Never mind.  I went back to your cheering for gay thread and found this:

If Jordan were willing to get involved, he'd probably be able to shed more light on these Bible stories but I'll try. What is probably most important to state though is that these biblical/historical individuals are not cited as behavioral endorsements but most often as flawed human characters.  I plunge on.

Abraham had one wife who was barren.  Then he had an affair with the fertile Hagar.  Then old Sarah had a baby.  That's the way I recall the story.  Maybe you remember it differently. 

Jacob.  Polygamist who repented and lived his days as in monogamy.  I think there was only one -not multiple -- wives.

David.  A polygamous sinner from the OT who is punished and repents.  Not an OT model of behavior specific to the time.

Wise King Solomon.  All I remember about him was his bluff to chop the contested baby into two parts.

Where'd you get the information that women were property in ancient Judea?  I think I missed that part too.  Or was that an extrapolation?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

This is the girl.

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Regardless of Miss California's opposition to it, I think it was horrendously unfair that she was asked such a question and Perez Hilton had NO right to put her or anyone else on the spot like that and then bash them publicly for their answer. Unlike those of us here who have the ability to walk away if we don't want to answer, she had no option and was faced with having to answer, and that's just rotten. While I wholeheartedly disagree with her position, I will most definitely applaud her for having enough sack to be honest over such a hot-button topic. The Miss USA pageant should be slapped with a wet trout for having Hilton as a judge and Hilton should be shaken for being such a self-righteous twat. What he did was appalling and I'm shocked by people clapping him on the back and applauding him for what was nothing more than mean trickery on his part.

To add to this discussion, I fully support gay marriage. I don't subscribe to any religion and even if I did, I couldn't in good conscience go into a state's constitution and actually take away a US citizen's right to something. I'm not asking someone to be personally OK with gay marriage. I'll grant people the right to be unhappy with homosexuality and all its trappings. But to treat someone differently because of their sexuality is no better than treating someone differently for being physically handicapped, black, Muslim, mentally retarded, etc. You can color it whatever shade of gray you want, but it's still discrimination, plain and simple. In California, it's not as though the right never existed. It was there to begin with. It was taken away. That...plain and simple...is discrimination.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

 I heard a snippet on NPR yesterday that might be relevant.  It was a call-in question to some philosophers on one of the mid-day forum shows.  Basically, a religious person called in to question how non-religious people developed a moral compass.

a) some people's morality is based more upon external influences (what your momma told you, faith in god/transcendant properties, or belief that past or current societal norms are optimal)

b) other people's morality is an internally derived belief of a societal contract (more or less a "golden rule"); the idea that if I treat others with respect then I will live in a society where I can also be treated with respect, and by extension that everyone should be treated with respect.

now my interpretation:

People that believe b (apparently more or less including me, I'm not sure this entirely encompasses my world-view but I wouldn't say it is wrong) have a hard time understanding the logic of aspects of an "a" person's morality if some part of  it conflicts with their "b" morality.  Probably the more general agreement there is, the harder it is to understand areas that do not overlap.  (Possibly putting my foot in my mouth here) an "a" person might say "what does logic have to do with morality, you shouldn't need logic to tell you right from wrong".  There could be a  big difference between how "a" and "b" people think even if their actions may be generally similar.

So Susan says (basically) For 5000 years we've thought thought about marriage in a certain way, so this is probably the right way.

So Nefud says (basically) After 5000 years, we finally know enough to change how we as a society think about gay rights.

Apologies for putting words in people's mouths

Bio wrote:

So Susan says (basically) For 5000 years we've thought thought about marriage in a certain way, so this is probably the right way.

So Nefud says (basically) After 5000 years, we finally know enough to change how we as a society think about gay rights.

Yes, that's a portion of my argument.  I will add to the brief context above that I disagree changing society's meaning of marriage is a negation of rights.  If marriage is between one man and one woman, there are no rights denied to the homosexual.  There's probably a good reason that no state previously felt the need to add the words "One Man + One Woman" into their legal descriptions of marriage.  So in effect, that that omission has become the loophole for constitutional wonks who reinterpret in favor of expanding marriage. 

Amanda, when you say the "right [of same sex couples to marry] was taken away in California," I agree that has become the sticky wicket.  That is the sticky wicket that allows Obama to walk the both sides of the fence while at one hand saying he believes marriage should be OMOW but oh how he doesn't like overturning Consitutions. 

The "right" was a legal interpretation foisted on the state by four CA supreme justices mere months before the people of the state -- many of us wishing not to have been placed in that position, but so it often goes in the state of California -- voted Yes on Prop 8 thereby adding the clarifiying terminology of "one-man-one-woman" as a clarification for what  previously required no such redundancy.  Then the lightbulb went off -- OHMYGAWD, we're the same as racists.  We're homophobes.  We're oppressors. 

The religious component only enters my mind when considering that our society derives from Judeo-Christian background.  We did not spring full blown with no guiding ethos.  Secularists may like to believe they've evolved without any of that historic religious philosophical input from their parents or grandparents, etc, but the Golden Mean is a little too squishy and non-defining a premise for a sound social order, imo.  Works out great for architecture though. 

Amanda, when you say...

But to treat someone differently because of their sexuality is no better than treating someone differently for being physically handicapped, black, Muslim, mentally retarded, etc. You can color it whatever shade of gray you want, but it's still discrimination, plain and simple.

...once again, I have to disagree with you.  Well, actually we do treat the physically handicapped and the mentally retarded differently.  We add handicap ramps to sidewalks.  We have wider doorways mandated for wheelchairs.  Mentally retarded people below a different standard do not qualify for the death penalty for the same crimes as a 100 IQ murderer.  They are often afforded a conservator who handles their financial affairs rather than allowing them the right to spend as they see fit.  I'm not sure, but I think there ARE laws that would prohibit two severely mentally retarded individuals from marrying.  Definitely from adopting children.  Both handicapped and mentally retarded people qualify for a plethora of state aid.  Blacks or any other races have not ever been forbidden to marry one another by any mainstream religion from Christianity to Judaism to Islam.  But all of the aforementioned believe have considered marriage as between a man and a woman although a few breakaway churches will perform same sex marriages, something they are free to do regardless of state laws, btw.

California is always coming up with citizen sponsored initiatives/propositions only to have them overruled by the CA supremes.  They'll probably do the same this time. 

As I mentioned before, the Dutch, who were the first with same-sex marriage, think this is not the best way to move forward.  Remember Roe V Wade and the never ending debates that have come from a US Supreme Court ruling over the legality of abortion when it was already well in the works and legal in half of the states at that time.  And here we are today.  If a sufficient number of state judges press forward interpretting their marriage laws to include same sex marriage at a time when more than half of your countrymen (over 60% at last count) are agin it, we may find ourselves in the same sort of entrenched and bitter neverending battle.  

Now is the time for discussion and a meeting of the minds to the extent that we can.  Not a speedy switcheroo for the sake of us all feeling compassionate.  Not the time to accuse the other side as hateful, intolerant dummies as has been done to Miss California, the poor gal who has become the symbolic Evil Road Block on the Equal Rights for All Highway.

Susan

PS For those who never read it, here is the entire text of California's Proposition 8:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

http://thedirty.com/?p=157850

Most religions are based on this. In fact, with or without religion, most people live by this-- with the exception of some groups and individuals.

nuart said "golden mean"... balance & harmony. in architenture. Compromise in ethics (used, recently by me, to justify humane capital punishment)

and unrelated to the former.

Except, I guess, for those who feel they're compromising by treating people with kindness and respect.

Good clarifications, Angel.

Thanks.  

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Uh oh, there have been news reports of Carrie Prejean taking racy pictures in the past.

Is there such thing as a beauty contestant that hasn't taken racy photos?

I swear every one of them gets busted for doing some Girls Gone Wild type stuff (which is okay in my book).

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

You mean this?  Scandalous.  And then to voice an opinion as well?!  

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

I agree- assuming there aren't any more revealing pics that would violate her contract, then it would seem the pagaent poopers are trying to get rid of her as quickly as possible.

She is basically a spokesperson for a business- and as such making controversial comments that might cost the business money are probably grounds for termination of her position.  However, the fact that she was 1) asked the question during the freakin' pagaent, and 2) this has brought way more publicity than this anachronism of an event deserves, I do feel like she got shafted.

A normal red blooded American male wouldn't even have noticed the words coming out of her mouth.

bla blah blah blah blah

*checks hot chick out up and down*

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

i would be the worst/best judge ever at one of those.

question 1: explain the importance of the magna carta.

question 2: what's the trim job like on the pubes? landing strip, heart, hitler moustache?

question 3: who is the more important director, eisenstien or murnau? why?

question 4: do you enjoy giving head, or are you worthless?

"Harry, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black coffee. Like this."  -Dale Cooper

“The four most over-rated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.” --Christopher Hitchens

 i think he really has a point on this one.

edit: just to clarify, i hold all four of those questions in equal importance.

Heh. Was about to say. Makes him sound like a boring cheapskate, don't it?