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. On May 1, we’re saying 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
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side

As far as same sex marriage goes, I'm all for it. Why does it matter if it's a man & woman, 2 men or 2 women. As long as they're in love & commited for the long-haul I don't think it should matter.

 

Or two men and one woman, or four men and four women, or one man and seven women, or whatever combination of loving and committed relationships suits a person's desires.  

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side

[ Edited ]

I've noticed.  Unfortunately your cynicism often gets in the way.  How can one give good advice if one is at odds with society and the general run of mankind?  Libertarianism seems be based on a very cynical view of society.  My grandfather, on the other hand, believed that people were inherently good and his ripples were munificent.   

 

BTW I know you are a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan.  Do you know this skit on the Modern Major General?   Or this one, which perhaps better fits a contrarian. 

 

     

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Good advice.

 

Very much what I'm trying to do here!

 


Choisya wrote:

Keep up the good work Patty!  My grandfather used to tell me that 'spreading the word' was like being a pebble which, if dropped in a pool, created many ripples:smileyhappy:.   

 

 

 


Patty_Champion wrote:

Austin is a great town. Unfortunately I live in a small town south of Dallas. Not exactly a hotbed of open mindedness.

 

Oh well. I try to voice my opinions as often as possible & work on getting people to realize there is a great big world out there beyond the borders. Let me tell ya, it isn't easy.:smileyhappy:


 


 

 


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-20-2009 01:24 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side

I don't think you are any less or more cynical than I am; we are just cynical about different things.  I'm cynical about the good intentions of politicians.  You're cynical about the good intentions of large corporations.  I'm cynical about those who would limit free speech, and oppose any limits on freedom of speech which isn't defamatory.  You're cynical about free speech and supports limits on the right to speak freely about certain topics which you think are hurtful to people. 

 

Although it's more nuanced than that.  You generally think government is a good thing, but you are certainly highly cynical about the good intentions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, et. al.  

 

I actually believe that people are inherently good, but I also believe that power corrupts and overcomes the good in many of them, and that people who seek power become corrupted despite their inherent underlying goodness which becomes buried by their lust for the right to run the lives of other people (which is the essential definition of government).  

 

It is not a difference of one of us being cynical and the other not.  It is just a case of our both being cynical, but just about different things.  

 

 

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

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side

P.S.  I avoid take offs on G&S.  They're too easy.  
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side

Although it's more nuanced than that.  You generally think government is a good thing, but you are certainly highly cynical about the good intentions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, et. al.  

 

I am not too happy with Obama recently either. I am highly critical of a lot of governments, especially my own at the moment.  But that does not stop me thinking that government is a good thing or that politicians in general are decent people and certainly that they are as good as lawyers:smileyhappy:. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

I don't think you are any less or more cynical than I am; we are just cynical about different things.  I'm cynical about the good intentions of politicians.  You're cynical about the good intentions of large corporations.  I'm cynical about those who would limit free speech, and oppose any limits on freedom of speech which isn't defamatory.  You're cynical about free speech and supports limits on the right to speak freely about certain topics which you think are hurtful to people. 

 

Although it's more nuanced than that.  You generally think government is a good thing, but you are certainly highly cynical about the good intentions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, et. al.  

 

I actually believe that people are inherently good, but I also believe that power corrupts and overcomes the good in many of them, and that people who seek power become corrupted despite their inherent underlying goodness which becomes buried by their lust for the right to run the lives of other people (which is the essential definition of government).  

 

It is not a difference of one of us being cynical and the other not.  It is just a case of our both being cynical, but just about different things.  

 

 


 

Frequent Contributor
TheRedMenace
Posts: 79
Registered: ‎03-27-2009
0 Kudos

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side



Everyman wrote:

As far as same sex marriage goes, I'm all for it. Why does it matter if it's a man & woman, 2 men or 2 women. As long as they're in love & commited for the long-haul I don't think it should matter.

 

Or two men and one woman, or four men and four women, or one man and seven women, or whatever combination of loving and committed relationships suits a person's desires.  


 

I haven't hooked up my sarcasm detector today, so I'm honestly asking: did you mean that or were you being sarcastic?   I don't want to assume the latter as a default.

Frequent Contributor
Patty_Champion
Posts: 101
Registered: ‎03-10-2008

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side

I have to agree... I think that red-lined the Sarcast-O Meter.

 

I believe marriage is between 2 people, not a group. Although I guess there are those in communes who may be perfectly happy. Actually.... the more I think about it.... maybe that's not such a bad idea --- would cut down on the amount of house cleaning & cooking I have to do.  JUST KIDDING:smileywink: ! Had to test my Sarcast-O Meter & it works. wOOO hOOO

 


TheRedMenace wrote:


Everyman wrote:

As far as same sex marriage goes, I'm all for it. Why does it matter if it's a man & woman, 2 men or 2 women. As long as they're in love & commited for the long-haul I don't think it should matter.

 

Or two men and one woman, or four men and four women, or one man and seven women, or whatever combination of loving and committed relationships suits a person's desires.  


 

I haven't hooked up my sarcasm detector today, so I'm honestly asking: did you mean that or were you being sarcastic?   I don't want to assume the latter as a default.


 

Patty
Blogger
L_Monty
Posts: 900
Registered: ‎12-30-2008
0 Kudos

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side


Patty_Champion wrote:

I have to agree... I think that red-lined the Sarcast-O Meter.

 

I believe marriage is between 2 people, not a group. Although I guess there are those in communes who may be perfectly happy. Actually.... the more I think about it.... maybe that's not such a bad idea --- would cut down on the amount of house cleaning & cooking I have to do.  JUST KIDDING:smileywink: ! Had to test my Sarcast-O Meter & it works. wOOO hOOO



I remember the first time someone tried that "but if gay people could marry, then maybe 14 people would all get married to each other!!!!!" tactic, and I thought they were kidding, because I just started laughing and then had to stop and do the "oh, you were serious..." thing. I just couldn't care less. Other people's marriages have no effect on mine, just like my neighbor's buying a BMW doesn't automatically make my car suck. Bully for them. As long as you're not involving children or people incapable of making a reasoned decision for themselves and who may be exploited by the relationship, gather as many people together as you want. Now, I think that for the purposes of reducing exploitation of marriage for some kind of economic or contractual gain, you might want to restrict the number of people in it to those who demonstrably live together or have some kind of real-life domesticated relationship. But, other than that, go right ahead. I might think it's incredibly stupid, but I only feel that way for the same reason I won't bet a five-team parley on baseball.
Blogger
L_Monty
Posts: 900
Registered: ‎12-30-2008

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side

From New Hampshire, an ad whose message is (I guess?) that gay marriage is bad because it will be difficult to explain to children???



I'm not really sure what the argument is here. Don't confuse kids with subjects that can be awkward to talk about or conceptually difficult to explain? By these rigorous standards, we ought to just ban sex in general. (Try telling a five-year-old about that, whydon'tcha!) And cheesemaking. And the infield-fly rule.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Paul_Hochman
Posts: 2,801
Registered: ‎03-23-2007

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side

[ Edited ]

There's nothing more disturbing than using children to manipulate a political agenda.

 

Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

Message Edited by PaulH on 05-21-2009 01:16 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: New Hampshire and Maine are now on the good side


From New Hampshire, an ad whose message is (I guess?) that gay marriage is bad because it will be difficult to explain to children???
 

 

What utter nonsense!  I have members in my extended family who are in gay and lesbian relationships and all my grandchildren and my friends' grandchildren are perfectly OK with it.  Children today do not in general have the prejudices that previous generations had, at least in the UK they don't.  Pop stars and celebrities are now openly gay and this 'breaks the ice' for children at an early age.  If children are brought up to understand same gender lifestyles, they can take them on board quite happily, just as, say, they can take on the idea of a plural marriage in another society.  Saudi Arabian society does not fall apart because there are plural marriages, nor does Amish society; same gender marriages are just different in another way, that's all.   

 

On the question Patty brought up about plural marriage, I have met a number of Muslim women whose husbands have taken on second, younger wives and they are quite OK with it.  Much more OK than I would have been:smileysurprised:.  Because they are brought up to accept it, they can see the positive side which Patty spoke of - of sharing the childcare, the housework, yes, even the sex!  Older wives seem to quite relish having a younger woman around to help with the chores and cooking and to have new babies to spoil and perhaps they trade off the sex for this.  The men too are brought up to treat their wives equally (this is in the Koran) and if they are decent blokes they do.  Monty makes a good point about the economics - if people can afford to have plural marriages and treat the wives and children equally (or husbands and children) then its OK.  Where any abuse occurs, be it physical, sexual or economic then it is wrong because it hurts others.  That should be the only criteria. 

 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: A Day in Hand.

Ryan:  Is the Day in Hand idea taking off in the US?  There has been quite a good response here.  I particularly like the idea of straight people of the same sex holding hands in solidarity and the Elvis Presley song is very pertinent here.  I understand that both Twitter and Facebook are supporting it. 

 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,287
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: A Day in Hand.

Choisya,

 

This is actually the first time I have heard of this, I think it's really cool and will show people exactly how many of us there really are.  I have actually always held hands, hugged, or a light kiss in public.  After I came out in high school and the whole effort of coming to terms with who I am, I felt it kind of silly to not be who I am in public.  Thank you for linking the sight.

"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: A Day in Hand.

Hi Ryan:  I am one of those old fashioned fuddy-duddies who does not like to see overt expressions of affection in public but holding hands and 'light' kissing by anyone can only make the world a happier, more loving place.    

 

 

 


Ryan_G wrote:

Choisya,

 

This is actually the first time I have heard of this, I think it's really cool and will show people exactly how many of us there really are.  I have actually always held hands, hugged, or a light kiss in public.  After I came out in high school and the whole effort of coming to terms with who I am, I felt it kind of silly to not be who I am in public.  Thank you for linking the sight.


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,287
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

New Hampshire

New Hampshire finally passed and had their bill signed into law yesterday.
"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
dulcinea3
Posts: 4,374
Registered: ‎10-19-2006

Re: New Hampshire

I just stopped by to see what was going on on this board, and I have to say I am SHOCKED!!!  California the most liberal state in the country?! :smileysurprised: Everybody knows it's Massachusetts!!!  And we're damn proud of it, too!!! :smileyhappy:

 

Now there's only one state left in New England to legalize gay marriage - yeah, Rhode Island, I'm talkin' to you! :smileymad:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Dame of the Land of Oz, Duchess of Fantasia, in the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia; also, Poet Laureate of the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia
RTA
Wordsmith
RTA
Posts: 920
Registered: ‎08-19-2008

Looks like D.C. intends to join the fray...

 

Bill to Allow Same-Sex Marriage Introduced in D.C.

 

As the article notes, this might have a little extra interest, because Congress may nose its way in.  It'll be interesting to see how all those "states' rights" advocates will perceive the issue.  I know, I know, D.C. isn't a state. 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,287
Registered: ‎10-24-2008

Re: Looks like D.C. intends to join the fray...

Lets keep our fingers crossed that after tomorrow, Maine will still be on the right side of this issue.

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

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

Re: Looks like D.C. intends to join the fray...

 


Ryan_G wrote:

Lets keep our fingers crossed that after tomorrow, Maine will still be on the right side of this issue.


 

I hope so, I would hate to see a step back. It gets discouraging. Though I still hold to my stance that weddings are evil for all.

 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
dulcinea3
Posts: 4,374
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Looks like D.C. intends to join the fray...

Well, Maine didn't make it after all. :smileymad:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Dame of the Land of Oz, Duchess of Fantasia, in the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia; also, Poet Laureate of the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia