Did the LGBT community pick the wrong fight.

You're close, militia was a non-professional fighting that could be called upon by the gov't.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

The word militia dates back to at least 1590 when it was recorded in a book by Sir John Smythe, Certain Discourses Military with the meanings: a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline.

Somehow people currently wish it to mean "anyone who owns guns."

But we are taking this way off topic.

In reply to z31maniac:

You are correct with the "could be called to assist the government" part, I did neglect to include that due to wanting to eat my lunch.

The funny part is when you get people who reference the national guard as a militia(it isn't, its professional)

In the private email conversation I'm having:

If I'm understanding your side, essentially it's "well regulated militia" = "anyone who owns a gun" That's the what the peanut butter/jelly analogy means.

It's just not there. What your linguists (remember I write for a living) are trying to do is redefine words through a tortured "context" to justify their own viewpoint.

well = thoroughly, carefully, soundly, etc

regulated = to ensure accuracy, held to a certain standard, etc

militia = a group of non-professional soldiers

Their is absolutely no way you can take that and mean "anyone who owns a gun." It's intellectually dishonest.

We can get rid of the Selective Service and just switch to the gun registry. May not be well regulated, but we'll have a well armed militia ready to shoot stuff.

In reply to Cone_Junkie:

The so called gun registry is forbidden by law......unless you want all of us to have access to inexpensive modern fully automatic weapons, because that's the counterbalance it is tied to. That "compromise" is why I hate the NRA.

FWIW, Selective Service needs to require women to register as well to comply with the 14th amendment.

Well regulated militia?

The original model planned out in the founding of the country was that we would not have a standing, federal army. Instead, each state would keep their own militia, that the federal government could call on for the common defense of the nation. The militia would primarily consist of civilian citizens who continued to train, drill, and keep themselves armed during peace time. "Well regulated" meant that the training would be uniform across all militias and all soldiers would know and be able to respond identically to the same commands.

The idea was to make the anti-federalists happy by decentralizing military power. If the president decided to declare war or wanted to enforce martial law, he wouldn't actually have direct control over most of the military, because the bulk of the fighting force would actually be controlled by state militias. This is why our constitution explicitly states that the federal government will maintain a Navy (need a central body for expensive ships) but not an Army.

Really, we got rid of the state militia model in favor of the federal Army model with the Civil War. As wars have become increasingly foreign and requiring specialized equipment, we will never go back.

Beer Baron wrote:

jj wrote: So is there any interest in an "authenticity of the Bible" thread? Maybe with a rule of supporting posts with sources, facts, etc.? Who would be in?

No. No one is going to change their mind. People already believe it is Truth or fiction, and will not be swayed. You either believe it to be divinely wrought or not. If you believe it's divinely wrought, you believe it's message remains true even if convinced the specifics of words have gotten a bit muddled over the years. If you do not believe it was divinely wrought, you do not believe it's true even if convinced that we can reasonably understand what it originally said.

Don't forget the part about the content allowed in the new testament was under the auspices of a roman emperor. Many chapters got cut. Who's to say those weren't some duesies.

What happened here... is the G in LGBT for Guns? Love Guns Beer and Tits?

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Nah, I'm on a tirade for all parties who are not equal.

This ruling was a blanket one that should be used as a precedent for many things to come(although it probably won't)

Did SCOTUS hand down their ruling on the challenge to affirmative action yet?

That one ought to be interesting.

z31maniac wrote: I'd like to thank whomever sent me the funny example regarding Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches. However, your analogy doesn't hold any weight or else you would have shared it publicly.

care to share … I'm sure we all could use a good laugh

In reply to wbjones:

I think it was in one of the other threads. A meme with a PB & JELLY with the contents shaped as a heart with a decent rant about it......or at least that's the only pb&j theme I've stumbled across in comparasin to this.

Getting back to the original question "Did the LGBT community pick the wrong fight."

This brings us to what the Supreme Court did to Muslims last Friday. The entire world knows exactly how the “religion of peace” deals with homosexuals: they tie them to chairs and throw them off eight story buildings, and then, if they survive the fall, stone them to death.

In fact, on Friday, the very day the Supreme Court handed down its gay marriage ruling, ISIS threw four homosexuals off the roof of an apartment building, perhaps to stick a thumb in the eye of the United States.

When Pamela Geller held her “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas, and two Muslims shot the place up, who did the left blame? They blamed Ms. Geller. She had provoked, she had incited, she had insulted the blessed prophet and thus had brought this violence on herself. She, according to the left, got what she deserved.

But wait. The Supreme Court insulted and offended the entire Muslim world last Friday by celebrating and gushing over a sin that Muslims regard as so offensive to Allah that practitioners must be hurled to their death. (By the way, the great difference between Christians and Muslims with regard to homosexuals is that Christians want them healed while Muslims want them dead.)

The Supreme Court, perhaps unwittingly and carelessly, just gave the Muslim world another reason to attack us. According to the worldview of liberals, if Muslims launch another terrorist attack on us, the Supreme Court will be partly to blame.

Bottom line: if liberals are at all to be consistent with their own worldview, and want someone to blame for the next Islamic terror attack on the United States, they won’t have far to look.

yes and no Fletch. There are already several countries that allow Gay Marriage.. Canada being our closest neighbor and example. You do not see anybody killing Canadian's because of that.

As for ISIS.. they are so radical, even Al Qaeda is asking them to tone it down, so they are a very poor example of what Muslims really are.

BTW.. calling Islam the "Religion of Peace" is a really nice far right wing talking point. I suggest you meet and get to know some people who practice that religion before using that term. With over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, it does not take a large percentage of radicals to make it seem like they are -all- out to get us. even 1 percent is a large number

In reply to Fletch1:

I was going to ask what people are so afraid of wrt gay marriage.

That's pretty original, I must say.

Any other real fears of gays being married?

alfadriver wrote: Any other real fears of gays being married?

Death of the nuclear family. Of course, 'merica has done a great job at that already. But I'm not much of one for "well, its E36 M3 anyways, this can't be any worse!" People have tried to point out that gay people with kids typically have better outcomes, which no kidding, probably because they have money which is the #1 predictor of success.

At the end of the day, it doesn't affect me personally. I think it will have a negative effect on society (not a negative effect on the people, big difference), but we will see.

The most ridiculous part of this is such a huge amount of energy has been wasted on such a small "problem". Its like a <5% of the worlds population problem. Much more important things to worry about right now. And if gay parents want to go through the crap of adopting a kid (what an awful system, adoption that is!), who am I to say no?

We've had it in Canada for a while. I accept it. Just like I accept how society will further degrade certain morals to be more inclusive. That doesn't mean I have to live it, but I will have to accept it. Part of living in a democracy.

HiTempguy wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Any other real fears of gays being married?

Death of the nuclear family.

I always thought that was a myth to get women back into the home after the war.

Lots of divorces came from the nuclear family. Wasn't that great.

Besides, why is gay marriage going to end straight marriage?

alfadriver wrote: I always thought that was a myth to get women back into the home after the war. Lots of divorces came from the nuclear family. Wasn't that great. Besides, why is gay marriage going to end straight marriage?

The nuclear family is what has allowed society in general to thrive for centuries. It may be a thing of the past, but to say that it was the cause of divorces is silly. Statistics show that woman being in the workforce has not lead to an overall increase in "happiness" and "satisfaction" within families, nor has it lead to objective increases in quality of life. People are the cause of divorces, they should be creating said families for the right reasons. Which maybe gay people are doing? Tough to say.

I don't think anything will end marriage. There will always be people that believe in the concept. But I also think society is on a path of moral decay, one of "what I want" rather than "what I need". I think this is an issue that has highlighted that fact. Surprisingly enough, marriage rights have never made gay people second class citizens. I don't have the same rights as native americans do, am I a second class citizen to them? They certainly are given more inherent opportunity by the gov then I am (oh, but I'm white, so I am automatically privileged, forgot about that). You don't have the same rights as Canadians do. Rights are just a concept written on paper, but they have no inherent value or meaning except that which we give them. So again, the whole argument is superfluous, and a waste of time.

Probably my number one issue with this whole thing is that as usual, its not about rights, its about money. That probably pisses me off the most. People screaming for their "rights" and tugging at people's heartstrings when really its just "I want cash". But I also dislike the fact that the nuclear family has gone away. The stability and support it provided (especially for people with less money, the most important part of the population) far outweighed the negatives.

I'm kind of ranting now. Like I said, what is done is done. The only thing to do is sit-back and watch. Western society is on the warpath to be "inclusive", while the most successful nations are by and large "exclusive".

Anyways, I'm sure this post will get me labeled a bigot and people screaming bloody murder. Its ok. I'm pretty tolerant of other people's ideas and beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. Most won't be of mine

In reply to HiTempguy:

I see a difference between a family and a nuclear family.

To me the nuclear family was the one that wanted the white picket fence in the burbs to raise their 2.2 kids and consumption mattered how you sit in your neighborhood. In otherwords, a lot of expectations- the Cleavers.

I still don't see how gay marriage has any impact on the family unit of man-woman-children.

Nor do I see it as some kind of erosion of morals. Love is #1 of all of those, and it's still in place, just more people are accepted to share that. By saying it's some attack of "do what you want" that spells doom of 99% of straight marriages, since it's a selfish choice of two people.

HiTempguy wrote: Probably my number one issue with this whole thing is that as usual, its not about rights, its about money. That probably pisses me off the most. People screaming for their "rights" and tugging at people's heartstrings when really its just "I want cash". But I also dislike the fact that the nuclear family has gone away. The stability and support it provided (especially for people with less money, the most important part of the population) far outweighed the negatives.

One of the plaintiff's was a couple where one member was an active member of the national guard. He had served a tour in Afghanistan and could potentially be deployed again. If he died in service to his country, his partner would not have the rights and honors that a hetero partner would have in the case of the death of their spouse.

There were two plaintiffs whose partners had died, and had been denied the rights that a heterosexual couple would have.

Plenty of situations where people have not been allowed to visit their partners in the hospital at the end of life, because they are not family, or where parents who disapproved of a partnership refused to allow the partner to the funeral or any effects from the estate.

Even if it is about money, who cares? No shortage of marriages of convenience or gold diggers in the hetero world.

Gay people being able to get married will have no effect on whether or not hetero people will marry, divorce, or not. What's effected those is birth control, paternity tests, alimony, and child support.

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Fletch1 wrote: This brings us to what the Supreme Court did to Muslims last Friday. The entire world knows exactly how the “religion of peace” deals with homosexuals: they tie them to chairs and throw them off eight story buildings, and then, if they survive the fall, stone them to death. In fact, on Friday, the very day the Supreme Court handed down its gay marriage ruling, ISIS threw four homosexuals off the roof of an apartment building, perhaps to stick a thumb in the eye of the United States. When Pamela Geller held her “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas, and two Muslims shot the place up, who did the left blame? They blamed Ms. Geller. She had provoked, she had incited, she had insulted the blessed prophet and thus had brought this violence on herself. She, according to the left, got what she deserved.

Muslims are free to not marry gay people in the US. As is any other religion. Just like any religion is allowed to refuse to wed people who aren't of their denomination.

There is a definite difference between a wedding in a religious sense and a marriage in a civil sense.

You also don't poke a hornet nest without accepting the risk of getting stung. "Deserved" is not the appropriate word. The appropriate word is the past tense of "You dummy, what the heck did you think was going to happen?"

HiTempguy wrote: The most ridiculous part of this is such a huge amount of energy has been wasted on such a small "problem". Its like a <5% of the worlds population problem.

I agree. There have been a lot of people expending a lot of effort to block something for no reasonable reason other than "Berk you." The good part is when the people who block whine about other people wanting "special rights" when they just want the same damn rights as everyone else.

In reply to Knurled:

The only reason it became a big deal was politicians raking the coals and throwing gasoline on it. Just take a gander at how much money funneled into both sides over all these years. No one is innocent.

HiTempguy wrote:

alfadriver wrote: I always thought that was a myth to get women back into the home after the war. Lots of divorces came from the nuclear family. Wasn't that great. Besides, why is gay marriage going to end straight marriage?

The nuclear family is what has allowed society in general to thrive for centuries. It may be a thing of the past, but to say that it was the cause of divorces is silly. Statistics show that woman being in the workforce has not lead to an overall increase in "happiness" and "satisfaction" within families, nor has it lead to objective increases in quality of life. People are the cause of divorces, they should be creating said families for the right reasons. Which maybe gay people are doing? Tough to say. I don't think anything will end marriage. There will always be people that believe in the concept. But I also think society is on a path of moral decay, one of "what I want" rather than "what I need". I think this is an issue that has highlighted that fact. Surprisingly enough, marriage rights have never made gay people second class citizens. I don't have the same rights as native americans do, am I a second class citizen to them? They certainly are given more inherent opportunity by the gov then I am (oh, but I'm white, so I am automatically privileged, forgot about that). You don't have the same rights as Canadians do. Rights are just a concept written on paper, but they have no inherent value or meaning except that which we give them. So again, the whole argument is superfluous, and a waste of time. Probably my number one issue with this whole thing is that as usual, its not about rights, its about money. That probably pisses me off the most. People screaming for their "rights" and tugging at people's heartstrings when really its just "I want cash". But I also dislike the fact that the nuclear family has gone away. The stability and support it provided (especially for people with less money, the most important part of the population) far outweighed the negatives. I'm kind of ranting now. Like I said, what is done is done. The only thing to do is sit-back and watch. Western society is on the warpath to be "inclusive", while the most successful nations are by and large "exclusive". Anyways, I'm sure this post will get me labeled a bigot and people screaming bloody murder. Its ok. I'm pretty tolerant of other people's ideas and beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. Most won't be of mine

I'm curious how this is about "I want cash."

it depends on whom you believe is being persecuted.