BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 09:34 PM

Pete, if our exchanges are disagreeable, they are disagreeable to both of us. As in the sense that we disagree in our view of God's handiwork because we come at it from different directions. You accept the Biblical texts as written, whereas I look at the handiwork itself.

You, I presume, see Adam and Eve as actual historical figures, whereas I see them as symbolic. A metaphor, as I see much of what's in the Bible, a compilation of ancient texts with much doctoring and editing along the way.

But then, that's a centuries—millenniums—old debate, and neither of us is going to resolve it, so let us simply agree to disagree, okay?

Thank you for your defense. What GfS is saying about me is simply not true, and he seems to believe that if he repeats that sort of thing often enough, people will believe him. It's his "debating" method. He believes in hitting below the belt—any way he can do it. If the facts don't support him, he tries to attack the character of any person who doesn't agree with him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:41 PM

Already been done.

"The Gay Divorcée" (1934), with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

Er--well, maybe that was something different....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:25 PM

Considering gay marriage has been around for awhile, I suspect the first gay divorce occured many years ago, with as little fanfare as the many straight divorces. It is all mostly "cut and dried" legally, with so much experience to draw from.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:21 PM

""ed - I am not sure if you accidentally misintepret, or deliberately read motive into a few words . either way you are wrong. my "so what" was meaning that , it would be expected that the dominant influence over a historical period would inform a societies values, but that is no reason to discount those values.""

I accept your explanation Pete, Yes, your "few words" did come across to me as uncaring and flippant, on a serious topic. I am surprised you do not see that liklihood.

I earlier noted the dominant influence of organized religion on governments, attitudes to wards gays. I see these as not in line with the original stated values towards others, common with most religions.Values that are damaging, uncaring, and fuel hate are nothing to be proud of, IMO.
Gay marriage under government institutions,   takes little or "nothing" away from marriages amongst religious folks, but obviously, are seen as very important to many gays-who love and care for their partners like religiuos folks do. Saying that this in some way discounts religious values is not reasonable, logical and exhibits an uncaring and "dog in the manger" type of perspective. I would be surprised if that is your intent and position.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:00 PM

Yay music, Pete.

I am waiting for news of the first gay divorce. Then we'll know we have true marriage equality. And it will be news, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 06:30 PM

Well done Goofus. You can even disappoint those whose take on life you try clumsily to defend. pete has his God to justify his anti gay crusade without your help.

I'd get back to your important music projects if I were you. Judging by the last project you gave us a link to, you certainly need the practice, and Don needs to open Mudcat without reading hurtful lies by a trolling lunatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

Well, my absence was due to working on some very serious music projects

Yeah, sure, bullshitter. None of us here can friggin' WAIT till your stuff's released. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 06:19 PM

despite don being a somewhat disagreeable poster [at least toward me] , I did think your remarks, gfs, were unkind, and if they were true , I hope you can substantiate them , and if not withdraw them.
apparently, in the UK, plans are in progress to increase sentences for convicted "trolls", which apparently are those who threaten online. there was , thankfully, no mention of prosecuting those with un-pc opinions. this lack will, I expect upset certain posters here.
ed - I am not sure if you accidentally misintepret, or deliberately read motive into a few words . either way you are wrong. my "so what" was meaning that , it would be expected that the dominant influence over a historical period would inform a societies values, but that is no reason to discount those values.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 05:41 PM

Suffice it to say that Goofball is lying through his teeth, as usual.

But that's what to expect from him.

Don Firth (Never picked up a woman in a bar in my life! I leave that sort of thing to people like Goofus!)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: pdq
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 03:30 PM

Folks might want to read about this...


                                                                      interesting House race

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 03:18 PM

Did you remember to breathe when typing all that, gfs. If so, it was undetectable?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:49 PM

Well, my absence was due to working on some very serious music projects, and due to the fact, that honest and intelligent dialogues on here were getting too rare. You've got facts versus ideological fiction, and the fictional crowd only just keeps repeating bogus talking points, or make equally as stupid assertions, based on emotionally entreating those same bogus, and stupid talking points...

...and I probably won't be engaging in the refutations of the same nonsensical, blathering, as being promoted by those same mentally blocked wannabes.

That being said, Don posted another one of his off-the-wall 'studies' yet claiming that some quasi-researcher, who wanting to promote her new book, found a new place to 'start looking' for the 'missing gene'...because it 'MAY SUGGEST' the 'POSSIBILITY' that it's yet 'another gene'.....because the last time they tried that horse-crap, it got found out to be terrifically in error!....or like the one before the last one posted by 'Dave the Gnome', it contained the finding, that 'OTHER FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLE' (of which I agree), in the 'determination' of 'sexual orientation'......but our local 'promoters of hogwash' seemed to disregard...only cherry picking phrases out of context, that appear to support their illiterate opinions!

Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:47 PM

Marriage is certainly a tradition Goofus. Now enjoyed by gay people too. Bigots can lick their wounds and move to the fringes of society until such time bigotry dies out.

I did notice it was those who express discriminatory dinosaur attitudes who linked religion and sex to falsely bolster their bigoted agenda. Akenaton has a fixation with anal sex and brings it up whenever these threads discuss marriage of gay people.

Goofus. The young man I refer to wasn't American, but Scottish, for the record. He became the subject of the song "Bruce's Song" which for a while was sung by quite a few people in the folk clubs hereabouts.

So your rather nasty dig at Don is quite irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:30 PM

No one should ever accused you of not joining the dots, (closely related or otherwise), gfs.

Looks like you have been" recharged" in your absence.

:)

A good reading book for consideration :
Is god anti-gay 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:17 PM

Akenaton: "It is an entirely new definition, completely disregarding the family aspect, "open" relationships with multiple partner are becoming almost the norm among young male homosexuals and serves to weaken the definition and status of traditional marriage."

What is damaging to the traditional marriage and family, weakens the nations that promote it....being as fully LIVING species, have within them the will to survive and reproduce. Homosexuality is a behavioral form which thrives on the reproductively impaired.

That's simple...and true....but then what does politics and political agendas have to do with truth??...they thrive on lies and disinformation!...just like the political agendas, ANY political agenda, that corrupts to get their way....just that ideologue propagandists have told their lies so often that they actually believe them,...it's called 'delusion'.

BTW,..."The new poll, released Wednesday, finds 58 percent of voters feel things in the world are "going to hell in a handbasket."

That includes 48% of Democrats, 61% of independents, and 71% of Republicans."

Sound like things are getting better??....but then ideologues don't particularly give a rats ass about what the majorities say. They'll just make up their own rationalizations, and support them with very faulty propaganda's talking points.....just hoping some gullible saps will agree and vote for them!!

Take a look around.

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 01:09 PM

""religion was never mentioned in the "OP""

Curious, did someone say it was so mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 12:59 PM

"Because the OP and the discussion was primarily around the USA and western counrties, where Christianity followed colonization (influencing governments and cultures), Christianity has been a central factor. (You may wish to reread the OP to freshen up)."


Just to clarify: since I'm the person who wrote the "OP" I hope I'm allowed to interject that religion was never mentioned in the "OP". As is often the case it was brought up soon however.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM

SRS...I disagree strongly that the homosexual health statistics are a "red herring", or that homosexual "marriage" equates to heterosexual marriage in any way. It is an entirely new definition, completely disregarding the family aspect, "open" relationships with multiple partner are becoming almost the norm among young male homosexuals and serves to weaken the definition and status of traditional marriage.

Out of respect for your wishes and yourself, I shall say no more on the subject...unless severely provoked   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 12:08 PM

Excellent post, SRS, and those photos were heartwarming.

Now for the lighter side of this struggle check out this slide show at the Huff Post,click here.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 11:48 AM

Christianity isn't a whipping boy. It is the only irrelevant superstitious nonsense that is used as an excuse by bigots and hypocrites on this thread. As I keep saying if I was superstitious I'd be more angry with those using my faith as a tool of bigotry than those questioning why I put up with it. The irrelevant Bishops in The Vatican yesterday being a case in point.

Regarding atheists. I suppose Akenaton claims to be one although his confusion in general means it isn't a factor to be taken into consideration. After all, not only can he not spell the name of his hero but didn't even know he bowled from the pavilion end.

Regarding marriage. Rejoice! By coincidence we booked our hotel for a wedding in Inveraray earlier. We have been to many civil partnership bashes, including our friends here, but are looking forward to seeing them as they wish to be. Husbands. Husbands in a country welcoming to all, whose political leaders (Scottish National Party) fought hard to destroy the hatred of little shits who oppose gay marriage, introducing the legislation to ignore bigots and hypocrites, making marriage a right for all loving couples. A gay couple's marriage being every bit as normal and respectable as a straight couple's. Importantly, every bit as legal in law. Every gay couple's marriage is equal in every single way to the marriage of those who oppose equality.

Isn't that a wonderful thought?

That the young man I met in London whose mental health suffered because of the actions and attitude of his father can now hold his head high and follow his happiness should he choose. Hopefully one day he might even tell his father how he feels..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 11:30 AM

I was suggesting that homosexual "marriage" was likely to make society "worse", as I happen to think that retaining the traditional definition is of the utmost importance if the institution is to continue.

Ake, it's time to get off of this theme you keep harping on. Expanding access to legally protected and sanctioned monogamous relationships to the LBGT community can only strengthen society. Your continued "disease" red herring has absolutely nothing to do with civil or religiously sanctioned marriage. Absolutely. Nothing. You are worried about a promiscuous lifestyle in the human population and perceive a health risk. Fine. Stop at that point and recognize that letting partners commit to each other and build from there is a good thing.

GtS came up with this whopper No need to argue with me...check your history.

Sorry, Bucko, but you can't win an argument with a global unsubstantiated remark that requires absolutely no work on your part, only on the part of whoever you are challenging. "I'm right, live with it" says the same thing - and is equally wrong.

Let's put some faces on this discussion:

Seattle marriages on first day of marriage equality.

New York marriages on first day of marriage equality.

An apology that spoke for many.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:35 AM

""Why single out Christianity?""
Pay attention, Keith.:)

Actually, that has not been the case, if you actually read posts, (it has already been suggested you dont read attachments, even when they refer to a question you ask) you will see references to organized religions. Christianity is a major one, worldwide, having a major impact over the past thousand years, it can be expected to be very influential.

Because the OP and the discussion was primarily around the USA and western counrties, where Christianity followed colonization (influencing governments and cultures), Christianity has been a central factor. (You may wish to reread the OP to freshen up).

No person has said that there were not other influences on bans on gay martiage in the west or in other global locations, Keith- you were the only one who refered to that silly notion.

Welcome back GFS, I suspected the topic would bring back the old team.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 07:28 AM

Some further information Don.

Smenkhkare[edit]

Main article: Smenkhkare

Various uninscribed and damaged stelae depict Akhenaten with what appears to be a coregent wearing a king's crown, in familiar if not intimate settings (even naked). Since Smenkhkare was known to be a male, this led to the speculation that Akhenaten was homosexual. These notions were discarded once the coregent was identified as a female, most likely his wife.

In the 1970s, John Harris identified the figure pictured alongside Akhenaten as Nefertiti, arguing that she may have actually been elevated to co-regent and perhaps even succeeded temporarily as an independent ruler, changing her name to Smenkhkare.[60]

Nicholas Reeves and other Egyptologists contend that Smenkhkare was the same person as Neferneferuaten, who ruled together with Akhenaten as co-regent for the final one or two years of Akhenaten's reign. On several monuments, the two are shown seated side by side.[92] More recent research by James Allen[93] and Marc Gabolde[94] has led to a "a fair degree of consensus"[95] that Neferneferuaten was a female ruler apart from Smenkhkare.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 06:31 AM

Don, I have a large number of literary works on Egyptology, I have never read the stuff that you mention regarding Ikhnaton's sexuality.

Would you please leave a link to any serious work which asserts that Ikhnaton(Akhenaton) had male sexual partners, for I believe that is what you are insinuating.

All the information gleaned from stone reliefs indicate that he was most definitely heterosexual. He seems to have had a thorough and (for someone of 3500 years ago), progressive view of nature, as can be defined by the "Great hymn of Ahkenaton" which has been attributed to the King.

Wiki Link

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 05:06 AM

.......and that atheist states were no better.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 05:06 AM

Sorry Ian, but your posts don't make sense.
Do you read what other people write by way of explanation, or does it all just come pouring out? A pile of jibberish that simply doesn't make any sense, full of unfunny insults and misrepresentations.

Try to be specific just once and perhaps people MIGHT begin to take you seriously.
If you disagree with certain views try to show clearly why they are wrong
Saying that I or others tell lies is not enough to convince anyone.
Your tactics may work in social media like facebook etc, where mass hysteria can be whipped up by abuse, but this forum is filled with thoughtful intelligent people who require thoughtful intelligent responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 05:01 AM

Well that was some almost clever bullshit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 04:57 AM

Musket, only Christianity has been referenced in this discussion, but thanks for supporting my assertion that it should not be the whipping boy in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 04:37 AM

Hi Goofus!

Come to sort out those goddam Limeys and faggots?

Praise be brother! It's all in the good book I tell y'all!

Yeeha! If marrying his Texas sweetheart was good enough for Jesus...



Sorry but if there is any hope of this discussion getting beyond irrational stupidity, the last thing it needs is Goofus and his claims that being gay can be cured. (Usually by his third post on any such related thread. Misinterpretation of history is only his opening number.)

Talking of history..

Keith. Every time I point out the awfulness of religions other than Christianity, you go on to say everybody picks on christians. I give up. Although it is only christians who rattle on about religious objection to equality on these threads. So when I dismiss superstition in its myriad forms, you see it as persecution of the old biddies arranging the flowers for this morning's service in your local church.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 04:22 AM

History DOES teach us that 'religions', whose morals and traditions parallel survival and reproduction, and who promote traditional families, tend to outlast 'trendy' ideologies....and the governments based on them.

No need to argue with me...check your history.

Those trends, that tend to undermine the basic fabric of any society, and that is of the basic traditional family unit, is thought to be a sign that that society is on the path of decay, along with corrupt governments and lawlessness......hetero or homo....
                     

...take a look around.

GfS


P.S. Don't bother with making excuses!....politics does that to ya'..
   
    I prefer REASONS!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 04:18 AM

Why single out Christianity?
Religions were ubiquitous everywhere, as was LGBT persecution.
In the 20th Century we had atheist States like the Soviet Union.
No difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 03:41 AM

Why don't we vote Akenaton as King and round up people we don't like and stick them in gas chambers? Been tried already with two of his pet hates, gays and gypsies.

Look on the bright side. I haven't seen a single argument of his that isn't based on a tissue of lies. Not one. There is no statistical or hard evidence anywhere to support anything he is putting forward, so we are left with no argument against equality, or the law which he as a British subject is required to observe and accept. So we can drop the parentheses eh? No need for them.

Then we get the religious angle. pete may struggle rightly trying to reconcile Akenaton's stance but his own absurdity that religions have the right to preach inequality based on historical reflection of society in the past isn't impressive either. Or based on the evidence, judging by some of the assertions posted here.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,library
Date: 19 Oct 14 - 12:28 AM

Please shut up until you have actually read the well-documented history...

"Marriage has been exclusively male to female for over a thousand years..."

BS! Read!

Til then you are just being a highly public fool.

Substitute ~500 for 1000 and your fool quotient might drop significantly.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 07:36 PM

pete, I didn't say that homosexual "marriage would make homosexuals health statistics worse, they can hardly get much worse than they are at present, and only a tiny minority of a tiny minority are even interested.
I was suggesting that homosexual "marriage" was likely to make society "worse", as I happen to think that retaining the traditional definition is of the utmost importance if the institution is to continue.
A high percentage of "open" "marriages" or unions as observed within male homosexuality coupled with the high rates of infection, certainly bodes ill for the future and I pity the children who will be brought up in such a situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 03:46 PM

""The fact is, Christianity has had an influence on societal values ....o
so what. It don't alter the argument that it may not be acceptable to a lot of people."

"So what" has the ring of a very angry and in compassionate person, versus a compassionate Christian one? Which one are you Pete 7 *? If the former, it may be time to take a step back and re-evaluate. ( I recall "so what" being used to justify some very bad crimes against people and groups in history. :(

Nor does it alter the argument that it denied acceptance, rights and a decent life to a significant segment of society and fueled alot of harmful results.

I am of the opinion that most "good Christian people" would not want that result, nor would see it as justified in a reasonable interpretation of tge "holy words in their good book".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 03:25 PM

It's up to 35! Woo hoo!

Just don't try to vote in Texas!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 03:18 PM

The fact is, Christianity has had an influence on societal values over a thousand years. I doubt that keith denies that. But ,so what. It don't alter the argument that it may not be acceptable to a lot of people.    Since church became established, the concept of formal marriage is pretty much understood, even when non church weddings happened.in roman times it varied from high formal, to virtually shacking up of slaves at the masters decision. Either way the New Testament only promoted monogamous heterosexual marriage, so any idea that same sex marriage happened then, is certainly not from the bible.                Not sure I followed Ake,s argument , though, that ssm will make homosexual health worse, though I suppose that the normalising of Ssm to the level of normal marriage, as understood over more than a thousand years, might lead to greater acceptance of homosexual practise, and thereby more people choose it.   That is only a thought though, and not a definite prediction.    Apart from that,I don't see that ssm will accelerate std,s. If they get "married" from a multi partner background , I suspect they will continue that way. If it were ever, only the two of them, they obviously don't have the same health risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 03:01 PM

"I am glad that you do not agree with it."

Unlike Isome you mention, I have no issue with any religion, including Christianity. Most have a good message. Thefmajority of followers I see as merely the innocents, unprepared to take a broader perspective or actions on the potential negative impacts of activities of thise in control of "their church".

Many organized religions, such as Christianity- and the people at the top, have used this good message (and, loyal followers) to do some very bad things in history under their brand. I do hold those people responsible for these actions andsee them in low regard. Christianity has only been around for a couple of thousand years, but the impact has been significant, some very good and some extremely bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 02:20 PM

""You have blamed Christianity for society's previous prejudice against gay folk, and you suggested I chose the last thousand years because of Christianity""

I did not blame- I stated a case for its influence. This is based on ample historic evidence of the huge role that religion has played in sexual attitudes in governing in many countries over the past thousand years. Are you challenging this influence. If so, show us your contrary stuff. If not, what exactly your point, if you have one?

And, yes, that is why I suspect you changed your original stance- to boost your case by choosing the past thousand years versus evidence of gay marriage much farther back in history.

I don't recall ever using the word "society" in that context, as that is a broad group (though religion may have had strong influences in many social sectors). However, I did use the word government.

If you are going to refer to what I said, please try for a bit more accuracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:35 PM

Acceptance is not something society seeks but demands.

Now.

Anyone can say they don't understand somebody else's sexuality or life choices, I doubt I understand the attraction of a gay relationship.

But to say the rights of others are wrong is not coming to terms with something you don't understand, it is bigotry by any definition. If christian churches and organisations oppose the rights of others on what they claim are christian grounds, then the christian grounds are bigoted and as odious as Akenaton's perverted stance. The cop out for CofE and the Bishop of Southwell blocking a gay married vicar from getting a job in an NHS trust makes it quite clear that christianity, same as any other superstition has a bigoted angle to it.

But that's what religions are all about of course, so no surprise there.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:18 PM

The battle is not quite over... the tide is turning, but resistance is pretty strong in certain quarters.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:09 PM

Bill, the battle is won.
Bring on the marriages.
Most people in the West accept SSM and acceptance is growing.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 01:06 PM

Ed, both Musket and Steve have made that accusation.
I am glad that you do not agree with it.
You have blamed Christianity for society's previous prejudice against gay folk, and you suggested I chose the last thousand years because of Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:32 PM

Keith-"Marriage has been exclusively male to female for over a thousand years, and people need time to adjust."

Well, fine.... we'll see to it that they have a lot more marriages to adjust to.

If we wait for them to adjust to the basic concept, it may be another 1000 years....at which point someone like you will say, "Oh, it's been the norm for 2000 years...people need more time to adjust."

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:26 PM

"The "rights" issue is also different in that homosexuals have all the civil rights of heterosexuals through civil union"

Not in the USA.... and it is in the USA that the issue recently came to the fore.

read this

and this

It seems some are more equal than others.

Ake... you are like Pete 7* in that you have a conclusion based on some subjective interpretation of certain cherry-picked objective data, and you will use any rationalization to cling to to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:08 PM

""I think you are wrong to assume that anyone who has not accepted it is a hate driven bigot.""

You have a tendancy tonput words in folks mouths, not too kind, nor smart. No one has said that but you Keith.

The facts stand related to organized religion's negative attitudes and impact on gays, and its influence on government regulations until recently. Noone indicated any individual are bigots because they are Christians beyond your statement. You seem to have no idea if I am a Christian or not, do you Keith? So, making that suggestion shows your debating level is very low.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 12:00 PM

31 statex and growing;)


31 USA states now allow Gay marriage 

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 11:30 AM

Ed and Musket, I am fully with you on SSM.
I think you are wrong to assume that anyone who has not accepted it is a hate driven bigot.

Marriage has been exclusively male to female for over a thousand years, and people need time to adjust.

SSM is gaining acceptance all the time, so there are people against it today who will accept it tomorrow, but a bigot is a bigot full stop.
Bigots probably do not care if gay folk marry each other or not.

Ed, are you saying that SSM a or being LGBT has been widely accepted these last thousand years in non Christian places?
Are you being a little bigoted against Christians?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 08:09 AM

Defending the propagation of hate is hate. Saying you don't personally agree with it whilst bending over backwards to defend it is pathetic.

How thick do you think people are? If your views were anything like mine, I doubt you would portray bigotry and hatred as respectable opinion.
😕

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 14 - 07:33 AM

Millennium

Again KA of A, as stated, marriage over the last thousand years has been mostly influenced by Christianity, which has done a giod job of demonized gays and gay marrriage. While it was stated that marrriage has been exclusively between men and women "for the millennium" (to justify anti gay martiage) evidence was presented that this was not factually accurate, up to the point of the evolving influence of Christianity).

IMO, your contribution to this point in this discussion has been an attempt to justify the unequal treatment of gays related to marriage-mostly by saying it always existed, so it should continue. You pose questions to others, which were answered (which you then ignore) -but, you offer little new information.

Beyond that, and your what else do you have to contribute?