Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
I read it as a threat. He's a nasty piece of work.
Injured by religion; gay marriage; minorities
- Thread starter Complexity
- Start date
In that case we'll let the moderators sort it out.
Funny how another man's flirting elicited a threat of violence. I do believe he's proven himself to be violently anti-homosexual.
Sure, and as fully as I can:
I think your "handle" (fowlsound) fits you well. If you remember, I've already poked some fun at it ("foulsound"? Remember?)
I don't snuggle with chickens, ducks, turkeys, grouse, geese, or any other foul fowl, or sheep, etc. I raise them, feed them, water them, then I eat them, and think they taste damned good.
Admittedly, I have snuggled with my dogs. Ever hear where the term "3 Dog Night" came from?
Now you can snuggle with whomever or whatever you wish. That appears to be the demand of this thread, and your snuggling (as well as Complexity's or anybody else's) is your or their business. But it will not be with me. I snuggle with my wife, who is of the opposite sex, and very human.
Your invitation to snuggle could also have been interpreted as a poor attempt at humor or as a threat by some. I considered it a "poke". No problem.
Now, you can consider my words however you wish, or twist and turn them into whatever you wish. That seems to be the trend here, anyway.
But, ultimately, I really don't care how you take it.
Is that good enough, or would you like me to draw you a picture?
Yes I remember. It wasn't clever then and isn't now.
So an overt sexual innuendo is a "threat?"
That is interesting.
Ps. You have no idea where my moniker came from, how can you assume it fits me? Surely enough you make alot of assumptions about me. Are you also assuming I am gay?
So an overt sexual innuendo is a "threat?"
That is interesting.
Ps. You have no idea where my moniker came from, how can you assume it fits me? Surely enough you make alot of assumptions about me. Are you also assuming I am gay?
Last edited:
Fair enough.
It wasn't a threat of violence, but (in case you weren't aware), that happens all the time.
I can fully attest that I am a very violent person, however, I've never physically harmed a homosexual (that I know of), and have no desire to do so.
I oppose homosexuals (among several other special interest groups) politically and culturally, and reserve my right to do so.
You indicated that it was clever then.
Apparently I'm not very good at interpreting sarcasm.
It is to some folks, including me (in the past), but not anymore.
Because your writing reminds me of hens clucking:
........a very foul fowl sound.
It appears that there are plenty of assumptions made about me, too.
So?
Nope, and I don't give much of a damn either way.
meg
psychic reader
So why are you here?
ImaginalDisc said:
Yet to return to this subject, even "agreement, in the abstract, that the First Amendment was designed to erect a 'wall of separation between Church and State,' does not preclude a clash of views as to what the wall separates", as Justice Frankfurter noted in his concurrence in McCollum v. Board of Education.
Cleon said:
In fairness, though, the context of Jefferson's statement is so complex that it is very difficult to appreciate such context without devoting a fair amount of study to the matter.
To cite the constitutional historian Daniel Dreisbach in his outstanding history of the "wall of separation", Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (NYUP, 2002):
I fear we may be straying too far from the real topic of the thread, however.
Last edited:
They cluck.
Like you.
I add opposition to Complexity's threats and anger, and answer various "foul sounds" like yours with replys that are as stupid as the questions asked and condemnation encountered.
And I certainly enjoy being me. Wouldn't have it any other way.
So what you're saying is that you are here to be a reactionary, threatening and admittedly violent person? Or that you feel your behavior helps your beliefs in any way? Honestly all you've done is given quite a bit of evidence that you are an intolerant and violent jerk that can't resist spewing insults at someone who disagrees with you.
Bet you're fun at parties.
PS. Just to let you know, repeating the not-so-funny fowl/foul joke makes it seem that you can't come up with anything else. I wouldn't want you to appear to be unimaginative.
Bet you're fun at parties.
PS. Just to let you know, repeating the not-so-funny fowl/foul joke makes it seem that you can't come up with anything else. I wouldn't want you to appear to be unimaginative.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Huntster's recent posts in this thread have been reported to the moderators. I think he is threatening violence.
He's miffed because I won't interact with him anymore.
He doesn't understand that he's been making my points for me quite effectively. For the most part, I can stand back and watch him shoot himself in the foot.
What a nasty, immoral piece of trash he is.
He's miffed because I won't interact with him anymore.
He doesn't understand that he's been making my points for me quite effectively. For the most part, I can stand back and watch him shoot himself in the foot.
What a nasty, immoral piece of trash he is.
Lisa Simpson
Unregistered
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2004
- Messages
- 21,960
Huntster, since you have are an admittedly violent person, you should not be making any remarks that can be interpreted as threatening. Please desist.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
I apologize, and will be more careful with my words in the future.
I am reacting to Complexity's letter to the editor.
I am not making threats.
I have been described as a violent person.
My beliefs need no "help", and I'm not sure which behavior you are referring to.
And so?
That's what I've been told.
Just went to a great party Saturday night at the lake. It was great! Even caught a fish!
I liked it so much that I'd like to spin off some variants.
It may not be imaginative, but I'm getting a kick out of it!
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
A lot has been written about the non-significance of reproduction to marriage, and proof of it’s non-significance is somehow related to incest statutes which prohibit the marriage of first cousins unless they are demonstrably sterile. Somehow, the existence of these statutes is supposed to demonstrate….well, I’m not exactly certain what it is that these statutes are supposed to demonstrated.
I can see a few things that the existence of these statutes demonstrates. First, it demonstrates that there is at least one explicit instance in which a known sterile couple is allowed to marry. Well, that isn’t a shock, is it? Marriage has never been limited to demonstrably fertile couples, nor have I ever heard any argument that it ought to be limited to demonstrably fertile couples. Furthermore, even when the fertility of the couple is obviously non-existent, due to age, medical condition, or separation (e.g.. the death row inmate who gets married), some couples are allowed to marry. Therefore, if anyone were to argue that only fertile or potentially fertile couples have been allowed to marry, they would be guilty of an obvious error. On the other hand, I’ve never heard anyone argue that, so I’m not sure of the relevance.
What else might the existence of those laws demonstrate? It seems clear to me that they are saying that there is nothing that the state finds inherently offensive about the marriage of first cousins. However, those marriages are banned, presumably because of the widespread belief that the offspring of those marriages are more likely to have genetic abnormalities (what we used to call “birth defects”). That would seem to bolster the argument that marriage is somehow related to reproduction. A marriage that is not offensive is nevertheless banned specifically because of the belief that the resulting children are more likely to have undesirable medical conditions. If the couple wishing to be married can demonstrate that they cannot produce the undesirable children, the impediment to their marriage is lifted. Call the caterers!
What else might the existence of these laws demonstrate? Notice that the waiver of anti-incest laws applies to cousins, but not to parents and children, siblings, or other relatives closer than cousins. Obviously, it was not the intention of the state to allow any demonstrably non-fertile couple to marry. They kept in place some anti-incest laws, and did not provide any exceptions. Apparently, they felt it served their purpose to outlaw marriage between parents and children. One suspects that their reason for doing so was an imposition of their standards of morality on the general population.
So, allow me to summarize. These laws demonstrate that in ages past, it was assumed that procreation would be a consequence of a typical marriage. We can infer that they felt justified in prohibiting marriages where there was an elevated risk of genetic abnormalities in children that were born to the couple. We can infer that infertile people were allowed to marry. Also, we can infer from them that there were certain unions that were considered immoral, and the state felt comfortable in prohibiting those unions on moral grounds.
None of which should shock anyone. It’s pretty common sense stuff.
So, if we were to follow the example of legislators in times past, we would allow sterile marriages, but ban immoral ones.
I think that’s a good idea, myself. I suppose it just falls to us to determine which marriages are immoral, The only marriages I can think of immediately that I find immoral are ones between parents and children, and between siblings. Maybe aunts and uncles with their nieces and nephews as well. The idea of someone marrying his niece has a pretty high “ick factor” to me, so I’m inclined to ban them. Also, any marriage involving children would be immoral.
Of course, some of you are incensed at the idea of imposing your morality, or the morality of the majority, upon the minority. Those among you who feel that way will naturally object to the idea a ban on marriages between fathers and daughters, and you are entitled to your opinions. I do hope you will speak up about your feelings here, though. If you fail to do so, you might leave the impression that everyone was willing to oppress that minority of young men who wanted a girl EXACTLY like the girl who married dear old dad.
Also, if we followed ancient example, we would ban marriages where there is an elevated risk of birth defects. From what I understand, the risk of birth defects from incestuous unions is actually highly overstated, so I don’t see the problem with allowing first or second cousins to marry. Certainly, that risk is no higher than the risk from allowing people with Huntington’s disease to marry, and I suspect it is lower than that involved in allowing women over 35 to bear children. We don’t place any restrictions on those categories of people, so I see no reason to ban marriages between cousins.
Those of you reading closely will notice that same sex marriages are not among those I would ban on moral grounds, which might confuse you. I can understand the confusion, but it isn’t really well- founded. I have said I am a reluctant supporter of gay marriage. In the future, I will explain my reluctance, and also explain why none of the above contradicts my position that marriage exists primarily for purposes of child creation and upbringing, and secondarily as a recognition of inherent differences between men and women.
However, that will wait for another day. Given the length of this post, I doubt anyone will object.
I can see a few things that the existence of these statutes demonstrates. First, it demonstrates that there is at least one explicit instance in which a known sterile couple is allowed to marry. Well, that isn’t a shock, is it? Marriage has never been limited to demonstrably fertile couples, nor have I ever heard any argument that it ought to be limited to demonstrably fertile couples. Furthermore, even when the fertility of the couple is obviously non-existent, due to age, medical condition, or separation (e.g.. the death row inmate who gets married), some couples are allowed to marry. Therefore, if anyone were to argue that only fertile or potentially fertile couples have been allowed to marry, they would be guilty of an obvious error. On the other hand, I’ve never heard anyone argue that, so I’m not sure of the relevance.
What else might the existence of those laws demonstrate? It seems clear to me that they are saying that there is nothing that the state finds inherently offensive about the marriage of first cousins. However, those marriages are banned, presumably because of the widespread belief that the offspring of those marriages are more likely to have genetic abnormalities (what we used to call “birth defects”). That would seem to bolster the argument that marriage is somehow related to reproduction. A marriage that is not offensive is nevertheless banned specifically because of the belief that the resulting children are more likely to have undesirable medical conditions. If the couple wishing to be married can demonstrate that they cannot produce the undesirable children, the impediment to their marriage is lifted. Call the caterers!
What else might the existence of these laws demonstrate? Notice that the waiver of anti-incest laws applies to cousins, but not to parents and children, siblings, or other relatives closer than cousins. Obviously, it was not the intention of the state to allow any demonstrably non-fertile couple to marry. They kept in place some anti-incest laws, and did not provide any exceptions. Apparently, they felt it served their purpose to outlaw marriage between parents and children. One suspects that their reason for doing so was an imposition of their standards of morality on the general population.
So, allow me to summarize. These laws demonstrate that in ages past, it was assumed that procreation would be a consequence of a typical marriage. We can infer that they felt justified in prohibiting marriages where there was an elevated risk of genetic abnormalities in children that were born to the couple. We can infer that infertile people were allowed to marry. Also, we can infer from them that there were certain unions that were considered immoral, and the state felt comfortable in prohibiting those unions on moral grounds.
None of which should shock anyone. It’s pretty common sense stuff.
So, if we were to follow the example of legislators in times past, we would allow sterile marriages, but ban immoral ones.
I think that’s a good idea, myself. I suppose it just falls to us to determine which marriages are immoral, The only marriages I can think of immediately that I find immoral are ones between parents and children, and between siblings. Maybe aunts and uncles with their nieces and nephews as well. The idea of someone marrying his niece has a pretty high “ick factor” to me, so I’m inclined to ban them. Also, any marriage involving children would be immoral.
Of course, some of you are incensed at the idea of imposing your morality, or the morality of the majority, upon the minority. Those among you who feel that way will naturally object to the idea a ban on marriages between fathers and daughters, and you are entitled to your opinions. I do hope you will speak up about your feelings here, though. If you fail to do so, you might leave the impression that everyone was willing to oppress that minority of young men who wanted a girl EXACTLY like the girl who married dear old dad.
Also, if we followed ancient example, we would ban marriages where there is an elevated risk of birth defects. From what I understand, the risk of birth defects from incestuous unions is actually highly overstated, so I don’t see the problem with allowing first or second cousins to marry. Certainly, that risk is no higher than the risk from allowing people with Huntington’s disease to marry, and I suspect it is lower than that involved in allowing women over 35 to bear children. We don’t place any restrictions on those categories of people, so I see no reason to ban marriages between cousins.
Those of you reading closely will notice that same sex marriages are not among those I would ban on moral grounds, which might confuse you. I can understand the confusion, but it isn’t really well- founded. I have said I am a reluctant supporter of gay marriage. In the future, I will explain my reluctance, and also explain why none of the above contradicts my position that marriage exists primarily for purposes of child creation and upbringing, and secondarily as a recognition of inherent differences between men and women.
However, that will wait for another day. Given the length of this post, I doubt anyone will object.
I have noted Lisa's intervention, respect her authority, and will take great care in the future to eliminate any words which can be interpreted as a threat.
I meant no threat to anyone.
I'm not miffed at all.
I'm amused.
Been shot all up before, anyway. May as well take a couple in the foot.
No indignation from me on that one. I've been called lots worse, and by much more respectable people than yourself.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,829
So please explain again what "It's the babies, stupid" has to do with outlawing gay marriage?
After X days and countless of your posts, I still haven't the foggiest clue what your objection is, and what you mean by "It's the babies."
OTOH, as I indicated in the beginning, I've seen this discussion, including your comments, for getting to be years now, and I never got it before, either. So the fact that you can't explain it now doesn't surprise me.