BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:03 AM

Sorry about that .....No time to respond ....big emergency!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:35 AM

i hope it's nothing too serious, take care x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 11:20 AM

Little Hawk: "If a great many people here who imagine themselves to be good "liberals" (and they're not such good liberals as they think they are) were not showing that just sort of bigotry toward people with any different opinion than their own and thereby attempting to gang up on and SILENCE those people, I would not be posting here at all.

The gay marriage issue is not one that I have much personal interest in...nor do I object to such marriages. I object to gangs of people (whether they are "liberals" or "conservatives") bullying, insulting, and demonizing someone else who's not in their "club"."

No truer words have been posted, as to the mentality, (or lack of it) on this thread! This 'pseudo liberal' issue, is being used to give the most mentally impaired, a shot at being a voice against common sense!!!..and do so, while congratulating themselves that they actually have something to say...even if it is completely inane! I don't think that the mob of raging parrots have really given much 'gray cell' exercise to what they are affirming..nor are they even championing, anything they actually believe in...that is unless you actually ARE a homosexual.....then they turn around, and slam Christians, or even suspected Christians, with unbelievable nasty vitriolic, rhetoric...and think that they themselves are NOT being the bigots that they accuse anyone opposing their worthless point of view.
The shallowness of their rap is beyond their own comprehension.. and repeatedly, they misquote, and pre-suppose what I, Little Hawk, Akenaton, Paco have been saying, and post a rebuttal TO THEIR OWN PRECONCEPTIONS!!....Try thinking about it....maybe that's asking too much, ..working without tools!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM

I recognize that weapon!! It's an Aldebarian Froth Gun, isn't it? Takes a cubic millimeter of content and expands it into six cubic meters of gummy, obscure froth designed to immobilize all rational life-based activity in contact with it. Glad I thought to don my SIlurian high-frequency Oscil-Field power-vest before opening this thread--it repels froth and admits substance. A perfect defense. BTW, did you read the owner's manual on that gun, where they list the safety hazards? Excessive exposure to the weapon or its ammo induces uncontrollable arm-waving and imitative labial froth emissions. Your mileage may vary.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 12:53 PM

has anyone been christain bashing here? if they have i have missed it. i accept any religon on a personal basis, just not the whole organisation, that seeks to control people using fear.i personally have not been bigoted to anyone here, if i have made a mistake i have happily admitted it.if you really have no problem with gay marrage GFS then why are you atill here,as far as i am aware there has been no "club" mentality here so why are you getting so worked up? might i suggest a hot bath and some candles and relaxing music before you self destruct.

take care of yourself, because by the sounds of it you are single and have no one to look after you,

jade   x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:09 PM

So the oft confused Amos, has found a new rap here, and just had to try it out....however non-applicable it is!
Jeddy, scroll back a few pages, and you will see very much an anti-Christian bias, very similar to the projected 'bias' that those who support homosexual 'marriage', accuse others of.
I, myself have been 'chastised' for correcting a misquote of scripture, in which some self thought of intellectual posted wrongly. Then was hassled for possibly coming from a 'religious' point of view, because I referenced the correct words of Jesus. I pointed out that I have also referenced the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain, Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, John Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.
Anyway, have a great day!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:27 PM

I don't recall having been confused anywhere in this thread, oh large-mouthed lass. I have been consistent and explicit and quite clear on what I have had to say. I think you might be projecting your internal state onto your impression of me, woefully sketchy though it may be.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:55 PM

""I pointed out that I have also referenced the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain, Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, John Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.""


YOU READ A BOOK?..........WHOOPEE!

Pity you didn't learn anything from it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 04:07 PM

No, Don T., GfS said that he/she/it had "referenced" the words of Heinlein, Mark Twain Frank Zappa, Marx, Vladamir Lenin, Johh Lennon, Oscar Wilde, among others.

He/she/it didn't say that he/she/it had actually read them.

GfS, upthread, you accused me of being bitter about religion (along with giving me lots of advice that I neither asked for nor needed), apparently assuming that was the case because of my stance favoring same-sex marriage. There are a few people here who view religion unfavorably (the usual suspects), but certainly not everyone on this thread. And nor are all Christian churches anti-gay-marriage, which you would know if you actually read what I posted about the number of main-line Christian churches that have adopted the "Affirmation of Welcome" statement. I belong to one of those churches myself. But let's not get into a dragged out discussion of my religious beliefs. Other than your prediliction for spurious assumptions, I have no idea what grab-bag you got the idea that I was "bitter about religion" out of.

And what does religion have to do with a civil rights issue, anyway? Passing or rescinding laws on the basis of religious belief is a violation of the First Amendment.

"Pseudo-liberal?" When you hear the civil rights of a minority ground defended, those who want to abridge those civil rights always resort to such epithets as accusing the proponents of being "pseudo-liberal." Here's a bulletin, GfS—and Ake. There's nothing "pseudo" about it. Attacking people who are pro-civil rights with that sort of thing is one of the marks of an obvious bi—

Oh! That's right. There are people here who object to applying the correct labels to other peoples' behavior.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 04:40 PM

i am alomost sorry for asking now, as i don't want that part of the debate so far to go around again, but while we are,why are most marriages and funerals for that matter seen as something religious?

surely we can agree on a compromise? gay couples should have the same right as straight people whether in marriage, work, housing and children.

adopting a child is a wonderful thing to do and as long as the child is loved well cared for and provided for then whats the problem?

there are plenty of straight couples who die young or premeturely, does anyone have the right to say they can't have and shouldn't have the right to keep their child after one of the parents dies?

it seems to me that the gay community are only asking to be equal to the straight population,if you beleive in human right why is this so hard to understand and agree with.

jade
x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 12:41 AM

"WHEN I ran in the Democratic primary for governor against Eliot Spitzer in 2006, I vocally supported civil unions for same-sex couples but did not endorse equal marriage. I understood the need to provide equal rights for gays and lesbians, but as a practicing Catholic, I also felt that the state should not infringe on religious institutions' right to view marriage in accordance with their own traditions. I thought civil unions for same-sex couples would address my concerns regarding both equality and religious liberty.

I was wrong.

I have listened to many well-reasoned and well-intentioned arguments both for and against same-sex marriage. And as I talked to gays and lesbians and heard their stories of pain, discrimination and love, my platitudes about civil unions began to ring hollow. I have struggled to find the solution that best serves the common good.

I now support same-sex marriage. This is a subject of great debate before the New York State Legislature (although the legislators there are a little distracted right now), and I hope that same-sex civil marriage will be approved within the month.

Under current New York State law, same-sex couples are deprived of access to the employment benefits, life and health insurance and inheritance laws that heterosexual couples have. If the state were to institute civil unions for same-sex couples, that discrimination would end, but we'd still be creating a separate and unequal system.

Civil unions for both heterosexual and same-sex couples would be an equal system, but this compromise appears unlikely at the current time. Few heterosexual couples would give up their current civil marriage for a civil union. While some states would recognize civil unions for all, others would not, causing legal problems for New York couples. Advocates of same-sex marriage don't seem in favor of such a compromise either.

According to the last census, there are an estimated 50,000 households headed by same-sex couples in New York, many who were married in other states. Those marriages are recognized by New York courts as valid. As a result, we have same-sex marriage for some in New York (albeit performed out of state) and no marriage at all for other same-sex couples.

Any change in the New York law can, and must, balance equality while making sure that religious institutions remain free to choose whether to marry same-sex couples. By following the example of Connecticut and Vermont, which included protections for religious institutions when they recently legalized same-sex marriage, we can ensure that churches are not forced to consecrate marriages they do not endorse. This will require a strong liberty clause allowing religious institutions to opt out of solemnizing same-sex marriage, which also applies to the provision of services and programs at religiously affiliated institutions.

Many civil marriages are not considered "holy matrimony" by religious institutions because they do not conform to the rules of the religious institution. Those marriages have not challenged religious liberty. We must see that civil marriage, which has always been separate from religious marriage, will remain so.

But most important, gays and lesbians have suffered too long from legal discrimination, social marginalization and even violence. They are entitled to clear recognition of their equal status as citizens of a country that is founded on the principle that we are all inherently worthy. By delivering a clear message that same-sex couples can no longer be treated as separate and unequal in New York, we will also reduce discrimination in everyday life. We will all be better for that.

Equal civil marriage should, and likely will, pass because of the public's growing unwillingness to sustain inequality. Society will also be strengthened as more people take responsibility for one another in marriage. I now encourage others who oppose gay marriage to re-examine the reasons they do so, and to consider changing their minds too."

Tom Suozzi is the Nassau County executive.

This piece of his is taken from the New York Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:24 PM

Amos, and Don, you posted nonsense! You are arguing STILL, about your preconceived positions you (almost) THINK, I'm saying, therefore misleading the thread! Typical, for your political wing to do that!!

To quote Neil Young.."Is it hard to make arrangements with yourself?..."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:01 PM

GfS, you are downright pathetic. You can shout "nonsense" until your throat gets parched and dry, and your teeth drop out, but that does not make it so. And as far as our not correctly reflecting what you are saying, we call you on something you've written and you whine that we're misrepresenting what you said, then you say something else along the same line. Then, when someone quotes it back to you, once again you complain that that isn't what you are saying. Make up your flippin' mind!

Reading your convoluted and constantly shifting posts is a bit like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

By trying to claim that same-sex marriage laws are only some "liberal agenda," and that we advocate it only because we are "idiotic liberals" doesn't wash. I—and I'm sure others here—advocate the idea because it is a civil rights issue, not unlike desegregation of schools back in the 1960s and passing laws against job discrimination and other matters of balancing the books more fairly; and because denying a minority group their equal rights and equal protection under the law is the right thing for a civilized country to do. If it is a "liberal issue," that is because most liberals tend to see the rightness of the cause, not just because of some Word from Liberal Headquarters. To claim that is to confuse cause and effect.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue—equal protection under the law, the idea that this country is based on.

You are archaic, GfS. One by one, the states are passing laws permitting same-sex marriage or removing the laws that prevent same-sex marriage, and thereby the world is lumbering slowly toward civilization. You and those who think as you do are being left further behind.

Go ahead an call it "nonsense," GfS, if it makes you feel more secure. But that doesn't make it so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:07 PM

Typo in above post: omitted word.

". . . and because denying a minority group their equal rights and equal protection under the law is NOT the right thing for a civilized country to do."

Lest I confuse the too easily confusable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:47 PM

don, as the most easily confusable person on here, even i knew what you meant, but i think others would have jumped on that as they have no legitamae arguements and just enjoy the arguement for it's own sake. right now i don't think that GfS or AKE, are ever likey to come to the cunclution that they agree to dissagee or stop posting complete twaddle just to get reactions from you and amos.

i have said what i think and since no one has tried to argue witth me on this, i assume they just like tormenting you.
these people are not worth my time if all they do is go over the same ground, without listening to reason or providing decent answers and finding a solution.

take care don, amos and others too far up the page who want a decent conversation

jade x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:10 PM

I'm sure you're right, jade. I don't know why I have wasted so much time trying to argue with a pair of solid concrete heads. Shame on me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 10:00 PM

It would be far more constructive, coherent and considerate of others, lass, to say what it is you think was nonsense, and give a good reason why. Otherwise, the charge just blows back on you, and since you are busy arm waving, finds you defenseless.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:52 AM

Well, as we are now deaing in hypotheticals,(KB in Iowa's oft answered question), has it occurred to any of you, that if the current AIDS figures were available in 1967, homosexuality would still be illegal and we would not even be discussing "gay marriage" in these pages.

Oh yes Don Firth!.....I almost forgot that you had taken me to task on name calling.....now let me see, you state in your post...10June 8:32 that you fee I am the sort of person who would take pleasre in the deaths of people affected by AIDS.............I respond that you have fallen to a new low in the dicussion, almost (but not quite) reaching the level of Mr Peekstock, who is a proven "bottom feeder"

Weeeell, on reviewing these remarks, I think you are probably right and my remark to you is much more of an insult than yours to me, so I apologise unreservedly.

I first encountered Mr Peekstock on the Gay Parents thread, when he entered a post full of insults, shouting and bluster, he is simply a bully and tried unsuccessfully to intimidate myself and others who disagreed with Male Homosexual fostering.

Since then Mr Peekstock has altered his tactics slightly, but in my experience a bully is always a bully and will always attempt to intimidate until confronted by people of courage.

Don....I know you from many years of posting here, you are not such a person and I regret the language we have used towards one another on this thread and I would never accuse you of taking pleasure in the deaths of anyone.....even bigots.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:53 PM

Ake, my apologies for that remark. I'm quite sure that this not the case, because I don't believe you are really that kind of person.

However—believe it or not, I have met people who think exactly that! So sometimes, when the discussion gets heated, it's a little hard to tell.

Beside Interstate highway 5, a main north-south highway in southwestern Washington State not too far from the Oregon border, some person who lives in that area owns a large signboard. The messages he characteristically puts on that signboard are arch-conservative to say the very least, and blatantly bigoted as a general rule. Lately, he's been conducting and anti-gay campaign with his sign. A recent message read:

AIDS, The Miracle Disease
It turns a fruit into a vegetable.

Now, a few people found that very amusing. But others considered it to be an obscenity of the lowest order. In fact, that was too much for the local townspeople, and they got together and demanded that he change the sign. He tried to claim his right to free speech, but the local townspeople and those in the surrounding area agreed that this level of hate speech goes beyond the intentions of the First Amendment.

And I have heard a few rabid homophobes, even unreligious ones, say, with a satisfied smile, such things as "AIDS is God's punishment," and "I hope that disease wipes those filthy perverts off the face of the earth!"

When I hear people expressing that level of hatred, frankly, I consider them to be dangerous.

So, again, my apologies. You're right, we should try to keep this discussion civil. But I think you can understand my reaction.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM

Just did a little checking.

I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt, Ake. But I just read through the "Gay Parents" thread—which I note, you started. Did you really think that you weren't going to get a lot of strenuous opposition?

And I'm sorry! I can't find anything that John Peekstok said on that thread that exceeded your own modes of expression. He expressed his viewpoint with as much vigor as you did, so, as the saying goes—

If you can't stand the heat, don't sit on the barbeque.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: plnelson
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

It would be far more constructive, coherent and considerate of others, lass, to say what it is you think was nonsense

But Amos, that's all they've got!

The anti-gay-marriage argument comes down to two things:

1. Religious objections.   
-- Fine; they are welcome to believe whatever they want - we have freedom of religion in this country - but that doesn't give them the right to impose their religious views on others. I have no problem with gay-marriage legislation that includes an "out" for clergy who don't want to preside over a gay marriage due to religious objections (e.g. the recent NH bill), although I don't see why it's necessary because why would a gay or lesbian couple want to married by someone who objects to their marriage?

2. Dark but vague references to some threat represented by gay marriages to straight marriage.
-- I've long since stopped wasting my time demanding examples or clarification because they haven't GOT any. My wife and I have been married for 24 years. She's a musician; I'm an artist and poet. We often hang out or vacation in artsy places (e.g. Provincetown, MA), where, true to the stereotype, there are large gay populations. So we have lots of gay or lesbian friends and acquaintances. So I think we would have noticed any problems by now. But I asked the right wingers: What are the clues? What are the warning signs? Does it have something to do with interior decorating?   But answer came there none.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 09:11 PM

hello, right (rolling sleeves up) the things that people saying on here that AIDS and HIV are gay diseases astounds me to the point of frothing at the mouth. have you not heard lately that HIV for hetros is on the up too?it is not just gays that are being less cautious, and not practicing safe sex, we all know that. so why only pick out THE GAYS?

AKE, i do not agree with you on most things but you are a gentleman when it comes to admitting where you have overstepped the mark.

question.... do you have GAY clergy in the states?.. i haven't figured that one out yet,how one can follow the bible and tell you not to be who you are born to be. hummmmm

if you have, would it not be such a leap to have at least one gay church in every town/ city?

no has got back to me on the comarison between gay and sraight couples having and keeping kids.    i am sure you all know of someone who has kids and can't be bothered to raise them right.
just because biology says they can have them it doesn't mean they should. on the other hand you have people who can't have kids and would make wonderful parents. why would this group of people exclude gay couples?

i don't understand!!!!!!

take care all and be grateful for the loves in your' lives, whatever form that takes

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 09:12 PM

The same experience here, plnelson.

Both my wife (of 32 years) and I have been involved in various aspects of the arts, she primarily in writing and poetry, and me in music, although she is quite a good musician and I've been doing one form of writing or another all my life. We have a number of gay and lesbian friends, some of whom are quite prominent in their fields, which range from theater arts to law.

Unless one lives under a rock, in this city one could hardly avoid meeting gays and lesbians (whether one was aware of it or not!), even if one wanted to. I just recently saw the statistic that Seattle's gay and lesbian population numbers 12%, second only to San Francisco with 15%. Somehow both cities seem to be thriving quite well, thank you.

If they weren't so bloody nasty about it, I could almost feel sorry for the homophobes of the world. There's no place they can go to avoid one of the Facts of Life:   there are a lot of gays and lesbians in the world and it's beginning to look like Kinsey's figures actually were considerably closer to the real percentages than the miniscule numbers that Akenaton prefers.

The anti-gay marriage argument is based on nothing more substantial than narrow-mindedness and prejudice.

And, of course, the unspeakable "B-word."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:03 PM

Yes, jade, there are gay clergy in the United States. Sometimes they find themselves in conflict with their church, but often not. As to gay churches, there may be a few around, but I don't really know of any (perhaps others do).

But actually (and I mention this a couple of times above), there are a fair number of churches all over the country, perhaps more in some areas than others, who not only welcome gays and lesbians, but are willing to perform marriage or commitment ceremonies for them. They have signed what is called an "Affirmation of Welcome" (google it for more information), announcing that their doors are open to ALL people, no matter what race, ethnicity, national origin, OR gender orientation.

And regarding children. Adoption should include gays and lesbians. I know two gay men who adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage, and with "Papa" and "Daddy" (along with a couple of doting aunts), the boys are thriving. One is an acolyte in the church to which his parents belong, and the other is still a toddler.

I also know two gay men who have one son (a toddler) fertilized in vitro by one of the men and born by a surrogate mother. The other man has done the same thing, and they've just been told that the surrogate mother is pregnant with triplets! Needless to say, they're a bit stunned!

It's the same surrogate mother, so the children will be related to one father, a common mother, and to their siblings.

Their church is looking forward to quite a baptism!

So many people have no problem with this. It's too bad that there are so many others who allow themselves to get all tied up in knots over how others pursue their happiness, especially when it doesn't effect them in any real way.

Don Firth

P. S. An added thought on the idea of a specifically gay church: I'm not sure that all that many gays and lesbians would be happy with a church that was just "gay." The gays and lesbians that I know prefer a specific denomination, such as Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc. And since there are individual churches who have signed the "Affirmation of Welcome," it's a matter of finding one of the desired denomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:21 PM

There are a number of "Metropolitan" churchs around; my understanding is that it's essentially a gay denomination, or at least founded by gays as churchs where they could worship in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM

"But actually (and I mention this a couple of times above), there are a fair number of churches all over the country, perhaps more in some areas than others, who not only welcome gays and lesbians, but are willing to perform marriage or commitment ceremonies for them. They have signed what is called an "Affirmation of Welcome" (google it for more information), announcing that their doors are open to ALL people, no matter what race, ethnicity, national origin, OR gender orientation."

As well they all should be & as the guy who started the christen movement would want.
Now I don't care much for churches & religions, they don't mean much in my life but what I've heard & been taught about Jesus is that he saw all as his family & children of his father. I think to myself, in todays world he'd just take a razor to his throat & end it seeing as there are so many that suffer at the hands of the righteous & in his name.
Maybe some day we'll all have equal rights without the agony of some one else's extasty (pun)

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 11:15 AM

i have always wondered how the church can justify their beiefs on a number of issues. why can't they remember that the bible wasn't actually written by god or jesus, if i remember right it was written a long time after he 'died' so whatever is in there, and i haven't read it, is only for that era, alot of it doesn't work now.. wasn't there something about eating meat on a friday?

DON, thankyou for pointing out to me that there is more than one typre of christian,as a non practising pagan i forget that other religions aren't simple to understand.
although(slight thread drift) i still can't understand the differences that make them all argue so much.

how can a preist say that gay couples can't get married or adopt because it is against gods will, then be found out for kiddie fiddling,the world has gone mad!!!

alot of christians beleive so much they think they will be forgiven for anything.i hate these kind of religous people no matter what religion they worship.
it is easy to manipulate to say what ever you want it to say.


it sounds like i hate religion, i don't BUT i do hate the way it is used to make everything and anything seem to be acceptable. when to the thinking mind is obviously not.

i am wondering whether it is time for all church groups to unite and rewrite the bible, more suited to modern life.. i can but dream..

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:34 PM

The not-eating-meat-on-Friday part is entirely a Roman Catholic tradition, now largely if not entirely abandoned. I'm not noting that to argue or berate you, Jeddy; there are lots of rules in the Bible itself that are comparable in being irrelevant now.

Yes, it would be a major step toward a healthier situation if everyone grasped the fact that ordinary fallible humans wrote the Bible. A few fundamentalists will say, in so many words, that God wrote the Bible, not man. Most (in my experience) fundamentalists say that God "inspired" the Bible so that it is free from human error; to me that is just mincing words while effectively saying that God wrote it.

A rewrite of the Bible such as you suggest will probably never happen; if it does, it will be rejected and firmly condemned by most churchs. While I wouldn't argue against anyone attempting it, or publishing it, I personally wouldn't care to see it replace the original. It's not that I see the Bible as authoritative now; but it's the closest thing we have to prime documents on the earliest thought and experiences of the church, to keep us aware of where we started.
As analogy, I wouldn't want to see the papers and documents of America's founding fathers rewritten to adapt them to every modern sensibility, and then passed off as an accurate representation of the originals. I think it would be a violation of history.
                               Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 12:46 PM

And if, by any chance, such a rewrite of the Bible occurs, it's entirely possible that it will be done by someone who convinces some followers, and very possibly himself, that that volume is now the new authoritative "Word of God"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:04 PM

Only 20 hits to go...
Doo-dah! Doo-dah!
Only 20 hits to go...
Oh, Doo-dah-day!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:38 PM

When I cite people who are against homosexual "marriage" on religious grounds I am not referring to fundamentalist "bible thumpers" as you all seem to be suggesting.....I mean ordinary Christians who probably dont read the bible from one years end to the other.
Ordinary folk with ordinary lives, they like to get married in church, have a couple of kids and try to bring them up to be good citizens......There are dozens of them round here,although they don't go to church every Sunday, they have a set of beliefs...rules for living...traditions....call it what you will, but these are the people who believe they are being trampled on, their beliefs trashed, their voices silenced to accomodate what they see as a very strange but vociferous minority, a minority who use every means at their disposal to normalise their lifestyle.

These people, my neighbours, are not religious nuts(although you all like to paint them as such), they are ordinary folk who can see no reason to have their values re-defined to accomodate a lifestyle that not so long ago was illegal and would still be illegal if the present health statistics had been available.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 03:47 PM

The current discussion does not bear on the Christian meaning of marriage; I am sure none of the neighbors you describe are fundamentalist extremists, Ake.

The issue before this thread is the CIVIL aspect of marriage, the legal rights and protections of the relationship in the eyes of the law.

Just as your neighbors do not want their religious conventions redefined, neither should civil rights be redefined because of one or another religious groups preference; hence the age old principle of separating Church and State.   THIS dialogue is about the state side of the question.

(I think I mentioned this distinction before, but you may have missed it...).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

as i said i did skip quite alot of this conversation. why should everyone not have the right to be heard and be proud, not apply to everyone? i thought you had a constitution that all people are equal, why does thatv not apply here?

from what i gather and maybe i am wrong,please correct me if i am, but it does sound like america is coming away from that philosophy.

everyone, i am not saying that the regligious folk are extremists or nuts, just that i don't understand their way of thinking, i wouldn't deny anyone anything if it did not HURT anyone else physically or mentally,so why should they? i think beleif is a wonderful thing as long as you remember that is is only an idea.

why couldn't someone rewrite the bible, why would that not be seen as the ammended word of god? i don't mean scrape the old one, but how many important acient documents are hidden from the public?

a flippent example might be ... i have read.. river god by wilbur smith,.. but i wouldn't have a clue on how to read the ancient scrolls from which they came, just because he has slighly altered the story doesn't make it any less relevent or inspiring.

everyone comes to the table with different perspectives, like a session shouldn't we try to keep an open mind and try to come to a compromise?

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM

Akeneton, you've raised a slightly different spector recently. It sounds a lot like you're implying that it would be better if homosexual activity in and of itself were still illegal.

In my own experience, when more "casual" Christians are adamently against gay rights, in many cases they will sooner or later mention that they have heard that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible, and relate their stance to that.
As to folk who simply object because they were raised with objections to, and raised to object to, such things as a simple matter of generalised cultural tradition: that brings us right back to the sort of thing that has already been mentioned repeatedly already. Many, many people felt that their valued traditions were violated when the laws against interracial marriage were overturned.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 02:27 AM

...Then again, Its quite a different thing, when homosexuals demand that churches, of whom the want to be recognized by, already have a long standing stance and objections to homosexuality...then demand that they change their views to accommodate them!! Churches have even split over it.
Even Obama is caving in, under the pressure..so he's going to sign a watered down version to give them benefits..but personally he is opposed to it.

So much for his personal integrity!
Biden still does not support it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_gay_benefits

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Smedley
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 03:30 AM

Just in case this interest anyone, the book in the Bible which calls same-sex activity an 'abomination' says the same thing about eating pelican flesh and seeing your uncle naked.

Odd that nobody campaigns so obsessively about those.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:06 AM

Frogprince.... Please don't put words in my mouth, I stand by everything I write and how you interpret what I post is your problem.

I have never said that I would be in favour of re-criminalising the practice of homosexuality. I believe these people need medical treatment both psychologically and physically, not jail.
Inter-racial marriage has never been a problem to the people in this area, even tho' the area was considered quite conservative in the past. If you are referring to the racial problems in America, I think they are based more in right wing political manipulation than biblical teaching.

Jeddy...It might be worth your while to take a little time to read the whole thread....see how the different points have been discussed and argued over, it would save much useless repetition.
I think it simply good manners to familiarise yourself with the issues and how they have been dealt with on this this long and convuluted thread, before diving in at the deep end. A few of us have spent
months arguing the details and just can't be arsed repeating them for every newbie who appears.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:30 AM

If you are referring to the racial problems in America, I think they are based more in right wing political manipulation than biblical teaching.

I will cut you some slack on this because you are not from the states but the issue is incredibly more complicated than that.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:44 AM

I would agree that, in recent years, Biblical teaching has little or nothing to do with racial discrimination in America. What passed for Biblical teaching was commonly used to justify discrimination in the past, and there are probably a scattering of hateful cranks still trying to sell that. That line of "Biblical" teaching was such a desperate attempt to find support, by reading things into irrelevant Biblical passages, that even a good share of very conservative fundamentalists saw it for what it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 12:51 PM

AKE,
you are right in saying that i have been rude to miss out so much of this thread.for that rudeness i am sorry, i just haven't got 3/4 days spare to do that, i am a slow reader at the best of times and alot of the posts use such complicated langauge that it takes a few reads just to understand what they mean.

please, give me a break. i might not be as inteligent in the use of language as some, but i still have the right to put forward my ideas and thoughts, just the same as you do.

even though you would wish me to change who and what i am, i wish you the best of everything.

take care

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 12:59 PM

Bible, schmible.

Whatever fancy rationalizations you use to cover it up and sugar coat it, the fundamental impulse involved is to create a clump of "them" and dramatize the difference between "them' and "us". It might bear pointing out that doing this is in direct contradiction to Jesus' instructions about loving your brother as yourself. But the point is that dividing and pigeonholing groups of people and posing as better than some categories is all very well for social clubs, cults, and religious circle-jerks but is NOT allowable within the domain of civil law. IF equality under the law means anything at all this is surely a tesr case.

How many years must some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
And how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend
Is blowin' in the wind.
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM

Amos...the people I know are not trying to portray themselves as "better" human beings than homosexuals, they just have a very different definition of marriage.

The problem is that civil law does not treat every minority equally, people with psychological problems, drug abuse, or sexual health issues, are routinely deprived of "rights" afforded to "normal" members of society.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

It does seem funny though that some of the same people who get so exercised about their doubts concerning the vote count in Iran want to overturn the vote of the majority in California.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 07:32 PM

Ake:

"We" are entitled to a legal state of "marriage" because we are "normal", and deserve the legal right to name each other on insurance papers, inheritance, representation, and other implications of that civil state.

"They" should not be entitled to that legal state because...


(they are not normal) (they are unnatural) (they are repulsive) (they are condemned by our religion) (they are just wrong)....

CHoose the one you like. However you slice it, it is claiming legally a superiority of entitlement for very shallow reasons, by reason of categorical prejudice. And it is deeply unfair, unkind, and unChristian.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 08:04 PM

Ake: The problem is that civil law does not treat every minority equally, people with psychological problems, drug abuse, or sexual health issues, are routinely deprived of "rights" afforded to "normal" members of society.

This is a hollow argument. No member of these groups get deprived of their civil rights because of membership in these groups. They only get deprived of some rights if they, as individuals, are convicted of a crime -- just like criminals who are not members of any of these groups. And even incarcerated criminals are allowed to get married.

Keep trying, Akenaton! Somewhere out there, maybe in a universe far away, there's an argument you can put forth that will stand up to even the most rudimentary logical examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 08:14 PM

The Biblical "basis" for segregating Blacks is another one of those situations of certain people wanting to find some reason in the Bible for oppressing or excluding someone, attempting to justify it by "cherry-picking" a verse here and a verse there, and putting these previously unrelated verses together. One contention is that Blacks are the descendants of Cain, the first murderer, cast out of Eden. The dark skin is considered by the advocates of this view as "the Mark of Cain." Another is that Blacks are the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah, who allegedly committed some unspecified sin, and was banished for it. The most vile thing he did that has any Biblical basis is that he saw his father, Noah, lying naked in his tent in a drunken sleep, and he went into the tent and covered Noah with a blanket.

No Biblical basis that any reputable theologian would ever endorse, nevertheless, one heard one or the other of these quoted as reasons for racial segregation at its best and a justification for enslaving Blacks at its most aggregious.

Regarding homosexuality, it was God's command that the Hebrews "go forth and multiply." Since homosexuality does not produce offspring, nor does "coitus interruptus" (Onanism), or masturbation, these activities were regarded as disobeying God's command, therefore sins.

This "cherry-picking" of verses, one from here, another from there, and still another from somewhere else, taking them out of context and recombining them to support what one wants to "prove" accounts for the vast majority of pure, unadulterated crap that passes for "religious principles" these days. But this is nothing new. Even the Bible itself, as we know it now, was a picking and choosing from a far huger collection of scrolls and manuscripts.

The Bible, if read as an anthology of stories, myths, poems, and legends is one of the world's greatest pieces of literature. But as the pastor of Central Lutheran Church in Seattle said as she held up a copy of the Bible, "This is not a rule book. This is not a history book. It is a book filled with questions!"

Thus endeth the lesson for today. Go in peace.

Don Firth

P. S. When I was in the English Department at the University of Washington, I took a course entitled "The Bible as Literature" (the same professor, David C. Fowler, also taught "The Popular Ballad as Literature"). When one reads the Bible in the same way that one reads any other literary anthology—instead of hopping from around and reading individual verses—it becomes a whole different thing entirely.

P. P. S. By the way, GfS, I have mentioned a number of times on this thread that there are a large number of churches in the United States and in a number of other countries, signatories to the "Affirmaton of Welcome," who welcome gays and lesbians and include them fully in the sacraments of the church—which includes marriage (whether local civil law recognizes it or not). So your complaint that gays and lesbians are trying to force their way into churches who don't want them is a bit of a straw man.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 11:19 PM

AKE,   i am reading the thread the whole way through, but i will continue to post whilst catching up.   

your' arguements so far up until the 1 jan which is where i have gotten to, seem to sway one way then the other, is this because you are listening to others or just because you can't make your' mind up?

i thnk i have an answer, i think that you are scared of being gay yourself, you have been taught that it is a sin and cannot justify your' own feelings towards other men.

it doesn't matter to me but it might be good for your' soul to just come out.   

i have had people like you to condend with for nearly my whole life.
"it's nothing personal i just don't like it"or "it's not "normal".

or worse do you have to explain yourself constantly?

do you have people ask weather you and a woman are sisters?

i still don't understand anyones interest in other peoples sex lives or if you are there plenty of dvds around for you to take an interest in.

leave the public alone and concentrate on your' own lives.

right that is me done for another day,
take care ALL

jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:19 AM

Jeddy...I'm just beginning to think that I was correct the first time!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:34 AM

Amos...I don't really understand your last post, but perhaps you are saying that everyone should have the same human rights, regardless of their behaviour.

"Rights" are given or witheld in the interests of the individual AND society, sometimes what is in the interests of one is not in the interests of the other.

This is the point I have been making for some time, that "Rights" are not universal, but conditional. It is absolutely nothing to do with "hatred" of certain minorities, merely a protection device for society.

If you wish to argue "Same rights for all"...why do you curtail your argument to one sector....one minority?