Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008

Congrats Vermont!!

[ Edited ]
Now Vermont has legalized gay marriage. The US is getting progressive. Maybe with people realizing the serious concerns over the economy, they don't care as much about battling over people's personal and sexual lives. 4 states down, 46 to go!
Message Edited by debbook on 04-07-2009 10:19 PM
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

At least Vermont took this step through the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.  That is to their credit. 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!


Everyman wrote:

At least Vermont took this step through the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.  That is to their credit. 

 

 


 

Oh Eman, no one cares what kind of car they drive:smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy:

 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Sorry, Deb, I'm with Eman on this one.  The legislature and the judiciary should have different roles, and on issues like this, it does seem positive that the legislature took the responsibility. 

 

Not but what there aren't a number of issues that I am glad for judicial leadership while legislators sat on their .... and feared for votes.

 

All this seems to me among the "hidden" strengths of our three-part system.

 

Pepper


debbook wrote:

Everyman wrote:

At least Vermont took this step through the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.  That is to their credit. 

 


 

Oh Eman, no one cares what kind of car they drive:smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy:

 


 

 

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Pepper, I was making a joke about a car-fiat?? I didn't agree or disagree with him at all.

I don't care who makes the decision as long as it is done.


Peppermill wrote:

Sorry, Deb, I'm with Eman on this one.  The legislature and the judiciary should have different roles, and on issues like this, it does seem positive that the legislature took the responsibility. 

 

Not but what there aren't a number of issues that I am glad for judicial leadership while legislators sat on their .... and feared for votes.

 

All this seems to me among the "hidden" strengths of our three-part system.

 

Pepper


debbook wrote:

Everyman wrote:

At least Vermont took this step through the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.  That is to their credit. 

 


 

Oh Eman, no one cares what kind of car they drive:smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy:

 


 

 


 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Oops!  I'd like to blame it on that extra glass of wine with dinner with a good friend, but I'm afraid that one would have flown right over my head anyway! :smileysurprised:  That was a gotcha! :smileysad:  One for you, Deb. :smileyvery-happy:

 


debbook wrote:

Pepper, I was making a joke about a car-fiat?? I didn't agree or disagree with him at all.

I don't care who makes the decision as long as it is done.


Peppermill wrote:

Sorry, Deb, I'm with Eman on this one.  The legislature and the judiciary should have different roles, and on issues like this, it does seem positive that the legislature took the responsibility. 

 

Not but what there aren't a number of issues that I am glad for judicial leadership while legislators sat on their .... and feared for votes.

 

All this seems to me among the "hidden" strengths of our three-part system.

 

Pepper


debbook wrote:

Everyman wrote:

At least Vermont took this step through the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.  That is to their credit. 

 


 

Oh Eman, no one cares what kind of car they drive:smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy:

 




"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!


debbook wrote:

...

I don't care who makes the decision as long as it is done.


I hope you don't think this way about all decisions.  Do you want the President declaring war without consulting Congress?  The Legislature passing laws which they forbid the Judiciary from considering? 

 

We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.  When one branch takes over the prerogatives of another, even for what some people consider good outcomes, our whole system is threatened.  

 

I care very much not only about what decisions are made, but how they are made, because I care very much about maintaining a healthy tripartate system of government. 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Obviously I'm going to agree with Deb on this one.  I don't care who makes the decision to give me the right to marry (not that I ever will since I would have to date first).  I don't care if it a state legislature or a Judge.  And I'm sorry but I find comparing this to going to war a little overstated.

 

What does offend me is when people get to vote on wether or not I should have equal rights or not.  Why should my rights be put to a vote?

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

LOL Debs - I get that joke:smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy:   Wonderful news - a sign of the changing times!

 


debbook wrote:

Everyman wrote:

At least Vermont took this step through the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.  That is to their credit. 

 

 


 

Oh Eman, no one cares what kind of car they drive:smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy:

 


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!


Ryan_G wrote:

Obviously I'm going to agree with Deb on this one.  I don't care who makes the decision to give me the right to marry (not that I ever will since I would have to date first).  I don't care if it a state legislature or a Judge.  And I'm sorry but I find comparing this to going to war a little overstated.

 

What does offend me is when people get to vote on wether or not I should have equal rights or not.  Why should my rights be put to a vote?


Ryan -- surely, you're putting us on!

 

It took a constitutional amendment, with all the voting such  requires, by men at that, to get women the "right" to vote.

 

But, as I implied earlier, I am glad that learned judges, in many cases appointed, sometimes push the envelope on social issues and aid in getting legislatures to enact the needed laws, which the judges can now adjudicate.

 

Pepper

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

There shouldn't have needed to be a vote for women's rights to vote, it should have been automatic. There shouldn't need to be legislation or court decisions about gay marriage, it should just be legal for 2 consenting citizens to marry, regardless of gender.

The courts are held to a standard of what is legal under our laws. The legislature seems bound by public opinion. It's a good thing we didn't sit around and wait for legislatures to make decisions about school integration, we might still be waiting.


Peppermill wrote:

Ryan_G wrote:

Obviously I'm going to agree with Deb on this one.  I don't care who makes the decision to give me the right to marry (not that I ever will since I would have to date first).  I don't care if it a state legislature or a Judge.  And I'm sorry but I find comparing this to going to war a little overstated.

 

What does offend me is when people get to vote on wether or not I should have equal rights or not.  Why should my rights be put to a vote?


Ryan -- surely, you're putting us on!

 

It took a constitutional amendment, with all the voting such  requires, by men at that, to get women the "right" to vote.

 

But, as I implied earlier, I am glad that learned judges, in many cases appointed, sometimes push the envelope on social issues and aid in getting legislatures to enact the needed laws, which the judges can now adjudicate.

 

Pepper


 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Pepper,

 

That wasn't right either.  I'm not sure why you thought I would feel any differently about that.


Peppermill wrote:

Ryan_G wrote:

Obviously I'm going to agree with Deb on this one.  I don't care who makes the decision to give me the right to marry (not that I ever will since I would have to date first).  I don't care if it a state legislature or a Judge.  And I'm sorry but I find comparing this to going to war a little overstated.

 

What does offend me is when people get to vote on wether or not I should have equal rights or not.  Why should my rights be put to a vote?


Ryan -- surely, you're putting us on!

 

It took a constitutional amendment, with all the voting such  requires, by men at that, to get women the "right" to vote.

 

But, as I implied earlier, I am glad that learned judges, in many cases appointed, sometimes push the envelope on social issues and aid in getting legislatures to enact the needed laws, which the judges can now adjudicate.

 

Pepper


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

I sure those involved in plural marriages would agree with you.  What gives society the right to prevent them from marrying anybody they want to? 

 

But society does so prevent them, and not very many people seem very concened about that.  

 


Ryan_G wrote:

Obviously I'm going to agree with Deb on this one.  I don't care who makes the decision to give me the right to marry (not that I ever will since I would have to date first).  I don't care if it a state legislature or a Judge.  And I'm sorry but I find comparing this to going to war a little overstated.

 

What does offend me is when people get to vote on wether or not I should have equal rights or not.  Why should my rights be put to a vote?


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Quite honestly I'm sick of the comparison of a commited gay couple to a polygamous relationship.  It's not the same thing.  If you and those on your side want to blow smoke in everybodys faces by comparing gay people to polygamists, pedophiles, people in inscetous relationships, and any other thing you can come up with, go ahead.  But be honest about your reasoning.  Admit you are homophobic and let it be that.  Quit trying to hide behind a mask of "tolerance" then turn around and use those types of comparisons.  You know it's not honest, I know it's no honest and that's ok.  But I'm done discussing this issue with you.

 

Here is the problem with those on your side.  You try to hide behind your "normalacy", take shots at those of us who don't fit in your sphere, then when you are called out on it you cry foul because we are taking you the wrong way.  Actually we aren't, we understand what you are saying better than you want to admit.  What those of you on the other side of the argument are saying is that you think you are better than us, that your relationships are better than ours, and our families are shadows of what you have.   I and those like me get that.  We know that's what you are trying to say without coming out and saying it in those words.  We just wish you would quit pretending to be understanding because you aren't.  You can't understand what it means to grow up gay and be told your feelings aren't valid.  That your relationship can't be compared to a straight married couple. 

 

But hey, you are right we are just like thos nasty polygamists.  At least keep telling yourself that, if that's what you need to believe.


Everyman wrote:

I sure those involved in plural marriages would agree with you.  What gives society the right to prevent them from marrying anybody they want to? 

 

But society does so prevent them, and not very many people seem very concened about that.  

 


Ryan_G wrote:

Obviously I'm going to agree with Deb on this one.  I don't care who makes the decision to give me the right to marry (not that I ever will since I would have to date first).  I don't care if it a state legislature or a Judge.  And I'm sorry but I find comparing this to going to war a little overstated.

 

What does offend me is when people get to vote on wether or not I should have equal rights or not.  Why should my rights be put to a vote?


 

 


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

[ Edited ]

Ryan, 

 

Personally I am a supporter of gay rights and I think that homosexual couples should be able to marry each other just as heterosexuals do - and I applaud the recent decisions in Vermont and Iowa.

 

However I'm not sure why you seem upset at the mention of polygamy.  Why shouldn't multiple consenting adults be able to enter into a marriage?

 

I agree with you that the comparisons often thrown around on the right - pedophilia, people marrying dogs, stupid things like this which obviously do not involve consenting adults - these are inappropriate and not a real comparison.  And indeed - as you suggest - behind those comparisons is often homophobia.

 

But I don't see what exactly the problem is with polygamy, from a rights standpoint.   Why shouldn't a group of more than two committed, consenting adults be able to call their relationship a marriage if they so choose?  

 

I understand that in recent high profile cases related to polygamy there was some suggestion of abuse.  However those cases largely involved minors - not consenting adults - and I don't see any reason to assume that such relationships would necessarily involve abuse any more than a two person marriage.  Honestly it seems to me that the stigma against polygamous relationships in our society doesn't make a whole lot more sense than the stigma against homosexual relationships, and both of these stigmas have religious roots.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 04-08-2009 02:12 PM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

I can understand that you are very emotionally committed to this issue, Ryan, but I don't think that excuses the level of hostility and personal insult of your post.  I have no "side."   I am not taking shots at anybody. I have never used offensive or derogatory language about you or described you in any negative terms.  I frankly don't appreciate your doing that to me. 

 

If you can't discuss this issue in a calm and rational manner, with posts which are, as called for in the User Guidelines,  "civil, courteous and respectful," avoiding any language which is "abusive, intimidating, discriminatory, or otherwise objectionable" (which frankly I consider your slurs to be), and "[avoiding] a tone that is consistently critical, derogatory, insolent or otherwise negative," perhaps it would be better for you to avoid posting on the issue.  

 

I do understand -- really I do -- how emotionally you are invested in this issue, and respect your right to be so, but I do not think that gives you the right to make false and derogatory accusations about others.  

 


Ryan_G wrote:

Quite honestly I'm sick of the comparison of a commited gay couple to a polygamous relationship.  It's not the same thing.  If you and those on your side want to blow smoke in everybodys faces by comparing gay people to polygamists, pedophiles, people in inscetous relationships, and any other thing you can come up with, go ahead.  But be honest about your reasoning.  Admit you are homophobic and let it be that.  Quit trying to hide behind a mask of "tolerance" then turn around and use those types of comparisons.  You know it's not honest, I know it's no honest and that's ok.  But I'm done discussing this issue with you.

 

Here is the problem with those on your side.  You try to hide behind your "normalacy", take shots at those of us who don't fit in your sphere, then when you are called out on it you cry foul because we are taking you the wrong way.  Actually we aren't, we understand what you are saying better than you want to admit.  What those of you on the other side of the argument are saying is that you think you are better than us, that your relationships are better than ours, and our families are shadows of what you have.   I and those like me get that.  We know that's what you are trying to say without coming out and saying it in those words.  We just wish you would quit pretending to be understanding because you aren't.  You can't understand what it means to grow up gay and be told your feelings aren't valid.  That your relationship can't be compared to a straight married couple. 

 

But hey, you are right we are just like thos nasty polygamists.  At least keep telling yourself that, if that's what you need to believe.


Everyman wrote:

I sure those involved in plural marriages would agree with you.  What gives society the right to prevent them from marrying anybody they want to? 

 

But society does so prevent them, and not very many people seem very concened about that.  

 


Ryan_G wrote:

Obviously I'm going to agree with Deb on this one.  I don't care who makes the decision to give me the right to marry (not that I ever will since I would have to date first).  I don't care if it a state legislature or a Judge.  And I'm sorry but I find comparing this to going to war a little overstated.

 

What does offend me is when people get to vote on wether or not I should have equal rights or not.  Why should my rights be put to a vote?


 

 


 


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

I warned you, Jon, about making so many posts I had to agree with, and here you go again.  You just don't care, do you?  :smileyvery-happy:

 

But seriously, the question of what rights should be accorded to what people (and, given the abortion question, what potential people) has been since the dawn of recorded history at the very least, and probably long before that, and is still an ongoing issue for societies.  What has always interested me (intellectually) is the predeliction of certain people or groups of people (here I am speaking in broad and general terms, not of any specific group) to be intensely sensitive to the ways in which they have or are being denied fundamental rights but at the same time to be equally insensitive to the ways in which others are being denied their fundamental rights.  

 

This has been particularly prevalent in the religious area; even today, some Christians who are fierce about their right to practice their religions as they prefer are openly hostile to other groups such as Wiccans or snake handlers who want to practice their religions as they prefer.  In the 60s I experienced a very uncomfortable conflict between some Jewish and Black groups which saw their opportunities for civil liberties in conflict, so that if one group advanced the others felt that they were being left back.  (Let's recall that while the Supreme Court in 1948 ended the use of the legal system to enforce covenants prohibiting the sale of property to Jews, it wasn't until the late 1960s that Congress made such covenants illegal outright; until then they were still legal to write into deed covenants, but couldn't be enforced in court.)

 

This conflict continues, as you point out, today, with some people, both homosexual and heterosexual, who are strongly committed to opening up the rights of marriage to homosexuals turning about and seeking to deny it to polygamists.  Perhaps, like Jews and Blacks in the 60s, they feel that their interests are in conflict rather than in common, and so they are hostile to those rights rather than thinking that they should be supporting each other in seeking the same thing -- the right to marry whomever they wish and practice in private whatever sexual relations between consenting adults that they wish. 

 


Jon_B wrote:

Ryan, 

 

Personally I am a supporter of gay rights and I think that homosexual couples should be able to marry each other just as heterosexuals do - and I applaud the recent decisions in Vermont and Iowa.

 

However I'm not sure why you seem upset at the mention of polygamy.  Why shouldn't multiple consenting adults be able to enter into a marriage?

 

I agree with you that the comparisons often thrown around on the right - pedophilia, people marrying dogs, stupid things like this which obviously do not involve consenting adults - these are inappropriate and not a real comparison.  And indeed - as you suggest - behind those comparisons is often homophobia.

 

But I don't see what exactly the problem is with polygamy, from a rights standpoint.   Why shouldn't a group of more than two committed, consenting adults be able to call their relationship a marriage if they so choose?  

 

I understand that in recent high profile cases related to polygamy there was some suggestion of abuse.  However those cases largely involved minors - not consenting adults - and I don't see any reason to assume that such relationships would necessarily involve abuse any more than a two person marriage.  Honestly it seems to me that the stigma against polygamous relationships in our society doesn't make a whole lot more sense than the stigma against homosexual relationships, and both of these stigmas have religious roots.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 04-08-2009 02:12 PM

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Jon,

 

My problem with it is that it gets thrown out as a reason not to allow gay people to get married.  It's a red herring used by those who oppose gay marriage because they can't come up with anything better.

 

In theory, I'm not opposed to the idea of a polygamous relationship.  I just wish the two things would be seperate and debated seperatly.  I know I may be being a hypocrit on this but as long as those on the other side of this debate want to throw that out there, I'm going to be annoyed by the comparison.

 

Sorry if you thought I was being mean to those who are in these relationships.  When I used the word nasty it was me being sarcastic not serious. 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

Jon, I think Ryan was making the assumption that polygamous relationships were given as an example of sexual deviance and that is the objection. Had that comment come from a different poster, it may have not been taken that way. But in the past, on these boards, homosexuality has been compared to sexually deviant behaviors. And no moderators objected to this I might add. A particular discussion on Lit&Life comes to mind as an example.

Jon_B wrote:

Ryan, 

 

Personally I am a supporter of gay rights and I think that homosexual couples should be able to marry each other just as heterosexuals do - and I applaud the recent decisions in Vermont and Iowa.

 

However I'm not sure why you seem upset at the mention of polygamy.  Why shouldn't multiple consenting adults be able to enter into a marriage?

 

I agree with you that the comparisons often thrown around on the right - pedophilia, people marrying dogs, stupid things like this which obviously do not involve consenting adults - these are inappropriate and not a real comparison.  And indeed - as you suggest - behind those comparisons is often homophobia.

 

But I don't see what exactly the problem is with polygamy, from a rights standpoint.   Why shouldn't a group of more than two committed, consenting adults be able to call their relationship a marriage if they so choose?  

 

I understand that in recent high profile cases related to polygamy there was some suggestion of abuse.  However those cases largely involved minors - not consenting adults - and I don't see any reason to assume that such relationships would necessarily involve abuse any more than a two person marriage.  Honestly it seems to me that the stigma against polygamous relationships in our society doesn't make a whole lot more sense than the stigma against homosexual relationships, and both of these stigmas have religious roots.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 04-08-2009 02:12 PM

 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008

Re: Congrats Vermont!!

This is similar to the stance the Boy Scouts have on homosexuality as they compare it to pedophilia as a reason to not allow Gay scout leaders.

Ryan_G wrote:

Jon,

 

My problem with it is that it gets thrown out as a reason not to allow gay people to get married.  It's a red herring used by those who oppose gay marriage because they can't come up with anything better.

 

In theory, I'm not opposed to the idea of a polygamous relationship.  I just wish the two things would be seperate and debated seperatly.  I know I may be being a hypocrit on this but as long as those on the other side of this debate want to throw that out there, I'm going to be annoyed by the comparison.

 

Sorry if you thought I was being mean to those who are in these relationships.  When I used the word nasty it was me being sarcastic not serious. 


 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com