The Confessional

[Vail_Indigo]

I confess that while I love "partner", I hate "significant other".

'partner' is MUCH better than significant other.
But, ultimately, I can't help but feel it ends up being a dig at gay people. Most straight people don't use the terms, and it ends up being an indirect shame device for gays ("Oh, wait, I can't say my girlfriend, because being gay is unacceptable, so I'll say partner").

 

[Ausus_girl13]

I confess that while I love "partner", I hate "significant other".

'partner' is MUCH better than significant other.
But, ultimately, I can't help but feel it ends up being a dig at gay people. Most straight people don't use the terms, and it ends up being an indirect shame device for gays ("Oh, wait, I can't say my girlfriend, because being gay is unacceptable, so I'll say partner").

Except when you are in a ultra liberal setting then it's appropriate for all couples gay or straight to use the term "Partner". I do. I also irritate the hell out of people when I do.

Because I am in a het relationship in RL, that means if I use the term "partner" I am fucking with others classification systems. Do they give me the same rights as other if they don't know the gender of my partner?

Language is fun.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

Except when you are in a ultra liberal setting then it's appropriate for all couples gay or straight to use the term "Partner". I do. I also irritate the hell out of people when I do.

Because I am in a het relationship in RL, that means if I use the term "partner" I am fucking with others classification systems. Do they give me the same rights as other if they don't know the gender of my partner?

Language is fun.

and if everyone used such terms, it would all be good.
And I adore you for fucking with them, and making them guess and not be sure.
I am adding this to the rapidly growing list of reasons I ache with joy that you are mine.

 

[Light Ice]

Except when you are in a ultra liberal setting then it's appropriate for all couples gay or straight to use the term "Partner". I do. I also irritate the hell out of people when I do.

Because I am in a het relationship in RL, that means if I use the term "partner" I am fucking with others classification systems. Do they give me the same rights as other if they don't know the gender of my partner?

Language is fun.

I like the term partner because I feel it presents my girlfriend as my equal, which is a dynamic that has become very important to me as I grow older.

But, I can see how it would have different connotations in the gay community. That stands, in my opinion, as an indictment on the downright criminal persecution that community endures simply for loving someone. It's absolutely criminal that a relationship between two consensual adults can be intruded on by the government.

 

[Drunken_Angel]

What if you just called them, "my person"?

 

[Vail_Indigo]

I like the term partner because I feel it presents my girlfriend as my equal, which is a dynamic that has become very important to me as I grow older.

But, I can see how it would have different connotations in the gay community. That stands, in my opinion, as an indictment on the downright criminal persecution that community endures simply for loving someone. It's absolutely criminal that a relationship between two consensual adults can be intruded on by the government.

The funny thing is, the government intrusion pales in comparison to the intrusion of fearful and hateful people and religions.
The government seldom sends people to beat the living hell out of gays and lesbians.
The government seldom talks of gays and lesbians as being born child rapists
The government seldom talks of gays and lesbians as animals.

Those tasks are generally taken up by neighbors and priests.

 

[Ausus_girl13]

I like the term partner because I feel it presents my girlfriend as my equal, which is a dynamic that has become very important to me as I grow older.

But, I can see how it would have different connotations in the gay community. That stands, in my opinion, as an indictment on the downright criminal persecution that community endures simply for loving someone. It's absolutely criminal that a relationship between two consensual adults can be intruded on by the government.

I confess this completely changed my opinion of you.

It's a good thing.

 

[babygurll1968]

My parents used to call each other..Their other half...not being whole until they met eachother...*shrugs and grins* They were married 55 yrs so they did something right

 

[dragonrazor]

I confess that I was more impressed with G-Saviour than I was with Avatar.

 

[Light Ice]

The funny thing is, the government intrusion pales in comparison to the intrusion of fearful and hateful people and religions.
The government seldom sends people to beat the living hell out of gays and lesbians.
The government seldom talks of gays and lesbians as being born child rapists
The government seldom talks of gays and lesbians as animals.

Those tasks are generally taken up by neighbors and priests.

I'm a Republican. Proud to believe in the ideals. Not proud of how the party has been hijacked by Neo-Christian Fundies. The behavior of the churches that either aggressively or passively encourage the mistreatment of homosexuals was a contributing cause in my utter loss of faith. They are Fucking crazy. They should not be able to hide behind the same amendments they ignore while they terrorize others.

 

[dragonrazor]

I'm a Republican. Proud to believe in the ideals. Not proud of how the party has been hijacked by Neo-Christian Fundies. The behavior of the churches that either aggressively or passively encourage the mistreatment of homosexuals was a contributing cause in my utter loss of faith. They are Fucking crazy. They should not be able to hide behind the same amendments they ignore while they terrorize others.

I confess that the fundies, who quote the section on Sodom and Gomorrah, misunderstand the lesson the bible teaches. It was not because they were homosexual that the people of Sodom or Gomorrah were destroyed, it was because they RAPED TRAVELERS....

 

[Vail_Indigo]

I'm a Republican. Proud to believe in the ideals. Not proud of how the party has been hijacked by Neo-Christian Fundies. The behavior of the churches that either aggressively or passively encourage the mistreatment of homosexuals was a contributing cause in my utter loss of faith. They are Fucking crazy. They should not be able to hide behind the same amendments they ignore while they terrorize others.

I know a lot of Republicans who feel the same way.
Sadly, they also know they need those votes to win, and straying from the "we dislike anything remotely different from straight white christians" path is dangerous.

 

[Drunken_Angel]

I confess that the fundies, who quote the section on Sodom and Gomorrah, misunderstand the lesson the bible teaches. It was not because they were homosexual that the people of Sodom or Gomorrah were destroyed, it was because they RAPED TRAVELERS....

There were actually complex rules and expectations regarding hospitality that cause misinterpretations of those particular passages. It was a different culture and one that doesn't directly - and barely indirectly, imo - translate to US cultures.

Remove snippets from context and something worse happens than just loosing meaning... it leaves room to insert your own and pretend that's how it has always been.

 

[dragonrazor]

There were actually complex rules and expectations regarding hospitality that cause misinterpretations of those particular passages. It was a different culture and one that doesn't directly - and barely indirectly, imo - translate to US culture.

Remove snippets from context and something worse happens than just loosing meaning... it leaves room to insert your own and pretend that's how it has always been.

Exactly. It's why problems begin in the first place. As Robin Williams put it, the problem with the bible is that those who believe in it take it to be The Word. Not A Word, THE Word, untranslatable, immutable, and perfect in every way, which is bullshit because it's recorded by human hands.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

and, lets face it, almost none of it happened anyways.
For example, there's no record of the jews being in bondage in Egypt.
Thats basically the entire point of the old testament.
There's also virtually no record of Jesus outside of the bible (though there are records of christians). The historical records that do mention him are all written by people who weren't alive when he was (if i am wrong on this, let me know, I'll take it back, but I believe I'm right).
The book has no significant historical basis for anything, except as propaganda for the 'apostles' and such and the church that followed.
I hate to bring this up here, but...

 

[dragonrazor]

and, lets face it, almost none of it happened anyways.
For example, there's no record of the jews being in bondage in Egypt.
Thats basically the entire point of the old testament.
There's also virtually no record of Jesus outside of the bible (though there are records of christians). The historical records that do mention him are all written by people who weren't alive when he was (if i am wrong on this, let me know, I'll take it back, but I believe I'm right).
The book has no significant historical basis for anything, except as propaganda for the 'apostles' and such and the church that followed.
I hate to bring this up here, but...

Well, most historical records between about 1000 BCE and 1000 CE were destroyed by the church anyways. That which wasn't was rewritten to serve the purpose of the church, or kings, or both.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

Well, most historical records between about 1000 BCE and 1000 CE were destroyed by the church anyways. That which wasn't was rewritten to serve the purpose of the church, or kings, or both.

Which is what I'm saying, really.
There's absolutely no compelling reason to believe in the literal truth of the books at all. If jesus had done the things he was supposed to have done, there would have been SOME record of him.

What I find amusing is when people say "well, there was probably a jjesus who just didn't do the things jesus did".
Which misses the entire point of the jesus story.
If there was ever a character completely and utterly defined by his actions, its jesus.

If there was a jesus who did no jesus things, how was he jesus?

 

[Light Ice]

I'll vote Democrat as long as the party refuses to acknowledge its own ignorance. I would rather suffer under an irresponsible fiscal policy then watch innocent people suffer under a bigoted social policy.

Besides, I won't trust anyone who cannot accept a woman has a right to choose and there is no rational moral or fiscal argument against a consensual relationship between adults.

And, at the risk of being glib, I don't give a fuck for any argument that doesn't hold Christians accountable for their churches practicing bigotry. The "misinterpretations" and "traditional values" excuses are enough to make me want to string them up on crosses.

God did not, ever, tell you that it was OK to treat people inhumane because they believe differently then you. And blaming your malicious or cowardly behavior on an imaginary friend is appalling and shameful. Period.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

I'll vote Democrat as long as the party refuses to acknowledge its own ignorance. I would rather suffer under an irresponsible fiscal policy then watch innocent people suffer under a bigoted social policy.

Besides, I won't trust anyone who cannot accept a woman has a right to choose and there is no rational moral or fiscal argument against a consensual relationship between adults.

And, at the risk of being glib, I don't give a fuck for any argument that doesn't hold Christians accountable for their churches practicing bigotry. The "misinterpretations" and "traditional values" excuses are enough to make me want to string them up on crosses.

God did not, ever, tell you that it was OK to treat people inhumane because they believe differently then you. And blaming your malicious or cowardly behavior on an imaginary friend is appalling and shameful. Period.

well, actually, god says some pretty shitty things.

THAT SAID, I can respect fiscal conservatives. I have very little understanding of economics, so my opinions on that (except in one or two points) are worthless.

But I have no room in my heart for social conservatives.

 

[dragonrazor]

Which is what I'm saying, really.
There's absolutely no compelling reason to believe in the literal truth of the books at all. If jesus had done the things he was supposed to have done, there would have been SOME record of him.

What I find amusing is when people say "well, there was probably a jjesus who just didn't do the things jesus did".
Which misses the entire point of the jesus story.
If there was ever a character completely and utterly defined by his actions, its jesus.

If there was a jesus who did no jesus things, how was he jesus?

Heh heh. Jesus was pronounced Hay Zeus and he was a thin little Jewish african man with bad hair and no beard....er << >>

Anyways, I look at the bible as a collection of Parables (like Aesop's fables, stories with no real content other than their moral)

And in regards to fiscality....The TRICKLE DOWN effect is a METEOROLOGICAL phenomenon. It has absolutely no applications in commerce, so start giving the people on SSI the money, not the damned corporations. Dumbasses *grumbles at idiotic economists working for the government* Simple concept. You want to stimulate the economy and save companies like GM and Chrysler? GIVE SOMEONE THE MONEY TO BUY A CAR. THAT STIMULATES THE ECONOMY. Giving the money to the company does the opposite of what you want.

 

[LoganDarkHolme]

i once got kicked out of a bookstore for moving all the bibles to the Fiction section >.>

 

[dragonrazor]

i once got kicked out of a bookstore for moving all the bibles to the Fiction section >.>

I got a plaque for moving all the copies of The Silmarillion from the children's section to the adult's section where they belonged o.o

 

[Drunken_Angel]

I'll vote Democrat as long as the party refuses to acknowledge its own ignorance. I would rather suffer under an irresponsible fiscal policy then watch innocent people suffer under a bigoted social policy.

Besides, I won't trust anyone who cannot accept a woman has a right to choose and there is no rational moral or fiscal argument against a consensual relationship between adults.

And, at the risk of being glib, I don't give a fuck for any argument that doesn't hold Christians accountable for their churches practicing bigotry. The "misinterpretations" and "traditional values" excuses are enough to make me want to string them up on crosses.

God did not, ever, tell you that it was OK to treat people inhumane because they believe differently then you. And blaming your malicious or cowardly behavior on an imaginary friend is appalling and shameful. Period.

I make a distinction between individual and the institution. Yes the institution is composed of individuals, but there are a great many people who dont share the extreme views of other Christians. Okay, "great many" is overstating it, but I like to try to make room for people to be working toward change within their own culture. I do not in any way make allowance for the impact that almost ALL christian base religions have had as an aggregate.

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

i once got kicked out of a bookstore for moving all the bibles to the Fiction section >.>

*pokes Sir Wolfiekins*

 

[Light Ice]

I make a distinction between individual and the institution. Yes the institution is composed of individuals, but there are a great many people who dont share the extreme views of other Christians. Okay, "great many" is overstating it, but I like to try to make room for people to be working toward change within their own culture. I do not in any way make allowance for the impact that almost ALL christian base religions have had as an aggregate.

And that's fair and intelligent. I can groove on that vibe.