Let's Have an Intelligent Chat, Shall we?

Actually, the Spartans several times had to put down revolts.

And in the early Spartan system the women ended up owning a good deal of the property... so the men changed the system in later centuries so that the women were once again relegated to being baby machines.

A Spartan man served in the military, took a lover in that military, and then time came to breed a new generation, so he availed himself on a Spartan woman. Built into the system were three classes and an overly aggressive stance that got them into trouble more often than it got them out of it.

They became feared alright... how could they not? They were a tremendously effective war machine.

But let's not romanticize them too much, eh?

And if you start eliminating people before seeing their potential effect on the world and on themselves, then you won't make yourself stronger... you'll just make yourself weaker. You never know whether they will snap out of a state and achieve greatness, or simply be an inspiration for someone else. Without such events to jar our spirits, as painful as they may be, medicine may not have advanced as far, technology would be debilitated, and who knows what the effects would be on society as a whole.

Disease and deformity has absolutely nothing to do with potential and/or inspiration. Take such a tact, and you destroy the potential of humanity because you only had enough vision to see the prima facie. Of course, that's a very human lack of insight.

I would be terrified to live in a society where human _lack of vision_ is allowed to decide the potential of each individual at birth.

I am going to bow out of the Spartan conversation, because I lack factual history. Have fun guys.

And we dont need to worry about getting rid of the ill, weak, or deformed, because no one is going to kill them off or keep them from anything. Its not an argument that can be won or disproved, strictly because of human rights.

"...About equal rights: I don’t believe in total equality of PEOPLE. This means that I believe what you can do, versus what you cannot do, should not be dictated by race or gender, but by skill. For instance in the earlier example given by Ali, there are 4 spots for scholarship, and the 3 top boys are better than all the girls but 1. It’s not fair that 2 boys and 2 girls go, because the 3rd guy is better than the 2nd girl. Thus, determining by SKILL and not gender is the fair thing to do. Women should not be demoted in society because they have a vagina, but if their skill is less than a man in a certain field she should not come first because of it..."

I obviously agree with you saying that people ought to be judged equal by ability and strengths, yet the example I gave occurs all the time. Women under Title XI are given actually they have the rights to the equal amount of scholarship as the men. So if the college was allotted 600 dollars for scholarships and they gave 100 of it to each of the boys and only took the best girl, they would still be required to give that one girl a 300 dollar scholarship to be "equal" under title XI. it doesnt seem fair even then that a first place runner gets only 100 dollars and a third place runner gets 300 just because she is a girl. It is important and necessary to "repay" your husband or boyfriend or whomever for going to work each day. Its important as well to talk through problems and to understand each other.

Trust me when I say that I have a harder time then any guy does when it comes to understanding my fiancee. He is so moody *yes more then me* that one minute he could want sex and be all horny and the next he could be pissed off that his sunglasses he never wears are broken. Trust me... I know how hard some people are to understand.

FURTHER ON:

Sparta, granted we may be eliminating whole races *if I were in charge*, but we are also giving like Kaitlin said people a chance to be a stronger and healthier society. Would you rather rid the world *or society* of dieseases like cancer and aids then support a crippled child who "has drool running down their chin" (i believe thats what you said kaitlin... that was a good illustration) only knowing that he will contribute nothing to the society of any use and will be a burdin that needs feeding, cleaning and will simply die without repaying or doing their part? I know God puts people on the earth for a reason, but the only reason I see in them being here is to either use them as test subjects (in order to cure diseases) or to simply fill a hole in someones void. Usually parents of children like this are more flustered financially and mentally drained. In this society we would create, we would be giving them the oppertunity to try again and to not have to be financially or mentally tired

For Miles: yurp the revolts were central to the Helot fields being used as a trial for manhood. Accept that some will die everynow and then because we're better. if you revolt again we'll wipe half of you out. Very simple, devastatingly effective.

I don't think there is anything remotely romantic about the Spartan system. Promotion of homosexuality and and the very real possibility that you won't ever get to see the face of you wife in the light of day does much to steer me well away from romance.

But there are the aspects of Spartan women and their independence that would benefit society today.

Human rights and Sparta today: Would not work worth a dime. And I agree that killing the weak on birth is short sighted. Brunel is a great example. However there are some strong cases for applied euthanasia.

(I like taking one side of a debate and seeing it through)

And it's equally true that we should be talking about a subject that we are all informed about.

So next subject... Well, as I brought up Sparta, I'll let the next poster decide our fate *grins*

Bert

Ok so heres a debate...

Who do you think SHOULD have won the civil war? The south or the north? and why?

I think the south should won... but thats because I like the southern cooking... ok i dont think this one will get far.... CHANGING IT

Homosexuality...
your feelings and take on the subject...

Why? are you gay? All I was asking is their opinion...

According to Dante there are different levels of hell and sooner or later we all will end up in one of the layers, because we all sin eventually. I dont think they should be allowed to get married, and I definatly dont think they are a minortiy group that needs special scholarship funding or anything like that. Yeah, youre here and queer I'm used to it. Ive been here im not queer and I really dont care who you screw just as long as I dont know or have to hear about it.

An interesting and peaky subject...

Well, I'm a classic non-phobic hetero boy. I have one gay mate, a few lesbian buddies and it's never bothered me at all.

The only time it annoys me is when it is used as an excuse, then it just irks me. I'm gay, you wouldn't understand. Really? I'm straight, you wouldn't understand either. Grow up and deal with it.

Marriage? I'm against it. Marriage is between man and wife, always has always will. You cannot expect to have a religious ceremony when homosexuality is not accepted by the church. Going to hell? I don't know, I don't make that decision.

Civil unions and next of kin rights? Sure, i'm all for that. We all pay the same taxes and follow the same laws.

As for Dante's hell I don't believe a word of it because it's written by a bloke.

An interesting concept, but nothing to be used in a theological debate.

I'll be a happy chappy when people no longer feel the need to discuss whether men should marry men or women should marry women...and should gay people be allowed to raise kids?.

These are not the questions that should be being asked.

Do they love each other without reserve?..would those two people love a child with everything they could give?

You'll always get wrong answers if you ask the wrong questions, however well intentioned.

Yo bret, you can't really say you're not homophobic and then state that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, it isn't logical. Would you deny gay people any civil right that hetrosexual people have?

I said same sex unions are fine, but in the context of organised religion it obviously isn't. I also stated that gay unions should carry the same rights and weight as a religious marriage. When was the last time you saw a gay couple with next of kin rights? I'm all for it mate.

I have no problem whatsoever with kids being raised in a gay, straight, bi-sexual, asexual or celebate environment so long as the family in which a child lives is nurturing and loving.

Civil rights and religious rights are two very different things.

People are relating marriage to theology, when in fact it has nothing to do with God at all. You can get married in the eyes of God, by one of the people who serve him (EX: Priest or Pastor, etc.), but MARRIAGE itself is not something that is directly sanctified by God.

Plus I don’t get why you have to get married in a church or by a priest either, God watches everything supposedly, therefore everything is always in his eyes. The conundrum...

Anyway I believe that just for the sake of clearing up confusion homosexuals should have another name for their "unions." Marriage is between a man and a woman, and gays can be "unified" in some fashion. Either one can be called "spouse."

They deserve the same rights and benefits as straight people do, no doubt, but when it comes to raising children it gets a little bit sketchy for me, not because I am against it, but simply because it would be difficult for the child to grow up in that situation with all the prejudice and discrimination that goes on.

I have many friends that say they like a black person, white person, Asian person, or a Mexican person, etc. but would never marry outside of their race because of the societal pressures and stigmatic ideals surrounding the issue.

Until people get to be more open, it would be difficult to adjust for the child, and developmentally it may not be right or fair to them, but I do think that two homosexuals could make for fantastic parents, just like straight people can make terrible ones. They are capable of love and guidance all the same; raising a capable child is not dependant on sexuality.

I think it is stupid for people to fight this, personally. I am from the West coast, so things are pretty open here, and the general mentality is that if people want to get "married" or "unified," let them. It doesn’t affect us negatively like it affects them, and marriage is hardly a sanctimonious thing anymore with all the divorces going on, it is not what it used to be, I should just leave it at that.

This is just like discriminating against other races, or women, or any other group for that matter. Everything turns out to be equal in the end, and in 20 or 30 years we will look back on the reactions that are going on now and not understand them, just like my friends and I look at suppressing the blacks as utterly ridiculous.

Just because something is written in the Bible does not make it true in every day society. People who think homosexuals should not be married don’t need to accept or recognize personally that they are, they can disregard it, however the state and nation should recognize it because our constitution was based on freedoms unrestricted by government, that was in fact why we branched off from the British in the first place and decided to make a nation so great that as long as you did not commit an offense that was obviously wrong (killing, stealing, raping, etc.), you could do whatever you wanted and capitalize on the freedoms that you were granted.

America stood for freedom once, but the government seems to be getting more and more involved with their puratinistic views and imposing them upon us.

"Just because something is written in the Bible does not make it true in every day society."

True but getting married in God's house means a union under his rules, religion and faith.

Pop down the local registry office and get hitched there... everyone's happy.

right. I agree with you bret. The idea of being married in a church is saying you will follow God's rules and be in his image. When you get married to someone in a church you take a vow that I believe goes something like "Do you promise to cherish and love this person till death do you part" meaning "regardless of physical and mental abuse along with the temptation from others, in actuality without straying at all do you swear that you will never divorce this person and stay by them through everything?" Like bret said, go to the Justice of the Peace and get married there, then if youre marriage dissolves its not like you blatently lied to God. Second thing, I agree with you Kaitlin that if a gay person wants to refer to their "union" with their partner as something other then marriage I'm all for it. I think that "marriage" should stay what it has been for ages and ages. Plus (again paraphrasing the words) when you marry the preist or whomever says "do you take so and so to be your husband and do you take so and so to be your wife" How in a homosexual union would you decifer who is the husband and who is the wife? I dont think its right to have to change the ideas behind a marriage to fit a gay person. Its not like the straight people in the world are demanding a upsidedown rainbow to be their symbol. If they want to get "married" then let it be called something else. (just so you know I'm not homophobic as well. I went to my senior prom with my good friend who was gayer then Carson from Queer Eye).

The third part is that I also agree with Kaitlin saying that children who grow up in these environments most likely feel some slack from other kids and society. I know that many schools have "Bring your daddy to preschool day" (we did at our Preschool and Childhood Developement class in my high school) and how would a kid from a lesbian parented household feel when she brought in her second mommie? Kinda weird. or even worse if she didnt bring one in and another 4 year old asked "Wheres your daddy?" and the kid had to explain that she didnt have a daddy but two mommies. Sooner or later the children would be confused and have to ask their teacher who probably wouldnt know what to say. Its more complicated then that though. I worked with a lesbian once. She had gotten pregnant and then took a "partner". Her daughter called both of them mommie. When I saw them once, the little girl was being forced to buy a book for her Christmas exchange entitled "I have two mommys" or something like that. I think its over the top there.

I just dont want to know if youre gay. The minute you begin forcing your agenda on me or it begins affecting my life is when i get pissed.

Well I think that as time went on and it became more normal to have gay parents that the stigma would go away and kids would understand it better. There is a transitionary period that is hard to deal with, just like incorporating the blacks into the current cast school system was after the Civil war, etc. People will always be resistant to change, it is in some of our natures.

As for the whole God and Church thing being involved, my only point was that you guys were referencing marriage TO God, when it has nothing to do with it. I think marriage should stay between a man and a woman for the sake of simplicity, not because God has anything to do with marriage. He only has something to do with it if you are married in a Church, and not all people are. When I get married it wont be in a Church or by a Priest, but I will be MARRIED all the same.

And I dont mind knowing if people are gay either. Sexuality is only an agenda if it is like a religious agenda and people are trying to convert you. As homosexuality becomes more and more prevalent (and it will as society becomes more open and accepts the inevitable) people will not find it "weird" or "sick" and just accept it as a normal part of the life we live in. Again, just like it was weird to have a black person eating in the same restaurant or sitting next to you on the bus. Now there is little thought about it (depending on where you are from).

Not marriage to God, but by God's grace.

Of, course, if you feel that way that's what the JP/registry office is for; a legal binding. You sign the same documents after all. Religious* people like it to be under God's grace as well. You know I do not follow an organised religion, but I was married in a free church because I believe in God and my bond with my girl is strong enough to justify a proper commitment.

*Religion and religious being two very different things.

I don't mind one bit if people are gay or whatever. But I don't speak about what I get up to in the bedroom, lounge, car, bath, wherever and I expect the same in return. If your preference is cocker spaniels then as long as they are as happy as you with the arrangement.. whatever floats your boat, I just don't need to know about it.

I didnt say marriage to God, but by which God's grace are we speaking?

I know that my God doesnt care if you are gay or straight, and whether you are married in a Church or in a strip club, God is watching and always blesses true and good intentioned love.

People dont need to advertise their sexuality, but I dont mind if it casually comes up and a gay man references his boyfriend if it is relevent.

Traditionally marriage is a religious and spiritual coupling whether it be Jewish or Islamic, Christian or Hindu. So, the grace of God depends on your religion.

It's only post war that unreligious marriage, civil union, has become acceptable and readily available.
And your God might be fine and dandy with you saying 'I will' or 'I do' or 'sure thing, Bub' whilst you're spinning around a shiny brass pole by your thighs as your Groom places the matrimonial twenty spot in your garter as he says his vows, but Gena Goldstein's God would prefer that that ceremony happen in a synagogue. (I do enjoy a little brevity occasionally.)

My mate, Paul, is a good laugh it has to be said. He's been with his fella for a few years now and has no interest in the whole marriage thing right now. But his view is that if he should ever want to then he'll do it, regardless of the consequenses.I think there are places in the world that will marry gay couples but my memory fails me right now.

Kaitlin you said earlier that marriage has nothing to do with religion, well according to many people it does have something to do with religion. I was raised catholic and although I have strayed (greatly) from the traditional beliefs and everything of Catholicism, I still know something about it. In that religion (as well as Lutheren and Methodist) the idea of marriage as a sacrament exists. Its one of 7 that can occur and if they do occur they are sacred and important to uphold under god and the church and religion's eyes. The other 6 are baptism, communion, reconciliation, confirmation, death rights and the initiation into priest/nun hood. These sacrements are held very high in the churches eyes.

I dont care if someone is gay either. I believe I said that earlier, and if someone says "oh yeah my boyfriend and I went to that restaurant once... they had great food" thats fine, but like Bret said once they said damn we were "doing it" last night and you know theres no other way then anal for them to be going at it, the mental pictures are what pisses me off. I dont want or need to know. I could go on about how my sexual life but I dont. I dont want or need to hear about it.

Lastly... if they wanna be pronounced "Bitch and Butch" then more power to em.

I'm not saying that I want to get married in a strip club or by Elvis in Vegas, or anything like that. I am just saying that what marriage IS and how it is SEEN religiously are two different things. Marriage is often times just as much of an arrangement as it is about love on different levels, whether people will readily admit it or not.

"What kind of life will we have together?"

"Will we have enough money to have kids?"

"What kind of parent will they be?"

"Will my parents like them?"

"Do our beliefs conflict?"

"Will they make a good spouse?"

etc. The only thing that matters isnt just LOVE. Society and life arent that easy, you have to have a person who can support your goals, dreams, give you stability, security, etc. This is probably more important to consider for women than men.

Anyway all I am saying is that the RIGHTS that come from being married are one thing that homosexuals deserve, whether "God" agrees with it or not is up for personal belief or objection.

That is my only point.

Ali:

I said religion and MARRIAGE are not directly linked.

What is so hard about this? MARRIAGE is not recognized by STATE or NATION because GOD recognizes it. People can get MARRIED and have no religious value to their union beyond their own perception.

And obviously there is such a thing as too much information. I dont even want a straight person saying, "my boyfriend and I had the best sex last night, I was on top, best orgasm I ever had, you should have heard..." etc. Gay people should be just as socially sensitive.

Again, like I said, if it comes up casually thats another thing.

Bravo, Kevin!

And to second Kaitlin, why on earth do we keep linking marriage and religion?

Marriage has a legal existence now that is completely separate of any religious meanings it may or may not have once possessed.

I'm so annoyed by all of this bandying around about marriage being some divine covenant between a man and a woman throughout human history. I don't know how many times GWB has mentioned that... well, no... once again GWB you're wrong. Only been a "divine" mandate for about 2 millenia, and only for a few specific cultures.

If we take a look at human history, you see far more religious examples of one man and many women then one and one. A few societies, albeit briefly, even allowed a woman to take several male consorts. Even the Old Testament is riddled with multiple wives for one husband.

And yet that custom changed... and such customs WILL change because religion is birthed of society, not the other way around. As society changes, so too does religion, regardless of how solid and immutable people like to believe it is.

So religious marriage _will_ change over time with social evolutions. Until then, especially in those nations with constitutions based around separation of church and state, marriage between two _people_ who wish to take on the legal ramifications (rights, responsibilities, and privileges) of marriage should be allowed.

If religious institutions wish to bar their conceptualization of marriage from including homosexual marriage, then so be it... the Church Fathers can dictate that their priest, minister, etc., cannot perform such marriages.

But don't impose such decrees on a society's laws, especially when that means forcing a subjective faith upon others.

MILES I LOVE YOU, YOU BEAUTIFULLY ORCHESTRATED MY POINT.

I dont know why it took me a day and a half to say something that he orchestrated so beautifully in one post.

The communicative aspects of my brain must be having temporary break down issues.

Bravo Miles...[ I love all this manly backslapping stuff!...yee ha]

Yeah...what he said!

I don't see what all the arguing is all about. I've already said I agree but also stated there are plenty of mandates for religious marriage.

Just pointing out both sides of the coin as I am prone to do.

The pole dancing ceremony was just a joke to show who beliefs can alter perceptions of how people and society can and will accept marriage. Having said that, I'll wager that within 5 years it will have happened (if it hasn't happened already). I can see it now... and it will be a gay wedding too.

Once again this is a subject that comes down to perception of morals and no one is going to agree 100% of the time.

Legally binding marriage and religious marriage can be and often is one and the same thing. You fill out the same forms, say very similar vows, put a ring on the same finger and wind up with a spouse you have promised to devote your life to at the end of it.

As for the divorce aspect, vowing any commitment before God for a person with faith and giving your word as an atheist is exactly the same thing. Just because you got married in a registry office (or US equivolent) doesn't mean that your vow is any less meaningful.

So saying that divorce is more acceptable because it's now a vow to god is just invalid. Your word is the only thing you truly have, if you break it for whatever ever reason your commitment to marriage is just as hollow. Better not to get married at all if that is your true outlook on life.

A broken promise under any guise is just as big a lie.

I was simply saying that granted marriage isnt seen in many people (and societies) eyes as a religious thing, YET I was saying that to SOME people and SOME religions and SOME cultures it is. SO to say point blank it isnt youre wrong. If you wanna get married by the JP or whatever then it obviously isnt, yet if you get married in a Catholic church it sure is.

I also dont wanna hear about my best friend having sex with her boyfriend. She tells me, because I'm her best friend, but I dont wanna know. I dont wanna know if you caught your dogs humpin. Alright?

Next part I wanna say is, why do they feel the need to force their agenda into mainstream public culture? Not everyone agrees with it and they shouldnt be forced to have to see two gays kissing on tv or even (although I do like the show alot) have to deal with a title like "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy". They are constantly complaining that they are a minority, so why do they force the nation to watch the homosexual acts and actions on TV? its like BET. They have a gay and lesbian channel shouldnt they keep it there? I havent seen the blacks demanding or even forcing their shows into mainstream...It doesnt make any sense to me that the issue has to be everywhere. Like when the one girl left LAw and Order... "Is it because I'm a lesbian?" it was the stupidest ending ever. She didnt act like one through the show and she never had a girlfriend. It did nothing for her character so why did we need to know?

When it comes to homosexuality and the mainstream I think that they should just be mixed into the mould along with everything else. You want equality? Fine, I'll look at your show and if it is as good as the other shows we air then we'll consider showing it along with everything else that comes our way.

Equality means forgetting your white, gay, black, bi, asian, straight and everything thing else that people thinks makes a difference, and just be gettting on with it. I don't make being a white, straight man an issue and I don't take exception to you being black and bi-sexual. Don't make it an issue and it won't be an issue.

How about we all just try and be human for a change?

I agree with Bret, Ali, quite frankly your perception seems a little bit skewed to me, simply because you are (for all intents and purposes) saying, "Lets keep everyone and everything separate and have (white) traditionalist mainstream culture be what’s in our faces." Which is not fair, considering that other people don’t want THAT in their faces.

Your referencing BET brings up some good points, but the blacks WANT to be separate, at this point they are the ones who are fighting equality in many ways. There is more reverse racism now than the other way around, embracing their culture is one thing, putting other groups out because of something that happened many years ago isn’t going to help their future generations, nor ours. For instance I have black friends who are 16 and still resentful of white people, because their parents instill that in them, but me, being a white person who has never lived in the times of blatant (in your face) racism, has never been taught discrimination because of race, so the only conditioning I have ever gotten is from black people themselves, not from other white people I know. They are the ones who are causing the rifts now, when future generations could let it die much faster if they did not "put" white people "out."

The difference between the blacks and the homosexuals is that the homosexuals want to be embraced by culture, not just popular culture (with shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"), but by every day, traditionalist culture. They do have their own television network, I believe, as does everything else these days, but other than that they just want to be "like everyone else," many of them don’t want to be different because they are gay, they just want to fit in. Black people have an attitude that they don’t want to be embraced by traditionalist culture, they just want their own world, because they see the rest of the world as being "ours (white peoples)," when, in fact, it is now because of people who have views like Ali or the blacks.

"How about we all just try and be human for a change?"

I agree. I think it is utterly ridiculous that everyone would rather turn a blind eye and cheek to what is going on than to accept it. If social graces, which everyone should abide by, are respected, I don’t have a problem with knowing a gay person is gay, you know a black person is black, you know a crippled person is crippled, you know a blue eyed person has blue eyes, so why hide something just because you cant see it? Physical differences are not the only thing that separates us. We should embrace our differences, make our own choices, feel comfortable with the ones we make, and be grateful that everyone gets to live their own life 100% out in the open and have their journey.

I don’t think that the gays (or any races) should feel uncomfortable so that mainstream white America feels comfortable being all "constipated" and pretending things are different than they are. Not all of us are that comfortable living in denial.

"mainstream white America"

In one statement lies all of the USA's problems.

White America is a phrase resulting from reverse racism and political correctness. And what's with the ACLU? You can happily join NAMBLA and fight for all the evil it stands for, but wear a crucifix to school and you'll be sacked? If you work for or support the ACLU do me, the world and yourself a favour and quit while you're miles behind.

Then again maybe the KKK can lobby the ACLU for support (if they haven't already).

Being PC just pisses me off.

Hhhhmmmm

This topic has already exhausted.

Maybe we should change it???

Thanks Ann Marie :)))

It's getting rather long too... feel free to make a new thread, but I'm locking this one now. (hopefully no one will have a cow when they see it locked before they come to see the reason)

I'd like to applaud you all for keeping the debates pretty civil for the most part. I had very little to clean up (unless another mod caught stuff before I saw it)