Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[BuddyFerris]

... I have yet to meet a single person who things gays should not be allowed to marry who without religious reasons. ...

Good morning, K.

I suspect as you suggest that the majority of vocal opponents to gay marriage will be speaking from a personal religious conviction. My contention, however, was that folks other than Christians were concerned about the issues you mentioned as the litmus test for fundamentalism. I think the concerns expressed go beyond some narrow religious context. Justice Martha Sosman (who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Massachusetts supreme court decision on same sex marriage) was opposed for reasons having to do with constitutional law, not religious objections.

Buddy

 

I did a little reading on Justice Sosman, and while it is true that she does not make any direct reference to religion in her arguments, most of her arguments are the same kind of tripe and a-priori assumptions found in fundamentalist literature about homosexuality.

 

Fundamentalists aren't stupid, certainly not at that level of government, and have learned that direct appeal to religion isn't always working anymore, so they change tactics a bit. The did the same thing by changing "creation science" to "intelligent design." It is nothing more than a marketing gimick.

 

I may be wrong and she isn't religious at all, but It seems to me she was most likely just a fundy who attempted to frame her ideas in secular ethics.

 

Sure, other people are concerned about these issues, (hell, I'M concerned about these issues) but Fundies aren't just concerned , they also think they have all the answers (even when it has been shown that there answers don't work or aren't practical) and they also feel they have a god given duty to make sure everyone does it their way. Of course they don't have to be Christian fundies, for instance, Muslim fundies would also hold similar views, but they don't wield enough political power in this country...fundamentalist Christians DO.

 

It is one thing to think homosexuality is morally wrong...it is quite another to think one has the right to force everyone else to believe it (or at least live as if they believed it)

Hello K,

Don't you ever sleep?

You might be interested to know that in her dissenting opinion (it was a 4-3 decision), Sosman observed that the majority decision did little more than echo the popular ideology, citing disregard of the public interests in favor of political preference (my words; she spoke eloquent legalese). So here we have the two sides, each persuaded the other is unreasonable, arbitrary, and driven by ideology rather than reason. Interesting that they should see the same information and come to such different conclusions. Does it seem reasonable to assume that they are all either homosexuals or fundamentalists?

 

 

Perhaps this is a good time to ask what YOU think about gay marriage, or teaching creationism in science classrooms...so on and so forth. No squirming out of it ok buddy?

 

I think they are important questions because fundamentalist Christians would like to, and indeed ARE, trying to force everyone else in the country to do it their way on these issues, and there is, at least a possibility, of them making it happen.

OK, here ya go.

I'm generally persuaded that a recognized civil union is probably the appropriate solution to questions of fairness and equality. (long, unnecessary explanation not included)

I've not been impressed with the curricula offered by creationists and young earthers. If you've been around the "life, the universe..." threads, you know my science bent; I'd prefer the science be laid out without the politically correct interpretations. I'm equally opposed to the heavy-handed ideological overlays of either side.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

So, we are going to discuss my comprehension skills... squirming bag of pus... Not playing...

 

Why is Gay marriage a concern to non-bigoted individuals or followers of the cults of Abraham?

Good morning GH (mid-day for you, I guess).

Are you asking why the rest of society might be concerned about same-sex couples being granted recognition as married? If that's the question, I've not spent a lot of time on the issue, but I have a few thoughts. Let me know.

Buddy

[Sparrow]

If I've pissed Willa off, she'll let me know in no uncertain terms...

 

But I'm sure my mother would appreciate you presuming to lecture me on manners.... especially since you're...

 

 

Huhn????? (Wakes up 3 days later) Did I miss something?

 

I've been busy ... sorry ... shoiuld have said something.

 

At work - will reply this evening - or when I have time.

[Robbobrob]

Maybe there needs to be a distinction in the whole gay marriage debate. Most gays are seeking equal material rights as breeders have. They are seeking the right to hand down property, to care for children as equals, to be able to make medical decisions for their partners. Marriage is the one universal legal arrangement that allows all of that. No other legal contract is as bindingly acknowledged in the courts of law, and medical profession, and everywhere else, as marriage is.

 

Marriage, from the point of view of the homosexual community, is a legal arrangement for people who wish to combine financial and life decisions. Not a god appointed union.

 

I am fine with churches who are not willing to marry gay couples. Most churches would not have married me and my spouse, because we simply did not belong to that particular faith.

 

It is odd that just like most civil rights movements (women's movement of the early 1900s, or the Black's civil rights movement of the 1960s), it is the courts that lead the way to a freer society....and that society itself is dragged kicking and screaming from its superstitious darkness into the enlightenment of equality.

[Grandpa Harley]

If I've pissed Willa off, she'll let me know in no uncertain terms...

 

Huhn????? (Wakes up 3 days later) Did I miss something?

 

I've been busy ... sorry ... shoiuld have said something.

 

At work - will reply this evening - or when I have time.

 

I'll brace meself

[BuddyFerris]

Maybe there needs to be a distinction in the whole gay marriage debate. Most gays are seeking equal material rights as breeders have. They are seeking the right to hand down property, to care for children as equals, to be able to make medical decisions for their partners. Marriage is the one universal legal arrangement that allows all of that. No other legal contract is as bindingly acknowledged in the courts of law, and medical profession, and everywhere else, as marriage is.

 

Marriage, from the point of view of the homosexual community, is a legal arrangement for people who wish to combine financial and life decisions. Not a god appointed union.

 

I am fine with churches who are not willing to marry gay couples. Most churches would not have married me and my spouse, because we simply did not belong to that particular faith.

 

It is odd that just like most civil rights movements (women's movement of the early 1900s, or the Black's civil rights movement of the 1960s), it is the courts that lead the way to a freer society....and that society itself is dragged kicking and screaming from its superstitious darkness into the enlightenment of equality.

Good observation. It seems that the emotional upheaval surrounds the definition of marriage and the concern over what changing the definition might mean. Meanwhile, the fairness and equality issues are buried in the verbal barrage.

Hadn't thought about the courts that way; as a strict constructionist conservative, I'm generally annoyed by courts trying to rewrite the intent of legislation, but on at least the issues you mention, the courts were the place where progress happened.

 

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

Hello K,

Don't you ever sleep?

You might be interested to know that in her dissenting opinion (it was a 4-3 decision), Sosman observed that the majority decision did little more than echo the popular ideology, citing disregard of the public interests in favor of political preference (my words; she spoke eloquent legalese). So here we have the two sides, each persuaded the other is unreasonable, arbitrary, and driven by ideology rather than reason. Interesting that they should see the same information and come to such different conclusions. Does it seem reasonable to assume that they are all either homosexuals or fundamentalists?

 

Sure I was just on my way to bed when I posted that.

 

Here is my problem with her statement. This may be a democracy, however, Civil rights are not mandated by the majority. Remember when they desegregated schools? At the time, most people didn't want it, but the government ruled that it was correct, the same with many other examples. Civil rights are defended by the government, not decided by a majority vote.

 

 

I'm generally persuaded that a recognized civil union is probably the appropriate solution to questions of fairness and equality. (long, unnecessary explanation not included)

I've not been impressed with the curricula offered by creationists and young earthers. If you've been around the "life, the universe..." threads, you know my science bent; I'd prefer the science be laid out without the politically correct interpretations. I'm equally opposed to the heavy-handed ideological overlays of either side.

Buddy

 

Fair enough, I would point out that some people in the gay rights movement are bothered by the need to call it something different.

 

People argue that civil union would be exactly the same thing with a different name...but if they really felt that way then why would the so obstinately demand it not be called something marriage? Just something to think about.

 

I agree with your assessment of creation science, and I would prefer science be taught with out ideological overlays as well.

 

I think my problem here is that you seem to want to treat fundamentalism as some whack job minority. Now I would agree they are a minority (though not as small as you seem to think), I would even agree that that their view of reality is unbalanced and narcissistic, (hell, I was one for 5 years or so, so I know just how unbalanced it is)

 

But this doesn't mean they don't wield real political power, they are vocal, and unfortunately most of the moderate Christians in the united states have no idea what fundamentalist really believe or teach. So the moderates often support them because, hey they are Christians too, what they believe can't be THAT different right? Fundamentalist get support from other Christians by manipulating facts, and spinning the story.

 

Most people are too ignorant, or lazy to study for themselves and find out what is really going on. So it annoys me when you dismiss fundamentalism so glibly, because it seems to place you right smack in the middle of those moderates who have no idea how extreme fundamentalist really are, or what they are really up to.

 

Your harsh post bugged me yesterday as well, I had just dealt with a long string of rude customers all day who think I should give them my computer expertise for free...so I wasn't in the best of moods.

[Grandpa Harley]

For the record... I call it a civil union for 2 reasons

 

1) It's what I have with my wife

 

2) I'm damned if I'm not proud that there was no church involved in my marriage ceremony... So, I'm married, but I had a civil ceremony...

 

 

The only real objection to a legal level playing field for Gay couples is based in religious conviction... it's not constitutional, and it's not scientific, it's just bigotry... rather like the Eugenics and Misegenation laws passed in the early days of last century... Indiana has the dubious honour of being the first state to vote that sort of thing into law...

[dano]

If I've pissed Willa off, she'll let me know in no uncertain terms...

 

But I'm sure my mother would appreciate you presuming to lecture me on manners.... especially since you're...

 

 

I know Buddy is autistic ,but you would have thought a bright picture with large print would have gotten through to him.

 

I wonder if there is a name for the dysfunctional condition that buddy has?

 

I never saw some one who thrived on being consistently wrong, on everything, before!

 

It is kinda fun to watch the thin veneer of Christianity being peeled back, ever so slowly on Buddies ass, and watch the pros. have their way with him!

 

Poor ole candy ass geezer!

[Sparrow]

If I've pissed Willa off, she'll let me know in no uncertain terms...

 

Huhn????? (Wakes up 3 days later) Did I miss something?

 

I've been busy ... sorry ... shoiuld have said something.

 

At work - will reply this evening - or when I have time.

 

I'll brace meself

 

Hi Grandpa H.,

 

Oh Gee!! I'd have to look through a number pages to find out!! .... and I'm actually quite lazy .....

 

So, in lieu of me actually searching through a couple of days postings, would you kindly accept a “you doity rat!!!†(said in the best Larry, Curly and Moe accent I can muster) as an appropriately satisfying return insult?

 

I mean, it’s only an offer. If you don’t think it’s a fair one, I’ll look through Shakespeare and attempt to find something more colourful.

 

 

Spatz

[Grandpa Harley]

Voooowhooowooowooowoooooooo!

 

[Sparrow]

Hi Folks,

 

On the issue of homosexuality, fidelity and promiscuity, here’s my two cents worth:

 

I live in Switzerland and just over a year ago (maybe a bit longer I think) Switzerland voted on the issue of allowing Gay couples the right to form civil unions.

 

I and nearly 70% of the voting population agreed that it was a good thing and thus it’s now a law.

 

What should be noted is that during the lead up to the vote there wasn’t much noise, other than from evangelical groups. It was funny, but the telling point was, that even some main-stream christian groups were pro gay-unions.

 

In terms of the evangelicals, it was only they who brought patently absurd issues to debate; including those of promiscuity and fidelity – as well as the damage it would do to traditional marriage. These, of course, were quickly slapped down because people acknowledged as a simple and unalterable fact that promiscuity and fidelity are 1 - nothing to do being gay or lesbian, as there are plenty of heterosexuals who can keep their knickers on, 2 – gay unions are not going to make gay or lesbian couple more or less promiscuous, 3 – it’s not as if there is a plague of promiscuity and infidelity that is affecting the security of the nation and its’ economy, and 4 – if your heterosexual marriage falters because gays and lesbians are suddenly allowed to have “official†unions, then you had troubles before and the passing of a new law wouldn’t make one bit of difference.

 

Over a year has passed now and guess what? All the scare mongering of the evangelicals has amounted to nothing. Nobody’s marriage collapsed because of the new law. No one attacked Switzerland because the “guns weren’t mannedâ€, since all the soldiers were madly jumping into bed with each other. Nor did the economy collapse because our captains of industry suddenly found they could have that affair they’ve always been wanting.

 

The only difference was an ever so slight increase in the number of gays and lesbians in the country – all because some swiss gays “married†their foreigner partners.

 

For me personally, there has been absolutely no difference. I don’t know many gay people, but one of the couples I know has been together 19 years. The law didn’t change their lived one iota.

 

From my point of view and experience, there is no sound argument for not allowing gays and lesbians the legal status of marriage.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Legion]

I think it will be interesting to see what shakes out after 40 more years or so of such a policy. I doubt that the social ramifications of this would manifest themselves in only a year.

[Sparrow]

I think it will be interesting to see what shakes out after 40 more years or so of such a policy. I doubt that the social ramifications of this would manifest themselves in only a year.

 

Well what's going to come out of it?

 

There's always been gays who have "unofficial" unions and marriages - the only difference is a piece of paper signed by a couple of politicians.

 

C'mon, say what you're thinking.

 

Spatz

[Legion]

I think it will be interesting to see what shakes out after 40 more years or so of such a policy. I doubt that the social ramifications of this would manifest themselves in only a year.

 

Well what's going to come out of it?

 

There's always been gays who have "unofficial" unions and marriages - the only difference is a piece of paper signed by a couple of politicians.

 

C'mon, say what you're thinking.

 

Spatz

 

I did say what I was thinking. It will be interesting to see what the consequences, if any, of this policy are. They are not going to fully manifest themselves in only one year in my estimation. Social change seems to me to be a slow thing.

[Sparrow]

I think it will be interesting to see what shakes out after 40 more years or so of such a policy. I doubt that the social ramifications of this would manifest themselves in only a year.

 

Well what's going to come out of it?

 

There's always been gays who have "unofficial" unions and marriages - the only difference is a piece of paper signed by a couple of politicians.

 

C'mon, say what you're thinking.

 

Spatz

 

I did say what I was thinking. It will be interesting to see what the consequences, if any, of this policy are. They are not going to fully manifest themselves in only one year in my estimation. Social change seems to me to be a slow thing.

 

Just interested ... do you think they will be great or small?

 

Just makin' conversation.

 

Spatz

[Legion]

I have no idea Spatz. I have a vanishingly small knowledge of sociology. I cannot even begin to guess. That's why I think it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

I mean, it seems to me that those who are both for it and against it have social agendas. Perhaps it will turn out that the policy has little impact on the society. But perhaps it will have subtle and profound impact. I just can't even begin to guess.

 

Do you know of any other society in history that made gay marriage legal? Perhaps history could be our guide.

[Sparrow]

I have no idea Spatz. I have a vanishingly small knowledge of sociology. I cannot even begin to guess. That's why I think it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

I mean, it seems to me that those who are both for it and against it have social agendas. Perhaps it will turn out that the policy has little impact on the society. But perhaps it will have subtle and profound impact. I just can't even begin to guess.

 

Do you know of any other society in history that made gay marriage legal? Perhaps history could be our guide.

 

I was wondering what your views are that's all. You see, I don't think it will be much.

 

The reason I came to this conclusion is because I compare what I estimate the social impact of gay unions compared to say, the internet.

 

I think the internet had a far greater impact and nothing changed to be unrecognizable.

 

Also, there have been periods in history in Europe when relationships like "civil unions" were legally allowed between same sex couples for various reasons. In one case it even had a legal name, but this eludes me presently. Either way, there have been times when it was ok and times when it wasn't ok. Eventually, at least in Europe, it's always been the church that has finally found it morally untenable and stopped it.

 

I'd have to look, but it would take me a while to find. Perhaps you can search on the "web" if you like.

 

Ciao

 

Spatz

[Grandpa Harley]

A mate of mine (Brian Keene) wrote this in 05...

 

THE END OF THE WORLD AS THEY KNOW IT (2005)

 

 

Yesterday, somewhere in Connecticut, two men got married. They received their official Civil Union license, along with all the legal rights that any other married couple benefits from. I imagine that they kissed and said I love you. Then the sun went down on another perfect day.

 

And despite this, the world didn't end. Behold, a pale horse did not show up, and an angel didn't blow a trumpet or open seven seals. The rivers did not run red with blood, the seas didn't boil, and locusts didn't storm the local Wal-Mart. The world kept turning. Married couples were still married when they woke up this morning. Children laughed and played. People went to work. A dog chased a cat. And all was right with the world.

 

The sanctity of marriage is still just fine.

 

What is marriage, at its core?

 

"Well Brian, it's a pact you make before God—"

 

Let me stop you right there and call bullshit on that bullshit. A pact before God? Which God? Do married Muslims make a pact before the Christian God? Do married Christians make a pact before the Hindu God? Do married atheists make a pact before any God?

 

"Well, then it's a slap in the face to traditional marriage."

 

Surely you jest. How, exactly, is it a slap in the face to traditional marriage? Because two people with the same kind of sexual organs enjoy saying, "I love you" and would like to take care of each other, support each other, share their lives with each other, grow old together, and maybe share a tombstone fifty years from now? That's a slap in the face to your own marriage? Why? Is it because maybe, deep down inside, you can't say the same things for you and your spouse?

 

What is a traditional marriage, anyway? My second marriage was held in a vineyard, where Cassi and I exchanged both Celtic-pagan and 'traditional' Protestant vows. Why? The first part was to make us happy. The second part was to make our families happy. Our minister was female. Both our ceremony and reception were held outdoors. Coop, Mike, Mikey, Big Joe, and Jason wore tuxedos. Nothing about it was traditional (especially that last bit).

 

When a member of the Ororo tribe shows up at the hut of his future spouse, delivers a goat, and then takes his beloved away to his own hut to consecrate the marriage—is that any less traditional than doing the fucking Chicken Dance during the wedding reception at the local VFW?

 

"But Brian, think of the children!"

 

I am. These two men in Connecticut can adopt a child, and show it love, tuck it in, read it a story, feed it, nurture it, care for it, support it, teach it right from wrong, pick it up when it falls down, and help it grow into a fine human being. And God (any god, take your pick) forbid something should happen to them, now they can legally assign that child as their beneficiary.

 

Yeah, that's much worse than growing up in an orphanage.

 

Rosa Parks passed away recently. I'm sure that even my youngest readers are fully aware of her contributions to our society. A portion of our society was afraid of Rosa Parks. Afraid of what she represented. But she, and others like her, put their lives on the line so that African-Americans could have the same rights as everybody else. People died for those rights. They died because a certain segment of our society didn't want, "those uppity niggers having the same rights as the rest of us." "It's a slap in the face to traditional democratic values," they cried. "Think of the children!"

 

Today, we are faced with a similar struggle. Homosexuals would like to enjoy the same rights as everybody else in America. But a certain segment of our population is threatened by that. And we need to support the homosexuals in their struggle. I don't care if you're straight or gay. Don't care if you're Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Wiccan. Don't care if you're a conservative or a liberal or a moderate, or a writer or a reader or an editor. You need to stand fast and speak out loud. Make sure your voice is heard, because if you don't, then the voices of intolerance and hatred will drown you out.

 

I'm not talking about joining hands and singing "Kumbaya." I'm not talking about Political Correctness run amok. I'm talking about simple, basic human rights. The right to hold the hand of someone you love, the right to share your life with them, and the right to make legal decisions together. The right to say, "I love you."

 

I promise you that your world won't end. Your marriage won't be destroyed.

 

But maybe some of the walls that separate us will be.

 

And that's a good thing for everybody.

 

Especially the children...

 

I make no apology for posting this again...

[dano]

Hey Buddy!

Tell us another story about how you changed some one's life for he better by praying with them,

or what God said to you the last time you had a conversation.

I'm getting tired of Jewish history and superfluous words meant to impress us, along with the snippets of your daily life that you have enhanced in order to give the impression that you are not as dysfunctional as you appear to be, demonstrated by your compulsion to write about your goofy version of Christianity or whatever it is that you believe.

I want to read some of the good stuff like visions of angels, or how God has worked miracles in your life.

I want to be entertained!

Patience, Dano.

How many times in Abraham's life was he visited by angels? Hardly a daily affair.

Besides, old fellow, we've already established that if someone were raised from the dead right in front of you, you'd not believe any differently than you do today. So is entertainment all there is for you for the days you have remaining?

 

Perhaps the storm brewing will be entertainment enough for you today.

Buddy

 

 

How many times in Abraham's life was he visited by angels? Hardly a daily affair.

 

Did you see me say anything about someone named Abraham, simpleton?

 

Besides, old fellow, we've already established that if someone were raised from the dead right in front of you, you'd not believe any differently than you do today.

 

Who's we've? Are you pregnant?

 

So is entertainment all there is for you for the days you have remaining?

 

 

If you cant bring your self to properly insult me, then you'd be better off dropping the thinly veiled attempts, you pathetic religious cult member!

 

Probably shouldn't call you a Christian cultist, cause you don't even seem to be able to do that right!

 

Perhaps the storm brewing will be entertainment enough for you today.

Buddy

 

What the fuck has the weather to do with anything, Dip Shit?

[Grandpa Harley]

LEgion

 

"

Do you know of any other society in history that made gay marriage legal? Perhaps history could be our guide."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

[BuddyFerris]

I'm generally persuaded that a recognized civil union is probably the appropriate solution to questions of fairness and equality. (long, unnecessary explanation not included)

I've not been impressed with the curricula offered by creationists and young earthers. If you've been around the "life, the universe..." threads, you know my science bent; I'd prefer the science be laid out without the politically correct interpretations. I'm equally opposed to the heavy-handed ideological overlays of either side.

Buddy

Fair enough, I would point out that some people in the gay rights movement are bothered by the need to call it something different.

People argue that civil union would be exactly the same thing with a different name...but if they really felt that way then why would the so obstinately demand it not be called something marriage? Just something to think about.

I agree with your assessment of creation science, and I would prefer science be taught with out ideological overlays as well.

 

I think my problem here is that you seem to want to treat fundamentalism as some whack job minority. Now I would agree they are a minority (though not as small as you seem to think), I would even agree that that their view of reality is unbalanced and narcissistic, (hell, I was one for 5 years or so, so I know just how unbalanced it is)

 

But this doesn't mean they don't wield real political power, they are vocal, and unfortunately most of the moderate Christians in the united states have no idea what fundamentalist really believe or teach. So the moderates often support them because, hey they are Christians too, what they believe can't be THAT different right? Fundamentalist get support from other Christians by manipulating facts, and spinning the story. ...

Hey, K,

My mistake, I'm sure. Of course I don't think fundamentalists are a whack job minority. Oh, wait a minute, I do think they're a whack job minority. Am I supposed to not think that??? Don't tell me I've been thinking wrong all these years, since the day I found out the Bible didn't allow women to wear skirts with hems above their ankles.

 

Let's broaden the definition boundary for ourselves just a bit, K, by noting that your fundamentalist category probably includes some generally conservative folks that really wouldn't call themselves fundamentalists. Classical fundamentalism, at least the way I would use the term, is rigid legalism plus an intolerance for any other perspective. You seem to include conservatives in the same category to some degree.

 

Since I'm somewhat conservative on core issues, you'll probably accuse me of fundyisms along the way, if you haven't already. My beliefs include the bodily resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, the literal resurrection of Lazarus, etc.^*

 

I'd like to think I don't qualify as rigid and intolerant. We'll see.

Buddy

 

^{*Included for Dano; he's bored.}

[dano]

I'm generally persuaded that a recognized civil union is probably the appropriate solution to questions of fairness and equality. (long, unnecessary explanation not included)

I've not been impressed with the curricula offered by creationists and young earthers. If you've been around the "life, the universe..." threads, you know my science bent; I'd prefer the science be laid out without the politically correct interpretations. I'm equally opposed to the heavy-handed ideological overlays of either side.

Buddy

Fair enough, I would point out that some people in the gay rights movement are bothered by the need to call it something different.

People argue that civil union would be exactly the same thing with a different name...but if they really felt that way then why would the so obstinately demand it not be called something marriage? Just something to think about.

I agree with your assessment of creation science, and I would prefer science be taught with out ideological overlays as well.

 

I think my problem here is that you seem to want to treat fundamentalism as some whack job minority. Now I would agree they are a minority (though not as small as you seem to think), I would even agree that that their view of reality is unbalanced and narcissistic, (hell, I was one for 5 years or so, so I know just how unbalanced it is)

 

But this doesn't mean they don't wield real political power, they are vocal, and unfortunately most of the moderate Christians in the united states have no idea what fundamentalist really believe or teach. So the moderates often support them because, hey they are Christians too, what they believe can't be THAT different right? Fundamentalist get support from other Christians by manipulating facts, and spinning the story. ...

Hey, K,

My mistake, I'm sure. Of course I don't think fundamentalists are a whack job minority. Oh, wait a minute, I do think they're a whack job minority. Am I supposed to not think that??? Don't tell me I've been thinking wrong all these years, since the day I found out the Bible didn't allow women to wear skirts with hems above their ankles.

 

Let's broaden the definition boundary for ourselves just a bit, K, by noting that your fundamentalist category probably includes some generally conservative folks that really wouldn't call themselves fundamentalists. Classical fundamentalism, at least the way I would use the term, is rigid legalism plus an intolerance for any other perspective. You seem to include conservatives in the same category to some degree.

 

Since I'm somewhat conservative on core issues, you'll probably accuse me of fundyisms along the way, if you haven't already. My beliefs include the bodily resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, the literal resurrection of Lazarus, etc. ^*

 

I'd like to think I don't qualify as rigid and intolerant. We'll see.

Buddy

 

^{*Included for Dano; he's bored.}

 

Why?

[Grandpa Harley]

I'd say rigid and intolerant probably fits... I just think you do your best to hide it...

[BuddyFerris]

What the fuck has the weather to do with anything, Dip Shit?

Dano,

You're bright, articulate, and appreciated. Especially when you're coherent. Feel free to offer your thoughts, with or without the profanity.

Buddy