Homosexual Living Together

[Justified Saint]

Ah, I share your misfortune. As I think about graduate school, the thought of a PhD in history is increasingly a depressing idea. But I have been thinking a lot about a Classics degree lately -- so maybe there is some saving grace.



I fear our little tangent threatens the closing of the thread!

Just to be sure, I hate homos!.....(j/k)

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1110601' date='Nov 4 2006, 02:47 AM']
Ah, I share your misfortune. As I think about graduate school, the thought of a PhD in history is increasingly a depressing idea. But I have been thinking a lot about a Classics degree lately -- so maybe there is some saving grace.
I fear our little tangent threatens the closing of the thread!

Just to be sure, I hate homos!.....(j/k)
[/quote]

Well I hated bigoted catholics! (mostly kidding : )

Anyway, I know what you mean. There is one course of action I was considering, but I wasn't prepared enough for it. My professor who specialized in medieval islam mentioned that the Spanish Empire rose, peaked, and fell almost exactly in unison with the Ottoman empire, and that a side-by-side comparison of the two great 15th/16th century empires had never been done, but would be fascinating. Unfortunately, that requires being fluent in medieval spanish, arabic, persian, and turkish (because Ottoman Turkish is a conglomerate of the three). I am not fluent in those 4 languages, so I didn't have the temerity to attempt it. I still think he's right though - it's a fascinating idea.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110603' date='Nov 4 2006, 12:50 AM']
Well I hated bigoted catholics! (mostly kidding : )

Anyway, I know what you mean. There is one course of action I was considering, but I wasn't prepared enough for it. My professor who specialized in medieval islam mentioned that the Spanish Empire rose, peaked, and fell almost exactly in unison with the Ottoman empire, and that a side-by-side comparison of the two great 15th/16th century empires had never been done, but would be fascinating. Unfortunately, that requires being fluent in medieval spanish, arabic, persian, and turkish (because Ottoman Turkish is a conglomerate of the three). I am not fluent in those 4 languages, so I didn't have the temerity to attempt it. I still think he's right though - it's a fascinating idea.
[/quote]

Yeah, they stick you with all those languages. I thought I was doing myself a favor studying Spanish, but it seems like its a useless language for most graduate history programs.

Does sound like an interesting comparison though.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110545' date='Nov 4 2006, 12:41 AM']
None of the professional historians I have studied under make quality judgments. That's just the way it is. Your stupid little searches on google aren't going to "shoot down" anything. I have a degree in medieval history. I have studied the middle ages intensely. I have worked with multiple professors with numerous publications on the subject. You have done none of these things. I cannot say, as a historian, that one time period was better than another time period. Better is a meaningless, unquantifiable term - especially when using period documents.
[/quote]
Did your degree in medieval history come with a degree of humility? Before you go waving your degree around, you might not want to be so presumptuous about who I am. The degree marks the successful completion of the academic requirements for acquiring it. It doesn't mean you're wise. I've seen people with degrees higher than yours saying the most ignorant things. I didn't accept what they said as gospel either.

Here is my posting reworded to avoid tangent discussions. I look forward to your response.

1. Not everywhere. And again, just because they can adopt doesn't mean they should adopt. The optimal family is with parents, male and female.

2. Not everything is unhealthy to the same level. How does a list of unhealthy behaviors support condoning one more unhealthy lifestyle?

3. Arguing for a nation of Woody Allens does not score points with me. Wasn't his daughter his non-biological daughter? A disturbing incident nonetheless and maybe should be outlawed.

Why restrict marriage to one partner? What happened to the argument against discrimination? Are you now comfortable with discrimination?

You're right about animals not having rights. They do get more protection under the law than humans. If we can given personhood to a corporation (See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), why not animals?

4. Any sexual activity carries risk, but some activities are more riskier than others. The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!) to be complementary to one another whereas this complementary nature does not exist in a homosexual relationship.

I have not brought up Christian objection to homosexuality in regards to prohibition. You are, and once again, are wrong. Homosexuality is objectionable to many religions and non-religious.

5. Good, because it wasn't the Family Research Council that did the research. They simply provided the references. Go read the references yourself. You asked. You received. Start here.

6*. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the promotion of the common good in societies for thousands of years.

* - Reworded.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111053' date='Nov 4 2006, 05:50 PM']
Did your degree in medieval history come with a degree of humility? Before you go waving your degree around, you might not want to be so presumptuous about who I am. The degree marks the successful completion of the academic requirements for acquiring it. It doesn't mean you're wise. I've seen people with degrees higher than yours saying the most ignorant things. I didn't accept what they said as gospel either.
[/quote]

I don't feel the need to be humble when confronted with arrogance such as yours. But hey, I guess typing a few words into google is a proper substitute for years of study.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1110573' date='Nov 4 2006, 02:10 AM']
You know sadly enough, I dont believe that because, its always homosexuals who are rude to me and treat me with great ill. Plus, what do homosexuals expect? They are going againt nature. Its only natural to other humans to be offended by this, religion or not.
[/quote]

You might be offended but that gives you no call to be rude.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1111092' date='Nov 4 2006, 05:37 PM']
I don't feel the need to be humble when confronted with arrogance such as yours. But hey, I guess typing a few words into google is a proper substitute for years of study.
[/quote]
How many years of study have I had?

1. Not everywhere. And again, just because they can adopt doesn't mean they should adopt. The optimal family is with parents, male and female.

2. Not everything is unhealthy to the same level. How does a list of unhealthy behaviors support condoning one more unhealthy lifestyle?

3. Arguing for a nation of Woody Allens does not score points with me. Wasn't his daughter his non-biological daughter? A disturbing incident nonetheless and maybe should be outlawed.

Why restrict marriage to one partner? What happened to the argument against discrimination? Are you now comfortable with discrimination?

You're right about animals not having rights. They do get more protection under the law than humans. If we can given personhood to a corporation (See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), why not animals? blink.gif

4. Any sexual activity carries risk, but some activities are more riskier than others. The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!) to be complementary to one another whereas this complementary nature does not exist in a homosexual relationship.

I have not brought up Christian objection to homosexuality in regards to prohibition. You are, and once again, are wrong. Homosexuality is objectionable to many religions and non-religious.

5. Good, because it wasn't the Family Research Council that did the research. They simply provided the references. Go read the references yourself. You asked. You received. Start here.

6*. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the promotion of the common good in societies for thousands of years.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111362' date='Nov 4 2006, 09:10 PM']
How many years of study have I had?
[/quote]

I don't know, why don't you tell me? I'd be happy to hear your history credentials.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1111364' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:11 PM']
I don't know, why don't you tell me? I'd be happy to hear your history credentials.
[/quote]
No need to tell you. You already know me.

Given your credentials are so high, why not show me its power by stop avoid the subject of the thread?

1. Not everywhere. And again, just because they can adopt doesn't mean they should adopt. The optimal family is with parents, male and female.

2. Not everything is unhealthy to the same level. How does a list of unhealthy behaviors support condoning one more unhealthy lifestyle?

3. Arguing for a nation of Woody Allens does not score points with me. Wasn't his daughter his non-biological daughter? A disturbing incident nonetheless and maybe should be outlawed.

Why restrict marriage to one partner? What happened to the argument against discrimination? Are you now comfortable with discrimination?

You're right about animals not having rights. They do get more protection under the law than humans. If we can given personhood to a corporation (See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), why not animals? blink.gif

4. Any sexual activity carries risk, but some activities are more riskier than others. The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!) to be complementary to one another whereas this complementary nature does not exist in a homosexual relationship.

I have not brought up Christian objection to homosexuality in regards to prohibition. You are, and once again, are wrong. Homosexuality is objectionable to many religions and non-religious.

5. Good, because it wasn't the Family Research Council that did the research. They simply provided the references. Go read the references yourself. You asked. You received. Start here.

6*. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the promotion of the common good in societies for thousands of years.

P.S. Google is an excellent research tool.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111369' date='Nov 4 2006, 09:14 PM']
No need to tell you. You already know me.

Given your credentials are so high, why not show me its power by stop avoid the subject of the thread?

1. Not everywhere. And again, just because they can adopt doesn't mean they should adopt. The optimal family is with parents, male and female.

2. Not everything is unhealthy to the same level. How does a list of unhealthy behaviors support condoning one more unhealthy lifestyle?

3. Arguing for a nation of Woody Allens does not score points with me. Wasn't his daughter his non-biological daughter? A disturbing incident nonetheless and maybe should be outlawed.

Why restrict marriage to one partner? What happened to the argument against discrimination? Are you now comfortable with discrimination?

You're right about animals not having rights. They do get more protection under the law than humans. If we can given personhood to a corporation (See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), why not animals? blink.gif

4. Any sexual activity carries risk, but some activities are more riskier than others. The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!) to be complementary to one another whereas this complementary nature does not exist in a homosexual relationship.

I have not brought up Christian objection to homosexuality in regards to prohibition. You are, and once again, are wrong. Homosexuality is objectionable to many religions and non-religious.

5. Good, because it wasn't the Family Research Council that did the research. They simply provided the references. Go read the references yourself. You asked. You received. Start here.

6*. Altering the definition of marriage changes a formula that has worked for the promotion of the common good in societies for thousands of years.

P.S. Google is an excellent research tool.
[/quote]

Google is not an excellent research tool. It's a good search engine, however most websites have quite a bit of misinformation. Wikipedia I find to be tolerable most of the time, but it isn't the kind of source you put in your papers.

Clearly, you have no credentials as you won't state them. I don't think you understand a thing about history, and I think you were just baiting me on the subject. As to the points enumerated above, we have discussed them ad nauseum. You have twisted my words and brought nothing new to the table. I'm no longer going to engage in this immature discussion.

[Aloysius]

Good Research Tool: [url="http://scholar.google.com/"]http://scholar.google.com/[/url]
Bad Research Tool: [url="http://www.google.com/"]http://www.google.com/[/url]

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1111372' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:18 PM']
Google is not an excellent research tool. It's a good search engine, however most websites have quite a bit of misinformation. Wikipedia I find to be tolerable most of the time, but it isn't the kind of source you put in your papers.[/quote]
I find research requires searching. Do references fall into your lap in your research?

[quote]Clearly, you have no credentials as you won't state them. I don't think you understand a thing about history, and I think you were just baiting me on the subject. As to the points enumerated above, we have discussed them ad nauseum. You have twisted my words and brought nothing new to the table. I'm no longer going to engage in this immature discussion.
[/quote]
If this thread was titled "kamiller42's academic credentials", I would entertain your request for credential review. I find the entire credential discussion to be a red herring as you are unable to refute my points. Your continued dodges are not unnoticed.

I congratulated you on your diploma. It would be interesting to see that knowledge put to use in these forums one day. Until then, exercise patience and charity and keep the haughtiness on a leash.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1111389' date='Nov 4 2006, 09:35 PM']
I find research requires searching. Do references fall into your lap in your research?
If this thread was titled "kamiller42's academic credentials", I would entertain your request for credential review. I find the entire credential discussion to be a red herring as you are unable to refute my points. Your continued dodges are not unnoticed.

I congratulated you on your diploma. It would be interesting to see that knowledge put to use in these forums one day. Until then, exercise patience and charity and keep the haughtiness on a leash.
[/quote]

I was putting that knowledge to use on these forums before you ever joined them and I still am. Take a look at the threads in the last week since I've been back concerning medieval history. You need to learn respect for others, tolerance, charity, and how to speak to people without a smug, self-superior attitude.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1109857' date='Nov 3 2006, 12:34 PM']
but does the nature of a civil union have to be sexual?

can't it just be material, I want these benefits for my best friend?
[/quote]

Show me one that's not, aside from the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=47804"]upcoming Adam Sandler "gay fireman" movie[/url].

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1111380' date='Nov 4 2006, 08:27 PM']
Good Research Tool: [url="http://scholar.google.com/"]http://scholar.google.com/[/url]
Bad Research Tool: [url="http://www.google.com/"]http://www.google.com/[/url]
[/quote]
I guess it depends on what you are researching. If my research requires locating news articles, Google.com or news.google.com is a better choice. If I want an authority on a particular subject, scholar.google.com is better. What is nice about Google.com is that if you are searching on a topic and hits at its others sites, like scholar.google.com, exist, it'll show up at the top of google.com's search results. Pretty smart system.