my despair over prop 2, 120, and potentially prop 8

[DrT]

I thinks Raps hit the nail ont he head: it's all about being part fo the group.
It fells warmer in a group than on your own, after all.

Then you add the age old scapegoat mentality, ie: look for the source of the mistake elsewher ebefore going over your own actions. There are plenty of bad things going on in the world, and people do not feel safe, so what is the action you take: find someone to blame. And people who will blame them too, so you won't be alone.
And if more than one person says it, then it's true, right?
Oh ! that one dude says the Bible says it too ! Now we got God on our side !

and so on and so forth. With this kind of snowball effect, you rapidly find yourself in a group that imposes ideas on you, and threatens you when you start arguing. After a while you teach yourself not to argue, because you've been in the group so long, you're afraid to be on your own again, to not belong...

I want to point out that you can't blame these people. You can blame their leaders. They are the one making sure their floc (as they call them, see how the term is borrowed from the art of herding sheep ? hardly a coincidence) stay as little educated as possible.
The less educated you are, the less thinking you do on your own, the easiest it is to lead you.


To cover another subject: adoption without marriage.
Two things:
1- marriage is a sign of stability, and one can understand that you'd want to make sure a couple is stable and willing to stay together for a long while before adopting a child. This could be replaced by a careful evaluation of the couple before the adoption procedure goes through. Wait, that's already into place, as I went through it when adopting my first two sons. And since it took me 2 years, that screening is throrough (that was in Maryland, US). I'm for that screening, so it's tough for me to be against the 'no adoption without marriage' thing. I'd like to see a legal contract between the two members of the couple.

2-as I've said, I'm for careful screening of people willing to take on parenting. If we want to be fait, the same should be done for having children biologically. People should be screened before that happens, carefully, and before that bearing children should be made impossible. I know, I'm a monster.

[smileyeagle1021]

DrT... it is possible to have a stable relationship without marriage... and there are now 3 states that have put in their constitution rules making it impossible for some of those people to marry. That and even in heterosexual relationships there are reasons to have a stable relationship without getting married (ie, tax rules, social security rules, personal reasons regarding the governments role in the relationship, etc). Also it's possible to be married and not be in a stable relationship. So marriage is hardly a good indicator of whether or not someone is in a relationship stable enough to raise children.
I do agree with you though that there should be stringent testing.

[DrT]

I entirely agree that it's possible to have a long lasting relationship without marriage, and that marriage doesn't garantee stability.

It however garantees right for the child, which are not present in a non-official relation. Hence my worry. If a married couple split up, then both parents stay responsible for the child and the one not keeping him/her is forced by law to provide for him/her.
If an non legally bound couple decides to adopt, then it's likely only 1 of the parent will be bound to the child, with no obligation to the other. That doesn't protect the child.

Which is why I said that I wanted to see some form of legal binding. Here we have the PACS (I'm in France), and that means special rights and duties.

Regarding homosexual mariage (amazing hoz the PC crowd insist on calling it 'same sex'), I find ridiculous to ban it, pure and simple. We had some big fights over the PACS here, which is a legal binding not as strong as marriage, seen as homosexual mariage then, and frankly the people against it were scary.

[AdminAssistant]

Dr. T, the Arkansas initiative also bans single people from adopting OR fostering. We have a major shortage of foster homes here, and Arkansas just placed more limitations on it.

Frankly, I know homosexual couples who could provide a much more stable, loving, and financially secure home than many heterosexual couples.

[Saydrah]

I haven't read the whole thread yet and I don't really want to because I'm not ready to give up my euphoria and optimism after Obama's win, and this will make me sad-- but I do want to add my voice in solidarity with those condemning these hateful amendments. However, I do think that the pendulum is swinging slowly but powerfully toward a place where equal rights for people of all sexual orientations will be the norm, even if it sometimes swings back briefly and ends up in something like this. Someday those of us who have children (not me!) will be asked by those kids, "So there was really a time when you could only get married to the opposite sex, and that was a LAW?!" just like kids these days ask "They really didn't let black and white people marry each other?!"

[ElMarko]

I'd be bricking it right now

Idiom confusion here. When I was a kid "bricking it" meant an unintentional fall from a skateboard of the more dramatic variety.

[smileyeagle1021]

Idiom confusion here. When I was a kid "bricking it" meant an unintentional fall from a skateboard of the more dramatic variety.

I think it might be a British colloquial similar to "battering down the hatches" ... I kinda got the image of someone bricking up all the windows on their house...

[Saydrah]

I thought it was a polite way of saying "I'd shit bricks."

[ElMarko]

Um, Arkansas hasn't been a Confederate state since 1865. Southern, yes. Conservative, yes. Not Confederate.

It's a lot easier to type than states that were members of the former confederacy, jeez.

[AdminAssistant]

It's a lot easier to type than states that were members of the former confederacy, jeez.

That was over 150 years ago, why should ex-Confederate states (wow, that WAS hard) even be typed as such? Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Honestly, Arkansas is one of the more 'Democratic' states in the South. Both Senators, 3/4 Representatives, and the Governor are all Democrats. Huckabee was our first Republican governor since the Reconstruction (a completely different but equally frustrating topic), and he initially got into the office as a result of Jim Guy Tucker being the scapegoat for Whitewater. Yes, the state went to McCain, but by a slimmer margin than some states.

And before anybody brings it up, yes there are still those that tote around the Battle Flag or the Stars'n'Bars and rave about the South rising again. That is a very small minority. And there are just as many of those north of the Mason-Dixon as there are south of it.

And, for the record, Arkansas didn't join the Confederacy until Lincoln demanded the state institute a draft to provide soldiers to fight the states that initially seceded.

[Rapscallion]

I thought it was a polite way of saying "I'd shit bricks."

Yup, though I wouldn't recommend using it around Brenda (Her Maj).

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Ok... 3 points. well... more now

First... "bricking it"... down here, that'd mean throwing rocks at houses (usually on to their roofs). (and "Brenda"??? where do you get Brenda from??? As against Betty?)

Second...

sounds a bit like Utah... 4 counties have something like 80-85% of the states population, in order of size, Salt Lake, Utah, Weber, and Davis... Oh and Salt Lake makes up over half the population of that 4 county area, so really what Salt Lake wants Salt Lake gets.

So... 15% of a countries population can made decisions that affect the rest, and that's ok, but 85% can't?? How does that make any sense??? (15% is from... less than 50% of the legally able to voters in US will vote, so that means about 30% of total population. Only half needed to win the election.. thus 15%)

Thirdly... ummm - is Anriana's comment sarcasm, or satire?

Fourth... raising kids needs to be done in a stable situation. A multi-millionaire who really loves kids (but, apparently, not their time ) should be able to adopt and foster if they choose to. Married? Why? Not if their money makes them a far safer bet (Hi Michael Jackson )

Fifth...

there are idiots who will rock the boat simply for the sake of doing so.

And perhaps lastly *... ooh, Smiley's just come out! And on here!! Congrats Smiley!

Ooops - no, not lastly I forgot this one...

The problem here isn't christianity - it's human nature. We're tribal. Give us someone we can all hate, we band together. It's a fairly common method of mass control. Hitler used the Jews, gays, and Romanies. The Inquisition used anyone who didn't say exactly the right things and Jews, and probably gays as well. Many Arab nations are happy to demonise Jews and gays (bit of a theme developing - if I were a gay Jew, I'd be bricking it right now). Marx created his own divisions based on wealth - bourgouise and ... the other one for the poorer folk.

Just makes people do what you tell them. It's a disturbingly effective technique.

Rapscallion

And the Spartans and Athenians bagged the crap out of the heterosexuals.... (oh, and each other). Plato states it quite emphatically in "Phaedrus" - the love of a man and a woman will never be as strong or significant as that between a man and his boy. (ok, misquote, but basically that was his line!)


* Damn - ran out of smileys

[smileyeagle1021]

And perhaps lastly *... ooh, Smiley's just come out! And on here!! Congrats Smiley!

what's sad... I can't tell if you sound like you were expecting that to happen

oh and

And the Spartans and Athenians bagged the crap out of the heterosexuals.... (oh, and each other).

my brain so went into the gutter on that one

[Slytovhand]

what's sad... I can't tell if you sound like you were expecting that to happen

No, but after reading through half a dozen or more posts talking about it, it might come across that way...

Why would it be sad??

my brain so went into the gutter on that one

What's it say that I had to think about that one???

Personally, I was amused that I said "ran out of smiley's" only thought of that after I typed it...

[smileyeagle1021]

Why would it be sad??

What's it say that I had to think about that one???

Personally, I was amused that I said "ran out of smiley's" only thought of that after I typed it...

first, I don't know why it would be sad, I just couldn't think of anything else to say

second, i don't know what is says that you had to think about that (other than your mind isn't far enough in the gutter)

third, why on earth would you be running out of smiley's