BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:39 PM

Ake, the body of Christian belief covers so many areas—all of life, in fact, to a devout Christian—that if the one's Christian beliefs could be undermined simply by the institution of same-sex marriage (remember, many Christian churches find no problem with it at all), then I'd say one's beliefs were never very strong to begin with. Within the canon of Christian belief, there are far many more reasons to include it than to forbid it.

I've been through this discussion a number of times and heard clergy discuss the matter extensively, so I know what I'm talking about here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM

AKE "there has been no evidence presented that the mass of homosexuals are interested in monogamy or "marriage" .....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite! "

i thought half the reason you were against gay marrage was not for the thing itself but because you didn't want these issues being shoved down your throat? ..... well which is it? the fact that a large group of people want to get married and are protesting and marching or that they don't give a toss and don't want a manogamos(?) relationship.    i don't see how you can think both at the same time.

why would someone getting married undermine anyones belief in god?
does the church persectue the marraiges that don't happen in a church, do they deny that those marriages are legal and binding? there are loads of marriage services that have nothing at all to do with religion, but we don't here the church banging on about that, WHY?....because although these people may not be religious they are NORMAL, methinks that gay issues are just an easy target.

i do not deny your' right to think or feel the way you do, i just don't understand why, and you don't seem to be able to anwer my questions in a way that makes any sense to me.

i am not trying to change anyones beliefs or change the church,but i think i have the right to say that i think that the church needs to look at its own behaviour before it tries to condemn mine, if i am willing to listen to those who think i should be in an assylum then i think the least anyone else can do is try to understand who i am and what i beleive in before condeming me.

i do not try to corrpupt kids, i do not start fights, i do not rob anyone or hurt anyone in any way so why can't peope just let me live my life in peace?

take care all

x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:58 PM

""if you hold a differing opinion to us, you must be a homosexual in denial", Its just another way of silencing dissent""


That's hilarious! You are claiming that liberals use this argument against those who agree with you, while GfS (who agrees with you) is using the identical approach to try to discredeit Don F.

Best laugh of the year

Don't you read your posts before pressing submit?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM

".....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite!

Please document - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM

I've answered this a dozen times....marriage doesn't concern me personally, if I believed in God or was a Christian I would be very concerned that my beliefs were being undermined.

What I am concerned about is the campaign by homosexual activists and PC "liberals" to normalise a lifestyle which according to the current medical statistics is extremely dangerous and destructive.

Right from the start I have stated that Homosexual "marriage" was a device to normalise the practice, there has been no evidence presented that the mass of homosexuals are interested in monogamy or "marriage" .....in fact the statistics say the exact opposite!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:13 PM

Well, he could file a complaint at his local law enforcement agency and see how far "ickey" gets him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM

Well Don - If there were a gay couple living next door to Ake he would feel all "ickey". Is that a good enough reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:36 PM

Ake, I can understand what jeddy is saying about gay women often preferring the company of gay men. I knew a young woman at the university who was gay, and during the time I knew her, she had at least three men trying to get her into bed. Their idea was that "All she needs is a good roll in the hay, and that will straighten her out!" And they, of course, appointed themselves to the job.

Around gay men, she wouldn't have had to worry about guys like that constantly hassling her.

And here's another bulletin:   more than one straight woman also prefers the company of gay men for essentially the same reason. They don't want to be hit on all the time.

And jeddy asks the same question that I have been asking all along: "if there was a gay couple living next door to you and they decided to get married, how and why would this affect your' marriage, family or life living next door?"

I keep asking and asking, and no one seems to be willing to answer.

It's a legitimate question and it deserves an answer. If it doesn't come, the only conclusion one can draw is that it would make no difference whatsoever—unless you allowed it to, and then that would be your problem, no one else's.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:14 PM

I'll have you know that when I was at the grocery store the other day there was a newspaper at the checkout stand. It said the Michelle Obama is going to have a baby to prove that the President isn't gay.

I thought it was bad enough to see that he was a socialist, muslim terrorist that was born in Africa. But now I find out he's gay too! That's just too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 03:55 PM

right now i have time to repost, i just hope it doesn't go missing again, i never realised how annoying it is.

ake, i did not mean to insult you or block the arguement but i have known a number of people who have protsted too much.

i don't see how the lifestyles are so differnt. you SEEM to be saying that men are incapable of having the same emotional depth in a relationship as women, the men can be just as insecure and emotional as us, and just as broody. have you never known a straight couple where the man has desperately wanted a child and the woman doesn't? btw, the only things i get broody over are very small puppies lol

i am with you on that herion addicts should not have sole custody of children, purely on the basis that an overdose is so easy, i have witnessed first hand just how easy.   however i don't see how you can compare that to a loving couple who would give up anything for the sake of that child.

gay women(i hate the word lesbian, just my opinion)also get alot of hassle in the street maybe not quite so forceful but it is there, so it is nice to be around and support those who get the same and understand how it feels. maybe another reason that women in general feel so comfortable around gay men, is that they don't expect anything from them, we can feel safe around them, we can act and do as we please without thinking is he going to come on to me or what does he expect.

as for the HIV/AIDS thing, not everyone who has been infected gave consent, this happens to both men and women, you would be suprised at how many men.

but back to the issue of marriage. if there was a gay couple living next door to you and they decided to get married, how and why would this affect your' marriage, family or life living next door?

maybe i am just too broad minded but i still can't see why this is not a simple matter.

i d not object to biligamy(?) if everyone agrees then why not?

if i may say so you do seem to be sofening in your' thoughts on this AKE, i hope that you are anyway. we have to remember that this issue isn't just politics this is peoples lives and hearts and where emotions are concerned everyone has the right to be happy and has the right to love and be loved.

AKE, please be careful what you say to people, i do not agree with you on this, but i don't want you to get assulted because you said something to the wrong person.

take care all

jade x x

please don't get loste, fingers crossed, here goes!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:22 PM

Akeneton,
Since 1. You do not see lesbianism as a health threat to society

2. Your objections to the fostering or adoption of children by homosexuals seems to be primarily, if not totally, concerned with gay males.

Would you object to marriage between lesbians, if it were still prohibited for males?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:10 PM

If only Winona would take that attitude... (sigh)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:04 PM

Ya know what, Little Hawk? Screw you.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:04 PM

Some of the 1600 were yours LH so you have a share in the glory.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:44 PM

Haven't much time at the moment, but I'm just dropping in to say, "Thanks for reaching 1600." You have all done very, very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM

I don't know how things are in Scotland, Ake, but in the United States, a person's civil rights can't be denied unless they have been convicted of a crime or have shown that they are mentally incompetent, and / or constitute a danger to themselves or others, in which case, any abridgement of civil rights must be by due process of law and is limited and conditional.

Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it a sign of mental incompetence or a danger to others.

[Now, before you hop on the AIDS wagon ("constitute a danger to others"), a person can be prosecuted if they knowingly expose another person to AIDS infection—or hepatitis or tuberculosis or any other infectious disease.]

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 12:59 PM

Hmmm, I never thought of being allowed to foster children as a "right". Of course society should refuse to allow people who look they won't be good parents to foster children. Equating being able to marry with being able to foster children is like equating pears and fish. Is this the best support you can come up with for denying marriage and other real rights to a group of people?

Akenaton, you have so far, in all the hundreds of posts on this subject, failed to support any of your statements. You say something, several of us refute it with logic and ethics, and you ignore our posts and move on to other statements which we refute. You then ignore us again, and either move on to yet another statement or go back to the original -- all without supporting your arguments in any normal way. Your words stand on their heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 12:48 PM

where's my post gone???? i will repost it later

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 10:21 AM

You're going in circles, Ake. There is a clear case that a violation of uniform civil rights has occurred without any criminal offense having been committed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:31 AM

You don't have to apologise Jeddy, I have heard it one hundred times...."if you hold a differing opinion to us, you must be a homosexual in denial", Its just another way of silencing dissent....Real bigotry in action in fact; and usually practiced by "liberals"......I don't accuse any of the pro's here of being closet homosexuals or have any wish to silence them, discussion is always good and I like to encourage it, unlike the "liberals" who are continually trying to scare people off or bring the discussion to an end. They know that discussion opens people's minds to different ideas.....they want to stick to the formula "if you don't agree with us, you are a homosexual in denial, bigot, facsist, or any other term of abuse which comes to hand.

A lot of people just arn't interested and I can sympathise with them, this thread has gone on for months....much of it repetition, but the "rights" issue is very important and should not be hi-jacked by one minority just because they have huge leverage in the media and entertainment business.   If something is continually promoted as being "so simple", it is usually a con, and minority "rights" are far from simple, as I have tried to explain in my posts.

One question for you Jeddy, why do Lesbians generally ally themselves with male homosexuals? The lifestyle, behaviour, and health risks seem so totally different.....Do you really think it is in the interests of lesbian women? they appear to be taking on all the problems of homosexuality yet leading a lifestyle more akin to monogamous heterosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:57 AM

maybe not then AKE,i apologise. i still don't see why you are so against gays having the same rights. you didn't answer the questions though. although not terribly important i thought that it might make you think of what it is like to be on the receiving end of people like you.

your' earlier posts do go from poisonous to really rather well explained, even though i dissagree with you entirely, i can see why you would think that the gay community are trying to dictate to the church, if you ask me the church could do with a bit of a restructure. just like some of our archaic laws that have not been lokked at for hundreds of years.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:47 AM

Mr Peekstock...you are wrong, recovering heroin addicts in the UK, who have committed no crime and are on the legal methadone programme are deprived of the "Right" to foster children...Quite rightly

Laws are made by politicians more in their own interests than society's, thus we get some minorities who are criminalised for certain behaviour and others who indulge in more dangerous practices, do so within the law......In these matters the law is an ass!

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?

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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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