Steers, Queers, and Chicks with Sticks | LGBTetcetera

[YMix]

Incidentally, where'd all the laws banning your guns go? Must not have been a good environment for the legislation.

The communist conspiracy must have been foiled by the brave Tea Particans!

[Mr. Perfect]

Because none of them that I can tell are basing their position on the unquestioned primacy of ( their interpretation) of religion as a basis for law. You are, though you insist you are not. That's been my beef from the very beginning, and no other. I'm just tired of people hijacking the law for their own bias' sake and calling it God. It's simply inaccurate.

Ermm not even in the ballpark. No one is doing that here especially me. But tell me where stealing and murder laws come from if you get the chance.

The beef at the beginning is finding rights in the Constitution not even hinted at while deleting rights expressly written into the Constitution, not to mention the mostly bogus logic to sell GM as an issue in the first place.

Incidentally, where'd all the laws banning your guns go? Must not have been a good environment for the legislation.

Why don't you tell us why Federal gun laws failed to pass. There was a national bill written, a couple of them, look into it and let me know what happened.

NY, CO, CT, CA, DE, MD not so lucky. As long as there is a Democrat the environment exists for gun control. Just one more shooting away.

[Enki]

Ermm not even in the ballpark. No one is doing that here especially me. But tell me where stealing and murder laws come from if you get the chance.

Hammurabi's Code?

The Code recognized the importance of intention. A man who killed another in a quarrel must swear he did not do so intentionally, and was then only fined according to the rank of the deceased. The Code does not say what would be the penalty of murder, but death is so often awarded where death is caused that we can hardly doubt that the murderer was put to death. If the assault only led to injury and was unintentional, the assailant in a quarrel had to pay the doctor's fees. A brander, induced to remove a slave's identification mark, could swear to his ignorance and was free. The owner of an ox which gored a man on the street was only responsible for damages if, the ox was known by him to be vicious, even if it caused death. If the mancipium died a natural death under the creditor's hand, the creditor was scot free. In ordinary cases responsibility was not demanded for accident or for more than proper care. Poverty excused bigamy on the part of a deserted wife.

Irrigation was indispensable. If the irrigator neglected to repair his dyke, or left his runnel open and caused a flood, he had to make good the damage done to his neighbours' crops, or be sold with his family to pay the cost. The theft of a watering-machine, water-bucket or other agricultural implement was heavily fined.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp

The Code of Ur-Nammu?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Origins

One of the oldest known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed." The payment of weregild was an important legal mechanism in early Germanic society. If someone was killed, the guilty person would have to pay weregild to the victim's family. The other common form of legal reparation at this time was blood revenge.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yes, who can forget the European wars fought over the Babylonian pantheon. Who can forget.

[Mr. Perfect]

Incidentally, where'd all the laws banning your guns go? Must not have been a good environment for the legislation.

The communist conspiracy must have been foiled by the brave Tea Particans!

Ironically that's what happened. Whaddya know. Demopublican.

[Enki]

Yes, who can forget the European wars fought over the Babylonian pantheon. Who can forget.

What do wars in a polity that came into existence thousands of years after the origin of prohibitions on murder have to do with the origin of prohibitions on murder?

Does feudal murder completely in opposition to the claimed religious affiliation somehow lend some weight of authority to the prohibition on murder? I don't really understand this.

[Mr. Perfect]

That much is obvious.

Did American common law come from Europe or Africa or Antarctica.

Did European common law come from South America or say the Bible.

[Zack Morris]

Prohibitions against murder didn't come from anywhere. Is there any society that condones murder? As for European common law, it can be traced back to Hammurabi's Code, which incidentally is not Babylonian but Sumerian. The same Sumer from which the Jews emerged.

[Ibrahim]

Prohibitions against murder didn't come from anywhere. Is there any society that condones murder? As for European common law, it can be traced back to Hammurabi's Code, which incidentally is not Babylonian but Sumerian. The same Sumer from which the Jews emerged.

Actually Common Law has Anglo-Saxon pagan roots, so an entirely different school of development from the Semitic religions/cultures, but unsurprisingly they both arrived at a few of the same common sense positions on murder, theft etc.

Historical prohibitions against murder are poor comparisons to those against homosexuality anyway. The latter is more of a taboo, and doesn't cause any actual harm. All extant religions (except maybe Sikhism?) and the bulk of human history permitted things like slavery. Customs are revised as we better understand what is truly harmful, and what is superfluous.

[Demon of Undoing]

Nonononono. Damn your Muslim ass. Good and evil, right or wrong, was set down on Mt Sinai. It had absolutely no revision, nuances open to debate, modification, updating or allowance for changing times. Not even through the 613 mitzvot, the Talmudic literature, and New Testament culminating in post- Enlightenment reforms upon which everybody agrees. No change at all. This is why, as a Canadian, I now own you. I have your papers from a reliable slaver. I like my steaks rare.

[Demon of Undoing]

Why don't you tell us why Federal gun laws failed to pass. There was a national bill written, a couple of them, look into it and let me know what happened.

What happened? The last block of people that will man the ramparts woke up and flexed their muscles. If the congress had been 100% Dem, the same probably would have happened if such a large block makes that kind of noise. The power is not in the Republicans. They weren't even the primary tool to beat the votes. The power is in the people.

Even allowing the Reps a +1 in the issue ( If you recall, the only thing I have actually supported Republicans in), allowing people to have ARs for a few more years does not even begin to atone for the mountain of other, truly heinous lavender they've pulled. To criticize one party is not to support the other. I can criticize both and support neither. See? Right now I have one finger out for you, and one for Barry. See how freakin' easy that is? Hell, you can both have another!

[Ibrahim]

Nonononono. Damn your Muslim ass. Good and evil, right or wrong, was set down on Mt Sinai. It had absolutely no revision, nuances open to debate, modification, updating or allowance for changing times. Not even through the 613 mitzvot, the Talmudic literature, and New Testament culminating in post- Enlightenment reforms upon which everybody agrees. No change at all. This is why, as a Canadian, I now own you. I have your papers from a reliable slaver. I like my steaks rare.

In a recent column on AJE an imam from Vancouver referred to theological literalism as "boy scout religion." Any time you are presented with a problem, you pop open the manual and get a quick, clear, definitive answer. Its the perfect school of theology if you don't want to waste time doing a bunch of thinking while running around the hills of the Khyber Pass/Appalachia.

Which is to say that you can't own me, I'm a Muslim. I can own you, as an infidel. That's just the way it is, pal, look it up.

[Demon of Undoing]

Dagnabbit.

[Mr. Perfect]

Are you guys remotely capable of staying on topic? Eg did Euros ape the Bible because they thought it came from Sumeria or Sinai? Were they aping religious subject matter because it was religious regardless of ultimate source. Please think before responding this time and save the typing.

Of course this would require you to pick a position, was Europe Christian or not. Typically the leftist blames Christianity for European wars but then swears up and down Christianity had no influence on Europe. Let me know your thoughts.

You guys rip apart strawmen like no other I will give you that.

[Mr. Perfect]

Nonononono. Damn your Muslim ass. Good and evil, right or wrong, was set down on Mt Sinai. It had absolutely no revision, nuances open to debate, modification, updating or allowance for changing times. Not even through the 613 mitzvot, the Talmudic literature, and New Testament culminating in post- Enlightenment reforms upon which everybody agrees. No change at all.

Very Joseph Smith of you.

[Mr. Perfect]

What happened? The last block of people that will man the ramparts woke up and flexed their muscles. If the congress had been 100% Dem, the same probably would have happened if such a large block makes that kind of noise. The power is not in the Republicans. They weren't even the primary tool to beat the votes. The power is in the people.

Why were Democrats screeching the polls were on their side but Republicans blocked them in the Senate? I have the answer if you don't.

Do you follow politics at all?

Even allowing the Reps a +1 in the issue ( If you recall, the only thing I have actually supported Republicans in), allowing people to have ARs for a few more years does not even begin to atone for the mountain of other, truly heinous lavender they've pulled. To criticize one party is not to support the other.

Boy is it.

I can criticize both and support neither. See?

But you don't.

Right now I have one finger out for you, and one for Barry.

But you don't.

See how freakin' easy that is? Hell, you can both have another!

I was trying to actually get rid of the one but thanks to people like you that didn't happen.

[Typhoon]

Meanwhile, across the Pond:

BBC | Same-sex marriage becomes law in England and Wales

I recall reading a comment by some Canadian politician that summed it up the best,

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

[Ibrahim]

Meanwhile, across the Pond:

BBC | Same-sex marriage becomes law in England and Wales

I recall reading a comment by some Canadian politician that summed it up the best,

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

That was Pierre Trudeau back when homosexuality was fully decriminalized in Canada. Its a sound point, but separate from the actual point of law that most of these rulings are based on, namely that gay marriage causes no harm, so there is no justification for limiting people's rights by preventing it. The Trudeau point is (ironically if you know much about Trudeau) more of a libertarian one about the government having to right to meddle in my affairs.

[Typhoon]

Meanwhile, across the Pond:

BBC | Same-sex marriage becomes law in England and Wales

I recall reading a comment by some Canadian politician that summed it up the best,

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

That was Pierre Trudeau back when homosexuality was fully decriminalized in Canada. Its a sound point, but separate from the actual point of law that most of these rulings are based on, namely that gay marriage causes no harm, so there is no justification for limiting people's rights by preventing it. The Trudeau point is (ironically if you know much about Trudeau) more of a libertarian one about the government having to right to meddle in my affairs.

I'm constantly amused by people who go on about freedom and liberty[, and small government], but are quite happy to invoke the apparatus of the Nanny State to impose their religious and/or cultural beliefs on others.

Applies to both the Left and Right.

Freedom for me, but not for thee, unless you agree with me.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Meanwhile, across the Pond:

BBC | Same-sex marriage becomes law in England and Wales

I recall reading a comment by some Canadian politician that summed it up the best,

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

That was Pierre Trudeau back when homosexuality was fully decriminalized in Canada. Its a sound point, but separate from the actual point of law that most of these rulings are based on, namely that gay marriage causes no harm, so there is no justification for limiting people's rights by preventing it. The Trudeau point is (ironically if you know much about Trudeau) more of a libertarian one about the government having to right to meddle in my affairs.

I'm constantly amused by people who go on about freedom, liberty, and small government, but are quite happy to invoke the apparatus of the Nanny State to impose their religious/cultural beliefs on others.

Freedom for me, but not for thee, unless you agree with me.

Agreed. I think same-sex marriage is wrong unless it is between a man and a woman, but I support the inclusion of GLBT marriages under the law. The Bible tells me homosexuality is wrong, but judging from the descriptions of heaven and hell it seems heaven has all the interior decorators.

Honestly, the population is about 3% GLBT and judging by my friends less than 3% of them want to get married. I'm astounded such a small group gets so much attention.

[Typhoon]

Meanwhile, across the Pond:

BBC | Same-sex marriage becomes law in England and Wales

I recall reading a comment by some Canadian politician that summed it up the best,

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

That was Pierre Trudeau back when homosexuality was fully decriminalized in Canada. Its a sound point, but separate from the actual point of law that most of these rulings are based on, namely that gay marriage causes no harm, so there is no justification for limiting people's rights by preventing it. The Trudeau point is (ironically if you know much about Trudeau) more of a libertarian one about the government having to right to meddle in my affairs.

I'm constantly amused by people who go on about freedom, liberty, and small government, but are quite happy to invoke the apparatus of the Nanny State to impose their religious/cultural beliefs on others.

Freedom for me, but not for thee, unless you agree with me.

Agreed. I think same-sex marriage is wrong unless it is between a man and a woman,

I think that would effectively rule it out except perhaps in the case of a man and a post-op transsexual . . .

but I support the inclusion of GLBT marriages under the law. The Bible tells me homosexuality is wrong, but judging from the descriptions of heaven and hell it seems heaven has all the interior decorators.

Indeed.

Honestly, the population is about 3% GLBT and judging by my friends less than 3% of them want to get married. I'm astounded such a small group gets so much attention.

Go figure . . .

[Ibrahim]

Meanwhile, across the Pond:

BBC | Same-sex marriage becomes law in England and Wales

I recall reading a comment by some Canadian politician that summed it up the best,

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.

That was Pierre Trudeau back when homosexuality was fully decriminalized in Canada. Its a sound point, but separate from the actual point of law that most of these rulings are based on, namely that gay marriage causes no harm, so there is no justification for limiting people's rights by preventing it. The Trudeau point is (ironically if you know much about Trudeau) more of a libertarian one about the government having to right to meddle in my affairs.

I'm constantly amused by people who go on about freedom and liberty[, and small government], but are quite happy to invoke the apparatus of the Nanny State to impose their religious and/or cultural beliefs on others.

Applies to both the Left and Right.

Freedom for me, but not for thee, unless you agree with me.

The only problem with this view is that everybody agrees with it. Both advocates and opponents of gay marriage look at legalizing/banning it as state meddling in their freedoms, and statist oppression by their counterparts.

Since you can't win no matter what you do the only sensible course is to take the least harmful, least discriminatory path, which is obviously legalization.

[Ibrahim]

Honestly, the population is about 3% GLBT and judging by my friends less than 3% of them want to get married. I'm astounded such a small group gets so much attention.

I see numbers ranging from %2 to %10 and never see any of them backed up by anything. The only comprehensive study I'm even aware of is the Kinsey report, which states that:

Homosexual activity in the human male is much more frequent than is ordinarily realized (Chapter 21). In the youngest unmarried group, more than a quarter (27.3%) of the males have some homosexual activity to the point of orgasm (Table 58, Figures 83-88). The incidence among these single males rises in successive age groups until it reaches a maximum of 38.7 per cent between 36 and 40 years of age.

The %2-%3 apparently comes from the number of married men who engage in homosexuals affairs:

After marriage only 2 or 3 per cent of the college males engage in homosexual relations, according to the histories that are now available. There is no doubt, however, that this is one of the points on which there has been considerable cover-up, and it is certain that a good many married males who are having homosexual relations have deliberately avoided contributing their histories to this study. The 3 per cent incidence figure and the low frequencies shown here are, consequently, absolute minima, and they should be increased by some unknown quantity if they are to represent the reality.

http://www.well.com/~aquarius/kinsey7-12.htm


Anyway your point about relevance to the broader population is an interesting one. Other than feminist/women's suffrage no social justice movement in the past 150 years would have made any progress were it not possible to get people not directly involved/victimized to support change on the basis of opposing injustice in principle. Slavery, civil rights, and gay rights all directly effect a minority of the population, it is true, but a larger percentage of the population becomes supportive out of a sense of principle and morality. Once that percentage reaches a tipping point you see social change, as we did with the abolition of slavery, with the civil rights movement, and as we are seeing with homosexual rights today.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Agreed. I think same-sex marriage is wrong unless it is between a man and a woman,

I think that would effectively rule it out except perhaps in the case of a man and a post-op transsexual . . .

After being married to a woman for 17 years, I can tell you sex is always pretty much the same

[Nonc Hilaire]