skirtcafe.org

Since1982 wrote:With what recently happened in the USA voting, it's prop 8 I'm referring to, a proposition to stop gay or same sex marriages from being legal.

That proposition is going to come in for some considerable fire for violating the "equal rights under the law" that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, since the Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion (any of the many), it mandates the operation of the mechanics of government be carried out in a secular manner. This changes the "moral" objection (a primarily religious one) to same-sex marriage to a matter of contract law. Bear in mind that it is the granting of the license that validates a marriage in the eyes of the government, not the ceremony; all the ceremony does is provide the required (by law) witnesses. In the eyes of the state a ceremony without license carries no validity. To take it to the ultimate, would you want to be prohibited from availing yourself of the services of a talented carpenter or craftsman because of {insert-random-reason-here}? It's the same thing.

As far as that belaboured passage from Deuteronomy is concerned, it's only valid for those who hold fast to the tenets of the Old Testament. It is irrelevant for everybody else. So, if you're a guy and you run your life based on the Old Testament, don't wear skirts. Everybody else, however, is free to do so if they so desire.

crfriend wrote: That proposition is going to come in for some considerable fire for violating the "equal rights under the law" that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, since the Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion (any of the many), it mandates the operation of the mechanics of government be carried out in a secular manner. This changes the "moral" objection (a primarily religious one) to same-sex marriage to a matter of contract law. Bear in mind that it is the granting of the license that validates a marriage in the eyes of the government, not the ceremony; all the ceremony does is provide the required (by law) witnesses. In the eyes of the state a ceremony without license carries no validity. To take it to the ultimate, would you want to be prohibited from availing yourself of the services of a talented carpenter or craftsman because of {insert-random-reason-here}? It's the same thing.

Exactly, Carl. I've never seen in any reading of the constitution the inferrence of a Christian "moral order" that social conservatives claim. I don't understand how any thinking person, regardless of their religious beliefs, could sanction as rightful that any person should pay the same taxes and labor under the same responsibilities of this land and yet be denied the same priveleges of the its society and same blessings of its liberty. It's kind of a disgrace that is has taken this nation, which holds itself up as a beacon of liberty, so long to make a few feeble steps toward fulfilling the concept of equality under law...and then allow theocratic dogma to prevail.

It particularly galls me that this effort should have been spearheaded by the LDS Church. If there was ever a case of "the pot calling the kettle black" it's the Mormons defeating same-sex marriage when they enshrine in their sect the whackiest ideas of marriage on the planet - arranged, plural, under-age, etc. It's an outrage. There are some aspects of Mormonism that I think are cool, but theocratic domination isn't one of them.

Being a Christian of any sort is not a license to abandon one's God-given intellect!
Sasq

Sasq, I'm pretty much with George Carlin's ghost on this. He used to say he'd believe in God when someone NOT in religion for money personally introduced George to the "Invisible man in the sky". I find it hard for an intelligent person to look at every other primate or mammal on the planet, notice that we have the same type plumbing they do, the same count of eyes, noses, hearts, lungs, walking and reaching protuberances, they fight when angry, as we do, they argue over land or ocean, as we do and they form lasting romantic associations for the purpose of adding to their species. I guess that makes me a Darwinist. So be it. When I die, I'll know for sure, or I won't.

The Religious Right in the USA also tend to forget that the fathers of their country were not Christians, for the most part -- they were Rational Deists. I wish said Religious Right people, in trying to be patriotic, would take the phrase "freedom of religion" seriously; it'd be better for their nation.

Cheers (and it's nice to see you guys again),

Inertia

My thoughts as well. Us men should take over the skirts! Jack.

I think Singapore may have loosened up slightly but not heaps by all accounts. Jack

crfriend wrote: I would think the "women's style" right-over-left would be better for lefties than righties (and I think goodness I'm ambi).

As a dedicated 'left-hander', I've always thought that this ought to have been the case! We (left-handers!) must be the most oppressed minority on the planet, irrespective of gender, religion or 'race' - despite being 1/7 of the overall population!

crfriend wrote: Note, too, that women's denim skirts frequently have the men's-style fastening arrangement; one might argue that styles like that are true unisex garb.

Typical women ( )! Knick everything a bloke's 'entitled' to! ( ) And I have certainly 'chastised' the occasional female friend/work colleague for thus "cross-dressing"! To be met with tacit agreement, too!

Thank goodness my great denim skirt has sensible elastic panels at the sides of the waistband so i only have to undo my belt to pull it on or off. Jack.

I have an idea i may be the only New Zealand member, but i think that may be about to change, if not already. A few friends have been persuaded to check out the site, and the posts of "Jack" have been enjoyed. Proper skirts are also being made, and could well appear on "What were you wearing out and about today". Not having gays or trannies is a big plus. I guess there will always be those who equate "skirt" with "tranny" but i have not detected any vibe of that here. The obvious counter is max men in skirts. One of our top (and internationally known) designers Tralise Cooper has male skirts in her current more formal men's collection. That is also a big plus. The more "ordinary" and "everyday" skirts, as part of a bloke's wardrobe, become, without being obsessive or the only lower garment, the better it will be for all of us. Jack.