Re Post #37.
Charlie, you must learn critical thinking. You are constantly putting up statements that are incorrect because you have just swallowed them unthinkingly without checking their veracity.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...-wantquotation

Quotation: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Variations:

1. "If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
2. “Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
3. "Government that is big enough to give everything you need and want is also strong enough to take it away."
4. "Any government powerful enough to give the people all that they want is also powerful enough to take from the people all that they have."

Earliest known appearance in print: 1952
Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Jefferson: 2005

Comments: Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older. It appeared frequently in newspapers in the 1950s (usually unattributed), and was even used in political cartoons. It was copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation, as part of a syndicated newspaper feature called "Today's Chuckle."

It later became a popular saying among Republican politicians. Governor Harold W. Handley of Indiana used it in his annual message to the Indiana General Assembly in 1961; Barry Goldwater was quoted using it in his 1964 run for president; and Gerald Ford is on record using it in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974. It was attributed to Ford as early as 1954, however, and Ford's assistant, Robert Hartmann, said that Ford claimed to have heard the quotation "early in his political career" from Harvard McClain at the Economic Club of Chicago.


This quotation was not attributed to Jefferson until relatively recently. It is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."


Also
http://www.businessinsider.com/thoma...up-2013-9?IR=T

There are a lot of spin doctors out there, Charlie, feasting on the gullible. They been around for a long time.

Here is another myth for you.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/...e-pelican.html

The source of this pelican canonization is that in order to regurgitate the fish the pelican has swallowed to feed the young, it holds its beak to its breast. Fish don't have much blood but enough to color the regurgitated mass reddish.

Always go one step further, Charlie, question, question, question.

Then

Just when I think it can't get more muddled, it does.

Ross, Eratosphere rules make it impossible for me to give an adequate reply to your silly proclamations.

Great post, Janice. Posts, actually. I was talking about #41, but then you put up #42 which is briefer, but perfect.

Most of Asia and Africa pays a good deal of attention to religion, Michael. Europe and the old white British Empire is a shining light of impiety and profanity.

Well said, Michael.

But your #3 post says "we." I am not a rabbit in your pocket. So, politically speaking; you don't speak for me, so "we" is inappropriate.

Your post #3 says "we". I am not your valet. So, socially speaking, you don't speak for "we". It is inappropriate.

Your post #3 says"we". I am not your conscience. So, religiously speaking, I am not your "declared" moral guide. Your rant is inappropriate however well meaning it is meant to instruct one such as myself. You fly the banner of Humanism which is your religion. Don't lecture me about privacy about my beliefs.

To sum up, I don't really care if you are tired of what I say or believe. You'll get over it and hopefully, yourself.

I’d be sorry to see this thread devolve into arguments over religion or constitutional theory (and then get locked). Before it does:

I started it in the sweep of elation and celebration. It is Pride weekend in SF and NYC and other places. If you are of similar spirit, check out this link to more than a dozen sites and monuments nationwide, from New York to California to Arkansas to Puerto Rico, lit up in the colors of the rainbow.

It’s beautiful – at least, it’s beautiful to me.

So, trying to stay more on topic, did anyone see the Supreme Court marriage decision in haiku on McSweeney's? Five haiku. The four dissents plus the decision. The second, Alito's dissent, made me smile. The fifth, the decision haiku, is rather lovely.

I agree. I still haven't seen an actual argument here against gay marriage, however, other than what amounts to "a few verses in the Bible kinda, sorta circle something that vaguely resembles something that might be construed as gay love..." I'm not trying to knock the religious argument against gay marriage...but there hasn't been an argument. I'm not sure if one can be had in this forum without devolving into ad hom sniping, but I legitimately want to see one raised.

Humanism isn't a religion. To say it's "your religion" could be an expression, meaning that you adhere to it in a serious, devotional manner (as smoking weed is the religion of some hippies, for example), but it's a religion in the literal way that Christianity is your religion, because it has no religious precepts. Can we just make that clear? It's absurd that people want to argue these days that things like atheism, the lack or religion, are the same as religion. They aren't. It's like saying that he follows just a different sort of creed, when, if you'd try to give atheism or humanism a generous reading for a moment, you'd find that they're more about the scientific method (hence, they have literally nothing to do with belief). You don't "believe" in science; that's just insane. You prove it. So you can believe in whatever you want, and I can believe that you suck, even though I hardly know you. But actually it's just soooo annoying to see people like you go on rants about gay marriage being bad, referring to the bible, acting like "atheists" (/ordinary thinking people) are just as crazy as you are, and then offering no evidence to back themselves up except that it's their "belief" in the same way that science is my belief. Yeah, right.

I mean, I'm preaching to the choir now, but I really hope you self-reflect some day and feel bad, because comments like yours can actually be hurtful to people and negatively affect our society. Sorry.

EDIT: Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if in 30 years we look back on this time and think that comments like Charlie's first one in this thread were akin to the comments of African American-hating segragationalists in the 60s.

Hiding behind rules Janice, that's very brave of you.

'Silly proclamations',

What a stunning reply. How insightful, how witty.

If you want to contest what I have said, do so, don't resort to sarcasm and snide condescension.

I wish I possessed the positivity that Janis and others have shown here. But I wish more that I could say exactly what I feel.

That two people were not allowed to be married because they were gay has seemed ridiculous to me for a very long time.
That anybody does not know that slavery continued on in America in one form or another for some 80 years after Lincoln ended it,
is typically American.

Banning the Confederate Flag or the 'N" word is a solution to what exactly?

There is a quote by Winston Churchill that goes something like this.
"You can always depend on America doing the right thing, after they've tried everything else first."
Well, Supreme Court justices, believe me America is not done 'trying everything else'. It never is.

Shaun, Really, what would be the use of trying to give a religious argument against gay marriage when it is so patently clear that neither you or others who take the position that Judeo-Christianity teachings are fiction and flights of fancy and pure fantasy? Anyone who would attempt such a thing would be automatically labeled a Homophobe. You know it and I know it. Many of the people who take the it's OK side of gay marriage know the Bible well enough to catch the language that goes opposite of gay marriage. That is one reason they don't accept the Bible as authoritative. It's God telling someone no unconditionally.

But here's the thing. God has always said no to all sin and He does not differentiate between gayness or lying or stealing or any other thing that we are taught by our parents not to do or by nature itself. Ad hominem is merely a way to push morality out of the way, so how would you or could you ever be convinced otherwise, even if the world's foremost authority on the Scripture in the world would visit and tell you why in detail that your position was wrong? You wouldn't. What some do or seek to do is to prove millions and millions of Christians are wrong. It is the only way to invalidate a Christian's position if a Christian has indeed taken that position. Millions have. The issue therefore, is not gay marriage or otherwise. It is the direct attempt to silence people who believe in God, hence God too must be silenced. It is an argument you make that you care not the answer for. The answer has always been in front of all of us. Some accept it, others don't.

Even when I reference two full chapters of the book of Matthew stating Christ's position on any subject, the other side doesn't care. Christians are taught to give, forgive, and love. You can't even accept that. All your side wants to do is judge and silence dissent. I don't accept that. God and Christ said you would be this way, so why should I or any other Christian be shocked that you are just the way He said you'd be? I'm not.

It is much easier for me to make the political argument here instead of the religious one. That argument is that the Supreme Court can't make law, they can only interpret law that congress passes when it is challenged. You may disagree, but do you discount the US Constitution too?

No, the Supreme Court cannot make law, but it's up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, including its guarantee of liberty and equal protection, which is all that it did. And it's absurd to say that anyone is trying to "silence people who believe in God," because disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as trying to "silence" them. Would it be accurate to say that people who oppose gay marriage are trying to "silence" those who support it? It's the same old right wing canard to cry out "censorship" when their views are not accepted.

As you point out, though, there are many prohibitions that "God" decreed apart from those involving sexual orientation, so my question for you is why Christians aren't rising up and demanding laws to prohibit tattoos? And on the subject of marriage, why does our "traditional" marriage allow people to get divorced? And do you go to a church in which women are not permitted to speak, as per Corinthians 14:34? And do you oppose football because the ball is made of pig skin? Is it an offense to Christians that it's legal to manufacture textiles that mix two kinds of fabric?

It seems to me that Christians who make a particular fuss about gay issues while ignoring other prohibitions that don't involve sexuality are picking and choosing based on their own subjective preferences, i.e., that there is more going on in their dirty little minds than piety. There's a special pleasure that goes along with denying others sexual freedom that just can't be gotten from denying others the right to mix cotton and wool in their sweaters.

Hi Ian,

For what it's worth, I think Charlie's correct to point out that he is not the only one here expressing his beliefs. Humanism takes an ethical position and so entails value judgements, beliefs about what's right and wrong; these beliefs are not founded on the results of scientific experimentation, or derived from logic, though it does tend to value reason and scientific method highly.

Personally, I believe that gay love, sex and marriage is without question just as valid heterosexual love, sex and marriage. Charlie believes it's a sin because it's so written in the Bible. Science isn't going to resolve this one for us.

best,

Matt

I see the U.S. constitution as a living document. It is precious and essential, but it has to be flexible when the times demand it...which is why the gay marriage decision is defensible. A constitution that is utterly inflexible cannot, by definition, be the constitution for a democratic republic.

Well, experience shows us that a huge number of people, including Christians, have indeed been persuaded to alter their view that gay marriage is sinful, but not many people tell us that they used to support gay marriage but no longer do. To me this suggests that it's just a question of educating people and allowing them time to get used to an idea that may well have seemed surprising the first time they heard it.

But in the meantime, the question for now is whether something should be illegal just because some people disapprove of it and have religious convictions that fuel that disagreement, when many people (most, according to polls) regard it as a fundamental liberty and believe it is moral, just, and laudable, and even the pope says he is not qualified to judge people for being gay. Charlie is free to disagree, and no one is silencing him. But for him to rush into a room where two people are getting married and yell "Stop!! This is sin!" would be in rather bad taste. And if I were a gay person about to get married and Charlie told me I was sinning, I'd have two words for him and they wouldn't be "Merry Christmas."

You miss the whole point of the Constitution, Shaun. It is inflexible for a reason. But it gives and provides a way for the law to be changed and codified. It's called a Constitutional Convention. It is a procedure to protect the law already on the books so that the States can determine what the law should be. Is it really so hard for you to get that?

Look, let me explain it this way. Let's say in a few years that all the Supremes get killed in an earthquake. There is a (God-Forbid) Republican President in power. He appoints nothing but strict constitutional conservative judges to the bench and they overturn, gay marriage, abortion, you name it. You are going to be pissed that nine people can ruin so many lives or at least affect them detrimentally. Yes?

The Constitution provides a way to stop this abuse of power.

It isn't a living document. It's a damned close to perfect document bent on order and protection of the minority. If the Constitution were a "Living" document able to be tugged and pulled at by politicians, clergy and radicals, we would devolve into total anarchy, don't you see?

You really should read The Federalist Papers. It gives good, solid, valid reasons why the Framers of the Constitution set it up like they did.

Look at Prohibition, Look at the right to vote, or limits on the Presidential terms. Who wants to see 8 Bill Clinton terms? Or GWB for that matter?

Is the Constitution hard to amend? Yes. That's why its detractors often refer to it like you do— a living document.

But the amendment process is the legal and appropriate way to do this. Let the several states have their say, and if 38 of them agree, it becomes law.

Why place all the power in any one man or any nine men or women?

The Founders had it all figured out. They were right.

If you agree with what was done this week in the Court, you may very well live to see another thing work to your detriment.

I know I'm right about this.

Where are the really smart Constitutional scholars around here? Come on, people.

Gay marriage has never been illegal, if by it you mean two people of the same sex living together, there is no law prohibiting it, don't know about the USA but the law here and in the UK is against buggery, and that is the actual word used. Always has been.
The real issue and it's already happening is gays adopting children. That happens here in Australia and I would say it is fraught with potential problems, but I'm not against it, better to have two gay parents than no parents at all.
I stress I have nothing against gay marriage, I just don't think it should be equated with straight marriage as that is a ritual and state that legitimizes sexual intercourse and procreation. Neither of which (obviously) occur in gay marriage.

You have no understanding at all about the Constitution, Charlie, and certainly not a better understanding than Justice Kennedy, who was hand picked for the Court by Ronald Reagan. When the Constitution says something specific, like the president gets a four-year term, there is no room for interpretation and no basis for interpretations to vary over time. But when the Constitution speaks in general terms, as in "due process," "cruel and unusual," "liberty," "equal protection," etc., the authors of this perfect document were not merely lazy and saying, "We don't want to tell you what these terms mean, since we're in a hurry, but you can just look up what we must have meant if the issue ever arises." No, give them the credit you say you want to give them, and accept that they used open-ended terms because they understood that society's concept of liberty was bound to change over time, and they didn't want to restrict liberty by pretending that their society had already arrived at a perfect understanding of what liberty was and would always remain.

Roger, is that how ya'll looked at Bush v Gore way back in 2000?

I doubt it.

I think you are confusing a function that marriage once had with its present function. These days you can have sex and kids without getting married. So I don't think that's why most people get married any longer. Whatever it is people get marred for (a show of commitment, a romantic dream, tax breaks, a sense of security, because their friends did etc) it's not dependent on their sexuality; any of these reasons apply to both gay and straight couples.

In addition to which, what about hetero couples who marry and don't want to -- or can't have -- have kids. Should they have a ceremony with a different name?

But even if I were to accept that there's differences, (and you surely see the many similarities), why would it trouble you if the word 'marriage' is used in both cases? I don't see why it should follow that there would need to be two different names.

-Matt

P.s. gay people have sexual intercourse! :)

For sure. I was more talking about atheism. Michael never declared himself a humanist anyways; Charlie just pegged him for one because he didn't come out as a Christian and yet still seemed to be a decent human being. (Shock!)

Maaannnnn.... I'm glad you have so much faith in the old white dudes who wrote the constitution, but I'm totally more skeptical of them. You're making a hypocritical argument: if you don't trust the 9 dudes on the bench now, why do you trust the 30 who made our constitution 300 years ago? Huh?

Simply, Ian, Because the 9 folks on the bench right now didn't write the constitution then. FYI. It's closer to 234 years old and there were a few more signers than 30.

More importantly, many of the Old White Dudes who wrote it told what went into the process. They went all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome for answers. These men are heros. They risked their very lives to get to the point of a steady non-monarchal system that would stand the test of time. You can read all about it in US Constitution 101 in high school.

The 14th Amendment was written in the 1860's. Clearly its guarantee of liberty meant more than the abolition of slavery, since the 13th Amendment took care of that. So the question arises, what did the framers of the 14th Amendment mean by "liberty"? If they had something specific in mind, or meant to freeze our concept of liberty to that of the 1860's, they could have just said so, perhaps in a bulleted list of liberties. But the framers of that amendment, who were not at all lazy or stupid, made a conscious choice to use an open-ended term that would leave the contours of liberty flexible, to be revisited from time to time by the Supreme Court. (Judicial review and the authority of Supreme Court on such matters had been established more than fifty years earlier). So you are absolutely right to extol and praise the framers of these important constitutional protections, but you sell them short if you assume that they were sloppy draftsmen who used vague terms while relying on future generations to study the debates and essays of the day to discern their meaning. They wrote the 14th Amendment the way they wrote it because, unlike you, they saw the Constitution as a living, breathing document. That is why the Constitution has survived so long. If it were the inflexible, specific, never-changing document that you posit, it never would have made it this long.

Thanks for your condescension; however, I've been to high school and constitution 101. Those men may be your heroes; to me, they're definitely heroic, but not necessarily perfect individuals. It's possible they messed up, even though they certainly weren't dolts. Same with the people who sit on the Supreme Court now. Same, really, with anyone, you and I included. No need to put the founding fathers on a pedestal. If their document is a perfect one we shouldn't touch, would you also argue that there's no point at which it could become outdated? At which they could have failed to prepare for some contingency that has now come to pass? I'm sorry, I don't see them as clairvoyant, and I think there are issues our country grapples with today that they neither predicted nor implemented the exact machinery in the exact words of the constitution for us to fix. That's why we take some liberty with their ideas, as they took some liberty with the ideas that came before them. That, in a sense, is what they meant — that we have liberty. No?


EDIT: Case in point is the right to bear arms. It's interpreted in different ways by different people, but in the long run, it's not really important exactly what they meant — I think it's safe to say they'd be horrified by how guns are being used in America these days. Who knows — maybe they'd be super pro-NRA — but they were living in a very different time than we are when they wrote the second amendment, and that we can't get together the required political clout to change gun laws in America is not a reflection of the virtue of the constitution but of the nefarious influence of money (and idiots) in our political system.

Roger I have said twice that I agree with gay marriage, I have also said there is a distinction between gay marriage and straight marrige, ie sexual intercourse and the possiblity of children, the fact that there are exceptions does not negate this.
Nor does making the distinction mean I am against gay marriage, I will say it again just to be absolutely certain I am in favour of gay marriage

Ross, I wasn't addressing you in any way, nor did I have you in mind when I wrote any of my comments, so I have no idea why you are directing that last remark to me. I didn't know or wonder whether you supported gay marriage, but I'm glad to hear you do.

By the way, it may interest you to know that gay people do have sexual intercourse. You should Google it.

Ross,

I think you've confused Roger and I. I was the one who responded to your point.

I do realise that you are in favour of gay marriage, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought otherwise.

I was confused by your desire to have gay marriage named differently from straight marriage. As I said, whilst historically marriage may have been necessary in order to with have sex and babies, among other things, that's no longer the case. By and large gay and straight people get married for pretty much the same reasons, I believe. And besides, why not have equality? Distinguishing between straight marriage and gay marriage just doesn't strike me as equality.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it's just marriage.

best,

Matt

Arrested? Arrested! Handcuffed, for heavens sakes.

And the flag is up again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYgb...ature=youtu.be

Yes, I was delighted with the last two Supreme Court decisions. But then they owed us a couple, after that Citizens United business.

(Another thing that will make you feel good is watching Pres. Obama singing "Amazing Grace.")

Sorry Roger as Matt said I got you confused with him.

When I was in my 20's the bohemian scene and the gay scene intersected since Sydney had such a small population and few places where such people could feel accepted. I met lots of gay couples who lived together ( it was still illegal then and gays were often bashed and murdered). Some were faithful to each other, others were very promiscuous. I saw a lot of people die of AIDS, including women, that colours my view on things.

I did look up gay sexual intercourse, don't know what you mean, there's oral sex, rubbing penises together (frottage) and anal sex. By sexual intercourse I mean, penis and vagina getting snugly involved. It's been a while but I think that's still how it's done.

No law against buggery here that I know of. Just as well too. Ross is right to enumerate the ways gays can have sex The noted celebrity, Stephen Fry, is on record as saying he practises everything except the big B. And Oscar Wilde was prosecuted because of the age of the boys (fourteen) rather than because of the act. Even then, since the boys were lower class, he was given every opportunity to go the France where all manner of sexual practises were commonplace.

John in the UK it was incorporated into the 'offences againt the person act' in 1861, but it still remained as it was before and was still called buggery, I assume it was designed to prosecute anal rape or under age anal sex, the penalty was 10 years to life.
This remained until 1967 and homosexuals could be prosecuted for it, I can't find out what the difference was between consensual anal sex and non-consensual, the wording doesn't differentiate. Also of course it could apply equally to anal sex with women, although the wording does not mention women. It's a bit vague, although probably that's because it's on the net, the actual legistlation may go into the details.

Did anyone actually get ten years to life for buggery between 1861 and 1960 whenever it was, Ross?

I've no idea John, nor do I care, I think we have got sidetracked and you are adept at encouraging that.

Matt, I positively adore the haikus. Great fun.

And yes, the last one is, well ... lovely.

That's where this thread started. Thank you, Michael.

I am hoping that the nuttier Scalia becomes, the more vituperative in his reactions to anybody who disagrees with him, the more he might push Kennedy and Roberts leftward, just to avoid being tangled in that Scalia/Thomas/Alioto pit of rancor. The recent decisions give the tiniest flicker of hope. It would be nice to see it continue.

Michael, thank you for your kind words.

To bring it to a close (for me at least), and with a nod to my friend John Whitworth, I’ll invoke Auden, as seems appropriate: it feels good, it is a pleasure, to show an affirming flame.

Thank you, Michael. We are all, as too many people say too often, on the same page.