move on to equating tax breaks with civil rights, to accusing opponents of mysoginy, racism, & homophobia.

ellie, it may be convenient for you to try to make it all about tax breaks so that you can ignore the human element of a marriage, but it won’t wash with those of us who actually consider gays to have the same emotions that straights do. 

It’s about being barred from visiting your spouse in the hospital because you’re not considered “immediate family.“  It’s about not being allowed to direct your incapacitated spouse’s care for the same reason, even though you’ve been caring for him at home for years.  It’s about not being able to leave your money to support the one person closest to you in the world. 

Considering how little empathy you seem to have for this situation, I think I can safely call you a homophobe. 

As for misogyny, yes, anyone who puts the fetus’s life ABOVE the mother’s obviously doesn’t like women.  Anyone who would turn a woman into an unwilling breeding machine obviously doesn’t like or respect them either.  Anyone who spends more time curtailing women’s rights than trying to make abortion unnecessary by promoting contraception and adoption just plain doesn’t like women.

Considering how much the Christians are pushing to eliminate anything else that their little book doesn’t like, it’s amazing how many of them try to play the victim.  It’s laughable.

Rick Wrote: This was fun.  I have a mid-term in 4 hours.

Thank goodness he’s in school.  I’m just going to go out a limb and guess you’re not a science major.(Social, political or otherwise.)  Hopefully you’re learning some research skills to actually verify your ‘facts before attempting to pass them off as truths.

Ahh.  You got me.  That is where I’ve been going with this.  If 1000 people can marry each other, then entire communities can form “tax sheltersâ€? in marriage or other such “agreementsâ€? and these agreements between consenting adults can be called “marriage.â€?

Or even simpler, they could all ban together and form a church.

Zilch - Great reference material.

DOF - I agree wholeheartedly with your take on legislating abortion.  IMO I would say that it would acceptable to the great majority of Americans.

Ellie - Your quoted author needs to brush up on his knowledge of the Nazi movement and American history.  My favorite paragraph from the article was this:

Let’s quit pussyfooting. Besides claiming that all the wisdom of human history concerning such matters has been wrong, these assertions are outrages against our basic humanity. What is there to discuss about killing a baby? Or, as a friend of mine noted several years ago, anybody who’s ever played with Tinkertoys knows that homosexual behavior just doesn’t work. And the claim that Heather Has Two Mommies is preposterously false on the face of it; nobody in biological history ever had two moms or two dads.

This from a group that believes in virgin conceptions, people being raised from the dead, fathers sacrificing their sons, polygamy and eternal damnation.

GeekMom:
You go grrr!

VernR:
Thanks for the info and for that link, I enjoyed reading the site.
I’ve updated my list of quotes and will post it again someday I’m sure.

deadscot:
Love your new avatar!
I always guessed the dead scot was Wallace or McCleod. Crowley’s too cool!

As for all this debate on the forefathers… here’s an idea: regardless of what they believed about gods or lack thereof, I don’t understand the confusion over what they meant regarding the separation of church and state. I mean, the fact that there has been a S E P A R A T I O N for the last couple of centuries is pretty indicative that they were 1; serious about that, and 2; saw wisdom in protecting the state from religious rule.

Why is that so difficult? Where is the need for interpretation???

Justice on 11/29/04 at 03:03 PM

Well said Justice. The quotes in my posts may make you think the forefathers were “heathens” or some such. On the contrary, most of them believed in a god but they were Deists (i.e. they require reason and natural evidence to support the creator; their “Nature’s God”) and were very sceptical about the, to them very obviously, contrived hocus-pocus of the Christian religion (e.g. Washington’s refusal to “take communion”). I guess there will always be idiots that don’t see the logic and fairness of the Separation.

As for abortion, that’s one where I’m undecided.  I’m not even going to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole.

Socialist Swine on 11/29/04 at 05:59 PM

That is the Pro-Choice position - let the individual discuss it with her own god and decide for herself.
Sounds logical to me.

(P)rick said: Why “personâ€??  Why not 1000 people mary each other?

I’ve got a friend named Mary. I’m gonna ask her if she knows another girl named Mary so they can “mary” each other.

Rick, I can see that you have little compassion for others. You’re confusing your religion’s mandates with those of the Third Reich or Archie Bunker or something. So forgo all the gratuitous demeaning of gays and tell me how our kind getting married would hurt you. Let’s pretend you have a valid stake in this argument.

Otherwise get the clue that it is none of your goddamn business, or your religion’s, whether gays should be allowed to marry or not. I don’t care if you think only you have a right to
because you and a girl can make babies together. I can do without you in particular bringing kids into the world.

If YOU are allowed the concessions marriage brings then anybody and I mean anybody (almost even two dogs) deserves those same concessions.

You may hate the fact that two guys can honestly love each other enough to want to get married but it doesn’t change the fact that they often do. You may hate the fact that they deserve equal rights, but they do.

Now that your aim of helping ellie get this thread into the top 10 Most Commented Threads has paid off, why don’t you try to help it be worth it’s position by teaching us something.

Rick: I would be against any ruling that established a Constitutional right to heterosexual marriage.  I don’t see this right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

It doesn’t have to be, nor should it.  Constitutions are SUPPOSED to be general documents, not specific. 

My point was that you were using the slippery slope arguement, and I was trying to show that if that was the case, we are already sliding down it by allowing hetero marriage.  So the question becomes, why are you even worried about dogs & cats marrying, since it’s going to happen anyway?  The argument says there’s no stopping it, but do you think we can pick a stopping point?  If you think we can draw a line, it invalidates your slippery slope argument, and the argument then goes to just where to draw that line.  You put it at point A, I put it at point B. 

I don’t get the tax thing anyway.  If it’s a bad tax deal to have a lot of gay marriages, then it’s a bad deal to have a lot of hetero marriages.  So then it’s back to the marriage penalty on the 1040. 

Midterms? Must be on the quarter system.  I got 2 tests this week and 4 finals next week.  At least I get to skip one, maybe two finals.

By the way, as of Jan 1st, Germany will expand the rights of homosexual civil unions to be almost on a par with the heterosexual marriage. I haven’t investigated in detail, but I believe the only thing missing is that gay spouses don’t qualify for immigration shortcuts. Isn’t it odd when Germany is more progressive than the US?

I’d like to take this opportunity to point out another escape tactic.  It appears that, in the absence of factual evidence to support her argument, ellie has resorted to calling us closed minded and equating us with Nazis because we don’t take her side.  This has been pointed out time and again, but I feel a need to reiterate: give us some compelling evidence to chew on instead of a shit ton of rhetoric and then we can have a real conversation.  You’re trading blind opinions for our facts and then whining when we don’t consider you seriously even though you’ve given us NOTHING to consider.  You’re still not addressing our questions!

Well, since you like rhetoric, here’s something to chew on, ellie.  You complain time and again that we are trying to enforce opinions on you.  But that’s just not true.  The driving force of many of our opinions is that they don’t force anything on anyone.

When church is separate from state, no religion is forced on anyone

When gay marriage is legal, fundies can still get married but so can gays—everyone is happy

Whe abortion is legal, the people who feel it is wrong don’t have to do it and the people who feel it is reasonable in certain situations can do it—everyone can do what they want.

If the majority opinion is simply enforced, then only the majority gets what they want.  Wouldn’t you agree that the world is a better place to be when most people can do what they feel is right?  Granted, there will always be lines to draw.  But we can draw those lines with compassion or selfishness—which would YOU choose?

As for dehumanisation of dissenters—that’s exactly what you do when you call us Nazis, so please stop that shit.

Spocko, I’m actually quite educated on our forefathers. (To anyone who wants to listen) -It’s always good to understand the points of view behind these things, but my point is all the fighting over their religious beliefs is just a distraction from the real issue: When they said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…“ that’s precisely what they meant. They might as well believed goats to be reincarnated gods and in a heaven to be a place filled with lollipops and naked chics where no one ever has to pee. What they said was religion has no place in the legislative process and neither does the government have business telling people what to believe and what religious beliefs are acceptable conversation and expression. Other laws balance the madness that could ensue, such as human sacrifices, etc.

I really just see this as a no-brainer.

As for the abortion and same-sex marriage issues… at least the anti pro-lifers have some sort of rationale (they claim to be concerned for what they see as a life from the time of conception.) But GeekMom has a good point, and I would just like to know at what age then do I lose my right to life? Was it when I was 12 and able to be raped and impregnated? I wasn’t, but there’s a real issue there for any young girl. I am not ashamed to say that if I was pregnant now and that unborn child threatened my life, I would have to choose to be a mother for my already born children and abort. People with no tolerance for abortion and who then actively seek to legislate that zero tolerance are just not thinking clearly.

Same-sex marriages… not to worry. I’m pretty sure that if you stand at least 6 ft away, you cannot catch homosexuality. . . aside from that, when society’s view of marriage takes on more importance than the view of the individuals marrying, marriage has already lost its value.

Rick: I would be against any ruling that established a Constitutional right to heterosexual marriage.  I don’t see this right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

If you don’t mind Ragman, I’d like to add another two cents to this one.

Rick, I like your choice of words, especially “enumerated” as it reminded me of a specific section in the U.S. Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Yep, that’s right, the good old Ninth Amendment. 
Click here for more details.

I’ll sum it up for you and anyone else claiming rights not covered in the Constitution.  Basically, The federalists realized the flaw with trying to “enumerate” all possible rights and that any not listed would be assumed to not be protected. 

So there is a reason you don’t see heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage specifically “enumerated” in the Constitution. We are supposed to be able to decide for ourselves what rights we have.

Also here is an example of the Ninth Amendment in action:
“The People” Win a Major 9th Amendment Victory in Arizona

Should we move any discussion of marriage to the “definition of marriage has always been in flux?“

turn a woman into an unwilling breeding machine

this seems to say that every pregnancy is a result of rape…sounds suprisingly similar to fat people blaming McDonald’s for their weight.  In this realm, actions have natural consequences.  I don’t see anyone referring to rape or medically endangered pregnancies, & I repeat, I challenge anyone else to display the statistics on these pregnancies, even BEFORE Roe vs. Wade.  I think you’re failing to notice that many pro-life activists also work to

make abortion unnecessary by promoting contraception and adoption

as do I with my students.

shana fails to gain ground with “fundies” by misunderstanding or discounting their understanding in making that argument regarding abortion which makes no sense to Christians:

Whe[n] [killing] is legal, the people who feel it is wrong don’t have to do it and the people who feel it is reasonable in certain situations can do it—everyone can do what they want.

But this is what I was referring to with the Nazi point: I’m not proving a point in a court of law, I have stated from the beginning that the intentions of *some* founding fathers *could* have been Christian & might be worth mentioning.  I like open ended discussions.  Given the frustration y’all seem to feel in regards to the idea, I don’t in any way expect you to “take my side.“  For not giving y’all anything to consider, there sure does seem to be a lot of posting…

I don’t think you’re “enforcing” your opinions on me, but I don’t like the underlying assumption that I have no right to an opinion because of what I base it on.  I feel it’s dehumanizing.  I simply made a comparison to the opposition’s feelings of frustration, yet you attack those feelings once again, as unjustified.  Nazis were very intelligent & successful humans, just cruel ones.

I don’t see any reasonable connection between the points I’ve seen brought up & the ridiculous claims that frustrate me & originally brought me to this site when I saw something about how Republicans & Christians don’t want women to vote…!  & we’re fascist, racist, homophobes too, nya nya!  Those aren’t arguments to consider!

hmmm…I think I understand Brock’s sudden hostility:

helping ellie get this thread into the top 10 Most Commented Threads

I actually hadn’t noticed, that’s kinda cool!

okay, so I’ll get that quote thing down EVENTUALLY

They tend to rant on events rather than discuss the structure.

Ellie, this is rich, coming from you.  But perhaps by “events” you mean “facts”, and by “structure” you mean “feelings”.  This thread started out about the ostensibly Christian beliefs of our founding fathers.  In response to numerous quotes from them, you have given us your feelings about what they believed, and not one fact.  Your whining about being mistreated would be more defensible if you would respond rationally and factually.

But don’t ask us to pretend that wobbling carelessly around the road, or even crossing the middle line sometimes, is the same as deliberately driving at 80 miles an hour the wrong way on a one-way street. Some “moral values� deserve a good bit of discussion. Some need none at all.

This is the crux of our disagreement with you and Rick and the rightwards swing of the pendulum, and you seem not to understand our position, because you keep making misleading analogies.  I doubt that I can improve upon what’s already been said here (GeekMom and Shana’s last comments, for instance) but I’ll give you my slant.

There are many differences between conservatives and liberals (to oversimplify, of course), but the crucial one here is:

The Liberal says, Live and let live.  You can marry whom you want, I whom I want.  You can believe in any god, or no god.  As long as individual rights do not infringe on the rights of others, they should be granted.

The Conservative says, Do it our way.  If we don’t think homosexuals should marry, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.  You will acknowledge the existence of God.  Anything we wouldn’t do, no one should be allowed to do.

Ellie, your equating of liberal values (gay marriage here) with “driving at 80 miles an hour the wrong way on a one-way street” is not very compelling.  Reckless drivers are a public menace; gay couples are only a threat to bigots whose moral indignation gets exercised.  And, as I said before, even if it’s the “will of the people”, that doesn’t make it right or good.

As I believe Brock (though it might have been someone else, I think it was Brock though) has asked before, I ask again to those who oppose gay marriage.  How does gay marriage harm your marriage?  In most of the provinces in Canada gay people can get married and that’s never had any effect on my relationship.  Now granted my partner (who is of the opposite sex than I) are only common law, yet I would imagine that if gay marriage was really so insidiously undermining the straight family I would have noticed some minimal effects at least.

e: this seems to say that every pregnancy is a result of rape

Only to you. Continued inhalation of rhethorical smokescreen vapors seems harmful…

I don’t like the underlying assumption that I have no right to an opinion because of what I base it on.  I feel it’s dehumanizing.  I simply made a comparison to the opposition’s feelings of frustration, yet you attack those feelings once again, as unjustified.  Nazis were ...

You can hold whatever opinions you want for whatever reasons you care for. Nobody else is under any obligation to respect your opinions or underlying motivations, though.

Instead of special pleading and appeals to emotion, do you have an actual argument to make? For starters, you have been called about a number of assertions and perhaps you should finally start to address these?

this seems to say that every pregnancy is a result of rape…sounds suprisingly similar to fat people blaming McDonald’s for their weight.  In this realm, actions have natural consequences.  I don’t see anyone referring to rape or medically endangered pregnancies,

ellie, you obviously didn’t follow the link I posted as an example.  It was to a blog by a woman who struggled with infertility, got pregnant with twins, and then discovered at 22 weeks that one twin had died and she had such severe pre-eclampsia that to save her own life, she had to abort the other twin.

And the “actions have natural consequences” shit is only spouted by people who have never been trapped by a pregnancy.  Tell that to the young girl who couldn’t handle the pressure from her boyfriend.  Tell that to the woman with four kids whose birth control inexplicably failed.  ellie, I get the strong impression that you really don’t know much of life beyond your own limited borders, and you have no desire even to understand, much less empathize with, anyone who has had a different life from yours.  Which tends in my view to be a common conservative failing.  “I would never do that, so it’s their own fault if they do.“  “They’re to blame for their situation.“  “I’ve never experienced that, so it must not be important/valid.“

My point is, ANY time a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant and is forced to continue it, she is being made a slave to someone else’s claim on the fruits of her body.  She is creating that life, and she has the right, the power, and—yes, I’ll go this far—the MORAL AUTHORITY to take that life away for as long as she is the one growing it.  And it’s NOBODY ELSE’S BUSINESS why she doesn’t want it. 

Anyone who insists on forcing people to spew life onto the planet doesn’t take that life very seriously.  It’s cheap to them.  Especially since they usually have no intention of paying for it.

ellie said: hmmm…I think I understand Brock’s sudden hostility: “...helping ellie get this thread into the top 10 Most Commented Threads”

Not hostility really; just a suspicion. And yet I still contributed to your thread. There’s no way of knowing which entry will get the most comments. Though it will likely be the subject matter the most people have feelings and interest in. Congratulations, you found a subject worthy of replies.

Nice pic though I will admit I expected you to have a halo over your head.

My point is, ANY time a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant and is forced to continue it, she is being made a slave to someone else’s claim on the fruits of her body.  She is creating that life, and she has the right, the power, and—yes, I’ll go this far—the MORAL AUTHORITY to take that life away for as long as she is the one growing it.  And it’s NOBODY ELSE’S BUSINESS why she doesn’t want it.

Preach it, Sister!

And prepare for the shitstorm…

I’ve weathered more than a few for admitting that I don’t have a moral problem with abortion, for exactly the same reasons you just stated.  If there’s something growing in me and I don’t want it there, it’s MY RIGHT to decide to get it out - whether it’s an intestinal parasite or a fertilized embryo!  By the same token it’s none of my business if someone else decides they’ll take their chances and let nature take its course.  I don’t have to live with the consequences of anyone else’s actions but my own.

Much like the question Brock asks about gay marriage in another thread, I seriously would like to know how MY having an abortion affects ANYONE else’s life.  From where I sit, I’d think conservatives would be GLAD that women have abortions when they know full well they cannot afford to raise a child; that one abortion relieves them of two future welfare recipients taking a piece of the wealth they’re so unhappy to part with if it’s going to help someone who’s unemployed.

The anti-choicers go on and on about the 40 million abortions that have taken place since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, as if they have some sort of personal investment in them.  Why?  Are they lamenting not being able to support the millions of children their tax dollars would have paid for when those kids ended up on welfare?  The millions who would probably end up in the foster care system, abused, neglected, drug-addicted and finally incarcerated or dead as a result of living in the underbelly of society?  Or when they wail about the 40 million, are they only TRULY sorry about the minority of those aborted children who would’ve been healthy and white - the ones they’re REALLY talking about when they try to justify taking away women’s choices by claiming, “There are so many couples who want to adopt, and not nearly enough children available!“?

Or is it simply just too much for them to bear that those millions of abortions represent millions of women who dared to take control of their own sexuality and reproduction, in defiance of the notion that our bodies are not our own but instead belong to their guy in the sky? 

I know it runs counter to their belief system, but the biological fact is that WOMEN are the givers of life, and as such we also hold the power to decide NOT to give life; no God required.  IMO they’re attempting to codify their delusional belief system because there’s simply no denying that the power to give life rests solely with women, daughters of Eve and the very downfall of mankind, commanded by God to be subject to the whims of whatever man she belongs to.  GM has it right - it’s the very height of misogyny.

You the wo-man OB! Both you and GeekMom have a way of saying well what needs to be said.

I think it’s telling that those who are against abortion are often as equally against abstinence education. That tells me they are bothered more by copulation than abortion. After all, the best way to save a fetus’ life is to help make sure it never comes into existence unless it is desired.

Until churches hand out condoms I’ll continue to disbelieve that the anti-abortion movement is primarily about saving a life.

Until churches hand out condoms I’ll continue to disbelieve that the anti-abortion movement is primarily about saving a life.

Brock, you might add to that: and until churches demonstrate against war.

Brock, have I told you how much I appreciate your desire for exactitude?  It’s a nice touch and shows consideration for your readers.

Yeah, tragedy & comedy fit pretty well.  I just liked your picture.

you might add to that: and until churches demonstrate against war.
- Zilch

MrsDOF attends a Mennonite church and they often demonstrate against war. (I have joined them on a couple occasions.) Their previous minister’s wife was a nurse-practitioner who worked for Planned Parenthood and all but a few were OK with that.  Pretty good bunch of people certainly in line with my values if not my cosmology.

Whoops - the comment for Brock belonged in another thread.  (That’s what I get for writing responses in Notepad based on email updates at the office, then furtively pasting them in while no one’s looking. Shame on me!) 

Explanation: It was in response to Brock correcting one of his own comments - a thoughtful thing he frequently does.

Brock, you might add to that: and until churches demonstrate against war.

zilch, I mean DoF quoting zilch, I realized as soon as I got that off that it was unfair to the many churches who demonstrate against war.  How could I forget the Berkeley Lutheran Chapel I attended for years, who were so anti-war that their pastor was visited by the FBI?  What I meant to refer to, and didn’t say, is all the fundamentalists and their churches who think killing heathens is a fine idea.

I’m continually meeting people of religion who impress and move me.  Just today my significant other and I performed a marionette concert in a Catholic school, and the kids were great.  We met a nun who teaches there, ninety years old, and she was one of those people who simply radiate wellbeing and love, one of those people you wish there were more of- to take her hand was to be blessed.

It’s easy for me to forget this.  Thanks for calling me on it, DoF.

Yay! The thread has regained some semblance of direction.  I have a hypothetical question.  Let’s say a hospital in a third world country is having a hard time paying some of its bills.  The hospital has a few patients in comas connected to artificial lung machines that are quite out dated and a good portion of the reason their electrical bill is so huge.  Now according to the laws of this country to unplug the machines without the consent of the families would be a crime, but if they don’t the bill collectors will have the power cut off and those patients will die anyways and the hospital won’t be able to help anyone.  The hospital chooses to kill those in the comas to save the money they are in desperate need of.  A court battle is going to take place and the hospital will say it was screwed either way.  Was the hospital’s choice morally acceptable?  And remember also the doctors’ who were in this hospital had all pledged to the Hippocratic oath.

Was the hospital’s choice morally acceptable?

Yes.  Is this a fundie gotcha?