Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply

Which option do you choose?

1. I want both lesbian marriage and elderly, interracial marriage to be allowed.
20
83%
2. I want both lesbian marriage and elderly, interracial marriage to be disallowed.
2
8%
3. I want one to be allowed but not the other (please explain and answer the questions in the OP).
2
8%
 
Total votes: 24

Lambert
Posts: 1061
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 11:55 am

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Lambert »

Newme wrote:Lambert,

You're suggesting homosexuals' mental illness is why all of society should cater to them in redefining the foundation of society (marriage)?

One is not born wanting sex with anyone, let alone sexual deviations. At birth, our brains are only 25% developed so we can adapt to environmental influences. Homosexuality is learned, not innate. It is a deviation or disorder, but that doesn't imply the right to legally force all of society to cater to their preferences.

It never ceases to amaze me how some otherwise intelligent people can be so deceived as to even ignore basic human anatomy and reproduction - maybe for fear of being called homophobe or bigot. Some people, especially those who've had their rights trampled on by homosexual fanatics, are beginning to see the danger of legally encouraging disorder, is heading.

Even many who have homosexual preferences don't want homosexual "marriage." I believe this is at least partially political desire to limit population growth - even if it means encouraging STDs, AIDs, etc.
Oh sorry, I am against homosexual behavior more than anyone here, and beyond that am I monogamous and totally disagree with males trying to convince females that they cannot live without sex. In fact I gave my daughter a 'pecker stick' when she turned 18 so she could beat them down with it. This may have been humor but the message was very clear, and I am convinced that premarital sex is totally wrong. I am also a firm believer in virtue that is innate to actually be sufficient towards this end, and from there policing is not my role in someone else's life.

And sorry, I am just pointing out that in our 'gender Identity' in our modern Gender Equal society is allowed to be cross with our sex identity as that was the purpose of the change we made, in which also the obvious is that many more are found to be that way and I blame our social norms for that. From here it can be argued that inasmuch as we as normal hetero are against their sexuality they are convinced that it is the norm for them, and we do not have the right to tell them that ours is natural and theirs is self learned.

I am actually the one who argues here that our sex is an illusion and our life is also an illusion and therefore belongs to the sacred and will vanish from us on it's own, and we already see this with our fertility problems these days that often is swept under the rug because it is a promising new industry that we need, and beyond that we find the excuse that the world is over populated anyway.

So it is not a mental illness but a hormonal disorder that is a society caused disease. Iow, the hormonal trigger is innate for them.
Steve3007
Posts: 10351
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Steve3007 »

Newme:
Of course not all couples have children and marriage doesn't require reproduction, yet all children are produced by a man's sperm and a female's egg. So this man/woman union is the basis of all society and future society. So lawmakers saw this union as worthy of being legally supported and encouraged.
The point of the OP, and the particular choice of hypothetical couples that it contains, was to demonstrate that arguments about marriage being for the purpose of creating children, or arguments about sexually transmitted disease are not valid as general objections to homosexual marriage.

If we're going view marriage as an exemplar of how we think society ought to function, then I think its most important role is to allow couples of all types to make a formal declaration of lifelong commitment to each other. This means, among other things, a commitment to working as a team to tackle some of the most challenging aspects of life, such as (but not just) raising children.

Lambert:
In fact, I will take this one step further and call them victims of our own society and we owe them special care as abnormal and socially handicapped. Bottom line, in the same way that we as heterosexual did not create our self neither did they and therefore they need special care.
In what sense do you think that homosexual people are socially handicapped? What are they unable to do which infertile heterosexual people are able to do?
It is a societal dis-ease that is culture driven in the same way as the old "opposite sex" society was designed to keep orientation problems to a minimum. The obvious here is that there are many more cross identity problems these days and that already proves that we collectively are responsible for them (and also all kind of other social problem including those that you suggest).
It has already been pointed out that homosexuality has existed in all recorded human societies and in many other animal species. So what leads you to believe that it is society-specific? Is it the number "gay pride" parades and other similar open declarations? Note: They have no gay pride parades or other open displays of homosexuality in the parts of Syria controlled by ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh. Would you conclude from this that homosexuality is not present there? Do you think that the increased visibility of explicitly declared homosexuality in western societies is a symptom of increased numbers of homosexual people? Or is it just that gay people in these countries can now live in reasonable safety from being thrown off the top of tall buildings, or otherwise persecuted?

Newme:
It is a deviation or disorder, but that doesn't imply the right to legally force all of society to cater to their preferences.
Nobody is being forced to do anything. How does a gay couple wishing to formally declare a lifelong commitment to each other harm the rest of society or place any obligation on the rest of society?
Even many who have homosexual preferences don't want homosexual "marriage." I believe this is at least partially political desire to limit population growth - even if it means encouraging STDs, AIDs, etc.
How would encouraging lifelong monogamous relationships (AKA marriage) encourage an increase in the prevalence of STDs?

Okisites:
Generally my opposition of homosexual comes from that I do not find any factor that can clearly identify an individual to be homosexual, in which case it can even confuse any heterosexual to be homosexual, which in turn can lead to increase in percentage of homosexuals.
The thing that generally identifies people as homosexual is when they say: "I feel attracted to my own sex and not to the opposite sex." The converse is what identifies heterosexual people. I'm not aware of any evidence that allowing people to self-declare their sexuality without fear of persecution leads to a higher incidence of homosexuality. Of course, it does lead to a higher incidence of open homosexuality. In the country where I live, before homosexuality was legalized in 1967, the evidence seems to suggest there were just as many gay people as there are now. But up to as recently as the 1980's most hid or obfuscated their sexuality.

Okisites:
It should not be like, if I say I am homosexual despite looking like a heterosexual, and you have to believe me, just because I say so.
What, in your opinion, does a heterosexual person look like?!?
Nerfgnat
Posts: 5
Joined: March 7th, 2015, 2:13 am

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Nerfgnat »

Marriage is choice of one with one. Don't like gay marriage, don't marry gay, that preserves each ones choice. Do people marry for the state certificate? Do people marry for a sense of belonging to tradition? Well, I thought we marry for the one person. I care less if somebody wants a marriage with a sexy looking piece of obsidian rock gathered while visiting Hawaii. This is choice, my choice is mine, your choice is yours. Worry about our own marriage, lets protect choice of everyone. Easy when we agree, harder when we don't. I think we should focus on preserving freedom of action as well of speech. Don't like alternative marriages, don't enter into an alternative marriage, but don't limit others
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12428
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Sy Borg »

Replacing the word "homosexual" with the word "black" in this thread provides clarity.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Lagayscienza
Posts: 675
Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
Favorite Philosopher: Neitszche
Location: Antipodes

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Lagayscienza »

It's hard to understand how views like those of Okisites have persisted in the West in light of what is now well known about human sexuality. Nothing that Okisites has said on this topic even vaguely resembles a plausible argument for not allowing lesbian marriage.

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. How does it affect anyone else if two women or an elderly interracial man and woman get married? What harm could it possibly do to anyone else? Just because some people might object to it on religious grounds is irrelevant. In western democracies there is separation of church and state, thank goodness, and it is the legislature and the courts who make and interpret the laws. Not the church. People who object to things like this on such grounds need to be honest and state that it is a religious objection they have instead of trying to dress it up in a rational argument that they are obviously incapable of sustaining. Attempting to do so usually, as in Okistes case, ends in incoherence. It is always better to be honest straight up, come clean on religious objections, instead of tying oneself in knots.
La gaya Scienza
Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13755
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Belinda »

What all the taboos, religious laws, and civil laws are about is protecting the family as the basic unit within a society.

This is a time of upheaval when some people react against changes to family structure, usually because of taboos. Taboos often go by the name of 'prejudices'.

So the proper question is 'how should the family group be structured to benefit society ?'
Socialist
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4741
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Scott »

[Moderator Note: Off-topic posts split into separate closed topic. Please make sure all posts are on-topic. This topic is NOT for discussing homosexuality or homophobia in general. This topic is only for discussing the topics in the OP. This topic is Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage.]
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Gregory A
Posts: 59
Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Gregory A »

Scott wrote: February 18th, 2013, 3:08 pm Traditionally, marriage was allowed only between a man and a woman of the same race and religion. Over time, archaic traditions have been replaced by what is called--aptly I think--progressive modifications. In the USA, for instance, activist judges nationally ruled down long-standing prohibitions of interracial marriage in 1967. Hard to think my living grandmother has spent most of her life in a country where it is illegal to marry someone of a different race. These changes don't come agreeably; even today most Republicans in many USA states still want interracial marriage to be illegal.

In the modern political climate, I think this raises interesting philosophical questions because so many of the arguments made for or against legalizing interracial marriage apply just the same to homosexual marriage; yet sometimes one is legalized and not the other. (Reminds me a little of how black people were given the right to vote in the USA before women--are there that many people opposed to racism but supportive of sexism?)

I think the die-hard traditionalist approach that wants both interracial and homosexual marriage to be illegal is by far more philosophically arguable than some odd claim that either homosexual marriage or interracial marriage shall be legal but not the other. To illustrate, let's come up with two hypothetical couples:
  • Couple A: Two 25-year-old lesbians who want to get married to each other.
  • Couple B: An 80-year-old black woman and a 25-year-old white man who want to marry each other.
One of the following 3 options must be the case:
  1. Both couples can get married, i.e. legalize both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
  2. Neither couple can get married, i.e. prohibit both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
  3. One can get married, but the other cannot, i.e. legalize one but not the other.
Option 3 seems to me to be irrational nonsense that simply cannot be philosophically justified because I do not see one valid argument to legalize one but not the other. Needless to say, do we all agree that we want lesbian marriage to share the same legal status as elderly, interracial marriage, or is there anyone who disagrees? If there is anyone who disagrees, then what is your reason for denying one couple marriage but not the other? Remember, to be valid, it has to be a reason that only applies to one couple. For instance, you couldn't reasonably say "I don't want to let couple B get married because they cannot have children" because neither couple can have children. So, if you disagree that these couples shall share the same legal access to marriage, please name the relevant difference between Couple A and Couple B that warrants prohibiting one and not the other.
In context homosexuals do not exist. There are instead human beings with a particular condition. These people choose to not engage in heterosexual relationships as a result of that condition. This makes any law enacted in relation to a condition that allows a right, a special right. A special right should not be granted if it is to violate a fundamental right. The right of a child to have both a mother and a father is a fundamental right (borne out by the fact that monogamy itself superseded promiscuous relationships). And as such exceeds the special right of two men or two women to marry each other. The right of two consenting adults to marry should not exceed the right of a non-consenting child to not have one of each parent.

In a society made up of different ages & races divided equally between genders there should be no legal reason for marriage B. to not go ahead.

The Left use the emotive aspects of marriage, the ceremonial, religious and the romantic, to generate the misconception that these things are being denied anyone not allowed to be married when in fact they're no laws prohibiting any of this. The legal side of marriage has not always existed and relates to children and their well-being more than anything else.
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4741
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Scott »

Scott wrote: February 18th, 2013, 3:08 pm
  • Couple A: Two 25-year-old lesbians who want to get married to each other.
  • Couple B: An 80-year-old black woman and a 25-year-old white man who want to marry each other.
One of the following 3 options must be the case:
  1. Both couples can get married, i.e. legalize both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
  2. Neither couple can get married, i.e. prohibit both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
  3. One can get married, but the other cannot, i.e. legalize one but not the other.
Option 3 seems to me to be irrational nonsense that simply cannot be philosophically justified because I do not see one valid argument to legalize one but not the other. Needless to say, do we all agree that we want lesbian marriage to share the same legal status as elderly, interracial marriage, or is there anyone who disagrees? If there is anyone who disagrees, then what is your reason for denying one couple marriage but not the other? Remember, to be valid, it has to be a reason that only applies to one couple. For instance, you couldn't reasonably say "I don't want to let couple B get married because they cannot have children" because neither couple can have children. So, if you disagree that these couples shall share the same legal access to marriage, please name the relevant difference between Couple A and Couple B that warrants prohibiting one and not the other.
Gregory A wrote: April 18th, 2022, 1:54 am The right of a child to have both a mother and a father is a fundamental right (borne out by the fact that monogamy itself superseded promiscuous relationships). And as such exceeds the special right of two men or two women to marry each other. The right of two consenting adults to marry should not exceed the right of a non-consenting child to not have one of each parent.
The above statements seem to be utterly off-topic and irrelevant since neither couple can have children.

Assuming you do not want both types of marriages to share the same legal status, please explain what is the quality that one of the couples has that the other couple doesn't have that warrants prohibiting one of them from getting married but not the other.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Gregory A
Posts: 59
Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Gregory A »

Scott wrote: April 20th, 2022, 2:59 pm
Scott wrote: February 18th, 2013, 3:08 pm
  • Couple A: Two 25-year-old lesbians who want to get married to each other.
  • Couple B: An 80-year-old black woman and a 25-year-old white man who want to marry each other.
One of the following 3 options must be the case:
  1. Both couples can get married, i.e. legalize both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
  2. Neither couple can get married, i.e. prohibit both lesbian and elderly, interracial marriage.
  3. One can get married, but the other cannot, i.e. legalize one but not the other.
Option 3 seems to me to be irrational nonsense that simply cannot be philosophically justified because I do not see one valid argument to legalize one but not the other. Needless to say, do we all agree that we want lesbian marriage to share the same legal status as elderly, interracial marriage, or is there anyone who disagrees? If there is anyone who disagrees, then what is your reason for denying one couple marriage but not the other? Remember, to be valid, it has to be a reason that only applies to one couple. For instance, you couldn't reasonably say "I don't want to let couple B get married because they cannot have children" because neither couple can have children. So, if you disagree that these couples shall share the same legal access to marriage, please name the relevant difference between Couple A and Couple B that warrants prohibiting one and not the other.
Gregory A wrote: April 18th, 2022, 1:54 am The right of a child to have both a mother and a father is a fundamental right (borne out by the fact that monogamy itself superseded promiscuous relationships). And as such exceeds the special right of two men or two women to marry each other. The right of two consenting adults to marry should not exceed the right of a non-consenting child to not have one of each parent.
The above statements seem to be utterly off-topic and irrelevant since neither couple can have children.

Assuming you do not want both types of marriages to share the same legal status, please explain what is the quality that one of the couple's has that the other doesn't that warrants prohibiting one of them from getting married but not the other.

Lesbian marriage is homosexual marriage regardless of any disguises and should not be allowed to slip through because of specifics. How would this be being honest that's especially as a poll is taken. If there were no blatant slant in the OP why not throw in the two women being sisters (underage triplets bringing even more balance) ?

Marriage is not customizable it would allow both A & B couples to have children. If anything the aged person could not have & would not qualify to adopt, children. Marriage being then a convention they should be allowed to take part in due to there being no reason to make childless couples outside of the law. Laws are there for people (including children) after all and not there for the convenience of the government.

Marriage is supposed to be between two people, homosexual marriage can involve three, either a donor or a surrogate the third person. LGBT marriages would not be the biggest violators of children's rights, as that would have to be the 'monosexual marriage', the single parent depriving their kids of having two parents. Although Itself a great victory for Feminism in that it mostly excludes men from the relationship.
Last edited by Gregory A on April 20th, 2022, 9:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12428
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Sy Borg »

Ultimately the state has no place in deciding what relationships between consenting unrelated adults are valid or not.

In fact, neither the church nor the state has any valid role as regards people's private relationships. The church hijacked marriage, which had always been a civil procedure. https://theweek.com/articles/475141/how ... -centuries
When did the church get involved?
In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church's power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church's seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.
One would hope that churches would have taken its tainted noose out of people's bedrooms. Given their own long and sordid history of child abuse and molestation, the church is the very last institution to have a valid say on marriage. Given the numerous cases of child abuse by the church, its insistence on being the main authority on marriage is a grotesque travesty.
Gregory A
Posts: 59
Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Gregory A »

Sy Borg wrote: April 20th, 2022, 8:18 pm Ultimately the state has no place in deciding what relationships between consenting unrelated adults are valid or not.

But aren't, consensual (as it relates to arranged marriages), incestuous & physical maturity, constraints being applied by the Left. Understandably as these three are sometimes practiced by conservative folk. Making this whole thing just more Left vs Right stuff.
In fact, neither the church nor the state has any valid role as regards people's private relationships. The church hijacked marriage, which had always been a civil procedure. https://theweek. com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
When did the church get involved?
In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church's power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church's seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.
One would hope that churches would have taken its tainted noose out of people's bedrooms. Given their own long and sordid history of child abuse and molestation, the church is the very last institution to have a valid say on marriage. Given the numerous cases of child abuse by the church, its insistence on being the main authority on marriage is a grotesque travesty.
Long before any of that the first people were promiscuous then noting that when the mother stayed with the father along with many other advantages better offspring were also a result.

Child abuse is bad apple picking when a charge against the church lest that is its also an indictment of homosexuality. I don't see that in either instance. And if 'bad' is the example then we should all be anarchists as there has never effectively been good government, plenty of bad though.
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4741
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Scott »

Gregory A wrote: April 20th, 2022, 6:55 pm Marriage is not customizable it would allow both A & B couples to have children.
No, neither couple can have children.

Gregory A wrote: April 20th, 2022, 6:55 pm If anything the aged person could not have & would not qualify to adopt, children.
The issue of adoption is also irrelevant and off-topic since one does not need to be married to adopt.


@Gregory A, again, I ask, do you have any consistent reason at all for prohibiting one of two couples from the OP from getting married but not the other? Or do you agree that you want the two types of marriage to share the same legal status?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Gregory A
Posts: 59
Joined: April 5th, 2022, 7:52 pm

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Gregory A »

Scott wrote: April 21st, 2022, 9:13 am
Gregory A wrote: April 20th, 2022, 6:55 pm Marriage is not customizable it would allow both A & B couples to have children.
No, neither couple can have children.

Gregory A wrote: April 20th, 2022, 6:55 pm If anything the aged person could not have & would not qualify to adopt, children.
The issue of adoption is also irrelevant and off-topic since one does not need to be married to adopt.


@Gregory A, again, I ask, do you have any consistent reason at all for prohibiting one of two couples from the OP from getting married but not the other? Or do you agree that you want the two types of marriage to share the same legal status?@Gregory A
I can't accept that any responsible government would allow anyone not prepared to give children the security that marriage is about so I'm caught off guard by that. And as I don't believe that the legal aspect of marriage has anything whatever to do with the romance and ritualistic side of things. I honestly can't comprehend what is being asked. I'll let it go because to me this is aimed at those who accept position A in the first place and are then being asked only about acceptance of B.
Last edited by Gregory A on April 21st, 2022, 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ecurb
Posts: 1581
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

Post by Ecurb »

"Homosexual marriage" is a misnomer. The State, which sanctions marriage, does not and should not pry into the sex lives of its citizens. I'm sure plenty of marriages between a man and a woman are sexless.

The question -- from a political perspective -- is what benefits should marriage confer. Without having given it much thought, several occur to me: spouses split property in the case of divorce; spouses split child care; often there are tax benefits or benefits like spousal health insurance through a spouse's employer.

The first two seem reasonable -- by declaring a legal partnership the couple is agreeing to these terms. It shouldn't matter whether the couple is same-sex, or opposite sex.

The third is unfair. As a single parent for most of my adult life, I never saw why spouses could earn $5-7k more than I, for doing the same job. Originally, the spousal tax benefits and health insurance benefits were probably designed to help children -- allowing one spouse to stay home and care for the kids. Some married couples, however, don't have children. When same sex marriage (a more accurate designation than "gay marriage") became legalized, I lost allies in my battle against the unfair privileges conferred by marriage.

Of course, the health insurance benefits were negotiated. A reasonable National Hlaath Care program would eliminate the problem, and I don't really want to deny Health Care to anyone. But I thought I'd chime in about some of the unfair benefits marriage confers.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021