Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Yes to all of the above. The issue is instead of principles of equality determining what the law is, only certain churches are determining what the law is to the exclusion of others.... Certain churches seem to have a long history of overreaching for power and even a modern record, including the girl scouts. It's just like some people simply won't be happy until their definitions and rules are made universal. [sigh].

I have three choices. 1.) Marry a guy, 2.) live with a guy and be married in everything but name with no benefits of being married, or 3.) die alone. That's pretty much it.

Nobody's asking to force churches to marry people. Hell, I'd elope or do it with a judge.

[Euld]

or do it with a judge.

I somehow read this out of context and giggled :3

[Reelya]

That's gross, judges are too old. Unless they're like the judge in the TV show "Dark Justice". Are they're really judges like that, Truean?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And that was how the Progressive Expression Thread became the Truean Is Forced To Talk About The Attractiveness Of Judges thread.

[RedKing]

Judge Wapner: Hot or Not?

[Korbac]

If Judy is a viable example (which I'm sure she's not), then no way.

[GlyphGryph]

The whole gay marriage deal has to do with legal contracts, nothing else.

Honestly, I eagerly await the day where marriage is meaningless because we've decided to actually go with equality as an end goal and offer the same benefits to unmarried people. No longer will you have to give someone half ownership on all your stuff to allow them to visit you in the hospital! No longer will you have to deal with the social expections of marriage to live with someone in the same house and be treated as family - and not as potential parents, perhaps, but siblings. No longer will your ability to pool insurance or vouch for immigrants be constrained to those with whom one is romantically involved.

And so on, and so forth.

It will be very nice. (Though I doubt it will ever happen. I may be married, for the benefits, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the legal status of the institution as inherently terrible and unequal)

[Truean]

What's really hilarious is that same sex marriage may once have been a Christian Rite. Back when that Jesus guy was running around, the western world was ruled by Rome, and they didn't have such a problem with the gays. Gays could serve in the legions and pay taxes just as well as anyone else, so they didn't care. Better yet, the gays adopted, which meant it was less expensive for the empire to take care of orphans until they joined the legion. Christians then were taking pagan rituals and incorporating them into their religion. "Yule log," anyone? That verse from "Deck the Halls,... don thee now our gay apparel, sing the ancient yuletide carol...." Yeah. Then somewhere along the line, people started to care about being gay in a bad way and that's why we're here.

It's kinda funny, if God were made president for life (all eternity) as some of the religious right wants, then he'd demand we heal the sick and tax the rich to pay for it (easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven). He'd promptly be impeached as a socialist.

And that was how the Progressive Expression Thread became the Truean Is Forced To Talk About The Attractiveness Of Judges thread.

Most that I've seen, non applicable.

[MonkeyHead]

Apologies for a change of topic (which I kind of started anyway), but I saw this today and wondered how in blue hell it had not been seen and stopped sooner. Way to be your own worst enemy.

[GlyphGryph]

That sort fo topic change is exactly what this thread is for, no need to apologize.

[kaijyuu]

That fiasco is ridiculous enough to be moderately amusing.

[Truean]

That's incredibly irresponsible to say the least and it explains a few things, sadly. What's amazing is that this goes so very far contra to DOD sit op that I can't believe it made it as a course material set as long as it did. Did I read that right? It considered nukes for Muslim holy cities? Is this guy trying to start World War Three? If anything, we need trustworthy allies among this population, if only for the Farsi speakers, and for all kinds of reasons.

[RedKing]

I'm not entirely surprised. The number of Christian Dominionists in command-level officers is one of the Pentagon's ugly little secrets, though it's typically been concentrated in the Air Force. But it wouldn't be the first time you've had a senior ground officer make comments of that sort. Obviously, teaching those views as Army doctrine is a whole 'nother level of fucked-up, but at least someone with the authority to do something about took notice and did something about it.

[Leafsnail]

It's kinda funny, if God were made president for life (all eternity) as some of the religious right wants, then he'd demand we heal the sick and tax the rich to pay for it (easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven). He'd promptly be impeached as a socialist.

I think you should be wary of assuming your interpretation of God is the only valid one.

Apologies for a change of topic (which I kind of started anyway), but I saw this today and wondered how in blue hell it had not been seen and stopped sooner. Way to be your own worst enemy.

Yikes.  That's... extremely serious.  It could certainly colour their views on whether "collateral damage" in attacks is acceptable.

[Frumple]

Some day someone's going to have to explain how that scenario even works, especially on a military level. If the entire Muslim population was hostile to America, our only strategic choices would be surrender or suicide. Roughly a third of the world's population is Muslim -- America has neither the force projection nor resource base to be able to do anything against that. It's just not physically possible.

Capitulation would be literally the only viable military solution available, and it's just not possible to game out a better resolution -- anything else, when put up against a genuinely united worldwide Mulsim population, would end with either destruction or occupation. The numbers are too disparate, and even if you could kill off a sufficient amount to cripple the theoretical Muslim military capability, the economic shocks from losing that much population would absolutely cripple the US -- and everywhere else, of course. Nuclear response would result in the exact same thing -- even if the US went absolutely isolationist, the repercussions from losing that much worldwide population in the sort of timeframe such an act entails would necessarily entail we'd lose most of our own population to economic shock (never mind any retaliation from non Muslim countries for the horrific war crime that would necessarily entail.).

More worrisome than just about any damn thing to me is that we've got military strategists -- even shit poor ones -- that are even considering such a thing as a possibility. It's a theoretical assumption that goes beyond even staggering stupidity into something I can't think of the words to properly describe.