the age of 8 anyway and then getting kicked out of Sunday School and Youth Group for asking too many questions up to the age of 14ish) I can completely understand the religious perspective.
Marriage, matrimony, to be united in wedlock is between one man and one woman. Period. Marriage itself was created to unite a man and a woman, under whichever god they worshiped, in order for them to fuck with God's ok and establish a family. I've heard that the original meaning of the word "fuck" was "Fornication Under Consent of the King." Basically a sign on one's door announcing that they were getting busy doing the nasty, and they were allowed because they had the king's consent as well as God's consent.
I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever.
HOWEVER, the US government is not supposed to be ruled by any religion. If it were, it would totally and completely defeat the purpose of freedom of religion; the very 1st amendment to the US Constitution. Granted the US was founded based on Christian principals, and regardless if Christianity is the most popular religion right now, not all US citizens are Christian (and not all Christians are US citizens.) But if a law is applied and is based solely on a Christian religion, how does that allow for equality? Isn't equality of its citizens one of the basic principals of the US anyhow?
Therefore, why can't gays have their legal civil union?
Here's the thing... I know quite a few people that have gotten "married" outside the church. Their union is pretty much automatically recognized by both the state and "everybody" because they're heterosexual couples.
I know one couple that had a "wedding ceremony" without ever having a legal union. Thing is, nobody really considered them actually "married" because neither of them ever signed any papers legalizing their union. The most they did was sign both their names on the lease to their apartment, and you can do that with just about anyone. When they broke up, it wasn't any messier than it would have been had they never had their "ceremony."
The irony... as far as the "church" is concerned, they were married because they had their ceremony and were a heterosexual couple. As far as the government was concerned, they were 2 people playing house, never married, and only had their personals and an apartment lease to deal with. Thank the gods they didn't have kids. It's just too bad P.B.Dave did father a son later on with yet another psychohosebeast... then again he's not exactly playing with a full deck either.
In the end it's all about fucking tax breaks, next of kin and legal issues (many concerning equality.) Seriously! That's all it is. Take the religious part completely out of it and legally that's ALL "marriage" is.
The biggest issue I see with all this shit is that people are generally unable to take the emotion out of things and look at it from a purely legal and logical perspective... because... well... religion isn't exactly "logical." It's faith, and faith isn't exactly logical. It's emotionally based.
Unfortunately, my brain simply cannot comprehend having faith in a religion that is based on a book that was written by men thousands of years ago, translated and re-translated hundreds of times over as many years. I've read parts of the Bible. I know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pretty much repeats of each other, but from different perspectives. I get that. What I don't get is the contradictions, and I know I don't get them because 1, I was 12 when I read most of it originally, and 2 I know too that much of the original text of the Bible is not only left to interpretation of us, but was interpreted many times before by those that have translated it. You can't tell me that there aren't hundreds of scriptures that were left out of the King James Version of the Bible. I refuse to believe that there isn't more locked and hidden away in the vaults of the Vatican. Yes, I question too much, and some would call me a conspiracy theorist, but despite a lack of training, I know people in general. People are selfish and greedy as a rule... all animals are; otherwise none would survive past infancy. It's just that some are much more selfish and greedier than others.
Thing is, 50 years ago blacks and whites could not legally marry. How fucked up is that? There are still issues with Catholics marrying Prodestants, but that's religious; let them fight that shit out amongst themselves. There's no law stating that they can't have their legal union despite their religious differences, but back in the 1950s, they could only get married if they were a white heterosexual couple or a black heterosexual couple... no "oreo marriages."
We realize now how utterly ridiculous the banning of bi-racial marriages was, even tho people voted against it for many, many years. Sadly, some still do. Oddly, some of the arguments against gay couples raising children are nearly word-for-word as the arguments were against bi-racial families. It's unnatural. The children will be ridiculed. Some KKK fucks go so far as to say that it would be equal to breeding with monkeys. But do we listen to the radical groups? Obviously not, or the Grand Dragon would be the president-elect and not Barak Obama.
So my reasoning is that marriage will soon be redefined to be religious only and civil unions will be the government's version of "marriage" which itself will be redefined to be between 2 consenting adults. None of that polygamy crap... that's a religious thing anyway. You want a polyamorous relationship? Sure, fine, ok, but you can't be legally united with more than one.
Then again, I don't quite understand the ban against that either... definitely NOT my thing, but if they're all consenting adults, why the hell not? I'm guessing it would be too much paperwork.
As for the age of adulthood being lowered, I don't see that happening any time soon, if ever.
An interesting read:seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrylarge/2008413378_jdl20.html